Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-11-05 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING Planning & Zoning, Commission 201 N. Ector Drive Euless, Texas November i, 198-5 7:00 p.m. - Pre-Commission Meeting 7:30 p.m. - Call to Order for Commission Consideration of Scheduled Items IN N'OCATIoN APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting Dated October 15, 1985 N'EN I31; I. PUBLIC: HEARING #ZC-8'5-37 Request of Brooks Builders, Inc.. for a change of zoning; on Lots l through 12, Block- 9, from PD for Single Family :attached and Zero-lot Line to R-lA and a change of zoning, on Lots 1, 2, and 5 through 24, Block 8, frorn PD and CUD for condominiums and multi-family at a maximum density of 13.1 units per acre to R-IA, totaling 7.93 acres of land, located between Isvnette. Street and Signet Street, west of proposed Nita Dane and east and adjacent to the housing fronting on the east side of Yorkshire Drive. VII. REPORTS 7 0NIN'(r DISTRICT ABBRI VI-,TIONS R-I Single Family Detached D� elling District R-IA _ Single Family Attached Dwelling District It-2 _ Two-Farnily Duelling .District R-3 - Multi-Family Dwelling District, 12 Units to the Acre R-4 = Multi-Family Dwelling District, 1.6 Units to the Acre R-5 "Multi-,Family Dwelling District, 24 Units to the Acre C-1 _. Neighborhood Business District C_2 _ Community Business District L-1 _ Limited Industrial District 1-:1 — Light Industrial District 1-2 _ Heavy Industrial District C 13 D — Community Unit Detielol;ment I'D _ Planued .Development SP Specific Use Permit 1.985-140 REGULAR MEETING Planning & Zoning Commission November. 5, 1985 CALL TO ORDER, The regular meeting, of the Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order at '7:35 p.rn. in the Council Chambers of Euless City Hall by Mice-Chairman Jack Hill. 111E •`IBER.S & STAI'F P.I ESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Jack Hill John Deithloff Carl Tyson v n Larry Ingram f Billy Owens Torn Engle Ken .Balsinger James Knight, City Engineer % - Rad Tyler, Senior Planner Becky mull, Office Coordinator 5 i VISITO S Warren Hagan Russell LeDoux Joseph `lrafficano Pat Kent G zary Panuo Sharon Brooks !'anuo Helen Light Body James P. Yount; John C. Young David Hughes, Jr. Joy Cannedy Eanmett Sacrey Deane Woodend Jim Caldwell stack D'Arnato Shawn Mc(:�rath Jack Clay Crossland William Cothrtain, Dan, Sinit.h John Le-vitt INVOC ATION The invocation was given lby Mr. Bill, Owens. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The r:inirt s lof 41he retgular mcetirjg di tee October lei, 1985, were approved as written. Mr. C)avert� skr::tc�cr that Yee iva�zl< Like to sec: the ininutes in a little more det :il, with more substance. 1#t85-l�.l PACE T-0, PLANNING & ZONING CO-i-MMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 5, 1985 1. PUBLIC: HEARING #P--85-33 R.EPI.AT OF LOTS 1 - 6, and 1 20, BLOCK 2 AND .F ---- .................-- ----------- .IaC)`IS 1 8, BLOC K.. 6, tr�CRJUL.� DS ADDITION, L,t�CATED NORTH AND AD3 ACI:N t' ------------------ -- -- ------------------------ --- ----------------------------------------- TO EAST ASI-I LANE, BE'T'WEEN t'IIITT M- DRIVE AND FULLER-WISER ROAD Vice-t hair•rsirz-r Hill opened the public hearing and explained the rules of such hearing. Mr. William. Cothra. m, representing Nash--Phillips-Copus, presented the request. Ile explained that the original plat was approved around 1981, and was consistent with the duplex zoning at that time. -The property was since .rezones] to allow single family units. The plat, however, was not changed. They requested to replat the lots to allow for the construction of single family units. ,Nlr, knight noted that the plat restricted curb cuts onto Fuller-Wiser Road. He asked how many curb cuts would be on Ash Lane. All Cothrurn stated that two eurb cut: were approved with the development plan, which is tow the property will be developed. He had no problem with adding a note restricting curb cuts on Asti Lane excluding the two shown on the plat. Mr. Knight asked if it is the developer's intention to provide carports or covered garages in the rear of the units rather than in the front of the units. €',1r. Cotlirrini stated that was correct. Vice-Chairman .Hill asked if there were any additional. proponents. 'There being none, he asked for any opponents. There being none, he closed the public hearing. Ylr. Tyson made a. motion to reconin-:end approval of #P-85--33 as presented with Note 04 expanded to include no driveway cuts on Ash Lame with the exception of Lot. 20R- B, Block 2, and Lots 5R-A, Bloek 6, Woodlands Addition. Mr. Ingram: seconded the motion, and the vote its as follows, Ayes: Messrs. 