Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-12-15 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 1981 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:40 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Euless City Hall by Chairman Deithloff. Members & Staff Present Members Absent John Deithloff Norma Runyon Carl Tyson Bob Williamson Sam Huston Ralph Gibson Robert McMillon Kent Flynn - Director of Planning Becky Null - Recording Secretary James Knight - City Engineer VISITORS Willie Mae McCormick J. T. Watson T. C. Daves John E. Collins Harold Joliet Brad Hardy Pete Hennessey Scott Dye Joan Tracey Mitch Spector Jeff Singleton Andy Kidd Jim Shawn INVOCATION The invocation was given by Mr. Ralph Gibson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting dated November 17, 1981 , were approved as written. I . CONSIDER PLATTING - PRELIMINARY PLATTING OF TALL TIMBERS ADDITION LOCATED NORTH OF MEADOWVIEW ADDITION, WEST OF FULLER-WISER ROAD AND SOUTH OF EAST ASH LANE Mr. Pete Hennessey, 1610 Stemmons Freeway, represented the Thomes Corp. , in je their request for preliminary platting. • Page Two, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, December 15, 1981 Chairman Deithloff asked Mr. Hennessey if he was aware of the letter to the P & Z Commission dated December 10th, and also the City Engineer's letter dated November 25th. Mr. Hennessey stated he is aware of the letters. He stated that ht has met with James Knight and Kent Flynn to meet the requirements. Mr. Tyson stated that he understood that the street proposed for the subdivision was to be a public street instead of private. Mr. Flynn stated that up until this time it was not certain as to whether it would be private or public. It is shown on the preliminary as a private street because the developer anticipates the development being totally enclosed with a security fence and gate entrances. If that is the case, it could not be a public street. The street has been shown with sufficient width so that it could be a public street if the developer should change his mind at the time of final platting. Mr. Tyson asked what kind of requirement the City has in overseeing the construction of this street if it goes in as a private street and if it has to maintain the same standards for public streets. Mr. Flynn stated that a design section of it will have to be submitted and reviewed to show that it has sufficient construction to support fire apparatus. He stated that it does not have to meet the standards of a public street, but that there will be certain criteria that the City Engineer will outline to the project engineer. Mr. Knight stated that in the event it is every dedicated as a public street, the developer would be required to furnish data sufficient to prove that it would meet or exceed the City's criteria for streets as outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Hennessee stated that it is their plan at this time to make the street equal to a public street. He stated they are in the process of preparing final plans showing a 60 foot right-of-way and the pavement sections equal to City requirements. Mr. Tyson asked what the Commission could do tonight to require this street to be constructed to current City standards. Mr. Knight stated that the City would be assured of that if City Developer and City Contractor agreements were executed, and it were inspected by the City and the appropriate fees were paid. Mr. Flynn stated that it is really a final plat issue the project engineer is proposing tonight that the street will be constructed to the criteria for City acceptance. He stated that it really will not be tied down until final platting because construction and contract documents will not be executed until that time. Mr. Tyson asked if at final platting there could be something that would tie down the street to being constructed to City standards. Mr. Flynn stated that there was. ' Mr. Knight stated that it may be an issue that the Commission will want to make recommendation as to whether the Commission is willing to accept a private street. Mr. Tyson asked Mr. Hennessey if he had any objections to that. Mr. Hennessey stated he did not. • • • Page Three, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, December 15, 1981 • Mr. Flynn stated that the Commission could give the developer feedback tonight as to whether they would accept a private street, but it will not actually be administered until final platting. Mr. Tyson stated that he has no problems with the street being private as long as there is some way to make sure the street is built to City standards on the final plat. Mr. Knight stated that in the event the street was proposed as a private drive and later dedicated as a public street, the developer would be required to retain an engineering firm competent in pavement design to come in and test the pavement to prove what sections are there and make any recommendations that should be made to bring it up to current City standards at that time. Mr. McMillon made a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary platting of Tall Timbers Subdivision subject to the letters dated November 25th and December 10th from the City Engineer and also contingent upon the proposed private drive being constructed to current City standards. Mr. Gibson seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. McMillon, Gibson, Tyson, Huston and Deithloff Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. II . PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE #357 - REQUEST OF ANDY KIDD FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM C-2 TO R-5 ON PORTION OF TRACT 