Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-09-15 i Regular Meeting Planning &Zoning Commission September 15, 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 Norma Morelock Ralph Gibson Robert McMillon Bob Williamson Carl Tyson Sam Huston Kent Flynn - Director of Planning Becky Null - Recording Secretary VISITORS Mrs. Willie Mae McCormick Steve Crim Tim Mathews Paul Spain Keith Wallace Rod Tyler INVOCATION The invocation was given by Mr. Ralph Gibson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting dated August 4, 1981, were approved as written. I. CONSIDER PLATTING - REPLATTING OF WOODLANDS ADDITION, LOCATED EAST OF NORTH MAIN STREET, NORTH OF ASH LANE AND WEST OF FULLER-WISER ROAD Mr. Flynn stated that Mr. Ron Haynes called and asked that he make the presentation of the replat since it is merely for the addition of TP&L easements for transformer pads. He stated that nothing else on the plat is being changed. Mr. Williamson made a motion to recommend approval of the replatting of Woodlands Addition subject to the City Engineer's letter of July 17, 1981. Mr. Huston seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Williamson, Huston, Tyson, Gibson, and Deithloff Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. Page Two, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, September 15, 1981 C II. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE #349 - REQUEST OF PAUL SPAIN FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM R1 TO Cl AND R3 & R5/CUD FOR CONFORMING HOUSING ON TRACT 4, S. TUCKER SURVEY, A-1512 Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents. Mr. Paul Spain of Terra International presented his request for change of zoning on a 15 acre tract located east and adjacent to Fuller-Wiser Road and north and adjacent to proposed extension of Cheek Sparger Road. He stated that approximately 11/2 to 2 acres of the property will be dedi- cated from the southwest corner of the property to the 120 foot right-of- way for Cheek Sparger Road. His proposal includes 5 acres of C-1 which will front on Fuller-Wiser and Cheek Sparger Road, 2.47 acres of R-3 (maximum of 29 units) to provide a buffer along Fuller-Wiser Road, and 7.53 acres of R-5 (maximum of 169 units) . He explained that their reason for requesting CUD is to make provisions for sound control features as called out in the study prepared by Mr. Joiner and to restrict single family detached develop- ment. Mr. Tyson stated that he is concerned about the density in the area. He asked Mr. Spain why he is requesting R-5 (25 units/acre) on the back portion of the property. Mr. Spain stated that he is requesting a maximum of 20 units over the entire 10 acres. In today's market, the densities are lower, ranging from 12 to 20 units per acre. He is requesting R-5 because he is unsure of what the market will be in the future. Chairman Deithloff asked Mr. Spain if he had any questions regarding the Staff letter dated September 11th. He also asked Mr. Spain if he was in agreement with the avigation easement. Mr. Spain stated that he has no problems with the letter and does agree to the avigation easement. Mr. Flynn stated that the avigation easement is a condition on the site plan. There being no additional proponents or opponents, Chairman Deithloff declared the public hearing closed. CIn reference to Bob McFarland's letters responding to zoning cases #347 and #348, Mr. Huston inquired whether Mr. McFarland cautioned against increasing the density near the airport. Page Three, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, September 15, 1981 Mr. Flynn stated that Mr. McFarland cautioned the Council to give careful consideration to residential development in the noise zone. Mr. McFarland stated that it was purely a policy matter, not a legal one. Mr. McFarland discouraged single family, not multi-family, in the noise zone because of single ownership. Mr. Gibson stated that he is concerned about the increase of R-5 density in that area and also the possibility of traffic problems. Mr. Tyson inquired about the construction of Cheek Sparger Road. Mr. Flynn stated that a portion of Cheek Sparger is under construction with the development of McCormick Farms. The rest of Cheek Sparger Road will be built as development of adjacent property occurs, which could conceivably be a couple of years. Mr. Huston asked what plans there were for schools in this area. Mr. Flynn stated that this property is in the Grapevine School District, and it is his understanding that the school board is aware of the problem and thatschools c ools will be constructed as the need occurs. Mr. Tyson stated that his main concern is the density. Mr. Tyson asked that the public hearing be reopened. The public hearing being reopened, Mr. Tyson asked Mr. Spain if he would consider a lower density. Mr. Spain stated that he preferred R-5 to allow for flexibility, but if the Commission preferred 16 units an acre overall, he would consider it. Mr. Tyson asked Mr. Spain if he would amend the maximum number of units permitted on the R-5 tract so that the overall total number of units for both the R-3 and R-5 tracts would equal 160 units. Mr. Spain so amended his request. Chairman Deithloff closed the public hearing once again. Mr. Tyson made a motion to approve the amended request for Zoning Case #349 subject to the following conditions: (1) The maximum number of units per- mitted on the R-5 tract be amended so that the overall total number of units for both