'Tyson, .Ingram, Engle, Balsinger, Owens and FEE Nays: Nome Vice-Chairman hill declared the motion carried. 11. CONSIDER PLATTING #P_K5--51 - PRELI;'1.IN-ARY AND FINAL PLAT OF WESTPARK -- _________. ---------------------------------------------..................-_— 11, LOCATI?.D SOU`.I'.I-I ANT? ADJACENT `l'O S.H. 183, .NORTH AND ADJACENT TO ---------- .._________--..... I1.SI11I1}a 1II1,AtsE A-lL)lIIfN EAST OF t STP� ZIZ PROFESSIONAL <: I--1ll AlD 3h ----------.-_.____---------------------------------------------- WEST OF FARR ON Mr. John Levitt, Levitt €ngineering, representing, ?5---Acre Joint Venture, presented the regtfest for platting. Ile stated that tlirr. dacKar►ria had asN.ed that the 25-foot building Ime, be shown on the plat and they agreed to do so. 1985-1.42 PA(.',E THREE, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, N OfNTBI.,R 5, 1985 Y r. Cwers Tnade a notion to recommend approval of I P-85.51 as presented subject to the building line being placed on the plat. Mr. Engle seconded the motion, and the vote is as follows: Ayes- ilessrs. Owens, Engle, Tyson, Ingram, Balsinger and .Hill Nays: None Vice-Chairman Hill declared the motion carried. III. CONSIDER PLATTING #P--85--53 - R.F'PLAT OF LOT' 4R, BLOCK 1, t�fI�SrrPARK ----- --------------------------- ----- - CENTRAL ADDITION, LOCATED LEST AND ADJACENT T4 WESTPARK WAY, NUJ t ClV----TI9F3ETS DRIVE AND SOUTH OF S.N. 18.3 Mr. David Hughes, Elliott & Hughes, Inc., presented the request for platting. He stated that. L.andmark Lank int.errds to construct a drive--thru banking facility on the property. 'VIr. Ingram made a motion to recommend :approval. of #.P-85-51 as presented. Ylr. Bals-inger seconded the motion, and the vote- is as follows: Ayes. Messrs. Ingram, Balsinger, Tyson, Engle, Owens and Hill lays: None Vice-Chairman Hill declared the motion carried. IV. PUBLIC HEARING - #ZC-85-35 -- REQUEST OF SHAWN '42CGRATII FOR A CHANCE CAF ZONING ON TRACTS 3A4 & 3A74 , A. M. I.)CJI�'IeTIN(� �C3Y wr,� � �%5, $`C)'I.'A.t-<1N-G -- - ------------- 2.If?2 .ACRIaS UP I.}A fib, l I�®tL1 1-i C-2 TO PD FOR 1I1�`I-{�TAIiEII�)� �£S, L4t�`ATED ON TITS SOUTH SIDE OF THE UO BLOCK OF S..H. 1Q, WEST OF F.ii�1. 157, EAST OF - - - - ----------------------- HIGHLAND DRIVE AND .NCIRTI-I CAF 9OUT-1 PIPELINE Vice-Chairnla-n. "11-fill ope vied the public hearing and explained the rules of such hearing. Mr. Jack D'Amtato, {engineer representing the current owner and the purchaser of the property, stated that a development plan has been submitted in order to incorporate the unrquie-. size of the property and its .inherent. chzi.racteristic:s, He distributed a rendition of the front landscape and buildings. Mr. Tyson asked if the drawing was depicting the tilt wall building .as exposed aggregate. Mr. D`Arnato stated the drawings were to depict that the tilt wall w-as of coner°ete material, not metal. Mr. 'Tyson stated his con-leern with the tilt wall construction on the front next to C-2 Zoning. 1985-143 PAGE FOUR, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 5. 1990 Mr. D'Aniato stated that the tilt wall will be a. typical concrete stucco appeasing structure, unless something is specifically specified. IIe suited that it is not that much different from commercial developments; the difference being that the commercial buildings have rear doors to break i p the aesthetics rather than a continuous wall. 41r. Tyson stated tie is still concerned with the building being on the property line and what it will do to the adjacent C--?, property. Mr. D'Amato stated that it was the only way that the inaximum utilization of the property could be achieved in order to incorporate U-turning movements, fire lanes, etc. It is a unique piece of property because of its extreme depth and its less width. Mr. 