Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-07-17 1984-103 AGENDA Planning S. Zoning Commission 201 N. Ector Drive Euless, Texas July 17, 1984 7:15 p.m. - Pre-Commission Meeting to Discuss Agenda Items 7:30 P.111. - Call to OT-der for COMr-eli-,sion Consideration of Scheduled Items INVOCATION APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Ref-I'Lltar Meeting Dated July 3, 1984 OLD BUSINESS I. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HT--',A -LING l.onipg C.,vise #84-1.6 - Request of Brooks Builders, Inc., for a change of zoning on Block 0, Lots 4-7; Block 7., Lots 1-5, 8-11, 14-171; Block. 8, Lots 1, 2., 5-12, 13 24; B)Iock 9, Lots 3-1.1; Block 10, Lots 6 & 7; Block, 11, Lots 1-6, 9-14; 13lock 12, Lots 2-7, 12-14, Block 1.3, Lots 14-19; Block 14, Lots I- 17; Block 15, Lots 1-9; Block .1.6, Lots 1. & 2; that part of Crowe Drive between anki aqjacent to Lot 2, Block 6 ,and Lot 1, Block U5, that part of Benbow Drive between and adjacent to Lot 9, Block 1.5 wad Lot 1, r3lock 14, Bell Ranch Terrace, 24.68 acres of land, frorri R-1 to Planned Development for MUlti-ftlMily (C0T1d0rAiniUMs) arid commercial located west of F-l 157., north of West EuIess Blvd., east of Wilshire Drive., and south of Airport Freeway. IT. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING E',equcst of Harold L. Gopher and W(-.ldon George for OT Zonin-E, a change f " on. Trvtct,> W -,.ind 1C1, E. Taylor Survey, A-1550, 7J92 acres of iarrfl, from R-1, C-1, CUD.'/R-2 (Single-Family Attached) to C-2, located east and ad jacent to North Main Street and south find adjacent to Glade Road. 1984-104 ZONING DISTRICT ABBREVIATIONS 1i-1 Single. Family Detached Dwelling District RIA Single- Family Attached Dwelling District R-2 Two-l"amily Dwelling District R--3 - Multi-Y:l artily Dwelling .District, 12 Units to the Acre R-4 Multi-Family Dwelling District, 1.6 Units to the Acre R-;') - Multi--family Dwelling Dist rict, 24 Units to the Acre C-1 Neighborhood Business District C-2 - Community Business District 1,-1 - Limited Indr€strial District 1-1 - Might Industrial District 1-2 - heavy Industrial District CUD Community Unit. Development PD - Planned Development SP - Sjr*ci.fic Use Permit 1984-105 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 17 , 190 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting o f rhea Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order at 7 :30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Euless City Hall by Chairman John Lynch. MEMBERS & STAFF PRESEUP MEMBERS ABSENT John Deithloff Robert McMillon _tack Hill Carl Tyson. John Lynch Carolyn Park. Larry Ingram James Knight, City Engineer Rod Tyler, Senior Planner Jim McKanna, Project Engineer Anniece Vargas, Secretary VISITORS Cathy Ftlrbash ?at. Kent W. H. Hites Molly Macidux David C. Newman Fred Madd;ax Warren E. Ragan Jesus Perez Bi_l.l. Goodlett Wal.t:er. Elliott: Beth Good:etu .john Mize Pat Eramigan Bernie Jackson John Park Mike Owens Ray Mixon Eddie Adams Hilda Graham Blair Dufour Ann Mixon Doug & Nancy Farrer. Jim Santher.ard Jim Sturges Evan Culpepper Lavonda Fa€;.rman Samples Don Cook P:.aul. R. ?Schmial. Susie Bridges :€anis Barton Fran Cook. Naomi Neely Doug Stapleton Rick Little Faye Stapleton James S. Huggins and Numerous Other Citizens i.NVOC AT I ON The invocation was given by Mr. John €)eithloff. Pa,ge .T-,lo - Plannin&... jul.q Ile 1984 1984-106 AMROVAL OF MINUTES ............ Th.--` minutes, of the regular dated July 3, 1984, were approved as written. OLD B•SIRESS CONTINUATION 017 PUBLIC HEARINC - ZONING CASE #84-16 - REQUEST OF BR(-)(1YS ........-----------------*....*-------- ..................- I -11J)"ERS, INC� , 1�OR A CHANCF OF ZONING O)'J; BLOCK 21, LOTS 4-7 ; BLOCK 7 , LOTS 1-5 , ........ _---_.. ---------- ............ 8-11, 14-1.7; BLo (-,'K 8, LOTS 1 , 2, 5-12', 13-2.4; BI;O(,K 9, LOTS 3-11; BlLOCK 10, LOTS ... 2-7,, ......................... ................................. T 'K 13� LOTS 14- & 7, B.-LOCK 11 , LOTS 1-; 12-14; BLOG I BLOCK 1.4, LOTS. 13LOCK 15, LOTS 1-9; OCK OTS I & 2; THAT PART OF CRO-'o,'E DRIVE BET-",n.