Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-10-05 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 5, 1982 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Euless City Hall by Chairman John Deithloff. MEMBERS & STAFF PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT John Deithloff Robert McMillon Sam Cotten Carl Tyson John Lynch Bob Williamson Norma Runyon James Knight, City Engineer Julie Harmon, Secretary Rod Tyler, Senior Planner - I VISITORS Willie Mae McCormick Tom Kimener John Patterson Scott Heitman Ron Haynes Gary Mayer Paul Unzicker Ed Skoog Richard Baker Gene Purdy �- Marty Salfen Theresa Glass Kendell Moore E. Ackerman Pat Watson Billy Humphrey Tom Eisner Jack Craycroft Don Price R. J. Clark Doug McMillon John Stoltz John Reglin Steve Tarkington And approximately 200 concerned citizens INVOCATION The invocation was given by Mr. John Lynch. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting dated September 21, 1982, were approved as written. C Page Two, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 5, 1982 I. CONSIDERATION OF SCREENING REQUIREMENTS FOR PD ORDINANCE #684 - CONSIDERATION AS TO WHETHER AN AMENDMENT TO PD ORDINANCE #684 SHALL BE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO DEVIATE FROM DETAILS DELINEATED ON THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN. Mr. John Patterson, representing Nash, Phillip, Copus Company, presented the request for amendment to PD Ordinance #684. Mr. Patterson stated that the main concern was the maintenance & visual problem of the berm. He further stated that they are not asking to take away the screen, but to deviate from it enough to make it maintainable and more visibly pleasing. Mr. Lynch made a motion to adopt a resolution whereby the Staff is instructed to bring any matter related to specific requirements in Planned Development or Zoning that has ** been approved and adopted by the City before this Commission for consideration and recommendation to the City Council before approval. Mrs. Runyon seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Runyon, Messrs. Deithloff, Williamson, Lynch, Cotten and Tyson Nays: None Mr. Lynch made a motion to accept Proposal "B" of this presentation, which is the alternative of a 5'6" brick column in lieu of the 3' berm combination. This would be a 5' wooden fence with 5'6" brick columns and shrubery as indicated in front of the fence. Mr. Cotten seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Runyon and Messrs. Williamson, Lynch, Deithloff, Cotten and Tyson. Nays: None II. CONSIDER PLATTING - PRELIMINARY PLATTING OF McCORMICK FARMS-PHASE II & III, LOCATED WEST OF FULLER-WISER ROAD, EAST OF NORTH MAIN STREET, SOUTH OF PROPOSED CHEEK SPARGER ROAD AND NORTH OF ASH LANE. Mr. Ron Haynes, representing Crow Development Corp., presented the request for Preliminary Platting of McCormick Farms-Phase II & III. Mr. Haynes stated the reason for this request being in two plats instead of one is that in order to get one portion approved by some governmental bodies they needed to separate the two because it will take a little longer to get the southern portion which is in the flood plain area approved. He also pointed out that they are working on the access to the proposed park with ARCO. Mr. Knight asked if the access provided through the single-family development to the proposed open space would be paved with public parking spaces, as discussed in Zoning Case #372. CMr. Haynes stated that was not their understanding. * CORRECTION - 10/19/82 - Remove "for consideration and recommendation to the City Council before apprpoval." from the second para- graph. Page Three, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 5, 1982 Mr. Tyson stated his concern about parking spaces at the public park. Mr. Haynes stated that he was not sure as to what extent the City will take the park and what will happen in the park area itself, i.e., improvements, playground equipment, etc. He was not sure as to whose responsibility it is to provide the park to the public. Mr. Tyson stated that the City's Master Plan designated this area as a future park and the details could be worked out between the developer and City Staff concerning the access and clearing of underbrush for maintenance by the City. Mr. Haynes stated that if ARCO did not give them permission for an easement, then they would use one lot for access into the park. Mr. Cotten made a motion to approve Preliminary Platting of McCormick Farms-Phase II & III with parking in the park with access provided by way of the ARCO easement or the deletion of one lot by the developer. Mr. Lynch seconded the motion. Mr. Knight stated that we needed to assume that access and parking are provided. Mr. Lynch amended Mr. Cotten's motion for approval of the Preliminary Plat of McCormick Farms-Phase II & III stipulating that funds be escrowed at time of Final Platting of Phase II contingent upon property being dedicated to the City and that a minimum of twenty (20) parking spaces be provided with paving of the parking to be the same as residential streets in Phase II and that underbrush in the Park be cleared in order that the area can be maintained. The