Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-03-17 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission March 17, 1981 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:40 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Euless City Hall by Chairman John Deithloff. Members & Staff Present Members Absent John Deithloff Ralph Gibson Bob Williamson Carl Tyson Helen Lightbody Robert McMillon Bob Eden Kent Flynn - Director of Planning Becky Null - Recording Secretary James Knight - City Engineer VISITORS Mrs. Willie Mae McCormick Rod Tyler Bill Kennedy Jim Dunaway Steve Crim Rod Ashford H. K. Huie, Jr. Kirk Scott Dean Conlin INVOCATION The invocation was given by Mr. Bob Williamson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Eden made a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting dated February 17, 1981, as written. Mr. Williamson seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Eden, Williamson, Deithloff and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. C Page Two, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 17, 1981 I. CONSIDER PLATTING - PRELIMINARY PLATTING OF HUIE ADDITION LOCATED SOUTH OF HWY. 183, EAST OF HUNTING- TON PLACE ADDITION AND ADJACENT TO FORT WORTH CITY LIMITS Mr. Dean Conlin, Carter & Burgess Engineers, presented the preliminary plat of the Huie Addition. He stated he had received the P & Z letter dated March 12th. Mr. Williamson asked if there is a time frame in which the F.A.A. Road extension is to be built. Mr. Conlin stated they are in the process of preparing the engineering plans now. Mr. H. K. Huie, owner & developer, stated construction would begin as soon as everything is worked out between Euless and Fort. Worth; hopefully, within a year. Chairman Deithloff asked what the City of Fort Worth's feelings are. Mr. Conlin stated they are in agreement. He further stated that the proposals have been approved by the Fort Worth Planning Commission. Mrs. Lightbody made a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of the Huie Addition subject to the P & Z letter dated March 12th. Mr. Williamson seconded the motion. Mr. Flynn stated it would be appropriate to mention the proposed abandon- ment of Huntington Lane since this is a major proposal of the preliminary plat. He stated that if the Commission recommends approval of the pre- liminary plat, they are, in effect, recommending approval of the concept of abandonment. He asked if the Commission had any statements regarding the feasibility and worthiness of the concept. Mr. Eden stated that the proposed alternative appears to give adequate access from the north. He also felt that abandonment would alleviate the drainage problem on Huntington that now exists. Mr. Williamson agreed with Mr. Eden. The vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody and Messrs. Williamson, Eden and Deithloff CNays: None Chairman t 1declared Dei h the motion carried. Page Three, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 17, 1981 C II. CONSIDER PLATTING - REPLATTING OF A PORTION OF WOODCREEK ADDITION LOCATED EAST OF NORTH MAIN, SOUTH OF HARWOOD AND NORTH OF EAST MIDWAY DRIVE Mr. Steve Crim, L & N Land, Inc. , stated they had previously platted approximately 96 lots which is about half of the subdivision. He stated there will be a total of 162 lots, and they are in the process of selling these lots to a builder. He stated the builder had a problem with item #3, page 2, of the Staff letter dated March 12th, requiring turnaround space on the lots facing East Denton. He respectively requests that it not be required; that all the lots just have the two parking spaces behind the building line without the turnaround. This would necessitate that the cars back out of the driveways into the street, just like they do all over town. He stated the turnarounds require more concrete and take up more of the yards. He felt also that the requirements would not be necessary on Lots 1R through 8R, Block E, because these will have access off of the cul-de-sacs. Mr. Flynn stated the turnarounds were requested along East Denton so the property owners would be entering East Denton head-on from their driveways. He stated East Denton will actually serve as a collector between Fuller- Wiser and Main Street. He stated Staff has modified the recommendation so that only Lots 2R through 7R, Block E, will be exempt from the turn- around requirement because of the cul-de-sac. He said lots having drives exiting onto East Denton include lots 1R, 8R, the other lots to the south and the end lots on the north which would exit onto East Denton. He stated Staff still recommends turnarounds on all those lots from a stand- point of traffic safety. He stated it is Staff's responsibility to encourage traffic flow and off-street parking situations that do not create traffic hazards. He stated Staff is recommending 31 foot streets instead of 37 foot streets on the residential streets other than East Denton because it is felt that the additional off-street parking would be sufficient to permit adequate flow of traffic on a 31 foot pavement section for this density. Mr. Crim stated he did not feel that backing out into East Denton would be that big of a traffic hazard. He stated it is done all over the City including W. Midway which is probably more of a major collector than East Denton will be. He stated that putting in the turnaround would not guarantee that the owners would use it. He pointed out that the owners could put a trailer, boat, etc. , in the turnaround and still have to back out of the driveway. Chairman Deithloff asked Mr. Crim if he had checked out whether the storm sewer inlets and fire hydrants would interfere with the driveways along c East Denton. Page Four, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 17, 1981 C Mr. Crim stated he has not. He stated he will check into it and may have to make modifications. Mr. Eden stated he would rather give the property owners the opportunity to use the turnaround whether it is used or not. He stated that if East Denton becomes as busy as it could, backing out could be dangerous. Mr. Flynn stated that Staff oftentimes makes recommendations from a policy standpoint when it is not covered in the Subdivision Ordinance. The policy of discouraging driveway cuts on collector streets has been a consistent policy within the last year and a half. Even though East Denton is not a collector street on the thoroughfare plan, it will actually function as such and, therefore, Staff makes a policy recom- mendation that the turnaround detail on the preliminary plat apply to all lots that have driveways exiting onto East Denton. Regarding the size of the streets, Mr. Flynn stated the developer will construct 31 foot streets if the City Council approves the deviation from the standard 37 foot requirement in R-3 districts. He further stated that Staff was willing to make the recommendation that the 31 foot pavement width is adequate if the