Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-06-15 AGENDA PLANN94G ANDL ZONING COMMISSION City of Euless Council Chambers — Building 'IS" 201 N. Ector Drive, Euless, Texas 76039 June 15, 1999 5:30 P.M. -- Pre--Commission Meeting (Conference Room — Building "C") 7:00 P.M, -- Call to Order (Council Chambers— Building "B") PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Chairman 'young INVOCATION — Commissioner Houk APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular meeting of May 18, '1999 AGENDA ITEMS: ITEM 1 PUBLIC HEARING — RECONSIDERATION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - #99-02-PD— 511 SOUTH EULESS MAIN STREET Public input regarding.the request for reconsideration of a Planned Development changing the zoning from R-1 (Single Family Detached Dwelling District) into PD (Planned Development for Single Family Uses and Standards with Professional Off ice allowed by Specific Use Permit) in the A.J. Huitt Survey, Abstract 709, Tract 31:, also knomm.asr51A.Sauth Euless plain Street. ITEM 2 RECOMMENDATION — RECONSIDERATION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - #99-Q2-PD— 511 SOUTH EULESS MAIN STREET Recommendation regarding the request for reconsideration of a Planned Development changing_, the zoning-from R-1 (Single Family Detached Dwelling District) into PD (Planned Development for Single Family Us6s and Standards with Professional Office allowed by Spec Use Permit, in the A.J. Huitt Survey, Abstract 709, Tract 3I, also known as 511 South Euless Main Street. ITEM 3 PUBLIC HEARING. — SPECIFIC USE PERMIT - #99-08-SUP — 511 SOUTH EULESS MAIN STREET Public input regarding_ the request for a Specific Use Permit for a professional office use, in Planned Development zoning (Planned Development for Single Family uses and Standards with Professional Office allowed by Specific Use Permit) in the A.J. Huitt Survey, Abstract 749, Tract 31, also known as 511 South Euless Main Street. ITEM 4 RECOMMENDATION -- SPECIFIC USE PERMIT m #99-08-SUP — 511 SOUTH EULESS MAIN STREET Recommendation the request for a Specific Use Permit for a professional office use, in Planned Development zoning (Planned Development for Single Family Uses and Standards with Professional Office allowed by Specific Use Permit) in the A.J. Huitt Survey, Abstract 709, Tract 31, also known as 511 South Euless Main Street, ITEM 5 RECOMMENDATION — SITE PLAN e x#99--07—SP -- EDWARD TAYLOR SURVEY, ABSTRACT l 550, TRACT l Al Recommendation for a site plan for a two general office buildings totalling 5,002 square feet within the C-2 (Community Business District) zoning in the Edmard Taylor Survey,Abstract 1550, Tract 1A1 ITEM 6 REPORTS ITEM 7 DIRECTOR'S REPORT POSTED THIS.1.1 TH.DAY OF MAY, 1999, AT 5:00 P.M. WWLM. Individual Pasting Notice ff,rw FW to MarA t),-pLbk mae8ng erad ym ihme a&eWty the"ims specw amwVmenhs at frse Meet%pleew con+.ect ata ofte at(811j 685-1623.Rte* aoxa modMons jai11 bemme to assist;ewr reeds. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 15, 1999 MINUTES The Pre-Commission meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Ron Young at 5:30 p.m. in the Building "C" Conference Room, Six members of the Planning and Zoning Commission were in attendance. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF SCHEDULED ITEMS - COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Chairman Young called the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order at 1 :00 p.m, for the consideration of scheduled items. He stated there were six members of the Planning and Zoning Commission present. MEMBERS AND STAFF PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Chairman Ron Young Katherine Houk Nancy Bright Robert McMillon Richard McNeese Billy Owens George Zahn Glenn Porterfield, Council Member Paul Wieneskie, City Attorney Bo Bass. Director of Planning and Development Andrea Baxter, Assistant Director of Public Works and Engineering Carol Griffith, Planning Services Manager Donna Brown, Administrative Secretary VISITORS PRESENT John Colby Michael Stanley Betty Fuller Alan Curlee Bob Madeja PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Young and the Invocation was given by Commissioner McMillon. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Owens moved to approve the minutes of May 18, 1999, Commissioner McNeese seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Chairman Young, Commissioners McMillon, McNeese, Owens, Bright, Zahn Nays: None The motion carried. PLANNIN(i CONMMISSION P A G F 2 MIN?3T OF JUNE i 1999 REGULAR AGENDA ITEM I PUBLIC HEARING RECONSIDERATION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -#99-02-PD — 511 SOUTH EULESS MAIN STREET Public input regarding the request for reconsideration of a Planned Development changing the zoning from R-1 (Single Family Detached Dwelling District) into PD (Planned Development for Single Family Uses and Standards with Professional Office allowed by Specific Use Permit) in the A.J. Huitt Survey, Abstract 7100, Tract 31, also known as 511 South Euless Main Street. Bo Bass, Director of Planning and Development, introduced the case. He stated that a few Commissioners and Council Members had mentioned to him they wished they had another tool to go along with this case, to limit it in terms of years, ownership, design improvements and cost, Mr. Bass stated that since the PD process did not allow for that latitude and flexibility, staff decided to ask Council to table the case, send it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. and ask the Commission to re-consider the case, and further consider a Specific Use Permit to put some limits on it, Mr. Bass stated staff recommended approval with limits. Chairman Young asked for a motion to re-consider Planned Development #99-02-PD. Paul Wieneskie, City Attorney, clarified that the motion to re-consider had to be made by someone on the prevailing side last time. Chairman Young polled the Commissioners, Commissioner Zahn stated he felt strongly about the case as it was before and that if it was to go on for re-consideration he was not sure it would go the same way. Commissioner McNeese stated that his position had not changed from prior discussion and that he did not think this request was in the best interest of the City of Euless or the neighborhood in general. Commissioner Bright stated her position had not changed and that she would not make the motion, Commissioner Owens stated that after some discussions with the applicant and staff he realized there were some things he did not know, therefore he would stay with his original position and he would not make the motion to re-consider. Chairman Young stated that since out of the majority the previous time none of them would make the motion to re-consider, the re-consideration failed. Commissioner Owens stated that he appreciated Mr. Bass' action before the Council, and that it had been a very long time since Council had sent a case back to the Commission for re-consideration. P.I.ANI.NiNG AND/ONING CON11MIS SION PAGE -MINUTFS OF �\-E:1 1 999 I I ITEM 2 RECOMMENDATION — RECONSIDERATION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - #99-02-PD — 511 SOUTH EULESS MAIN STREET Recommendation regarding the request for reconsideration of a Planned Development changing the zoning from R-1 (Single Family Detached Dwelling District) into PD (Planned Development for Single Family Uses and Standards with Professional Office allowed by Specific, Use Permit) in the A.J. Huitt Survey, Abstract 709, Tract 11, also known as 511 South Euless Main Street, ITEM 3 PUBLIC HEARING — SPECIFIC USE PERMIT - #99-08-SUP — 511 SOUTH EULESS MAIN STREET Public input regarding the request for a Specific Use Permit for a professional office use, in Planned Development zoning (Planned Development for Single Family Uses and Standards with Professional Office allowed by Specific Use Permit) in the A.J. Huitt Survey, Abstract 709, Tract 31, also known as 511 South Euless Main Street, Chairman Young stated that a public hearing had been advertised for the Specific Use Permit contingent on the Planned Development being reconsidered. He asked for Mr. Wieneskie's opinion on whether a public hearing should be opened, Mr. Wieneskie answered that if there is no entitlement to a Specific Use Permit, without the PD re- zoning to begin with then there was need to have a public hearing. Commissioner Zahn stated that he knew why the SUP was back, and if the commission could go ahead and send the SUP to Council that would be one thing. He asked if. since that was not what the Commission was asked to act on nor was it pail of the original packet, that was something that the Commissioners could even discuss. Mr. Wieneskie stated that he now reversed himself. He stated that the Council could in fact take this case up and override the recommendation with the appropriate super majority and grant the zoning. He stated that the Commission might as well go ahead and take action on the SUP because that at least would leave all of the Council's actions open for them, and they would have the Commission's input on the SUP. Commissioner Owens asked if that would do away with the requirement for a super majority on a recommendation for denial. Mr. Wieneskie answered no, that it would still take a super majority of the Council to override the Commission's denial of the PD zoning. Bo Bass, Director of Planning and Development, introduced the case and explained that a Specific Use Permit is a permit that allows a certain degree of legislative latitude to require things above and beyond the code, such as a time limit or a specific owner. Mr. Bass stated that this would be an