Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-07-15 F . Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 1980 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Euless City Hall by Chairman John Deithloff. Other members present were Messrs. Bob Williamson, Ralph Gibson, Robert McMillon, Bob Eden, Carl Tyson, and Mrs. Helen Lightbody. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Kent Flynn and Recording Secretary Becky Null. VISITORS Visitors in attendance were Messrs: Melvin Best, Earl Heitman, Mike Polich, John Howes, Roland Knott, Tim Black, Jim Tonick, Ayub Sandhu, Kenneth F. Chenault, George d'Hemecourt, Keith Wallace, and Joe Moreland, and Mesdms: Willie Mae McCormick, Sherron Hall, Billie Heitman, Karen Polich, Jacqueline Howes, Jo Dickey, and Jacqueline Knott. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Mrs. Helen Lightbody. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Williamson made a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting dated July 1, 1980, as written. Mr. McMillon seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Williamson, McMillon, Gibson, Tyson, Eden, Deithloff and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. I. CONTINUATION - ZONING CASE 317 - AMENDED REQUEST OF JOHN MCDEARMAN FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM "R-1" TO "L-1" AND "I-1" ON TRACT 6, R. CROWLEY SURVEY, A-312, LOCATED EAST OF FULLER-WISER ROAD, WEST OF MINTERS CHAPEL, AND NORTH OF HARWOOD ROAD Page Two, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, July 15, 1980 (Mr. Eden stepped down from hearing this case since he owns some adjoining property.) Chairman Deithloff stated that this case was tabled so Mr. McDearman could come back with an amended request. He read a letter that he received from Mr. Bill Pasteur representing the Quadrangle Development Company who owns property adjacent to the subject property. Mr. Pasteur's letter asked for a modification of the request to duplex zoning on the first 250 feet of the property just east of Fuller- Wiser Road creating a buffer between the residential property and the industrial zoning. Mr. John McDearman, Sherwood Blount & Co. , Dallas, representative of Wycliff International from Toronto, Canada, stated that their original request was for light industrial on the entire piece of property. He stated that they are now asking for limited industrial on the eastern 785 feet of the property and light industrial on the rest of the property. Mr. Flynn stated that the new proposed area for limited industrial is further east than the suggestion at the last meeting. After general discussion, Mr. McMillon made a motion to recommend approval of Zoning Case 317 as presented. Mr. Williamson seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. McMillon, Williamson, Gibson, Deithloff, Tyson and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. II. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE 318 - REQUEST OF HOMECRAFT LAND INC. , FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM "PD" WITH OLD DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO "PD" WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON TRACT 1A, J.E. FIELD SURVEY, A-540, LOCATED EAST OF BAZE DRIVE AND SOUTH OF GLADE ROAD (Mr. Eden returned to hear this case.) Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents. Mr. Keith Wallace was recognized. Page Three, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, July 15, 1980 CMr. Keith Wallace, Spain-Ayres Engineers, 2342 Faben, Dallas, stated he is representing Homecraft Land Development. He stated they are requesting a new development plan on a 35 acre tract located south of Glade Road and approximately 1,500 feet west of North Main Street. He stated that the property has a higher zoning at the present time than what they are requesting. He stated they are requesting to change the uses presently allowed from "R-3", "R-4" and "R-5" to "R-2", single family attached housing and a small corner front on Glade Road, 6.24 acres, to "R-5". He stated that they have not provided a site plan for the proposed "R-5" because they have no plans to develop that at this time. He stated that they plan to develop the single family attached housing portion as soon as possible. He stated that the lots for the total unit will average 90 feet by 100 feet. He stated that each side of the unit will have separate plumbing, sewer laterals, water laterals, etc. He stated that they will be two separate housing units sharing a common wall. He stated that there will be a common driveway down each property line that will go to the back of the property with parking for two cars with turnaround space. He stated that there will be no front entry garages. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any more proponents. There being none, he asked for any opponents. Mr. John Howes, Baze Drive, stated he is opposed to this zoning, although he is not sure why. He stated he felt that this type housing would have people who would live there a year and then move. He stated that he felt the housing would run down over the years. He also felt there would be a lot of accidents and traffic on Glade Road. Mr. Eden reminded Mr. Howes that the requested zoning is a down zoning of about 300 units from what it is already zoned. Chairman Deithloff stated that under the present zoning there could be 682 units, however, the petitioner is proposing 338 units which is a decrease of 344 units. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any more opponents. Mr. Roland Knott, Baze Drive, stated that he and his brother have ten acres along Baze Drive south of the subject property. He asked if there were any plans to rebuild Baze Drive at this time. Mr. Flynn stated that Baze Drive may be built as development occurs along the road, and property owners will be required to either escrow money for the construction or they will be required to construct it. He stated that this developer would be responsible for only that frontage that he has along Baze Drive. He stated that there is not enough developers along both sides of Baze Drive at this time to go ahead and construct it. He stated that the City would be out the expense of construction if the road is not built by developers as development occurs. Mr. Flynn stated that he believes that the City does not have that money in revenues at this time. Page Four, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, July 15, 1980 CMr. Knott stated that he felt the traffic was getting bad. He stated that there would be a lot of people out there, and under the present street conditions, there would be a problem. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any more opponents. Mr. Melvin Best, Lubbock, an investor of property across the road, asked if there were utilities in this area. Mr. Flynn stated that this development will be required to furnish their own utilities when they plat the property. He stated that there is a water line presently in Baze Road, but not a sewer line. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any more opponents. Mrs. Karen Polich stated that she lives on the property just adjacent to the subject property. She asked what type of roofing would be allowed and also if there would be a fence separating the development. She asked about the improvement of Glade Road. Mr. Flynn stated that the roofing would be of a noncombustible type, and that wood shingles would not be allowed. He stated that a six foot screening fence will be required. He stated that Glade Road would be widened when the City either has the money to finance it or it is collected from property owners that develop adjacent to it. He stated that it will eventually be an eighty foot right-of-way. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any more opponents. Mr. Mike Polich asked how far south on his property the road would come. Mr. Flynn stated that Mr. Polich would be required to dedicate any additional right-of-way to make up the difference between the present right-of-way and the eighty foot right-of-way. Mr. Polich asked how this zoning change would affect the way his property is being used at the present. He stated that he has horses on the property. Mr. Flynn stated that it would have no effect as long as he is currently operating legally. Mr. Polich asked how the value of his property would be affected by the zoning change. CMr. Flynn stated that he could not say. Mr. Wallace stated that it should definitely increase the value of the property. Page Five, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, July 15, 1980 Mr. Polich asked whether they would have any recourse in the future if they wanted to get legal counsel to present their case. Chairman Deithloff stated that the Planning and Zoning Comission's recommendation goes to the City Council and they have the final authority. Mr. Flynn stated that the property owners would not be notified by mail again when this case goes to the City Council, but that it would be advertised in the paper. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any more opponents. Mrs. H. R. Dickey, Baze Drive, stated that she felt Euless needed more single family dwellings. She stated that she felt the proposed housing would cause problems in the future. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any more opponents. Mr. Knott stated that he is concerned about the size of the houses proposed. He stated that there are houses in the area that are in the $100,000 range, and that his brother has a 5,000 square foot home near the subject property. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any more opponents. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. Chairman Deithloff read the Development Review Committee letter dated July 15th, and the letter is made a part of the minutes. Concerning the minimum required floor area of 1,100 square feet, Mr. Wallace stated that they are requesting a minimum floor area of 950 square feet. He stated that all of the floor plans will not be 950 square feet. He stated that there will be a combination of floor plans containing 950, 1,150, 1,350, 1,530 and 1,650 square feet built in the project. He stated that in all probability both sides of the total unit would not be 950 square feet, and at the worst, the total unit would probably be a minimum of 1,900 square feet. Concerning the minimum rear yard setback of twenty-five feet, Mr. Wallace stated that they are requesting a 15 foot minimum simply for variation so that all the units would not be in a straight line. Concerning the requirement of 80% masonry. Mr. Wallace stated