Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-01-05 Regular Meeting IC) Planning & Zoning Commission January 5 , 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 John Deithloff Carl Tyson Sam Huston Ralph Gibson Robert McMillon Norma Runyon Bob Williamson Kent Flynn - Director of Planning James Knight - City Engineer Becky Null - Development Coordinator VISITORS Jeff Singleton Gordon Preston Scott Dye C. A. May Ed Noble Lloyd May Andy Kidd Mildred Kirven Scott Ferguson Terry Kirven Tresia Ferguson James Shawn Karen Harms Jim McNabb Steve Harms LeRoy Trimble C. L. Reed Tommy Daves Ray Reed Elliott Tarvin Dora Watson Richard Rutter J. T. Watson Theresa Slovak Margaret F. Cobb Warren Hinkley L. E . Williams D. Brolsma J. Preston John Collins J. D. Madewell Joanne Collins Ardio Madewell John Collins , Jr. Floyd Tharel Greg Boyd Willie Mae McCormick W. M. Sustaire INVOCATION The invocation was given by Mr. Bob Williamson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting dated December 15 , 1981 , I:) were approved with the following corrections : The comments attributed to Mr. Gibson in paragraphs 7 & 9 on page 7 and paragraph 2 on page 8 were made by Mr. Carl Tyson. Page Two, Planning & Zoning Commission, January 5 , 1982 401) The following comment by Mr. Huston needs to be included in the last paragraph on page 7: "Mr. Huston stated that according to the Multi-Family Inventory, there are 723 . 6 acres presently zoned for multi-family that are vacant . He felt that there is enough property zoned for multi-family in Euless . I . CONSIDER PLATTING - PRELIMINARY PLATTING OF LOTS 1 & 2 , BLOCK A, FURR' S CAFETERIA ADDITION LOCATED SOUTH OF AIRPORT FREEWAY, WEST OF S. SHEPPARD DR. & EAST OF F.M. 157 Mr. Greg Boyd with Threadgill-Dowdey & Associates , 4639 Insurance Lane , Dallas , presented the request for preliminary platting of Furr' s Cafeteria. There being no further discussion, Mr. McMillon made a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary platting of Lots 1 & 2 , Block A, Furr' s Cafeteria Addition subject to the City Engineer' s letter dated December 31 , 1981. Mrs . Runyon seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows : Ayes : Mrs . Runyon and Messrs : McMillon, Tyson, Gibson, Huston, Williamson and Deithloff Nays : None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. II. CONSIDER PLATTING - FINAL PLATTING OF LOT 1 , BLOCK A, FURR' S CAFETERIA ADDITION LOCATED SOUTH OF AIRPORT FREEWAY, WEST OF S. SHEPPARD DRIVE AND EAST OF F.M. 157 Mr. Greg Boyd with Threadgill-Dowdey & Associates , 4639 Insur- ance Lane, Dallas , presented the request for final platting of Furr' s Cafeteria. There being no further discussion, Mr. McMillon made a motion to recommend approval of the final platting of Lot 1 , Block A, Furr' s Cafeteria Addition subject to the City Engineer' s letter dated December 31, 1981. Mr. Huston seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows : Ayes : Messrs . McMillon, Huston, Williamson, Gibson, Tyson, Deithloff, and Mrs . Runyon Nays : None Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. Page Three, Planning & Zoning Commission, January 5 , 1982 1110 III. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE #357 - REQUEST OF ANDY KIDD FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM C-2 & R-5 TO PD (R-5 DENSITY) ON PORTION OF TRACT 7 , 7E1 & 7E2 , J. P. HALFORD SURVEY, A-711 , LOCATED SOUTH OF GIBSON' S , EAST OF F.M. 157 , & NORTH OF CLINIC DR. Chairman Deithloff opened the public hearing and stated that the proponents would be heard first and then opponents . Mr. Andy Kidd, representing Noble-Kidd Development , Inc. , stated that they have come back to the P & Z Commission with a Planned Development request that includes the 200 foot wide strip of R-5 property next to the single family residences on the east boundary. He recapped their proposal for apart- ments which are to be converted to condominiums within three years . He stated that the density had been reduced to 21 units per acre. He further stated that the swimming pool previously located next to the residences had been moved to the interior of the complex. Mr. Jeff Singleton, 3210 Salinas Court , Irving, stated he felt that the proposed request is good zoning for this property. He stated that according to the Texas Highway Department , a twenty-four hour traffic count in 1981 for F.M. 157 in front of the subject property was 17 ,400 . He stated that a commercial use for this property would generate more traffic than the