Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-07-21 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 21, 1981 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Euless City Hall by Chairman John Deithloff. Members & Staff Present Members Absent John Deithloff Norma Morelock Bob Williamson Ralph Gibson Carl Tyson Sam Huston Robert McMillon Kent Flynn - Director of Planning Becky Null - Recording Secretary James Knight - City Engineer VISITORS Jim Culbertson John Joiner John Frickstad Leigh Chu Harry Hoover Willie Mae McCormick Blease Tibbets Bill Malish Gary Havener Walter Elliott Rod Tyler Paul Spain Jerry Kerbo Keith Wallace Earl Heitman Jack Schubert Billie Heitman Ron Haynes Jackie Howes W. M. Sustaire Harold Samuels Steve Crim B. R. Heath INVOCATION The invocation was given by Mr. Sam Huston. APPROVAL OF MINTUES The minutes of the regular meeting dated June 16, 1981, were approved as written. The approval of the minutes of the regular meeting dated July 7, 1981, was tabled until the meeting on August 4, 1981. Page Two, Regular MeetinK, Planning & Zoning Commission, July 21, 1981 I. CONSIDER PLATTING - REPLATTING OF WOODLANDS ADDITION, LOCATED EAST OF NORTH MAIN STREET, NORTH OF ASH LANE AND WEST OF FULLER-WISER ROAD Chairman Deithloff stated that the developer requested that this platting request be tabled. II. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE #343 - REQUEST OF JIM CULBERTSON FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM R1 TO TOWN- HOME & R4 WITH CUD FOR CONFORMING HOUSING ON TRACTS 2 & 3 AND NORTHERN PART OF TRACT 4, RAY SHELTON SUBDIVI- SION, LOCATED NORTH OF HARWOOD ROAD AND EAST OF NORTH MAIN STREET Chairman Deithloff stated that the rules of the public hearing are still in effect. Mr. Harry Hoover, the developer's architect, presented the request for the change of zoning. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any other proponents. lil Mr. Blease Tibbets, 205 E. Harwood, is owner of a portion of the subject property and spoke in favor of the zoning change. Mr. Gary Havener of Mineral Wells, also owner of a portion of the subject property, spoke in favor of the zoning change. There being no additional proponents or opponents, Chairman Deithloff declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Flynn explained that townhome zoning, notapartments, is being request- ed ed on the front portion. He stated that Section 7-309 had recently been renamed to Townhome Dwelling District and that the requirements of this section would regulate land usage on the front two tracts. There being no further discussion, Mr. McMillon made a motion to approve Zoning Case #343 subject to the Staff letter dated July 21, 1981. Mr. Huston seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Page Three, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, July 21, 1981 Ayes: Messrs. McMillon, Huston, Tyson, Gibson, Williamson and Deithloff Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. III. FURTHER CONSIDERATION - ZONING CASE #348 - REQUEST OF PAUL SPAIN FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM R1 TO C2 AND R1 TO R3, R4 & R5 WITH CUD FOR CONFORMING HOUSING ON TRACTS 1, 1A, 2, 4, 4B1, 4B1A, 4B2, 4B3, 4B4 and 4B7, R. CROWLEY SURVEY, A-312 AND TRACT 6, S. TUCKER SURVEY, A-1512, LOCATED NORTH OF PROPOSED EXTENSION OF ASH LANE AND EAST OF FULLER-WISER ROAD Mr. Paul Spain, Terra International, stated that they have added an additional condition on the site plan which states that at the time of construction, the builders shall construct all units within the then current Noise Zone B with the "Sound Control Specifications" as called out in Appendix A of the report titled "Sound Control Recommendations for a Multi-Family Residential Division in the City of Euless, Texas" prepared by Joiner Pelton Rose, Inc. , dated April 15, 1981. Mr. Huston stated that he was concerned that buildings shown in the render- ings presented would violate airspace for the proposed additional runways at D-FW Airport. Mr. Spain stated that the height standards set by the C-2 zoning were well below the 175 feet allowed by the airport. Mr. Huston asked what damage the noise of the planes coming directly over the site from the proposed STOL runway would cause. Mr. Spain stated that Mr. Joiner, the acoustics expert who prepared the noise study had done further studies on the effects of the STOL runway and that he could answer the question better. Mr. Joiner stated that theplanes for the STOL runwaywould be at an eleva- tionoa of 1,500 feet when over the zoning site. He presented graphics that illustrated the new noise reduction standards that FAA will be requiring for air worthiness certification of these planes. He stated that the original NCTCOG/FAA study that determined the location of noise zone contours didnot assume that planes would be getting quieter as they are now being required to do. He stated that the original NCTCOG study was based on three terminals being on the east side of the airport and two terminals on the west side. He further stated that the NCTCOG report assumed the usage of all four north/south runways, which includes the two existing north/south runways and the one additional planned north/south runway on either side of the airport. The report also assumed the usage of the current crosswind runway Page Four, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, July 21, 1981 in Irving and the crosswind runway proposed in Grapevine. The NCTCOG report did not include the STOL runway because the location was not proposed at that time. Mr. Tyson asked what effect the STOL runway now proposed north