Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-10-06 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission IC) October 6 , 1981 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 Chairman John Deithloff. Members & Staff Present Members Absent John Deithloff Carl Tyson Sam Huston Robert McMillon Norma Runyon Ralph Gibson Bob Williamson Kent Flynn - Director of Planning Rod Tyler - Planner (Recording Sec. ) VISITORS Walter "Dub" Elliott Bob Eden James Knight INVOCATION The invocation was given by Mr. Bob Williamson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting dated September 15 , 1981, were approved as written. I . PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE #355 REQUEST OF BOB EDEN TO CHANGE HIS ZONING FROM R-1 TO C-2 AND R-3 ON PORTION OF TRACT 2, G. LINNEY SURVEY LOCATED EAST OF S.H. 157, NORTH OF ASH LANE Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents . Mr. Walter Elliott with the firm of Elliott & Hughes , office at ® 1004 W. Euless Blvd. , is here representing Mr. Bob Eden and Mary Jane Spencer in their request for a change of zoning from R-1 to R-3 and C-2 , as stipulated in the Zoning Case #355 . C Page Two, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Coundssion, October 6, 1981 Mr. Elliott began his presentation by stating the location of the 400 property which is adjacent to the West of the City of Bedford and to the North along lime Bear Creek Park. This is a development that Mr. Eden started six years ago with Phase I , consisting of R-1 residential properties . Phase II is to be the expansion of the same type of development, single family residential homes . He also stated that the lake which is adjacent and part of the zoning request, is to be retained as a buffer as well as the area outlined in green (area immediately to the North of the lake) . The proposed R-3 will be constructed along and adjacent to each side of the proposed Lake Shore Dr. extension and some along the lake. These homes are to be of high quality and an assest to these lots . The proposed C-2 strip consists of approximately 62 acres . Mr. Elliott further stated the reason for this R-3 zoning request is because single family residential development is not progressing as well as hoped. Interest has shifted from single family development to multi-family. As to the time frame for construction, he said, "He could not answer that until the interest rates drop off another few points . " Mr. Gibson asked if there were any industries that were interested in that particular area. Mr. Elliott said that there are no companies at this time, most of it is in the planning stages . Mr. Deithloff asked how the C-2 and R-3 areas are drained. Mr. Elliott answered by saying that they have two major and one minor drainage areas . Mr. Deithloff mentioned the question of density in regard to this property. Under the current zoning we have 94 units and Mr. Eden is proposing 195 units , an increase of 101. Mr. Eden said that he had given this some thought, but has not gotton far enough into the plans ; however, he needed the R-3 zoning. He said it is very important to him to be sure that the quality of the structures on the west side of the lake will work with the single family on the east side . There is a good demand for those lots on the east and he does not want anything to be built on the west side that would take away from the value of those lots . There being no additional proponents or opponents , Chairman Deithloff declared the public hearing closed. 41) Mr. Williamson made a motion to recommend approval of Zoning Case #355 . Mrs . Runyon seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows : Ayes : Mrs . Runyon, Messrs , Deithloff, Huston, Gibson and Williamson. Nays : None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. , Page Three, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 6, 1981 II . FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROVISIONS OF THE EULESS ZONING ORDINANCE Chairman Deithloff introduced the Director of Planning, Kent Flynn, and stated that he would present the Phase II ordinance revision recommendation for review by the Commission. Mr . Flynn recounted earlier phases of the revision effort and stated that those revisions were the basis for this current proposal for the organization of five new districts ranging from R-1A1 to R-1A5 . The reason the numbers seemed so unusual is due to the fact that we are having to insert all of these districts between the current R-1 for single family and the R-2 for duplex. We referred to the five new housing types as "Alternative Single Family Dwellings . " They are alternatives to the current single family that we have. What we are trying to do is accommodate some of the more innovative or affordable housing styles . Mr. Flynn stated that the main purpose we would like to accomplish is ordinances that read easier. Mr. Flynn explained the five major housing types that staff has proposed creating. In response to question for clarification, Mr. Flynn explained that the front yard was measured from the property line . Further clarification was requested regarding the off-street parking requirement related to location. Mr. Flynn clarified that the off- street parking in all Alternative Single Family Dwelling Districts was proposed to be located behind the building line and not less than 20 ' from the property line. He stated that this provision took into account the possibility of yard reductions where an alternative set-back was established. Mr. Williamson asked if the 80% masonry requirement for the common wall in the 0-Lot Line District meant that the other walls would be excluded from the masonry requirement . Mr . Flynn stated that that was correct, as there are no masonry requirements in Single Family Dwelling District . Mr . Williamson asked if there needed to be clarification regarding 11) the 8 ' minimum separation between buildings proposed for the 0-Lot Line