adaptive re-use of a single family structure, and that the applicant had agreed to a time Ili-nit, to the SUP being limited to either himself or his company, as well as possibly a requirement for a certain set of improvements. He stated that staff recommended approval. Chairman Young opened the Public Hearing. John Colby, 1905 Central Drive, Bedford, Texas, stated he did not want to be where he was not wanted, and that he did not understand what the Commission wanted done with this house because two thirds of the property would be taken for a six lane road, making it impossible for him to sell it for residential use, which would leave him with one option, other than the proposed one, and that would be to use it for rental residential. Mr. Colby stated the inspectors went out to the property to determine what would be required for residential rental, and the answer was about $500 worth of smoke alarms and other things. Mr. Colby went on to say this house could be a real showplace. He stated he had given the Commission a plan that would give them control. Mr. Colby also stated that he had heard rumors that the Commissioners were upset he went to Council about the lighting plan: he said he went to Council because he did not want to put lighting that would destroy the idea of it being a residential area. Mr, Colby stated he understood the wishes of the Council in wanting to keep the area residential, but that a precedent was not being set and that what he was proposing would be unique to this property. Betty Fuller; 505 Cullum Drive, Euless, Texas, stated she did not want the house to be rental property but rather would like to see it be rehabilitated than see it look like some of the houses closer to Highway 10. Ms. Fuller stated she lives in back of the property and that she would rather see two gentlemen who want a business there who would make it look pretty and save a piece of Euless history than to see it trashed when it became a rental property. Chairman Young closed the Public Hearing, ITEM 4 RECOMMENDATION -- SPECIFIC USE PERMIT - #99-08-SUP 511 SOUTH EULESS MAIN STREET Recommendation the request for a Specific Use Permit for a professional office use, in Planned Development zoning (Planned Development for Single Family Uses and Standards with Professional Office allowed by Specific Use Permit) in the A.J. Huitt Survey, Abstract 709, Tract 31, also known as 511 South Euless Main Street. Bo Bass, Director of Planning and Development, stated that staff strongly recommended approval of this case, and that staff had received several calls from adjacent residents supporting this case,- he said they seem to think that this professional office would help raise their property's values. Commissioner Zahn stated he had no comments, Commissioner McNeese stated, for the record, that he respects Mr. Colby, Mr. Stanley and Mils. Fuller's opinions but he could not support the SUP. Commissioner McNeese quoted from the application "subject property is surrounded by multi-family development, it is on a busy street, and preservation of the historical home for office use is consistent with how other area suburbs such as Arlington and Grapevine have allowed the conversion of functionally obsolescent structures to the highest and best PLANNINCY AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE MINI IT SOf: WNF. f 5.i'?Gq use". Commissioner McNeese stated that the City Council, the Commission, and others had spent a long time coming up with a Comprehensive Zoning Plan, it did not snake any sense to him to grant a spot zoning in this case. He stated he was concerned with the character of the neighborhood but that he has an aversion to the concept of adaptive re-use. Commissioner McNeese stated he could not see the benefit of a professional commercial office either in reducing taxes or benefiting the city. Commissioner McNeese stated he could not support the SUP request in this case. Commissioner Bright stated that when the Commission re-zoned the City many hours were spent listening to people, and it was decided that if a business [along Main Street] closed, the zoning would be R-1. Commissioner Bright stated the project looked very good and that she was willing to be more open about it. Commissioner McMillon stated he supported the project when it was before the Commission the previous time because he saw the opportunity to take a degrading structure and make an improvement to it, which in his view would improve the neighborhood. Commissioner McMillon stated he felt that there are places where re- development has its place and that is the reason he supported this project here. Commissioner Owens stated that the Commission was not saying to an individual "we do not want you in this City,'. Commissioner Owens stated that he thought the City Fathers should be the ones to set policy in