Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-08-17 AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION City of Euless Council Chambers - Building "1354 201 N. Ector Drive, Euless, Texas 76039 August 17, 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 -- Commissioner McMillon INVOCATION — Commissioner Owens APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- Regular meeting of July 20, 1999 AGENDA ITEMS: ITEM 'I CASE #99-03-PD - PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Receive public input regarding the request for a Planned Development changing the zoning of George Linney Survey, abstract #939, Tract Al, from R-1 (Single Family Detached Dwelling District) into PD (Planned Development Lased on R- 1L Single Family Limited Dwelling District). This property is on West Ash Lane, approximately 500 feet east of North Industrial Boulevard. ITEM 2 CASE #99-03-PD - RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Consider a recommendation regarding the request for a Planned Development changing the zoning of George Linney Survey, Abstract#939, Tract Al, from R-1 (Single Family Detached Dwelling District) into PD (Planned Development based on R-1 L. Single Family Limited Dwelling District). This property is on West Ash Lane, approximately 500 feet east of North Industrial Boulevard. ITEM 3 REPORTS ITEM 4 DIRECTOR'S REPORT POSTED THIS 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1999, AT 4:00 P.M. LAI G' a .a Individual ©stin� Notice ff yw p m to&**iv3 this pubk m e eti%and voL have a&ebi6Pv"reqUes spe dd armaments L*the maeft,p6wm contact=cffica at(811)635-1623.Reawnebie �omrnrd,kons Q!be made tc assist ymt noeds. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 1999 MINUTES The Pre-Commission meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Commissioner Bright at 5:39 p.m. in the Building "C" Conference Room. Five members of the Planning and Zoning Commission were in attendance. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF SCHEDULED ITEMS - COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Commissioner Bright called the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. for the consideration of scheduled items. She stated there were five members of the Planning and Zoning Commission present and that Chairman Young and Commissioner Zahn were absent. MEMBERS AND STAFF PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Nancy Bright Chairman Ron Young Katherine Honk George Zahn Richard McNeese Billy Owens Robert McMillon Bo Bass, Director of Planning and Development Andrea Baxter, Assistant Director of Public Works and Engineering Michael Logan, Fire Marshal Carol Griffith, Planning Services Manager Donna Brown, Administrative Secretary VISITORS PRESENT Danny Holifield Clint Norton Tim Spiars Paul Stevens R.J. Weiss Foster McMillan Gary VVinsper Terry Taylor PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner McMillon and the Invocation was given by Commissioner Owens. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Bright asked if there were any corrections to the minutes of July 20, 1 999. PLANNiNG AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 2 KNUT'ES of Augusi 1 7. 1999 Commissioner McNeese stated he wanted to arnend the correction to the minutes of June 15, 1999 as follows: 1. Page 5 lime 3 — The sentence should read "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 make any sense to him to grant a spot zoning in this case.,, Commissioner Owens moved to approve the minutes of the July 20, 1999, meeting as amended, with special thanks to the secretary for being able to get everything that went on in that five hour meeting. Commissioner McNeese seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Commissioners Bright, McNeese, Owens. McMillon, Houk. Nays: bone The motion carried. REGULAR AGENDA ITEM I CASE #99-03-PD - PUBLIC BEARING REGARDING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Receive public input regarding the request for a Planned Development changing the zoning of George Linney Survey, Abstract #939, Tract Al, from R-1 (Single Family Detached Dwelling District) into PD (Planned Development based on R-1 L Single Family Limited Dwelling District). This property is on West Ash Lane, approximately 500 feet east of North Industrial Boulevard, Bo Bass, Director of Planning and Development, Introduced the case and described the surrounding properties, pointing out the high degree of topographic relief and stating that in the opinion of staff this is a difficult site to develop. He stated that the average lot size is 5,562 square feet, which exceeds the R-1 L average lot size, and that the minimum lot size is 5,600 square feet. The minimum living area is 1,506 square feet. Mr. Bass stated that improvements for this non-gated public entry subdivision include a 6 feet masonry wall along Ash Lane, and a 6 feet wrought iron fence along the rear property lines except along Lake Share Drive. He stated it has a single point of access, so staff is recommending a landscaped crash gate. Mr. Bass stated there were two paints to remember when considering this case: 1) TU Electric has a push to require electrical transformers to be placed in the front portions of single family yards. He stated staff is against it. PLANNING AND ZONING COWISSION PAGE 3 MINUTES OF August 17, 1999 2) Drainage shown is a concept scheme only. Mr. Bass stated that the Engineering Department has established a maximum design but would like to reserve the right to work with the designer to come up with something less obtrusive and less destructive than the cross section shown. He stated staff would like to preserve as many trees as possible. Commissioner Bright opened the Public Hearing and asked for the developer