Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-09-18 Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission September 18, 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 present were Messrs. John Deithloff, Bob Eden, Bob Williamson, and Mrs. Helen Lightbody. Absent were Messrs. Neal Adams and Chris Jones. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Kent Flynn and recording secretary Diana Lucas. VISITORS Visitors in attendance were Messrs. Joe Howell , Gordon Swift, Les Jaggers, David Bagwell , Ron Haynes, and Mrs. Willie Mae McCormick. INVOCATION 41) The invocation was given by Mr. Eden. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mrs. Lightbody made a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting dated August 21 , 1979. Mr. Williamson seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody and Messrs. Deithloff, Eden, Tyson and Williamson. Nays: None Acting Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE 293. REQUEST OF LES JAGGERS FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM "C-2" COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT TO "C-2" WITH "SP" COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMIT ON LOT 3, BLOCK 2, BELL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 183, NORTH OF SOUTH PIPELINE ROAD AND WEST OF RAIDER DRIVE. (Page Two, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, September 18, 1979) Acting Chairman Tyson stated the rules of a public hearing; proponents will be heard first, and then opponents. He opened the public hearing. Mr. Les Jaggers of 2520 W. Irving Boulevard, Irving, Texas, stated he represents Agency Rent-A-Car on the aforementioned property and that he requested the change of zoning. He further stated that his purpose was to recondition and sell automobiles at this location. Acting Chairman Tyson asked Mr. Jaggers how many automobiles will be there at one time. Mr. Jaggers stated that he would have sixty-five cars located on the property. Acting Chairman Tyson inquired as to the location of the property and what businesses existed around him. Mr. Jaggers stated that the property is located east of the Elks Club and west of a body shop and added that all trash had been removed, but that the property still needs more work done. Acting Chairman Tyson inquired if there is anything on the ground besides asphalt. 41) Mr. Jaggers stated there was nothing on the ground but asphalt. Mrs. Lightbody inquired if there is any information from the staff other than the "Land Use Summary" and requested more information from Mr. Flynn. Mr. Flynn stated that the property is zoned "C-2" and adjacent to this site on the east is a body shop. On the west, there is a problem with the wood pile and storage area. Both of these commercial areas are adjacent to an industrial district. Along Highway 183, there is a three hundred foot strip of commercial zoning, and the land to the south is industrial . North of Highway 183 is located the Plaza Grande Shopping Center. Car lots have been added to Specific Use permits within the last two years. Prior to that time, car lots were allowed without consideration if located in the "C-2" zoning. Mr. Flynn further stated that, since similar type uses now exist in that area, this would not be a detriment to the property surrounding it. He stated there is a problem with vacancies along Highway 183; there is an overabundance of "C-2" zoning with forty percent being occupied and sixty percent vacant. The greatest percentage of vacant commercial land is in the area in question. Therefore, there is a need to develop it. He stated that, with a Specific Use permit, the Planning and Zoning Commission can regulate how the land is developed besides just regulating the use. In commercial zoning without Specific Use permits, the Commission has no opportunity to regulate development. (Page Three, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, September 18, 1979) Acting Chairman Tyson stated that he thought involvement in auto sales required asphalt for a sales lot. Mr. Flynn stated that asphalt paving is required for all parking lots and comes under the City's building requirements. There being no further questions, proponents, or opponents, Acting Chairman Tyson stated that the public hearing on the zoning case is closed and opened the floor for discussion among board members. Mr. Eden stated that he believed this business would be an asset to that area. Acting Chairman Tyson stated that he had nothing against this zoning case and that it would be a good location for a car lot. Mr. Eden made a motion recommending to the City Council that this zoning case be approved. Mrs. Lightbody seconded the motion. Acting Chairman Tyson called for a vote on the motion and second. ® The vote on Mr. Eden's motion is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Eden, Deithloff, Tyson, Williamson, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Acting Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. II . CONSIDER REVISION OF REQUIRED SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES FOR ZONING CHANGE REQUESTS AND SUB-DIVISION PLATS. Acting Chairman Tyson declared the public hearing open and that he would like to discuss the Alternative Time Schedule, presented to the Planning and Zoning Commision by Kent Flynn, point-by-point. Mrs. Lightbody stated that any improvement will be an improvement. Acting Chairman Tyson stated that his main concern is the proposed eight-day period for the developer to revise his plans. Mr. Flynn stated that he would like to have a deadline for revised plans so that the developer knows what revisions and additions must be made and can schedule time for this before plans go to the Planning and Zoning Commission. (Page Four, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, September 18, 1979) Mr. Eden stated that there should be no problem for the developer to have eight days for plan revision, if this period is scheduled into the developer's normal schedule so he can plan on it. Mrs. Lightbody stated that she wanted to be sure that plans are reviewed properly and that the Commission should not be rushed as much as now. She further stated that if the eight-day deadline is not met, the City Staff should not allow plans to go on to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Acting Chairman Tyson stated that he wants the minimum time possible