situations like this of re-development. He stated that he thought it would only be Mr. Colby and his partner occupying their offices in that house, but that he heard Mr. Colby state at City Council last Tuesday that Mr. Colby plans to sub-lease part of the building. Commissioner Owens stated he did not think that was good. He stated he did not think the Commission could deny this project or vote for it, but instead it was in the right hands at City Council. Chairman Young stated that when this case was originally heard he was not in town but that in reading the minutes he could appreciate the concerns of the Commissioners who voted against it about not having any control through the PD process. Chairman Young stated he thought that the option of this project coming back to the Commission with an SUP would provide the controls and time limit which would allow a use that would have the appearance of being residential, because the property would not substantially change other than being restored. Chairman Young stated he personally felt that it could be a good use and compromise for that. Commissioner Zahn stated that the Commissioners had talked about the controls the Commission has with a SUP; for example time; ownership and commitment of funds for this restoration process, He asked for clarification from the applicant on whether lie intended to sub-lease a portion of the building. Mr. Colby answered that he was hoping to find a compatible use to lease a portion of it, perhaps a one or two person office. Commissioner Zahn asked the applicant what his thoughts were about a time limit and about ownership restrictions. Mr. Colby answered he was not afraid of the SUP because he is convinced that once that this is all done everyone will be pleased with it and that the City would be delighted to have them back. He stated he had proposed a three-year time limit starting at the time he gets his building permit. Commissioner Zahn also asked the applicant what would he have to do to bring the house up to code. Mr. NIfN'U.Tf_S(X'.It�NT. 15, 1919s) Colby distributed an exhibit and explained that he would be spending about $38,000 to meet the proposed PD and SUP requirements. Mr. Bass stated for clarification that should the Commission care to include this list: the Commissioners could make the SUP contingent upon the list. He stated that staff could hold the applicant to this list and if something was not provided, staff could pull the Certificate of Occupancy and start the process all over again. Commissioner Owens stated that in Mr. Colby's letter [in the packet], Mr. Colby had estimated spending a minimum of $20,000- Mr. Colby stated that he had committed to spend a minimum of $20,000 within 90 days, but that realistically to do all the things to meet the proposed requirements, it would probably be more like $38,000 at no cost to the City. Mr. Colby stated that what frustrated hire was the fact that he is not a professional developer and that he felt this request would fail because of his incompetence of presenting this case, and his failure to make the Commission see the vision of what this could be. Mr. Colby also stated that if the Commission really felt that this area should be residential only that was one thing, but he could not understand this because the project is surrounded by multi-family and commercial, the road would be widened to six lanes, and the property would be losing two thirds of the front yard; therefore he did not think he could sell the property [as residential]. Commissioner Zahn stated that he thought it was a great vision but he would have liked to see a district like this with about 15 other houses, where the City would have a district that could be called an adaptive re-use development. He stated that this is only one Douse and in his mind it would be spot zoning. He stated there are very low-density single family units surrounding this project. Commissioner Zahn stated his true concern was that the PD and the SUP would have an R-1 zoning. He stated that the considerations or guidelines put on a SUP would be a benefit to the City. Commissioner Zahn stated he would be interested in some discussion if anyone else was, and that he appreciated staff bringing back to the Commission the opportunity to take a look at this project where the Commissioners could have some guidelines for a re-use. He stated he is not in favor of the project but that he would maintain an open mind and listen to the discussion on the SUP because the ultimate decision would be with the Council. Commissioner Zahn stated that he was at a loss because they were discussing the SUP when the PD was declined. Paul VNieneskie, City Attorney, stated the reason was that the City Council could if they chose to do so, by super majority, override the commission's recommendation on the PD and grant the PD zoning. He stated that if they did so; they would then have before them a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission on a SUP to go with that PD zoning, but that if the Commission did not take action on the SUP; then the net result if the Council approved the PD zoning and wanted a SUP to go along with it, they would have to refer that back down to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the Commission to have another meeting. He stated that the net result is it just delays the project by a month. Commissioner Zahn stated that Council could, with a super majority, pass the PD. Vi-ANNING AND ZONINi;t::t?