Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-02-06 Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 6, 1979 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Euless City Hall by Chairman Carl Tyson. Other members present were Messrs. John Deithloff, Bob Eden, Neal Adams, Chris Jones, Sam Munir, and Mrs. Helen Lightbody. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Rick Barnes and Recording Secretary Becky Gunter. VISITORS Visitors in attendance were Messrs. Robert M. Pippin, Beryl Stewart, Mike Bowman, Charles Kimbrough, Gary Fox, Royd G. Irvin, Joe F. Moreland, W. T. Geer, C. B. Moon, James Ferrell , Vernon Notley, Nevin Carver, J. Medley, H. R. Richardson, Al Heinemann, W. Denny, J. D. Alexander, Bill Brazil , James A. Titus, Troy M. Fuller, Bill Pasteur, Steve Elliott, Walter Elliott, Mesdms. Royd G. Irvin, Opal J. Geer, Billie Jean Moon, Medley, Leona Richardson, Betty Heinemann, James A. Titus, Peggy McCorkle, Judy Biggs, Sue Carnes, and Willie Mae McCormick. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Mr. Eden. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Jones made a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting dated January 16, 1979, as written. Mr. Adams seconded the motion. Chairman Tyson stated the city attorney, Bob McFarland, has submitted a letter regarding the minutes of the last meeting. Page two of the letter states that "The second motion that captioned zoning case be finally reported to the City Council , unfavorably as to its adoption, was seconded and properly before the Commission for a vote upon the question. The final vote should be recorded as 2 ayes, 1 nay and 2 abstentions. Because three favorable votes would be required for adoption (a majority of the quorum present) such motion failed adoption and the minutes should be corrected to so reflect. Because no further action was taken upon the matter, Zoning Case 279 remains before the Commission for further action. Mr. Jones amended his motion to reflect the failure of Mr. Deithloff's motion recommending denial of change of zoning from "R-1" Single Family Residential to "R-3" Multi-Family: Limit of Twelve Units Per Acre on Lmt 6, Ray Shelton Subdivision on page six of the regular minutes dated January 16, 1979. (Page Two, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, February 6, 1979) Mr. Adams stated he accepts the amend- ment and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Jones, Adams, Deithloff, Eden, Tyson, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. CONTINUATION - ZONING CASE 279. REQUEST OF BART JOHNSON, JR. AND COY MOON FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM "R-1" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO "R-3" MULTI-FAMILY: LIMIT OF TWELVE UNITS PER ACRE ON LOT 6, RAY SHELTON SUBDIVISION LOCATED NORTH OF HARWOOD ROAD, WEST OF FULLER-WISER ROAD Mr. Jones disqualified himself from this case and took a place in the audience. ® Chairman Tyson stated the public hearing has been closed on this zoning case but can be re-opened if the Commission so desires. The public hearing was not re-opened. Chairman Tyson stated the property to the east of the subject property is a single family area and the property to the west is multi-family. He, therefore, feels that a transition between the two properties is necessary. He would, however, prefer not to have two story apartments next to the single family. Mr. Adams stated the only means of restricting the structure is to have a Planned Development. There was a dis- cussion at the previous meeting of a possible Planned Development which would include some duplex-type structures along the east side of the property adjoin- ing the single family and higher density apartments on the west side to main- tain the same density as in "R-3" zoning. This would require a site plan and a feasibility study as to what exactly would go in. Some of the concern at the last hearing was the number of uses allowed in "R-3" zoning other than multi-family dwellings. Discussion Mr. Eden stated a two-story house could be built next to the single family subdivision; he does not see the difference between this and a two-story quadraplex. (Page Three, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, February 6, 1979) Chairman Tyson stated there are two alternatives; "R-3" zoning or "PD". He feels the requirement of a Planned Development would cause undue hardship on the owner. Therefore, he would be in favor of the "R-3". Mr. Adams stated the single family to the east is being developed at this time, whereas the multi-family to the west is very speculative. Therefore, the property owners to the east should be given greater consideration. Mr. Munir stated he had reviewed the nine uses allowed in the "R-3" zoning district and the only objectionable use would be a hotel . Mr. Adams stated the time element previously discussed was 12 years. A feasibility study has not been performed on the property to