Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-10-16 t C Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 16, 1979 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:40 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Euless City Hall by Acting Chairman Carl Tyson. Other members presents were Messrs. John Deithloff, Bob Eden, Chris Jones, Bob Williamson, and Mrs. Helen Lightbody. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Kent Flynn and recording secretary Diana Lucas. VISITORS Visitors in attendance were Messrs. David Bagwell , Steve Crimm, Gerald Hartman, Ron Haynes, Charles Hunt, 41) Glenn Walker, Keith Wallace, and Mrs. Willie Mae McCormick. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Mr. Williamson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Jones made a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting dated October 2, 1979. Mr. Deithloff seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Jones, Deithloff, Eden, Tyson, Williamson, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Acting Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. (Page Two, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 16, 1979) PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE 295. REQUEST OF GERALD HARTMAN FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM "R-1" SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT TO "R-5" 24 UNITS PER ACRE MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON 12. 18 ACRES OF LAND ON THE R. D. PRICE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 1206, LOCATED ADJACENT AND EAST OF NORTH MAIN STREET, NORTH OF BEAR CREEK, AND SOUTH OF PROPOSED CHEEK-SPARGER ROAD. Acting Chairman Tyson stated the rules of a public hearing; proponents will be heard first, and then opponents. He opened the public hearing. Mr. David Bagwell of Crow Development Company stated that the petitioner, Gerald Hartman, is with First National Bank of Fort Worth, whose trust department has responsibility for portions of said property and that those portions are under contract of sale by Crow Development Company. Mr. Hartman requested the change of zoning on behalf of Crow Development Company, who will be the developer of this land. Mr. Bagwell then displayed two drawings, showing proposed plans for subject property. Mr. Bagwell stated that Crow Development Company felt that honesty was the best policy and were therefore asking for R-5 zoning on only twelve acres and dedicating flood plain property adjacent to Bear Creek to the city for use as a public park. An alternative would have been to ask for R-3 zoning for a larger tract which would include the flood plain area and then build on only the northern twelve acres of that. Under this alternative, the City would be without the public park, and they would have had R-5 density under the disguise of R-3 zoning. In addition, Crow Development Company is prepared to provide access to the park being dedicated. By obtaining R-5 zoning, more significant income would be produced for Crow Development, thereby enabling them to undertake the re-routing of North Main Street to save the large pecan trees on McCormick property. Therefore, this plan yields the City a public park and the preservation of the historically significant pecan trees. Mr. Bagwell stated that this property seemed more appropriate for multi-family use because of the intersection of two major thoroughfares, Cheek-Sparger Road and North Main Street. (Page Three, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 16, 1979) 411) Mr. Bagwell further stated that the multi-family zoning would be well buffered from adjacent single family uses through the following design features. The public park to the south would buffer residential areas to the south. A planned golf course would buffer the project to the west across North Main Street. Commercial property lies to the northwest. Cheek-Sparger Road would buffer the project from residential areas to the north and proposed R-2 zoning and a tree-lined drainage feature would buffer proposed single family on the east. He further stated that residents who bought homes in the McCormick Farms Addition, previously Woodhill , would do so knowing that apartment zoning existed in the area. He stated that the remainder of the McCormick property would be deed restricted to only single family. He concluded that multi- family development on this site would be advantageous to the City by providing higher ad valorem tax, because higher density would yield additional revenue through sales and franchise taxes and because additional density would help bring about a Grapevine elementary school . Acting Chairman Tyson asked how this plan differed in its treatment to flood plain property from the single family plan. Mr. Flynn stated that about one-half of those lots which were in the flood plain would be replaced with multi- family zoning. 