he felt that was excessive. He stated that the trend now is towards a mix of brick and wood cedar. He stated that they are requesting a 50% masonry requirement be permitted to allow some architectural flexibility. Page Six, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, July 15, 1980 41:) Mr. Wallace stated that they had no problem with putting a note on the plat that additional easements may be needed. Mr. Wallace stated that he could agree to the lot lines being radial or perpendicular, but sees that there could be a small problem and request some flexibility regarding the requirement. Mr. Wallace stated that they have a big problem with having to comply with the suggestion that no lots front on Glade Road. He stated that the precedent had already been set with Tiffany Meadows in which the townhomes are fronting on Glade. He stated that the existing houses also front on Glade Road. He stated that if they change the street design as suggested by the City, they will lose one lot. He stated that the first lot under the entrance street is a double frontage lot which will not look very good having a rear yard facing the entrance of the subdivision. He stated that he can understand not having any drive entrances on Glade Road, so they are proposing an alley in the rear of the homes fronting on Glade. He stated that Staff mentioned that there was a problem with guest parking. He stated that he did not feel there would be much of a maintenance problem with the four homes that would front on Glade. He stated that they propose that the City accept the planned development as is showing a fifteen foot alley. He stated that the alley would serve two purposes: (1) to serve those four units, and (2) to allow garbage trucks to get to the rear of those lots. He stated that there would be enough turnaround space. He stated that he found the twenty foot requirement a little archaic, and that he could not see the sense in a twenty foot concrete paved alley behind a residential house. He stated that in Dallas and Denton they have ten or twelve foot paved alleys behind $250,000 homes. He stated that he has never seen a twenty foot alley other than in high density and industrial areas. Mr. Wallace stated that for the benefit of the homeowners he would be happy to answer their questions at any time if they would give him a call. Mr. Tyson asked what the plans were for the "R-5" property and why they requested that density. Mr. Wallace stated they have no plans for the area at the present time. He stated that they are requesting "R-5" because it provides the greatest flexibility, since the development of the "R-5" area will be calculated at a later date. Mr. Tyson asked Mr. Wallace if he would consider a density less than "R-5". Mr. Wallace stated that they would consider it. He stated that tonight they are mainly interested in the single family attached zoning because they feel there is a demand for this type housing right now, and after approval of zoning they will come before the Planning and Zoning Commission immediately for plat approval. He stated that there C should be homes under construction before the first of the year. He stated that the "R-5" is not their main interest tonight. He stated they are concerned in getting the approval of the planned development, and if it takes a concession in the "R-5" area, they would rather consider that than have Page Seven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, July 15, 1980 C another delay. He stated that they are open to negotiation or whatever the City feels appropriate on the "R-5" area. He stated they would consider zoning the whole property "R-2" for single family attached housing. Mr. Eden asked about the units in Tiffany Meadows fronting on Glade Road. Mr. Flynn stated that there are about twelve to sixteen units that do front on Glade Road; however, they do not have access to the units from Glade, but have access from the rear. He stated that the Council put further stipulations that additional guest parking be provided on the interior of the project. He stated that it was also the recommendation from Staff regarding Tiffany Meadows that no units front Glade Road. Mr. Eden asked if the City has gone below the 80% masonry requirement. Mr. Flynn stated that Tiffany Meadows was allowed to go below the 80% requirement. Mr. Tyson stated that Tiffany Meadows has three story units where these requested tonight are one story. Mr. Flynn stated that these can be thirty- five feet maximum also. He stated that the only difference between Tiffany Meadows and these is that these are limited to two units attached, whereas in Tiffany Meadows there are several attached up to 180 feet distance. Mr. Tyson stated that his understanding was they were planning a one height level. Mr. Wallace stated that some of them quite possibly and probably will be two stories. Mr. Eden stated that the Commission has to determine what they can do, not what they plan here to do. Mr. Flynn stated that Tiffany Meadows was the only case he knows of where the exterior masonry requirements have been reduced. Mr. Tyson stated that all the units in Tiffany Meadows were to be two or three stories; none of them were going to be single stories. He stated that the height was the only reason they reduced the requirement. Mr. Eden stated that the reconfiguration of the lots would do away with any lots fronting on Glade Road. He stated that if that were the case, the alley would not be necessary. 