HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968-09-30IL
Reconvened
Euless City Council
September 30, 1968
(From September 24, 1968)
The Euless City Council and Planning
and Zoning Commission reconvened at 8;20 P. M., in the Euless City Hall Council
Chambers, for the continhation of the Public Hearing on the proposed Zoning
Ordinance. (The Public Hearing was recessed on September 24, 1968 u nti I
Septembe r '30. )
The following were in attendance: Mayor
W. G. Fuller; Councilmen Frank Douglass, Dan Shull, (Councilman Byers and Don
Warren arrived later.) (Absent: Councilman Harold Samuels.)
Planning and Zoning Commission members
present were Doctor Harold Hall, Mr. B i I I Tench, Jack Browne and Leonard Weber.
(Absent: Doctor Richard Lande.)
Also present were City Manager C. J.
Griggs, City Attorney James Cribbs and City Secretary Vada Ferris.
VISITORS
Visitors present are as follows: Messrs.
Walter E l l i o t t , Jr., B i l l Pasteur, W. W. McCormick, Jack,Bul lard and Mr. and,
Mrs. Wynn Snoots.
PUBLIC HEARING _CC_NT INU_ED_:
PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE
Members of the City Council and Planning
and Zoning Commission were presented a copy of a letter from Mr. Caldwell, dated
September 30, 1968, delivered just prior to the convening of this group -- this
letter contains various - comments on points in the proposed ordinance which were
discussed by members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council
members. After permitting time for reading Mr. Caldwe1l's letter, Mayor Fuller
announced that discussion could begin, but no official action could be taken
unt ?l a quorum was present.
Councilman Douglass inquired about up-
dating the minimum requirement for square footage in houses. City Manager
Griggs stated that Mr. Caldwell had noted this in his letter dated September 30,
1968, by stating that the minimum square footage requirement is a matter of
local policy and can be stipulated by the Planning and Zoning Commission and
City Council in accordance with local conditions.
1,68
(Page Two, Reconvened Meeting, Euless City Council , September 30, 196 8)
Councilman Shull stated that he notes in
Mr. Caldwell's letter that, having received the comments after the meeting on
September 24th, it was not possible for him to comment on all of these suggestions
and give consideration item by item. Mr. Shull also stated that Mr. Caldwell's
letter stated that he had asked for several meetings to discuss the proposed
ordinance with the members of the Council and Planning and Zoning Commission with-
out success. Councilman Shull stated that he had not known of this procedure
having been recommended by Mr. Caldwell. It was pointed out by several present
that perhaps there is a typing error in the date mentioned by Mr. Caldwell in the
first paragraph on page two -- that, possibly, the year should be 1967 instead of
1968.
City Attorney James Cribbs stated that,
possibly, Mr. Caldwell's comments mean that Mr. Caldwell has not been called in
to discuss the proposed ordinance with Members of the Council and Planrning and
Zoning Commission. The City Attorney stated that he does not feel :that this
should deter the Council and Planning and Zoning Commission's actions on the
proposed ordinance. The City Attorney stated that perhaps Mr. Caldwell's letter
should be read. Councilman Shull stated bbat, possibly, after the reading of
each section, discussion could be forthcoming pertaining to that particular
sect ion.
Mayor Fuller requested the City Attorney to
read Mr. Caldwell's letter and the following topics of the letter were discussed:
Residences in commercial zones :
Considerable mention has been made in the documented
comments and again in the Public Hearing relative to the
prohibition of single family residences in Commercial Zones.
Of course you cannot prohibit or exclude residential uses
in in such zones as they exist. To exclude them from new commercial
zones is, in our opinion, excessively restrictive and for
no real purposeful reason. It cannot or would be most
difficult, in our judgment, to prove that a residential structure
in a commercial zone is a detrimental or incompatible use with
emrnmgeecial use, although it may be questionable as to whether a
single family use would be most desirable in a commercial use
district. On the premise that zoning ordinances should be
"permissive" rather than highly ''restrictive ", we feel that the
exclusion of residential uses in commercial zones is out of
context with reasonable and acceptable zoning practice, constitutes
unnecessary restriction, and we, therefore, would recommend that
such uses not be excluded from commercial zones. A feel that new
land subdivision practices will naturally take care of this situation
and it is doubtful, in our opinion, that Euless will have much of
a problem in this connection in future development.
