Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-04-06 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 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 Deithloff. MEMBERS & STAFF PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT John Deithloff Norma Runyon Carl Tyson Ralph Gibson Robert McMillon Bob Williamson Sam Huston Kent Flynn - Director of Planning & Development Becky Null - Development Coordinator James Knight - City Engineer VISITORS Ralph Good Darrin Breaker Wyatt Slaughter Faye Terry Betsy Bloxom Jack Terry Jo Ann Breaker Willie Mae McCormick INVOCATION The invocation was given by Mr. Carl Tyson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting dated March 2, 1982, were approved as written. I. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE #363 REQUEST OF WYATT SLAUGHTER FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM C-2 TO C-2 WITH SP FOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENTS WITH BAR ON TRACTS B & C AND A PORTION OF TRACT A WILSHIRE VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then the opponents. Mr. Wyatt Slaughter, #94 Wilshire Village, presented his request to move Alpine Y 9 � 9 Bowling Lanes approximately 400 yards from its present location and enlarge it from a 24 lane bowling center to a 44 lane bowling center. He stated that their goal was to modernize the bowling alley and possibly host some state and national tournaments. He also stated that they currently have commercial amusements and sell alcoholic beverages and, in addition, they have three Trinity High School classes a day which are accredited physical education courses. Page Two, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, April 6, 1982 Chairman Deithloff asked if there were additional proponents. There being none, he asked for any opponents. Mr. Darvin Breaker, 709 Commerce, asked if this is going to be a new building. Mr. Slaughter explained that it will be a new building on the vacant lot behind the shopping center. He also stated that the back of the building will be fronting Wilshire Drive and that there will be no entrances on that side of the building. Chairman Deithloff asked Mr. Slaughter if he had received a copy of the letter dated March 31st from Kent Flynn addressed to the P&Z. Mr. Slaughter stated that he had. Mr. Tyson asked about the loading berths and the screening wall as mentioned in the letter. Mr. Slaughter stated that after he received the letter he went back to the architect 1 that had drawn up the site plan and the architect then contacted Mr. Flynn and the necessary revisions were made accordingly. Mr. Slaughter asked a question regarding the size of the loading berth. Mr. Flynn stated that due to the commercial uses of the building the parking schedule requires a loading berth so if there were any deliveries they could be made without blocking the fire lane. He stated that it needed to be located on the plans. Mr. Slaughter asked about the location for the required screening fence. Mr. Flynn stated that a screening wall or screening landscaping between the additional parking south of the building and the street would be required. Mr. Tyson asked if the conditions regarding alcoholic beverage sales would be part of the site plan. Mr. Slaughter stated that it would be part of the site plan. Mr. Tyson asked if they would submit annually to the City their gross receipts for alcoholic beverages and other receipts. Mr. Slaughter stated they would. Mr. Tyson asked about the square footage as marked on the plan. Mr. Slaughter stated that they are looking at putting in a restaurant and lounge area where they could host some bowling banquets and possibly host some Chamber of Commerce luncheons and are looking at around 600-700 square feet for this purpose. Mr. Tyson asked about the lighting for the parking area. Mr. Slaughter stated that he is planning to put in some sodium lights that cast the orange tint and plan to put them in the parking lot in a manner that will be the least obtrusive or interfere with the apartments, but would offer enough light to have security for the customers. Page Three, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, April 6, 1982 Mr. Flynn asked if Mr. Slaughter could put some kind of written condition on the site plan regarding the lighting before he goes to Council. Mr. Slaughter stated he would do so. Mr. Tyson asked Mr. Flynn if there was anything in the ordinances that would protect residential areas from the lighting of the parking lot if it is located too close to them. Mr. Flynn stated that he did not know of anything. Mr. Williamson asked if Mr. Slaughter would use existing lighting or add lighting to the area behind the existing building along Wilshire. Mr. Slaughter stated that since there are street lights along Wilshire, they have the option as to whether to put in additional lights. However, due to the costs, they would prefer not to. Mr. Tyson asked Mr. Breaker what type of lighting is over near his home at this time. Mr. Breaker stated that they have one street light behind the store. Mr. Slaughter stated that they plan to put two speed bumps on the existing fire lane that runs north