Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967-02-21 } Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission February 21 , 1967 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:50 P. M. , in the Council Chambers of Euless City Hall , by Chairman Len Weber. The following members were present: Messrs. Bill Tench, Don Hastings and Len Weber. Also present were Mr. Jack Bullard, City Inspector and Recording Sec- retary Florence Murr. VISITORS. Visitors in attendance were Messrs. Bill Ratliff, representing Consult- ing Engineers Gregory, Knowlton & Ratliff, Walter "Dub" Elliott, Bobby R. Fuller, David Moak and Leonard Russell . APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Tench made the motion to dispense with the reading of the minutes of the previous meeting, dated February 7, 1967 -- all members having received a copy prior to this meeting and to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion, and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Tench, Hastings and Weber Nays: None Chairman Weber declared the motion carried. I . FINAL PLAT APPROVAL TRAILWOOD ADDITION, SECOND FILING Chairman Weber advised that the Planning and Zoning Commission had re- ceived a letter from the Consulting Engineers, dated February 20, 1967, in which they commented on their findings following a review of the plans for Trailwood Ad- dition, Second Filing. The members of the Planning and Zoning Commission had re- viewed the letter prior to the meeting, and Mr. Weber presented same to Mr. Walter Elliott, Engineer and Mr. Bobby R. Fuller, Developer, for their consideration. In the letter, the engineers commented as follows: DRAINAGE vo° (1) There are four (4) locating where surface water is designed to cross asphalt and in these instances, we recommend concrete valley gutters. (2) We have discussed our suggested revision of the routing for the storm sewers with the Developer's Engineer and he is now making these alterations. (3) We cannot, because of maintenance considerations, recommend the construction of the unlined channel in Block 6. In the lining of this channel as well as in oversized (larger than L:.8") storm drains, City policy would indicate par- ticipation above $16.00 per foot. (Pa•e Two Minutes of Re•ular Meetin. Plannin. & Zonin. Commission 2-21-6 . (4) The channel marked E-E is immediately abc"c a sanitary sewer and might tend to wash that sewer out as well as the manh,Jle causing hydraulic problems. We would suggest an offset. (5) Channels B-B, C-C & E-E should be covered by easements furnished by the De- veloper. (6) We suggest that the typical channel sections show the relative position with- in the easement and with the sanitary sewer line. (7) Although there have been no comprehensive studies made on Little Bear Creek, we feel there is every reason to believe that the water level during flood periods will rise as development increases upstream. Therefore, we recommend that foundations in Block 7 be not less than elevation 527 and in Block 4, be not less than 520. WATER & SEWERAGE (1) We are concerned regarding the sewer service to Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Block 1 and Lot 1 , Block 8. In these cases we recommended the lot be filled so that the foundation will be a minimum of three feet above the sewer main serving that house. (2) The 8" portion of Sewer Line No. 5 between Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 will be eligible for participation under the present Developer Policies. Mr. Elliott, Engineer, representing the Developer, commented that he and the Developer can comply with the suggested recommendations of the Engineers; however, they would like to take exception to Item 3, under Drainage. Mr. Elliott stated that the Preliminary Plan was submitted on March 3, 196!4, at which time the positions of storm sewers which would be needed were indicated; also the position of the channel that would be shaped to an earthern section. Mr. Elliott stated that they have not deviated from the Preliminary, and he and the Developers are of the opinion that this should be considered under the old provisions; that the Preliminary was submitted under the old ordinance and they feel that it should be considered under that old ordinance. Mr. Ratliff stated that it is true that the Preliminary was presented prior to the establishment of the policy, and the City did not have a policy to go by at that time. He advised that Preliminaries are binding on the part of the City, but can be cancelled after nine months. Mr. Elliott advised that a portion of this Preliminary has been follow- ed through, and the section in question is a portion of that Preliminary which has not been revised -- that construction was started under the old provision and this is merely the second phase. Mr. Hastings inquired if the time limit stipulated in the ordinance means that the work must be started prior to that time or must be completed in this length of time. tlior The City Inspector advised that the ordinance is not clear on this point, and it will have to be a matter of judgement on the part of the Commission, in making this decision. (Page Three, Minutes of Regular Meeting_, Planning and Zoning Commission, 2-21-67.) Mr. Weber stated that he is doubtful that the City can be held to the Preliminary which was submitted previously. Mr. Hastings inquired as to the difference in the cost of construction of the channel . Mr. Elliott stated that he considers it will run approximately $11 .00 or $11 .50 per foot. Mr. Weber inquired as to how many feet would be involved. Mr. Elliott stated that their plans are to put in approximately 400 ft. of storm sewer pipe; that the channel will be approximately 1300 feet and will cost approximately $15,000.00. It was determined that the difference in the cost will be approximate- ly $6,000.00. Mr. Ratliff stated that