0 • Page Eight, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, July 15, 1980 CMr. Flynn stated that was correct. He stated there are two options: (1) to approve the site plan as presented with the alley or (2) reconfiguration of the streets as recommended by Staff. He stated that the width of the alley is not subject to discussion because it is a subdivision ordinance requirement, and the Commission cannot vary from it. He stated that the only way it can be varied is for the Council to amend that portion of the Subdivision Ordinance. He stated that it will be required to be twenty feet and serve all lots, which it does not do as shown. Mr. Eden stated that if they do redraw the plan with no lots fronting on Glade, the alley would not be a part of the plan. Mr. Flynn stated that is correct. Mr. Wallace stated the suggestion that Staff offered was a double frontage lot which is totally unacceptable. Mr. Flynn stated that he did not know if that would be a double frontage lot because this is just a preliminary proposal, and it is up to the developer to work out the exact lengths of the lots. Mr. Wallace stated that the precedent has been set, but that is probably secondary, but the economics are tremendously different. He stated that they have tried every way to lay out the lots so not to have those four lots fronting on Glade. He stated that if speculation falls through on the "R-5" area and they want to continue with the single family attached on the entire property, they have land plans that would fit into what the existing planned development shows. He stated that the economics are simply not feasible with running a parallel street to Glade with all that forty foot dedication to the City. Mr. Eden asked if Mr. Wallace was saying that he could not comply with the recommendation of Staff. Mr. Wallace stated that he could not comply with that recommendation. Mr. Eden stated then the recommendation they have from the Development Review Committee is for denial. Mr. Wallace stated that he was not aware of the recommendation for reconfiguration of the lots until tonight. Mr. Tyson asked if there could be parking on one side of the alley and still have ingress and egress for four houses. Mr. Wallace proposed that they deed restrict C the four lots to a three car parking setback with turnaround area in addition to the alley. • Page Nine, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, July 15, 1980 CMr. Flynn stated that might be a reasonable compromise for those four lots. He stated that the main purpose of the comment was to try to enforce a policy of not allowing curb cuts or parking on thoroughfares. Mr. Tyson stated that in his opinion it would solve the problem with a twenty foot alley and the third additional parking space required for the four lots that front on Glade Road. Mrs. Lightbody stated that her personal feeling was that there had been at least five negative responses by the developer to the requirements of the Development Review Committee, and would like to see the case either tabled with more work done to come in compliance with the recommendations or to have it denied at this point. Chairman Deithloff asked if that was in the form of a motion. Mrs. Lightbody stated that she was suggesting the option because if it was tabled, it would give Mr. Wallace a better opportunity. She stated that if he prefers that it not be tabled, then they should vote on it as proposed. Mr. Wallace stated that he would prefer that any items the Commission has problems with be addressed tonight. Mrs. Lightbody then made a motion to recommend denial of Zoning Case 318 based on the recommendations of the Development Review Committee. Mr. Wallace stated that he had agreed on several of the items, and asked if it was not possible to discuss the problems. He stated that he realizes it is Staff's job to recommend denial if the developer varies from and does not comply with any ordinance. He stated that if the "R-5" area poses a problem, they would offer the suggestion of zoning the whole property "R-2". Concerning the parking requirement, He stated they have no problem with adding an extra parking space and meeting the requirement of the alley. He stated that if a twenty-five foot rear yard is preferred, they will meet the requirement. He stated he sees no problem with the radial lot line requirement. He stated the reason they are asking for 50% masonry is for architectural flexibility, but if the City still desires 80%, they will meet the requirement. He stated the main disagreement is having a minimum of 950 square feet, and that they are willing to limit the percentage of units under 1,100 square feet. Chairman Deithloff stated that there was a motion made to deny this zoning case. Mrs. Lightbody stated that she made the motion on the basis that he was not interested in discussing the tabling Cof this case. Mr. Eden seconded the motion. Page Ten, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, July 15, 1980 Mr. Tyson stated that Mr. Wallace has demonstrated the willingness to try to work these items out. He stated that the Commission should address each individual point and see if