motion was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Runyon and Messrs. Williamson, Lynch, Deithloff, Cotten and Tyson Nays: None III. CONSIDER PLATTING - FINAL PLATTING OF McCORMICK FARMS- PHASE II, LOCATED WEST OF FULLER-WISER ROAD, EAST OF NORTH MAIN STREET, SOUTH OF PROPOSED CHEEK SPARGER ROAD AND NORTH OF ASH LANE Mr. Haynes addressed Mr. James Knight's letter of October 1, 1982, item by item as follows: ITEM #1 - Minimum floor elevations have been specified for Lots 1-11, Block F. ITEM #2 - Mr. Haynes stated that this has been done. ITEM #3 - An additional fire hydrant has been located at the intersection of Hillwood Way and Audubon Lane. ITEM #4 - The easements for off-site storm sewer and sanitary sewer facilities are A on the developer's property and will be no problem to provide. Also TP&L easements will be provided. ITEM #5 - Copies of the Final Plat will be placed with the City that have been signed by all parties. Page Four, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 5, 1982 ITEM #6 - The developer will execute a Perpetual Maintenance Agreement covering those lots which will be adjacent to proposed storm drainage improve- ments included as a part of this addition. ITEM #7 - Monies for perimeter streets adjacent to developments in accordance with the type of zoning being developed for future development of Fuller-Wiser Road and Cheek Sparger Road adjacent to this addition will be escrowed. In Item #3 of Mr. Knight's letter dated October 1, 1982, Mr. Tyson asked that the name Audubon Court be changed to Audubon Lane. Mr. Lynch made a motion to adopt the Final Plat of McCormick Farms-Phase II subject to the stipulations of Mr. Knight's letter dated October 1, 1982, with the additional stipulations that a permanent access easement be dedicated to the City in the vicinity of the ARCO pipeline easement, and that funds be escrowed to accomplish the paving of it in accordance with City paving standards for a thirty-one (31) foot street, that funds be provided for construction of a parking area for twenty (20) parking spaces and that clearing of the Community Open Space area be accomplished; the escrow of funds be conditioned on the dedication of that property to the City as a park. Mrs. Runyon seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Runyon and Messrs. Williamson, Lynch, Deithloff, Cotten and Tyson Nays: None IV. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE #376 - REQUEST OF RICK BAKER FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM C-2 & I-1 TO C-2 & I-1 w/SP FOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT AND BEER ON PORTIONS OF TRACTS 3A2, 3A3 & 3A&3A2B, A. M. DOWNING SURVEY, A- 415, LOCATED SOUTH OF S.H. 10, NORTH OF SOUTH PIPELINE, EAST OF HIGHLAND DRIVE AND WEST OF F.M. 157 Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then the opponents. Mr. Rick Baker, representing himself and his partner, Mr. Marty Salfen, presented their request for change of zoning. Mr. Baker explained that their concept is to try and provide the very best facility for softball playing in the country and that he feels there is a market for a professionally built softball complex. They will try to provide the following: 1) Softball fields for the average adult player. 2) One field will be artifically surfaced. 3) Televising of some games. 4) Promotions and giveaways. 5) Concessions - Soft drinks, nachos, hot dogs, beer, etc. 6) All-star games, local/state & national tournaments computerized batting, digital score boards, etc. Mr. Baker stated that revenues would be obtained from three main areas: (1) advertising, (2) concessions and (3) league & tournament fees. Mr. Kendell Moore, architect from the firm of Pierce, Goodwin & Alexander, introduced the design of the complex to the Commission and addressed the problem of traffic by stating that the traffic would be coming and going every hour and not all at once. Page Five, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 5, 1982 Mr. Baker stated that upon completion of this complex, jobs would be provided, the City Cwould be given positive exposure, and it would bring a lot of money into the City of Euless in the form of tournaments (i.e. hotel, restaurant, shopping). He also stated that the softball season would be from March-November and they would allow the City to use the complex the remaining three months, December-February, if they so desired. Mr. Tyson asked if the building would be used for anything else during their off-season. Mr. Baker stated that it would not, but might consider opening the concession stands for the City. Mr. Tyson asked how many parking spaces would be provided. Mr. Moore stated that they would have 250 parking spaces. Mr. Tyson raised concern regarding the control of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Marty Salfen stated that they would be selling beer only for on-premise consumption. No beer would be allowed in the dugouts during the games. He further stated that concessions would be open only during the game and not before. He also stated that this would be a seven-day-a-week facility. Mr. Tyson voiced his concern about the hours that beer would be sold and