�'I:'�9ISSION PAGE ? Commissioner Owens stated that City Council could put stipulations on the PD and asked why not now. Mr. Bass stated that the City Attorney's ruling on a previous occasion had been that a PD is pure zoning and runs with the land and that you cannot limit the length of time or the ownership, and that the SUP is the best and only tool for that. Commissioner Zahn stated the Commission needed to be able to offer the Council control of the process and not let the house deteriorate and then loop at it in two years and say "Sorry, it is residential". Commissioner Owens stated he did not have any problem with that and that the only problem he had was taking a motion and circumventing it with another motion that did not take the same majority vote. Commissioner Zahn suggested the Commission should send a denial for the SUP; and then the Council would have two vehicles, with a super majority required for the PD and a super majority required for the SUP. He stated that without the SUP, all the City would get is what is in the PD and that he was not in favor of that. Commissioner McMillon stated he would like to ask a hypothetical question. He asked if the Commission passed the SUP, would Council still have to have a super majority to approve the PD. Mr. Wieneskie answered yes, and stated that this was one of those cases that in the event Council decided to do something different than the Commission, Council would have additional tools. Mr. Wieneskie added that if the Commissioners had seen anything in here that changed their mind on the PD it could still be reconsidered after this item if anyone wanted to make that motion. Commissioner Zahn moved to recommend approval of Specific Use Permit case #99-- G8-SUP with the stipulations that it: 1) Be tied to the ownership of Mr. Colby 2) Be tied to use by Mr. Colby. 3) Be looked at in two years to see if in fact it had followed through with what the Commissioners heard was going to happen there 4) Include the list of office use requirements that the Commissioners had been handed as an attachment; that the entire list of items on the "construction budget" for 511 S. Main would be included and followed through. 5) Be contingent on City Council's approval of the PD. Commissioner McMillon seconded the motion. Commissioner Owens asked Andrea Baxter; Assistant Director of Public Works, if the drainage problems had been worked out, what would happen when the pavement was poured, and if she had been there. Ms. Baxter answered she had and that those issues were insignificant and that she did not believe they would substantially change the situation. Commissioner Owens asked if Engineering was pleased with all the parking if there were two businesses. Ms. Baxter answered that there would not be parking on the street therefore it would be up to Mr. Colby to make sure there were enough parking spaces. €LANNiN(.:)AND .0NFNG t:ONIM€SS€ON N11INUTF.S OF JU;N}3 r's, ?1.999 Commissioner McNeese stated he was not in favor of this case. Chairman Young stated this motion did give City Council an additional tool should they decide to exercise it and that it was something that would not be used unless Council brought the PD off the table and acted positively on it. He told Mr. Colby he did not know what else to say other than he needed to go and talk to the City Council and make his presentation. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Chairman Young, Commissioners McMillon, Owens, Bright, Zahn Nays: Commissioner McNeese The motion carried. ITEM 5 RECOMMENDATION — SITE PLAN - #99-07-SP -- EDWARD TAYLOR SURVEY, ABSTRACT 1554, TRACT 111 Recommendation for a site plan for a two general office buildings totaling 5,002 square feet within the C-2 (Community Business District) zoning in the Edward Taylor Survey, Abstract 1550, Tract 1A1 Bo Bass, Director of Planning and Development, gave a description of the case and stated that staff had two main concerns: 1) One of the buildings violates the setback along Clairemont Lane. Mr. Bass stated that he had since talked with the applicant, who had guaranteed to him that between now and City Council he would modify the plan to reflect no violation of the required setback. 