they can be worked out. Mr. Eden stated that he was under the impression that Mr. Wallace could not live with these requirements. After further discussion, the vote on the motion made by Mrs. Lightbody was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody and Mr. Eden Nays: Messrs. McMillon, Deithloff, Gibson, Williamson and Tyson Chairman Deithloff declared the motion failed. Chairman Deithloff stated the Commission would discuss each proposal one by one again and asked Mr. Wallace about his proposal for the minimum floor area. Mr. Wallace stated that some units with 950 square feet will be necessary. He stated they are willing to work out a percentage, and suggested a maximum of 25% for 950 square feet, 25% maximum for 1,050 square feet and 50% for 1,100 square feet or more. Mr. Williamson asked if the developer would put two 950 square foot units together. Mr. Wallace stated that it would probably be the exception to have two of the small units together. Mr. Williamson stated he would like to see a minimum of 2,100 square feet for the combined unit. Concerning the setback, Mr. Wallace stated that they could live with the twenty-five foot rear yard setback if required. Mr. Flynn made a suggestion that the wording be changed to read that the rear yard will be in compliance with the Euless Zoning Ordinance at the time the building permit is issued, since the Ordinance could change in the future. In regards to the masonry requirement, Mr. Wallace stated that they would. prefer 50% masonry, but if 80% is the standard, they will accept it. Mr. Wallace stated that there were no problems regarding the note showing that additional easements may be needed or with the lot lines being radial. CMr. Wallace stated that they will provide three parking spaces for the four lots that front on Glade Road and will accept the twenty foot alley requirement. Page Eleven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, July 15, 1980 CMr. Williamson asked if the alley would only serve the four lots. Mr. Flynn stated that if this option is preferred by the Commission, the alley should serve only those four lots that front on Glade. Mr. Wallace stated that was not a problem. Mr. Tyson asked that Mr. Wallace address the area proposed for "R-5" zoning. Mr. Wallace stated that they would prefer to build the "R-2" area now and hold the "R-5" area for future market studies. He further stated that if they had to back off of the issue in order to get the "R-2" built, they would rezone the total piece of property "R-2", based on an approved site plan from Staff. Mr. Flynn stated that they will have to submit that site plan for the Commission's review if the Commission chooses to ask it of them. He stated that it could just be left with blanket zoning for single family attached, but the Commission has the perogative to ask for a detailed site plan. Mr. Wallace stated that he would like to suggest putting blanket zoning single family attached on it with approval of the site plan by the City Staff prior to construction. Mr. Tyson stated that he was not sure they wanted the City Staff to have that review; but rather it should come back before the Council. Mr. Flynn stated that Staff would prefer to make a recommendation to either the Commission or City Council. Mr. Tyson made a motion to recommend approval of Zoning Case 318 subject to the following restrictions: 1. No more than 25% of the units will be 950 square feet, 25% of the units 1,050 square feet, and 50% 1,100 square feet or greater with the combined two-unit structure not being less than 2,100 square feet. 2. The rear yard setback will conform to the standards set in the "R-2" zoning at the time building permits are issued. 3. Eighty percent masonry veneer be complied with. 4. Note should appear on the plan that additional easements may be needed at time of final platting. C 5. Lot lines will be required to be radial or perpendicular to right- of-way lines to facilitate construction layout. Page Twelve, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, July 15, 1980 6. The units facing Glade Road will have a twenty foot paved alley serving only those units with the stipulation that there will be three off-street parking spaces at each housing unit. 7. The proposed "R-5" area be deleted and single family attached zoning be complied with and include a development plan to come back before the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council prior to developing the lots. Mr. Williamson seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Tyson, Williamson, Gibson, Deithloff, McMillon and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Abstentions: Mr. Eden Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. III. CONSIDER REPLATTING - REPLATTING OF TIMBER RIDGE, LOT 1R, BLOCK 1 AND LOTS 1R THROUGH 4R, BLOCK 6, LOCATED NORTH OF HARWOOD ROAD AND EAST OF S.H. 157 There being no representative for this plat, Chairman Deithloff read the Development Review Committee letter dated July 10th, and the letter is made a part of the minutes. Mr. Eden made a motion to recommend approval of the replat as submitted. Mr. McMillon seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Eden, McMillon, Williamson, Gibson, Tyson, Deithloff and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. IV. CONSIDER