because time is money to the developer. Mr. Eden stated that he is not sure the developer needs eight days to make corrections, but he wants to cooperate with the developers with guidelines set by ordinances. If the Staff says eight days is necessary, he will go along with this recommendation. Mr. David Bagwell , with Crow Development Company, stated that he prefers to have as much time as possible for preparing plans but that he also would like the plans to go to the Planning and Zoning Commission as soon as possible. ® Mr. Gordon Swift, a Consulting Engineer from Fort Worth, Texas, stated that the City of Fort Worth has a policy where the developer goes to the Planning and Zoning Commission once with the plat and the plat never goes to the City Council . He further stated that the City of Euless has two procedures versus the City of Fort Worth having one procedure because, in Euless, both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council must approve plats. Mr. Eden stated that he relies heavily on the Staff, and that if, in their discretion, plans are not complete, then the Staff should not place the plat on the agenda or should recommend denial and the Commission should concur with that recommendation. Mr. Flynn stated that Staff could do this but that most all plans have something left off the first time they see them. If Staff does not give the developer's engineer a chance to revise them and go on to the Planning and Zoning meeting, then he has to wait until the next meeting two weeks later. The problem now is that there is only time for the first review and no time to get revised plans back and reviewed before the Planning and Zoning meeting. Acting Chairman Tyson stated that he did not want to put Staff in the difficult position of having to interpret how complete plans were and then deciding to postpone a plat for two weeks because it was incomplete. (Page Five, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, September 18, 1979) 111410 Acting Chairman Tyson stated that, according to the Alternative Time Schedule, Staff would mail Commissioners packets on the Thursday before the meeting so Commissioners would get them Friday. He stated further that if they were mailed Friday, he would have enough time to review them. Mrs. Lightbody stated that packets are now mailed on Fridays and she does not get hers until the Monday before the meeting and that she needs more time to adequately prepare. Mr. Deithloff stated that he would prefer to get his Friday so he could review Friday and over the weekend. Mr. Knight stated that if plans were complete according to the major intent of the ordinance, then fifteen to eighteen days would be adequate. Acting Chairman Tyson asked if the Commission should table a decision for further discussion. Mr. Flynn stated that he saw three options: 1) Approve the Alternative Time Schedule so that from the outset the developer would schedule time for revision of plans and would plan 41) to work with Staff to eliminate technical problems before the meeting. 2) Continue with only one Staff review and no revision of plats and plans before P&Z. With this option, the Commission would be asking the Staff to decide which plats are complete enough to go on to the Planning and Zoning agenda and would need to be prepared for more technical comments. 3) Postpone a decision until the next meeting, so members could consider further and so that Staff could draw up other alternatives which might be combinations of the two above. Mr. Deithloff stated that the present preparation time was inadequate and that he did not favor more comments because that just raised more questions at the meetings. He suggested that Commissioners should rely on the Staff recommendation because there was no way he could comprehend one day in the life of a Staff member without actually walking in his shoes. Mr. Flynn stated that the proposed alternative was designed to give the developer a review time period that he could schedule for and allow for. He asked if developers needed a deadline to plan on or would they prefer to just be notified which agenda they were going to be on after the Staff felt that they had a satisfactory set of plans? (Page Six, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, September 18, 1979) 4110 Mr. Eden stated that the developer definitely needed a deadline that he could plan on. Acting Chairman Tyson stated that the proposed deadline, according to the Alternative Time Schedule, would be about average with other cities, which require twenty-one days for zoning and eighteen days for platting. He suggested that the Alternative Time Schedule could be tried and the Staff could keep the Commission informed on how it was working. Mr. Williamson stated that if a twenty-two- day deadline before P&Z was adopted, then the total time for approval of a sub-division under optimum conditions would be seventy-one days versus fifty- one days now. This would be from application of preliminary plat through City Council approval of final plat. Acting Chairman Tyson stated that Texas law states that only the Planning and Zoning Commission has final authority over plat approval . Mr. Flynn stated that the Staff had been increasingly rushed over the last year, causing Commissioners ' packets to be frequently prepared at the last minute. This problem has been a direct result of more development in Euless and delays in getting revised plans back before 41) the Planning and Zoning meeting. The need for more time is greatest for platting as fifteen days would probably be adequate for zoning. Staff hopes to be even busier in the years ahead as we hope development will increase. He stated that the proposed Alternative Time Schedule is an attempt to schedule time for Staff to work with developers to eliminate problems. He further stated that he felt that scheduling this help in, so the developer could plan accordingly, would create a more cooperative working relationship than if the Staff were to take plans, review them, and then tell a developer that his plans were not complete so he could not go on the P&Z agend he had planned on. Mrs. Lightbody made a motion to require sub-division plats be submitted to the Director of Planning and Development sixteen (16) working days prior to the Planning and Zoning meeting and for zoning change applications to be submitted eleven (11) working days prior to the