proposed apartments . Mr. Ed Noble , partner in the Noble-Kidd Development , Inc. , spoke in favor of the zoning request . There being no additional proponents , Chairman Deithloff asked for any opponents . Mr. Tommy Daves , 908 Rockwall, stated his opposition to the zoning change because of the traffic problem already existing at F.M. 157 and Midway. Mr. James Shawn, 805 Lamar, felt that there is already too much traffic in the area. He stated he talked with the Traffic Safety Coordinator who stated that in the future it might be necessary to restrict turning movements on F.M. 157 because of the traffic hazard of crossing F.M. 157 . Mr. Terry Kirven, 819 Fayette , voiced his opposition to the zoning change. Mr. Richard Rutter, 825 Fayette , stated he is against the proposed apartment zoning. Page Four, Planning & Zoning Commission, January 5 , 1982 4011) Mr. Charles Reed, 808 Rockwall, spoke against the zoning change. Mr. John Collins , 905 Fayette , wondered what kind of foundation problems to theirihomes would be caused by the movement of the land on the hill where the apartments would be erected. Mr. Lloyd Williams , 810 Rockwall , stated his opposition to the zoning request . Mr. Steve Harms , 1000 Fayette, stated he just recently purchased his home after moving from an apartment and was concerned about crime in apartment complexes . Mrs . Dora Watson, 806 Rockwall , was worried about all the drainage problems that would be created when the development comes in. She stated that problems exist currently because the last developer did not take care of his run-off water, and it all comes into their yards . Mr. Jim McNabb , 817 Fayette , opposed the proposed zoning request . Mr. Jim Bane, 803 Lamar, voiced his opposition to the proposed apartment zoning. Mr. Tyson asked about street specifications within the project. Mr. Flynn responded that a design cross section of the drive- ways would have to be approved by the City Engineer with the final plat and that it will have to show that it can support fire fighting apparatus . He stated that the City would require a perpetual maintenance agreement from the owner of the project , be it apartment or condominium association. Mr. Tyson asked if there were still plans for one ingress and one egress from F.M. 157 to the complex. Mr. Noble stated that there are still two openings from F.M. 157 ; however, both are two-way traffic. Mr. Willamson inquired if the apartments will be for adults only. Mr. Noble stated that there will be an adult section and a family section. Mrs . Joanne Collins , 905 Fayette , stated she talked with Dr. Nielson of TCU who advised that there could be foundation problems and creep if the apartments ' foundations were not constructed properly. Mr. J. D. Madewell , 902 Fayette , stated his opposition to the zoning change. Page Five , Planning & Zoning Commission, January 5 , 1982 411) Chairman Deithloff declared the public hearing closed and recessed the meeting for a five minute break. Upon resuming the meeting, Mr. Huston stated that he did not feel the additional traffic and overcrowding of the schools will be good for Euless . Mr. McMillon stated he felt the plan was well-conceived and would bring in needed tax revenues ; however, he does understand the citizens ' concerns over traffic congestion and the density buildup of multi-family next to single family. He expressed his feelings that this decision was a difficult one. Chairman Deithloff stated that the audience might be interested in knowing that the City Development Review Committee (DRC) had reviewed the Development Plan and found it in conformance with City ordinances . He stated the DRC included the Director of Planning & Development , Director of Public Works and City Engineer, the Fire Marshal , Code Enforcement Officer, and the Traffic Safety Coordinator. Mr. Flynn stated that the Traffic Safety Coordinator did not attend all DRC meetings and had, in fact , not been in attend- ance when the Development Plan was reviewed. He stated that he had met with the Traffic Safety Coordinator individually, however, and that his primary recommendation was that the traffic from this development be funneled through the signal- ized interchange at F.M. 157 and Harwood. Mr. Flynn stated that he did not know if Mr. Shawn was speaking about the City' s TrafficSafetyState' s Coordinator or the State s when he spoke earlier, but that the State would have final say over any signalization for the proposed projects or placement of "No Left Turn" signs . He added