Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-05-19 y R� Regular Meeting ID Planning & Zoning Commission May 19, 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 Acting Chairman Bob Williamson. Members & Staff Present Members Absent Bob Williamson Robert McMillon Ralph Gibson Helen Lightbody Carl Tyson John Deithloff (came in 9:00 p.m.) Kent Flynn - Director of Planning Becky Null - Recording Secretary James Knight - City Engineer VISITORS E. A. Cole Bill Perry Glenn Barton Chris McKinney Linda Barton Robynn McKinney Garland Brown T. A. Rayburn Naomi Jordan-Brown Mrs. Rayburn Charles Caffey Brenda Hankins Jane Johnston Jerry Kerbo Augusto Wilganoski Coy B. Moon Nell Longfellow James Lucas B. L. Perkins Steve Crim Lou Duggan Rod Tyler R. J. Thomes Bruce French G. J. LaFountain Mike Weiss Willie Mae McCormick INVOCATION The invocation was given by Carl Tyson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Tyson made a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting dated April 21; 1981, with the correction to the last sentence of the third paragraph to read as follows: "He further stated that access to this property would be from American Airlines Blvd. , and without this access it is real- istically landlocked." Page Two, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, May 19, 1981 Mrs. Lightbody seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody and Messrs. Tyson, Gibson and Williamson Nays: None Acting Chairman Williamson declared the motion carried. Mr. Tyson made a motion to table the approval of the minutes of the regular meeting dated May 5, 1981, until June 2nd, to give the Commission members adequate time to review the minutes. Mr. Gibson seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Tyson, Gibson and Williamson, and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Acting Chairman Williamson declared the motion carried. I. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE #335 - REQUEST OF RICHARD THOMES FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM PD TO R2 & R4 ON TRACTS 13 & 14, RAY SHELTON SUBDIVISION, LOCATED NORTH OF MEADOWVIEW ADDITION AND WEST OF FULLER-WISER ROAD Acting Chairman Williamson opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents. Mr. Jerry LaFountain, 601 S. Industrial, stated they propose to develop duplexes and condominiums on this property at approximately 12.3 units per acre. They also intend to include swimming pools, tennis courts and jogging tracks in this development while maintaining as much green area as is available. The duplexes will be near the single family residences in Meadowview Addition. He stated they intend to connect this project with the development to the north. Acting Chairman Williamson stated the Commission was given materials in their packets for straight R2 & R4 zoning. Shortly prior to the meeting, the Commission was given a site plan for R2 & R4 with CUD for Conforming Housing. He stated that if the petitioner wants to go with CUD, he will have to request that the Commission act upon the CUD request. Mr. LaFountain requested to change their zoning request from straight R2 & R4 to R2 & R4 with CUD for Conforming Housing. C Page Three, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, May 19, 1981 CMr. Flynn explained that a CUD is a type of zoning where a site plan is prepared that establishes conditions to the zoning. Under straight zoning, such as R2 or R4, the developer would not be bound by any promises made concerning jogging trails, fencing, swimming pools, etc. He is only required to build according to the standards listed in the zoning ordinance. Under a CUD, the developer establishes conditions on his site plan. The P & Z Commission makes a recommendation, and the City Council decides the issue and establishes the standards that apply to that project. Those standards can be unique to that project. The project will then have to be constructed to those standards, and nothing else can be built. CUD also has a provision where the density can be increased above normal densities if the developer commits to a common open space. This area is set aside to remain open and be used for such things as recreational uses, but can never be used for anything else. Mr. LaFountain stated they have not drawn up a plan showing the location of the buildings, jogging trail, tennis courts, etc., because of the expense involved. He stated the location of the jogging trails, tennis courts, club house and buildings will be on the plan prior to going to City Council. In response to a question from the audience, Mr. Flynn stated that the initial request was for R2 & R4. However, this afternoon Staff received the site plan and word that the developer wanted to amend his request to CUD for Conforming Housing for R2 & R4. Since CUD is more restrictive than straight zoning, the City Attorney has advised that the developer can request this amendment. Acting Chairman Williamson asked if there were any additional proponents. Mr. Bruce Longnecker, attorney for Wilshire Mortgage Co. , the present owner of the property, stated they concur with Mr. Thomes request. He stated