Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-10-07 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 1980 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Euless City Hall by Chair- man Deithloff. Members & Staff Present Members Absent John Deithloff Carl Tyson Robert McMillon Bob Williamson Ralph Gibson Bob Eden Helen Lightbody Kent Flynn - Director of Planning Becky Null - Recording Secretary James Knight - City Engineer VISITORS Jack Connell Amy Bass David Kirk Sue Connell Billie Walshe Nina Kirk Anita Hill Charles M. Perkins Dorothy Manphew R. W. Hill G. T. Parker Gina Morris Jan Jordan Ray Edwards Jackie Edwards Robert McMillan J. C. Petersen Susan McLendon Leona Sibbett Tom Garcia Frankie Gaillantly Lonnie Sibbett I. Gibeau J. C. Martin B. L. Perkins D. V. Gibeau Ronald Adkison John Gucywa Rita Manuel Don Bass Troy Manuel INVOCATION The invocation was given by Mr. Bob Eden. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. McMillon made a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting dated September 16, 1980, as written. Mr. Williamson seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody and Messrs. McMillon, Williamson, Eden, Gibson and Deithloff Nays: None Page Two, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 7, 1980 Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. I. CONSIDER PLATTING - PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLATTING OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1, VINE ADDITION, LOCATED SOUTH OF AIRPORT FREEWAY AND EAST OF VINE STREET AND NORTH OF WEST EULESS BLVD. Mr. David Hughes, Elliott & Hughes, Inc. , stated he is representing Mr. Kerry McCombs, the owner of the subject property. He stated the lot is 65 feet x 130 feet. He stated that Mr. McCombs intends to build an office building to house his insurance agency. He stated that the structure will be one story with approximately 1,200 square feet. He stated that he has received a copy of the letter from Mr. Kent Flynn and does concur with the letter. He stated that Mr. McCombs wanted to place funds in escrow for his share of perimeter street construction in lieu of making these improvements. Chairman Deithloff requested that the letter be made a part of the minutes. Mr. Flynn stated that Southwestern Bell Telephone Company may need an additional easement which is not on the face of the plat. He stated that Mr. Hughes agreed to work with the phone company to include the easement on the plat before it is recorded. Mr. Eden made a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary and final platting of Lot 3, Block 1, Vine Addition subject to the Planning & Zoning letter dated October 2, 1980. Mrs. Lightbody seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody and Messrs. Eden, McMillon, Gibson, Williamson and Deithloff Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. II. CONSIDER PLATTING - PRELIMINARY PLATTING OF LOTS 1, 2 & 3, BLOCK 1, WESTPARK MEDICAL PLAZA ADDITION, LOCATED EAST OF EULESS WESTPARK 11:) WAY AND SOUTH OF SILVER CREEK DRIVE Page Three, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Comission, October 7, 1980 Mr. David Hughes, Elliott & Hughes, Inc. , stated that the property consists of two acres owned by Mr. Troy M. Fuller, Trustee. He stated that Mr. Fuller proposes to divide this property into three lots. He stated that LOt 1 will be developed as professional office space for a dentist. He stated that Lot 2 will also be developed for medical type uses although there are no firm plans for development of this lot at this time. He stated that Lot 3 is also proposed for medical related facilities. He stated that it was advantageous because of the arrange- ment of the lots to develop all three lots at the same time. He stated that he has received a copy of the Planning & Zoning letter dated Octo- ber 2, 1980, and concurs with the letter. Chairman Deithloff requested that the letter be made a part of the minutes. Mr. McMillon made a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat- ting of Lots 1, 2 & 3, Block 1, Westpark Medical Plaza Addition subject to the Planning & Zoning letter dated October 2, 1980. Mr. Williamson seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: • Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody and Messrs. McMillon, Williamson, Eden, Gibson and Deithloff Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. III. CONSIDER PLATTING - FINAL PLATTING OF LOTS 1, 2 & 3, BLOCK 1, WESTPARK MEDICAL PLAZA ADDITION, LOCATED EAST OF EULESS WESTPARK WAY AND SOUTH OF SILVER CREEK DRIVE Mr. David Hughes, Elliott & Hughes, Inc. , stated that the final plat is the same as the preliminary plat. He stated that he received a copy of the Planning & Zoning letter dated October 2, 1980, and that he con- curs with the letter:. Chairman Deithloff requested that the letter be made a part of the minutes. Mr. Eden made a motion to recommend approval of the final platting of Lots 1, 2 & 3, Block 1, Westpark Medical Plaza Addition. Mrs. Lightbody seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody and Messrs. Eden, Williamson, Gibson, McMillon and Deithloff Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. Page Four, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 7, 1980 IV. CONSIDER PLATTING - FINAL PLATTING OF QUAIL RUN ESTATES, SECTION I, LOCATED EAST OF BAZE DRIVE AND SOUTH OF GLADE ROAD Mr. Ken Nickels, Carter & Burgess, Inc. , 1100 Macon Street, Fort Worth, stated that he is representing Homecraft