the R-3 and R-5 tracts will equal 160 units; (2) This property is to conform to the Joint Airport Board's height restrictions; and (3) The Staff letter dated September 11, 1981. Mr. Gibson seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Tyson, Gibson, Williamson, and Deithloff Nays : None Abstentions: Mr. Huston Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. C • Page Five, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, September 15, 1981 Mr. Flynn stated that was part of the concern noted in the Staff letter. Mr. Tyson asked Mr. Mathews if they tried to locate the parking in the rear. Mr. Mathews stated they tried locating the parking in the rear, but it was almost impossible without pushing the buildings almost to the property line or constructing one continuous building instead of the concept of smaller apartments. To help alleviate some of the concern of the parking, Mr. Mathews presented an elevation depicting a type of see through screen- ing fence with berms along the parking area to help soften the impact. He stated that the design of the buildings is such that the entrance to the buildings will be from the front and the patios will be on the sides. The rear of the units will have large bay windows overlooking the park area. Mr. Tyson stated that with the proposed design he could understand that the parking in the rear would not be as convenient. He stated that he likes the concept, but is still concerned about the trash dumpsters being located in the front. He stated he like the screening provided for the dumpsters, but feels itmight m ght create a hazard in backing out of the property. Mr. Mathews explained that the dumpsters and screening fences around the dumpsters will be only 41/2 to 5 feet high. He noted that the site distance of the trucks will be about 12 to 2 feet above the screening. Acting Chairman Williamson asked for any other proponents. Mr. Steve Crim of L & N Land, Inc. , pointed out that the current zoning will allow 95 units, and the petitioner is proposing to reduce the number of units to 64. He noted that the ordinance does not prohibit parking in the front yard, although it is supposed to be behind the 25 foot building line. However, planned development zoning allows for such a variance. He stated that the proposed project will be directly across from property zoned for apartments (26 units per acre) which could also have their parking in front of their buildings. This project is not going to affect an established single family subdivision or other land uses in an adverse way. He felt that having the parking behind the buildings would be a detriment to the City park. He stated that this is not a speculative project, that NPC is planning to get construction under way as soon as possible. Acting Chairman Williamson asked if there were any other proponents or opponents. There were none. He asked if there was any discussion among the Commission. Mr. Tyson stated he felt that this project is unique and is one that would be good for the area. He stated the he liked the way Mr. Mathews has tried to provide screening for the dumpsters and parking area, but felt it needed to be considered further to decide how to tie the screening down. Acting Chairman Williamson stated that the screening adds considerably to the project and changes some of his negative feelings about the parking in front. Page Six, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, September 15, 1981 Mr. Tyson stated that guest parking had not been addressed and asked if there would be parking allowed along East Denton Drive. Mr. Flynn stated that parking would be allowed unless restricted by the City Council. He figured there would be room for approximately 20 cars along the street in front of the project. In pointing out the differences between the normal multi-family require- ments and those requested by the developer, Mr. Flynn stated that the DRC's main concerns were the reduced spacing between buildings and traffic safety problems of the dumpsters being accessed by trucks that would have to back into traffic on East Denton Drive. In response to a question as to the basis of Staff's concern over building separation, Mr. Flynn mentioned that the Fire Department had concern about the spacing between the buildings in relation to fire spread, but that the concern was shared by other DRC members as it was part of a joint recommen- dation. Mr. Tyson stated he felt the requested minimum between buildings was sufficient. Mr. Williamson stated that he felt the Fire Department is_within their rights to point this out. He stated that the Commission has to consider whether it is something to be concerned about. Mr. Tyson stated that if the Fire Department really has a concern, he would really like to know what that concern is. Mr. Flynn stated that their concern is that the guidelines in the multi- family ordinance for spacing are more appropriate, so they naturally object to the reduced distances. He stated that the required distance in the multi-family ordinance is 30 feet between walls with windows or doors, and that it is greater for window walls than blank walls probably because the window or door is less fire resistant than a blank solid wall. Mr. Williamson stated he did not feel that the eight foot reduction is as big of a problem if all the buildings are considered as one apartment complex. Mr. Tyson stated that he agreed, and that if the fire marshal has any real big concern that he should go to the