Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-18 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 1996 MINUTES The Pre-Commission meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Ronald Young at 5:30 p.m., in the downstairs Administration Building Conference Room. Five members of the Planning and Zoning Commission were in attendance. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF SCHEDULED ITEMS - COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Chairman Ronald Young called the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. for the consideration of scheduled items. He stated there were five members of the Planning and Zoning Commission present. Commissioners Bright and Zahn were absent. Furthermore, the agenda for this meeting had been properly posted in accordance with applicable law. MEMBERS & STAFF PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Chairman Ronald Young Nancy Bright Keith Eggers George Zahn Robert McMillon Joy Shuler Billy Owens Bo Bass, Deputy Director of Development Paul Kruckemeyer, City Engineer Andrea Baxter, Assistant City Engineer Rod Tyler, City Planner Barbara Chambers, Development Supervisor Linda Lux, Staff Secretary VISITORS PRESENT: Tom Cox, Director of Economic Development Walter Nelson PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION - PAGE TWO JUNE 18, 1996 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION: The Pledge of Allegiance was given by Commissioner Owens and the invocation was given by Commissioner Shuler. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Eggers made the motion to approve the minutes of the June 4, 1996, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as presented and the motion was seconded by Commissioner McMillon. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Commissioners Eggers, McMillon, Owens, Shuler, Young Nays: None The motion carried. Chairman Young stated, if there were no objections, he recommended the consideration of Agenda Item II as Agenda Item I. ITEM I. LAND PLAN #P-96-10 - MAIN CENTRE ADDITION Request of Walter Nelson for approval of a Land Plan for 3.114 acres out of the J.P. Hanford Survey, A-711; located on the west side of North Main Street and north of Brawn's Bo Bass, Deputy Director of Development, introduced Land Plan #P-96-10 and stated the request was for an Ultimate Car Wash. He stated the Development Review Committee (DRC) had reviewed the Land Plan and found it to have some inconsistencies with the intent of the code relative to water, sewer, sanitary sewer and easements. Therefore, the DRC recommended denial. The purpose of the Land Plan is to illustrate how the applicant intends to provide the infrastructure to serve the site. Paul Kruckemeyer, City Engineer, stated the Engineering Department's DRC comments reflected the water main along the north line of Lot 4 should be extended to have a loop water system to the fire hydrant and this was not shown. They had requested a 20' utility easement be placed along the northern property line. They had asked that the fire hydrant be placed on Phase II and according to the applicant's response letter, they did not feel like this was a fair requirement. He stated he had asked the applicant to show that Lot 4 was developable, especially to some of the radius for fire protection. Mr. Kruckemeyer's office had still not received the information. He also stated the applicant is asking for three driveways and the Engineering Department is asking for two because of spacing. He stated there had not been enough adequate information provided for Lot PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION - PAGE THREE JUNE 18, 1996 4. Mr. Kruckemeyer and the Engineering Department recommended denial of this request. Mr. Walter Nelson, P.E., 308 N. W. 2nd Street, represented the owner and proposed developer of the car wash. He stated the Commissioners had tabled the Site Plan at the previous P&Z meeting until they could review the Land Plan. He then submitted a copy of the Land Plan. Mr. Nelson stated he did not receive his DRC comments until Thursday and he was out of the office until later in the afternoon. He could not reach his client until Saturday morning in order to discuss the comments. He felt he did not have enough time to prepare the proposals for the Land Plan. He stated, approximately two months ago, Fire Marshal Michael Logan discussed the layout of the fire hydrant and he was 362'from the fire hydrant to the rear corner of that building. He stated that Fire Marshal Logan told him he was only 12' and it looked like the applicant had made it. Now it is being requested that a fire hydrant be installed on the north side of the mini-warehouse tract before the applicant can build the detail shop. He stated if the fire marshal required another fire hydrant before the building permit, he would do it. Mr. Nelson discussed the dead end main request. He stated he felt his design met the code and he did not have any place to loop the water line. Mr. Nelson stated he did not know that berms were not allowed at the back side of detention ponds. He stated he did not know what to do about this situation. Mr. Nelson informed the Commissioners he did not know what was going to be put on Lot 3. When he knows what will be going on Lot 3, the size of the lot will be changed and whatever is left will be Lot 4. In order to design Lot 4, the size of Lot 3 would have to be set now. He stated he had not had the time to do a grading plan since he received the DRC comments. He stated he was told by Engineering if they were going to develop Lot 4 prior to the SMSA tract developing, then they would have to install the force main under the pavement. Mr. Nelson stated the entire purpose of the Land Plan was to build the car wash. The other site is zoned C-2 which is adjacent to the car wash and staff is