Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-06-17 Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 17, 1980 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Euless City Hall by Chairman John Deithloff. Other members present were Messrs. Robert McMillon, Bob Eden, Carl Tyson, and Mrs. Helen Lightbody. Members absent were Messrs. Bob Williamson and Ralph Gibson. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Kent Flynn and Recording Secretary Becky Null. VISITORS Visitors in attendance were Messrs: James Knight, Howard Shiflet, R. W. Wettschreck, Michael Rodriguez, C. L. Overby, W. Stephen Youkers, Stephen Crim, Al Anglin, C. W. Jarrett, Tom Chance, Ron Sternfels, Richard Thomes, Ed Thomes, William Ford and John Boyle, and Mesdms: Jackie Freeman, Keith Caldwell, Neva Shiflet, Ruby Thorpe, Paula Elsey, Harriet LaFoy, Marcia Rodriguez, Janie Crim, Betty Jarrett, Ruth Chance, Willie Mae McCormick, Vera Hamilton and Glenna Ford. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Mr. Bob Eden. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Eden made a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting dated June 3, 1980, as written. Mrs. Lightbody seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Eden, Deithloff, Tyson, McMillon and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. I. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE 314 - REQUEST OF STEPHEN CRIM OF L & N MANAGEMENT, INC. FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM "R-1" & "PD" ("R-5" DENSITY) TO "R-1" WITH "SP" FOR "CUD" ("R-4" DENSITY) FOR VARIABLE HOUSING ON TRACTS 1B, 6A & 6D, S. HUITT SURVEY, A-705, LOCATED EAST OF NORTH MAIN, SOUTH OF HARWOOD AND NORTH OF EAST MIDWAY DRIVE Page Two, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, June 17, 1980 Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing C and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents. Mr. Steve Crim was recognized. Mr. Steve Crim, L & N Land, Inc. , 2001 Bryan Tower, Dallas, stated that they are requesting a zoning change from "R-1" & "PD" ("R-5" density) to "R-1" with "SP" for "CUD" ("R-4" density) on 55 acres. He stated that on approximately 26 acres they are planning to build single family attached housing having a density of about 6 units per acre. On the eastern portion of the property, approximately 21 acres, they plan to build multi-family units up to a maximum density of 26 units per acre. Mr. Crim stated that on the western 26 acres they plan to build approximately 155 single family attached dwelling units, and that on the eastern 21 acres they plan to build approximately 567 multi- family units. He stated that this would give a total of 724 dwelling units; 431 units less than is allowed now under the existing zoning. He stated that in addition to reducing the density from what is allowed now, they are dedicating about 7 acres of green area to the City for a park. Mr. Crim distributed drawings and stated these homes look like very large 3,000-4,000 square foot single family houses, and that both front doors cannot be seen directly from the front. He stated the lots would be approximately 45 feet wide by 110 feet deep. He stated that the minimum lot size for single family attached is 22 feet by 100 feet deep. He stated these units share a common driveway between the two houses that is fenced right down the middle of the cement and parking courts with places for carports or garages in the back. Chairman Deithloff asked Mr. Crim if he was aware of the letter to the Planning & Zoning Commission from Mr. Kent Flynn and whether he had any objections. He asked that the letter be made a part of the minutes. Mr. Crim stated that he received a copy of the letter, and that they had no objections to the comments. Chairman Deithloff asked Mr. Crim if he had any objections to the List of Zoning Conditions appearing on the face of the Site Plan. (The List of Conditions is made a part of the minutes.) Mr. Crim stated they concurred with the conditions. Mr. Crim further stated that if this zoning request is approved, they intend to start the single family attached subdi- vision as soon as possible and to extend this collector road which will give access through to Fuller-Wiser Road. Mr. Tyson asked whether there would be driveway cuts off of Main Street. Page Three, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, June 17, 1980 Mr. Crim stated that there would not be any drives off of Main Street. Mr. Tyson asked if the highest banks on the creek would be 8 to 10 feet high, and whether they plan to cut the elevation of the bank down so it is not quite so steep because children will be playing in the park. Mr. Flynn stated that the Parks Director was present at the review of the plans, and he stated that he felt it would be advantageous to have the slopes prepared so they can be mowed. Mr. Knight stated that it was his under- standing that the Parks Director wanted all the banks to be sloped. Mr. Eden asked about the trees along the bank. Mr. Crim stated they wanted to leave this park natural. He stated that if the banks are sloped, there will be a lot of trees that will have to be removed. He stated they are trying to avoid that, and that they will be coming back before the P & Z Commission in a few weeks with a request for a variance to the ordinance that requires the creek to be channelized. He stated that they will have better flood infor- mation at that time. Chairman Deithloff stated that the same situation exists at Bear Creek. Mr. Tyson asked what the height of the banks are at Bear Creek. Chairman Deithloff stated that they are the same or deeper. Mr. Tyson stated that when it becomes a City park it is up to the City to maintain it. He stated that if there is a burden put on the Park's budget by accepting this park, it is not to the best interest of the community. Mr. Crim stated that the flood plain area is very flat and narrows down to the creek. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any more proponents. There being none, he asked if there were any opponents. Mr. Tom Chance, 102 Denton stated that he was not necessarily an opponent, but is concerned about the collector road through the project that will run into Denton Drive. CMr. Crim stated that this road is a little more than a residential collector street. He stated that a lot of the traffic will hit Fuller-Wiser. He stated that from a planning point of view, it is better to have one intersection instead of creating two by offsetting this street. Page Four, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, June 17, 1980 C Mr. Flynn stated that the City Staff did not raise any objections to the alignment of the road. Mr. Knight stated that it is the City's feeling that it is better to centerline the two streets to match or have some minimum offset between the two roads of about 100 to 125 feet. Mr. Crim stated that since Main Street is a major thoroughfare, it will probably not create any increase of traffic on Denton Drive. Mr. Chance stated further that he objected to the street coming out on North Main even with Denton Drive, and would like to see the street come out across from Midway Park. He also asked if the 6 single family units per acre meant 12 families per acre. Mr. Tyson noted that the developer does not own the property across from Midway Park so the road could not be located that far south. Mr. Flynn explained that single family attached zoning would normally allow 12 families per acre. However, the developer is restricting himself to 6 units or 6 families per acre. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any more opponents. Mr. C. W. Jarrett, 755 N. Main Street, stated that he is also concerned about the traffic that will be generated on Main Street. He also stated that he was concerned about whether his taxes would be affected by this new subdivision and park. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any more opponents. Mrs. Vera Hamilton, 300 E. Ash Lane stated the reason she moved to Euless was because it had a quiet country atmosphere, and felt that this would be changed with the approval of more multi-family zoning requests. There being no more opponents, Chairman Deithloff declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Flynn stated that this property is presently zoned for a higher density than what Mr. Crim is asking for. He stated also that the present zoning is under a Planned Development, and that on the existing Development Plan there is already a street located identical to what Mr. Crim has planned. He further stated that a higher density and the street could be put on the property without the approval of this zoning case. C Page Five, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, June 17, 1980 CMr. Eden stated that Mr. Flynn's comment was an important factor, that the developer is planning a lower density than what the subject property is presently zoned for. Mr. Tyson stated that he is concerned about the Parks Department review of the park. Mr. Flynn stated that the Parks Director was involved in the review, and that the Director said it would be nice to get the banks sloped enough to be mowed, but was not willing to give up the park if the banks were not sloped. In regards to the maintenance of the park, Mr. Flynn stated that this park would be a passive park. He stated that there are no plans at present to put much development in the park, i.e. , ball diamonds, etc. , but is better suited for nature, jogging and bike trails as indicated in the Park Master Plan which shows a "linear park" here. Mr. Eden stated that he did not feel that there was anything dangerous in the creek area. Mr. Tyson stated that since there would be some big equipment working on the property anyway, they could go ahead and do what the Parks Department feels necessary. He asked Mr. Crim if there was any problem with them doing creek work. Mr. Crim stated he would really resist having to take earth moving equipment in and sloping the sides of the creek. He stated that hand selected clearing is much better for something like this. Mr. Deithloff pointed out that the park is being dedicated to the City free of charge. Mr. Eden stated that if the creek was sloped where it could be mowed, there would be so many trees lost that the effect of a natural park would be lost. Mr. McMillon stated that this little creek does not compare to Little Bear Creek in scope, size or magnitude. Mr. Knight stated that sometimes if creeks are disturbed by sloping, etc. , without the creek being concrete lined, it will create a worse problem than leaving the creek like it is. Mr. Crim stated that the ordinance requires that the creek be concrete lined unless the developer can prove that they can handle the water for the 100-year flood. He stated that this amounts to 6.8 acres on the property. He stated that if they were to concrete line the creek, they would lose about 3 acres in the actual channel and that would leave 4 acres which they might as well fill and build on. After further discussion, Mr. Eden made a C motion to approve Zoning Case #314 as presented subject to the Planning & Zoning letter dated June 13, 1980, the stipulation that no drive cuts be made on North Main Street, and with a review of the green area by the Parks Department. Page Six, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, June 17, 1980 C Mr. McMillon seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Eden, McMillon, Deithloff, Tyson, and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. II. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE 315 - REQUEST OF GLENN COOPER FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM "R-1" TO "R-2" ON TRACT 2E1, A. J. HUITT SURVEY, A-684 LOCATED ON SOUTH MAIN STREET Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents. Mr. Al Anglin was recognized. Mr. Al Anglin, 2205 Landmark Court, Unit B, Arlington, stated he is negotiating to purchase the subject property. He stated he intends to build two duplexes on this property. He stated that the houses to the north and south are frame houses approximately 30 to 35 years old. He stated he felt that the duplex units he plans to build will up the value of the property on that side of the street. He stated they will be luxury units. He stated that if the neighbors require, he will build a stockade fence around his property. He stated he preferred rear end parking. He stated that he plans to live in one of the units. He stated the size of the total unit would be between 1,850 and 1,900 square feet making each side of the unit approximately 950 square feet. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any more proponents. There being none, he asked if there were any opponents. Mr. M. L. Arthur, residing at 209 Manchester Apt. 154, stated he owns property directly across the street consisting of 2 to 3 acres. He stated his parents live in the existing house, and he plans to build himself a house on the property. He stated in the past, he discussed with City Officials about building some townhouses down Main Street, however, it was felt that there would be some objections, so he did not pursue it any further. He stated that he had no objections to the duplexes provided that the City might be willing at a future date to develop the opposite side of the street with something similar. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any more opponents. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Tyson asked how many driveway cuts Mr. Anglin planned to have on his property. C Page Seven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, June 17, 1980 C Mr. Anglin stated that there would be one driveway cut per duplex or two cuts. Mr. Flynn stated that one driveway per individual unit would be required or four driveways in all. Mr. Tyson stated he is concerned about the backing out on South Main, and asked if a circular drive could be required. Mr. Flynn stated that the circular drive could be made a requirement, however, Mr. Anglin would have to have off-site parking for four units. Mr. Anglin stated that he was planning to have rear parking, and stated that he would prefer turn around space instead so he could keep as many trees as possible. Mr. Tyson stated that the turn around space could end up being used to park a boat, etc. , and the space may not be avail- able to turn around in. Mr. Flynn stated that site plan requirements cannot be established on regular "R-2" zoning. He stated that the property would have to be platted, and at that time it could become a point of consider- ation and stipulation on plat approval, but does not have a place at the time of zoning. Mr. Eden stated that there is no other "R-2" zoning in that area, and is not sure it is a wise move to mix these zonings. He stated he is concerned about setting a precedent. Mr. Tyson stated that the times are changing and with the cost of land being so much, the duplexes could be an asset to the neighborhood if they were built in such a way that they looked like single family residences. Mr. Eden stated they could, but it is still spot zoning an area where there is single family residences surrounding it. Mr. McMillon stated that he felt the same way as Mr. Eden when he first received his packet, however, he was waiting to see how much opposition there was. Mr. Flynn stated that according to the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Anglin has to have a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet per duplex. He stated that the subject property is about 20,500 square feet. He stated that only two duplexes would be allowed with about 5,400 square feet in excess. He stated that the duplex lots will be rather large for duplex lots. C Mr. Tyson stated that he is still concerned about the backing out on South Main Street. Page Eight, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, June 17, 1980 Mr. Flynn stated that if there is justifi- C cation for the traffic concerns, stipulations can be made on the plat, but cannot be addressed during zoning. Mr. Arthur stated that before he could subdivide his property, he had to present a plat and engineering plans. He stated that he does not know what Mr. Anglin is planning to build as far as how it would look, and that he is planning to build about a $125,000 home across from the subject property. He stated that he does not want to build, and probably would not, with an 1,800 square foot duplex across the street. Mr. Eden made a motion to recommend denial of Zoning Case #315 for duplex zoning. Chairman Deithloff stated the motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Tyson asked if there was any way to require a turn around during zoning. Mr. Flynn stated that the P & Z Commission can make a recommendation to that effect to the Council, but that the Council cannot make the zoning pending on it. He stated the Commission could make their recommendation with this condition, and he could consult with the City Attorney to see if the City Council can also make it a stipulation of the approval of zoning. He stated otherwise, the stipulation could be placed on the plat at platting. Mr. Tyson stated that he personally would not approve the plat unless it had the circular driveways. Mr. Tyson made a motion to recommend approval of Zoning Case #315 as presented subject to a circular drive being required at time of platting. Mr. McMillon seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Deithloff, McMillon and Tyson Nays: Mr. Eden and Mrs. Lightbody Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. (The Commission took a five minute break.) III. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE 316 - REQUEST OF DR. RICHARD THOMES FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM "R-1" TO "R-4" (16 UNITS PER ACRE) WITH "CUD" FOR CONFORMING HOUSING ON LOTS 15 & 16, RAY SHELTON SUBDIVISION, LOCATED WEST OF FULLER-WISER ROAD AND SOUTH OF PROPOSED EAST ASH LANE- Page Nine, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, June 17, 1980 C Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and stated that proponents will be heard first and then opponents. He recognized Mr. John Boyle, Jr. Mr. John H. Boyle, Jr. , Attorney, 211 N. Ervay, Dallas, stated he is representing Dr. Thomes. He stated that the project as proposed would consist of apartments similar to those at Oakwood Acres Apartments. He stated as reflected on the site plan, 4.5 acres is devoted to the "permanent community open space" under a perpetual maintenance agreement whereby the developer agrees to perpetually maintain the green area. (Mr. Boyle handed out copies of a suggested perpetual maintenance agreement to the Commission members.) He stated that they have reviewed the drainage problem in general, and the handling of the drainage will be addressed by detailed engineering plans at the time the preliminary and final plats are considered. He stated the site plan and the plats will incorporate the extension of Ash Lane with a 60 foot right-of-way. He stated that the developer anticipates construction to begin around January, 1981, or no later than 12 months from now. He stated that the total estimated cost of the project is to be 72 million dollars. He stated that the apartments would range from $340 for a 1 bedroom to $520 for a three bedroom. He stated that 65% of the units will be 2 bedroom units, 25% of the units would be 1 bedroom and 10% would be 3 bedroom units. He stated that multi-family zoning seems to be consistent with the noise zone, master plan, surrounding zoning and surround- ing development. Mr. Eden stated that he is concerned because there is no buffer between the proposed "R-4" and the "R-2" & "R-1" zoning to the north. Dr. Richard J. Thomes, 3934 Buckingham Drive, Irving, stated that almost 50% of the land on Ash Lane is green area. He stated that the building setback is 25 feet and they plan to keep as many trees as possible. Mr. Tyson asked Dr. Thomes if he had any objections to a deeper building setback line along Ash Lane where there is no trees shown on the site plan. Dr. Thomes stated that there was only about one-third of the property along E. Ash Lane that was not shown to have trees. He stated that the site plan was not a definite engineering boundary to the green area. Mr. Flynn stated that they needed to know exactly what the developer is going to ask the Commission to allow in the open space. He stated that it appears that Dr. Thomes is requesting tennis courts, swimming pool and playground in that area, and he is assuming that since there is nothing else on the site plan, that the rest is to remain open space. He asked if the community building is to be in the "R-4" area. C Dr. Thomes stated that the community building would not be in the green area, and all they are asking for in the green area is the tennis courts, swimming pool and playground. Page Ten, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, June 17, 1980 C Mr. Flynn stated that the Commission will require a copy of the site plan that the developer is now presenting since the Commission's copies do not reflect everything being requested tonight. Mr. Boyle stated they will offer their copy of the site plan that reflects the uses contemplated. Mr. Tyson asked if they would agree not to put any parking in the 25 foot setback along E. Ash Lane in which the trees would provide a buffer between the Apartments and the "R-1" & "R-2". Mr. Boyle stated they were agreeable to excluding any parking within the 25 foot setback. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any more proponents. There being none, he asked if there were any opponents. Mrs. Paula Elsey stated that she represents Oakwood Acres Phase I owned by Wes-Pac Investments and managed by En-Con Properties. She stated that she is concerned about the drainage because Oakwood Acres Phase II is draining on Phase I at the present. Mr. Knight stated that the drainage will be towards the creek and will drain away from Oakwood Acres Phase I. Mrs. Elsey asked if there would be a fence between Oakwood Acres Phase I and the proposed project. Dr. Thomes stated they would put a fence up. Mr. Flynn stated that a screening fence is not required by zoning unless the Commission requires it as part of the site plan stipulation. Mrs. Elsey asked how much traffic would be generated. Mr. Flynn stated that the traffic would be increased by approximately 300 households. He stated that Fuller-Wiser will be required to be improved as properties adjacent develop, and it will handle some of the traffic. Mrs. Elsey stated that they do object to more apartments being built. She stated that Oakwood Acres Phase I has already suffered with drainage problems, debris and traffic because of the construction of Oakwood Acres Phase II which is owned by a separate company. She also stated that the area is being oversaturated with apartments, three of which are not yet occupied. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any more opponents. Page Eleven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, June 17, 1980 C Marsha Rodriguez, 206 E. Ash Lane stated she also objects to any additional apartments. She stated that there are already three new apartment complexes that are beginning to open, and that more apartments are being approved without proving that there is a need. She stated that she has not seen any studies done showing a need for over 1,200 apartments in Euless. She stated that she has not seen the people rushing in to rent all the vacant new apartments that the City has now. She further stated that she cannot see changing the zoning to put in more apartments, when it really has not been proven that the apartments that are already in the building process are going to be occupied. She further stated that she did not feel the Commission could justify approving more apartments. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any more opponents. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Eden stated that he is still concerned that they do not do anything detrimental to the existing "R-1" & "R-2" to the north. He stated that the information has been skimpy as to knowing what to expect. Mr. Tyson stated that this property does have a definite drainage problem which lends itself to "R-4" zoning instead of "R-1". He stated that the area is congested already, however, he is not sure that this is not the best type of zoning. Chairman Deithloff stated that the proposed green space needs to be more definitive. Mrs. Lightbody asked the developer if he objected to the zoning case being tabled until the Commission is given more detailed plans. Dr. Thomes asked what the Commission wanted to be more defined. He stated that they agreed not to build a parking lot on the 25 foot setback from Ash Lane, leaving the trees to act as a buffer. He stated that they hate to knock down the trees around the creek, but wanted to leave it in its natural state. Mr. Flynn stated that there is a possibility that the creek could be left natural, but it would require a variance by the Council at the time of platting based on the analysis of the engineering on the flood plain. Mr. Tyson asked if there was going to be 4.52 acres in the green space, and what the density would be for the remaining project. Mr. Flynn stated that it would be about 20 units per acre on the remaining property. He stated that there is a C possibility for up to 305 units, but that would have to be verified. He stated that Staff would need a detailed site plan upon issuance of any Page Twelve, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, June 17, 1980 building permits to verify that the sum of the reductions of individual lot C size is less than the 4.52 acres. He stated that if the Commission is considering approval of this zoning case, Staff would request that it be subject to the submission of a detailed site plan prior to issuance of building permits showing the number of apartment units per bedroom size, the number of lot reductions, and acres reduced on the individual lot size, so that Staff can verify that it does conform. He stated that at this time, Staff cannot confirm that 305 units could be built on that site. Mr. Flynn stated that Staff would also restrict any obstructions that would impede flow from the area that would be covered by the 25-year flood plain upon review of the developer's engineer- ing analysis. He stated that Staff really needs to know more about what is going to be in the green area to recommend approval of the open space. He stated that at this time, Staff cannot guarantee that the developer could put any increased density on the remainder of the site because Staff does not know exactly what the plans are for the open space. He stated that since a "private" community open space is proposed rather than public, the site plan should show what the open space would be used for. Mr. Boyle stated that they are agreeable to postponing this request and coming back with a fairly definitive detail regarding the green space. Mr. Eden stated that he is concerned about the buffer area and: the green area. Mr. McMillon made a motion to table Zoning Case #316 until the July 1st meeting contingent upon the owners and Mr. Boyle working with the City Staff in these general areas: in the green belt area to be more definitive about the tennis courts, pool and playground area; work with a more detailed site plan; address the buffer zone along East Ash Lane with the stipulation that there be no parking in the 25 feet area; address whether there would be a screening fence along the western side adjacent to Oakwood Acres Apartments; and also address more detail of the drainage problem in the area. Mrs. Lightbody seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. McMillon, Eden, Tyson, Deithloff and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. 41111111 if )00f I +. airman