City Council meeting if this zoning case is recommended for approval. In considering the other variances requested, the Commission was in agreement to the 60% minimum masonry requirement and the minimum rear ® yard of 7.5 feet. Mr. Williamson stated that if the Commission were to approve this zoning case, screening would have to be recommended. C Page Seven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, September 15, 1981 Mr. Tyson stated that he felt they could live with the other variances as long as the fire marshal does not have anything, he needs to convince the Council of differently. He felt that some type of a berm and fence is needed. He liked the developer's idea of the combination of a berm and a see through picket fence inbetween brick columns to screen the parking spaces. Mr. Tyson stated that he felt some guidelines needed to be established for the trash dumpsters. In response to whether Tarrant County Waste Disposal provides the smaller dumpsters, Mr. Mathews stated that if the dumpsters were taller than 42 to 5 feet, the dumpsters could be recessed farther back from the street to maintain visibility. There being no further discussion with the developer, Acting Chairman Williamson declared a d the public hearing closed. The Commission agreed that the developer had made an adequate attempt to provide screening and discussed ways to tie down the requirements. After discussion regarding the details of the screening, Mr. Tyson made a motion to recommend approval of Zoning Case #354 with the following conditions: (1) There be a screening fence consisting of masonry columns with white picket fence between them with a minimum spacing of 25 feet between the columns, and that there be a column at each opening to Denton Drive, which includes the driveways as well as the dumpster entrances; (2) The dumpsters be sufficiently screened so that there will be full visibility for the driver emptying the dumpsters prior to him backing into Denton Drive; (3) That the dumpsters be screened so that at least the side facing Denton Drive and one other side is screened from the area if a side-load dumpster is used; (4) If a front-load dumpster is used, that it be set back from Denton Drive 40 feet from the property line and screened on at least two sides; (5) If the fire marshal has any concerns about the spacing of buildings in this project, that he detail them to the City Council; and (6) That the developer amend his plan upon City Council approval to reflect the approved conditions. Mr. Gibson seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Tyson, Gibson, Huston, and Williamson Nays: None Acting Chairman Williamson declared the motion carried. III. CONSIDERATION - FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROVISIONS OF THE EULESS ZONING ORDINANCE Due to the lateness of the meeting, Mr. Gibson made a motion to table consideration of the revisions to the Euless Zoning Ordinance. Page Four, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, September 15, 1981 Mr. Huston stated that his reasons for abstaining are due to the proximity of the property to the airport, noise and danger of possible low flying aircraft, and the density. (Chairman Deithloff left the meeting at 8:35 p.m.) III. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE #354 - REQUEST OF TIM MATHEWS FOR NASH-PHILLIPS- COPUS COMPANY FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM CUD/SP FOR VARIABLE HOUSING TO PD FOR APARTMENTS WITH REDUCED YARDS AND PARKING IN FRONT YARD ON LOT 27, BLOCK E, AND LOT 1, BLOCK F, WOODCREEK ADDITION Acting t ng Chairman Williamson opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents. Mr. Tim Mathews with Nash-Phillips-Copus Company stated that he came before the Commission several weeks ago, and is now returning with a slightly revised development plan. Some of the revisions made from the previous plan include: (1) reducing the number of units from 68 to 64; (2) in- creasing the minimum side yard from 5 feet to 10 feet; (3) increasing the minimum distance between buildings from 10 to 22 feet; (4) increasing the minimum masonry requirements from 40% to 60%; and (5) relocating the trash dumpsters. He stated that the parking has remained in the front yard because it is virtually impossible to locate it in the rear. In response to questions regarding the trash dumpsters, Mr. Mathews stated that there will be four dumpsters. They are located so that the ingress/ egress of the trash vehicle will be from East Denton Drive instead of from the parking lot. He presented a drawing which addressed a side-load dumpster, but stated that there are several adaptations of how to treat it. The drawing depicted screening and landscaping around the dumpsters. Mr. Tyson stated that he did not believe there were any side-loading dumpsters in Euless. Mr. Mathews stated that they would modify it for a front-loading dumpster if need be. Mr. Tyson asked if East Denton Drive was designated as a collector street. Mr. Flynn stated that it does not appear on the thoroughfare plan, but is wide enough to be that status. Mr. Tyson noted that the trash vehicles would still have to back out into the street. Page Eight, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, September 15, 1981 Mr. Tyson seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Tyson, Gibson, Huston, and Williamson Nays: None Acting Chairman Williamson declared the motion carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. • "airman C C