Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-03-05 PLANNING AND ZONING MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Vice Chairman Grove at 6:30 p.m. for consideration of scheduled items in the Council Chambers in Building "B" of the Municipal Building. Vice Chairman Grove stated there was a quorum of members of the Planning and Zoning Commission present. MEMBERS AND STAFF PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chairman Grove Chairman McNeese Monty Huffman Bill Tarin Ron Hughes John Deithloff Gene Sloan Mike Collins, Director of Planning and Development Eric Wilhite, Planning and Development Manager Ron Young, Asst. Dir. of Public Works Karla Allen, Administrative Secretary VISITORS: Jay Jenson Tricia Jenson Michael Greene Paul Stevens Gary Winsper Foster McMillan THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION: The Pledge of Allegiance was given by Commissioner Hughes and Invocation was given by Commissioner Huffman. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Hughes made a motion to approve minutes from February 19, 2002 as written. Commissioner Deithloff seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Vice Chairman Grove, Commissioners Huffman, Hughes and Deithloff. Nays: None Abstention: Commissioner Sloan The motion carried (4-0-1). Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Page 2 March 5, 2002 REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 1 CASE #02-01-PD — HOLD PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE. Receive public input regarding a request for a Planned Development of G. Linney Survey, Abstract 939, Tract 2 from R-1 C (Single Family Custom Dwelling District) zoning to PD based on R- 1 C (Planned Development for single family based on R-1 C Single Family Custom Dwelling District) zoning and consider an ordinance. This property is located on N. Industrial Blvd. and Mid-Cities Blvd. Mike Collins, Director of Planning and Development, gave a brief overview of this case. He stated the purpose of the public hearing is to receive public input regarding a request for a Planned Development to change the zoning of G. Linney Survey, Abstract 939, Tract 2, on N. Industrial Blvd. and Mid-Cities Blvd. from R-1 C (Single Family Custom Dwelling District) into PD based on R-1 C Single Family Custom Dwelling District standards. The applicant, ICI Development, Colleyville, is proposing to develop on approximately 21.43 acres of property. The applicant proposes a 43 lot subdivision based on R-1 C (Single Family Custom Dwelling) standards. The exceptions to the R-1 C development standards the applicant is requesting is the minimum lot width from 100' be approved as 85'; the front yard setbacks be approved at 25' from the required 30'; minimum rear yard setbacks be approved at 15' from the required 25'; and minimum side interior setback be approved at a minimum of 8' from the required 10'. The primary ingress/egress will be off of F.M. 157 and the secondary access will also be off of F.M. 157 on the southwest portion of the development. The applicant would propose in this development to have a masonry screening wall parallel to F.M. 157 on the southeast corner. The wall would extend to the east approximately 16' on the south end. The fencing on the north boundary of lots 42 and 43 would be a wooden fence, as well as, the north perimeter which would be south of the Bob Park. Vice Chairman Grove opened the public hearing. Vice Chairman Grove asked if the applicant or a representative to come forward to present their case. Brian Klein, Hoover-Klein, 416 N. Main St. #120, Euless, representing the applicant who is also present to help answer any questions the Commission may Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Page 3 March 5, 2002 have. Mr. Klein stated there were a couple of the features to the development that required this development to go under a Planned Development from the present zoning. The owners of this property could develop this property with the existing R-1 C zoning. If the development were to go under the present zoning there would only be 42 lots possible. With this variation they were able to have 43 lots. The main reason the development has come before the commission as a planned development was because of the topography and the tree cover. In order to work best with the topography and save the amount of tress at this location the applicant has requested the large amount of open spaces for the enjoyment of the entire neighborhood. The layout also offers a full view of Eden Lake. It would be possible to develop this area with lots backing up to the lake. However, the thought was to have a gated community where there would be circulation and access for the residents and guests. The full view of the lake would be an asset to the neighborhood. Twenty percent (20%) of the total acreage is comprised of the lake and another ten percent (10%) is open space. There are three areas that equal to approximately two acres of tree covered open space. There is a devotion to preserving the tree cover and leaving the site as natural as it can be. Eden Lake would be preserved as an amenity. The lake would still function as storm water