asked Mr. Baker if he would have any problem with placing a restriction on the time that beer could be consumed. He also did not feel beer should be allowed in the game room. Mr. Baker stated that they would have a slight problem with weekend (Friday & Saturday) restriction, but would have no objections to the restriction of no alcoholic beverage in the game room. Mr. Tyson stated his concern regarding adequate protective screening to keep the balls from going into residents' yards. Mr. Moore stated that they would have sufficient protective screening and would extend the screening another 20 feet with a nylon mesh to prevent this from happening. Chairman Deithloff asked for any additional proponents. Ms. Pat Watson, 810 Hampshire, Grand Prairie, owner of property to be sold to Mr. Baker stated she thought that Softball World would be a plus and would help bring amusement into the area. Mr. Ackerman, 1101 Highland Drive, stated his approval of Softball World at this location. Mr. Tom Eisner, 4209 Rowann Drive, Ft. Worth, stated that he in favor of the development. Chairman Deithloff asked for any additional proponents. There being none, he asked for any opponents. Mr. Gene Purdy, 907 Highland Drive, stated his concern about bottles being thrown over the fence into his backyard. Mr. Billy R. Humphrey, 1007 Highland Drive stated his objection to the sale of any alcoholic beverages. Page Six, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 5, 1982 Mr. Marty Salfen addressed the issue of beer bottles being thrown over the fence by saying that beer will be sold in cups only. Mr. Williamson stated his concern about the requested zoning if this development were to be sold at a later date. Mr. Baker assured him that this would be a full-time job for them and at some later date would like to franchize out Softball World. There being no additional opponents, Chairman Deithloff declared the public hearing closed. After additional discussion concerning limiting the time of the sale of alcoholic beverages, Mr. Tyson made a motion to approve Zoning Case #376 with the following additions: 1. Alcoholic beverages to be limited to beer only, in cups, for on premises consumption. 2. No alcoholic beverages allowed on the field, in the dugouts or commercial amusement area and the posting of signs stating same. 3. A six foot (6') fence erected to screen the western boundry, except for the twenty- five foot (25') fence from State Highway 10 which should be tapered off to a three foot (3') height and said fence to be constructed per our Zoning Ordinance. 4. Protective screening be provided of sufficient height on the western and eastern boundaries to prohibit objects from entering adjacent properties. 5. Games are to be suspended at 12:00 p.m. Sunday-Thursday night with concessions closing thirty (30) minutes after the game and Friday-Saturday night until 1:00 a.m., unless a special permit is received from City Council to extend the games longer. 6. Alcoholic beverages to cease thirty (30) minutes after games end. Mr. Lynch seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Mr. Baker stated that he might have a problem with the 1:00 a.m. closing on Friday and Saturday nights and would like to have it extended until 2:00 a.m. Mr. Tyson amended his motion (item #5) to 2:00 a.m. on Friday-Saturday. The vote is as follows: Ayes: Mrs. Runyon, Messrs. Lynch, Deithloff, Cotten and Tyson Nays: Mr. Williamson Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. Chairman Deithloff stated that there would be a 5-minute break prior to hearing Zoning Case #377. Page Seven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 5, 1982 V. C PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE #377 - REQUEST OF WALTER ELLIOTT FOR FRANK CRUMLEY FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM R-1, R-2 AND R-5 TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR MULTI-FAMILY, SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED ON 0-LOT LINE AND OFFICE COMPLEX USES, ON TRACTS 2, 2A and 3, JAMES MATSON SURVEY, A- 1080, LOCATED EAST OF WESTPARK WAY ESTATES, NORTH & SOUTH OF MARLENE DRIVE AND WEST OF OAKWOOD TERRACE NORTH ADDITION (Note: Due to a possible conflict of interests, Mrs. Norma Runyon stepped down prior to the beginning of Zoning Case #377.) Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then the opponents. Mr. Jack Craycroft presented the request for change of zoning by beginning the Public Hearing with a slide presentation and an introduction to the proposed development. Mr. Tyson asked if this development would be entirely condominiums. Mr. Craycroft stated that it would. Mr. Craycroft stated that all condominium owners would have to belong to the homeowner's association which would take care of the maintenance of the condos. Chairman Deithloff asked for any additional proponents. Mr. R. J. Clark, owner of 5 acres south of this proposal and fronting on Westpark Way, stated that he felt this development would be good for the area. Mr. Doug McMillon, 2114 W. Pipeline Road, owns and lives on 30 acres of land south of the proposed development, statd that he felt this development would benefit the area. Chairman Deithloff asked for any additional proponents. There being none, he asked for any opponents. Mr. Scott Heitman, 508 Live Oak Drive, spokesman for the citizens attending the meeting, stated their opposition to the proposed development with the following concerns: I. Mr. Heitman began by reading the Purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to the audience. 