'I` son stated lac: was also concerned with the thirty foot (:30') setback on the westernmost property -tine. He noted that the City sloes have, a fifty foot- (50') setback reguiremient, in the Limited Industrial Zoning category and for some reason the developer close only to make it thirty-foot on the western boundary. He asked for an explanation. Mr. D'Aanrato stated that under the PD they went ahead and arcade the attempt, since a PD allows them to set basically those differences that are under an ordinary situation. tie was sure the owner would be amenable to adjusting that setback to meet the minimum, if it is the Cornmission's desire, to fifty-feet (50') on that particular structure,. Mr. "I;son asked Mr. D'Amato if they Would have any problem with exposed aggregate, gas far as Ilse tilt. wall construction was concerned, where it abuts the C--2 Zoning, Mr. D'Amato stated that Mr. Flay Crossland would have to speak to that; he is the ultimate end-user and owner. Mr. Jack Clay Crossland stated that all the exterior perimeter will be exposed aggregate, except for the back area. Mr. Owens asked if he understood that the minimum setback will be fifty feet (501) Mr. Crossland stated that they could live with that, Mr. Ingrain stated that lie was concern(-,,(] about the appearance of the outside walls., and he did not see any, notes or indications on the plan noting that it would be exposed aggregate. Mr. D'Amato stated that the aesthetics were not addressed on the plan. Mr. Ingram stated that exposed aggregate was cons id;er a ply more attractive than the standard tilt wall type of 8Dpearance. Mr. D'Amato stated that he s^rigs trying, at the time, to avoid getting into too much of the finished product. Mr. Crossland ;wanted to add that they specifically chose this site across the street fr aiT a Pilgrim Storage,, and it is their attempt to create. a very nice facility. '17iey think they can put a nice product there and day very well. 1.985-1.44 PAGE TIVE, PLANNING & ZONING CC NINIl5SION MEETING, NOVEMBER 5, 1985 Mr. ingram stated that the folks at Pilgrim are good neighbors and good people, but as far as he was concerned, that was a good example of why the Commission shOUld have concerns ab; tit SOME Of the things discussed. Mr. Crossland stated that this is not his first venture in the mini-storage business; tie has beer'. in the mini-storage business for twelve years in Colorado, so this is not a piece of property that he just ventured into haphazardly. Mr. Engle asked Mr. Crossland if he had considered any type of office'warehouse warehouse facility using the front C--2 for offices and the baek industrial for warehousing. lr, Crossland stated that he had, and it was really difficult to do the traffic pattern around a warehouse project that justifies enough square footage to make; it feasible. There also is the problem of economics of a mini-storage project in which they would really have to build. a certain amount of squ,.ire footage to justify a, full-time manager. To do the office/warehouse oil the front makes it marginal for the mini...storage project on the back to support a full-time manager. Viee-Chairman Hill asked if there was any additional proponents that would like to speak in favor of this request. 'There were none. Iie asked if there were any opponents. Mr. Russell LeDou.x, representing the owner to the west, Mr. Joe Trafficano, stated that lie felt tilts surrounding area was very nice and attractive, more like con inerciz l property or office;'showroom property. Mr. Trafficano and himself felt that the proposal was very unattractive for what they believed was the highest and hest use for the land fronting on a major highway. Vice-Chairman hill asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak in .opposition. There was no one;. He tslen stated he would give Mr. Crossland time for rebuttal. Mr. Crossland stated that Mini-warehouses was a use by right raider the industrial zoning. It was his opinion that lie could do a much better job utilizing the full property in the rnini-storage project as Opposed to doing partial mini-storage in the back and office/showroom, in the front. Vice-Chairman Mill asked if the Commission had any questions. Mr. Owens asked the developer what type of utilities he proposed for the site and if business could use the facilities. Nlr. Crossland stated that it has been his experience in the mini-storage business to <'iSC:ourage arry type of Shop u<<p to t.tze, that he will riot pest elec'tri.c'al Orrtlr5ts in the individual storage units. The electricity that will be in the units will be for seCUI-it" purposes Orly, including omtside security lights. Vice-Chai.rn-an Hill closed the public; hearing and asked if there was any more discus.,ion among tlfrs Commission. Mr. ingrarn asked how far it was from the froilt property line on S.II. 10 baCk to tiie point where the industrial zoning began, 1985-145 P 1 PLANNING i�' ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. NOVEMBER 5, 1985 AG� 7 SIX, .............................................................