that the State Highway Department would have to approve any curb cuts or access of any kind from this project onto F.M. 157 because it was State right-of-way. He stated that he was sure that the State Highway Department would review the request from a traffic safety viewpoint. Mr. Flynn then recounted the special conditions which the petitioner had proposed at the hearing which had not been included on the Development Plan. These included the commit- ments that (1) the tennis courts would not be lit , (2) all vertical common walls would be built to the standards of a one-hour fire separation, and (3) all drives would have curb and gutter. He stated that these additional commitments should be added to the list of conditions on the Development Plan if the petitioner could verify that these were indeed commitments that he had intended to make in conjunction with the zoning request . Page Six, Planning & Zoning Commission, January 5, 1982 411) Mr. Noble stated that he could verify the first commitment and that he would clarify the last two. He stated that he had intended to commit curb and gutter on only the interior of the project and not the ingress/egress frontage with F.M. 157 . Mr. Flynn stated that the City' s Subdivision Ordinance would dictate what improvements went along the property frontage with F.M. 157 and that it was his belief that curb and gutter and sidewalk would be required if the State Highway Department could approve the design. He stated that , in any event , the Subdivision Ordinance would have precedence over this issue and that the City would not honor any Development Plan proposal that would conflict with the ordinances . Mr. Noble stated that all vertical common walls would be one-hour fire separation, but could not be sure that ceilings and floors would conform to one-hour status . Mr. Flynn advised Mr. Noble that the City had no condominium ordinance at the present time, but that City Staff had discussed possible regulations for a proposed condominium ordinance. He stated that Staff had tentatively decided that they would recouuiiend a one-hour fire separation in all common walls including floors and ceilings . He stated that should Mr. Noble plan to convert the apartments to condominiums in three years , he would have to conform to the condominium ordinance which will probably be established before then. He stated that he might want to incorporate one-hour fire separation in floors and ceilings from the outset for this reason. After some discussion regarding the fire walls , Mr. Noble stated that all vertical walls would conform to one-hour rating, but is not sure at this time if the ceilings and floors would conform. Mr. Williamson asked Mr. Flynn if the developer has to come back to P & Z and City Council at the time the condos are converted. Mr. Flynn stated that they will have to comply with the condo ordinance if it is converted after the City adopts such an ordinance. He added that the condo ordinance will have to comply with state law which regulates what condo ordinances can and cannot do. Mr. Tyson asked if screening is required between commercial and residential dwellings . Mr. Flynn stated that a fence is required if multi-family is adjacent to single family. He added that a fence was required between commercial and multi-family , but that the burden of construction would, in this case, be that of whoever develops �;r Page Seven, Planning & Zoning Commission, January 5 , 1982 411) and builds upon the commercial property later. He stated that Section 10-103 (1) of the Euless Zoning Ordinance requires that "where a nonresidential building in a ' C-2 ' District is exposed to a residential district boundary line , and where such building is closer than 150 feet to the boundary line , a screening wall . . . shall be erected. . . " . He added that currently there were no commercial buildings within 150 feet of the proposed residential district boundary. Mr. Huston made a motion to recommend denial of Zoning Case #357 based on the overwhelming citizen input against tihe case and his belief that the zoning change would not be good for Euless . Mr. Williamson seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows : Ayes : Messrs . Huston, Williamson, McMillon,c illon, and Deithloff Nays : Mrs . Runyon and Messrs . Gibson and Tyson Chairman Deithloff declared the motion carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT There being no additional business to conduct , the meeting was adjourned at 10 :00 p.m. / ;001 00( / airman C