169:
(Page Three, Reconvened Meeting, Euless City Counci 1 , September 30, 1968)
The City Attorney stated that, in his
opinion, Mr. Caldwell means that the City of Euless should not be restrictive of
residences for commercial use in commercial zones.
Mr. Browne stated that, in his opinion,
you should not have residential businesses in heavy industrial zones.
(Councilman Byers arrived at this time,
approximately 8;10 P. M.)
Mayor Fuller proceeded to open the Public
Hearing and advised that motions were now in order as there is a quorum of the
Council present.
Councilman Douglass inquired if Mr.
Caldwell's comments on page three indicate that motels ane excluded from L -1 and
L -2 classifications.
Mr. Browne stated that he interprets the
ordinance to mean that in commercial zones dwellings are permitted, but are
prohibited in industrial zones, which would include hotels, motels, apartments,
etc.
City Attorney James Cribbs stated that
as in the past, persons desiring to zone for motels, apartments, etc. can come
before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council and request this
rezoning to accommodate these businesses.
(Councilman Warren arrived at approxi-
mately 8;15 P. M.)
City Manager Griggs stated that he
recommends that the Council continue the present zoning procedure.
Councilman Byers stated that, in his
opinion, rezoning requests should follow the usual procedure -- that the property
should remain residential and property owners can request rezoning if they so
desire, and the City Council can then rezone the property if it follows the
land -use pattern and meets a l l of the requirements.
Councilman Douglass stated that he was
of the assumption that the City would adopt the proposed zoning map.
City Attorney Cribbs stated that he
feels- the City will be acting prematurely if the zoning map is adopted at this
time.
170
(Page Four, Reconvened Meeting, Euless City Council, September 30, 1968)
Mr. Wynne Snoots stated that he has property
in the area indicated as commercial on the map and he is of the-opinion that the
City would be acting prematurely to rezone property in this area commercial at the
present time.
City Manager Griggs stated that Mr.
Caldwell has presented a guide, not meaning that the Council should zone the
property as is indicated.
Mr. Tench stated that he had been of the
opinion that the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission, in a joint
meeting several months ago, had agreed that the map would be a guide for the
future.
Councilman Douglass inquieed if it is
permissible for property owners to build a house on residential property near
a commercial area.
Mr. Bull .Ard stated that vacant land can
be used to build one house, but more than one requires replatting of the area.
Mr. McCormick inquired of the Council
how the property could be rezoned at this time, since the Airport boundary lines
are not known yet.
City Attorney James Cribbs stated that
the boundary lines are known as of this date, having been recently released by
the Airport Authority.
Mr. Browne stated that large: companies
do not want to move into an area where the property is not already zoned.
Doctor Warren commented that he is of
the opinion that the land -use map should be informative for people desiring to
bring industries into the area -- that by observing this map, they can see the
City plans for the future.
Doctor Hall stated that since it is
apparent that ultimately the property will be rezoned, he does not understand
why the Council and Planning and Zoning Commission could not rezone the property
at this time, as suggested by Mr. Caldwell.
It was pointed out by the City Attorney
that by rezoning a I I of the residential property to commercial or other higher
classifications, as recommended by Mr. Caldwell, would place a tax burden on the
property owners.
171"
(Page Five, Reconvened Meeting, Euless City Council, September 30, 196 8)
Councilman Shull inquired if the rezoning
of the property could not be instigated as needed and was answered affirmatively by
the City Manager.
Councilman Shull stated that he would like to
know if the citizens can be guaranteed the future zoning as recommended by Mr.