2. He stated their concern about crime in a multi-family area (i.e., rape, murder, theft.) 3. They were concerned about tax revenues. 4. They were concerned about the depreciation of their homes and felt that in the long-run homes would fair better than condominiums. 5. They were concerned about depreciation of their property. Mr. Heitman further stated that the demand for apartment housing was declining and that Euless needs and wants homes. Page Eight, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 5, 1982 Mr. Gary Mayer, 2513 Wespark Way Circle, made a traffic survey presentation (prepared Cby citizens): 3,400 cars in a 24/hour period. 330 cars/hour during the hours of 7-9 a.m. 840 cars/hours during the hours of 4-7 p.m. This survey, therefore, showed that 64% of all driving was done during this five hour period, which would total 2,160 cars during this time. Mr. Mayer stated some effects this development would have on traffic in the future: 1. H-E-B Hospital is expanding - more employees, more cars, etc. 2. Medical Center - being built on north end. 3. To the west, single-family housing being built in Bedford. 4. The park area will be affected. 5. Children walking to and from school will be affected by the additional traffic. 6. The intersection of Pipeline & Westpark is already dangerous without the added traffic that will be caused by this development. 7. The hills and curves on Westpark Way make driving hazardous and should be considered. Mr. Heitman summed up their objections to the proposed development by stating that according to the Master Plan of Euless, this area is best suited for single family only and they wish to maintain that zoning. Mr. Heitman presented the following petitions to the Planning & Zoning Commission: 1. Petition A - Representing the objections of those who live within the 200 foot. area. This represented 87-1/2% of those people affected. 2. Petition B - Represented those who live outside the 200 foot. area. This petition contained 234 signatures. At this time, Mr. Heitman presented a slide presentation to the Commission, exemplifying those elements they wish to preserve. Mr. Lynch asked Mr. Heitman what his source of information was for his crime statistics. Mr. Heitman stated that his information was obtained from the Planning & Research Department of the Dallas & Ft. Worth Police Departments and was strictly for apartments. Mr. Tyson asked Mr. Craycroft if this project was dependent upon commercial and residential as one project. Mr. Craycroft stated that it was not. It was what they felt was the best use of the land. Mr. Craycroft also showed a comparison of what is currently zoned and what is proposed by the developer. Page Nine, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, October 5, 1982 Mr. John Reglin, senior transportation engineer with PAWA, Inc., stated his findings of what the existingtraffic would be in the area of Westpark Wayand p that if this development were to be built it would not create that much additional traffic, approximately 350 additional cars per day. Mr. Tom Kimener, 2300 Westpark Way Circle, asked what would keep Mr. Craycroft from subleasing these condominiums rather than selling them. Mr. Craycroft stated that it would be economic suicide. He stated that he could not lease them for enough to make the payments. Mr. Tyson asked Mr. Heitman if they had any objections to the commercial area. Mr. Heitman stated that they were opposed to the entire zoning change. There being no additional opponents, Chairman Deithloff declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Tyson stated that he liked the C-2 area, however, he would like to see the density south of Marlene Drive lower. Mr. Lynch stated that he agreed basically with Mr. Tyson regarding the density of the condominiums; however, he felt that it is unrealistic to think that by turning this zoning down that it will automatically be developed R-1. He feels that the desires of the people who live in the area should weigh considerably on the judgment of the Commission and, therefore, he cannot support the density that is shown on the plan. However, he does feel like there is a compromise that can be reached to develop this area. Mr. Williamson made a motion to deny Zoning Case #377. Mr. Lynch seconded the motion, but would like to see some modification toward lower Y density with an idea of developing more of the garden home concept with reduced density Y and larger square footage units brought back for consideration by the Commission at a later date. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Williamson, Lynch, Deithloff, Cotten and Tyson Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. VI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to conduct, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Chairm: //