-—--------------- Mr. Crossland stated that from the very front of the property to the present- zoning line was 250 feet. Mr. Engle commented that tie recognized the need in developers to makli:-! a profit and he encouraged that; but as far as the City was concerned, he did not. feel that mini- warehouses all the way u,.) to S.1-I. 10 would be the highest and best use for that property. lie felt that the hi;hest and best use would be. some type of office/showroorn on the front and the less attractive mini-warehouses in the back-. Mr. Ingram stated that if the mini--warehouses are allowe-ble in the 1-1 to start with, they are only dealing with about 250 feet of C-2. It was Mr. Tyson's opinion that the Commission should not allow this industrial encroachment, even though it was only 250 feet, because it causes problems with adjacent properties. Mr. Tyson made a motion to recommend denial of #W-87-35 as presented. Mr. Engle seconded the motion, and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Tyson, Engle, Balsinger, and Ingram Nays: Messrs. Owens and Hill Vice-Chairman Hill declared the motion carried. Mr. Owens wanted the record to show why lie voted against the motion.. The reason being, the Conimission had a similar request on Pipeline Road, and lie felt that this -net all the criteria that the Commission, at that time, put on that property. V. REQUEST OF GRANDY'S RESTAUIRANTS FOP, A CHANCE OF ZONING ON LOT 111, ...............1-1.............................. BLOCK 1, EULE. CENTER, TOTALING 20.5;�S ACTIES OF LAND, FROM PD .................. ............... TO P fi A�,-IENDED SITE PLAN TO ALLOW FOR ADDYFIONAL CON-- STRUF--TRD-N FOR A LOCATED NORTH OF BELL RANCH TERRACE ADDITION, AND WE'8T'-'UF' F.M. �1,57 Vice-Ch,airman Hill opened the public hearing and explained the rules of such hearing. Mr. Errimett Sacrey, architect on staff for Grandy's Restaurants, presented the request for rezoning. lie stated they pro,,-Yose to construct a Grandy's Restaurant, with a drive- thru, on the parcel of land just east and adjacent to Burlington Coat. Factory. He stated that the plan did displace some parking. To bring, the parking- back tip to the req,uirenienk, they added additional parking in the rear of the shopping center. lie stated they plan to place the restaurant along the existing driveway, ninintaining a two- why driveway in front of th'e building, which would also run along the access road of ney propose ".kl. la:�I' - to use the existing Curb Cut. Mr, Tyson inquinad if they would be interested in seeinry the existing ramp moved to where it give thein better access from the west. A representat.-ve from Grandy's stated they would, Mr. Tyson inquired if they were interested enough to pay for it. 1985-146 PAGE SEVEN, PLANNING ZONING COMMI&SION MEETING, NOVEMBER 5, 1985 ............. ...................... Mr. Sacrev stated that Grandy's identity in the nietroplex makes this property developable, as is, with existing cur') cuts. H stated they are proposing to landscape pretty heavily to the cast and incorporate the existing pole sign into the whole design. Mr. Engle asked if they were going to incorporate Grandy's sign into the existing pole sign. f0r. Sacrey stated that they will have to under the conditions of the PD as it exists.. however. they will request signage on the front of the building. Vice-Chairman Hill asked if there were any additional proponents. There were none. He asked if the Conirnis-sion had anymore questions of Mr. Sacrey. Vice-Chairnwri Hill asked if there were any opponents that wanted to speak against the recuest. There being none, he closed the public hearing, He then asked for comments from the Commission. Mr. Ingram made a motion to recommend approval of -#ZC-85-36 as presented. Mr. Owens seconded the -notion, and the vote is as follows. Ayes: Messrs. Ingram, Owens, Tyson, Engle, Balsinger and Hill Nays: None Vice-Chairman, Ifill declared the motion carried. V1. PUBLIC HEARING #ZC-85-37 REQUEST OF BROOKS BUILDERS, INC., FOTR A ' - ' ---- ---- ---NYNG ON 12, BLOCK 9, FA"VIILY ATTACHED ANT.) ZE-Ro-I,6-T-1-flK-F...TU...R--1A AND 'A-'.-,C"'1-1ANGE O—F—Z—ONIN--G-- 61•,......LOTS.....i',------ THROUGH 24, BLOCK 8, FROM PD AND CUD ---Fn XTI CONDO", INIU.."'"S AND 1V1UI.TI-FAfdTl.Y AT A MAX I-VTOT-N-1 DENSITY OF 13.1-1NITS PER N' X-IX.-JOTAUNG 7-93 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED BETWEEN. N—ff.YN E'FTE ­.............. .....................................