Caldwell.
Mayor Fuller stated that a request can be
submitted by citizens at any time and w i I I be given consideration. Mayor Fuller
stated that he is of the opinion that the tax rate should not be disturbed u nti I
the property warrants a change.
Doctor Hall stated that by rezoning the
property industrial or commercial would create the potential to sell for much more
per acre and that the small increase in taxes would not compare with the amount
the property could be sold for.
The large blue area indicating commercial
on the map adjacent to the airport was discussed and Councilman Douglass inquired
if the C i t y Council would know i f a l l of the people in the blue area objected to the
property being zoned commercial, and does the City go by the land -use map?
Mayor Fuller stated that he feels the City
Council could rezone the property if they so desire.
Mrs. Snoots stated that she feels that this
is a fine plan, but that presently she sees no point in changing the zoning of
their property as it would merely raise their taxes.
Mr. McCormick stated that he is not
bothered by speculators presently, but that possibly i n three or four years, the
potential of the airport will be more visible and, at that time, it might be
advantageous to rezone the property.
Mayor 'Ful ler stated that he would not
want to adopt this map without all property owners having been advised of the
change -- that many people bought land in this area because they desired to move
out into the country.
In answer
to a question
by Councilman
Douglass, City Attorney
Cribbs stated that the
Council could
not ask the tax
office to hold the tax
rate as it is presently
and adopt the
zoning map at this
time -- that it is not
being fair to property
owners out of
town to follow this
procedure.
Mayor 'Ful ler stated that he would not
want to adopt this map without all property owners having been advised of the
change -- that many people bought land in this area because they desired to move
out into the country.
172
(Page Six, Reconvened Meeting, Euless City Cou0c i 1 , September 30, 196$)
Mr. Browne stated that he opposes the
residential area adjacent to the airport.
City Attorney Cribbs stated that the
building of homes in this area could be controlled by the building permit of the
City -- that.the building inspector could be instructed not to grant permits and
that property owners could come before the City Council requesting that their
property be replatted.
Councilman Shull stated that, in his
opinion, you cannot refuse a property owner a building permit to build one house on
his own land.
City Attorney James Cribbs stated that
the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth are desirous of forming a joint zoning board
with two members from Euless, Two from Irving, two from Grapevine and two from
the Airport Board -- that this Board would have certain powers pertaining to the
property adjacent to the airport. Fie stated that this Zoning Board has not been
formulated as yet, but if and when materialized, with the help of the Cities
involved, building in the area could be controlled.
M r . Weber stated that the map w i l l be
a matter of record and that anyone desiring to build in the area could come to City
Hall and see what is planned for the area in the future.
City Attorney Cribbs stated that he is
of the opinion that Mr. Boowne's point concerning the residences in commercial
zones could be controlled in the subdivision rules and regulations and not
specifically be a part of the zoning ordinance.
Lot Widths and Building Setbacks:
Comments in relation to front and aide setbacks for buildings
are well taken, however, we believe this to be a matter of land
subdivision policy set out by the City. Generally, such stipula-
tions are functions of and should be set out in the subdivision
control ordinance rather than in the zoning ordinance, but
definitely wherever they are mentioned in the zoning ordinance,
they should be consistent with requirements set out in the
subdivision control ordinance.
Mayor Fuller stated that he is of the
opinion that lot widths and building setbacks should continue to be controlled
in the subdivision ordinance -- that it is easier to change the subdivison
ordinance than it is to change the zoning ordinance.
Councilman Shull stated that his impression
of Mr. Caldwell's comments is that they are contradictory.
l
1- rr 3.
(Page Seven, Reconvened Meeting, Euless City Council, September 30, 196$)
It was pointed out that Councilman Shul l's
comment concerning the fifteen foot setback was not commented on by Mr. Caldwell.'
It was pointed out that discussion on the
fifteen foot setback had been eminent at an earlier meeting.