detention. The gated neighborhood is for privacy and to limit access to Eden Lake. If it were not gated it would be open to the entire community to drive through. Vice Chairman Grove asked if there were any proponents for this case and there were none. Vice Chairman Grove asked if there were any opponents for this case and to come forward for any comments. Michael Greene, 804 Overlake Ct., Euless, stated he did not understand the purpose of the variance and wanted to know if there was a plan to develop this area with 42 lots if the variance for 43 lots was not approved. Mike Collins, Director of Planning and Development, stated this currently has a zoning for R-1 C which is straight zoning and the applicant has a right by law to development based on that zoning. The reason for the planned development zoning is some of the exemptions that have been explained in regards to the minimum lot width and some of the setback requirements. If this planned development were to be denied the applicant would have the option if they chose to come forward with the straight zoning for that residential development. Foster McMillan, 605 Cypress Cir., Euless, stated he was concerned if the hill on the northwest corner of the development would be leveled and how many of the trees would have to be removed. He stated that the homeowners association had issues as to the legalities involved in the zoning because of their deed restrictions that covers the other portion of the lake. The homeowners association is against the development. There is concern as to how many Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Page 4 March 5, 2002 people would have access to the lake. The other side of the lake has approximately nine lots that currently have access to the lake. It was originally supposed to have only lake front property on the other side of the lake. On their side of the lake there are homes that range from $300,000 to $500,000 with specific guidelines for the maintenance of the lake, dam and spillway. This proposal changes the dam and spillway and the homeowners would like to address the legalities of these changes. Putting this many homes on the other side of the lake would give a large amount of people access to a six acre lake. Their view of the lake would be greatly diminished with the road running along the side of the lake. They feel this would diminish the property values. The homeowners association feels this plan does not fit the existing community. Paul Stevens, 1811 Trail Lake Dr., Euless, stated he was the second purchaser of a lot from Bob Eden. He stated he knows what Bob Eden's ideas were when he originally developed this area. One of the main concerns was the access to the lake. The reason Bob Eden originally put 100' wide lots on one side of the lake, he expected to have this on the other side of the lake also, he wanted a limited access private lake. This was never designed to be public land. He developed the park and donated land from the subdivision to the park and to the City when he originally developed this area. The lake itself, from the days when it was C.J.'s pond, was to remain private. It was privately stocked with fish for the lake property owners. No other access. His expectations were to be only approximately 15-20 people to have access to the lake and who would take care of the lake. The development being proposed only shows one lot that has lake front access. This was not developed for the proposed 43 lots to have access to the lake. There is nothing that shows where the spillway will be going. Little Bear Creek runs through this lake. It comes in from the south end and exits on the west end and goes directly through the west tract. This is a creek bed. This is a natural creek. His other concern was who will have responsibility for the lake. At this time the lake front property owners has been taking care of the lake. They have paid out assessments to reduce the weading in the lake, clean the trash out from the lake that flows down through Little Bear Creek. What type of plan does the developer have for maintaining the lake. There are restrictive covenants on the lake. Many of the restrictions apply to who has access to the lake and who can actually go out on the lake. No one except a first generation blood relative of a lake front property owner can be on the lake without written permission signed by all of the lake front property owners. In the restrictive covenants, those houses are restricted by the covenants of Phase 2 of Trail Lake subdivision with a minimum house size of 2500 square feet. He stated that the only way you can put this size home on a 10,000 foot lot was to build up each lot. What makes the property they have valuable and shields the noise is the hill that separates the lake from Hwy 157 and Hwy 121. The trees provide screening and when the trees are cut they feel they will be living on the freeway. The lots from 33-36 and 30-32 will be behind the earthen dam that exists now. The original covenants in the lake owners deed restrictions specify how they will maintain the dam and what it is to be for. Lots 37-40 and lot 29 would be cutting down the hill Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Page 