that Mr. Thomes was authorized to act as their agent in applying for the zoning change. He further stated that the property is presently under contract for sale contingent upon a zoning change satisfactory to Wilshire Mortgage Co. However, if the intensity of the zoning change is not made to the satisfaction of Wilshire Mortgage Co. , they will retain the option to keep the property with its present PD zoning. Acting Chairman Williamson asked if there were any opponents. Mr. Glenn Barton, 1211 Meadowview, asked whether these units would be rented or for sale and the number of stories. He stated he is opposed to the zoning change. He also questioned why the developer is requesting R4 (16 units/acre) when he stated he is building at approximately 12.3 units per acre. Acting Chairman Williamson stated that the units would be for sale, and the maximum number of stories would be three. Mrs. Jan Johnston, 1112 Hillcrest, stated she is opposed because there will be more traffic than the streets can handle. She asked if Harwood Road and Fuller-Wiser will be widened. Page Four, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, May 19, 1981 C Mr. Flynn stated that Harwood Road is designated as a thoroughfare and Fuller-Wiser as a collector street. He stated that when development occurs adjacent to one of these streets, it is the responsibility of the developer to escrow money with the City or construct a certain portion of that road widening depending on the intensity of the use next to the road. Should this property be rezoned, construction will occur when the City Council reviews the plat of this property to bring it into compliance with the subdivision ordinance. The City Council will then decide whether to pave the street with funds available at this time or just escrow the money until there is enough money to pave the street in its entirety. Mr. Pat Wilganoski, 1110 Hillcrest, stated his main concern is that there are not enough schools. Mr. Garland Brown, 1212 Meadowview, stated he is in opposition and questioned how the Commission could approve this zoning request without the plans being complete. He asked if Meadowview Drive would open up into this proposed development. Mr. Flynn stated that Meadowview Drive is not shown on the developer's plan that way. Mrs. Brenda Hankins, 1215 Hillcrest, stated she is in opposition and is concerned about the proposed alley. Mr. Ed Cole, 1209 Hillcrest, stated he is opposed to the zoning change based on what has been presented tonight. Mr. Glenn Barton presented a petition signed by homeowners within 200 feet of the subject property which gave reasons why they did not want rental property on the subject tract. Mrs. Ginny Rayburn, 1210 Hillcrest, questioned whether the residents of Meadowview Addition would be allowed to use the recreational facilities in this proposed development. Mr. Chris McKinney, 1211 Hillcrest, stated he is opposed to this project until he knows exactly what the developer is proposing. Mr. Garland Brown asked how the Commission could make any kind of recommenda- tion without specific information from the developer. In response to the audience's comments, Mr. LaFountain stated that in a condominium project, the mortgage company requires that the units be owner occupied which would prevent someone from buying several units and then renting them. He reemphasized that this is going to be a first class project. Acting Chairman Williamson asked Mr. LaFountain if they intend to build duplexes which are owned by one owner and leased or single family attached r units which are owned by two separate owners. Mr. LaFountain stated he did not know at this time; it depends on marketing. Page Five, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, May 19, 1981 C Acting Chairman Williamson stated that there are two sets of standards under R2; duplex and single family attached. He asked Mr. LaFountain which standards they are going to build their R2 portion under. Mr. LaFountain stated they are going to build according to the duplex standards. There being no further opponents, Acting Chairman Williamson declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Tyson stated that he shares some of the citizens' concerns about the type of plans the Commission has seen. The Commission has been told that this is to be a first class project, however, all they have seen are 16 duplex lots drawn out. He stated that this plan does not follow the City's CUD regulations and is not enough for the Commission to even comment on. He stated the Commission came prepared to discuss a request for R2 & R4 and were then given some sort of a plan for CUD 30 minutes prior to the meeting. He stated he is in favor of denial of this case. Mrs. Lightbody asked the developer if this case was tabled if they would be able to present adequate plans for the Commission's review. Dr. Richard Thomes, 3934 Buckingham Drive, Irving, stated that from his understanding of a CUD they have given sufficient information. He stated they will not show a layout of buildings, etc., until they plat the property. He stated that the site plan will be as it is presented with the