41) Mr. Eden asked Mr. Bagwell if Crow Development Company will or will not build these apartments and duplexes. Mr. Bagwell stated he could not commit himself one way or another because he does not think the area is ready for multi-family today. He stated that Crow Development Company would like to develop the property slowly. He added that he does not believe that optimum density of twenty-four units per acre can be achieved because in order to protect trees on North Main Street, apartments will have to be set back from trees, which will cut down the density. Acting Chairman Tyson asked Mr. Bagwell if he talked to the City Staff regarding what kind of development will be required to proposed park site before the City accepts it. Mr. Bagwell stated that he is prepared to talk to the City Staff regarding park site requirements. He added that the principal development is to give the park access, which they have included in the proposal . He stated that, according to Mr. McCormick and the hydraulic engineers, the park area would rarely get water from major rains. (Page Four, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 16, 1979) Mr. Eden asked Mr. Bagwell how many acres are included in the flood plain, the park. Mr. Bagwell stated he estimates approximately eleven acres. Acting Chairman Tyson asked Mr. Bagwell how he plans to save the trees along North Main Street. Mr. Bagwell stated that Crow Development Company will either trade Mr. Reaves some property on the north to move the road partially on to Mr. Reaves' property or purchase the land outright to accommodate the road. Acting Chairman Tyson asked Mr. Bagwell how many duplex lots are located in the area. Mr. Bagwell stated there are twenty-four duplex lots and that eventually there will be two more where the McCormick house now exists. There being no more proponents of the zoning case, Acting Chairman Tyson asked if there were any opponents. Mr. Charles Hunt, 2000 North Main Street, stated that he is opposed to R-5 zoning because it concentrates a large number of people in a small area. It does produce maximum yield on investment for developer. In regard to the City, it places a burden on II' police and fire departments as to traffic and domestic problems. It puts pressure on adjacent property owners to develop their land in a similar manner. Mrs. Lightbody asked Mr. Hunt what zoning he wants for the subject property. Mr. Hunt stated that he prefers R-1 zoning. There beingopponents, Acting no more PP � Chairman Tyson declared the public hearing closed and opened the discussion to Planning and Zoning members only. Mr. Deithloff asked the location of the closest R-5 zoning to this property. Mr. Flynn stated that some of Mr. Reaves' Planned Development district is R-5 density and that Fair Oaks Apartments west of North Main Street on Harwood Road is zoned R-5. i (Page Five, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 16, 1979) Mr. Eden asked if twenty acres were zoned R-3, could all apartments be put on ten acres and leave the other ten acres vacant. Mr. Flynn stated that if the yard and other zoning requirements were met, then they could do what Mr. Eden is suggesting and effectively have R-5 density under R-3 zoning. Mr. Eden asked Mr. Flynn for a Staff recommendation. Mr. Flynn replied that if Staff were in the position of having done a recent study to answer some of the questions such as how much multi-family does Euless want or where, in general , does the City want its multi-family located, then he could make a recommendation. He continued that since the City had not done such a study, he would have to assume that Planning and Zoning Commissioners and the City Council knew what citizens of Euless want. He stated that Staff can only give facts if they are asked for and offer professional and technical response to a given isolated project, but that they cannot answer to the merits of this land being developed multi-family with a comprehensive feeling for what it would do to the City as a whole. He stated that he could respond only to the attributes or disadvantages of this particular plan and in doing so address the needs of high density 41) housing. He stated that multi-family requires adjacency to thoroughfares which this plan has. High density housing also needs more green space than is actually required for density requirements and this project is well done in that respect. He stated that if a comprehensive study were done of the whole City, he would look at multi-family and put it in places where single family and other uses were not the most appropriate use of the land. He stated that obviously there are some problems with developing this particular site with single family because the developers are saying that after doing plans for single family, they have found that it would be too costly. He concluded that if one were to isolate this one case and ask Staff if this plan was a good one for multi-family, he would say that it is well buffered, provides a City park, and is done very well . He stated further that, however, he could not answer as to whether or not the City wants more multi-family or if it wants it in this location. Mr. Eden stated that he felt that if a poll were taken, ninety percent of the single family residents in Euless would not want more multi-family. He said that the Commission had to try to decide what was good planning for the City, however. Mrs. Lightbody asked Mr. Flynn how long it would take to develop an overall picture of what needs to be considered ® (Page Six, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 16, 1979) in zoning cases to judge the effect decisions have on the City as a whole and how they relate to City goals. Mr. Flynn stated that it would take a concerted effort but could be done if needed. Mrs. Lightbody stated she feels that the City is now planning in the dark and that Commissioners need to see the overall effect of whatever decisions are made because the outcome must be lived with for twenty years or more. Mr. Flynn stated that some data had been collected but that it would need to be put together. He stated that this is a popular tool in other cities to look at different land uses in regard to their relative benefits to the City versus costs of City services to those types of land use. He stated that this cost versus benefit analysis had become especially needed in these times of inflation and limited City budgets. He further stated that if Mrs. Lightbody's request is a genuine concern of the Commission, then they should direct the Staff to make this information available. Acting Chairman Tyson stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission sent the City Council recommendations on planning and that up to now, the City Council has not responded to those 1 recommendations. He stated that he felt this information is needed. 