--,E.N; AND ADJACENT TO LOT 2, BLOCK 6 AND 1,01' 1 BLOCK 15; THAT PART ................ IF 9, BLOCK 15 AND I BLOCK 1-4, BELY DF L-V�E 13ETTT,EN AND ADJACEN'r ............................ RANCH TERRACE, 2.4. OF LAND, FROM R-1 TO PLAN-NED---SEVELOPMENI' FOR MULTI- _ AND CG?`11 WST OF F,M. 1117, NORTTI OF WEST F A X.-11. F -------------- ....................... EWLESS BLVD, EAST OF WILSWIUKE DRIVE, AND SOUTH OF AIRPORT FREEWAY. Chai rpjar� T . �ynch reviewed the axed stated that the public hearing is Still open . lie, mentioned that there. was a modification t:(:.-. the itQ plan, and desired the applicant to address those changes as if there was za new hearing on that Mx. -ook.s, Brooks Builders , lrtc . , Bed ord, d--1 3ssed the compro-udse that: was reached at the rneetimg he had with the hiomeowners in Bell R.�1371CII Terrace The compromise dealt with single-family attached on the western row of IoLs- , linp s;ingle-family detackic!d is the center, and attached uni.ts )n the rIF"Maining lots, Eac-13 unit would not be less than 1 , 100 ,:.rjuare Feet, He aSkE-Id th,aL the property on the south rema:iJi intact as is. This wottld keep cointinuity and act as a '-DuFfe-r. M--. Brooks stat:(-,.d tliaf: would be -a 6 to 8 foot Ecrice along the perimeter of the. property. Mr, Brooks st.a*:(--�d that Fie had ncurchased four a-lditional -lots and wanted to include these in his a:-iiended PD rf::CUE-';3t. (Lot 4, Block I.Q; Lot I, Block 9, Lots 2 & 3 Bock 2) . In respon:le to a question from Mr. Ty!>on regarding elevation of the property t: ::o -I'lacent property to the west, Mr. Warr; n Hagan- -tth of oplea with res-pe; e n.gi n e e r for the pr:3ject, stated that: the: topography of both areas was basically level , South of Toplea is basically the same el(-lvation, north of Top'llea is, a. 4--8 foot lower di-fferprice in e1e,,,,at:-.1.o-i. Chairman L-ynch asked if the property o-w-ners surrounding those additi-onal p�-:.i-�ces of pr• percy had been notilied . Mr . Tyler stated that thfy had. Mr. Owens, Chairman of th..--! Bo.ard of Trustees, Calvary BaptLt. Church, stati,:!d- that he would like to see the propf:`rty reiziain residential. Debra Newmian, 1505 T'Pf:?plea- spokes-person for the property owner,.,, prese:nu!d a ('.Opy o:: a comprolluse agreement: to the membi-!rs of the J? & Z' Cowu-nission regarding the proposed. Planned! Deviii1opue:it For the area. She was concerned with (:he ins ss�Eiax :s to ",--he --property and doubt-i-d the suc-ctlss i:,!f the project. She then addressed oach item on tl-.te comprom-iise s1neet , 1.,ffiich included the follawiag-. Page: Three - Planning & Zoning Commission - july 17 � 1984 1984-107 I The west side of Crowe Street will be developed as either single story, zero lot lini� with front garages or single story, single family attached with side garages as a part of the Planned Develop- me-at 2. The building schedule will include west side of Crowe St. , south of Signett to be developed with Phase T of the Planned Development and the west side of Crowe St. north of Signet to be developed prior t.il any other development north of Signet St. 3. Both Toplea Dr. and Kynerte St. will end at Crowe St. with access from the east only to limit traffic through the existing neighborhood. 4 . Block 1-16, Lots .1 and 2 will be di:!veloped as single story, single family atcachad with front: or side garages during Phase 11 of the Planned Development. (Phase I would include the area south of Toplea and the buffer zone. ) 5. Nita Drive to be open to the north. Ms, Newman also added that if the development commenced south of Signet Drive first, then a signal light at its intersection with FM 157 might someday be installed. She stated that most of the homeowners would support the project if these four conditions were met by the developer. Mr. Ingram wanted to know if the homeowners would object to the additional lots being included in the development. Ms, Newman stated that she would have no objections, Mr. Tyson wanted to know how the homeowners Felt if Toplea was closed in the southwest corner of the development . Ms. Newman stated that they hoped Toplea would remain closed so there would be- no traffic from FM 157 onto Toplea and going through the neighborhood. Mr. Tyson stated that the building on the soutbwest corner would become part of the property to the east if Toplea was closed. He wanted to know the feelings of the homeowners regarding that issue. Ms . Newman stated that the homeowners •puld he concerned with having condo- miniums next to their homes on Toplea. They wanted a buffer even if Toplea remained closed. Chairman Lynch was concerned with some lots having no street access. He Celt that Toplea would have to continue to the edge of the addition. Ms . Newman felt it would be more important to close the street than to have single-family attached in that particular area, Page Four - Plapping & ZoninA Commission -, -jul _111_1984 1984-108 Several members of the Commission discussed the pros and cons of closing Kynette and Toplea. Chairman Lynch then asked for opponencs. Mrs. Beth Goodlett, 213 Yorkshire, was concerned with the additional traffic. She felt that Nita should continue to Airport Freeway to handle the added traffic. Chairman Lynch stated that for the City to abandon any portion of any riglir-of- way, there would have to be unanimous consent of the property owners, unless it is unsafe to leave the street as it is. Mr. John Park expressed his concern with the condominiums on Block 16, Lots I and 2; he preferred to have single family there. He wanted to know if Nita is a dedicated public throughway, Chairman Lyncb said it was a dedicated public street up to Kyne-rte, but there is no dedication north of that point. Mr. Pat Kent, 403 Yorkshire, agrees with the homeowners. He wanted the area north of Signet to be zero-lot line or single-family detached, HE? was Concerned with the increase in traffic due to the new development. He felt that Nita should be extended north to the service road . IW also wants no condominiums west of Crowe. if Kynette is to be opened, he felt it should be accessible only from Nita to help relieve the traffic flow. if there is no ingress/I egress north, he feels that there would be a problem with too much traffic onto Wilsbire. Mr. Kent wanted to know if Benbow or some other street could be opened to the service road . Mr. Tyson felt that another developer would have to develop that street to the north. Chairman Lynch remarked that the City Council has a resolution to move Ge exit ramp on the. service road, further to the- west, probably somewhere east of Wilshire. He stated that it would be nearly impossible to exit to Crowe a3-id hard to reach Nita, Mr. Tyson remarked that Wilshire bomeowners might use whichever street to the north to reach their homes. He felt that the exit ramp should be built further to the west of Wilshire . Mr. Knight stated that it would cause a conflict wich the entrance ramp west of Wilshire anti would create a situation of getting on the servicc­ road froum Wilshire that would he nearly impossible. Mrs. Park was concerned that all traffic migbt be routed onto Signet , which could lead directly toward the school. fa.up Five --- PlBnninn & Zoning �..o (mission li 17, 1984 1984-109 84-109 prf>f? Maddux, 410 Yorkshire; Blair Dufour, 507 Yorkshire; David Newman, 1505 Topl.esa; Lavonda Fahrman Samples, 504 Wilshire ; Don Cook., 212 Yorkshire ; :Evan Culpepper, 400 Yorkshire.; Doug Stapleton, 308 Yorkshire; and Naomi Neely, 405 Yorksh?ir<:, were concerrted with the additional traffic on Wilshire and the school children, and wanted a north/south street (Crowe or Nita) extended to the service+. road. There being no additional. opponents, Chairman Lynch opened the discussion among the QZ Commission. '1r. Ingram wanted clarification ?regarding street widths. Warren Hagan, engineer for Bon Brooks, stated that both To€ilea and Signet would be widened to the Forty-dine Tool: width and Benbow would be widened to the thirty-seven foot width. in response to the north/south street request by the citizens, Mr. Hagan felt: that Hen.i>ow would be the best street to the north because he did not want his