exception of the alley. He stated they have decided not to put an alley behind the duplexes. Mr. Gibson agreed with Mr. Tyson stating that he did not feel they could make a recommendation without further information. Acting Chairman Williamson pointed out the Commission's options regarding this case. Mr. Tyson made a motion to recommend denial of Zoning Case #335 due to the lack of detailed plans. Mr. Flynn stated that a CUD does not necessarily require buildings to be drawn out on a plan as in a PD. However, CUD does need to have standards prescribed in such a clear fashion so that there is no ambiguity. For example, there was a question about the R2 requirements. There are two types of requirements in the R2 zone; those pertaining to duplex and those pertaining to single family attached. He stated there are things about the plan that lack detail. There are a lot of questions related to the clarity of what has been presented as far as standards to be adhered to. For instance, there have been comments made that these will be condominiums, but the site plan does not make any comment of such. There also are no committments regarding swimming pools, jogging trails, etc. , on the plan. He stated that there is a lot of clarity missing and that standards the developer will adhere to should be on the plan. like Mr. Tyson asked if that also pertains to what will happen to Meadowview Drive. Page Six, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, May 19, 1981 C Mr. Flynn stated that the termination of Meadowview Drive is illustrated and that is something the Commission will have to respond to. He stated that the subdivision ordinance requires that Meadowview be terminated in a fashion other than what is shown on this plan. The ordinance requires that the street either be carried on or be terminated in a cul-de-sac. He stated that this aspect of their plan cannot be approved because it is in violation of the subdivision ordinances. He stated that Staff has not reviewed the plan and cannot verify if the zoning standards set are in compliance with the zoning ordinance. Mr. Gibson seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Tyson, Gibson and Williamson, and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Acting Chairman Williamson declared the motion carried. (Acting Chairman Wiliamson called for a five minute recess at 8:50 p.m.) II. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE #336 - REQUEST OF BRUCE FRENCH FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM R1 TO R3 W/SP FOR DAYCARE FACILITY ON PORTION OF TRACTS 1B, 6A & 6D, S. HUITT SURVEY, A-705 Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents. Mr. Bruce French, L & N Land, Inc. , representing Mr. Lieven Van Riet, presented the request for change of zoning to allow a daycare center. He stated that the 1.259 acre tract is not conducive to single family housing because of the configuration and location. He stated that the daycare facility would provide a buffer between the single family homes to the south and the proposed multi-family and commercial to the north. He stated that it complements the proposed school site to the east. He stated that there will be a definite need for the daycare facility when all the single family, multi-family and commercial development takes place. He asked that the Commission disregard the site plans they received in their packets and distributed a new site plan which listed the conditions of the zoning request. Chairman Deithloff stated that he is aware of Mr. Steve Crim's letter dated May 6th. He asked Mr. French if he had any comments regarding the City Engineer's letter dated May 15th. Mr. French stated that he had received a copy of the letter and stated that Mr. Mike Weiss would respond to the comments in the letter. Page Seven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, May 19, 1981 Mr. Mike Weiss, L & N Land, Inc., stated they are asking that Newport Way be abandoned in its current state. Originally, the subject tract was part of the International Village Subdivision plat. In that plat, International Drive and E. Midway Drive were dedicated at that time. Newport Way was never dedicated through. They are aware of the City's requirement that Newport Way be extended through the subject tract. He stated that if Newport Way is extended, they would lose about 35% of the 1.259 acres. This will virtually make the subject tract unusable, because they could not meet the 25 foot setbacks and have any building area left. A cul-de- sac would also make the tract unusable so they propose to dead-end Newport Way as it is and continue the fence line behind the two single family homes next to Newport Way to provide a barrier. In clarifying the City Engineer's letter, Mr. Flynn stated that there are two options in complying with the subdivision ordinances regarding Newport Way. One is to cul-de-sac the street, and the other is to carry it through. As Staff pointed out in the past, another option would be to seek abandon- ment. Mr. Weiss stated they are requesting abandonment of Newport Way and approval to leave it as it is. He pointed out that there is no way to "tee" Newport at Sixpence because of one of the resident's driveway. There being no additional proponents, Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any opponents. In opposition to this zoning case, Mr. Robert Hill, 301 Sixpence, stated he moved from California to Euless and purchased his home with the intent to retire there. He did not feel it would be much of a retirement with a daycare center behind him. Mr. Bern Perkins, 305 Sixpence, asked what the population of the daycare center would be, the building size and the amount of supervision. He stated he is opposed to having the noise from the daycare center behind him. He felt that Newport Way needs to be cut through because it has become a lover's lane. Mr. Flynn stated that since Mr. Perkins is a property owner adjacent to the stub-out of Newport Way, the abandonment procedure requires his signa- ture on a form granting his approval of the abandonment. Mr. Perkins stated they will not get his signature because he wants the street to be cut through. In response to Mr. Perkins' questions, Mr. French stated the daycare will be for young pre-school children. It will be closed after 6:00 p.m. and weekends, which is basically when the homeowner will be home. The building is not to exceed 5,000 square feet. The daycare facility will be licensed by the State so the maximum number of children allowed and the amount of supervision required will be governed by the State. He stated that there will be direct access from E. Midway Drive and parking along the 40 foot Cutility easement for storm sewer on the eastern side of the property. Mr. Flynn stated that screening would also be required on the eastern property line because the school property is zoned Rl. Page Eight, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, May 19, 1981 C Mr. Steve Crim, Vice President for L & N Land, Inc. , wanted to make it clear that there has not been a building designed for this property. Parking is proposed in the site plan over the utility easement because a structure cannot be built over it. He stated that the new site plan has all the requirements for the setbacks for the front, side and rear yards, and the building size which are maximums and minimums only. He stated someone can come in and design a daycare center for this site with those maximums and minimums. He stated they do not have someone to use this site for a daycare center at this time. In reponse to the comments about noise, he pointed out that the subject tract is adjacent to a proposed elementary school site which will eventually have outside play activity and noise. He stated that there would be a six foot wooden fence constructed to subdivision ordinance requirements which would screen the daycare facility from the single family residences. Anita Hill, 301 Sixpence, stated she is opposed because there would be too many children in a small area. She was concerned that some of the pre- schoolers would jump the fence and get into their swimming pool. There being no further opponents, Chairman Deithloff declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Williamson stated he would also like to know the number of children allowed for a building that size. Mr. Flynn stated that a quirk in our parking requirements states that parking for daycare facilities will be based on the number of pupils; one parking space per ten pupils. He stated that the Commission needs to know the number of pupils at this time so they can verify that adequate parking is provided in accordance with the parking requirements. He stated that Mr. Crim has a maximum of 10 parking spaces stated on his site plan. Mr. Crim stated that at this time, he does not know the maximum number of children allowed for a 5,000 square foot facility. He stated that he will change the maximum of 10 spaces to a minimum of 10 spaces. He stated that they can put up to 30 parking spaces along the eastern side of the property alone. Mr. Flynn read from the ordinance regarding the provisions for approval of specific use permits. Basically, the specific use permit is a mechanism whereby uses that may have some questionable impact on neighboring property can be approved and allowed in the City of Euless through a process of building in some buffers and special safeguards. The ordinance gives the Commission the option of requiring a plan. Staff points out they usually like to look at those, so it is a good idea to have one. However, it is the Commission's option to require such plan and data concerning operation, location, function and characteristics. The conditions on this site plan relate to normal standards, some of which are obviously within the parameters of the ordinance. Some of the people in the audience have brought up special conditions which relate more to safeguards and operating conditions, such as soundproofing, the hours, etc. There has been a response made regarding C these, but they are not listed on the site plan. He assumed that it was part of Mr. French's intent to make the comments regarding the hours and age of the children a part of his conditions on the zoning case. Page