of the zoning site would have. Mr. Joiner stated that the STOL runway would have no effect on the noise levels at the zoning site if it were located where his information showed, but that his information on the runway was very limited. He also stated that the new FAA noise reduction requirements for aircraft would move the western extremity of the current Noise Zone B eastward across the zoning site to a location approximately midway between Fuller-Wiser Road and pro- posed State Highway 360. There was discussion as to the actual location for the proposed STOL runway. Mr. Heath from the D/FW Planning & Engineering Office stated that the point of take-off for STOL aircraft on the proposed STOL runway was approximately 8,000 feet north of the north boundary of the commercial zoning case site. Mr. Joiner was asked what noise levels would be generated on the site based on Mr. Heath's location of the STOL runway. Mr. Joiner stated that four factors determined the noise levels and that the frequency of STOL flights and the time of day were critical factors which he could only guess at based on the limited number of aircraft that could use a STOL runway. He estimated that noise levels might be as high as 85 dbs and that number might be increased 5 or 6 dbs if the STOL runway were built at the location indicated by Mr. Heath. He emphasized that he felt that there would be little effect on the site by STOL aircraft because of the feature of short take-off and landing aircraft to get off the runway quickly. He stated that the noise level at the site would probably be less than 85 db and that with their proposed noise attenuation criteria for construction of 28 db, the interior noise level would not exceed 60 db, which was just a little louder than the sound made by typical home central air conditioning. In answer to questions concerning the D-FW Airport's policy to location of the STOL runway, Mr. Heath explained that federal regulations require that the airport must own the property on which a clear zone for a runway is located. He concluded that approach to the proposed STOL runway was not a problem with respect to the subject zoning sites. Mr. McMillon asked if construction of the STOL runway will occur prior to the construction of the crosswind runway. Mr. Heath stated that the taxiways for the crosswind were proposed to be used for access to the STOL runway also, but that he could not definitely say when the STOL would be built. Mr. Tyson asked Mr. Joiner why he had stated that his report had called for a noise attenuation criteria of 28 db when he could only find reference to 25 db in the report. Page Five, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, July 21, 1981 Mr. Joiner answered that the actual materials and construction specifications listed exceeded what would be required to provide the 25 db reference in the report, and that the weakest components specified in the construction requirements would yield 28 db noise attenuation. Mr. Williamson asked if the City would be responsible for enforcmenet of the sound control specifications. Mr. Flynn stated that if they were approved as a condition of the zoning case, the City would enforce them. Chairman Deithloff asked about the avigation easement. Mr. Flynn stated that the developer has agreed to submit an avigation easement, but that it could be incorporated in the zoning as a condition. After additional discussion, Mr. Williamson made a motion to recommend approval of Zoning Case #348 subject to the Staff letter dated July 21, 1981, the City Attorney's letter dated July 10, 1981, and the submission of an avigation easement. Mr. McMillon seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Williamson, McMillon, Gibson, Tyson, and Deithloff Nays: Mr. Huston Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. IV. FURTHER CONSIDERATION - ZONING CASE #347 - 1 REQUEST OF FREELON D. TULLOS FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM R1 TO R3/CUD FOR CONFORMING HOUSING ON TRACTS 3 & 3A, R. CROWLEY SURVEY, A-312, LOCATED NORTH OF PROPOSED EXTENSION OF ASH LANE AND EAST OF FULLER-WISER ROAD Mr. Bill Malish, representing Paul Yarborough and Freelon D. Tullos, stated they have amended their site plan to exclude the construction of single family detached dwellings and also added a requirement that all dwellings would be constructed with the sound control features specified in the noise study prepared by Mr. John Joiner. In light of the information discussed in consideration of the previous zoning case, Mr. Williamson made a motion to approve Zoning Case #347 subject to the Staff letter dated July 21, 1981, the City Attorney's letter dated July 10, 1981, and adding the zoning requirement that an avigation easement be obtained. Mr. McMillon seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Williamson, McMillon, Gibson, Tyson and Deithloff Nays: Mr. Huston Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. Page Six, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, July 21, 1981 V. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE #350 - REQUEST OF THE CITY OF EULESS FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM SP/CUD FOR VARIABLE HOUSING (R-4 DENSITY) TO SP/CUD FOR VARIABLE HOUSING (R-4 DENSITY) WITH A REVISED SITE PLAN ON LOTS 3R THROUGH 7R AND 9R THROUGH 26R, BLOCK E, WOODCREEK ADDITION Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents. Mr. Steve Crim, L & N Land, Inc. , stated that when this property was platted a year and a half ago, there was a note on the face of the plat stating that there would be no screening fences along the property adjacent to the creek. There had been an agreement between the developer, Park Board and City Staff to provide a two-rail fence along the rear property lines adjacent to the City Park. Since that time, ordinances have changed to allow uncovered parking in the rear if a screening fence is provided. He requested that they be allowed to have uncovered parking with the stipulation that there not be a screening fence required along the property adjacent to the creek; only a two-rail fence. There being no additional proponents and opponents, Chairman Deithloff declared the public hearing closed. IIS Mr. Tyson made a motion to recommend approval of Zoning Case #350 subject to the Staff letter dated July 21, 1981. Mr. Gibson seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Tyson, Gibson, Huston, McMillon and Deithloff Nays: None Abstentions: Mr. Williamson Mr. Williamson explained that he abstained because he feels covered parking should be required. Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. VI. FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROVISIONS OF THE EULESS ZONING ORDINANCE Chairman Deithloff stated that since the City Staff has not had time to prepare any further changes, the Commission could table further considera- Ction to allow additional work and study. Mr. McMillon made a motion to table consideration of the recommended changes to the zoning ordinance. Page Seven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, July 21, 1981 Mr. Huston seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. McMillon, Huston, Gibson, Tyson, Williamson and Deithloff Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. VII. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE #351 - REQUEST OF RON HAYNES FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM R1 TO PD FOR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED AND/OR DUPLEX ON TRACTS 1A, lAl, 1B1A1, 1B1B, 1B1C, 1B6, 1,1B,1B4&1E, 1D AND lDl, B. HARRINGTON SURVEY, A-808, LOCATED SOUTH OF GLADE ROAD AND WEST OF BAZE DRIVE Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents. Mr. Ron Haynes, Crow Development Co. , presented his request for rezoning. In response to the Staff letter dated July 21, 1981, he stated they are requesting reduced front yards to provide space in the rear yard for additional off-street parking. They have requested 50 foot right-of-ways because 80% of the lots are serviced by alleys. He asked Mr. Flynn to clarify the second paragraph on page 2 of the Staff letter which recommends 60 foot right-of-ways. Mr. Flynn explained that the Subdivision Ordinance does not make provisions for pavement sections for anything other than R1 or R2. Although single family attached subdivisions have about the same density as R2 subdivisions which require 60 foot right-of-ways, Staff has in the past recommended acceptance of 50 foot right-of-ways in single family attached subdivisions where additional off-street parking has been provided in the way of indi- vidual driveways at least nine feet in width on each lot in which those driveways are to the rear of the lot. In this case, however, the 10 foot wide driveway is being shared by two dwellings and is providing half of the off-street parking generally provided when making recommendation for 50 foot right-of-ways. It is also felt that the common 10 foot wide driveway could easily be blocked by one homeowner, thus preventing the other homeowner from using the common drive. Staff's concern is that this fact could cause even more parking on the street, thus requiring 27 feet of pavement and 60 foot right-of-ways to negotiate the street loaded with parked cars along either side. He also stated there has been no indication as to which lots are to be single family attached versus duplex. Theoret- ically, the whole subdivision could be duplex. Therefore, Staff cannot recommend acceptance of the 50 foot right-of-ways for this subdivision. Mr. Haynes stated that on the lots that are served by alleys, four cars can be parked in the rear, whereas, there is room for five cars on the lots that have driveways. Page Eight, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, July 21, 1981 Concerning the comment in the Staff letter regarding the minimum floor area, Mr. Haynes stated they are seeking to construct units with a combined minimum floor area of 2,000 square feet; 1,100 square feet on one side, 900 square feet on the other. Mr. Flynn stated that at the present time, the minimum floor area for single family attached is a fixed condition in PD zoning and has to conform with normal standards in R-2 district, which is 1,100 square feet. Presently under consideration by the Commission is the removal of that as a fixed condition under PD zoning so that the City Council can set a minimum for each PD proposal. He further informed Mr. Haynes that for now he will need to amend his development plan to reflect a minimum of 1,100 square feet for single family attached. Should the P & Z Commission and City Council amend the PD ordinance to allow the developer to set whatever minimum floor area he wants, then Mr. Haynes could come back before the Commission and Council to ask that a new minimum floor area be set for his development plan. Mr. Haynes agreed to amend his development plan to show a minimum floor area of 1,100 square feet for single family attached dwellings and stated that they would probably come back for a different minimum floor area if the PD ordinance is changed to allow same. Mr. Haynes explained that the reason they are requesting single family attached and/or duplex is the possibility that Crow Development will retain the