Planning and Zoning meetings. Mr. Deithloff seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody, Messrs. Deithloff, Eden, Tyson and Williamson. Nays: None C (Page Seven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, September 18, 1979) III . REPORT ON RECENT AMENDMENTS TO SUB-DIVISION RULES AND REGULATIONS ORDINANCE. Mr. Flynn read to the Commission the above mentioned report. IV. CONSIDER REVISION OF EXISTING YARD REQUIREMENTS AS SET FORTH IN ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 347, SECTION 7-102. Acting Chairman Tyson stated that the City Council requested the Planning and Zoning Commission to review side lot requirements with guidelines that they not be reduced more than five feet and eight feet, a unanimous vote in the City Council . He stated that the purpose of five and twelve feet sideyards was to allow access to the rear yard with recreational vehicles, boat and trailer, etc. He then gave a brief history (back to 1973) of five and twelve feet requirements. Mr. Eden stated that larger homes are being built on smaller lots today due to a change in building trends. He agreed with the cutting down on sideyards for people to afford homes. Mrs. McCormick stated that the City Council believed that eight feet was not enough room to allow for easy access to the back and that an extra four feet would provide enough room. Mr. Knight stated that a standard auto- mobile is about seven and one-half feet wide and that eight feet might prohibit getting a boat or motorhone into the rear yard. He further stated that nine feet would be more appropriate, but at that, difficulty still exists for building material trucks, larger motorhomes, etc. Mrs. McCormick referred to the letter of September 18, 1979, regarding sideyard requirements. Mr. Flynn stated that an overhang is part of a setback and can extend past the setback. Mr. Deithloff stated that the trend is to put the maximum size building on the smallest piece of property. Acting Chairman Tyson stated that the intent of the change is to get into the backyard and that one needs only to require eight feet if there is a one-foot overhang. (Page Eight, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, September 18, 1979) Mr. Swift presented diagrams showing five-feet and five-feet sideyards and distributed a development cost comparison example showing the difference in five-feet and twelve-feet sideyards and five-feet and five-feet sideyards. Mr. Joe Howell , a developer, explained the economics of the cost difference detail between five-feet and five-feet sideyards and five-feet and twelve-feet sideyards, and he further stated that if housing costs continue to rise, the consumer will be priced out of the housing market. Mr. Bagwell stated that he concurred with all statments made by Mr. Swift and Mr. Howell regarding sideyards. Acting Chairman Tyson asked Mr. Swift if he plans to change the lot sizes in Northill Estates if sideyard require- ments are changed. Mr. Swift stated that he had no plans to reduce the lot sizes in Northill Estates. He further stated that he has doubts that the project will be built if sideyard requirements remain five feet and twelve feet. Acting Chairman Tyson stated that the City 41) Council had directed the Planning and Zoning Commission not to go narrower than five feet and eight feet, and that he thinks eight feet will allow entrance into the rear yard with the one-foot overhang on the side. Mr. Flynn read the Ordinance definition for sideyard which stated that an overhang of up to two feet is permitted into the sideyard. Mr. Eden stated that he wants to see the entire Sub-division Ordinance reviewed and that he agrees with the developers in attendance that corners will have to be cut to allow consumers to buy homes. Mr. Eden made a motion to recommend to the City Council that sideyards become five feet and nine feet. Mr. Williamson seconded the motion. Acting Chairman Tyson asked if there is a discussion of the motion. Mr. Deithloff stated that the City Council 's recommendation of five feet and eight feet is correct, in his opinion. There being no further discussion, Acting Chairman Tyson asked for a vote on the motion and second, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Eden, Williamson, Tyson, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: Mr. Deithloff (Page Nine, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, September 18, 1979) Acting Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried and that a recommendation of five feet and nine feet will be made to the City Council . Mr. Eden stated that he would like ordinances to be looked at as a package and consider what is important and what is not. Mr. Flynn stated that many Staff members are concerned about whether or not ordinances are up-to-date, thus reflecting the current trends in housing and development. Mr. Eden stated that he would like the Commission to set down as a body and review the complete set of development ordinances. Acting Chairman Tyson stated that development ordinances should be looked at, but that new ordinances will not be developed overnight. He further stated that there should be an orderly growth period by defining the problems, outlining advantages and disadvantages, and then decide if an ordinance should be changed. This should not be done in a public meeting, where high emotions exist. The Commission should receive input from developers because they are part of the City also. Mr. Flynn stated that he would like to 41) receive input from developers and the Planning and Zoning Commissioners and at least begin looking at the problems. Mr. Deithloff stated that he feels that Mr. Flynn knows of enough problem areas to know what problems require attention. Acting Chairman Tyson stated that the Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission needs to begin looking at problems together. Mrs. Lightbody made a motion that City Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission begin reviewing all development standards to identify problems and advantages. Mr. Deithloff seconded the motion. Acting Chairman Tyson asked for a vote on the motion and second, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody, Messrs. Deithloff, Eden, Tyson, and Williamson. Nays: None V. ADJOURNMENT 4IDThere being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11 :00 p.m. APPROVED: C)44 "m"........ Chairman