Land Development. He stated that he has received a copy of the Planning & Zoning letter dated Octo- ber 2, 1980, and is in agreement with the letter. Chairman Deithloff requested that the letter be made a part of the min- utes. Mr. Williamson made a motion to recommend approval of the final platting of Quail Run Estates subject to the Planning & Zoning letter dated Octo- ber 2, 1980. Mr. McMillon seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody and Messrs. Williamson, McMillon, Gibson, Eden and Deithloff Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. V. PUBLIC HEARING - RECONSIDERATION OF ZONING CASE 320 - REQUEST OF GENE WELCH FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM "C-1" AND "PD" ("R-3" DENSITY) TO "C-1" AND "R-5" WITH "CUD" (CONFORMING HOUSING) ON TRACTS 1B2, 6A1 & 6D1, S. HUITT SURVEY, A-705, AND TRACT A, SOMERSET PLACE ADDITION, LOCATED NORTH OF EAST MIDWAY DRIVE AND EAST OF N. MAIN STREET Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents. Mr. Gene Welch with Hank Dickerson Realty in Dallas stated he is represent- ing a Canadian firm who is in the process of selling to a local corporation. He stated they want to zone about 10 acres from North Main Street east to "C-1" for a shopping center with the rest of the property zoned "R-5". They only intend to put 290 units on the property. There will be 3.815 acres included in the park area. He stated that the taxes on the Page Five, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 7, 1980 shopping center and the multi-family would bring in approximately $400,000, and that it would take more than 1,000 houses equivalent to 350 acres of houses to bring in the same amount of taxes. He did not believe there were 350 acres left for single family homes. He said ordinarily a house does not pay for itself as far as taxes are concerned when street repair, fire and police protection, etc. , are figured in; that commercial areas and apartments are needed for an underlying tax base. He felt that this area needs a shopping center. The shopping center will contain a grocery store, savings & loan, restaurant, drug store, variety store, cleaners, dress shop and also offices on the second floor. He stated that the apartments would be approximately 300-400 feet back from Midway Drive with a community building behind the commercial area between Midway and the beginning of the apartments. They intend to put a berm between the residences in Somerset Place Addition and the apartments. He stated that he has never known of an instance where there has been a property devalua- tion because apartments were built. He further stated there is a backup contract on this property with a HUD, FHA builder. He stated that a HUD contractor can come in and buy this property and get a building permit to start building twelve units to the acre and the City cannot stop them. The apartments start out at about 20% government subsidized and 80% at regular rent and can end up being 100% government subsidized. Mr. Eden stated he thought the buffer along Midway up to the "R-5" area across from the residences in Somerset Place might be "R-2" or "R-3". Mr. Welch stated that the usual buffer zoning is from commercial to apartments to residential. He stated that at the Council meeting, some- one in the audience stated they would rather have commercial or industrial than apartments across from the residential, so the developers decided to enlarge the commercial area and decrease the apartment area. Mr. Eden asked if they had occupants in line for the shopping center. Mr. Welch stated they already had some contracts contingent on zoning. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any more proponents. There being none, he asked if there were any opponents. Mr. Jack Connell, 213 Sixpence, stated he is representing the Somerset Place Homeowner's Association made up of 117 homeowners who are opposed to this zoning case. He stated they had submitted letters of opposition and a petition that contains 263 signatures at the August 5th meeting and wanted to resubmit the letters and petition in opposition of this zoning case. Mr. Flynn stated the letters and petition will still apply to this zoning case. Mr. Connell stated that at the last meeting, Mr. Welch said the developers could not provide a buffer zone economically with a lesser density, although ® there has been a buffer of six units per acre provided north of the creek by another developer. He stated that the homeowners were greatly concerned Page Six, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 7, 1980 with having the "R-5" apartments in their backyards, but now Mr. Welch is planning to have a shopping center in their backyards. He stated that the homeowners want a protective buffer of at least 350 feet. He stated they are more opposed to this site plan than the one presented on August 5th. Mr. Robert Hill, 301 Sixpence, stated that there is already plenty of "R-5" zoning. The apartments built to the north are not full, and he does not believe that there is a need for anymore. He expressed disagreement with Mr. Welch regarding whether apartments devalue adjoining property. Mr. Robert McMillan, 207 Primrose, voiced his opposition and stated that it takes him about 15 minutes to get on the freeway now in the mornings. Mr. J. C. Martin, 205 Primrose, stated that North Main Street is the only access to the freeway for the area and felt that it would eventually have to be widened. He stated that Mr. Welch said single family