Councilman Shull stated that if the fifteen
foot i s agreed upon it should be paved.
City Attorney James Cribbs stated that he
recall that all members agreed that the setback would be a paved fifteen foot alley.
Home Occupations:
In the documented comments and in previous discussions
with the Planning and Zoning Commission, there seems to be
considerable favor in some quarters directed to prohibition
of home occupations in any form in any residential zone.
Although the Building Inspector and perhaps the Planning and
Zoning Commission have been foreed to deal with complaints
regarding home occupations, the absolute prohibition of some
types of home occupation would be most difficult to police
and /or enforce. In our judgment, the prohibition of home
occupations entirely will be an excessive restriction and it
is our belief that the home occupation situation can be
controlled under the definition contained on page. $3 of the
proposed ordinance. VM recommend that home occupations, as
defined, be allowed and requirements be maintained as provided
in the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Weber stated that he i s of the opinion
that home occupations w i I I not be eliminated and that as long as the home occupations
do not disturb neighbors, he foresees no problem. Mr. Weber stated that if the
zoning ordinance section on home occupations is permitted to stand as written by
Mr. Caldwell, it is his opinion these matters would not come before the City Council.
City Attorney James Cribbs stated that if a
property owner objects t o a home occupation, hw should f i l e a complaint with the
City. The complaint can be accepted by the City but will be handled through the
Corporation Court -- that -the complaint should be a definite question as to whether
or not an ordinance is being violated. Mr. Cribbs stated that, in his opinion,
this is the reason Mr. Caldwell recommended this particular part of the ordinance.
Mr. Cribbs stated further that he is of the opinion that the City Council should not
be put in a position to make the decision on home occupations -- that the
complainant should f i l e through Corporation Court -- that many times when persons
know they must sign a complaint, the matter w i I I be dropped.
174
(Page Eight, Reconvened Meeting, Euless City Council, September 30, 1968)
Mr. McCormick stated that the City has
problems other than home occupations, basically, the sewage disposal plant on
Bear `Creek, near his home.
Floor Area Housing Requirements:
From various comrre nts, we are aware of the desire to
adjust the minimum floor area requirements for the various types
of housing i n the proposed *Res i dent i al Zones. VA6 feel that
the stipulated minimum square footage requirements are a
matter of local policy concern and will recommend that these
be stipulated by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council in accordance with local conditions. The minimum
requirements included in the proposed ordinance are suggestive
only.
Councilman Shull stated that he would like
to see the minimum requirement decreased to eight hundred fifty (850) feet.
City Manager Griggs stated that the City
Council and Planning and Zoning Commission members have agreed to the following:
Increase R -1 (Single Family) to eleven hundred (1100) feet and
decrease R -2 (duplex) to eight hundred fifty (850) feet.
Mobile Homes:
Comments have been directed to the requirement for the
50 feet' distaace from any lot or stand to the boundaries of
a mobile home court or subdivision. Although we previously
provided the City with a written report regarding this subject,
we will again state the reason for this distance stipulation is
to create adequate open space for the residents of such an area
of housing to permit adequate screening and transition space
between the mobile home use and adjacent uses as well as play
area for children residing in mobile home developments.
Also pertaining to mobile home subdivisions,) comments were
.directed toward the necessity of possibly two categories of
mobile home developments because there. are two separate lot or
stand area requirements. I t is common practice for mobile home
subdivisions to provide for'two distinct types of lots or
stands in the same development - one size for the large, immobile
unit and one for the smaller transient unit or "camper" type
each requiring different size sites or stands. VA6 recommend that
these two requirements for mobile home developments be maintained
in the proposed ordinance substantially as written.
Seemingly the fifty feet distance from
any lot or stand to the boundaries of a mobile home court or subdivision i s a
pdmnt of contention.
7 5 .,-
(Page Nine, Reconvened Meeting, Euless City Council, September 30, 1968)
Councilman Byers stated that it is for the
protection of the people living in the park.