property to the north to be cat in two. If that happened , !fir. Brooks would: be limited in .hat he could do with that property. Mr. {-.ill inquired as to the width of Benbow. Mr. Hagan. :staged that it could be forty-:nine feet: with two lanes. C€-.airman Lynch remarked that: if t;e,nbow was extended , it ;.mdd fall can the property of Euless Towne Centre Mr. Hagan stated that an S°curve could be constructed around that property line , at which time the developer of the shopping center might construct a street with direct access to their stores . Chairman Lynch did not want to see more traffic routed into the existing neighborhood with the addition of the exit ramp. His desire was to :tee another access to the property owners to the north. He stated that the Subdivision Ordinance requires the street: widths on non—collector streets could be forty- one feet. Mr. Dei.thl::eft wondered how Benbow could be addressed under this PD. Mr. Knight stated that this would be addressed at the time of platting The developer would be required to escrow a pro-rata share of the paging there. Be would be required to pair For one-halt: of the street on which he bad frontage. Chairman Lynch closed the public hearing and opened the discussion among the commission. 4 Ms. Park felt that there was a definite need for a street to the north to carry the traffi:, out. She expressed her concern with closing; any of the streets. Page Six - Planning & Zoning Commission - July 17, 1984 1984-00 Mr . Ingram commented that Mr. Brooks is willing to compromise. He felt that the Commission should Imnor the request of Mr. Brooks to include his additional four lots into the projecL . Be opposed dead-ending any streets in the neighborhood because it would cause congestion and a funnel effect at FM 157 and the school , The four-lane street widths are acceptable to the north. He expressed his concern with additional ingress/egress to rbe area, even if it is temporary. Chairman Lynch cGuimitnted that the Commission should bit more concerned with zoning, not specifically platting. Since this case involves both issues, the developer might be forced to replat at a later date and make possible improvements in utilities, etc. , sometime in the future. Ms. Park was opposed to on-street garbage pickup in the new development; she preferred to see trash receptacles. Mr. Knight stated that the zero-lot line homes should be treated as any other residential neighborhood. Trash receptacles could be made a condition to the PD for the condos . Mr. Brooks stated that the owners would have access to trash compactors. Be was neutral on how the crash would be picked up. Mr. Tyson concurred with Ms . Park regarding the use of trash dumpsters. Mr. Rill could not -support closing the streets because all traffic would be funnel(:.,.,', to one He agreed that there should be an exit to the north, but the location would be difficult to determine without knowing where the exit ramp would be located. Re concurred with Ms. Park on the trash dumpsters . Chairman Lynch asked for discussion on the area of Block 16, Lots I & 2. I ;V'r. Ingram feU tha. : that area could remain apartments due to the existing apartments to the soutb of the proposed development. He was concerned with emergency traffic being detained due to having to reroute around the close([ streets. He sympathized with the existing homeowners in. the area; but felt that this project would be the lesser of Ve two evils. The residential development. could handle the traffic better than having a commercial development on the property. He concurred on Lbe trash dumpster issue. Mr. Deithloff approved of the changes that Mr. Brooks has submitted. He did not approve of spot zoning. He concurred with not closing streets , but having a north access to the development. He agreed with the trash dumpsar proposal , Chairman Lynch congratulated all those who were involved in the public meeting where there is so much responsible public input. Mr. Tyson discussed a possible solution to the traffic problem--co make Signet all TAN one-way to the east and make a "heft-turn only" at Toples and Wilshire, and "right-turn" only at Kynette and Wilshire to relieve traffic arounA the school. Chairman Lynch commented that traffic control would require a City Ordinance. Page Six - Planning & Zoning., Commission - J�Jlv 17 i984- 1984-11OR ................. .......... Mr. Ingram commented that Mr. Brooks is willing to compromise . He felt that the Co-mmission should 111onor tote request of Mr. Brooks to include his additional. four lots iato the project . He opposed dcadl-ending any streets in the ni�ighborhood because it would cause congestion and a fui.