asking to prove they are both accessible with access easements. He felt it is was essential to have a driveway to the second pad site or they will never be developed. Mr. Nelson stated his main concern at this meeting was the site plan. If the site plan is not approved the contract will expire. If the Land Plan is tabled or denied, Mr. Nelson stated he would have time to work with staff. Commissioner Eggers had questions regarding detention ponds always being the last thing that is built by a developer. He felt this concern should be addressed at the beginning of a development since there are drainage problems. Mr. Nelson stated he did not know whether the rest of the addition was the same C Factor as the Fitzgerald Addition. However, if the Engineering Department requires him to build the detention pond at this time, he stated he would do it. He stated when the dirt work was being done they would not touch Lot 4 and probably no more than 20' into Lot 3. Mr. Nelson stated he felt he was pushed hard on the design of the mini-warehouse and on Lot 4. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION - PAGE FOUR JUNE 18, 1996 Commissioner McMillon stated he did not feel comfortable supporting the Land Plan until the details of the case were satisfactory to city staff. Commissioner Owens commended city staff on their comments and recommendations regarding this case. He informed the applicant that the Commissioners had informed city staff they did not want to look at future Land Plans unless they contained drainage and engineering. He asked Mr. Nelson if he was willing to state that he would comply and meet all the requirements set forth by city staff and if not, he was not willing to discuss the case any further. He also stated that Mr. Nelson had not addressed the retaining wall that was discussed at the tabling of the site plan. Commissioner Owens agreed with Commissioners McMillon and Shuler that the applicant had not furnished enough information regarding Lot 4 and he could not support the request. Mr. Nelson stated he could not commit to the final Engineering design of the mini- warehouses. Commissioner Shuler stated she would like to address the aesthetics of the building at the appropriate time. Paul Kruckemeyer, City Engineer, stated the force main was not requested by the Engineering Department. He stated a force main was very particular to a design criteria so it would be impossible for the applicant to accurately design it at this time. He stated he could not imagine anyone requiring the applicant to do this because you do not have the same safety factor in the design of a force main as in a gravity fed line. Also, Engineering had never requested Lot 4 be in a final design product. Commissioner McMillon stated with the constraints of the property, the drainage, the size of Lot 3 and several other concerns, he recommended denial of the Land Plan. Commissioner McMillon made the motion to deny Land Plan #P-96-10 Main Centre Addition and Commissioner Eggers seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Commissioners McMillon, Eggers, Owens, Shuler, Young Nays: None The motion carried to deny Land Plan #P-96-10. ITEM II. FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN #96-11-SP - MAIN CENTRE ADDITION Request of Walter Nelson for approval of a Site Plan for the construction of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION - PAGE FIVE JUNE 18, 1996 a car wash within the C-2 (Community Business) zoning district; located on the west side of North Main Street and north of Braum's Bo Bass, Deputy Director of Development, introduced the Site Plan and stated the case was tabled at the last meeting. The Development Review Committee had previously reviewed the case and found it was substantially in compliance with the Unified Development Code. Commissioner Owens made the motion to bring the item off the table and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Eggers. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Commissioners Owens, Eggers, Shuler, McMillon, Young Nays: None The motion carried. Commissioner Shuler stated the elevations showed a concrete block building and she would like to see the building dressed up since it was located on Main Street. Mr. Walter Nelson stated since he was not the architect, he could not answer that question. However, he stated the Development Review Committee and the P&Z Commissioners did not make comments regarding the elevations in previous discussions. Commissioner Owens stated the minutes of the previous meeting reflected a discussion on split face brick. Commissioner Shuler stated that some type of pitched roof would be more appealing. Mr. Nelson stated no changes had been made to the Site Plan from two weeks ago except for some lines that were left off of the drawings. Commissioner Owens had questions regarding fuel tanks and whether the car wash would have a full service gas station. He stated he was opposed to any full service and/or limited service because of surrounding problems with traffic blockage. Commissioner McMillon concurred with Commissioner Owens. Chairman Young stated the 10,000 gallon tank would be underground. Mr. Nelson stated the owner of the property currently operates a mobile car wash business and he desires to get out of the mobile business. He wants to operate a business that allows cars to come to an establishment instead of him traveling to the cars. He stated the ten parking spaces in front of the building were wipe down areas. Chairman Young also shared the other Commissioners concerns regarding the tanker PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION - PAGE SIX JUNE 18, 1996 trucks coming in to dispense the fuel into the tanks and maneuvering in and out of Main Street. Mr. Nelson stated the original plans were to make the lot a little larger and was told he would not