Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-08-04 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 4, 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 John Deithloff. .Members & Staff Present Members Absent John Deithloff Sam Huston Ralph Gibson Bob Williamson Robert McMillon Carl Tyson Norma Morelock Kent Flynn - Director of Planning Becky Null - Recording Secretary James Knight - City Engineer VISITORS Patricia Scheirmann Andy Kidd Steve Crim Rod Tyler Tim Mathews Ron Haynes INVOCATION The invocation was given by Mr. Robert McMillon. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting dated July 7, 1981, were approved as written. The minutes of the regular meeting dated July 21, 1981, were approved as written with the following change on page one: "The approval of the minutes of the regular meeting dated July 7, 1981, was tabled until the meeting on August 4, 1981." I. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE #352 - REQUEST OF TIM MATHEWS FOR NASH, PHILLIPS, COPUS COMPANY FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM CUD WITH 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 Page Two,, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 4, 1981 C Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents. Mr. Tim Mathews of Nash-Phillips-Copus Company in Austin presented his request for rezoning and stated that the current zoning will allow 26 units to the acre, and they are proposing to build fourplexes at approxi- mately 18.4 units an acre. The variances they are requesting include reducing the minimum side yards to 5 feet, the minimum rear yards to 7.5 feet, the minimum distance between buildings to 10 feet, reduced masonry facade construction requirements, and locating the required parking in the front yard within the 25 foot setback. They intend to sell the individual lots to various investors. There will be a property management group that will handle the maintenance of the yards, buildings, parking lots, etc., for each of the lots. The units will range in size from a minimum of 782 square feet to a maximum of 3,840 square feet. He pre- sented elevations of some of the proposed units. After some discussion concerning the elevations with regard to the proposed side yard, Mr. Mathews stated that his original plan proposed a stairwell to the side of the buildings. His original plan also proposed a minimum side yard of 2.5 feet and 20% masonry. After having worked with the building plans, he stated that it figured out to be 5 foot minimum side yards and approximately 40% masonry. Chairman Deithloff asked Mr. Mathews if he is proposing one dumpster to serve four complexes. Mr. Mathews stated it is drawn up that way on the plan, but they could add some more. He stated he realized that the location could cause some inconvenience to those emptying the dumpsters. Mr. Tyson asked for an explanation of the property management group. Mr. Mathews explained that, in essence, it functions similar to a home- owner's association. The owners of each of the fourplexes contract with the property management group to maintain the yards, buildings, collect rent, etc. Nash-Phillips-Copus will contract out of Austin with someone in this area to perform that function. Mr. Tyson asked Mr. Mathews if they had come up with a design that would move the parking from the front to the rear. Mr. Mathews stated that considering the depth of the lots, only one or two units could be serviced from the rear. Mr. Flynn stated that Mr. Mathews mentioned that their development plan had been changed; however, the Commission does not have a copy of the new development plan. He explained to Mr. Mathews that if he was pro- posing something other than what was on the development plan, he would have to request amendments to his plan. C Mr. Mathews amended his development plan to reflect minimum side yards of 5 feet and 40% minimum masonry. He requested that the typical patio and stairway be changed to just typical patio only. Page Three, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 4, 1981 CChairman Deithloff asked if there were any other proponents. Mr. Steve Crim with L & N Land, Inc., pointed out that the density would be reduced with this proposed plan. He stated that the developer could build one continuous building across this property which would eliminate any side yards. There being no opponents, Chairman Deithloff declared the public hearing closed. Mrs. Morelock asked if a restriction could be placed on this plan to require the parking in the rear. Mr. Flynn stated that the current multi-family district standards do not allow the parking within the 25 foot front yard. However, under a PD, the Commission can set whatever standard they want; more or less restrictive. Mr. Tyson stated he is concerned about the visual pollution which would be caused by the cars in front and also the trash dumpsters. Mr. McMillon stated he is also concerned about the dumpsters being along the curb. He felt there would be a problem in servicing them if the parking lot has to be used. Chairman Deithloff inquired if the City has an ordinance requiring the dumpsters to be screened. Mr. Flynn stated that ordinances require the trash dumpsters to be screened on three sides by a wooden screening fence. Chairman Deithloff stated that he is concerned about the possibility of fire hazard caused by the reduced side yards. It was the consensus of the Commission to reopen the public hearing to further question the petitioner. Mr. Tyson asked Mr. Mathews if he had considered screening the dumpsters. Mr. Mathews stated there would be either plants and/or some type of fence to screen the dumpsters. Chairman Deithloff closed the public hearing. After additional discussion among the members, Mr. McMillon made a motion to recommend denial of Zoning Case #352. Mrs. Morelock seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Morelock and Messrs. Gibson, McMillon and Deithloff Nays: None CAbstentions: Mr. Tyson Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. Page Four, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 4, 1981 II. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE #353 - REQUEST OF ANDY KIDD FOR GEORGE NOKES FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM C2 TO PD FOR LUMBER YARD ON TRACT 4R, HARWOOD PLAZA ADDITION (1010 N. INDUSTRIAL BLVD.) Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents. Mr. Andy Kidd, 122 Scenic Drive in Lewisville, presented his request for change of zoning to allow a building material supermart with outside storage. He stated that this property is where Gibson's is currently located. He stated that Mr. Gerald Smith, owner of Gibson's, has a 15 year lease on the property from Mr. George Nokes. Mr. Smith will become a partner of Mr. Kidd's, and the building material and lumber supply store will continue through his lease on the property. Mr. Kidd's business, True Value Lumber, is similar to a Payless Cashways, which sells everything needed to build a home. He currently owns a similar business in Lewisville. He stated that if this zoning is approved, this lumber store will be one of the largest in the State of Texas. He plans to completely remodel the face of the building and intends to screen behind the building and around the outside storage area with a six foot wooden screening fence topped with three strands of barbed wire. The barbed wire is required by his insurance company. The ingress/egress from Harwood Road will have a locked gate and is to be used for delivery only. He stated that he would provide a gate key to the Police & Fire Departments for access in case of an emergency. Mrs. Morelock asked Mr. Kidd if he is proposing to use the existing sign. Mr. Kidd stated he is. He further stated that the current sign is so large and ugly that it is an eyesore. They plan to repaint the sign brown, orange and creme in color, remove all the neon bulbs, and light the sign from the ground. Mr. Flynn stated that according to the City Attorney, the sign is non- transferable because it is a non-conforming sign. However, in a PD request, the Commission and Council can authorize the sign standards that are more or less restrictive than those in the zoning ordinance sign provisions. Mr. Tyson asked Mr. Kidd if he has considered constructing a new sign. Mr. Kidd stated that it would cost approximately $17,000 to tear down the existing sign and replace it with a new one, compared with $3,000 to remodel the existing sign. There being no additional proponents or opponents, Chairman Deithloff declared the public hearing closed. Page Five, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 4, 1981 Mr. McMillon noted that the existing Gibson's sign is approximately nine times larger than the sign ordinance allows. He stated that at least the improvements planned for the existing sign would be better than the current sign. Mr. Gibson made a motion to recommend approval of Zoning Case #353, as presented, subject to the Staff letter dated July 31st. Mrs. Morelock seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Morelock and Messrs. Gibson, Tyson, McMillon and Deithloff Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the public hearing closed. III. FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROVISIONS OF THE EULESS ZONING ORDINANCE Mr. Flynn presented the proposed changes regarding site plan type zoning cases relating to residential housing. This involves the CUD and PD type zoning districts which allow for more flexible zoning than is allowed in the standard zoning districts. The difference between the CUD and PD is the degree of detail in the plan and the amount of flexibility that is encouraged in the development. In these districts, there are five or six standards that are fixed and all the other standards are allowed to flex; the Commission makes recommendations and the Council sets the flexing standards. The problem in working with these districts is that the fixed versus variable standards in each district are somewhat arbitrary. There does not seem to be any relationship. Developers have had difficulty because their particular development might want to take advantage of some of the flexible items in a CUD, such as a flexible floor area, but also would like to flex the yards, which is provided in a PD. Staff is pro- posing that CUD be a subset of PD as far as those standards that are fixed so that there is a cumulative order to the relationship between CUD and PD. Staff's proposals are based on the rationale that the amount of flexibility should be proportional to the amount of detail on the plan submitted. Since the Development Plan required for PD zoning is more detailed than the Site Plan required for CUD zoning, PD regulations should be more flexible than CUD. For example, if a developer wants to vary the yard setbacks, the P & Z Commission may want to allow him to do so only in certain portions of the development and not on the perimeter lots. They can do this on a Development Plan because all lots and yard setbacks are shown, whereas they could not on a CUD Site Plan because this informa- tion is not shown. Staff feels that the minimum fixed regulations for both CUD and PD zoning should include site regulations of density, site coverage and requirements for minimum number of off-street parking spaces and location of same. Page Six, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 4, 1981 These site issues offset adjacent property values and public safety the most. On the other hand, minimum floor area requirements, which are currently flexible in CUD, but not in PD, should flex in both CUD and PD. Below are the amendments to the CUD and PD ordinances recommended by Staff: AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE A. Amending Section 7-1111(4) - Fixed Standards for Community Unit Development 1. Maximum site coverage shall be included as a fixed standard for all proposed dwelling structures within a Community Unit Develop- ment. 2. Location and minimum number per unit of off-street parking shall be included as a fixed standard for all proposed dwelling structures within a Community Unit Development. AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE A. Amending Section 7-1104 - Fixed Standards for Planned Development 1. Floor area shall be removed as a fixed standard of Planned Development Zoning Districts. 2. Maximum site coverage shall be included as a fixed standard of Planned Development Zoning Districts. 3. Maximum off-street parking shall be amended to "the location and minimum number per unit of off-street parking". B. Adding 7-1104A - Requirements for "SPUD" Special Planned Unit Development 1. Height, site coverage, density, parking and loading requirements shall be set forth as fixed standards for Special Planned Unit Developments. 2. A maximum reduction of twenty-five (25%) in lot area, width, and depth shall be allowed as per conditions to Special Planned Unit Developments. Chairman Deithloff asked if anyone in the audience wanted to comment on the proposed changes. Mr. Ron Haynes with Crow Development spoke in favor of the proposed changes. Mr. McMillon made a motion to recommend approval of the recommended changes to the CUD and PD ordinances. Page Seven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 4, 1981 ' 1 CMrs. Morelock seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Morelock and Messrs. McMillon, Tyson, Gibson and Deithloff Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Chairman C