and south and goes into Sagebrush and on the parking area that fronts Wilshire. Mr. Flynn stated that he thought that the City prefers not to have speed bumps on a fire lane. Mr. Knight agreed. Mr. Tyson asked about the development of the west and north sides of the building. Mr. Flynn stated that there will be a 20' setback, and a sidewalk and no entrances on those sides. Mr. Flynn further stated that there is no requirement that this area be paved or landscaped. There being no additional opponents or comments, Chairman Deithloff declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Tyson asked if the Commission wanted to use the conditions that are on the site plan as part of the zoning case, if it could be done by just making reference to the site plan drawing. Mr. Flynn stated that the conditions that are on the Site Plan would be enforced as an integral part of the zoning and they would appear in the ordinance that adopts the zoning so that their appearance on the site plan would make them part of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Tyson stated that he was a bit uncertain as to the parking lot lighting requirements in the northern portion, stating that he was not sure what would be nonoffensive to the apartments. Mr. Flynn stated that Mr. Slaughter could address this issue and make a proposal to City Council and let them deal with this issue. Pa g e Four, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, April 6, 1982 There being no further discussion, Mr. Tyson made a motion to recommend approval C of Zoning Case #363 subject to the letter and the conditions of the letter dated March 31st and in addition, that adequate lighting to the parking areas to the east and south of the proposed building be provided. Mr. McMillon seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Tyson, Gibson, Huston, Williamson, McMillon and Deithloff 1 Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. II. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE #365 REQUEST OF RALPH GOOD FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM C-1 TO R-2 ON LOTS 12-16 BLOCK 16,CEDAR HILLS ESTATES Prior to the opening of the public hearing, Chairman Deithloff moved to Item III in lieu of Item II. (The petitioner had not arrive at this time.) Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents. Mr. Ralph Good, 904 Circle Lane, Bedford, presented his request for change of Czoning from C-1 to R-2 on lots 12-16, Block 16, Cedar Hills Estates, stating that since most of the area is residential, that commercial is not the best zoning for these lots. He also stated that the size of these lots are not the best size for single family for single family attached, but duplexes, in their opinion, would be the best. Mr. Jack Terry, 113 Sunset Dr., asked what type of duplex Mr. Good is planning to build and how many. Mr. Good stated that he proposes to build a two-bedroom, two-bath with den/living room combination, fireplace, two car carport, brick. The size will be from 1,040 to 1,080 square feet. Mr. Good stated that they plan to have five lots with one duplex per lot. Mr. Tyson asked the size of the lots. Mr. Good stated that they were 65 x 155, with a 5 foot easement for utilities in back and a 30 foot setback. Mr. Williamson asked if an access from Pipeline is planned for each of these lots. Mr. Good stated that an access off of Cannon with a side driveway or back common drive for each of these units is planned. Mr. Huston asked if every unit would face Pipeline and the distance of each unit back from Pipeline. CMr. Good stated that they would face Pipeline and would be 30 feet back from the road. Page Five, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, April 6, 1982 Chairman Deithloff stated that in the Commission's information packet was a letter from Mrs. Frankie Reynolds stated that she was in favor of the zoning from C-1 to R-2. Mr. Tyson asked about the City's procedures regarding the allowance of access easements. Mr. Flynn stated that any provisions for access easements would have to occur per a Planned Development type zoning. Mr. Tyson stated that if there can be no cuts onto Pipeline Road then there would be no alternative for getting the individual drives into these areas. Mr. Flynn stated that was correct. He further stated that Pipeline is in the City of Fort Worth. Mr. Knight stated that he did not know Fort Worth's policy regarding driveway cuts onto Pipeline and that would be a platting procedure and not a zoning procedure. Mr. Good stated they were thinking of putting in a circular driveway. Mr. Flynn stated that the Anglin Addition had individual access in addition to access to each lot, whereas this proposal calls for a common driveway with only one way in and out, which means the owners would have to cross someone else's lot to get out. Mr. Tyson stated that it was his understanding that what Mr. Good has proposed cannot be build under the zoning he asked for. Mr. Flynn stated that was correct and added that the only time access easements had been approved was via Planned Development zoning with a Homeowner's Association to maintain the easement. Mr. Flynn stated that the City