Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-09-07 PIANKM ZCKM COMSSICK city cc miess . - Duildirq ' 201 Nam Bator lam.' Raem, 76033 Septaaber 7, 1993 DjscLi�WoN cF THE mum DEmmou APPR94A M - Regt l.: neet of &fit: 3, 1q13 Rkquest Of l :� nxxms a. T,.idle tor- a v-arianm to the, Feme Ordinance ce on Lot 9, W. .k 5, lkwi n Creek Fk-.tatts AWition r r ra 1:1 I PUS= MUS IM DAY CF SWMWM, 3993, AT P-9. ,.. ndividal If y0u pLm to auend this public nixting and You ha ye-a tlisabili;v that rNuinn spxial aTrancme-•ts at tt3e rztt.€ir�g.. 1,cwc contact out offic::at(817168";,1626, ftc� nzaa�l,:acxt�t ntlatinna��i>I 1?�t�a�fe to assis°�';>ur nf��s. NINUMUS JAN-ING �. The meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to ;`order by Chairman Ronald Young at 6:00 PX , it the downstairs Administration Building Conference Room, fix members of the Planning & Zoning Commission were in attendance with one Commissioner absent, PLA Chairman Ronald Young opened the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 7,00 PX . for the consideration of scheduled items. He stated that six members of the Planning and Zoning Commission were present, constituting a quorum, Furthermore, the agenda or this meeting had been properly posted i n accordance with the applicable law. He welcomed guests to attendance. ce. Ronald Young JQ Jones Jack Hill Billy Owens John Deithloff Carl Tyson George Zahn Randy Byers, Director Public Works & Development Paul Kruckwmeyer, tatty Engineer Andrea Baxter, Principal Engineer Rod Tyler, City Planner Modesto Mundo, Administrative Assistant Barbara Chambers, Staff Secretary Councilman Charles Miller Don Warren Kermit; TeTr en Thomas Lindley Dennis Suhnider Carl E. Scott 1M The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner ner^ ait.hloff The Invocation was given by Commissioner Hell A 19913-n- iC TWO The minutes of the August 3, 1991, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting were approved as written. R REQUEST (IF ?11 THKARNS J. FlINQ SIN , ... . RAUX-MC Rod Tyler, City Planner, introduced the request for the variance to the fence requirements of the City of Euless. He informed the Commissioners that chile serving in their capacity, they have the authority tea grant variances from the f=ence Ordinance provided all of the following requirements have been met , V Granting the variance will not adversely affect the interest of the City of Euless; 2.r Granting the variance will not adversely affect neighbor- ing property owners; and 3. ) There is, in the Commission's opinion, a hardship on the land, and that hardship is not a personal or self created hardship... Mr. Tyler stated, with this request, Mr. Thomas J. Lindley, -is requesting relief from Section 14..360(b) which reg€uir"es a fence greater, in height: than 36" to he setback from the street side property line a minimum of 15 feet.. It further stated that Mr, Lindley ha • mistakenly constructed ted the fences without first obtaining a permit, This fence that was erected is a 6` wood fence that sits on a railroad tie retaining wall located on the strut side lot line which encroaches into the 15 foot fence: setback line Chairman Ronald Young opened the Public Hearing for proponents and opponents to speak regarding the fence variance request. The applicant., W Thomas, Lindley, 71 Tanbark, Euless, Texas, provided a video tape that was shown to the Commissioners, He narrated the video showing the fence and retaining wall, He stated that the fence did not obstruct the view of neighbors entering the street. Mr. Lindley inform. the commission that one of the mai n reasons for building the fence and retaining wall was because the property slopes which causes drainage problems. He stated that he did not cause the drainage problem but the lot was built with a slope. W Lindley stated that he had hrc€rght in 22 yards of soil into the hack yard to make it level before building the retaining wall and fence, fir. Lindley informed the commission that he has lived at this residence for fine :Fears. Surrounding neighbors carne forward to speak in favor of the retaining gall and fence, They stated that the fence was a major mprovement to the neighborhood and had alleviated the drainage problems that had occurred in the east. They �tat.ed that dirt. would wash into 11 gullies,, and gutters, before the o��str�.�c Lion of the new fence The following riti ens ,-poke as proponents for Case No, 3- 6--€=V: Mr, Doe; Warren, qtr. Kermit Tepppn, Mr. €nni Schnider., Doug Gray and Mr. Carl E. Scott, Chair-man Ronald Young closed the Pub i is Hearing and called for discussion among the C;onr£rrtsstonerso €,orrmi,*,stoner, Billy 10werfs stated that he had driven by Mr. Lindley's property and looked at the fence and retaining wall . He stated that because we did have ordinances there was € o excuse for a ciiAzen not to get a permit to build according to certain restrictions. However, Cofinis si.n r Owens stated that he felt. i-F the applicant removed the fence it would not come-ct. the problem. Commtsstoner Owens ::Mated that he mold understand stag's recommendation to deny the variance because of encroachment on easements. His only exception to approving the ?ariance was the liability the ctt.y a€ight incur dreg to the fence being built on €ity easement, He further stated that this has happened thr,oughout the City and it needed tn stop because it cost the taxpayers money to pay someone for illegal construction. Commissioner Owens stated that the fence did not take away fro€rr the appearance of the neighborhood. Therefore, Commissioner Nens stated that his testimony was to agreement- with the propo- nents in this case and €nformed the commission that he was in favor for the gar°>a€ree. Commissioner Carl Tyson stated that he had been reviewing the criteria for approving a fence variance that was given to the €;ommi%:-,Aoeers. He stated that he likes the fence and that the applicant has done everything possible to control the