Dwelling District . Mr. Flynn stated that the graphic would be improved to reflect the needed clarification. Mr. Flynn asked if the Commission would like him to proceed onto the next four dwelling districts or if they would like to vote on the 0-Lot Line Dwelling District proposal by itself. Page Four, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 6 , 1981 The consensus of the committee was to hear all the proposed districts 400 before voting on any of them. Mr. Flynn reviewed the district requirements proposed for the remaining four dwelling districts , including Garden Home, 0-Lot Line Garden Home, Single Family Attached and Patio Home. During the presentation, Commissioners expressed their desire to see - Note: "Site plan required" or "Development plan required" placed on the district regulations where these plans were required. In explaining 0-Lot Line Garden Home and the Patio Home District regulations , Mr. Flynn pointed out that these new housing types were proposed to be on lots 25% smaller than the existing Single Family Detached lot and the Single Family Attached lot , respectively. He pointed out that the staff had researched innovative housing ordinances from across the country and found that the maximum lot reduction ordinarily proposed was only 20%. He stated that the Commission should give considerable attention to the matter of how far they were willing to go in reducing the lot size from existing lot sizes . He further pointed out that a home builder had an option on some land in Euless on which he wanted to build Garden Homes that would require a lot reduction of 50% from the existing. Mr. Flynn further stated that he had informed this builder that his product might qualify for the Patio Home lot size as proposed in the new ordinance. However, the builder had a specific product which did not fit the attached or abuding requirement of the Patio Home District. Mr. Flynn stated that this builder, Raldon Homes , was the only one to give him any negative feedback on staff' s proposals and that other builders and developers were generally pleased with the flexible nature of the proposed revisions . Mr. Flynn reminded the Commission that we are trying to grapple with present housing trends and needs . The present market is changing more now than it ever has in the past. Where once you used to have some set guidelines and standards to go by, now most everything is up for grabs . Mr. Flynn stated that the only way he could see to attack the problem is in steps . These revisions represent the first step to adapt to current conditions . Mr. Williamson stated that he liked the way Mr. Flynn presented these facts and he feels it is very good and easy to work with. However, he has a problem with the variable standards and Mr. Deithloff said he had the same problem, too. Mr. Flynn made a general comment about Auxiliary Districts II & III that allow variable building standards and variable yard and building standards , respectively. He said we currently allow those items in our 111) PD & CUD. The thing we feel like, as far as giving you a little bit of assurance, is that the new ordinance wi 1 make things clearer. So that now when a decision is made about any one of these districts , the title tells everyone up front what is being varied. • Page Five, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 6 , 1981 Mr. Williamson said that now that he realizes all the variances that have 400 been granted via PD & CUD that he was not too happy with what the Commission had done in the past. He said that he liked the way the proposed ordinances read, but that he is concerned about the leniency of the variances on the outer edge. Mr. Deithloff stated that he did not see the proposed ordinances as more lenient than previous ones . Mr. Flynn clarified that by saying, that the proposed ordinances are neither more or less lenient than previously, as far as the standards . He stated that because the variances were included in the title of the Auxillary Districts the new ordinances would be easier to work with and be easier for developers to use and for the public to understand. Now a zoning case will be advertised as "with variable building standards" , where as before it was just PD and nobody knew what the standards were or what was being varied, other than you people on the board and that you may not have known every single time. Mr . Gibson stated that from his viewpoint he can see that this will now give us a guideline and make it easier to relate to what is happening. Mr. Deithloff commended the staff for the amount of work they put into this proposal and stated that it was well thought out . Mr. Gibson made a motion to recommend approval of proposals 1-5 of the October 6 , 1981 staff recommendation for Phase II Alternative Single Family Dwelling Districts and Accompanying Auxillary Districts with modifications as had been suggested during discussion of the 20 page handout . Mr. Huston seconded the motion. Mr . Williamson still had reservations about the variances of Auxiliary District III in each of the districts , to some degree. The vote was as follows : Ayes : Mrs . Runyon, Messrs . Deithloff, Huston, Gibson and Williamson. Nays : None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. Mr . Flynn commended the Commission on spending the time and seeing this project through and that there will be more. 4c) Mr. Deithloff asked Mr. Flynn when he expects some of this going into narrative. Mr. Flynn said that he would go to the Council with these values and IC) present it more or less the same way as he had to the Commission. If they approve it with amendments , then we will incorporate their amendments into the draft . We will try to get the draft done prior to the Council Meeting in November for a second reading. Page Six, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 6, 1981 IV. 4C) ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8 : 55 p.m. C a ' .n /'