Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-05-05 x • Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 5, 1981 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Comission was called to order at 7:40 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Euless City Hall by Chairman John Deithloff. Members & Staff Present John Deithloff Bob Williamson Carl Tyson Robert McMillon Helen Lightbody Ralph Gibson Kent Flynn - Director of Planning Becky Null - Recording Secretary James Knight - City Engineer VISITORS Willie Mae McCormick Ruby Pruit Ed Markey Helen Bratcher Glenn Porterfield Bill Perry Gerald Stugnn Keith Gaskill Darla Stearns Jack Dodd Karl Stearns Sam Byars Nevin Carver William Barnes Howard Paynard Ken Chenault Faye Addington James A. Lucas W. T. Geer Jim Harris Gail Riddles Jerry Thomas Jill McBurnett Bruce French Willie Pruit Steve Crim INVOCATION 1 The invocation was given by Mr. Carl Tyson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Carl Tyson made a motion to table the approval of the minutes of the regular meeting dated April 21, 1981, until May 19th, 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, Williamson, McMillon and Deithloff, and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. F j Page Two, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, May 5, 1981 41011) I. CONSIDER PLATTING - REPLATTING OF LOT 23R, BLOCK 13, BELL RANCH TERRACE, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SIGNET DRIVE AND F. M. 157 Mr. Al Taub, 3605 Indian Trail, representing Mr. Bill Meier and himself, presented the request for replatting of Lot 23R, Block 13, Bell Ranch Terrace. Chairman Deithloff asked if he was aware of the Staff letter dated April 30, 1981. Mr. Taub stated he was aware of the letter and had no problem with it. Mrs. Lightbody made a motion to approve the replatting of Lot 23R, Block 13, Bell Ranch Terrace, as presented subject to the Staff letter dated April 30, 1981. Mr. Carl Tyson seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows : Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody and Messrs. Tyson, McMillon, Williamson, Gibson and Deithloff Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. II. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE #332 - REQUEST OF SAMUEL BYARS FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM C-1 TO L-1 ON LOT lAl, BLOCK 1, J. E. WHITENER ESTATES, LOCATED EAST OF SOUTH MAIN STREET AND NORTH OF SOUTH PIPELINE ROAD Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents. Mr. Hugh Waite, Box 92, Euless, representing the prospective purchaser, Mr. Samuel Byars, stated it is unlikely that the subject property and area around it will develop as commercial. He stated that Mr. Byars presently has a drill bit machine shop on the south side of Pipeline in Fort Worth. If this zoning case is approved, Mr. Byars intends to re- locate his shop on the subject property. He stated that Mr. Byars intends to construct an aesthetically pleasing building and provide adequate landscaping and screening fence. All storage will be inside the enclosed building. He further stated that mini-warehouses are proposed in Phases II & III of development. Page Three, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, May 5, 1981 Chairman Deithloff asked Mr. Waite if he had any comments regarding the letter from Staff dated April 30th. Mr. Waite stated they were in agreement with the letter. Mr. Tyson asked if the purchase of the property is contingent on zoning. Mr. Waite stated it is. Chairman Deithloff inquired whether the entire screening fence will be constructed with Phase I. Mr. Sam Byars, 703 Eastcliff, stated the entire screening fence will be put in before the construction of the building. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any more proponents. There being none, he asked for any opponents. Mr. Willie Geer, #3 Knob Hill Mobile Home Park, representing the Knob Hill Homeowner's Association, stated that the request for limited indus- trial is not desirable or suitable for this area, in that it is not compatible with the nearby residential zoning, church and amusement facilities. He stated there would not be a buffer zone between the residential and industrial zones. He stated that the City of Fort Worth respected their requests and approved residential zoning instead of industrial zoning on the south side of Pipeline. He further stated that there are other areas of the City that are presently zoned industrial and can be developed. Mr. Willie Pruitt, owner of property next to subject property, stated he is opposed to the requested rezoning. Mrs. Jill McBurnett, 407 South Pipeline, stated that she and her neighbors have a lot of money invested in their homes, and are opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Howard Paynard, #26 Knob Hill Mobile Home Park, felt that this type of business should be located in an industrial park. Mr. Nevin Carver, #34 Knob Hill Mobile Home Park, stated the area south of S. Pipeline is zoned residential. He stated the subject property will be more conducive to commercial uses when this residential property develops. Mr. Karl Stearns, #158 Karen Lane, felt that the industrial zoning will lower the value of the residences in the area. He also was concerned that the rezoning will make it easier to change the adjacent commercial property to industrial. Mrs. Helen Bratcher, Route 1, Box 210C, voiced her opposition to the rezoning change. Chairman Deithloff declared the public hearing closed. Page Four, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, May 5, 1981 Mr. McMillon stated he is concerned that the area could turn into an industrial park. After additional discussion, Mr. Tyson made a motion to recommend denial of Zoning Case #332. Mr. McMillon seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Tyson, McMillon, Gibson, Williamson and Deithloff, and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. III. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE #333 - REQUEST OF JAMES TONICK FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM C-2 TO PD ON LOT 1R, BLOCK 1, EULESS TOWN CENTRE, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AIRPORT FREEWAY AND F. M. 157 Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents. Mr. Bill Barnes with Pearcy/Christon, Inc. , stated that in April, they were notified by the City of Euless that the proposed garden center of the Woolco store was in violation of C-2 zoning which does not allow outside storage and sale of merchandise. When the building permit was applied for, the garden center was included in the plan and specifications. The zoning violation was not mentioned at that time and, therefore, they were issued a building permit to commence construction. After being advised of the violation, it was discovered that the site plan did not clearly depict the garden center. Therefore, it was logical that the zoning violation was not discovered. He, therefore, requested approval of the planned development zoning which would correct this problem. Chairman Deithloff asked Mr. Barnes if he had any comments regarding the Staff letter dated April 30th. Mr. Barnes stated he did not have any comments. Mr. Williamson inquired whether the garden area could be expanded in the future if this zoning request is approved. Mr. Flynn stated that the development plan will have to be adhered to as it is drawn. The expansion would have to be an authorized change. He stated that the Commission could stipulate that it not be expanded, but preferred that the developer request that stipulation rather than it be put on him by the Commission. Page Five, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, May 5, 1981 Mr. Barnes stated they are opposed to any such stipulations. However, the garden center cannot be expanded because of the automotive center on the west and the fire lane to the north. There being no further proponents or opponents, Chairman Deithloff declared the public hearing closed. Chairman Deithloff asked Mr. Flynn to address the garden center at Handy Dan. Mr. Flynn stated that their garden area is enclosed within the confines of their originally built structure. It is not an area that has been added to the building with an awning oyer it. Their stucco building facade encloses the area and windows with wire instead of glass. Because it is enclosed, it is allowed in C-2 zoning. If the Commission wants to be sure there is no confusion in the future, the garden area at Handy Dan can be labeled on the development plan as an enclosed garden center. Chairman Deithloff stated that if that suggestion meets with approval, he would like to see it stipulated in the motion. Mr. Tyson made a motion to approve Zoning Case #333 with the stipulation that the developer label the garden center at Handy Dan as an enclosed garden center on the development plan. Mr. McMillon seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Tyson, McMillon, Williamson, Gibson and Deithloff, and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. IV. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE #334 - REQUEST OF BILL PASTEUR FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM C-2 TO PD ON LOTS 18 & 19, BLOCK 14, BELL RANCH TERRACE, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TOPLEA DRIVE AND F. M. 157 Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents. Mr. Bill Perry, Consulting Engineer, stated they are requesting PD zoning in an attempt to save some trees that exist in the area that is required as the paved rear yard. Chairman Deithloff asked Mr. Perry if he had any comments regarding the Staff letter dated April 30th. Page Six, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, May 5, 1981 Mr. Perry stated they have met the conditions listed in the letter. There being no additional proponents or opponents, Chairman Deithloff declared the public hearing closed. After some discussion, Mr. Tyson made a motion to recommend approval of Zoning Case #334 subject to the Staff letter dated April 30th and the correcting of the development plan regarding the six foot screening fence to City standards along the entire length of the western boundary not to impede drainage. Mr. Gibson seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Tyson, Gibson, Williamson, McMillon and Deithloff, and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. V. CONSIDER PLATTING - REPLATTING OF LOT 18R, BLOCK 14, BELL RANCH TERRACE, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TOPLEA DRIVE & F. M. 157 Mr. Bill Perry, representing Midas Muffler, presented the request for replatting of Lot 18R, Block 14, Bell Ranch Terrace. He submitted a copy of the State Highway Permit allowing construction of the access driveway. There being no further discussion, Mr. McMillon recommended approval of the replatting of Lot 18R, Block 14, Bell Ranch Terrace, subject to the Staff letter dated April 30th. Mr. Williamson seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. McMillon, Williamson, Tyson, Gibson and Deithloff, and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. (Chairman Deithloff called for a recess at 8:50 p.m.) C Page Seven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, May 5, 1981 C) VI. CONSIDERATION - RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROVISIONS OF THE EULESS ZONING ORDINANCE Mr. Kent Flynn stated that Staff has been working with developers and the P & Z Commission and is here tonight to review ordinances in the zoning ordinance that pertain specifically to single family type housing. This is being done to try to update the ordinances to accommodate new housing styles. This revision work is a major task. Anytime an item is changed in an ordinance, there are several other areas affected by that change. Staff will take two major steps to accomplish the revision task. Tonight, Staff will be limited to dealing with problems in the current ordinance where there is either a hole in the ordinance or the standards that have been established, such as floor area or parking requirements, may be out of synch with what the current trends are. At the next meeting, or as soon as possible after that, Staff will come back with the second step, a general reorganization of the residential zones to make them more flexible, easier to read, and remove the ambiguities in the ordinance. Also, areas to be dealt with in the second phase will be consideration of the CUD & PD zoning standards to accommodate the more innovative housing types. He further stated that tonight Staff will make recommenda- tions concerning the principals of what needs to be changed, and then Staff will go back and word that recommendation to read precisely as it should. At the next meeting, we will bring that wording back before the Commission to see if it does accomplish what we set out to accomplish. He pointed out that Staff is acting as coordinator on the project, and it is the Commission's and Council's place to suggest community values. Staff recommendations are based on the following: 1. An assessment of the need for ordinances which accommodate current single family housing types. This assessment is partially based on the economics of home ownership as outlined by the development and home building industry. 2. Our primary concern in developing recommendations as City Staff is to develop zoning regulations that protect health, welfare and safety of Euless citizens. Zoning regulations are also intended to provide protection against nuisances from neighboring properties and protect adjacent property values. Other considerations influencing our recommendations are the cost in terms of City services and enforcement feasibility. These considerations are paramount in our recommendations. 3. Our recommendations are tempered by community concerns as they have been expressed by Commissioners in our work sessions. Three areas to be considered tonight are parking requirements, facade construction requirements, and common wall construction requirements. Page Eight, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, May 5, 1981 Parking Requirements To be considered under parking requirements are the number of spaces required, location of parking spaces and whether they are to be covered or screening provided. Concerning single family detached, single family attached and duplex dwellings, Staff recommends that there be a minimum of two off-street parking spaces required. Staff also recommends that each dwelling unit have the two required parking spaces behind the front building line. However, in no case shall the required parking be allowed less than 20 feet from the front property line when it is accessed from the front, nor shall it be allowed less than 20 feet from the rear property line when accessed fromthe rear. This requirement is based on the premise that it is likely that vehicles will be parked on the paved access to the garage, therefore, the access should be long enough to accommodate a vehicle without the vehicle extending beyond the property line and encroaching on the sidewalk, street or alley. At the present time, 12 foot alleys are allowed in 15 foot wide right-of- ways. Also, rear yard setback requirements allow a building to be con- structed within 15 feet of the centerline of the alley. This effectively gives a 72 foot required minimum rear yard from the face of the building to the fence on the property line at the alley. Staff feels that 72 feet is not enough space for a vehicle to sit without blocking the alley if the garage is sitting right at the rear building line. Again, Staff recommends that in no case should the required parking be any closer to the rear property line than 20 feet, whether the garage is attached or detached. It is also recommended that if the garage is enclosed at a later date, the parking be relocated to the side or to the rear of the dwelling unit, but in no case should it be in front of the building line. This relocation would be required before the issuance of the building permit to enclose a garage or carport. Staff recommends that all required parking which is not located behind the dwelling unit be covered with either a carport or garage or a combination thereof. In other words, if the parking is visible from the street, Staff feels that it should be covered or enclosed with a garage. As a flexible option, the developer can choose to locate the parking in the rear yard. In this case, if there is a screening fence provided, Staff recommends that the covered parking requirement be eliminated. In the rear yard, current ordinances allow the 7z foot rear yard from the property line which does not allow for any vehicles sitting on the pavement unless they block the alley. A detached garage, under current ordinances, could be located within six feet of the rear property line. If the garage should ever be enclosed, that would not leave any required parking space. There would then be cars parking on the streets. The problem there is, if the streets are 31 feet wide and cars are parked on both sides of the street with two lanes of traffic, there would only be one foot of clearance between each of the four cars. Mr. Flynn asked for the Commission's comments regarding the parking requirements. Page Nine, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, May 5, 1981 Mr. Tyson inquired if a turnaround requirement was considered. Mr. Flynn stated that Staff did not make any recommendations regarding turnarounds. Chairman Deithloff asked for a vote on the recommendation of the required minimum number of two off-street parking spaces. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody and Messrs. Williamson, Tyson, Gibson, McMillon and Deithloff Nays: None Chairman Deithloff asked for a vote on the recommendation that each dwelling unit shall have two parking spaces behind the front building line. However, in no case shall the required parking be allowed less than 20 feet from the front property line when it is accessed from the front, nor shall it be allowed less than 20 feet from the rear property line when accessed from the rear. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody and Messrs. Williamson, Tyson, Gibson, McMillon and Deithloff Nays: None Chairman Deithloff asked for a vote on the recommendation that all required parking which is not located behind the dwelling unit shall be required to be covered with either a carport or garage or a combination thereof. Chairman Deithloff stated he was concerned about the screening. Mr. Flynn stated that the screening is an option and restated the recommenda- tion as follows: All required parking which is not located behind the dwelling unit shall be required to be covered with either a carport or garage or a combination thereof. For all required parking which is behind the dwelling unit, Staff recommends that the developer be allowed to screen the parking with a screening fence rather than having to cover the parking. Mr. Tyson & Mr. Williamson both asked for clarification of the 20 foot requirement from the rear when the required parking is not covered. . Mr. Flynn stated that the recommendation is that all required parking, whether covered or uncovered, will be 20 feet from the rear property line. The reason Staff specified 20 feet in a covered situation is because the garage could be closed in and they would be left without any required parking. Mr. Williamson stated that the recommendation will be more stringent on the person who encloses his required parking in the front because he is required to add parking in the back, whereas, it is more lenient for parking in the rear. Mr. Flynn stated that it is felt that uncovered parking in the front could devalue adjacent property in the subdivision, but if it is in the back yard, it would not. Page Ten, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, May 5, 1981 Mr. Williamson stated that on houses with front parking, regardless of whether the garage is enclosed or not, still have all their parking in front of that garage which is basically in front of the building line. Even though the parking is off-street, should the owner choose to enclose his garage, he will still be forced to build two parking places behind his house. Those with parking in the rear, will not be required to do so. Mr. Flynn stated that the homeowner with rear entry parking will be paying for his portion of the alley when he buys his lot. The developer will have taken care of part of the problem by putting in alleys so that the parking will be in the rear instead of the front where it could back up into the street. Mr. Flynn restated the entire recommendation to read as follows: All required parking which is not located behind the dwelling unit shall be required to be covered with either a carport or garage or a combination thereof. However, all required parking which is located on the lot behind the dwelling unit shall be either covered as described or it shall be screened by a screening fence that conforms to the standards of Section 10-104 of the Euless Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Deithloff asked for a vote on that recommendation, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody and Messrs. Tyson, Williamson, McMillon, Gibson and Deithloff Nays: None Facade Construction Regarding the facade construction, Mr. Flynn stated current ordinances require that 80% of all elevations be masonry veneer in all multi-family zones, including single family attached and duplex housing. There are, however, no masonry veneer requirements for single family detached housing. Mr. Flynn stated the recommendation concerning facade construction will be dealt with in two parts; one for single family attached and duplex dwellings and another for townhomes and apartments. For single family attached and duplex dwellings, Staff recommends that all dwellings and accessory buildings shall have 80% masonry veneer on all exterior wall elevations except the rear exterior wall elevation. Mr. Flynn explained that the required 80% masonry veneer shall be calculated by finding 80% of the area that describes the exterior wall elevations exclusive of windows and doors and inclusive of any appendages to the wall. He explained that appendages are anything attached to the wall including a mansard roof that hangs out for decoration. The exception would be if the mansard is part of the roof structure with attic space hanging out over the wall. The main reason for the masonry veneer recommendation is for maintenance of the structure to protect property values. It is also helpful in reducing the spread of fire in high density Page Eleven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, May 5, 1981 development. Those elevations that could affect adjacent properties should be masonry veneer. In the case of a lot that has a front and side street, the front of the building is defined as the side that is addressed. The rear would then be defined as the side opposite the addressed front of the building. Because the elevation is only what is seen in the one plane facing the viewer, the 80% requirement allows for some flexibility in design. For apartments and townhomes, Staff has decided not to recommend any alterations to the current ordinance which states that all elevations will be 80% masonry veneer. Because of the way apartments and townhomes are situated on the site, where the rear of a building could be facing the front of another, deterioration could become a problem if all wood facade is allowed. Chairman Deithloff asked for a vote on the 80% masonry veneer recommenda- tion for single family attached and duplex dwellings exclusive of the rear exterior wall elevation as stated by Mr. Flynn. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody and Messrs. McMillon, Gibson, Williamson, Tyson and Deithloff Nays: None Chairman Deithloff asked for a vote on the recommendation that the current ordinance requiring 80% of all elevations of apartments and townhomes to be masonry veneer remain the same. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody and Messrs. Gibson, Williamson, Tyson, McMillon and Deithloff Nays: None Common Wall Construction Mr. Flynn stated that the common wall serves as fire protection between the separately owned units in single family attached and townhome dwellings. The current ordinance states that the separation wall has to be four inch masonry. It leaves no option as to the construction of that wall, and really does not address the purpose of the wall. To provide a more flexible solution, Staff recommends that all common walls in single family attached dwellings and townhomes shall be constructed as a double wall unit that meets a two hour fire rating and has an approved sound board integrated between wall studs that are staggered and offset along either side of said sound board. Such construction shall be approved per Uniform Building Code standards adopted by the City Council. He stated the purpose for staggering and offsetting the studs on either side is to prevent the transmission of noise from one side of the unit to the other side along this material. The fire rating can be accomplished in many different ways. The current four inch masonry requirement provides one and one-half to two hours protection. Staff feels that a two hour fire rating is adequate. Also recommended is that the double wall unit herein described shall be constructed in its entirety to the roof deck and shall meet the requirements of the most recently adopted building code of the City of Euless. Page Twelve, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, May 5, 1981 Mr. Tyson stated he did not understand the two hour requirement if the wall does not protrude through the roof line. Mr. Flynn stated that the time it takes for a fire to spread through the roof decking, if constructed to building code standards, is more than two hours. The Building Official has stated that this will be adequate fire separation for two hours, if it goes just to the roof deck and not through it. Mr. Tyson asked if there are some single wall requirements that will meet the two hour code. Mr. Flynn stated that the recommendation has a dual purpose; to provide fire separation in a more flexible mode and to provide noise deadening. These objectives could not be achieved with a single wall separation. Chairman Deithloff asked for a vote on the recommendation for the common wall construction as stated by Mr. Flynn. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody and Messrs. Tyson, McMillon, Williamson, Gibson and Deithloff Nays: None Townhome Floor Area & Height Mr. Flynn stated that there are currently no standards specified in Section 7-309, which deals with townhomes, for minimum floor area or maximum height. In trying to fill in the holes, Staff has suggested a minimum floor area of 1,100 square feet, simply because that is the only stated minimum floor area in our ordinances for single family housing of any kind. Staff recommends that the maximum building height for all townhome dwellings be 45 feet. Chairman Deithloff asked Mr. Flynn to define townhomes. Mr. Flynn stated that currently townhomes are not defined in the zoning ordinance, but come under single family attached. He stated that part of the second phase to be dealt with at future P & Z meetings will be to take care of townhomes as a dwelling type. Townhome would then be defined as a dwelling unit that is owned as a single dwelling unit from the ground up, with air rights being reserved for that owner. Therefore, no other dwelling units will be allowed over another unit. A townhome is also a type of building where there are three or more units that are individually owned and attached. Chairman Deithloff stated that, in this case, it will be difficult to act upon these two items. Mr. Flynn stated that Staff has not really discussed these two items in depth, and they could be handled later. If they are addressed tonight, it will be just to poll the Commission as far as their principal, rather than the wording. He stated that if the Commission preferred, this could wait until later. Page Thirteen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, May 5, 1981 C Chairman Deithloff stated the Commission will address these two items as principals and take up the issue of the definition of townhome at a later date. Chairman Deithloff asked for a vote on the minimum floor area of 1,100 square feet and the maximum height of 45 feet. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody and Messrs. McMillon, Gibson, Williamson, Tyson and Deithloff Nays: None Mr. Flynn stated Staff and the Commission will be dealing at a future meeting with the CUD & PD portions and also the reorganization of the ordinances so that the more innovative housing styles can be built into those ordinances with more flexibility. He stated that the standards set tonight in the restricted zones could vary somewhat in a CUD or PD. Mr. Flynn stated that the recommendations made tonight and those to be made regarding the CUD, PD and reorganization are only informal recommenda- tions to the City Council. The City Council will hold a public hearing on May 26th, and hear comments from anyone interested. Mr. Flynn thanked the Commissioners for the hard work that they all had contributed to making the needed revisions thus far. VII. CONSIDERATION - ZONING CASE #330 - REQUEST OF JIM HARRIS FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM R-2 TO PD (R-2 & R-3 DENSITIES) ON TRACTS 1A2, 1A3 AND PORTIONS OF TRACTS 1A1 & 1A1B, J.E. FIELD SURVEY, A-540 Chairman Deithloff stated that this zoning case was tabled at the last P & Z meeting until the Commission had taken action on the recommendations concerning the Zoning Ordinance revisions tonight. Mr. Flynn stated that PD zoning allows more flexibility than the regular standards in the more specific zones. However, in the current ordinance, there are five or six items that remain fixed and have to comply with or be more restrictive than the standards in the district that this use would ordinarily be permitted. One of those happens to be required parking. He stated that the development plan was tabled because required parking and several other items were under consideration as far as review- ing existing standards and were pending a recommendation from this Commission. Tonight a recommendation was made regarding parking. The recommendation is contrary to the development plan which was previously submitted, because the location of the rear access parking violates the C P & Z recommendation. The existing location on the development plan is adjacent to the rear property line which puts it right on the right-of-way to the alley. The Commission's options are the following: (1) consider Page Fourteen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, May 5, 1981 the existing development plan as is with no alterations at all, in which case, Staff would have to recommend denial because the parking shown on the development plan is contrary to the recommended required parking location, or (2) amend the development plan so that it is no longer contradictory to any of the recommended revisions. Possibly the developer will consider setting the parking back 20 feet from the rear property line in trade for not having to cover the parking, in which case the develop- ment plan, if amended like that, could be recommended for approval by Staff. Mr. Tyson stated he believed the 20 foot requirement would actually work, as long as the Commission did not look at the maximum square footage of houses. It was pointed out at the last meeting that the only reason the maximum was put on the development plan was to show that the maximum would work. Mr. Harris stated that they did agree that the units could be cut down so that possibly the rear parking could be taken care of the way the Commis- sion recommended tonight. He stated that right now he could not say that they could adhere to the 20 foot minimum setback on the rear parking. Mrs. Lightbody asked Mr. Harris if it would be better if he had another two weeks to revise his plan. Mr. Harris stated that they would attempt to adhere to the proposed change on the lots where they can, but it would be almost impossible to adhere to the proposed recommendations on the cul-de-sac lots. He stated that right now he feels their only choice is to eliminate the alleys entirely. He stated that their disadvantage is that they are not the builder. He requested that the Commission approve the plan as submitted. Mr. Flynn informed the Commission that another option would be that they could ignore their parking recommendation and approve the development plan according to current ordinances which allow the garage to be within 6 feet if detached or 71/2 feet if attached. Mr. Harris stated they did not disagree that there would possibly be a need to move the covered parking in from the alley some. Mr. Tyson stated they will still be faced with not having enough room if the required parking is not moved back the full 20 feet should the owners enclose their garages. Mr. Harris stated they could deed restrict to prevent enclosures. Mr. Flynn stated the developer could deed restrict and it could be binding, but the City does not enforce deed restrictions. Mr. McMillon stated a lot of people do not use their garages and would park on the paved access. Mr. Harris stated that parking is always a problem when people enclose their garages and there is not much that can be done about it. Page Fifteen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, May 5, 1981 Mr. Tyson commented that there is not much that can be done about it except provide for it. Mr. Flynn informed the Commission that if they decide to consider the existing plan like it is the only other variance is the yard requirements. He stated that all the yard requirements have been reduced close to half from what is required in the regular zoning district. However, in PD zoning, the yard setbacks are not fixed. Mr. Harris stated he did not feel that the yard setbacks they have planned are going to be a real problem. Mr. Flynn stated he was not making a value judgment, but was just pointing it out to the Commission to refresh their memories. He stated that Staff has no recommendations against the reduction of the yards because it is allowed under PD zoning. However, Staff does have a recommendation concerning the setback of the required parking in the rear. He stated that Staff recommends that there be at least 20 feet so that cars will not be hanging out into the alley. He stated that Staff cannot recommend approval of this development plan contrary to their recommendation regarding parking. He stated that the Commission has the option of approving this development plan according to the existing zoning standards which allows parking within 6 feet if detached or 72 feet if attached, but Staff cannot recommend favorable passage of same. Mr. Williamson stated that the only problem he has with this development is the parking. If the parking is lost in the rear, then everything is dumped out on the street in the front. After additional discussion, Mr. Harris requested that the Commission table their decision until the meeting on May 19th, at which time they will also present their preliminary plat. Mrs. Lightbody made a motion to table Zoning Case #330 until the meeting on May 19th. Mr. Williamson seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody and Messrs. Williamson, Gibson, Tyson, McMillon and Deithloff Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. 41;) firman //