determine if in fact it is economically feasible to con- struct quadrap&exes on the property and there is no way of knowing for sure what will ultimately be developed. He feels more study is needed and is opposed to zoning the property "R-3" without further study. Mr. Eden made a motion to recommend approval of change of zoning from "R-1" Single Family Residential to "R-3" 41) Multi-Family: Limit of Twelve Units Per Acre on Lot 6, Ray Shelton Subdivision. Mrs. Lightbody seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Mr. Eden, Mrs. Lightbody, Messrs. Tyson and Munir Nays: Messrs. Deithloff and Adams Abstain: Mr. Jones Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. Mr. Jones returned to his place on the Commission. II . CONTINUATION - ZONING CASE 280. REQUEST OF BILL BRAZIL AND JAMES TITUS FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM "R-1" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO "I-1" LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ON TRACTS 4E AND 4E1 , LEVI FRANKLIN SURVEY, ABSTRACT 513 LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 157, NORTH OF LITTLE BEAR CREEK BRIDGE 41) (Page Four, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, February 6, 1979) Chairman Tyson stated the rules of a public hearing; proponents will be heard first and then any opponents. He opened the public hearing. Mr. Elliott, with the firm of Elliott and Hughes Engineering located at 1004 West Euless Blvd. in Euless, stated he is representing Mr. Bill Brazil and James Titus in their request for change of zoning from "R-1" Single Family Residential to "L-I" Limited Industrial . There are several uses permitted in Limited Industrial which are more restricted than those in Light Industrial , which was originally requested. However, due to the nature of Mr. Brazil 's business, Cody Air Conditioning and service, Limited Industrial is the zoning best suitable. The property is located almost directly across from the proposed underpass of the intersection of Cheek Sparger Road and State Highway 157. The property is bounded on the east by a one-hundred foot tower in an easement granted to Texas Power and Light Company. They propose to construct a street with a cul -de-sac into the property which will allow approximately four buildable sites on the north and south sides of the street. The western portion of the property would not be developed at this time. It would be reserved for some type of office complex or other usage within the zoning district. Accodding to the zoning ordinance, this zoning district was designed for uses more suited to certain industrial activities that will be compatible with both the airport and prospective resi- dential uses. 41) Chairman Tyson stated the original request was for "I-1" Light Industrial . Mr. Elliott stated this is correct. However, the request was amended to "L-I" Limited Industrial , which is more restrictive. He stated about an 8000 square foot office and service center is proposed on the property with about twelve to fourteen employees. After the completion of the freeway, all of the property north of Bear Creek will be one- way going north, which will include the portion of State Highway 157 in front of the subject property. He stated he has a letter from Doctor Ralph Roberts and Doctor Hyde, owners of the property to the south, which states they are not opposed to the proposed "L-I" Limited Industrial District. Chairman Tyson requested the letter from Doctors Roberts and Hyde be made a part of the minutes. Mr. Adams asked if there will be outside storage. Mr. Elliott stated it is possible. However, if there is, a screening wall will be constructed. Mr. Jones asked if the building will be one or two story. Mr. Elliott stated it probably will be two story. (Page Five, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, February 6, 1979) Mrs. Lightbody inquired about the remaining property which will not be a part of Mr. Brazil 's office building. Mr. Elliott stated it will be put on the market to sell . Chairman Tyson asked Mr. Elliott if he was aware of the requirement of a site plan at the time of platting. Mr. Elliott stated this would not be a problem. Chairman Tyson asked if there were any other proponents. There were none. He asked if there were any opponents. There were none. He declared the public hearing closed. Chairman Tyson asked if any of the property owners which were notified of the zoning request were in the audience. There were none. He requested the zoning case summary be made a part of the minutes. Chairman Tyson stated this will be the first zoning case in this area and, therefore, it will set the trend of 41) the surrounding property. Mr. Adams stated he feels this will be compatible with either multi-family or commercial zoning which is within the master plan. Mr. Adams made a motion to recommend approval of change of zoning from "R-1" Single Family Residential to "L-I" Limited Industrial on Tracts 4E and 4E1 , Levi Franklin Survey, Abstract 513. Mr. Deithloff seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Adams, Deithloff, Eden, Tyson, Jones, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. III . PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE 278. REQUEST OF GEORGE NOKES FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM "C-2" COMMUNITY BUS- INESS DISTRICT TO "SP" SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OUTSIDE STORAGE OF RENTAL CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT ON LOT 8 AND A PORTION OF LOT 7, HARWOOD PLAZA ADDITION LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 780 FEET SOUTH OF HARWOOD ROAD, EAST OF STATE HIGHWAY 157 (Page Six, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, February 6, 1979) Chairman Tyson stated the same rules of a public hearing apply to this hearing. He declared the public hearing open. Mr. Bowman, of 300 Baker in Hurst, stated he is the owner/broker for Century 21 Mike Bowman Realtors and is representing Mr. George Nokes in his request for change of zoning from "C-2" Community Business District to "SP" Specific Use Permit to allow a rental contractors business. Mr. Gary Fox and Mr. Charles Kembro, who are the owners of ARA Rental desire to purchase the property and build approximately a 4000 square foot building of brick veneer. It is proposed to asphalt the entire property. Construction will begin this year if approved. Mr. Jones asked if this would be storage only or would it include rental . Mr. Bowman stated it would be a storage area, located to the rear of the property, as well as a rental office in front. Chairman Tyson asked the distance the building would be from State Highway 157. Mr. Bowman stated it would be about 75 to 100 feet. Chairman Tyson asked if there is a setback requirement. Mr. Barnes stated the setback require- ment, as well as other restrictions, can be included within the Specific Use Permit. Mr. Adams asked how far back Gibsons is set from the street. Mr. Stewart stated Gibsons is set about 325 feet from the street. Mr. Adams asked if there will be a screening fence for the outside storage area. Mr. Bowman stated they will do whatever is necessary. Chairman Tyson stated he feels a six- foot permanent screening fence should be required of wood or comparable. Mr. Fox stated he would be in favor of a six-foot wood fence. (Paqe Seven, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, February 6, 1979) Chairman Tyson asked if there were any other proponents. There were none. He asked if there were any opponents. There were none. He declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Jones stated a site plan can be required with a Specific Use Permit and should be considered. Mr. Adams stated any restrictions desired can be placed on the Specific Use Permit. Therefore, he does not see the necessity of a site plan. Mr. Munir asked the proposed number of parking spaces. Mr. Bowman stated there will be about twenty spaces. Chairman Tyson stated he is concerned with outside storage in front of the building. Mr. Munir stated this could be con- trolled by the allowed setback. Mr. Bowman stated he would agree to a setback of 75 feet behind the right-of-way. Chairman Tyson stated he is concerned with the possibility of vehicles backing into the highway. Mr. Adams stated this could be pro- hibited with a stipulation that the parking be designed in such a fashion not to allow backing into Highway 157 from a parked space. Mr. Barnes stated the highway depart- ment has regulations concerning drive access and they are not going to allow a continuous drive approach. Therefore, there will probably be two twenty- foot drive approaches, one at each end of the property with a curb in the middle. The highway department would not approve the drive access if a vehicle would be forced to back into the highway. Also, by our ordinances, we cannot allow maneuvering of vehicles in the public right-of-way. Discussion Mr. Eden made a motion to recommend approval of change of zoning from "C-2" Community Business District to "SP" Specific Use Permit to allow outside storage of rental contractors equipment on Lot 8 and a portion of Lot 7, Harwood Plaza Addition subject to a six-foot screening fence of wood or equivalent around the outside storage area, a build- ing setback of seventy-five feet from the right-of-way, and no outside storage to the front of the building. Mr. Deithloff seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: 41) (Paqe Eight, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, February 6, 1979) Ayes: Messrs. Eden, Deithloff, Adams, Tyson, Jones, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. IV. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE 281 . REQUEST OF DORAL PROPERTIES, INC. • FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM "R-1" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND "R-5" MULTI-FAMILY: LIMIT OF 24 UNITS PER ACRE TO "R-5" MULTI -FAMILY: LIMIT OF 24 UNITS PER ACRE AND "R-1" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RESPECTIVELY, ON PORTIONS OF TRACTS 2B, 2B1B, AND 2C, W. G. MATTHEWS SURVEY, ABSTRACT 1052 LOCATED EAST OF SOUTH MAIN STREET, NORTH OF WHITNER DRIVE, AND SOUTH OF SOUTH EULESS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL II) Chairman Tyson stated the same rules of a public hearing apply to this public hearing. He opened the public hearing. Mr. Plunk, president of Doral Properties, with offices at 13740 Midway Drive in Dallas, stated they are the owners and proposed developers of the subject seventy acre tract located at the northeast corner of Whitner Drive and South Main Street. Their request is basically an adjustment of zoning lines between properties that are already zoned "R-1" and "R-5". The adjustment is required to conform to the proposed site plan which has been submitted. There is an approximate 10.2 acre tract already zoned "R-5" at this location which is buffered from South Main by a tract that is zoned for Local Business. The existing "R-5" zoning has been on the site since about 1972 add the Local Business tract has been so zoned since 1965. There is an existing apartment complex and mobile home park to the south of the property. They intend to extend an existing street from South Main into the proposed addition with single family residences along each side of said street. Chairman Tyson asked if there were any other proponents. There were none. He asked if there were any opponents. Mr. Nevin Carver of 34 Kenneth, stated he is representing the residents of the mobile home park with the authority from Doyle Winters, the owner of Knob Hill Mobile Home Park. They are opposed to high-density apartment zoning on the subject property. Upon checking with the Euless Police Department records, a high vandalism rate is evident within the area. Because of their strategic location and unique idea in housing owner- ship, the 238 residents of Knob Hill wish to express their opposition to the rezoning request. He stated, as in New York, where there is a high population in a small area, crime and vandalism increases. They would prefer the property to remain zoned single family. (Page Nine, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, February 6, 1979) Mr. Adams asked Mr. Carver if he was aware of the existing "R-5" zoned property just west of the subject property. Mr. Carver stated he was. Mr. Adams asked Mr. Carver if he feels the relocation of the multi-family zoned property to the southeast as proposed would make a substantial difference. Mr. Carver stated he does. Mr. Adams stated at the present time, Whitner Road does not extend to the mobile home park. Therefore, the only access is off of South Pipeline. If Whitner were extended, this could provide an alternate access to the mobile home park. Mr. Carver stated it could if the park residents allowed it. Mr. Plunk stated Whitner would not connect with Karen Drive within the mobile home park. Karen does, however, extend to the north property line. Chairman Tyson asked if there were any other opponents. Mr. Medley of 12 Kenneth, stated he would like to defend the mobile home residents' way of life. He is not opposed to progress. However, he detests people belittleing people who live in a mobile home. They take pride in their possessions and just want to be left alone. Their main concern is vandalism. Ms. Carnes of 108 Karen, stated there is a steady flow of children into the park from the apartment area. They climb the fence and take things from the residents. Also, it has been stated that a buffer is desired between the residential and multi-family districts. When the residents obtain their deeds, the property will be single family. Therefore, they want a buffer between their homes and the apartments. Mr. Plunk stated it is not their desire to downgrade any of the surrounding property. The plan submitted is a combination of about nine months of work between themselves, the city staff, engineers, and planners. The plan does not increase the densEty of the property. The original plan provided a row of single family to the northeast of the proposed apartments and brought in a street from Whitner. However, after discussion with the city staff, there is a plan by which Whitner does not cross the creek. Therefore, the apartment boundaries have been adjusted. They feel the existing creek which traverses from the park to the northwest is a much more desirable separation between the single family and apartments than an arbitrary line drawn across the ground. (Paqe Ten, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, February 6, 1979) Mr. Vernon Notley asked why the plat indicates Whitner as a through street if as much time was involved in the develop- ment of the plan as indicated. Mr. Plunk stated Whitner is a dedicated street and there was a question as to the final outcome of the street. Mr. Notley stated the only opening