5 March 5, 2002 and the many trees that are large and have been there for many years. Mr. Stevens stated the surrounding fences that are being proposed are a problem. Also, he does not see any provisions for the spillway. The spillway crests approximately 3-4 inches when there are heavy rains. The water goes down Little Bear Creek through Eden Park and eventually ends up over at the airport. Gary Winsper, 1801 Trail Lake Dr., Euless, stated that his concerns were the trees being cut down, the topography and access to the lake. His assumption was there would be only 8-10 lots on the other side of the lake. Also the noise from Hwy 121 would be greatly increased when the trees are cut down. He is concerned the selling point for this development will be the lake and this will increase the amount of people on the lake and the trash. Jay Jenson, 1807 Trail Lake Dr., Euless, stated he paid a high premium for his lot due to the access to the lake. He is also concerned about the amount of trees that will be cut down. The open spaces proposed on the development only has approximately 8 trees along the lake. He was concerned with the lot values that are being proposed and the type of homes that will be built. They do not want the property value to affect the existing home owners. They would like to see this development adopt some of their covenants. Foster McMillan, 605 Cypress Cir., Euless, stated another concern was the security. Their covenants and restrictions for their lots on lake restrict them from building a fence and block any portion of the lake from the other lake lot owners. If there open area is accessible to 43 other families then their property will be accessible to these 43 other families. Mike Williamson, ICI Development, 4009 Brookside, Bedford, stated they would offer to meet the homeowners across the lake and address the association concerns they have with maintenance, usage and the other concerns. He wanted to address the concerns about why they are proposing the planned development and not the straight zoning. The purpose was the function of the 85' width and being able to build homes the proper way. The 100 X 100 lot does not lend itself to building lots. This was not the purpose of the R-1 C. They are maintaining 10,000 foot lots. There is not a problem with putting a 2500 square foot one story home on a 10,000 foot lot. There would still be many trees in the front and back of the lot. The large amount of trees is what they liked about this property. The spillway will be taken underground to the open space in the center and let back out. The present state of the spillway is mossy, slippery and dangerous. They feel this is the most economical layout for the property. Vice Chairman Grove closed the hearing. Vice Chairman Grove stated there seems to be a common thread of concerns among the homeowners and some of the concerns are not rightly addressed in Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Page 6 March 5, 2002 the zoning question. The concerns have to do more with issues between land owners and neighbors that the City can not legally legislate. Mike Collins, Director of Planning and Development, stated the staff counsels the City Council and commission on land issues. This issue is one that the property owner has certain rights. There is straight zoning as has been indicated. The Commission and City Council will make a judgement not as to whether the property is going to be developed, but whether the community is better served with this property developed with this proposal or as straight zoning. There have been many references made to Mr. Eden's intentions for this property. It would be one thing if zoning had been approved and there were established deed conditions. This would provide some legal basis giving City Council and the Commission legal grounds to enforce something. But what you are asking the City Council and Commission to do is to agree with what your understanding of Mr. Eden's intent was. The City Council and Commission have to deal with the legally filed documents. The developer has indicated that he is willing to work with the homeowner association to see what covenants could be put together for the maintenance of the lake. Denying access to this lake takes into account other issues of private property rights that a municipality has no authority to address. With respect to removal of trees, the city does not currently have a Tree Ordinance. The language contained in the ordinance establishes there shall be no indiscriminate clearing of trees on the property. Commissioner Sloan asked the developer if the intention was to leave trees in the 25 foot setback in the front area of the property. Mike Williamson stated they were able to do this with the 10,000 foot lots. Commissioner Sloan asked if they were not going in and just clear cutting the area. Mike Williamson stated they were not. Commissioner Sloan asked if they would be cutting the hill down at lots 43 through 41, 39 and 38. Mike Williamson stated they had not completed that level of engineering and have not established elevations as of yet. But, they would like to see as much of the hill stay as possible. Commissioner