or a spokesperson to come to the podium and make a presentation. Tien Spiars of Tipton Engineering, 6330 Broadway Boulevard, Suite C, Garland, Texas, stated he had worked very closely with staff and that he was asking for approval as shown on the exhibit. He stated that the current owner, Bella Vista, has made a commitment to build on each lot and not sell lots to other builders. He stated the President of Bella Vista, George Tannous, has over 40 years of experience in homebuilding, and that Clint Dorton, the Vice President; has a little over 20. He also stated that these two men are not only developers but also homebuilders who develop a property from start to finish. Mr. Spiars stated that this site had not been developed in the past because of all the hardships that exist on it; for example, the steep topography and the creek and lake which will require channel improvements and retaining walls. He stated another reason the property had not been developed was that the wrong product was proposed, but that Bella Vista had come in with a smaller lot size to be able to put 43 lots on this property. Mr, Spiars stated that in addition to the other hardships, there is a very deep sanitary main that runs through the middle of the property which would require relocation through the right-of-way. He also stated that retaining walls would be used not only for reclamation but also to save as many trees as possible. He stated that the proposed front and rear yard setback is 10 feet with a couple of exceptions. Mr, Spiars stated there will be a 20 feet setback requirement for the garages on the front, and that for the ten lots adjacent to Ash Lane - lots 1 through 3, and lots 27 through 33- he is proposing a 15 feet rear yard setback. Bella Vista is proposing both 1 and 2 story homes that will range from 1,500 square feet to 2,400 square feet. He stated that the side yard setbacks are 3 and 7 and that there would be a 10 feet separation between each house. He stated this project would have a Homeowners Association which would take care of maintenance of the open areas, the masonry screening wall, and the front yards. Commissioner Bright asked if anyone else was in favor of this project. There was no one. Commissioner Bright asked if there were any opponents to the project or if anyone had a question. Paul Stevens, 11311 Trail Lake Drive, Euless, Texas, stated he is one of the owners of Eden Lake. He stated he has some concerns even though he is not within the 200 feet notification limit, since this proposed project has direct effect on his property value as well as the maintenance that will be required because of this project. He stated the first problem is trespassing on the west side of the lake where there is no fence. He stated that a six feet wood fence across the back would be totally inadequate, because it would not last more than three or four years. Mr. Stevens stated that a more PIANNINGAJN0ZONING cor' WSSEJN PAGE 4 MINUTES of August 47; 3999 substantial fence would be better and that it should also be higher than six feet to keep people out of private property. He stated that there is a need for adequate security fencing to reduce police calls. Mr. Stevens stated he has a problem with the creep reinforcement and that in his opinion minimum standards have to be set rather than maximum. He stated that the trees in the area are past oaks that cannot tolerate retaining walls around them or heavy equipment across them. He stated it had been mentioned earlier in the evening that the creek was backing up; he stated that was not a problem because it flows down hill. He continued that all the area would require drainage because the existing drainage is handled predominantly by not only the creek but by the dirt, land and vegetation around the area, and as soon as a large portion of that is parted the drainage will eventually come to Eden Lake. Mr. Stevens stated that right now a problem exists with trash that is blown across the lake and his concern was that with this development it would only increase. He stated that a trash grate with a weekly cleaning schedule should be installed, paid for and maintained by the Homeowners Association. He stated that this development was set originally as R--1 with a lower density, which would have less impact on the surrounding homeowners and the lake. He stated this development would have a direct impact on property owners to the north and that they are against it. R.J. Weiss, 1613 Willow Lane, Euless, Texas, stated he is against the trees being cut down because they provide his property a lot of shade; therefore, he wants the creek bed and the trees left alone. He stated another miner concern he has is about the school needing to expand again and how many more kids the school would be able to handle before running out of space. Faster McMillan, 605 Cypress Circle, Euless, Texas, stated he owns property on Eden Lake and his concern is the volume of water that would be put into the lake through the creek and how much the spillway could handle before the darn would fall. He stated he had put up a 12 feet wood fence along Eden Parr, and daily people climb over the fence onto his property. He stated he has had a lot of vandalism. He also stated that all the trash thrown into the creek ends up in their- part of the lake. Mr. McMillan said another concern would be that when the 48 proposed homes fertilized their lawns it would run into the lake and the cost of having someone come and kill algae and moss would increase. Gary Winsper, 1801 Trail Lake, Euless, Texas, stated that he and other homeowners own Eden Lake and the majority of the people think it is public property. The proposed project would bring in about 200 more people trying to get to the lake, creating