Councilman Shull stated that mobile homes
have adequate areas for play grounds and swimming pools.
City Attorney Cribbs stated that in the past
there have been some mobile home parks that have been very cramped but the trend in
the present is far larger more spacious lots and that if you cut this requirement
to twenty -five feet, you are likely to have mobile homes all over the City.
t was pointed out that the ordinance also
calls for a six foot metal fence.
Mr. Tench stated that the regional airport
w I I bring i n lots of transients and that the mobile homes wi I I need to be
controlled very carefully.
Mr. Bill Pasteur stated that the fifty foot
setback would not be allowed for a playground area -- that the ordinance stipulates
playground areas and that in his .opinion it. is very impractical to designate a
f i f t y foot setback.
Mayor Fuller inquired about the maintenance
of this fifty foot setback, and Mr. Pasteur stated that the property owners are
supposed to maintain this area but if they fail to do so, then the owners of the
mobile home park will have to maintain it- The question in this particular phase
of the ordinance i.g "Shall the setback be twenty -five feet or fifty feet adjacent to
mobile home parks ?"
Mayor Fuller stated that he is of the
opinion that -fi:fty feet .is unnecessary but that he feels that the fence requirements
should be complied with.
Mr. Elliott stated that the mobile home park
plans that he has designed (which was recently before the Council) can be adjusted
to approximately twenty -five feet and that all other criteria in the. ordinance has
been me -t.
Councilman Shul I. made the motion to reduce
the fifty foot distance from any lot or stand to the boundaries of the mobile home
court or dubdivision to twenty -five feet. Mr. Browne seconded the motion, and the
vote is as folrbows:
Ayes: Councilmen Douglass, Shull, Byers and Warren; Messrs. Tench, Browne,
Weber and Doctor Hall
Nays: None
Mayor Fuller declared the motion carried.
Councilman Shull stated
that his argument
is that land is very precious
now -- that
it is purchased more
by square
feet than
by acres -- that he would like
to see this
fifty foot distance
dropped to
twenty -
five feet -- that he does not
feel it is fair to require the mobile home
develop-
ments to set aside fifty feet
if all other
developments are not required
to do the
same. He .stated he did not understand
why
the Council wanted
fifty foot
setbacks.
Councilman Byers stated that it is for the
protection of the people living in the park.
Councilman Shull stated that mobile homes
have adequate areas for play grounds and swimming pools.
City Attorney Cribbs stated that in the past
there have been some mobile home parks that have been very cramped but the trend in
the present is far larger more spacious lots and that if you cut this requirement
to twenty -five feet, you are likely to have mobile homes all over the City.
t was pointed out that the ordinance also
calls for a six foot metal fence.
Mr. Tench stated that the regional airport
w I I bring i n lots of transients and that the mobile homes wi I I need to be
controlled very carefully.
Mr. Bill Pasteur stated that the fifty foot
setback would not be allowed for a playground area -- that the ordinance stipulates
playground areas and that in his .opinion it. is very impractical to designate a
f i f t y foot setback.
Mayor Fuller inquired about the maintenance
of this fifty foot setback, and Mr. Pasteur stated that the property owners are
supposed to maintain this area but if they fail to do so, then the owners of the
mobile home park will have to maintain it- The question in this particular phase
of the ordinance i.g "Shall the setback be twenty -five feet or fifty feet adjacent to
mobile home parks ?"
Mayor Fuller stated that he is of the
opinion that -fi:fty feet .is unnecessary but that he feels that the fence requirements
should be complied with.
Mr. Elliott stated that the mobile home park
plans that he has designed (which was recently before the Council) can be adjusted
to approximately twenty -five feet and that all other criteria in the. ordinance has
been me -t.
Councilman Shul I. made the motion to reduce
the fifty foot distance from any lot or stand to the boundaries of the mobile home
court or dubdivision to twenty -five feet. Mr. Browne seconded the motion, and the
vote is as folrbows:
Ayes: Councilmen Douglass, Shull, Byers and Warren; Messrs. Tench, Browne,
Weber and Doctor Hall
Nays: None
Mayor Fuller declared the motion carried.