-mel effect at FM 157 and the school . Vie F-C,ur-lane street wi.dlltfis are acceptable to the north. He expressed. hi": concern with additional in�ressb-!gress to "he area, even if it is temp,.-)rar., . Chairman Lynch commented that the Commission should: he more concerned with zon.ing, not specifically platting. Since this case involves both issi:es, the developer --night be. forced to replal: ar a later date and make possible improve-nii:an t s in utilities, etc, , soinetimie in the. future. Ms . Park WaS o,),)oqed to on-street: Garbage pickup in the new developm.ent; she preferred to see trash reci:!ptacles . Mr. Fniiglht stated that the zero-•lot line homes should be treated as an, Other residential neighborhood. 'Trash receptac-les could be made a condition to the PD for the Mr. BrOOIKS stated that the owners should have access to trash com-pacrors. He was neutral on 'how the crash would be picked up, Mr, I'ys.on concurred with. Ks. Park regarding thi:' use of trash durapsters. Mr. Hill could not support closing the, streets because all traffic would hi:! lunnt ].ed to orte. area. He a-reed that: there should be an exit to t o i-te nrth, but z� location would be, difficult to determine without lcaowing where the exit ramp Wc).uld be located. He concurred wi.tb Ks. Par-A, on the trash duimpsn?-rs. Chairman Lvrich asked -f-r discussion on the .-area of Block 16, Lots I & 2. Mr. ingy;!nfelt tbat that area could remain apartments due to the existing apartments; to the south of the proposed developmen'_- . fie was concerned with ey-Lergency traffic being detained due to having reroute around the closed streets. He sr-otpathized with the existing homeowners in the ar(:!a, but Felt that this project would bi-! the lesser of the two roils. 'Chia residential development couLd handlie the traffic betti:!r than having a comilit_-�rcial development on the property. He concurre-d on the trash dumpster issue. Mr. Deithloff approved of the chaagi-!s that Mr. Brooks has submuitted. He did not approve of spot toning. He concurred with not closing streets, but having a north access to the (love lopment . He agreed witt) the tr.ash dumpstcr proposal . C'nairman Lyncn congratulated all those who were involved in the. public meet-A-i:ig whe. •i:,. Chere is so much responsible public in-out. 14 Ty-;,o z 'I n discussed a possible solution. to the traffic problem--to r,,kake Signet one way to the east, two blocks east from Wilshire and niake a "left-turn. only" at Jbple.a and Wilshire, and ":right--turn only" at K,,,n;--,Lt:e and Vilsd-tit-e to relieve traffic around the school. Chai!:Ynan Lynch commented that traffic control would require -a City Ordinance . .�_q_ge Seven - Kjanning & Zoning Commission - jyj1_17,_1984 1984-1 A Mr. Knight stated that there would have to be a traffic study and an ordinance in order to be enforced. it: disagreed that: it would relieve traff-ic on Wilishire. Chairman Lynch stated that this zoning ca-se wo-'..11-d have to be made wit.ho"it consideration of specific traffic control measures. Mr. Tyson remarked that tW! Commission is charged with relieving congestion on city streets. He felt that his suggestion would relieve traffic flow without having to build Benbow. He felt that the City would not build Benbow because of lack of funding. Chairman Lynch stated that he did not want to tie specific traffic control to zoning. It; felt that thin would have to go through an ordinance process as set up by the State Traffic Statutes. The building of the streets would be based on actual needs and not predictions. He felt that the consideration should be limited to whether these uses could be supported by the street systems that are an the project, and whether street access would be recloired at the time of platting. He could not support a replat without a north/south access. He felt that the dew?loper would not want it street going directly through the middle of.