drainage but, he felt that the Cow€i.sstaeers were still held. by the three cn dtttons to granting a variance, Commissioner Tyson stated that although the fence was built, to accommodate the drainage problem, the lr-catton of the fence being in the side yard was his major concern and adversely affects the City, He said that the current property owners dry not object to the f=ence, however, future property owners may. Commissioner Tyson also informed the Commissioners that he believes that the hardship was self created because the applicant could have handled the drainage problem differently, Commissioner John €fie ithloff stated that he agreed with Commis. loner Tyson and that the res€)t. of this variance request greeds to reflect what will be best for the City to the future and tats the location of the fence needs to be behind the property line. ommissioner George Zahn stated thfat, he agreed with Commissioners Dyson and De tdloff. He voiced his concern about the railroad ties being in the street right-of-way in the event the City should ever~ have work in that right-of--way %te informed the Commissioners that he did not feel the re quest coo"I'd be granted based on the three requirements. Commissioner Jack Hill stated that if the City was going to have ordttran€Ps then the Planning and Zoning Commission needed to i�,fforce the ordinances. Chairman Ronald Young stated ha he felt by granting this request it w€uld adversely affect the City and surrounding property owners, He commended ' r. ,Andiey 's neighbors for coming to he meeting in support of his request, however, he stated that future neighbors may not approve of the fence. € hair- man Young felt that the hardship on the lard was self-created and the fence could have been built in the right place in the beginning. Therefore, Chair- man Young was not in favor of the request for the variance. Commissioner Owens stated that there are other like circumstances within the City like this request. He reminded the Commissioner that biro Lindley stated that the purpose of the fence and retaining wait was because he had a drainage problem. Although, he failed to get a permit for the fence the drainage problem was still the primary purpose for the construction for the fenceo Commissioner Owens explained to the Commissioners that if the fence is removed the drainage problem still exis0 He included the fact that the fence was a, safety mechanise for keeping the neighborhood children away from the pool . Commissioner Owens: stated that removing the fence would not correct the problem as stated by City Engineer, Paul Krucke€€e er, because the retaining wail would still be located on City right-of-way. He further staged that the Commissioners would be within the law to grant the request, The ordinance gave the Commission the power to grant the variance and the approval criteria could be overlooked, The motion was made by Cammissiciner Owens to approve the fe€r}tie variance request 93-064V, at 710 Tanbark Drive, Euless, Texas, with the condition that the homeowner understands that he is liable for any damages caused by the erection of the retaining wall on City property, The motion died: due to a lack of second. Commissioner Tyson stated that he was equally concerned about the retaining wall as the fe€rce4 Randy Byers, Director of Public; Works and Development, informed the Commission that the wall does indeed encroach on the public right-of-way, €ha irman Ronald Young stated that the only items thhat was tieing addressed at the planning & Zoning meeting was the issue of the fence and that the wall was a separate issue of private improvements constructed in the street right--of-way, Rod Tyler stated that the retaining wall being constructed in the street right-of-way was not a variance issue and would be handled through other action, , The. motion was made by Commissioner Carl Tyson and seconded by Commissioner Jack Hill to deny the fence variance request 193-06-FV, at 710 Tanbark Drive, Euless,, Texa. Chairman Young called for discussion on the motion, Commissioner Nens stated that he feels that staff is saying that the wall complies with the ordinance and should be allowed to regain, however, another staff member says no. He feels that Staff should take the position to stay with the ordinance, He recommended that the Commissioners state a justifiable .season to deviate, from the ordinance, based can their reason for being on the fence variance committee. Otherwise, there would be no need for a committee if these actions were not possible to grant, Commissioner Owens stated that the poor citizen moral in this neighborhood world cost the City more harm than if the fence variance were granted. Commissioner Tyson -stated that what is fair and just is that other citizens in the community have complied with the ordinance and constructed based on coW Co€€ -,Ossicner Deithloff stated that the retaining wall is a drainage./landscape item. He stated that the wall bras, without a doubt, held the drainage and the issue before the Commission was the fence. He stated that the fence needed to be moved tack to the building line There being no further discussion the Grote was as follows on the €€ t;ion to deny fence variance request 93.06-FV, Ayes: Commissioners 00thloff, Hill, Young, Zahn and Tyson Nays; Commissioner Owens. The motion to deny fence variance request 93- 6-FV carried. Rod Tyler, City Planner, passed out revised copies of the Development Dis- tricts, lie stated that these district standards include arose items the P asked to be included. They also include two new districts- l < ) the R--IC (custom homes); and 2) the RM (limited home district) The Commissioners stated that they wanted time to :stud; the proposed standards before disc ussing theme The Commissioners rrissioners agreed to review the standards and discuss any € edification at their next meeting, There Qtd , n further discussion, Chairman young adjourned ned the meeting at ' %% f� '•mss, ,�: