Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-04-21 Regular Meeting 0 Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 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 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 Norene Hanna Karen Swetz George Hanna Sam Riddles Bill Pasteur Gail Riddles Jim Dunaway Jill McBurnett Jim Harris Marvin McBurnett David Hughes Ron Haynes Willie Mae McCormick Ken Chenault Ron Sternfels L. N. Lightbody Richard Unangst Richard Kilgore Thalis Unangst James Lucas Rod Ashford INVOCATION The invocation was given by Mr. Bob Williamson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Williamson made a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting dated April 7, 1981, as written. Mr. McMillon seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Williamson, McMillon, Tyson, Gibson, Deithloff and IC:1 Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. Page Two, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, April 21, 1981 I. CONSIDER PLATTING - FINAL PLATTING OF LAKEWOOD ADDITION, SECOND INSTALLMENT, BLOCK 1, LOCATED NORTH OF TIMBER RIDGE ADDITION, SOUTHEAST OF PROPOSED LAKESHORE DRIVE AND SOUTHWEST OF ASH LANE Mr. David Hughes of Elliott & Hughes Engineers, representing Messrs. William E. Pasteur and Harold R. Fuller, presented the request for final platting. He stated he has reviewed the Staff letter and has made the changes requested by the City Engineer. Chairman Deithloff made the letter dated April 15, 1981, a part of the minutes. Mrs. Lightbody made a motion to recommend approval of the final platting of Lakewood Addition, Second Installment, Block 1, subject to the letter dated April 15, 1981. Mr. McMillon seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody and Messrs. McMillon, Williamson, Tyson, Gibson and Deithloff Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. II. PUBLIC HEARING - 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 lAl & 1A1B, J. E. FIELD SURVEY, A-540, LOCATED SOUTH OF GLADE ROAD AND WEST OF NORTH MAIN STREET Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents. Mr. Jim Dunaway of Dunaway & Associates, representing Jim Harris, stated that a few weeks ago he requested the revision of the alley ordinance to accoumuodate this specific project. He stated he had received a copy of the Staff letter dated April 16th. In response to the three items listed on page 2 of the letter, he stated that the 15 foot minimum front setback was arrived at because the front driveways and front parking areas were eliminated and placed in the back. He stated that on the development plan, Page Three, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, April 21, 1981 the houses are staggered and some will have more than 15 feet. He stated that the side yard and rear yard setbacks were arrived at from discussions with the home builders. In response to the comment regarding maximum site coverage, he read a letter written to Mr. Flynn stating that the site coverage shown on the drawing is typically the largest pad that could be constructed on their typical lots with the specified front, rear, and side yards. He stated that these pads are much larger than the house which will probably be constructed. He stated they are prepared, if required, to commit to an average 1,200 square foot pad dimension area over the whole site. By doing this, the R-2 building area would be reduced to 88,800 square feet which would give a building to lot ratio of 26.89% which is well below that required for R-2. In the R-3 area, the total building square footage would be 156,000 square feet for a building to lot ratio of 36.88% which is also below that required in R-3. Regarding the minimum masonry requirement, he stated that he put down 50% masonry because that is what FHA requires; however, they have no problem with the 80% require- ment. Mr. Flynn stated that he had not seen the letter before this moment, and that when Staff reviewed the development plan, it was reviewed as if the maximum pad would be constructed because that was shown. If the Commission should desire to have this new committment from the developer, he questioned whether the new figures of percentage took into account covered parking as is required for coverage. He stated the original figures did not. Mr. Dunaway stated his understanding of the ordinance is that the building area is exclusive of parking or covered parking. Mr. Flynn stated that it is in R-3, but not R-2. Mr. Dunaway stated that the percentage figures for R-2 did not include the covered parking, but felt like it would still be below 50%. He stated that if there is a problem in this regard, they could agree to abide by the maximum site coverages as outlined in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Tyson commented on the five foot side yards. Mr. Dunaway stated that the 25 foot building width is important in the R-3 area; it is the going minimum with most of the builders in the area. Mr. Jim Harris, the developer, felt that the 25 foot minimum side yard is really directed more to a series of 5 or 6 attached houses. In this project, there are only two attached units. He felt that 10 feet between buildings is adequate. Mr. Tyson asked if there would be covered parking and if the alleys would be one way. Mr. Dunaway stated there will be two covered parking spaces. In reference to the alley question, he understood that it was handled at the time the ordinance was revised. C Page Four, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, April 21, 1981 C Mrs. McCormick stated that the City Council did not specify that it had to be one way. She stated it would be up to the Traffic Safety Department to decide. Mr. Tyson asked where guest parking would be. Mr. Flynn stated guest parking would have to be on the street because there is no drive behind the garage which is directly on the alley. Mr. McMillon asked where the owners would park their boats. Mr. Harris stated that boats will probably be put under the covered parking. He stated they will have deed restrictions prohibiting boats being parked in the street. Mr. Williamson asked if fences are anticipated around the property. Mr. Harris does anticipate that the builders will put in fences. He stated there will definitely be fences put in the rear of the lots that back up to Glade Road, North Main Street, and the commercial property. Mr. Flynn asked if the screening fence along North Main Street will be east of the alley or west of the alley between the alley and the right-of- way for North Main Street. Mr. Harris stated that it would be between the alley right-of-way and the street right-of-way. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any other proponents. There being none, he asked for any opponents. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. Chairman Deithloff pointed out that the developer is willing to abide by the masonry requirement, maximum site coverage, and screening requirement. Mr. McMillon stated that esentially the developer wants to deviate from the minimum side yard. Mr. Flynn stated that actually the developer wants to deviate from all the yard requirements, and in R-2 he wants to reduce it ley half, end in R-3 by more than half. Basically, all the yards are half of what they would be ordinarily. Mr. Dunaway stated it is his understanding that the rear yard requirement is 15 feet from the rear yard line or 15 feet from the centerline of the alley. There would be 72 feet in the alley and another 72 feet of yard. Mr. Flynn stated that is correct for the R-2 area. However, in the R-3 area the minimum rear yard is 20-25 feet. This means that the interior lots would have to have 121 foot required rear yards, and 172 foot required rear yards on exterior lots. He stated that all the lots are shown to have 72 feet on the development plan. Page Five, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, April 21, 1981 C Mr. Williamson asked Mr. Flynn when he anticipated the approval of the revisions to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Flynn stated the City Council will hear the recommendations on May 12th. Chairman Deithloff asked Mr. Harris if the schedule for the revisions would interfere with his schedule. Mr. Harris stated it would interfere since he does not know how long it will take the City Council to make a decision or what revisions would be made. Mr. Tyson inquired who is responsible for maintaining the alleys. Mr. Flynn stated the City is responsible for maintenance. As a point of comparison, Mr. Flynn stated that most of the recent develop- ments approved with newer housing types have been administered through the CUD provisions. In the CUD provisions, the yard requirements remain fixed. He pointed out that the yard requirements can vary under PD at this time. He stated this is why the developer came in for PD. Mr. Tyson asked what the other Commission members thought about the front yard requested. Mr. McMillon stated that since there is no drive in the front yard, the additional usable yard space compensates for the 10 feet taken from the 25 foot required front yard. In view of the complexity of the case, Mrs. Lightbody stated she was in favor of tabling this zoning case until the residential portions of the Zoning Ordinance have been revised. Commissioners McMillon, Gibson and Williamson agreed. Mr. Williamson made a motion to table Zoning Case #330 until after the recommendations concerning the Zoning Ordinance revisions have been made on May 5th to give the Commission time to review the proposed changes. Mr. Flynn pointed out that the City Council would not take action on the recommended revisions until May 12th, and that this case would not be heard by the Council until May 26th, Mr. Gibson seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Williamson, Gibson, Tyson, McMillon and Deithloff and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. (Mr. Williamson left the meeting at 8:40 p.m.) Page Six, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, April 21, 1981 c III. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE #331 - REQUEST OF HELEN LIGHTBODY FROM R-1 TO R-5 W/CUD FOR CONFORMING HOUSING ON LOTS 14 THROUGH 19, BLOCK 2, J.E. WHITENER ESTATES, LOCATED SOUTH OF WHITENER DRIVE, WEST OF FORT WORTH CITY LIMITS AND NORTH OF SOUTH PIPELINE ROAD (Mrs. Lightbody stepped down from the Commission due to a conflict of interest.) Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents. Mr. Keith Wallace of Owen Ayres & Associates, representing Mr. & Mrs. Laurance Lightbody, stated the tract consists of a little over 11 acres which includes the abandonment of Delphia Lane. He stated that a multi- family development with private community open spaceis proposed. Because of a ravine approximately 30 feet wide and 30 feet deep that runs through the southwestern portion of the property, the property is not really suitable for single family housing. He stated it is unlikely that there will ever be access from Pipeline Road to the northern portion of the property because of the cost involved in crossing the creek. He also stated that it is very unlikely that Whitener Road will be extended to the east from South Main because of the creek. The prospective purchaser, Tom Purvis, owns the property to the east of the subject tract which is in the City of Fort Worth. He intends to construct a multi-family development in Fort Worth adjacent to the subject property and is consider- ing including the subject property in this development. He further stated that access to this property would be from American Airlines Blvd. , and without this access is realistically landlocked. Chairman Deithloff asked Mr. Wallace if there were any problems with the comments in the Staff letter dated April 16th. Mr. Wallace stated there are no problems with the letter. Chairman Deithloff stated he is concerned about the southwest corner of the property which is cut off from the rest of the tract by the creek. Mr. Wallace stated there has not been a flood study or engineering analysis done on the property. He stated there is a possibility of a minimal re- claimed land in the southwest corner. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any other proponents. There being none, he asked for any opponents. C Page Seven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, April 21, 1981 C Mr. Marvin McBurnett, 407 S. Pipeline, stated he owns Lot 11 and is opposed to the proposed zoning change. He stated that there has not been any street maintenance on South Pipeline Road which is in the City of Fort Worth. He stated that the street already has more traffic than it can handle now. He stated that there is no police protection in that area. He further stated that the area is congested with Spring Valley Apartments and the nubile home park. Mr. Sam Riddles, 403 S. Pipeline, stated he owns lots 9 and 24. He stated he does not understand why it is so difficult to build single family homes on the subject property, since Twin Creeks Estates is a single family subdivision. Mrs. Gail Riddles, 403 S. Pipeline, stated they are almost surrounded by single family residences. She pointed out that there are three families on 10 acres, and the petitioner is proposing approximately 200 families on 11 acres. She felt that the subject property should also be for single family. Mrs. Jill McBurnett, 407 S. Pipeline, stated she is opposed to the apart- ment project. She stated that most of the apartments in Euless have gone downhill after they were built. She stated there would be too many people in such a small area. Mr. George Hanna, Route 1, Box 213, Fort Worth, stated that South Pipeline is very narrow. Three people have been killed on the narrow bridge just east of the creek. He does not feel that a zoning request should be considered until another access is constructed. Mr. B. J. Brewer, 1901 Northcliff, stated he works for Raldon Corporation. However, he is at this meeting because he is building a home in Twin Creeks Estates. He believes that South Euless needs more single family, not multi-family. He questioned whether the Lightbody's intend to develop the property as apartments if Mr. Tom Purvis does not purchase the property. He stated it may be hard for Raldon to sell homes in Twin Creeks if a lot of apartments are put in the area. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any other opponents. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Tyson inquired whether American Airlines Blvd. went to Pipeline Road or S.H. 360. Mr. Flynn stated that Fort Worth has constructed a major six lane divided road called Trinity Blvd. , south of Pipeline Road. It enters S.H. 360 where Pipeline used to. American Airlines Blvd. runs from Airport Freeway to Trinity Blvd. Fort Worth intends to extend Trinity Blvd. to Loop 820 around Fort Worth in the future. The only access for the major portion of the property will be eastward on proposed extension of Whitener Road to American Blvd. and either north to Airport Freeway or south to Trinity Blvd. or Pipeline Road. The southwest corner, approximately one-half acre, will be served by Pipeline Road. Page Eight, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, April 21, 1981 C Mr. McMillon asked if the Parks Department had reviewed the open space on the site plan as a possible park site. Mr. Flynn stated the Parks Department has not reviewed the plan since it is not on the Park Master Plan, and because the developer has proposed it as private open space at this time. If it is proposed in the future as a dedicated park, then it will be reviewed by the Park Board. Mr. Tyson asked how critical the southwest corner of the property is to the project. Mr. Wallace stated there would not be more than an acre that could be developed with a maximum of 10 or 12 units possible. He stated it would be essential from the standpoint of marketing. After some discussion, Mr. McMillon made a motion to deny Zoning Case #331. Chairman Deithloff declared that the motion died for lack of a second. After additional discussion, Mr. Tyson stated that Pipeline Road is too narrow for additional traffic. He stated he preferred that there not be any access off of Pipeline Road. Mr. Wallace stated they would agree not to put any apartments on the south- west corner which could possibly be used for tennis courts, club house facilities, etc. , instead. Mr. Tyson made a motion to recommend approval of Zoning Case #331 with no access off of South Pipeline Road from this property. Mr. Gibson seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Tyson, Gibson and Deithloff Nays: Mr. McMillon Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. (Chairman Deithloff called a five minute recess.) IV. DISCUSSION- PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROVISIONS OF THE EULESS ZONING ORDINANCE (Mrs. Lightbody returned to the Commission.) Mr. Kent Flynn stated that Staff has been mandated by the City Council to C review certain portions of the Zoning Ordinance provisions which relate to development of single family housing. He stated there is a definite Page Nine, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, April 21, 1981 need to make flexible guidelines to accommodate newer housing styles which C are a direct result of the economic situation. He stated the revision process has just begun and Staff has not made any recommendations as to what standards should be set. The only thing the Commission has considered is locating those areas in the ordinance which are ambiguous and those needing clarification and review to accommodate the newer housing styles. He further stated that the Commission will make recommendations at the May 5th P & Z meeting, and the City Council will hold a public hearing on May 12th. Mr. Ken Chenault with Homecraft Land Development stated there are several things they are concerned with in the development of Quail Run Estates. His first concern is the 4-inch masonry wall requirement. In researching this requirement, he found that about 99% of the cities in the Fort Worth and Dallas area require nothing more than a 2-hour burn through wall for single family attached or duplex units. He found that a 4-inch masonry wall provided a 11 to 2 hour burn through. He stated that the cost is extremely high because there is no such thing as a 4-inch brick. Two, 2 3/4-inch bricks have to be used and extended up to the roof line with scaffolding in between. He stated that the 80% masonry requirement is another concern. His inter- pretation of the requirement is that 80% of the whole building must be masonry; however, Staff interprets it to be 80% of each wall. He questions why there is an 80% masonry requirement for single family attached housing where there is ownership of separate units, and there is not a requirement for single family detached. He does not feel that the rear of the units should have to be brick. Regarding the front, side and rear yard requirements, he would like to see some flexibility so the homes could be staggered to break the tract housing look. His last concern was the carport requirement. He would like the homeowner to have the option of building a carport at a later date. He proposes a six foot wooden fence requirement around the rear yard of homes without carports for aesthetic purposes. He stated most people use their garage or carport for storage of everything except a car. As an alternative, he would be willing to build an integral type unit as part of the building itself for storage, such as the ones that condominiums have. Chairman Deithloff asked Mr. Chenault if he would be opposed to the fire wall requirement being stipulated as a 2-hour fire wall and leaving the construction up to the builder. Mr. Chenault stated he is in agreement with that suggestion. Mr. Jim Lucas of Hurst Lumber Company stated there was an article in the Wall Street Journal that pointed out that in Los Angeles one could buy a 20 year old tract house in need of repair for $180,000. For the same $180,000 in North Atlanta, Georgia, one could buy a 3,700 square foot colonial house with three baths on 3/4 acre of land. He stated the difference is in the land cost. He stated that no one really knows why houses have to sit back 25 feet from the property line. He stated this Page Ten, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, April 21, 1981 is an extravagance that cannot be afforded any longer. He pointed out that C in most parts of the world this does not exist. Even in the United States there are a lot of zero setbacks. Economically, he stated that 25% of the cost of a house is the cost of the lot. Having smaller yard and masonry requirements do not affect the inside quality of the house. He pointed out that some people do not want that much yard to maintain. Mr. Ron Haynes with Crow Development Company suggested that flexibility be written into the ordinance. He stated that the cost of housing is a very real problem. As developers, they want to be able to give people a choice, and in order to do that, some of the fat needs to be trimmed off as suggested by Mr. Lucas. He stated that there are a lot of requirements that no one knows why they are required. In reference to the 80% masonry requirement, he stated that contemporary homes use a lot of cedar siding, and there are a lot of other effects that cannot be done with 80% brick. He stated that such strict standards do not guarantee quality, but takes away the builder's ability to do things differently that would add to the attractiveness of the subdivision. Mr. Lucas asked if there is anything he could do to assist the Commission. Mr. Chenault offered his assistance also. Chairman Deithloff stated that if they desired, they could go through the single family portion of the ordinance and make written comments to the Commission. V. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. 1 0 / / 3" x df airman / /