1.7 6
(Page Ten, Reconvened Meeting, Euless City Council, September 30, 1968)
Mayor Fuller inquired of the City Manager if
enough information had been furnished for the ordinance to be redrafted.
City Manager Griggs stated that he and the
City Attorney could draft a new ordinance with the suggested changes.
City Manager Griggs stated that he favors
the idea o f staying w i t h the present zones and t h a t an over -lay w i l l show the zoning.
Mr. Weber made the motion to adopt the
zoning map as shown and presently exists. Mr. Tench seconded the motion, and the
discussion followed in which Councilman Douglass asked if we are adopting the same
map now i n existance and he was advised affirmatively. (The present zoning map
is the one adopted and the over -lay will show what can be put on it_) The over-
lay w i I I place the new zoning designations on the present map.
f I lows:
Mayor Fuller asked for the vote which is as
Ayes: Councilmen Douglass, Shull, Byers and Warren; Messrs. Tench, Weber,
and Doctor Hal 1
Nays: Mr. Browne
Mayor Fuller declared the motion carried.
Councilman Byers made the motion to adopt
the land -use map as presented by Mr. Caldwell. Councilman Warren seconded the
motion, and the vote is as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Douglass, Shull, Byers and Warren; Messrs. Tench,
Weber, Hall and Browne
Nays: None
Mayor Fuller declared the motion carried.
1. That the minimum of one thousand (1,000) square feet floor
area is too large. He was advised that the Council and Planning
and Zoning Members have agreed to eight hundred fifty (850)
square feet.
2 . That the f i f t y (50) foot setback from the property l i n e is too
much.
Mayor Fuller then recognized Mr. B i I I
Pasteur
who
stated that he is sorry that more
people were not present tonight to
hear the
Council discuss this most important
ordinance. He stated that he has
studied
the
ordinance and it is very good and
that he is aware that the City
Councilmen
and Planning and Zoning Commission
members have spent much time on it_
He gave
the
following personal observations:
1. That the minimum of one thousand (1,000) square feet floor
area is too large. He was advised that the Council and Planning
and Zoning Members have agreed to eight hundred fifty (850)
square feet.
2 . That the f i f t y (50) foot setback from the property l i n e is too
much.
177
(Page Eleven, Reconvened Meeting, Euless City Council, September 30, 1968)
3. That he takes exception to the size of the signs i n
Section 9 -200 -- that small signs on busy highways cannot
be read due to the heavy flow of traffic.
4. That in the section governing washaterias and cleaning plants,
the ordinance is rather restrictive and he does not understand
why; that, in his opinion, you should not tell a man that he
cannot build a big sign or have so many washers or just so many
dryers.
Fie concluded by stating that he hopes that
the City Council wi 1 1 take a look at some of these items that have been mentioned
and give consideration before finalizing the ordinance -- that at some future
date, he would I i ke to have an answer on some of these items.
Mayor Fuller advised Mr. Pasteur that a l l
of these items w i l l be given consideration before the ordinance is finally adopted.'
Mayor Fuller then recognized Mr. Walter
Elliott who discussed as follows:
The twenty -five foot rear yard for apartments (Section 7 -302) is too
restrictive, in his opinion.
The commercial parking space (Section 8 -400) - one space for 200 square
feet is too excessive.
4n" 1DKIMGnrr
Councilman Shull made the motion to
adjourn. Mr. Tench seconded the motion, and the vote is as follows:
Ayes Councilmen Douglass, Shull, Byers and Warren; Messrs. Tench,
Weber, Hall and Browne
Nays: None
Mayor Fuller declared the motion carried and the meeting adjourned at 10;20 P.M.
APPROVED:
ATTEST =
Mayor
C ity Secretary
178