-0...........................................- STREET AND SIGNET STREET, WEST OF PR POSED NITA LANE AND EAST ANI-) ..........-- ,Vf5j'X(TW-T6--"- THE HOUSING FRONTING ON THE EAST SIDE OF YOI?.I,*-SfllliE ............ DRIB!_ ........... Vice-Chairman Hill operjer", fle public hearing and explained the rules of such hearing. Mr. Warren Hagan, Boyle Engineerinr Ds.ilbas, representing Brook�3 .Builders, extended 'an a og t" � y for Mr. Mrs. Brooks not beincs, able to attend. He stated that the area in question. was approved last year as a plAnned, developm-ent for nuilti-family ty pe urii ES. The,y area now requesting, to down-.->one the area from a CUD to R-IA. lie stated that all of the units would have garages. 'Phey were consid(-:rirtg rear entry on the. area where they have the opportunity to back both lots up together. .Y lie stated that all of the units, would have- garages. g They were considering rear entry on the area where they have the opportunity to back both Ints tip together. Mr. Tyson asked why they were requesting R-lA. Mr, Hagan stated that is was primarily the market. l tlt#.5-l.l i PA(_,f EIGHT, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, NOy'EINIBER 5, 1985 Mr. --son was concerned that the requested zoning may not be a down-zoning because K-1A does not carry the requirements of the previous planned development Mr. Hagan noted that the density was being reduced from approximately 13 units per acre to 6 units per acre. He introduced fl e construction manager for Brooks Builders. Mr. Gary Panuo stated that they have. .r very successful single; family attached development in lklel Village with front entry and two ear garages. He noted that they intend to construct similar units in Bell. Ranch Terrace, however, with rear entry. Vice-("1-tairman Hill asked if there were any ,,dditional rx.°oponents. There being none, he asked for any opponents. Mrs. Helen Lightbody, owner of property in Bell Rarich Terrace, stated that she wanted to sere on paper what was being proposed. She noted that the property owners had worked hard to come tip with a satisfactory compromise. Mrs. Sharon Panuo. attorney for Brooke Builders, stated that the developer will still have to conform to the deed restrictions placed on the property in 19,& Mr. Tyson inquired why the developer was not locating O--lot line unit: newt to the existing single farniiy. Mrs. Panuo stated that visually the unit, are similar, but the single family attached market is better. She netted that single .family attached units are generally not purchased for investment purposes. Mr. I'at. Dent, 403 Yorkshire, stated that he preferred 0-lot line units: however, he preferred single family attached to condos. He commented that tie would not ob.ecYt to the single family attached if the units looked similar to those. in l"xoodcreel<: Addition. Mrs. Lightbody stated that she did not see how property can be zoned PD and there pieces of property taken out and rezoned. She felt everyone ought to know exactly what's happening. Mr. Tyson stated that the developer made the cornmc nt that they plan to construct ;jingle fandly attached units with two car garages. He realized that they cannot be held to that, but believed Mr. Brooks to lore, a man of his word. Mrs. Lightbody expressed a concern about having two-story units. Mr. Tyson requested to know if the approved planned development prevented two-story units adjacent to the existing single, funnily. After researching, Mr. Tyler stated that the PD allowed 2-1/2 story units adjacent to the existing single family, Mr. Panuo stated they woulr agree to one-story units only on the west side of Cro��te; Drive. PAM. tilNE, PLANNING & ZONING CUiI- NUSSIONT 1�EETING, NOVEMBER 5, 1,485 Mr. Knight stated that the Commission could include that the petitioner agreed to single story units in the i;totion, but lie was unsure if it should be binding. Mr. Owens made a motion to recommend appi-oval of #1C--85-3`+ with the stipulation that the petitioner agreed to single story unit; on the west side of Crowe from Signet to Kynette and to two enclosed garages. Mr. Balsinger seconded the rrjotion, and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Owens, Balsinger, `i�,son, Engle, Ingram and Hill Nays: None Vice-Chairman Hill declared the motion carried. VII. REPORTS There was no discussion. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Where being no further business to conduct, the meeting adjourned at 9:3Ei p.m. c f_.• k / { .9 Ci .trnan