- his property because it would limit his flexibility. He was of the opinion that Benbow would be a choice street , but the development wciuld not have access to it at this time. That could be a stipulation to the developer of this PD to have a north/south access . Mr. Tyson stated that the developer would not want to build a street in another area. He has already helped out the adjaceut homeowners. It would up. to the City to take care A that problem. Mr. Hill feels chat this project is good for the City, the developer has worked with the homeowners, but he is still concerned with the north access. Mr, Knight suggested a temporary paving like the type on Signet currently, which would give the developer some flexibility but would still commit him to a north. accesE. Mr. Hill stated concern with the location of the exit ramp and the north access ; he was also concerned with approving a development that might not utilize the best street for the access. 10. KmQht stated that as the project is now, Benbow or Crowe would be thi�t streets involved. W Hill was concerned with approving a development that might not utilize the. best street for the access, Ms. Park was concerned with approving the development tonight if Nita would be the best access. Mr. Knigbt brought up the point that there might be too many major collectors or secondary collectors too close together. Benbow would be more desirable because- it is closer to the midpoint of the devetlopment. Moving of BY! ramp was genera fed by the property owners with frontage an the service road . �?Lnning & Zonwnl."(;f>fEmission -_j?=t7,�----i7, 1984, 1984°112 Mr. Ingrain made a motion to approve Zoning Case x84-16 for the requested Planned Development as presented including the four extra lots (Lot 10, Block 4; Lot: 9 Block l ; and lots 2 & 3, Bloc :. 2] , and the new site plan that was presented. Adso, he desired to specify that Mr. Brooks would -provide trasl, dump:sters in the residential area. •:E . Knight stated that the new site plan would teed to be incorporated within the site plan that was presented two weeks ago. This should be done prior to the hearing by the City Council . Mr. Ingram stated that he would like to include Mr. Xnight's comments in his motion. He :further wanted to include in his motion Item #2 of the homeowner's compromises regarding phases : the west side of Crowe south of Signet to be developed. with Phase I. and the west side. of Crowe north of Signet to be developed with Phase :11. SFr. Tyson desired an amendment: not to call it "development", but to call. it Certificate of tZi_.S:upanc'y' issued prior to occupancy For any portion. Mr. Ingram approved that amendment. Mr. Deithloff wanted to see a more improved site plan prior to going to City Council. Mr. Ingram approved t€:at amendment.. `sr. Tyson moved to amend the motion to include that signet be one-way to the east and that no turns to the left at Kyt"Ef:ttP, to Wilshire aied no tE:r3l.. F; 3 the right from op lea to Wilshire. ; here was no second to Mr. Tyson's amendment thus leaving "!r. .I.313:`.'I'a 's motion to stand as follows : To approve ZC#84--1h as Y presented, inclusive of the four additional lots, subject to the following changes being incorporated on to the Development Ilan prior to it going before the City Council for consideration: 1 . Trash dumpsters be provided for the condo residents, and 2. 