a larger problem for him and the other homeowners. He also mentioned water flow and trash problems. Mr. Spiars stated that the majority of people who buy these types of houses have no kids. He stated the proposed homes are custom homes, not entry level. Regarding the drainage he stated that this project is 10 acres and the majority of the drainage basin is developed, so the development of this property would add a very small amount compared to what is flowing off the property now. He stated there would be some trees PLANNING AND ZOMNG COMMISSION PAGE 5 Mi:NUTES OF August I',1999 removed - probably half of the approximately 000 that exist now — but the owner/developer would make are attempt to save trees. Mr. Spiars stated right now there is a dirt road leading to the lake and that this community with fences around their yards would block access to the lake. He then stated that a fence cannot be put across the creek because it cannot be in the flood plain. He stated there is a maintenance agreement right now that was put into place in 1972 and revised in 1981, which states that the people owning Lakewood Town Homes on the east side of the creek are responsible for the maintenance of their part of the creek. This maintenance agreement also says that there would be no trees in the channel to impede the flow of water. He stated the developer does not want to remove any of the trees in the creek and that the ordinance states that a concrete pilot channel has to be put down but that neither the developer nor City staff wants to do that. Clint Norton, 17110 Dallas Parkway, Suite 120, Dallas, Texas, stated that his intention is to leave as much natural terrain and trees as possible because it increases property value. He stated staff wants the applicant to do a great deal more to the channel for erosion control, to handle water flows and provide better maintenance but that they would like to do a lot less and leave it as Natural as possible. He stated he did not see any hone being less than $145,000 in price range for the smaller square footage but that he doubted there would be any 1,500 square feet houses in this development, therefore these homes would probably range from $175,000 to $200,000. He stated their primary targets are "DINKS", that is, dual income no kids, like single people and Multi- semi people. Pi�9r. Norton stated that this land was originally zoned Iz1lulti- FamilylTown Homes and then later re-zoned R-1 and that he thought they had come up with a concept that is a lot more agreeable. He stated they think that by putting a nice quality development in that area it may help with vandalism compared to a heavily treed property. He stated the developer/builder has prat money into the Homeowners Association funding, in addition to the monthly dues, which makes it passible for the Association to maintain the development. Commissioner Bright closed the Public Hearing. ITEM 2 CASE #99-03-PD - RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Consider a recommendation regarding the request for a Planned Development changing the zoning of George Linney Survey, Abstract #939, Tract Al, from R-1 (Single Family Detached Dwelling District) into PD (Planned Development based on R-1 L Single Family Limited Dwelling District;. This property is on West Ash Lane, approximately 500 feet east of North Industrial Boulevard. Commissioner Owens stated he did not think that a 5 or 8 feet fence would make any difference, that the property should not be cut off from any of the open spaces, and that there should always be access to it for future development, Commissioner Owens stated that he would like to ask Andrea {Baxter— Assistant Director of Public Works and PLANNING AND ZONiNG COMMISSION PAGE 6 MINUTES OF Augus 17, 1999 Engineering) what would be done about the dam. He stated that probably 4 or 5 other deals had been killed because of the drainage because something had to be done about preserving the spillway, but that it is getting to the point where he would like the City to have that lake and people could build around it. Commissioner Owens stated that every time in the past, the Commission had requested wrought iron fencing with small gaps between it all along the drainage ditch. He requested that Ms. Baxter make sure that the seven items in a letter dated July 2, 1999, would be adhered to as part of this project. Ms. Baxter stated that she Would do that. Ms. Baxter stated the City's code requires a concrete lined channel which is a V ditch with side slopes to contain a hundred year storm, and that would wipe out every tree any where close to that creek. She stated that is not what the City wants either. She continued that before these gentlemen could go further, they wanted to see whether the City would be receptive to something less than what the ordinance requires. In other words, they wanted to see whether a partially natural channel would be received here. The only way she could determine that without an extensive and expensive hydraulic study, was to request a drawing that would show that the applicant could meet the spirit of the law without installing a concrete lined channel and knocking out all the trees. She stated that she had requested a drawing showing a concrete pilot channel with some gabion work and some erosion control, and that she planned to work with the applicant to do whatever they could when they get the hydraulic study to cut it back as much as possible and leave it as natural as possible, Ms. Baxter stated that there is no way to determine what is appropriate until the drainage studies have been done to show what kind of velocities exist there. She then told Commissioner Owens that what is shown is a maximum but that she did not like the maximum and that she