homes could not economically be built on the property, although there are a lot of new single family homes being built to the north at the present time. There being no additional opponents, Chairman Deithloff closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Eden asked Mr. Connell if the commercial as presented tonight is worse than "R-3". Mr. Connell stated it was; that the commercial is excessive. He stated they would rather see it left "R-3". He felt that some form of buffer be provided and does not believe it has to be an earthen wall. He stated they would rather have something with trees that would provide a smooth transition from the residential to the apartments. Mr. Welch stated that the buffer he is suggesting is a berm five or six feet tall planted with trees and bushes. Mr. Eden stated the plan is a good layout, but there is a problem with the homeowners being so close to it. It would bother him if it was in his backyard. He asked what type of buffer the developer would put between the commercial and the existing residential. Mr. Welch stated that a berm could be put along the commercial also. Chairman Deithloff stated that if there were any changes made such as location of buildings, berm, etc., it would have to be on a site plan. Mr. McMillon asked Mr. Welch if it was still not viable to consider a buffer such as single family attached with "R-5" behind it. Mr. Welch stated that the developers have tried it, but it does not work economically or physically. The only place he has seen that done is to the north. He stated that single family owners do not want to buy adja- cent to apartments. (There was an applause from the audience.) He stated that the houses to the north were going to be about 30 feet from the apartments instead of 300 feet as in this case. • Page Seven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 7, 1980 0 Mr. Flynn stated that any motion at this time would be on the site plan that the Commission has. Unless the petitioner requested that the berms, placement of the community building, etc. , be part of the consideration of this site plan, the Commission would consider exactly what is before them at this time which does not include those comments. He told Mr. Welch that if he wanted those amendments made to his request, he would have to ask the Commission to do so. Mr. Welch stated they would like to include that in their request and have it approved on the site plan as to the size, height and width. He could not really speak for the owners. Mr. Flynn informed Mr. Welch he would have to tie down a dimension from the front property line as to how far back they wanted the buffer for the "C-1" area and include it in the "CUD" request. Under the "C-1" zoning, there is no provision for site plan approval for "C-1" zoning. He stated that Mr. Welch would have to amend his request to have "CUD" for open space for that buffer area, set a dimension, set a condition that no use will occur within that setback and that there will be a berm maintained by the developer. They will have to do the same for the location of the community building and set a dimension from the property line for a berm for that area if proposed. Mr. Welch stated he wanted the amendments. Mr. Flynn asked him what dimensions he wanted. Mr. Welch asked Mr. Flynn what his suggestions were. Mr. Flynn stated he did not have one. Mr. Welch proposed a berm at least 20 feet wide and six feet high along Midway Drive to buffer any houses from the entire commercial area. Mr. Eden stated that he could not conscientiously put a shopping center in the backyard of the homeowners. He stated the problem is mainly the location. Mr. Knight stated a berm that high would not stand; it would need to be four or five feet. Mr. McMillon made a motion to recommend denial of Zoning Case 320 as presented. Mr. Eden seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody and Messrs. Eden, McMillon and Williamson Nays: Mr. Deithloff Abstentions: Mr. Gibson Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. ® (Chairman Deithloff recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. for a five minute break.) Page Eight, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 7, 1980 VI. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE 322 - REQUEST OF BRUCE CASBURN FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM "PD" TO "R-2" ON TIFFANY MEADOWS, TRACTS 1A2, lA3 AND PORTIONS OF TRACTS lAl & lA1B, J.E. FIELD SURVEY, A-540, LOCATED SOUTH OF GLADE ROAD AND WEST OF NORTH MAIN STREET Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents. Mr. Bruce Casburn, 4818 Crestmont Court, Arlington, stated that because of the economic situation they have decided not to go through with the cluster type townhomes as previously planned. He stated they are now asking for "R-2" zoning and have a contract to sell the property to L & N Land, Inc. who wants to use the property for single family attached. Mr. Flynn asked Mr. Casburn if he was aware that "R-2" also allows duplexes. Mr. Casburn stated he was; that they had originally submitted a preliminary plat for duplexes, but withdrew it because of a misunderstanding of the street requirements. Since then they have contracted with L & N Land, Inc. Mr. Flynn stated the request would be considered on the fact that the property could be used for duplexes, single family attached or single family. Chairman Deithloff asked Mr. Casburn if he had any definitive plans. Mr. Casburn stated that L & N Land, Inc. plans to submit a preliminary plat for single family attached. Mr. Steven Crim with L & N Land, Inc. stated they just became involved with this property about a week ago and are having a feasibility analysis study conducted at this time. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any more proponents. There being none, he asked for any opponents. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Eden made a motion to recommend approval of Zoning Case 322 as presented. Mr. Gibson seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: 41:) Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody and Messrs. Eden, Gibson, Williamson, McMillon and Deithloff Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. Page Nine, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 7, 1980 C VII. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE 323 - REQUEST OF STEVE CRIM FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM "L-1" TO "R-5" TO "C-1" AND "PD" ("R-3" DENSITY) TO "I-1" ON PORTION OF TRACT 2, A. BRADFORD SURVEY, A-152, PORTION OF TRACT 2, S. HUITT SURVEY, A-705 AND TRACT 1B, S. HUITT SURVEY, A-705 Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents. Mr. Steven Crim, L & N Land, Inc. , 2001 Bryan Tower, Dallas, stated they received the tract designated as Tract 3 along with the property now known as Woodcreek from Kenneth Goode. The property is now zoned "PD" ("R-3" density) , however, they desire to rezone it to "I-1" and join it to Midway Square as an office/showroom complex. He stated they have someone inter- ested in exactly 20 acres for a multi-family project from the creek north to Harwood on Tract 1, and that is why it is 4.96 acres instead of 5 acres. The creek comes through Tract 2 and does not leave enough usable land for multi-family which made it more feasible for offices. He stated they intend to ask for a variance to leave the creek in its natural state. Chairman Deithloff read the Planning & Zoning letter dated October 2, 1980, and asked that it be made a part of the minutes. He asked if there were any other proponents. There being none, he asked for any opponents. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Eden asked what the zoning is for the property south of Tract 3. Mr. Flynn stated that Euless Main Place is being developed as single family. He stated that International Drive separates Tract 3 from a proposed school site and will be extended south along the eastern boundary of Euless Main Place. To the east of that there is additional limited industrial zoning which is part of the Euless Main Place tract, but is not under construction at this time. Mr. Eden asked what type of screening fence is required around "R-5". Mr. Flynn stated that a minimum six foot solid screening fence is required between single family and "R-5" and between "C-1" and "R-5". Mr. Williamson made a motion to recommend approval of Zoning Case 323 subject to the Planning & Zoning letter dated October 2, 1980. Mr. McMillon seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: CAyes: Mrs. Lightbody and Messrs. Williamson, McMillon, Eden, Gibson and Deithloff Nays: None Page Ten, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 7, 1980 CChairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. VIII. CONSIDER PLATTING - PRELIMINARY PLATTING OF MCCORMICK FARM ADDITION, LOCATED EAST OF NORTH MAIN STREET AND NORTH OF LITTLE BEAR CREEK Mr. Michael Crow, Crow Development Co. , stated they are the owners and developers of this property. He stated that he received a copy of the Planning & Zoning letter dated October 2, 1980, and is in agreement with the letter. Chairman Deithloff requested that the letter be made a part of the minutes. He also asked Mr. Flynn to explain the third paragraph of the letter. Mr. Flynn explained that the actual dedication of the flood plain area as a park will not occur until final platting should the City Council decide to accept it. He stated that the City Council has not actually decided to accept the park land. He stated that should the City Council decide not to take the park at the time of final platting, the developer will then have to comply with the conditions of Article III, Section 3d3 of the Subdivision Ordinance to provide necessary drainage and flowage easements and perpetual maintenance agreement. He stated that in con- sidering this preliminary plat, the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council will also consider the developer's request to leave Little Bear Creek in its natural state. He stated that City Staff has received and approved the necessary engineering study. Mr. Crow stated that they were in agreement with those comments. Mr. Flynn stated that the street names that appear on the plat have been reviewed by the Street Naming Committee and two names have changed. He stated that Springridge Lane has been changed to Spring Lane and Country Lane has been changed to Countryside Lane. He stated that additional easements may be needed upon review by the utility companies prior to final platting. Mr. Eden made a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary platting of McCormick Farm Addition subject to the Planning & Zoning letter dated October 2, 1980. Mrs. Lightbody seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody and Messrs. Eden, McMillon, Williamson, Gibson and Deithloff Nays: None C Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. Page Eleven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 7, 1980 C IX. CONSIDER