'l_'i?e Certificate of Occupancies or Final Inspection be issued on the Sing.l. Family Attached and Zero-lot line ::3o:rfes west of Crowe and south of signet prior to CO'`; being issued For any of tl:e residential development: lsouth of Signet, and that CO's be issued on the Single Family Attached and Zero-lot line homes west of Crowe and north of Signet prior to c3I?.y CO's being issued for any of t K, residential S development f?oral"f of Signet. Mr. Deithloff seconded the motion, and the vote is a follows: Ayes ; Mrs . Park, Messrs. Lynch, Tyson, Ingram, Deithloff, and Hill. Nays_ Mr. Tyson Chairman Lynch declared the motion carried. Page Eight Planning & Zoning Commission - Jul; l r, 1984 1984 112k .... `1r. Ingram made a motion to approve Zoning Case #84-16 for the requested P:.anned. Development as presented including the four extra lots (Lot 10, Block 4; Lot 9, Block .I ; and Lots 2 u 3, Block 2), and the new site plan that was presented. Also, he desired to specify that `-1r. Brooks would provide trash dumpsters in the residential area. Mr. Knight: stated that the new site plan. would need to be incorporated within the site plan that was presented two weeks ago. This should be done prior to the hearing by the City Council. Mr. Ingram stated that he would like to include Mr. Knight 's comments in his motion. He further wanted to include in his motion Item 02 of the homeowner's compromises regarding phases: the west side of Croce south of Signet to be developed with Phase 1 and the w<<sr side of Crowe north of Signet to cbe developed with Phase Il, Mr . Tvson d> sireei a�i rig:send:rsee t not to c:a.11. it "development", but to call it Certificate of Occupancy issued prior to occupancy for any portion.. Mr. Ingram approved that amendment . Mr. Deithloff wanted to see a more improved site plan prior to going to City Council . Mr . Ingram approved that amendment , Mr, Tyson moved to amend the motion to include that Signet be one-way to the east , two blocks east from Wilshire , and no turns to the left at Kynette to Wilshire and no turns to the right: from Toplea to Wilshire. 1 9 r,h.;rc was eta s<:rosid to Yr . Tyson's �sresendszz�:nt , tl-t;.ts leaving Per. Ingram's r..oti.eyn to stand as follows; To approver ZC584--16 as presented , inclusive of the four additional lots, subject to the following changes being incorporated on to the Development Plan prior to it going before. the City Council for consideration: 1 , Trash du psters be provided for the condo residents, and 2. "''.he Certificate of Occupancies or Final. Inspection be issued an the Single Family Attached and Zero-lot line homes west at Crowe and souL`k of Signet: prior to CO's being issued for any of the- ri: sidential development south of Signet:, and that CO's be issued on the Singl.c: Family Attached and Zero--lot line homes west: of Crowe and north of Signet prior to any CO's being issued for any of the residential. development north of Signet. Mr . D i thlo t f seconded the motion, and the vote is as follows : Ayes; t"lE:s. Park, Messrs. Lynch, 'Tyson, Ingram, Deithlo f, and Hill. tkay:s . Mr. Tyson Chairman synch declared the motion. carried. page `1:t.37c - planning & Zoning Co3rrzissi.an - 'July ___17, 19:5' 1984-131.3 Mr, Knight than e>x_p13iu.ed to the audience the procedure that: would follow regarding the City k.E3t3.E1.::"il 's hearing on this Toning case. {The €.EJ m-3ission took a i:iv-i minute break at 9:30 p.£EE. ) €:;€1A]`i.'Iiv°€TAt1.Cil OF PUBLIC 1:;�;.Rl�li - �GA3If = c:;:S1: if,s-17 REQUEST t1E kLARC?Lf L. -------•-•----------......-.. i� t,_-t�:� ....... ................. COPPER ADD WELDON GIsOR€Ifs; l�OR A CHANGE C}E ZC;P�:fN(; ON TRACzS IC AND ICI , E. 'lAYLOI -----------•--•----••---- —°---------------------- ..................._ SURVI,Z':', A-1550, 7. 192 ACRES O L:la3�D, hROM R--1, C,�-1, CUD/.(t_•'' 0131NGLE-f'A''ILY f'€"?'taClllDl TO C-? LOCATED :RAS'1 AND AD;ACEr4T T€3 NOR`J'li '�`•AI STREET AND S€UTI-} s:iit3 ( ••------------- ........................ ADJACENT .O Gs�'IDE ROAD. Chair ,ar, Lynch stated that th i-s was a continuation of the public hearing and asked :fro:£' proponents to speak. r. walte.r Elliott, ElLiot.. & Hughes Engineering, represent--�d Mr. Harold Gopher and Mr. Weldon Gev:s,+`, p: t:itioners of this Zr.3r.33.ng :request, He reierre<. t:4 a t-r_�r�tiog he iYlad with Mr. Sturges th<: previou night. He suibraitt:(:id c:i:)pies of his, r.?v151t?l t0 tt3i_: me.:ibers of the Commission and Staff. He stated that his rl 'T@ plan would iE dude moving t.h: southern boundary 160 feet to t hi:! nortirk, This would allots a 5€3-foot street as weli as reducing hi-s coning request by 3.60 feet 3C3m th;:`. soutE-E to the north. BY doing this, he. would lose 2o23 acres, Waich Woui .d li::,:ve approximately s!:'Len or Eight: acres for the d^-ve1o'o icnt:. Clmi rmart Lvnch opened tine hearing for any questions. Mr. . `.€'yr-on asked if the property o mers to the E :s t: had ;seen contacted by Mr. Elliott, lis was concerned with there being an R--1 adjacent to €;...i. coning. mr, E# 'i iota .tatted that there had. b,-.c- .3 no contact with the owner. He itl-so rei33 Erled that F- :.could provide an fight-foot ma:ionary :fi>nce on the. north sidee o the street to separai:e the sabdivisions which would be included in his CUD request. C'hairman Lynch asked for proponents, lic: im:InLicme>.d the fact that this amendmie.nt: would provIdt-. no access direct:.y from the to this i°Ir. Elliott confirmed that fact, but added t:bat t:€xat dial not take into account that there. T73i.ght: bia. a required r3rergd 3tCV ac c-ess. Thert? hE?:E.ng no additional propo£3ents, Clzairmi.an Lynch Bien asked For <sfsf;ol.E 3;Ets. tIr. Jim Sturges, 108 Nut3rRLg, wanted. to mention that a compromiSle had been ec:ac,hed. e did request: eh.at the CUD south of the development he developed. first: }3r?or to a cd`.rt3.�:3.i'.a.t:i:. of o cupancyo This would uE'rJf' is a buffer. Mr. l.iarold €;opht=r, 1804 N. vain, stated that he would complv with .,atcver. the P & 7_ stipulated.. He stated that any develop-m-.ML cherE would. cave to be CUD/R- 2 url:-,,ss a zoni.ng request could be made>. Mr. St3-IZ-eS t.sk_ed whet ramificati.00:3 that would have on Mr. Cophd!r as .. builder. Mr, Copher said he slid not 1.-,now whe!:her 'he could put in the housing develo smeat first, co3:8TferLial first:, i:ir both. simultaneovisly. Re -pmttirig In the b.'s3.deInt::3.,'II xirst, PagePage Ten PI-anping & Z�mir? Co�mm. , sion - Atly 17, 19184 11984-114 —...... — - J� j_�:... —................. Chaixman L nch montioned that th-ere would be a scre(ming requirement in ordc,r to develop the commercial . A. fmce would need to be installed before, the was built . He then closed the 13Caring and ackc•d fcr discussion, among the P & Z members. Mr. Tyson co-mm-ended th<-- 'houilder and hoini-.iowners for their work. He did not want to see. a restriction placed on th(-� property as to w1hich. would be develop-:!d He e• -pr-i-2ssed a concern with the width of the street considering there is R-1 to th<-- east which right: not handle the :i.ng ress/egress. Chairman Lynch was cof".eerned ;with i-,i g r e 3, g r P Fj s of the propi-!r-ty in case 0-1, lie inwuired as to a pmqsible tem--lorary turn-around by Lots 15 and 16, Mr. Knight stated that there would need to be ::A turn-around provided oatil the extended. Mr. Deithloff inquix,-:ad if this woule. come about at. time of: platti.ng, Mr. Knight confirmed that point. A cul--de-sac could be provi-ded even t1tough it mn:ight exceed '.he 400-foot I.C.T381.11, or a temp/CM:ry torn-around could llbi,-! prmiided Wi.t13 no building to appear or it untiJ the street is ext..,-mded , v--r. D<:iic h1of.!" remarl,-,ed that it would bie a btiffer and would approve of the Mr. Hill and t4r. laora--m both aureti:!d to the pla--.I. C, C13airman Lynch askied for a motion. tor. Deithloff made a motion to r;-cnmmeid approval of Zcmi.nm Case �,f84-17 as presented and to include an i:�ight-foot (8' ) ':hi.gb concrete wp 11 that: would run east -and west on t!ne north side oF the CULI with the sight visibility requirement,- bei.ng met on the west end and no from the CUD/R-•2 to the. C- 2 to the north as show-n in One new site pl<IRI Mr. I-Iitl secondf---d !:he mo-tion, and the vote was as fotlows : Ayes: Hrs. Park, MI-essrs. Lyncla, Ingram, Dei.tfiloff, and Tyson, Nays: Nope ADJOURNMENT There being, nf-, Further business to cortduct- , the mecting adjourned at 10:05 p,m. ............ ...................