ownership of some of the units and use them as rental property. Con- ceivably, the rental units would be sold at some time in the future. Mr. Tyson stated that there is a difference in requirements for single family attached housing and duplexes, such as fire wall construction. Mr. Haynes stated that they will probably build all the housing to the higher standards, which is that of single family attached, because at some point each side of the duplexes will eventually be sold to different owners. Mr. Tyson stated that there would really be no advantage in requesting duplex zoning along with the single family attached. After additional discussion regarding this matter, Mr. Haynes requested to amend his zoning request from PD for single family attached and/or duplex to PD for single family attached only. There being no additional proponents, Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any opponents. Mrs. Jackie Howse, Route 1, Box 51A, asked to see the development plan so she and her neighbors would know exactly what is being requested. Upon questioning, she stated that she would like to see a screening fence between her and the project. There being no additional opponents, Chairman Deithloff declared the public hearing closed. Page Nine, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, July 21, 1981 Mr. Williamson asked Mr. Haynes if they plan to construct a screening fence between the alleys and the properties outside of this proposed subdivision. Mr. Haynes stated that he has not considered that idea. Mr. Tyson stated he was concerned about the 10 foot driveways being shared by two units and asked what their reasons were for requesting 10 foot driveways. Mr. Haynes stated that there would be an awful lot of concrete around these units if two nine foot driveways are constructed. Also, this would increase the cost by $40,000 for the additional concrete. It will also reduce the buildable lot width by nine feet which would then leave a maximum buildable lot width of 42 feet; 21 feet for each side of the unit. He stated that 42 feet does not allow much room for architectural detail, different elevations, etc. The only other alternative would be to make the lots bigger, and by doing this they would lose 14 single family attached lots, which would virtually make this project unfeasible. Mr. Williamson pointed out that if 10 foot drives were approved, it would dictate that all lots have covered parking, since the drives would not be wide enough to divide with a screening fence. Mr. Tyson asked for an explanation of the 20 foot right-of-way access on Glade Road. Mr. Knight stated that the 20 foot right-of-way access is to provide addi- tional street parking in front of those units off of Glade Road. He recommends that there be an island between the Glade Road right-of-way and the 20 foot access. Mr. Tyson stated he is strongly against the 10 foot driveway access easements. He did not feel that the Council intended to set a precedent when approving the PDzoning for Wilshire Village Square which included an access easement. After a considerable amount of discussion between Mr. Tyson and Mr. Haynes over increasing the driveway widths to 18 feet and the resulting decrease in lot widths, Mr. Flynn explained that Staff is not recommending that the 10 foot driveways not be permitted. The City Attorney has stated that the 10 foot access easements are an acceptable substitute in lieu of our normal requirements of individual driveways on the lots. Staff's recommendation deals with street width. Staff does not feel that the 10 foot common drives will provide enough off-street parking to rid the subdivision of the problem of on-street parking to the point that a 31 foot street in a 50 foot right- of-way would be acceptable. Therefore, we have recommended that the sub- division ordinance for R2 streets be adhered to, providing 37 foot streets in 60 foot right-of-ways. After additional discussion, Mr. Tyson made a motion to recommend denial of Zoning Case #351. Mr. McMillon seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Page Ten, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, July 21, 1981 C Ayes: Messrs. Tyson, McMillon and Huston Nays: Messrs. Deithloff and Williamson Abstentions: Mr. Gibson Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. VIII. CONSIDER PLATTING - PRELIMINARY PLATTING OF GREENHILL ADDITION, LOCATED SOUTH OF GLADE ROAD AND WEST OF BAZE DRIVE Mr. Tyson made a motion to recommend denial of the preliminary plat of Greenhill Addition. Mr. Huston seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Tyson, Huston, McMillon and Williamson Nyas: Mr. Deithloff Abstentions: Mr. Gibson Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. IX. NEW BUSINESS Chairman Deithloff stated that with the volume of zoning cases that has been heard lately, the Commission set a policy to hear no more than four zoning cases at each meeting. The Commission did not stipulate at that time whether that was four new zoning cases or if it inlcuded tabled and further consideration type cases. He stated that he felt the Commission should not hear more than four zoning cases whether they be continued, tabled, or new. He asked for a suggestion from the Commission. After some discussion on the matter, Mr. Williamson suggested that when the Commission votes to table or continue a zoning case, they should also direct Staff to include or not to include it as one of the limit of four zoning cases to be allowed at the next meeting. This suggestion was agreed to by the Commission. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. C1 / a:,-,,,.., ` f airman