also wanted to do less and keep the trees, but that this was the only way she could go to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council and say that the project meets the spirit of the law. Commissioner Owens stated that the seven items in the letter, like gabion baskets and concrete curbs, would extend along the entire length of the channel. Ms. Baxter answered that this was correct. Commissioner Owens asked if there was going to be a hydraulic study. Ms. Baxter answered yes. Commissioner Owens asked if the Commission would know what the flow would be, to which Ms. Baxter answered yes. He asked if the City would be requiring whatever it took to make it took beautiful and Ms. Baxter answered yes. Commissioner Owens asked if she would have any objection if the Commission made the above mentioned letter part of the motion. Ms. Baxter answered she had no objections but pointed out that if they could do less on the bottom of the channel and on those flat portions, staff would like to. Commissioner Owens told the applicant that he wanted to make sure it was clear that whatever is on the drawings would be on the ground. He asked the applicant if he was going to put some money up front for the Homeowners Association and if he would be telling everyone who bought a home that they were part of that Association. Mr. Norton answered that there is a developer contribution but that the Association starts collecting dues after the first house is occupied. Mr. Norton stated that it has been their history through different developments, that all have very viable, very successful Homeowners Associations. He continued that they get a very strong document which gives the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 7 WNUTES OF August 17,1999 Association a lot of teeth to be able to maintain the properties and to collect the dues for reserves and everything else that they needed to do to have a viable Homeowners Association, and that it is mandatory if you buy a house, that you are a member of the Association. Commissioner McMillon stated that when the zoning was changed to R-1 that was the ideal zoning because the City needs R-1. Fie stated he could support this project because it would not have a huge impact, and said that Mr. Owens had covered many of the issues, He stated he empathized with the citizens who would like to see less development or growth which Would impact them. Commissioner McMillon stated he thinks this is a good development with the best potential and with the highest valued housing. He stated the topography on this piece of property is tough and the easy plots have been developed. He stated that regarding the drainage concerns, he thinks Ms. Baxter feels comfortable working with the hydraulic study and getting the actual impacts on that creek and he thinks that those impacts will be mitigated through their design. He recommended going forward to City Council with approval. Commissioner McNeese stated the problem he had with this package was the drainage but that he did not know the impact it had on down the stream. He stated that considering what had been said this evening, he honestly believes the City has the professional staff in place who know the concerns the Commission has, but until the hydraulic study has been done what the impact would be and how that would work remain to be seen. He stated he is confident the project will happen and he can support this project assuming all the issues on the drainage that are still in concept are worked out. He stated he thinks a lot of the concerns will be worked out feasibly and still allow a viable residential neighborhood that will provide overall benefit to the City, Commissioner McNeese stated he has a concern regarding transformers being placed in the front of the properties and that his recommendation would be with the condition that these transformers be placed on the back of the lots. Mr. Bass stated that TXU Electric has been pushing the developers to place the transformers up front but that staff is opposed to that. Commissioner McNeese asked Mr. Norton if he had any idea if two story homes would be in this project. Mr. Norton answered they are working closely with staff to do building lines and trying to make it to where he can vary it. He stated his intention is to have single and two story homes mixed to give the street elevation and the whole community character. Commissioner McNeese stated he would agree with the comment that Commissioner Owens made about not having access to the property. He stated he could support the plan with the understanding that the drainage is still conceptual even though he thinks it is a mistake for future developments. He stated he agreed with the homeowners regarding a 6 feet fence not keeping anybody off the property. Commissioner McNeese asked if staff had given consideration to a different type of fencing in the back. Mr. Bass stated that building code only requires a 6 feet wood fence between two existing PLANNING AND ZONING CC MAMISSIO V PAGE 8 MINUTES OF August'!7; 9989 R-1 single family properties, but that the Commission had the latitude in this PD to request or require more. Ms. Baxter pointed out to the Commission that they also have the latitude to restrict the fence to not have any gates in the back. Commissioner Owens asked if the applicant would oppose making it an 3 feet fence. Mr. Dorton stated that the cost is not that prohibitive whether it is a f or 3 feet fence. Commissioner Houk asked Carol Griffith, Planning Services Manager, for the size of the historic trees that were going to be designated [in the proposers tree ordinance]. Ms. Griffith answered 30 inches. Commissioner Houk stated there are 153 oak trees on this property according to this plan and it