Attorney might know of a legal mechanism. Mr. Good stated that he wanted to keep it a private drive with no parking in the back. Mr. Tyson asked if he planned to sell these units versus maintaining ownership himself. Mr. Good stated that he planned to maintain ownership, but would eventually sell. Chairman Deithloff commented that this zoning case is being presented to the Commission as a blanket zoning case from C-1 to R-2 and the Commission has to act on that, and it must be acted on one way or another. Mr. Flynn stated that at the current time, if an R-2 zoning case was approved, the City would enforce the ordinances that are in the blanket zoning district standards for R-2 including individual access to off-street parking. There being no further additional opponents or comments, Chairman Deithloff declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Tyson stated that he was not sure about the rear access even if it were a Planned Development. Based on that, he made a motion to recommend denial of Zoning Case #365. Page Six, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, April 6, 1982 Mr. Huston seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Tyson, Huston, McMillon, Gibson and Williamson Nays: Mr. Deithloff Chairman Deithloff declared this motion carried. III. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE #364 REQUEST OF DAVID BAGWELL FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM R-2 TO PD FOR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLINGS WITH VARIABLE YARDS AND BUILDING STANDARDS ON LOTS 6-16, BLOCK 2 AND LOTS 1-8, BLOCK 6, WOODLANDS ADDITION Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents. Mr. Ron Haynes, Crow Development Co., 2001 Bryan Tower, presented his request for a change of zoning from duplex to single family attached. He stated that the property in question is a part of the Woodlands Addition located between Fuller- Wiser Road and Main St. on the north side of Ash Lane. Mr. Haynes stated that there are 18 lots and 6 of these lots would be sold to Pulte Homes and they w uld build six single family attached dwellings, and the remaining 12 would be built by Crow Development. He stated that they would retain ownership on the ones they develop. He further stated that they are requesting a 5 foot side yard between buildings because they do not feel that it is necessary to have more than the typical side yard requirements that the City has in relation to duplexes. Mr. Haynes stated they are also requesting a 20 foot front yard setback. He stated this request was due to the fact that they have alleys. By moving the building forward 5 feet, it would allow more room for parking in the back. He also pointed out that the lots that are not served by an alley would have rear entry driveways comingoff of Woodpath and Ash Lane to the back of the units andwould p n have much wider side yards. Hestated that theyare showingtwo driveways enteringoff of Ash Lane for Y units #1 and #24. He stated that they have no other way of getting rear entry parking on those two units other than a driveway cut off of Ash Lane. He stated that their greatest concern is that they do not want to do front entry because of their lack of attractiveness. Mr. Haynes stated that regarding their building standards they are asking that a minimum of 50% of these buildings have a minimum of 1,100 square feet and as a building a minimum of 2,200 square feet. He further stated they are asking that 40% of these units have a minimum of 1,000 square feet with a building minimum of 2,000 square feet; then a 10% requirement of 900 square feet in a 2,000 square foot building. Mr. Flynn summarized Mr. Hayne's remarks by saying that he is asking for variances for yard setbacks, floor area, distance between buildings, and the driveway cuts on Ash Lane. Page Seven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, April 6, 1982 Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any additional proponents. Chairman Deithloff read a letter from Terra Properties and they, as owners of the adjacent property, stated that they are in favor of Zoning Case #364. There being no additional proponents, he asked for any opponents. There were none. Mr. Tyson asked about the easement running across building #35 and #36. Mr. Haynes stated that it is currently a TP&L line and it would have to be relocated. Chairman Deithloff asked Mr. Haynes if he would consider making Lots 1, 2, 23, & 24 into single lots for single family detached and then have the curb cuts off of Woodpath Drive. Mr. Haynes stated that he would, but their reason for not doing that is they are not sure how marketable a traditional single family home is when it is next to a rental unit. Mr. Tyson asked Mr. Haynes that, as a last resort, would be willing to have a front entry on Lots 23, 24, 1, & 2. Mr. Haynes stated that he would be willing to do so, as a last resort. There being no additional opponents or comments, Chairman Deithloff declared the public hearing closed. fi Chairman Deithloff asked Mr. Haynes if he had received the Staff letter dated March 31st. Mr. Haynes stated that he had not received the letter, but had talked to Mr. Flynn earler about it. After reviewing the letter, he stated that he had no problems with it. It was noted that the letter went to Mr. David Bagwell. Mr. McMillon made a motion to recommend approval of Zoning Case #364 subject to the letter dated March 31st and that there be no driveway cuts onto Ash Lane to serve Bldg. 1 & 2, Block 6 and Bldg. 23 & 24, Block 2. �I Mr. Williamson seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Tyson, Huston, McMillon, Gibson, Williamson and Deithloff Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. II Page Eight, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, April 6, 1982 IV. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDER RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THE EULESS ZONING ORDINANCE BE REVISED TO PROVIDE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR ATHLETIC GAME COURTS AND SPORTS AREAS Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and explained that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents. Mr. Flynn stated that the City Staff had been approached by a possible developer of a health center, hotel and recreational health spa. Inquiries had been made about the city's parking requirements for recreational uses and upon checking into same, found a hole in the parking schedule. He further stated that at the urging of the individual, his staff had attempted to draft a "quick fix" to the parking schedule and plug the hole. Mr. Flynn called attention to the recommendations for the ordinance prepared by the Planning & Development Staff. Mr. Flynn stated he would like to present the proposed revision for a recommendation for submission tonight. Mr. Flynn addressed to the Commission some of the ambiguities that he found in the proposal since it was first drafted. First, he commented on the two proposed additions to the parking schedule by adding the two following uses to the schedule: (1) Athletic game courts (without spectator seating) - Staff proposed that four parking spaces be required for each court. (2) Commercial Athletic Recreational Courts Area or Building (other than listed) - Staff proposed one parking space for four occupants. Mr. Flynn addressed a couple areas of concern: (1) in the latter use, he proposed to change the word "occupants" to "one for four users" to distinguish between the people who are actually partaking of the facilities versus spectators. (2) He questioned how this should be determined. Mr. Flynn further asked if the requirements would be the same regardless of who operates the game courts. He feels the Commission should address the issue more comprehensively and deal with three categories: public, school, churches, residential & commercial. Mr. Flynn stated that he felt the Commission needed to consider whether or not they should have a section for residential, schools or churches. Chairman Deithloff asked if there were any additional roponents. There being none, he asked for any opponents. There were none. Mr. Williamson stated that he felt the issue of concern primarily is commercial. He felt schools and churches were covered in the existing parking schedule. Mr. Tyson stated that if a school built an athletic complex in the district they would be required to build parking to go with it. Consideration and discussion occurred on whether or not to treat public facilities different from commercial in relationship to this proposed ordinance after discussion. The consensus was that the parking requirements in the scheudle already for schools and church uses were adequate and that additional requirements for given facilities were not needed for public or residential complexes that incorporate these recreational activity areas. Page Nine, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, April 6, 1982 There being no additional opponents or comments, Chairman Deithloff closed the public hearing. Chairman Deithloff asked if the Commission would like to address this recom- mendation this evening. He stated that Mr. Flynn had made some suggestions as to the categories that might be included in the parking requirement. He stated that Mr. Flynn's recommendations could be used to plug the holes for the present, or the Commission could table it for further discussion and bring it up at the next Planning & Zoning Meeting. Mr. Williamson stated he would prefer to do something now. Mr. Gibson stated he would like to act on what is available and hope it is sufficient. Mr. Tyson, Huston, McMillon also agreed to make a decision tonight. Mr. Flynn stated that the draft he had given the Commission to act on is to insert the work commercial before athletic game courts on first use; leave the work commercial in front of the word athletic on the second use; and change the word "occupants" to "participants". Mr. Williamson made the motion to recommend approval of the parking require- ; ments as amended. Mr. Huston seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Tyson, Huston, McMillon, Gibson, Williamson, Deithloff Nays: None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. V. ADJOURNMENT There being no additional business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. C rman /14 C IB3