7, 7E1 , & 7E2, J. P. HALFORD SURVEY, A-711 , LOCATED SOUTH OF GIBSON'S, EAST OF F.M. 157, AND NORTH OF CLINIC DRIVE Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents. Mr. Andy Kidd, 122 Scenic Drive, Lewisville, presented the request for the rezoning of 8.4 acres of C-2 property to R-5. He stated that this is a joint venture between Noble-Kidd Development Co. and L & N Land, Inc. to construct high quality apartments which will be converted to condominiums within three years. He stated that typical apartment projects cost between $21 to $24 per sq. foot. This project will cost $36.00 per sq. ft. The construction design will be similar to single family, and exceed all the City' s multi-family requirements. The size of the units will range from 500 sq. ft. for efficiency to 1 ,142 sq. ft. for three bedrooms which is above that required by the City. The streets and parking in this project will be concrete instead of asphalt. The units will be insulated with R-13 in the walls, R-22 in the ceilings, polymeric foam-walls , windows, doors, electrical penetrations. A high density commercial type mineral wool will be used to provide speech privacy. The upstair units will have cathedral ceilings and all units, except efficiency units, will have ceiling fans. There will be one unlighted tennis court and two swimming pools. Most of the buildings have garages connected to them. The buildings will be constructed with 82% masonry. There will be an 8 foot wooden screening fence constructed. He stated they would like to begin the dirtwork by March. Page Four, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, December 15, 1981 He stated that there is a 200 foot wide strip of existing R-5 property between the subject property and single family residences to the east that will be part of C his development, although it is not part of the rezoning request. He stated that when he came before the Commission a year ago for PD zoning on this property (his request was tabled and then withdrawn) some of the residents bordering the 200 foot strip of existing R-5 were concerned about people in the apartments looking down into their backyards. Since then, the layout has been rearranged and the density reduced. The units will be limited to two stories. There will be only two buildings in the area next to the residences, and they are arranged so that there will not be any windows facing the residences. A swimming pool and unlighted tennis court have been placed in the area also. He distributed a letter of endorsement from Leisure Lodge Nursing Home. He also distributed letters from the past Vice President of the Grand Prairie Housing Authority and the Director of Inspections at Lewisville. Mr. Tyson asked if there will be fire walls constructed. Mr. Kidd stated that fire walls will be constructed in the side walls, as well as the floor and ceilings between each occupant. He stated that whether it is required or not, they construct every wall with at least a one hour fire wall . Mr. Huston asked if there were only two openings into this development from FM 157. Mr. Kidd stated that there is one incoming and one outgoing. He is in the process of negotiation with the owner of Clinic Drive to provide another entrance. Mr. Huston asked what was going to happen with the rest of the existing R-5 to the north of this subject property. Mr. Kidd stated that his management consultants have advised him to tender a contract on that property to be developed as the second phase. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any other proponents. Mr. Jeff Singleton, 3210 Salinas Court, Irving, Real Estate Consultant for Mr. Kidd, stated that he felt Mr. Kidd' s request is good zoning and good land use. Regarding the additional traffic along FM 157, he stated that there would be many uses, if not all , under C-2 that would generate more trips per day than what would be generated by the apartments. He stated that economics prevent all of these units coming onstream for sale as soon as they are built. The compromise plan where they are rented or leased for a period of time before being sold does work and is being used in Irving and other cities - since you cannot zone for condominiums in Texas. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any other proponents. There being none, he asked for any opponents. Mr. John Collins, 905 Fayette, stated that he and his wife were looking forward to the planned development proposed by Mr. Kidd a year ago because it gave some consideration to the homeowners. He stated that he and his wife drove to Lewisville to see a planned development by Mr. Kidd, but were distressed to find that the development looked and acted like apartments. He stated that the apartments will contribute to the decline of the residential area, contribute to the congestion of FM 157, and cause loss of privacy because the land is higher than the residences. He is also concerned about water running off into his home. He also felt the City did not need additional high density apartments. • Page Five, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, December 15, 1981 Mr. Tommy Daves, 908 Rockwall , stated that there will be greater traffic problems along FM 157. He stated he has problems getting onto FM 157 in the mornings as it is. He felt that the property should remain C-2. Mr. James Shawn, 805 Lamar, stated he is opposed to the apartments, and is concerned about the apartment dwellers looking from their apartments into the doctor's offices and into the residences. He is also concerned about the traffic. He requested that any permits for that area be turned down. In regard to the concern for water running off into the homes, Mr. Kidd stated that the problem will remain unless storm sewers are installed in the area. He stated he has indicated to the City Engineer that they are willing to install storm sewers to handle this problem. He also stated that the design of the develop- ment has been redrawn so that there would not be people looking down into the residences. Because of the residents' concern as to whether the apartments will actually be converted to condominiums, he stated he is willing to provide a letter to the Commission indicating from the lender that the note will be called in within three years. He stated that the development in Lewisville that Mr. Collins visited is strictly apartments with no provisions to be converted to condominiums. Mr. Deithloff asked if the purchase of this land was contingent upon the rezoning. Mr. Kidd stated yes, and that if no rezoning occurs, then they have the right to void the contract. They also have a verbal commitment for a warehouse project on this property. Mr. Kidd commented that he could not honestly do as well over the long-term with a warehouse project, but it is properly zoned for that use. Chairman Deithloff asked Mr. Kidd if he would consider a lower density, such as R-2, R-3 or R-4, or a mixture of these densities. Mr.Kidd stated that the plan that was before the Commission was scrutinized by the largest lender of apartments/condominiums in the U.S. He stated that they had to please them before they came to Euless. He stated that this land was the highest topographical point in the city and that the view of these buildings from Airport Freeway would be tremendous. Chairman Deithloff asked Mr.Kidd if he had undertaken any engineering studies addressing ingress and egress out of the property. Mr. Kidd stated that his initial step when Lomas-Nettleton came out here was that Highway 157 was a very busy street. L & N made the study and then approved it. Mr. McMillon asked Mr. Kidd if he was aware of any expansion plans for Highway 157 by the State Highway Department. Mr.Kidd said that when he went in for their loan documents from Mercantile National Bank they had performed their standard check and nothing was found to indicate any major improvement, however, there could be some improvement. Mr. Tyson asked Mr.Kidd the address of their Grand Prairie project. Mr. Kidd gave the address as 800 ft. from the corner of Tarrant and 19th. Mr. Tyson asked Mr. Kidd if he would have any objections of revising his request to ask for Planned Development zoning on this with the items stated here tonight. Page Six, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, December 15, 1981 • Mr. Kidd stated that if this was the only way that it could be done, yes he would. Mr. Singleton addressed the Commission that there may be some confusion on the part of the neighbors and he asked Mr. Kent Flynn to list the allowable uses for C-2. Mr. Flynn stated that it is basically commercial usage. He stated that Mr. Kidd was incorrect when he stated that a warehouse could be built in that district without rezoning, as it cannot. The commercial uses allowed are all indoor retail uses in general . No outside storage or sales are allowed. Practically any kind of commercial retail venture of this type would be allowed on that site. • Mr. Singleton stated that what is being sought here tonight is to turn this area back into a residential area, as it has not been residential , and there is a vast difference between the integrity of a neighborhood, by his experience, when a commercial use is interjected into a residential neighborhood. He stated that the lifestyle of the neighborhood would be little affected by this property. He feels that it will be affected more by commercial use. He gave the example of opening up a Sonic which would be open until 11 :00 or 12:00 at night versus condominiums which will keep the hours of a normal neighborhood. Mr. Singleton stated that traffic is always a concern and consideration. He stated that he did visit with the City of Bedford and City of Euless about the prospects of Highway 157. He also called some County Commissioners and Regional Highway District 7 or 8 Highway Department and asked questions about Highway 157. He stated that he did not get a lot of good answers. Bedford does have a plan that indicates that 157 will be imrpoved, however, they do not have the money for it at this time. Mr. Singleton stated that the fact that this property is zoned C-2, but vacant, and therefore generating no traffic and causing no traffic, is not the cause for the congestion which you find at Hwy. 157 and 183. He further stated that anything built on this property will increase the traffic on Hwy. 157 by some amount and there are certainly many commercial type uses which potentially would increase it far more than this use would. There being no further proponents or opponents, Chairman Deithloff declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Tyson asked Mr. Flynn what the City' s position is on condominiums in Euless in the future. Mr. Flynn stated that staff had not been able to do detailed, legal research on the issue, but had found from preliminary review of State law that cities can have condominium zoning, but it cannot treat condominiums differently than multi- family dwellings. He stated that staff' s preliminary intentions are to write a condominium ordinance as part of Phase III of the ordinance revision project and have in the recommendation to this board and to the City Council the provision that the condominium zoning district be cumulatively allowed in the multi-family districts. This would mean that it would automatically be allowed in those multi- family districts, but it would have to conform to the standards that are set in that condominium ordinance. 4111) Mr. Tyson asked Mr. Flynn if that would also cover conversions. • Page Seven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, December 15, 1981 Mr. Flynn stated that it would. But again, State law pretty much tells us what we can and cannot do in establishing those specific standards. Mr. James Knight asked if our fire standards could be different in condominiums than multi-family. Mr. Flynn said that he could not answer Mr. Knight as he had not had legal advice on it at this time, but we do intend to look into that specific area for certain, that being an area that has been generated as an area of concern by the Staff. Mr. Huston asked Mr. Knight if the City would require the water that is generated from this project to be carried into storm sewer and will alleviate the problems of Mr. Collins rather than to increase his problems. Mr. Knight stated that the current requirements of the sub-division ordinance state that if it exceeds a certain quantity of water, it would be required to be put into a storm sewer and meet those criteria. The criteria that is in the current ordinance would probably be more restrictive than any requirements that were in effect in 1968, or whenever these additions were started. He said that the amount of runoff from the commercial project would be roughly one-third greater than from a multi-family type zoning. Chairman Deithloff read the zoning history of the subject tract from the Zoning Summary which established the fact that the property had not been single family since April 23, 1968. He then made the summary a part of the minutes. Mr. Gibson asked if the homes to the east were constructed prior to 1968. Mr. Flynn stated that he did not have that date, but the comments from the people in the audience indicate that development was possibly a year before that, 1967-68. Mr. Gibson asked Mr. Collins if the area was already zoned R-5 when he moved in. Mr. Collins stated that he did not know that, but the builders said that it was R-l . Mr. Collins also stated that it was his understanding that R-5 had something to do with the widening of Harwood Rd. , which came a couple of years later. Mr. Huston made the comment that it looked like Mr. Kidd had a well-planned project. However, when ge goes back to the data base that the staff has furnished, he has some question about the project. First thing that Mr. Huston noticed is that the density has been increased to 252 units. Mr. Huston stated that there will probably be approximately two persons to each unit, which then doubles the amount of people at the project; plus two automobiles to each unit and that totals up to a lot of concentration of traffic in this one area. Mr. Huston mentioned that with this additional concentration of people, plus the already overcrowded traffic on Hwy. 157, it is going to be almost impossible to get in and out of this apartment project unless there is a major thoroughfare through there and he has not heard anyone naming any dates of this expansion. Mr. Huston also brought up the point that whenever we add this number of people, we have to make room somewhere in the school system for them. Mr. Huston then asked if the property remained C-2, what the taxes would be compared to what it would be with this apartment conplex here. C • Page Eight, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, December 15, 1981 Mr. Flynn stated that the tax value would depend on the value of improvements to be constructed which could be the same, less, or more. Mr. Gibson commented that he felt they had a good plan, but would prefer a lower density. He also stated that he did not feel C-2 would be as good for the home- owners. Chairman Deithloff stated the options the Commission had. Mr. Tyson asked if the Commission could have Mr. Kidd amend his request to a PD instead of R-5. Mr. Flynn stated that technically speaking, a Planned Development Community Unit Development would be more restrictive zoning than straight R-5; therefore, it would be less intensive zoning and would be allowed according to our attorney's opinion. He stated that the Commission could go ahead and accept his request wihtout advertising, however, they would have to do so without staff review of the Development Plan. He stated that Staff has not had an opportunity to look at this plan, so they could not verify if it does comply to the guidelines for PD or CUD. Mr. Tyson asked Mr. Flynn if he would have a chance between now and the next Council meeting to go over the plans and point out any discrepancies to Council . Mr. Flynn stated that he could, but would prefer that staff make their recommendations to the Commission rather than have to try to make them in the interum inbetween this Commission' s approval of one plan and City Council 's addressing the issue via another plan. Mr. Tyson asked Mr. Kidd if he would be willing to resubmit this as a PD to the P & Z Staff prior to the next meeting of January 5, 1982. Mr. Kidd stated that he would be willing to do this and would like to amend his request so he could do so. Mr. Tyson made the motion to table Zoning Case #357 to allow the petitioner to come back with a PD Plan on January 5, 1982, and be submitted to the City Staff on or before December 28, 1981 . Mr. Gibson seconded the motion, and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Tyson, Gibson, Huston, McMillon. Nays: Chairman Deithloff Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. II. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. C til � / rman