need a Land Plan. After it progressed the Land Plan was required. The gas pumps are located at the vacuum canopy and are not solely for cars to enter/exit for gas only. The Commissioners compared the concept to the Aladdin Car Wash. Mr. Nelson stated up until the previous P&Z meeting where the Site Plan was tabled, he was under the impression he could proceed with the car wash without a Land Plan being approved. Rod Tyler, City Planner, stated several weeks ago a conversation took place and the applicant was informed the degree of expansion on the existing lot would determine if a Land Plan would be necessary. The expansion was significant enough to require the Land Plan. Mr. Nelson stated to the Commissioners that this was the reason the Land Plan was so far behind the Site Plan. Commissioner Owens stated he agreed with staff's concerns and comments regarding this case. However, he was not against this request solely based on staff's recommendations. He stated he did not feel this project was the highest and best use for the property nor did the Commissioners have enough information to make a positive decision. He stated a car wash was not what they were after on this property. He felt the applicant needed something to trade off with the City such as a brick building, utilities coming in from the rear and things that would not normally be done with this type of project. He stated the type of business he was looking for would be something he could look down Main Street and not just see a concrete, brick, lube place, water running off type of business. Mr. Nelson stated, if the same lot configuration were to develop into a retail business, they could build their structure 20' off of Main Street and before his client even began construction they have given the City of Euless 25' of right of way dedication all across the property. He stated the ordinance would require a commercial business to landscape 15% of the front yard and there would be a total of 405 square feet of landscaping required, 3 trees required and 9 shrubs required. They have committed to 13 trees, 67 shrubs instead of 9 shrubs and 2,260 square feet of landscaping instead of the 405 square feet. Mr. Nelson stated these factors should be considered into the trade offs in which the Commissioners discussed since they were way over on the landscaping requirements Chairman Young stated the Commissioners needed to consider if this car wash was a permitted use in this zoning category (staff stated it was) and does it comply with the Unified Development Code (staff and DRC stated it was consistent with zoning and subdivision regulations). He stated the Commissioners should not try to use the Site Plan requirements as a zoning mechanism. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION - PAGE SEVEN JUNE 18, 1996 Commissioner Owens made the motion to deny #96-11-SP for the following reason: 1.) the applicant did not present a case of meeting all of the requirements in the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Eggers seconded the motion. Commissioner McMillon stated if the case meets all of the ordinances of the City and if staff recommends the project is within property zoning he wanted to know what the basis for denial would be. Commissioner Owens stated the reason in his motion to deny included the twelve points of review. He stated he felt that meeting all of the minimum requirements was in the eyes of the beholder and he did not believe the applicant met all of the minimum requirements. Commissioner Shuler stated she did not believe the case was ready for approval the way it was presented to the Commission. However, she asked if the Commissioners would consider approving the case with no further progression to be made until all requirements of the staff were satisfied and presented to the Commission in a Land Plan they could approve. Commissioner Owens stated he had asked the applicant those questions and the applicant stated he could not commit to anything else. 1111. Commissioner McMillon made reference to the letter to the Commissioners from Randy Byers, Director of Public Works and Development, that DRC found most issues of concern to be adequately addressed and certified the case for placement on the agenda. Chairman Young stated he was in agreement with the Commissioners and he too would rather see something other than a car wash go in on this property. However, his disagreement was using the Site Plan denial as a means to stop it. Commissioner Owens withdrew his original motion. He made the motion to deny #96-11- SP. Commissioner Eggers seconded the motion to deny #96-11-SP. Commissioners Eggers and McMillon agreed the reason for denial was the Site Plan was no further along than when it was tabled at the last meeting. Commissioner McMillon felt it was too premature for Mr. Nelson and stated due to the sensitivity of the property and drainage concerns, he did not have enough information to address his concerns. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Commissioners Owens, Eggers, Shuler, McMillon Nays: Commissioner Young PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION - PAGE EIGHT JUNE 18, 1996 The motion carried to deny #96-11-SP. REPORTS: Commissioner Owens discussed the Texas 10 Zoning Ordinance and the Commissioners as being the initiating body. He would like to see the Commission make a formal presentation to City Council on Texas 10. He questioned whether or not the Commission wanted the Texas 10 Zoning Ordinance to be applied. He stated the City of Hurst had began applying the Texas 10 ordinance on car lots on Hwy 10. He recommended the Commission instruct the staff the apply Texas 10. Chairman Young stated this could be discussed at the joint meeting with City Council. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 P.M. Chairman Ronald Young j •: ate 060496mn.P&Z w