looked like only 56 of those trees would stay but most of those are small; therefore, she wondered how flexible the City's street requirements are and if it was possible to re-design the project in such a way that some of the larger trees would be saved. Mr. Bass stated that there is always that possibility but that density is last as well as lots. He stated that he had seen several layouts where the developers sought maximum density but that he would be surprised if this project could be re-designed to impact the loss of trees and still have near the density shown on that plan. Commissioner Houk stated she would like to see a plan that says how the trees would be preserved. Commissioner Owens stated he could not support this project unless the fence was an 8 feet fence and unless it went to the end of Lot 4, Commissioner Bright stated that after listening to the applicant and the other Commissioners, finding out that the proposed homes would be nice and that the City staff would not let the applicant have any drainage problems, and knowing that not all the trees would be cut down, she could support this project, Mr. Weiss stated that there are some beautiful trees on that property and that he felt the City was being hypocritical because it has a sign that says this is a tree town, but will snow down 200 or 300 trees to build more homes. He said he felt he was being railroaded and that if he has the right, he will try to stop the City from gutting down all those trees. Commissioner Owens told Mr. Weiss that if there is something he does not like to go ahead and tell City Council. Mr. McMillan asked what could be done to stop the trash from going in the lake because a dump is being created since not all the trash goes over the spillway. Ms, Baxter stated she did not believe a trash rack of any sort would help at the north property line, that perhaps something on }ash Lane easily accessible from the roadway would be better. She asked Mr. McMillan to get a group of horneowners together and meet with her to see how they could work out the trash problem together. Terry Taylor, 1602 Timberidge, Euless, Texas, stated that his horse is on the south side of the lake and that all he has across the street is an open field and he gets tired of looking at dead grass, therefore he is all for change. He stated that only one entrance PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 9 M#£!UTES OF August 17,15499 or access is proposed for this project which makes the guys on his side of the street like a back alley, Mr. Norton stated they are doing landscaping along the fence to soften it. Mr. Taylor asked if the brick wall that would be in front of his house would affect the flood plain. Ms. Baxter answered it Would have no hydraulic effect. Mr. Taylor stated he thought this project was a great idea. Mr. Winsper stated he is not against this project but that he would like to see some constraints on it. He stated no one had addressed what percentage of this development is green space and whether the creek is included in that. Mr. Spiars asked if he was talking about open space or green space. Mr. Winsper answered green space. Mr. Spiars answered 40 to 50%. Mr. Winsper then asked what about open access green space. Mr. Spiars answered perhaps 101/o of it had open access. Mr. Winsper asked what the City's requirement is. Mr, Bass answered there is no minimum requirement for open space. Mr. VVinsper stated regarding the fence across the back (north side of the property) that it was said earlier that the fence cannot be built across the creek but that is not true because it is done in every city across this country in various manners like wrought iron and that in his opinion the access from gate to lake should be restricted. Commissioner Owens advised Mr. Winsper to get homeowners together to meet with It Baxter within the next two weeks to place a proposal before Council, Commissioner Bright stated that she thought the Commission had done what they could do, that the City Council can make a lot of changes that the Commission as a recommending body cannot do, and that the members of the audience needed to be there September 14. She stated there would not be a mailed notification for that meeting. Commissioner Bright asked for a motion. Commissioner Owens moved to approve Planned Development Case #99-03-PD as presented, with the following conditions.- 1. That all wood fences be 8 feet with metal posts. 2. That the Engineering staff be authorized to work with the developer, after receiving a hydraulic study, on what is best for the channel, using the Tipton Engineering letter sent July 2, 1999, as guidelines 3. That the brick fence shown on the elevation/landscape detail along Ash Lane be extended to Lot 4. 4, That all above ground franchise utility appurtenances be located on the rear of all lots throughout the development Commissioner McNeese seconded the motion. Commissioner Houk requested the following amendment to the motion: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 10 MINUTES OF August 1%. 1 +99 That any tree 30" or larger be preserved and that we would come up with a defined tree preservation plan. Commissioner Owens stated that until the City has a strong tree ordinance, he did not think the City should penalize one developer over another. He said he philosophically agreed but could not accept the amendment. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Commissioners Bright, McNeese, Owens, McMillon Nays: Commissioner Houk The motion carried. ITEM 3 REPORTS There was no report. ITEM 4 DIRECTOR'S REPORT There was no report. There being no further business, Commissioner Bright adjourned the meeting at 9:10P.m, f 11�/2-/'Z?91 -- Commission4 Robert ltJl(Ullon, Date Acting Chairman