PLATTING - FINAL PLATTING OF MCCORMICK FARM ADDITION, PHASE I, LOCATED EAST OF NORTH MAIN STREET AND NORTH OF LITTLE BEAR CREEK Mr. Michael Crow stated that they have received a copy of the Planning & Zoning letter dated October 2, 1980, and take exception to items #1 & #2 on the second page. He stated that they wanted to have two landscaped medians, and felt that the objections regarding maintenance and traffic safety could be worked out. He stated that the landscape materials could be chosen so as to eliminate these problems. He stated that it would add distinctly to the subdivision and the City to have a more attractive landscaped median. He stated that he realized this was contrary to City policy, although it is not contrary to anything in the City ordinances. He introduced Mr. Cal Taylor, the landscape architect. Mr. Cal Taylor stated that plant material will increase the property's value. He stated that, hopefully, having a well landscaped entrance to the subdivision would cause the homeowners to want equally well landscaped lawns. He stated that the median will separate the ingress/egress traffic causing less potential for accidents. The plantings proposed for the median and the right-of-way would be low maintenance material, i.e. , ground cover that would require watering only. He stated they are suggesting trees such as sweet gum, pine and crepe myrtles which would provide a variety of color. He stated that the trees are buffering the adjacent property from sound, fumes, and noise. He stated that the landscaped areas would be irrigated. He stated that there would be a low sign in the median identifying the name of the subdivision approximately 24 to 30 inches tall which would not block vision of traffic. Behind that and along the property line would be a wooden fence. He stated the traffic safety has been observed in at least three ways. There would be low maintenance plant material, site distances have been adequately taken care of and the traffic going in and out of the subdivision has been separated. He stated that it would not be conducive for the developer to put in the median if he cannot landscape it. Mr. Crow stated that in their subdivisions they try to add nicer fences, put in more landscaping and try to have a more attractive living environ- ment. He stated that there will be an underground automatic watering system put in at their expense. He stated that the minimal cost of the water and electricity used should not be much of a problem to the City. Mr. Flynn asked if the median design is symmetrical about the centerline of the right-of-way. Mr. Crow stated that they would make that change. C Page Twelve, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 7, 1980 Mr. Flynn stated that there are no ordinances covering these issues, however, it is the consensus of the members that represent department heads affected by development and the City Manager that if there is going to be a median in this development, that it be concrete without vegetation or trees. Mr. Crow stated that he thought a concrete median was less attractive than no median at all. He stated that he would much more prefer a landscaped median and the trees could be chosen so that they would grow up rather than out and would not interfere with the visibility of the traffic. Mr. Williamson asked about the placement of the median. Mr. Taylor stated that the median would be recessed back from the street. He stated that the trees in the median would be behind the fence line and would not obstruct any view of traffic. Mr. Flynn stated that the fences are placed on the property lines that have been clipped back for a site triangle. He asked if the central median as proposed would have a restriction against trees or any vertical projections in front of that triangle. Mr. Taylor stated that the sign would be on the front part of the median, and the trees in the median would be well behind the sign area. He stated that the first tree would probably be about 40 feet back from the property line. Mr. Flynn stated that one of the reasons for the DRC's concern about obstruction was the recent court ruling finding cities responsible for maintenance of right-of-ways regarding street signage. He asked for the City Engineer's opinion as to whether it would be permissible to set the median back from the intersection. Mr. Knight stated that normally it would have to be even with the property line. Mr. Crow stated that because of the configuration of the property and the layout of the lots, they would lose one or more lots if they have to meet the request that all lots be perpendicular or radial to the centerline. He stated that it reduces the revenues they will have, and it could down- grade the quality of fence they use, the kind of landscaping they can do around the neighborhood, etc. He stated that except for the water and sewer service, it will not reduce their cost. He stated that he felt they would have a better quality neighborhood if they are able to maintain it as they have it designed right now. Mr. Eden made a motion to recommend approval of final platting of McCormick Farm Addition, Phase I, subject to all of the Planning & Zoning letter dated October 2, 1980. Mr. McMillon seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody and Messrs. Eden, McMillon, Williamson, Gibson and Deithloff Nays: None Page Thirteen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 7, 1980 CChairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. / airman C