to the north of the park is a pedestrian walkway. If the apartments are approved, it will probably have to be closed which will require the children to go to school by way of South Pipeline and up South Main. Mr. Eden asked the purpose of shifting the apartment zoning. Mr. Plunk stated they prefer a direct entrance to the residential district. If the zoning remains as it is, access to the residential district would be through the apartments. Chairman Tyson requested the zoning case summary be made a part of the minutes. Chairman Tyson asked if there were any 41) other opponents. There were none. He declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Adams stated with the present zoning, the apartments would be split; apartments would be on each side of Landover Drive. Mr. Adams made a motion to recommend approval of change of zoning from "R-1" Single Family Residential and "R-5" Multi-Family: Limit of 24 Units Per Acre to "R-5" Multi-Family: Limit of 24 Units Per Acre and "R-1" Single Family Residential , respectively, on portions of Tracts 2B, 2616, and 2C, W. G. Matthews Survey, Abstract 1052, as requested. Mr. Jones seconded the motion. Discussion The vote on Mr. Adams' motion was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Adams, Jones, Deithloff, Eden, Tyson, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. Chairman Tyson informed the audience that the City Council public hearing on this case will probably be February 27th. However, this should be verified with the City Secretary. (Page Eleven, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, February 6, 1979) V. CONSIDER PRELIMINARY PLATTING - TWIN CREEK ESTATES. 200 LOTS LO- CATED EAST OF SOUTH MAIN STREET, NORTH OF WHITNER DRIVE, AND SOUTH OF SOUTH EULESS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Chairman Tyson asked Mr. Plunk if he was aware of the recommendations of the Street Naming Committee. Mr. Plunk stated he was not. Chairman Tyson read the recommendations of the Street Naming Committee as follows: "Use the alternate name of Landover Drive in place of Parkside Drive and let Ascot Drive continue on around and to the south replacing the designated Westway Drive name." Mr. Plunk asked if Westway Drive could remain rather than the name of Parkside Drive. Mr. Adams stated he is a member of the Street Naming Committee and the reason for the change from Westway Drive is that there exists a Westpark Way which is very similar. Also, there exists a Park Drive. Mr. Plunk stated that Parkside, then, would be changed to Landover Drive. Chairman Tyson asked Mr. Plunk if he was aware of the engineer's letter. Mr. Plunk stated Mr. Lynch had discussed the letter with Mr. Clegg of Doral Properties. They in turn discussed the letter and have no objections. Chairman Tyson stated each item of the engineer's letter, which is to be made appart of the minutes, will be discussed individually. Mr. Barnes stated, concerning item one, the right-of-way varies on Main Street and the actual pavement width is not shown on the plat. They, therefore, want to say that if there is not already 92 feet of right-of-way provided for sidewalks and utilities, it will need to be dedicated. Mr. Plunk stated there will probably be three final plats; the residential property, the commercial , and the multi- family. At the time the commercial property is platted, they will adjust the right-of-way line to allow 92 feet. (Page Twelve, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, February 6, 1979) Chairman Tyson stated the next item refers to a six-inch water line along the east side of Main Street. Mr. Plunk stated there is an existing two-inch line on the west side of Main Street. He asked if there would be any participation in the cost of the water line since their property would only be abutting on one side of the line. Mr. Lynch stated no additional pro-rata would be required from the homeowners of Cedar Hills Estates on the west side of Main Street whether they remain tied into the two-inch or if they later tie into the six-inch line. Chairman Tyson stated the third item concerns the sanitary sewer service to the commercial property. This would be provided through the multi-family tract at the time of platting. Mr. Plunk stated he agrees with this. Chairman Tyson stated item four refers to the development of Landover Drive to Main Street at the time the residential property is developed. Mr. Plunk stated they plan to pave Landover Drive. However, what is the city' s assessment policy concerning the existing land owners to the north. The street is dedicated but not improved. They request that the city improve the western portion of Landover Drive and assess each land owner. Chairman Tyson asked Mr. Lynch if he is requesting the entire street to be improved at this time, or only Mr. Plunk's portion. Mr. Adams stated basically, Mr. Plunk is requesting to pay only for half of the improvement of Landover Drive if he is required to