2) Mr. Bass stated there was quite a bit of good old American rough and tumble type discussion at DRC [Development Review Committee] about the overall design itself. Mr. Bass stated that several of the departments on DRC were very opposed to the Glade access paint but that Planning and Development and the Engineering Department support the design as submitted based on one agreement as follows: On bath the Site Plan before it gets to City Council as well as the Plat that will fallow later there should be a note that says: "Once any of the property to the west is developed, whether by this owner or another owner, the Glade Road access point shall be closed and relocated to another point further away fro m the intersection of Glade Road and Clairemont Lane". He stated that the public safety departments were most concerned about traffic conflicts with this intersection being that close to Clairemont. He stated that it is under the City's code by a few feet but that Engineering has the latitude to grant a change of the design requirements and feels strongly that it should be agreed to Mr, Bass stated once again that the access point would be relocated to a common access point and that there would be mutual access and emergency access easements l'€..:'.€`i�€P•iCr AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE, N€lNi_ T€S 0 R!N. i5. 1P99 that would be platted - as well as shown on the Site Plan - connecting both parking lots on the west and east property lines. W Bass stated the concerns that staff had were legitimate but that once Glade Road is developed this would solve the problems that Fire and Police had. Mr. Bass stated that Planning and Development as well as Engineering strongly support this Site Plan and recommend approval. Chairman Young stated that Site Plan consideration and approval is a ministerial function. Chairman Young stated that there was one person who had requested to address the Commission. Alan Curlee; 2726 Central Drive, Bedford, Texas, representing Classic Concepts as the Real Estate Developer of the project, complimented the staff on how they had worked with them. Chairman Young stated that Mr. Bass had indicated there were a couple of things Mr. Curlee had agreed to do. Mr. Curlee stated that was correct. Mr. Curlee stated that they are in total agreement with the cross access easement in the center of the tract also - not just the one off of Glade. He stated that it makes obvious sense to connect one lot to the other because hopefully they would be the ones to develop all of that property. Mr. Curlee stated that they had no problem in moving the building five feet, and that their engineers were prepared to do that by Friday before the Council meeting. Chairman Young stated that Commissioner Bright would be stepping down from discussion and voting because of possible conflict of interest. Commissioner Bright stepped down from the Commissioners' seating. Commissioner McNeese asked if staff had looked into drainage and all those issues. Mr. Bass answered yes. Mr. Bass stated that the elevation plans submitted were no different from what Classic Concepts has become famous for; the small stand alone residential style office structures with 100% masonry exterior, 6 to 12 roof pitch and a quite pleasing style. Commissioner Owens made the motion to approve Site Plan case #99-07-SP as presented, with the conditions stated by Mr. Bass. Commissioner Zahn requested that Mr. Bass restate the conditions. Mr. Bass stated the following conditions, to be completed prior to the Council Meeting-. 1) To place a note on Site Plan and Plat that states the applicant's commitment to remove at their cost the north access point off of Glade Road and to relocate it at a location of staff's choosing. 2) To extend the mutual access easements and emergency access easements as well as the pavement to the west property line 3} To modify the building design so that it is no longer violating the side yard setback. YI.ANNIN(i A'.DZONING C+JMMISS101,1 PA(;1-; Eli AIIN UIT.S OF JLI]`JF 1>. 1 I 4) To correct a few mirror housekeeping things that DRC is aware of like north arrows and things like that. He asked the Commission to regUire the applicant to make staff satisfied with that. Commissioner Zahn seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Chairman Young, Commissioners, McMillon, McNeese, Owens, Zahn Nays: None The motion carried. ITEM 6 REPORTS An updated case status report was included in the packet. ITEM 7 DIRECTOR'S REPORT There was no report. Chairman Young stated he appreciated having City Attorney Paul Wieneskie and Council Member Porterfield present. There being no further business, Chairman Young adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. ff� �� ww ------------------------------------------- Chairman Ronald,Yt'unq-". Ddte