additional off-street parking is done in a manner in which traffic hazards do not occur. He noted that the density is actually half of what the normal R-3 density would be. He stated that both of these items are policy recommendations, and it is up to City Council whether or not they will be approved. Mr. Crim wanted to be sure it was understood that the turnarounds would probably be in the sideyards even though they could not be fenced. Mr. Eden agreed with Mr. Crim that the turnarounds may not be the most pleasing thing to have, however, he feels that the property owners should have the alternative to use the turnarounds. Mr. Williamson made a motion to approve the replat of a portion of Woodcreek Addition subject to the letter dated March 12th, requiring the lots where the drive enters onto East Denton to have the turnarounds as shown on the typical lot layout on the plat. Mr. Eden seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Williamson, Eden, Deithloff and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. III. DISCUSSION - CONSIDER REQUEST BY JIM DUNAWAY AND JIM HARRIS FOR REVISION TO EULESS SUBDIVISION CORDINANCE, ARTICLE I, SECTION 12, AMENDING REQUIREMENTS FOR CON- STRUCTION OF ALLEYS Page Five, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 17, 1981 C Mr. Jim Dunaway, Box 6480, Fort Worth, stated his client, Mr. Jim Harris, is about to develop a subdivision near Glade and North Main. He stated that they plan to sell the lots to a builder who prefers to construct single family attached units under a CUD with alleys. In lieu of the 20 foot alleys with 20 foot pavements, the builder has suggested that the developer construct 15 foot right-of-ways with 10 foot pavements. He stated he has discussed with Kent the alley criteria that the Staff has come up with and does understand their recommendation for 12 foot pavement widths rather than the 10 foot requested. He based his request on the requirements of area cities. Mrs. Lightbody asked how the developer would handle the intersection of two alleys at 90° angles. Mr. Dunaway stated they would propose that the alley flare out and be wider at that point and have a turning radius. Mr. Flynn stated that Staff would probably draft a recommendation regarding the alley intersection with another alley, which had not been considered. He further stated that unless City Council amends the Subdivision Ordinance, Staff could not recommend the approval of the proposed subdivision with 10 foot alleys. Mrs. Lightbody asked if there would be one-way traffic. Mr. Dunaway stated it is hard to control one-way traffic on alleys. Mr. Williamson asked what type and depth of paving the developer proposes. Mr. Dunaway stated they intend to use a six inch depth of concrete. Mr. Eden asked what will be done about lighting the alleys and what other cities require. Mr. Dunaway stated that currently neither Fort Worth nor Dallas require lighting. Mrs. Lightbody mentioned that officials from those cities told her that they regret that now. Mr. Dunaway stated that those cities have not proposed any changes at this time. He stated some people do not want those lights always in their backyards. Others prefer the visibility. He stated that it has been mentioned, but there has been no move to begin changing the require- ment. Regarding the lighting situation, Mr. Knight stated that Staff's current policy in residential areas is to light primarily the intersections of streets. The exception would be on long blocks. He questions where the lights would be located if put in the alleys. If located at an alley intersection, the lights would be within 100 feet of a light at a street Cintersection. He stated a security light or yard light might be more appropriate. • Page Six, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 17, 1981 Mr. Eden stated that any recommendation made to the City Council by the Commission will have to be improved upon somewhat and still cannot cover all aspects of an alley. The Commission will have to primarily address the width, corners, etc. Mr. Flynn stated that the City Council will have Staff draft an ordinance based on recommendations they make. Staff has prepared a graphic that does take into account pavement width, right-of-way width, fence clips and pavement clips at intersections. Mrs. Lightbody asked if it will also cover alley intersections. Mr. Flynn stated Staff had not considered that occurrence. He stated they would probably require a turn radius similar to that on street intersections, which is 20 feet. Also a 25 x 25 foot site triangle would probably be required for that size radius. Mr. Knight stated the standard drive approach radius for nearly every municipality is 10 feet on commercial intersections and 5 feet on residential intersections. A 20 foot radius might not be required unless large trucks, such as fire trucks, used the alley. He stated that even with alleys the fire hydrants will be on the streets, and fire trucks may not be utilizing the alleys. He stated a 15 foot radius might suffice, but 20 feet would be the maximum. Fence clips would also be required. Mr. Dunaway asked if the garbage collection would be at the back of the units if alleys are constructed. Mr. Knight stated that since there are no alleys in the City, the garbage contract is for curbside pickup. Mr. Dunaway recommended that garbage pickup not be allowed in the alley because the garbage may be stacked near the edge of the pavement. Mr. Knight stated the only alternative would be for a leave-out in the fence to be required. He stated the garbage collector would probably prefer to make pickups in the alley so he would not have to cross the street. Chairman Deithloff asked how the 12 foot pavement width was arrived at. Mr. Flynn stated that Staff considered that to be the minimum width that would serve for garbage collection. If it was any narrower, the vehicle would probably be driving partially on the pavement edge, and this would cause erosion and maintenance problems. Mr. Williamson inquired how the right-of-way on either side of the pavement would be maintained. Mr. Flynn stated that would be the City's responsibility similar to the right-of-way between the sidewalk and the pavement in front of homes. Homeowners intuitively take care of that now. Typically, the person that takes care of his lawn will go beyond the fence and take care of that area also. Page Seven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 17, 1981 C Mr. Eden made a motion to recommend approval of the amendment of Article I, Section 12, Subdivision Ordinance, requiring a 15 foot right-of-way, 12 foot pavement of 6 inches of concrete, 5 x 5 foot corner clips on fences, and a 10 mph speed limit for the construction of alleys subject to the P & Z letter dated March 12th. Mr. Williamson seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Eden, Williamson, Deithloff and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. 114 d / / / / 4:irman / J) C