Deithloff asked if the sale of the property was dependent on the outcome of the zoning. Mike Williamson stated that it was. Commissioner Deithloff asked who owned the property presently. Mike Williamson stated Maize Eden and Mary Jane Spencer. Commissioner Deithloff stated that he was looking to see if this would be the highest and best use for this property. He stated he like the residential use for this property. He would like for this property to be looked at again for fewer lots that back up to the lake so it would match the property owners on the other side of the lake. He said he could not support this development as it is currently proposed. - Commissioner Hughes asked if this development is being restricted to any one particular builder or open to multiple builders. Mike Williamson stated the plan was to be open to multiple builders. Commissioner Hughes stated he was concerned with the access to the lake by some many people because of the 1 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Page 7 March 5, 2002 security issues that had been expressed and the overall serenity and maintenance of the area. He stated the street along the shoreline is particularly offensive, not only from having to face it but it would reflect the headlights from cars travelling down the street into the houses across the lake. Commissioner Hughes asked how they were going to prepare the building sites on the north side of the dam. Mike Williamson stated they may have to elevate lot 32, and lot 31 is coming down a slope. He also stated they are planning to spend $25,000 to permit the dam, the way it should have been done in the first place. Commissioner Hughes stated this was not the best use, or consistent and compatible with what is on the other side. Also, this is not like another development where you share a property line. To walk in without any pre-work or having discussed this project with any of the neighbors on how they would address the lake situation was premature. Brian Klein, Hoover-Klein, stated there were many comments in regards to what Mr. Eden's intent was for this property, about security, placing of the road and tree cover. This should not have a bearing on this case. While these are considerations, it has little bearing with the law that relates to best and highest use for the property. Highest and best use of the property today before the zoning was brought forward was single family zoning with 10,000 square foot lots. This development complies with this zoning. The only difference is the shape of the lots and some latitude on the lot as far as where the house can be placed in order to allow for better tree preservation. The development is not for a great increase in density. The development would allow people to see the lake rather than strictly five or six lake front properties. The drainage was a very important factor for this development. The permitting of the dam should have been done long ago. This development will allow us to accomplish this. The storm drainage down stream is very important to the City. This will be planned and designed at a later time. Commissioner Hughes responded by stating that he was there to represent his neighbors and the citizens of Euless. He stated the developer came in with this proposal and design and hoping for an affirmative recommendation from the board. From his point of view, he can only influence the course of action. His input is the development is an attractive proposition, upscale high end property, and he would like to see this type of development there. But, he stated some of these issues needed to be worked out with more prep work. Mike Williamson asked if the use of the lake and working together with Homeowner Associations was pertinent to the zoning case. Commissioner Hughes stated no, but it was pertinent to getting his support. Vice Chairman Grove stated that whether this zoning case moves forward or not, the issues brought up about access to the lake, rights to use the lake, and maintenance of the lake, are going to remain and are independent of the zoning case. When that property develops everyone will have to get together on the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Page 8 March 5, 2002 same page in respect to these issues, but there is nothing the Commission or City Council that can change that fact. Vice Chairman Grove asked Mr. Williamson if he would tell the commission what the current plan was to maintain the lake and common areas. Mr. Williamson stated the shore line along the development would be maintained by their Homeowner Association. Vice Chairman Grove also asked what property values would be for the development. Mr. Williamson stated the homes would range from $290,000 to $400,000. Commissioner Hughes made a motion to disapprove case #02-01-PD as requested. Commissioner Deithloff seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Commissioners Huffman, Hughes, Deithloff and Sloan Nays: Vice Chairman Grove Abstention: None The motion carried (4-1-0). ITEM 2 REPORTS There were no reports. ITEM 3 DIRECTOR'S REPORT There were no reports. Adjournment: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. I ce Chairman • - D t