Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-08-15 P&Z MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE August 15 , 1977 The hearing was opened at 7 : 30 p .m. in the Council Chambers by Don Tolley, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated the purpose of the hearing was to take testimony from the public concerning the proposed zoning ordinance. This testimony will be taken under advisement by the Commission and changes, if necessary, will be made in the ordinance. If there are major changes , another hearing will be held ; if minor, the changes will be made and the Commission will recommend adoption of the ordi- nance to the City Council . Planner Arlo Nelson presented the zoning ordinance map and text which he said were designed to harmonize with the Comprehensive Plan. He explained the format of the text and the process for amending the ordinance by public hearings held by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Comments from the audience were then requested . Clare Glenn of Alpha Engineers stated he was concerned about the R-1 district that allows only single family dwellings . He felt there should be some provision for at least duplexes and pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan allows a density of 4-6 dwelling units per acre in low density areas . The parking requirements on Page 13 were questioned by Council- /P.\ woman Bauman as perhaps being inconsistent with square footage, if there are many duplexes that are under 1200 square feet with 3 bedrooms . She suggested that the parking requirements were low for single and two-family dwellings and Arlo agreed that the Building Department should check into the matter and make a recom- mendation. Gary Lasher, a developer, asked to have Lots of Record, p. 24 , Sect . 3 .1-3 defined and referred also to Page 12(4) which states a total setback of 16 feet will be required for both sideyards with one side being not less than 5 feet . It was his contention that the 16 feet was double the present setback regulations and would place a hardship on developers who would have to completely revise their house plans and placement . In defining lots of record, Don Tolley said this referred to older sections of town which were platted in 25-foot lots and to other lots which would be substand- ard in size but of record. Adjustments could be made in these cases by the variance procedure . Mel Lewis elaborated on the 16-foot proposed sideyard setback and advised that any combination of feet would be permitted as long as the small side was at least 5 feet from the property line . The increase was included to provide a means for access into back yards by heavy equipment such as back- hoes. Judy Moore of Lasher Construction pointed out that the decrease in available frontage could result in narrower, deeper homes. After more discussion, Arlo asked that a recommendation 1 be submitted that the developers thought was more reasonable . Another area opened for discussion by Gary Lasher concerned non- conforming uses (p. 26) , particularly No. 5 which states that if -1- -2- 50% or more of a structure or building which does not conform to the zone where it is located is burned, it shall be rebuilt to conform to that zone . There were many comments on this issue , and some consideration given to raising the percentage of the amount of building burned. It was determined by Arlo Nelson that certain nonconforming uses should be changed to conform and he would leave those at 50-51%, but other residential uses (duplexes , triplexes existing in an R-1 zone) could be changed to up to 80% destroyed. Bob Nicholes commented on the zoning of Galveston between Kimball and 5th being essentially residential. Arlo explained that the construction of the interstate and interchange in that area in the future would affect the zoning, so proper zoning will be done when the highway is completed. LaMar Bollinger asked on behalf of a neighbor who could not attend if the new ordinance would make it easier to obtain a special use permit or variance . Where signature and approval of approximately 2/3 of property owners is required for a special use permit in the present ordinance, it was his understanding this would no longer be required in the new ordinance. It was explained that under the proposed ordinance all property owners within 300 feet of the land involved must be notified and the P and Z Commission hold a public hearing to consider the permit . Only the carrying of a petition has been eliminated from the procedure. Further, a variance in- volves a hardship from some provision rather than uses . Variances from zoning may be granted by the P and Z Commission and variances from the subdivision ordinance are referred with a recommendation to the Council for their action. Several aspects of the section on signs were discussed by Dale An- derson of Anderson signs . He questioned the two square foot limita- tion on signs for home occupations which must be unlighted and attached flush to the building and suggested that a double-faced pole sign in those areas be considered. He also pointed out the temporary sign advertising sale, lease or rental of the property having to be 20 feet from the property line should be re-examined since some buildings, especially in the commercial area, are built to the property line . Mr. Anderson stated he did not like the building frontage approach being used for allowed sign area as it would discriminate against the smaller businessman who had less frontage. It was the consensus of Commission members that this section would need more work and they would seek the advice of Mr. Anderson and other sign people in the area before finalizing the ordinance . Marilyn Bauman indicated she had noted nothing that gave guidelines for a commercial area bordering a residential as far as landscaping and conforming to the neighborhood is concerned. Arlo said at this point no landscaping requirements have been set up . This could re- quire a design review section where plans could be looked at as they come in and the Commission require the developer to present what he is going to do. Also requesting that the Commission consider allowing duplexes in the R-i zone was Rod Trumbull , who thought the special use permit • -3- procedure could be used. Clare Glenn asked that it be entered into the record that duplexes be allowed in the R-1 zone without a permit . John Stoner discussed the zoning on S. Kimball suggesting that the R-3 zone designated around the hospital area be extended on the west side of Kimball at least to the alley line rather than limiting one side of the street for professional offices . The R2T zone was not dealt with in the proposed zoning ordinance , according to Mel Lewis , and he requested that some thought be given to including it as an overlay zone since the areas where mobile homes on individual lots are presently allowed would overlay a number of zones . This could be accomplished by recodifying the regulations from the building code into an overlay zone in the zoning ordinance, or by a cross-reference to the building code. Don Tolley felt this would constitute a major change and therefore another hearing should be held after the change was incorporated. Further discussion on the 16-foot sideyard requirement ensued, with Gary Lasher recommending 12 feet as being more reasonable . The City Engineer pointed out that Section 3 . 1. 4(a) on projections into yard areas (cornices , canopies, eaves) would have to be changed accordingly if the sideyard setbacks were decreased . Don Tolley recessed the hearing at 8 : 45 p .m. to be resumed Septem- ber 8 at 7 : 30 p.m. p After the hearing, the Commission members met and decided to con- sider the following: 1 . Changing the 16-foot sideyard setback requirement to at least 8 feet on one side and a possible 4 or 5 feet on the other. Overhang would have to be reduced from 2 feet to 16 or 18 inches . 2 . The percentage for burned structure that is non-conforming. 3. Holding the R-1 district to single family residences . 4 . Investigating ways of acquiring greenways and parks for large sud.ivisions by the developer giving either land or cash towards providing park areas . 5 . Changing the parking requirements to 1 space per dwelling unit if less than 1000 square feet and an additional space for more than 1000 sq. ft. - 3 spaces if greater than 1000 sq. ft . for 2-family dwellings. Looking at provisions for required resi- dential parking (p. 15-9) with regard to the setback areas . 6 . Asking Mr. Anderson to draw up some suggestions for the sign section of the ordinance . 7 . Establishing an R2T overlay zone .