PLATTING - PRELIMINARY PLATTING OF EULESS TOWN CENTER, LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 1, LOCATED WEST OF F.M. 157 AND SOUTH OF AIRPORT FREEWAY Page Thirteen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, July 15, 1980 C (Chairman Deithloff stepped down from hearing this case due to a conflict of interest.) Mr. Ayub Sandhu, Goodson Engineers, Inc. , Dallas, presented the preliminary plat. Mrs. Lightbody asked what stores would be in the shopping center. Mr. Sandhu stated that primarily there would be a discount store, home improvement store and a grocery store. Mr. Tyson asked about the drainage improve- ments along F.M. 157. Mr. Sandhu stated that they have worked the drainage out with the Highway Department. He stated that the drainage plans have also been reviewed by City Staff and were found to be satisfactory. Acting Chairman Williamson read the letter from the Development Review Committee dated July 10th, and the letter is made a part of the minutes. Mr. McMillon made a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary platting of Euless Town Center. Mr. Gibson seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. McMillon, Gibson, Williamson, Eden, Tyson and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Acting Chairman Williamson declared the motion carried. V. CONSIDER PLATTING - FINAL PLATTING OF EULESS TOWN CENTER, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, LOCATED WEST OF F.M. 157 AND SOUTH OF AIRPORT FREEWAY Mr. Sandhu presented the final plat for Euless Town Center. He stated that the stores mentioned previously will be on Lot 1. Mrs. Lightbody asked if there were any plans for Lot 2. C Mr. Sandhu stated that they did not have any plans at this time. Page Fourteen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, July 15, 1980 CActing Chairman Williamson read the letter from the Development Review Committee dated July 15th, and the letter is made a part of the minutes. He asked Mr. Flynn about the revisions mentioned in the letter. Mr. Flynn stated that there are some minor drainage revisions that the project engineer has agreed to make. Mr. Eden made a motion to recommend approval of the final platting of Euless Town Center subject to the letter dated July 15th. Mr. McMillon seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Eden, McMillon, Gibson, Williamson, Tyson and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Acting Chairman Williamson declared the motion carried. VI. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDER PROPOSED REVISIONS TO EULESS ZONING ORDINANCE #347 REDUCING REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN "R-2" TWO-FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT (Chairman Deithloff returned to hear this case.) Mr. Joe Moreland, owner of D-FW Gallery of Homes, Bedford, stated he is requesting to amend Subsection (2) of Section 7-202 of the Euless Zoning Ordinance changing the rear yard setback requirement from a minimum of twenty-five feet to fifteen feet for "R-2" Two Family Dwelling District. He stated that the rear yard setback has already been reduced for "R-1" Single Family Dwelling District. Mr. Eden stated that he felt there would be more of a demand for this in "R-2" than in "R-1". Mr. Tyson stated that fifteen feet was not very much. He asked if there was a problem with a lot if the developer could go before the Zoning Board of Adjustments. Mr. Flynn stated that the Zoning Board of Adjustments has very limited powers regarding variances, and cannot grant a variance for a self-created problem. He stated that if a lot is platted C in such a way that it cannot be built upon correctly, then the Zoning Board of Adjustments cannot grant a variance. Page Fifteen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, July 15, 1980 C Mr. Tyson stated that is not the way it has happened in the past. Mr. Flynn stated that is the correct wording of the ordinance, and also it is his understanding after consulting with the City Attorney recently. He stated that at the direction of the City Council he has referred all Zoning Board of Adjustment questions to the City Attorney and could receive a written legal opinion back if need be. Several of the members voiced a concern about the density that will be caused by the reduction. Mr. Eden stated that he would prefer to have an ordinance that could be lived with rather than trying to engineer everybody's piece of property. Mr. Flynn stated that there is a provision in the zoning ordinance that will still be enforced, which states that only 50% of a lot can be used for the building area. Mrs. Lightbody asked how Euless' setback requirements compare with the surrounding cities. Mr. Flynn stated that in the survey that was conducted about six months ago, they found that a twenty-five foot rear yard was excessive in comparison with the other cities. Mr. Eden made a motion to recommend approval of the amendment to Section 7-202, Subsection (2) changing the rear yard setback requirement from a minimum of twenty-five feet to fifteen feet. Mr. McMillon seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Eden, McMillon, Williamson, Gibson, Deithloff and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: Mr. Tyson Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. :lt airman