pave all of the street. Mr. Lynch stated this is a question which must be answered by the City Council . Participation by the city depends on funds available. Chairman Tyson stated item five refers to an existing sewer line in the proposed Westway Drive and the possible necessity of relocating a portion of the line. Mr. Plunk stated he agrees with this. Chairman Tyson stated item six refers to a possible alternate access which would allow the termination of Whitner Drive in the vicinity of the creek and would eliminate the necessity for the construction of a bridge. He stated his plat indicates a cul-de-sac on each side of the creek. He asked if the construction of Whitner Drive will take place with the development of the multi-family property or will money be escrowed for its development. (Page Thirteen, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, February 6, 1979) Mr. Lynch stated the multi-family tract is not being platted at this time. Pro-rata escrow will probably be required on the eastern half of Whitner Drive rather than actual construction since the property to the south may develop in a different manner than is indicated. By not developing Whitner Drive at this time, there would be more flexibility to allow its possible abandonment and relocation if desired. If Whitner is aban- doned, the escrow monies would be refundable. Discussion Mr. Plunk stated his agreement with item six. Chairman Tyson stated item seven con- cerns the drainage of the property. Mr. Plunk stated a separate letter requesting an open ditch with a pilot channel has been submitted. Chairman Tyson stated he has a copy of the letter, which is to be made a part of the minutes. Mr. Eden asked Mr. Lynch if the request conforms with the city requirements. Mr. Lynch stated it does. He stated for standard drainage channel improvements, unless a variance is granted, a developer will be required to concrete-line the entire channel . Mr. Plunk has requested a variance from this requirement in order to protect the environs of the addition. The minimum width allowable is six feet and would require per- petual maintenance agreements by all of the property owners adjacent to the ditches. Basically, the request is for a pilot channel which will have a con- crete bottom with improved side slopes per the minimum slope requirements. Cross sections, key points and other calculations have been submitted which indicate the channels can meet the city requirements and are able to maintain the 100 year storm within the easement which will be dedicated at the time of final platting. Mr. Jones asked the average depth and width of the ditches. Mr. Lynch stated they will be about three to four feet deep, the bottom width will be about six feet with a two to one side slope, and the maximum width at the top would be about twenty-six feet. Chairman Tyson stated the perpetual maintenance agreement would allow the city access to the ditches for the purpose of cleaning them if necessary, assessing the property owners in this event. { (Page Fourteen, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, February 6, 1979) Mr. Lynch stated this is correct. If a property owner refused to maintain his portion of the channel , this would allow the city access to make the maintenance improvements. Chairman Tyson inquired about the means by which the property owners would be informed of the perpetual maintenance agreement. Mr. Lynch stated it would be a deed restriction which would be filed with the plat. Mr. Adams stated the only difference would be that a private deed restriction is enforceable only by the property owners, whereas this would be enforceable by the city as well as the property owners. Mr. Adams made a motion to recommend preliminary plat approval of Twin Creek Estates subject to the engineer's letter, the stubbing of Creekside Drive to the south, the closing of Dickey Drive to the south, and the recommendations of the Street Naming Committee. Mr. Deithloff seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: ® Ayes: Messrs. Adams, Deithloff, Eden, Tyson, Jones, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. VI . CONSIDER PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLATTING - SOMERSET PLACE, TRACT 27-B, BLOCK C, LO- CATED EAST OF NORTH MAIN STREET, SOUTH OF MIDWAY DRIVE Mr. Elliott, with the firm of Elliott and Hughes Engineering, stated he is representing Mr. Royd Irvin in his request for plat approval of Tract 27-B, Block C, of Somerset Place Addition. Mr. Irvin desires preliminary and final plat approval on this tract to allow the construc- tion of a car wash for which the required zoning has already been approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council . He stated he received the engineer's letter which states the staff has reviewed the preliminary and final plat which meets all of the rules and regulations of the city. It has, however, been requested that a ten-foot utility easement for the sanitary sewer be dedicated by separate instrument. This is agreeable with Mr. Irvin. 