41) Mrs. Lightbody stated her personal feeling is that Crow Development Company could look at this property with the Planned Development concept. She added that there is generally less opposition to and more control over Planned Development. Acting Chairman Tyson stated that he prefers Planned Development because it can be seen whether or not the development will be of high quality. Mr. Eden agreed that there is a problem with the density of R-5 in this location. Mr. Jones asked Mr. Bagwell what his feelings are on different zoning, based on the Commission's comments. Mr. Bagwell stated that he could live with something less than a density of twenty-four units per acre, perhaps twenty units to the acre. He stated that he is reluctant to Planned Development zoning because it does not provide enough flexibility for developers or their financeers. He stated he would rather see the case (Page Seven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 16, 1979) IC) tabled than turned down on R-5 zoning and that he would like to offer other proposals after further discussion with City Staff. Mr. Eden made a motion to table the decision until the following meeting. Mrs. Lightbody seconded the motion. Acting Chairman Tyson asked for a vote on the motion and second, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Eden, Deithloff, Jones, Tyson, Williamson and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None II . PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE 296. REQUEST OF GERALD HARTMAN FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM "R-1" SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT TO "R-2" TWO FAMILY DISTRICT ON 9.62 ACRES OF LAND ON THE R. D. PRICE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 1206, LOCATED EAST OF NORTH MAIN STREET, NORTH OF BEAR CREEK, AND SOUTH OF PROPOSED CHEEK-SPARGER ROAD. Acting Chairman Tyson repeated the rules of a public hearing; proponents will be heard first, and then opponents. He opened the public hearing. Mr. Bagwell again stated he represents Crow Development Company and that the "R-2" application should be considered in context with the R-5 zoning. There being no additional proponents and no opponents, Acting Chairman Tyson closed the public hearing and opened the discussion to Planning and Zoning members only. Mr. Jones asked Mr. Charles Hunt if he is or is not opposed to duplex zoning. Mr. Hunt stated he is not as opposed to "R-2" zoning. Acting Chairman Tyson asked Mr. Hunt if, in referring back to Zoning Case 295, it were lower density apartments, what would be his choice? Mr. Hunt stated that "R-1" single family residences is his preference. He added that if there were a compromise of more than single family residences, he prefers duplexes. If the entire area was proposed for duplexes, he perhaps would not be opposed to the zoning. 1 (Page Eight, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 16, 1979) Mr. Eden made a motion to table the decision until the next meeting. Mr. Jones seconded the motion. Acting Chairman Tyson asked for a vote on the motion and second, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Eden, Jones, Deithloff, Tyson, Williamson, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None III . CONSIDER PLATTING - FINAL PLATTING OF MIDWAY SQUARE ADDITION, PHASE ONE, LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF PROPOSED FULLER-WISER ROAD AND HIGH- WAY 350 AND CONTAINING THE RIGHT- OF-WAY DEDICATION FOR REQUIRED RAMP REVISION AT INTERSECTION OF PROPOSED FULLER-WISER ROAD AND HIGHWAY 350. Mr. Flynn reminded the Commission that 41) a preliminary and final plat had been approved by the Council for Midway Square Addition and that Council had also passed a resolution to ask the State to allow revision of the exit ramp off of Airport Freeway to permit access onto the proposed Fuller-Wiser Road. He stated that Lomas and Nettleton, the City Staff, and the State Highway Department had met and worked out the details for the ramp revision. This developer will dedicate the necessary R.O.W. and construct the ramp revision according to the standard City-Developer type arrangement. However, the State requires a filed plat showing the needed R.O.W. as dedicated to the City before construction can begin. Since the City cannot file a plat until all monies for public improvements are escrowed, the developer is now submitting Midway Square Addition, Phase One, platting only the R.O.W. necessary for the ramp revision. Otherwise, the developer would have to escrow all the monies for all of Midway Square Addition (over one million dollars) which would be an unnecessary burden the Staff feels. By platting only Phase One for the R.O.W. needed now, the City will only collect the monies to cover the cost of construction of the ramp revision. Therefore, work can proceed and the developer will file Midway Square Addition, Phase Two and Three, for the remainder of the subdivision later. Mr. Eden made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of final platting of Midway Square Addition, Phase One. I�� (Page Nine, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 16, 1979) 4C, Mr. Deithloff seconded the motion. Acting Chairman Tyson asked for a vote on the motion and second, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Eden, Deithloff, Jones, Tyson, and Mrs. Lightbody. (Mr. Williamson was not in attendance for the vote.) Nays: None IV. DISCUSSION OF OLD BUSINESS. Acting Chairman Tyson stated he would like to discuss to what end the Planning and Zoning Commission wants to get the Future Land Use Plan updated. He stated that the last update was done through work sessions with no outside consulting services. Mr. Flynn stated that perhaps general guidelines are needed as to types of conditions conducive to types of land uses. He stated he thinks that there are two general needs, one requiring people with a knowledge of development and the other requiring a knowledge of what Euless citizens want since there are value judgments 41) involved. Acting Chairman Tyson stated that he thought the Future Land Use Plan should be updated. Mr. Eden stated that the Commission will have to be patient until the City Staff can acquire more help. Mr. Deithloff asked for an existing Land Use Map, updated once a month. Mr. Eden concurred that an updated Land Use Plan would help the Commission greatly. Mr. Deithloff stressed that he is concerned and wants to know what exists now and also what is the current feeling of the Euless citizens. Acting Chairman Tyson stated that he would like to see the planning project that was started previously get back on its feet because it will help give directions for future decisions by the Planning and Zoning Commission. This project involved citizen input. He asked what was the status of this project. C ® (Page Ten, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 16, 1979) Mr. Flynn stated that this planning project had been tabled by the City Council . Acting Chairman Tyson asked if this project could be revived if the City Council decides it is necessary for the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Flynn stated that he thought the project could be revived and done in-house if the City Council feels that the Commission needs it. Mr. Jones asked if the Planning and .. Zoning Commission should recommend to the City Council that they want this information. Mr. Flynn stated that a recommendation to City Council would make everyone aware of the Planningand Zoning Commission's on s needs. Mr. Deithloff asked Mr. Flynn for a realistic timetable to update the existing Land Use Map. Mr. Flynn stated it would probably take three months to do this part of the project if and when the project 41) is begun again. He stated that he feels that this project will have to become a priority to get it done because, at present, Staff is preoccupied with responding to individual developers. He stated that Staff could not neglect developers ' needs while working on this project but would have to reorganize duties and obtain some additional help to make time for the project. He concluded that much of the work is already being done repetitiously for individual developers because they need the same information and that Staff would just have to make it a priority to put the information all together for the Commissioners ' use. Acting Chairman Tyson asked Councilmen Hunt and Walker, who were in the audience, their thoughts regarding planning for the City. Mr. Hunt stated that if the Commission would formally make a motion and prioritize this as something they need to do their jobs, the City Council would respond better. He stated that he feels that not only does the Planning and Zoning Commission need this information, the City Council also needs it. Mr. Walker agreed with Mr. Hunt and Mr. Flynn and pointed out this project should not be done at the expense of neglecting developers but that City Staff should place this project on their priority list. C (Page Eleven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 16, 1979) 4C) Mr. Deithloff made a motion that the Staff be directed to begin the first part of the planning project by presenting the Commission with information on existing conditions including maps indicating existing land use and existing zoning and that this part be completed in one hundred and twenty calendar days. Mrs. Lightbody seconded the motion. Acting Chairman Tyson questioned the value of just updating the existing land use information and stated that the Commission needs goals and a general direction to guide it. Mr. Deithloff stated that he needed more information on what was existing near the area on zoning cases. Mr. Flynn stated that when he was faced with making decisions, he based decisions on what he knows about existing conditions. Another thing one needs to know when making decisions for a City is what do the citizens of that City want. The latter consideration is more involved to obtain and should be done after we know what existing conditions are in the City. Mr. Walker stated that the information on existing conditions is the first step. Citizen input cannot be obtained 41) until they know what they presently have. Mr. Flynn stated he felt that the Commission cannot ask citizens to make choices if the Commission does not feel they know enough about existing conditions to make choices. He stated that more information is needed before citizens are involved. Messrs. Eden and Jones stated that what Mr. Deithloff is asking for would help them to a great extent. Acting Chairman Tyson called for a vote on the motion and second and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Mr. Deithloff, Mrs. Lightbody, Messrs. Eden, Tyson and Jones. (Mr. Williamson was not in attendance for the vote.) Nays: None V. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. APPROVED: 4- yor_____---- Acting Chairman