Nine, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, May 19, 1981 c Mr. Crim stated he could not be sure that the facility would close at 6:00 p.m. and on weekends. He stated that he is committing to the conditions listed on the site plan and any others promulgated by the State of Texas and the City of Euless. Mr. Flynn stated that there had been problems in the past where committments were made by the petitioner at the podium, but since they were not on the plan, were later disputed. Chairman Deithloff stated he is concerned about the site plan they received at the meeting because he has not had enough time to review it. Mr. Tyson stated he is concerned about Newport Way and is not sure the Commission can even approve anything like that. Mr. Flynn asked the City Engineer if the property owners on either side of the proposed abandonment have to agree for the City Council to approve an abandonment. Mr. Knight stated that there is a provision that the adjacent property owners give their consent. It is not mandatory that 100% of the owners would have to agree to it. It would be at the Council's discretion. He felt that the burden of the abandonment would lie on the person requesting it if the abandonment was approved over the objections of the adjacent property owners. Mr. Williamson asked what would be deemed necessary to finish Newport Way should the Council approve the abandonment. Mr. Knight stated he would recommend that the affected portion of Newport Way be broken up and made a part of the yards. If the street is torn up, there would be some storm drain inlets that would have to be reworked. He felt that this would be the primary objection that L & N Land, Inc. would have to abandonment. The person requesting the abandonment would bear the cost of this. Chairman Deithloff and Mr. Williamson stated that they feel the outcome of Newport Way has a direct bearing on how this zoning case is handled. Mr. Tyson stated that the Commission needs to remember that just because there is a school site adjacent to the subject tract does not necessarily mean there will ever be a school constructed there. Mrs. Lightbody asked the petitioner if he would prefer that the Commission table this zoning case so they could clarify their site plan. Mr. Crim stated they would prefer that the Commission vote on the case tonight as presented rather than table it. Mr. Tyson made a motion to recommend denial of Zoning Case #336. CMr. Williamson seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Page Ten, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, May 19, 1981 C Ayes: Messrs. Tyson, Williamson, Gibson and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: Mr. Deithloff Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. III. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tyson stated it is his understanding that there are already five zoning cases scheduled for the meeting on June 2nd with the possibility of five others. He did not feel that the Commission can do justice to ten zoning cases in one night. Chairman Deithloff stated that the Commission would make it a policy to have a pre-commission meeting whenever there were zoning cases on the agenda, and at that time, cover any points of concern. Mr. Tyson did not feel that a pre-commission meeting would be enough. He stated that tonight there were only two zoning cases which lasted until 10:10 p.m. He made a motion to limit the number of zoning cases to five per meeting. Chairman Deithloff stated he was not sure they could legally do that. Mr. Flynn stated that the City Council limits theirs by policy to two per meeting. He stated that it is a policy decision, and if the Commission wants to establish it as policy, it needs to be a matter of public record. Mr. Williamson stated that if there had been five zoning cases tonight, the Commission could have been here until 1:00 a.m. Mr. Tyson stated that there is already five scheduled for the next meeting. He would like to make it less, but did not know if they could. Mr. Flynn stated that even though there are five already on the agenda for the next meeting, this policy would be longer ranged than that. The Com- mission can set whatever limit appropriate regardless of the next agenda. He pointed out that if a zoning case is placed on the agenda, the Commission will have to hold a public hearing which is the time consuming part. Mrs. Lightbody suggested limiting the public hearings to three and then plats, replats, etc., can be added. She stated that since the zoning change signs are being posted, the Commission will continue to have longer public hearings. Mr. Flynn advised the Commission of the new public hearing requirements for certain replats. C Page Eleven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, May 19, 1981 After additional discussion, Mr. Tyson amended his motion to limit the number of public hearings to four per meeting. Mrs. Lightbody seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody and Messrs. Tyson, Gibson, Williamson and Deithloff Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT • There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. g/1 / 'ir Chairman / C