100 Mr. Adams asked if there might be a problem obtaining the ten-foot easement behind Lot 27-A. C (Page Fifteen, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, February 6, 1979) Mr. Elliott stated Mr. Irvin is the trustee of Lot 27-A and, therefore, would not be a problem. Chairman Tyson requested the eingineer's letter be made a part of the minutes. Mr. Eden made a motion to recommend preliminary and final plat approval of Lot 27-B, Block C, Somerset Place Addition, subject to the engineer's letter. Mr. Jones seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Eden, Jones, Deithloff, Adams, Tyson, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. VII . CONSIDER PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLATTING - WILSHIRE VILLAGE SQUARE. 17 LOTS LO- CATED EAST OF WILSHIRE DRIVE AND NORTH OF KYNETTE DRIVE Messrs. Adams and Deithloff removed themselves from the Commission due to interests in the subject project. Mr. Elliott stated he is representing the owner of the subject property, Vantage Corporation. The property is under contract to Euless Development Corporation of which Mr. Neal Adams is a partner and Mr. Troy Fuller is the president. The request for plat approval is on a tract which contains seventeen duplex lots. At the time of the zoning change request, a plat was submitted which indicated a street that ran into the addition from the south and then turned to the east, dead-ending into a piece of property which is also owned by Vantage Corporation. At the zoning hearing, concern was expressed by citizens that own property to the south about that street being opened up to the public. Therefore, they propose a cul-de-sac on the property. The property is of such a design that it does not allow much flexability. Therefore, the cul-de-sac they propose is a fifty-foot radius, which is the standard size for a residential development. He stated they received the engineer's letter which raises a question concerning the cul-de-sac radius and length. The normally accepted length is 400 feet whereas they propose a distance of 425 feet. However, in attempting to meet the desires of the people to the south in their request to limit the amount of traffic flow, he requests approval of the plats as submitted. ID (Page Sixteen, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, February 6, 1979) Mr. Lynch stated this plat points out a situation that needs to be addressed at this point. Currently the Subdivision Ordinance requires a sixty-foot radius for cul-de-sacs. Most cities, partic- ularly in residential areas, allow a fifty-foot radius, this being the property line radius and not actual curb radius. In researching the situation, fifty- foot has been the normal radius approved in residential developments in Euless. Basically, this became a policy set by the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission many years ago. However, in the absence of a policy for developments in districts less restrictive than "R-1", the staff recommends that consideration be given to an ordinance revision allowing fifty-foot radiuses in single family residential districts and in other higher zoning categories as may be desired by the Commission. Mr. Eden asked Mr. Lynch if he had a recommendation in this particular instance. Mr. Lynch stated he did not; both the fifty-foot and sixty-foot radiuses have merits. Further information from the applicant may make a decision easier or even negate the need to require the sixty-foot radius. Because of the proposed number of drive approaches, there will not be sufficient room to park in the street without blocking a driveway. Chairman Tyson stated he would prefer 41) input from the fire marshal concerning the radius required for emergency equipment before considering a recommendation. He requested the engineer's letter be made a part of the minutes. Mr. Barnes stated twenty-five feet is required to turn the fire engines around. Therefore, with a fifty-foot radius, even with vehicles parked on each side, at least twenty-five feet wou'd remain. Mr. Elliott stated if a sixty-foot radius is required, it would be necessary to request a variance to the rear yard requirement. He presented a comparison of the plat with a fifty-foot and sixty-foot radius which is to be made a part of the minutes. Mr. Jones made a motion to recommend preliminary and final plat approval of Wilshire Village Square as presented with the fifty-foot radius cul-de-sac. Mr. Munir seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Jones, Munir, Eden, Tyson, and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Abstain: Messrs. Adams and Deithloff 0 Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. 4;) (Page Seventeen, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, February 6, 1979) VIII . ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11 :25 p.m. Approved: Chairman / 0