Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-08-03 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 3, 1982 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Euless City Hall by Chairman John Deithloff. MEMBERS & STAFF PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT John Deithloff John Lynch Norma Runyon Bob Williamson Carl Tyson Robert McMillon Sam Cotten James Knight - City Engineer Becky Null - Development Coordinator VISITORS Bill Lightsey Roger Hallstein Pat Lightsey Mike Mohler Al F. Nickle R. L. Hembree, Jr. T. C. Schwarts Willie Mae McCormick Tyler Dahlgren Don Tipton Kim Dahlgren Don Plunk Nick Ciccarone Dell Byrd Mrs. Nick Ciccarone Hal Ferguson Felix Wong INVOCATION The invocation was given by Mrs. Norma Runyon. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting dated July 6, 1982, were approved as written. Page Two, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 3, 1982 I. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE #370 - REQUEST OF DON A. TIPTON FOR BRODSKY/OLPERTON FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM PD TO RI, C2 & CUD- CONFORMING HOUSING FOR R3, R4, & R5 DENSITIES ON TRACTS A, B & C AND PORTION OF TRACT 2, LEVI FRANKLIN SURVEY, A-513, LOCATED SOUTH OF BEAR CREEK DRIVE, WEST OF NORTH MAIN STREET AND NORTH OF PROPOSED CHEEK SPARGER ROAD Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents. Mr. Don Plunk, representing Brodsky/Olperton, explained the background of Bear Creek Estates. He stated that the primary reason for the zoning request is to realign Cheek Sparger Road. He stated that it is their intention to keep basically the same uses that are existing, but are asking to remove the PD designation. He explained specifically how each tract would be changed by the request as follows: Tract 2: 15.657 acres - Proposed zoning change from PD R-1 to R-1 Single Family. Deed Restrictions to be imposed conforming to existing restrictions of Bear Creek Estates, Phase I. Tract 2A: 0.514 acres - Proposed zoning change from PD Commercial to C-2 Community Business District. Tract 2B: 0.877 acres - Proposed zoning change from PD Service Station to C-2 Community Business District. Tract 4: 3.841 acres - Proposed zoning change from PD Duplex (similar to R-3) to CUD with R-3 standards. Total density will not exceed twenty (20) units. A site plan conforming to preliminary lat requirements of the subdivision ordinance will be required at the time of platting. Tract 5: 22.638 acres - Proposed zoning change from PD Multi-family (similar to R- 5) to CUD with R-5 standards. Total density of the site will not exceed 21.62 dwelling units per gross acre. A development plan conforming to the requirements of the PD district shall be submitted at the time of platting of all or a portion of the district. Approval of the development plan shall require a public hearing before the P & Z Commission. Tract 6: 8.811 acres - Proposed zoning change from PD Multi-family (similar to R- 4) to CUD with R-4 standards. Total density of the site will not exceed fifteen (15) dwelling units per gross acre. A development plan conforming to the requirements of the PD district shall be submitted at the time of platting of all or a portion of the district. Approval of the development plan shall require a public hearing before the P & Z Commission. Page Three, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 3, 1982 Tract 7: 17.33 acres - Proposed zoning change from PD Shopping Center to C-2 Community Business District. A development plan conforming to the requirements of the PD district shall be submitted at the time of platting of all or a portion of the tract. Tract 8: 10.008 acres - Proposed zoning change from PD Office Tower to CUD with R-3 standards. Total density of the site will not exceed twelve (12) dwelling units per gross acre. A site plan conforming to the preliminary plat requirements of the subdivision ordinance will be required at the time of platting. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any other proponents. Mr. Bob Hembree, 402 Cherry Ann, spoke in favor of the zoning request provided that a public hearing is held for the approval of the development plans and that some type of screening is provided between the multi-family tract and the existing single family. He complimented the developer for meeting with the homeowners. There was some question as to whether the City would be required to hold another public hearing as agreed to between the developer and the homeowners. In response to those questions, Mr. Knight stated that he had checked with the City Attorney who agreed that if it was a requirement of the zoning as granted tonight that development plan be required, a public hearing would be in order and was appropriate when the development plan is submitted. Mr. Bill Lightsey, 508 Cherry Ann Court, agreed with Mr. Hembree's statements. He asked if the CUD would be more liberal than the PD. Mr. Knight stated that the R-1 standards are not as restrictive as what has been constructed in Bear Creek Estates. He noted that the current R-1 requirement for minimum house size is 1,100 square feet and minimum lot size is 7,500 square feet. Visual observation of Bear Creek Estates indicates that the lots and homes are considerably larger than that. He pointed out that the City does not enforce deed restrictions. The homeowners within an addition have that responsibility to bear. Mr. Plunk stated that the deed restrictions for the existing R-1, such as 25 foot building line and minimum 1,600 square foot homes, would apply to Tract 2 also. Mr. Tyson asked if the deed restrictions included lot size. Mr. Plunk stated that it does not, but simply states R-1 district standards. There being no additional proponents, Chairman Deithloff asked for any opponents. Mr. Allen Nickle, 401 Cherry Ann, stated that at the meeting between the homeowners and the developer, the following were agreed to: ten (10) units per acre on Tract 8, prevent parking on street between multi-family and single family by some type of screening, and requiring a public hearing for the approval of the development plans. He stated that if the same restrictions that are on the existing R-1 applied to the proposed R-1, he would be in favor. If the restrictions do not, he is opposed. C Page Four, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 3, 1982 Mr. Nick Ciccarone, 2502 Morrison Drive, stated that he is very wary of removing the existing PD from the R-1 portion. He wanted a guarantee that the proposed R-1 will have the same restrictions as the existing R-I. Mrs. Kim Dahlgren, 2503 Morrison, asked what happens if someone wanted to change the deed restrictions. Mr. Tyson stated that the City would not be responsible for any changes in the deed restrictions. Mr. Plunk stated they have proposed that the deed restrictions be included in the ordinance. Mr. Tyson pointed out that the request is for straight R-1 and is not included in the CUD. Mr. Plunk informed Mrs. Dahlgren that, as an owner of Bear Creek Estates, it would require her signature to change any of the deed restrictions. He stated that State law requires approximately 90% of the property owners to be in agreement. Mrs. Dahlgren stated that if that is the case, she is for the zoning request. Mr. Knight stated that the enforcement of deed restrictions lies with the property owners, not with the City. Mrs. Pat Lightsey, 508 Cherry Ann Court, asked for clarification of some of the previous statements. Due to the concern of the homeowners regarding the proposed R-1 portion, Mr. Plunk amended his request to include the R-1 area in the CUD with the deed restrictions included and requiring site plan approval. He also stated that there would not be anymore than the current limit of 46 units. Mr. Dell Byrd, 2500 Driskell, agreed with the inclusion of the R-1 in the CUD. Mr. Mike Mohler, 410 Christine Court, stated that there are two homes in Bear Creek Estates that sit about four feet to the property line. He asked if there were any deed restrictions regarding the side yard. Mr. Tyson read from a copy of the deed restrictions that the required minimum side yards are 5 feet and 12 feet. Mr. Knight stated that the current side yard requirements for single family are 4 feet and 9 feet. He stated that if the deed restrictions are more restrictive than that, it is the responsibility of the homeowners to enforce them. Mr. Tyson pointed out that if these restrictions are made a part of the CUD, the City will then enforce them. There was some concern among the members about referring to these as "deed restrictions" if they were to be made part of the CUD. Page Five, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 3, 1982 Mr. Plunk specified that the following would be included in the conditions of the CUD: 1. Twenty-five foot minimum front yard 2. One 5 foot and one 12 foot side yard 3. Twenty-five foot minimum to any corner lot line 4. The ground floor space area of each residence structure, exclusive of porches, garages and carports, shall be not less than 1,600 square feet living area, and on split-level and two story residence structures, the ground floor area shall not be less than 800 square feet living area, and must be designed and built so that the ground floor shall consist of not less than 75% masonry construction. 6. Maximum density of 46 lots Mr. Knight stated that the title company will normally enforce those restrictions if they are on the face of the plat. Mr. Tyson voiced his concern about the visual aspect of the multi-family proposed on Tract 8 to the west and north of said property. Mr. Plunk stated that the site plan would address that. Mr. Knight stated that in any multi-family zoning there is a 25 foot setback from all property lines and also a requirement that it be screened from any residential zoning. Mrs. Runyon asked Mr. Knight if the City had any formal screening requirements. Mr. Knight stated that at this time, a solid wood fence would meet the screening requirements. He stated that the Commission could require that a detail be provided specifying the type of screening. Chairman Deithloff declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Tyson made a motion to recommend approval of Zoning Case #370 subject to the development specifications of Bear Creek Estates Proposed Community Unit De- velopment as submitted with the following amendments: 1. Tract 2 - 15.657 acres - Proposed zoning change from PD R-1 to CUD R-l. Residential development standards will conform to R-1 district. a. No building or residence shall be located nearer to the front lot line than 25 feet, nor nearer than 5 feet on one side and 12 feet on the other side of each inner lot, nor nearer than 25 feet to any corner lot line. b. The ground floor space area of each residence structure, exclusive of porches, garages and carports, shall be not less than 1,600 square feet living area, and on split-level and two story residence struc- tures, the ground floor area shall not be less than 800 square feet living area, and must be designed and built so that the ground floor shall consist of not less than 75% masonry construction. Page Six, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 3, 1982 c. The density not to be greater than 46 single family lots. 2. Tract 2A to remain as proposed. 3. Tract 2B to remain as proposed. 4. Tract 4 to remain as proposed. 5. Tract 5 remain as proposed with the addition of suitable screening to be provided along Bear Creek Drive. 6. Tract 6 to remain as proposed. 7. Tract 7 - Correct typo "C-5" to "C-2". 8. Tract 8 to remain as proposed with the addition that the site plan shall address the building placement on the lots to minimize the visual access to the single family residents on the north and west. 9. The development specifications be included on the site plan and survey map. Mr. Cotten seconded the motion, and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Tyson, Cotten, McMillon, and Deithloff, and Mrs. Runyon Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. II. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. • / rt.;‘11 irman