the cost will be less, if only the bottom of the channel is lined. He stated further that if a portion of the drainage facilities is placed underground, 48 inch storm sewer pipe will be required; that he did not have a chance to compare the prices of different pipes. Mr. Weber stated that he is of the opinion the City has taken a "hard- nose" view on open channels -- that the Planning and Zoning Commission should con- cur with the opinion of the City's Consulting Engineers. He stated further that the City Council has the authority to take any action it desires. Mr. Hastings suggested teat an attorney be contacted, to see if the City will be held to its original approval of the Preliminary. Mr. Ratliff stated that he is of the opinion the Planning and Zoning Commission could very well refer it to the City Council . Mr. Weber stated that in as much as the Engineers have resolved all of the items except one, the Planning and Zoning Commission should recommend approval , subject to the corrections, as stipulated in the Engineers' letter, and since Item 3 involves the disbursement of money by the City, that the City Council should resolve that problem. Following further discussion and study of the plat, Mr. Hastings made the motion to recommend approval of the final plat of Trailwood Addition, Second Filing, subject to the corrections, as stipulated in the Engineers ' letter dated February 20, 1967. Mr. Tench seconded the motion, and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Tench, Hastings and Weber Nays: None Chairman Weber declared the motion carried. Mr. Elliott stated that there is one matter which he and the Developer 4 would like to discuss, which is not shown on the plat -- this being a matter which r came up after the plat was submitted. Mr. Elliott advised that there is a lady who is desirous of purchasing a lot included in this plat, but she is also desir- ous of purchasing another property which joins this lot, but is not included in the plat. (Page Four, Minutes of Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, 2-21-67.) 4 Mr. Fuller, one of the Developers, nroduced small copies of the plat, furnishing copies for the Planning and Z-Ining Ccnmission's consideration. Mr. Fuller advised that the property in question is located in an area which may be flooded. He suggested that the attorney might be contacted and directed to draw up a document which will prevent the lady's building anything on this particular property -- this being done in order to protect the City of Euless, should a flooding condition occur. Mr. Elliott stated that Mr. David Moak will , probably, revise the plat before it is presented to the City Council and that the attorney can furnish everything in the restrictions, in order for everything to be clear and conform- ing to the City's policies. Mr. Tench made the motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission accept "Attachment ^,", the sketch indicating the revision of three lots itemized as Let 22, Block 4 and Lots 9 and 10, Block t=, and present to the City Council , at its next meeting, a revised plat to encompass this exhibit. ' Mr. Hastings seconded the motion, and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Tench, Hastings and Weber Nays: None Chairman Weber declared the motion carried. (Copy of Engineer's letter and sketch (Attachment "A") on file in office of City Inspector.) II . PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, GREEN HILLS PARK, FIFTH FILING Chairman Weber inquired if there were those present who represented the Developers of Green Hills Park. There being none, Mr. Weber advised that the Planning and Zoning Commission had made a policy, sometime ago, that it was necessary for a Developer to have a representative present at the meeting to present and discuss any matter which was to come before the Commission. Mr. Hastings suggested that since one of the Councilmen was present, he might like to comment. Councilman Bobby Fuller stated that the City Council is of the same opinion, especially Mayor Fuller -- that if people are not interested enough to be present to discuss the matter an answer any questions which might arise, the item should be tabled. Chairman Weber read a letter from Gregory, Knowlton & Ratliff, .dated February 20, 1967, in which they stated that after reviewing the preliminary plans on Green Hills Park, Fifth Installment, they recommend approval of the sub- division preliminary plat. In reply to an inquiry as to whether or not the Developers or their Engineers had been sent a copy of this letter, Mr. Ratliff replied negatively but stated that he had talked with them by telephone, advising them of his find- ings. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the plat, and Mr. Hastings commented that one of the streets, Marlee, would be very confusing,since , (Page Five, Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission, 2-21-67.) the City has a street named Marlene. The City Inspector advised that he had` noticed that one of the streets shown on the plat does not have a name. After discussion, Mr. Tench suggested that the Commission shelve any action on this plat until the next regular meeting. Mr. Bullard commented that he is of the opinion the preliminary plat cannot be sent to the City Council with an unnamed street. Mr. Tench made the motion that the preliminary plat, Green Hills Park, Fifth Filing, be shelved because of inadequacies and problems which could not be solved without a representative for the Developers. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion, and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Tench, Hastings and Weber Nays: None Chairman Weber declared the motion carried. (Copy of Engineer's letter on file in Office of City Inspector.) III . ADJOURNMENT The meeting ac'journed at 8:30 P. M. APPROVED: ATTEST: Chaff an Secretary