Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-03-01 Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission March 1 , 1977 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Euless City Hall by Chairman Tyson. Other members present were Messrs. Dick Wells, Troy Fuller, Neal Adams, Sam Munir, and Mrs. Helen Lightbody. (Absent was Mr. Robert Johnson. ) Also present were Director of Public Works Jack Bullard and Recording Secretary Becky Gunter. VISITORS Visitors in attendance were Councilman Glenn Walker and Mrs. Kay Bullard. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Mr. Adams. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Wells made a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting dated February 1 , 1977, as written. Mr. Fuller seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Wells, Fuller, Adams, Tyson, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. Mr. Adams made a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting dated February 15, 1977, as written. Mrs. Lightbody seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Mr. Adams, Mrs. Lightbody, Messrs. Wells, Fuller, Tyson, and Munir. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. (Page Two, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 1 , 1977) CONTINUATION OF PROPOSED AMEND- MENTS TO ORDINANCE NO. 347 SECTION 7-1002(21) Mr. Bullard stated the proposed amendment would remove item twenty-one, Library, Art Gallery or Museum, Public, from the Specific Use Schedule and place it in "C-2" zoning. Mr. Wells asked what the reason would be to restrict a library, art gallery or museum to "C-2". Mr. Bullard stated the proposed change would remove some of the restrictiveness. Chairman Tyson asked Mr. Bullard if he knows the reason it was first placed in the Specific Use Schedule. Mr. Bullard stated he does not. Mr. Munir asked why the proposed zoning is "C-2". Mr. Bullard stated "C-2" is proposed because that is the highest zone in which it is permitted in the Specific Use Schedule. However, this is merely a suggested zone in an attempt to remove it from the Specific Use Schedule. Chairman Tyson asked what the definition is of an art gallery. Mr. Wells stated an art gallery, as defined on page fifty-two of the zoning ordinance, is any institution for the loan or display of books, objects of art or science which is sponsored by a public or responsible quasi-public agency and which institution is open and available to the general public. Mr. Adams stated a quasi-public agency would be a non-profit organization such as the Ford Foundation. It would not be a retail outlet. Mr. Bullard stated items may be borrowed from the art gallery or museum; however, there will be no money transacted. Therefore, the type of business will be limited. Mr. Adams stated it is his opinion that this type category would be better suited for "C-1". Mr. Wells stated he would like for it to be placed in"R-1 ". Chairman Tyson stated this could cause a traffic problem. (Page Three, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 1 , 1977) Mr. Adams stated there may be problems if uses such as this are allowed in "R-1" which is primarily designed for residential type structures. Mr. Wells stated he would like to see it stay in the Specific Use Schedule with the permitted districts including "R-1" as the City could not afford to purchase commercial property to build a library or art gallery if they so desired. Mr. Bullard stated he does not feel "R-1" would be desirable; however "R-3" may be acceptable. Mr. Wells stated the reason he suggests "R-1" is because there is not much land zoned "R-3" or higher that is not in use and there is an abundance of "R-1" zoned property. Mr. Bullard stated in his opinion, the desirable location for a library, art gallery or museum is not in "R-1" because it creates traffic. Mr. Adams made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Section 7-1002(21 ) to remove it from the Specific Use Schedule and place it in "C-1" zoning. Chairman Tyson stated he would like the motion to be amended to "C-2" zoning because of the possible traffic generated from a large museum or library. Mr. Fuller stated there is a lot of "R-3", "R-4", and "R-5" zoned property along Hwy. 183 that would be a good location for a library or museum. A good location would be next to an apartment on a highway. Chairman Tyson stated there may be some apartments in another part of town that may not be a desirable location. The zone should not be determined based on existing uses and zones; the use should be placed in the zone considered most appropriate. If it is placed in "C-2", and the property on which someone desires to build a library or museum is not zoned "C-2", a zoning change could be requested. Mr. Adams stated the purpose of removing it from the Specific Use Schedule is to allow the construction of a library or museum without a public hearing. Chairman Tyson stated a problem with this would be that there would be no guarantee that the property would be utilized for a library or museum and not other commercial uses. Mr. Adams stated "R-3" or "R-5" districts are normally readily suited for commercial businesses. (Page Four, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 1 , 1977) Mr. Wells asked if the ordinance could be amended to allow item twenty-one in "C-1" or "C-2" but require a Specific Use Permit for districts lower than "C-1". Mr. Bullard stated a request could be made for rezoning rather than require a Specific Use Permit. Chairman Tyson asked if it could be in "C-1" zoning and also in the Specific Use Schedule. Mr. Bullard stated it could be placed in "C-1" and require a Specific Use Permit for "R-1", "R-2", "R-3", "R-4", and "R-5H. Mr. Wells stated the public would respond more favorably to a request for a Specific Use Permit for a library, art gallery or museum rather than a change of zoning which would not limit the use to a library, art gallery or museum. Mr. Adams amended his motion to allow item twenty-one, Library, Art Gallery or Museum, Public, in "C-1" zoning, however have it remain in the Specific Use Schedule for "R-1", "R-2", "R-3", "R-4", and HR_511. Chairman Tyson stated this would allow a large museum next to "R-5" and he is concerned about the amount of traffic resulting from this. IC: Mr. Bullard stated a museum or art gallery probably would not be open at night. Chairman Tyson stated he is not necessarily referring to night time. Mr. Bullard stated the heavier traffic flow is in the commercial districts and there would be a Specific Use Permit required in lesser zonings, therefore allowing control . Mr. Munir seconded Mr. Adams' motion as amended and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Adams, Munir, Wells, Fuller, Tyson, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. SECTION 7-1002(22) 1 Mr. Bullard stated the next item is item twenty-two, Lodge or Fraternal Organization. The proposed change would remove it from the Specific Use Schedule and place it in "C-2" zoning. if ilw 1 (Page Five, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 1 , 1977) Mr. Fuller made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Section 7-1002(22) as presented. Mrs. Lightbody seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Mr. Fuller, Mrs. Lightbody, Messrs. Wells, Adams, Tyson, and Munir. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. SECTION 7-1002(24) Mr. Bullard stated the proposed amend- ment to item twenty-four, School , Business, would remove it from the Specific Use Schedule and place it in "C-2" zoning. Mr. Wells made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Section 7-1002(24) as presented. Mr. Adams seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Wells, Adams, Fuller, Tyson, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. SECTION 7-1002(25) Mr. Bullard stated the proposed amend- ment to item twenty-five, School , Commercial , Trade, would remove it from the Specific Use Schedule and place it in "C-2" zoning. Mr. Adams asked what the difference is between items twenty-four and twenty-five. Mr. Bullard stated at a business school , a student would normally be in a classroom, such as a typing or bookkeeping school , whereas, a trade school would include a body shop or welding school . He stated garages are now in "C-2" and there would not be much difference. Mr. Munir made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Section 7-1002(25) as presented. Mr. Fuller seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Munir, Fuller, Wells, Adams, Tyson, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. (Page Six, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 1 , 1977) SECTION 7-1002(27) Mr. Bullard stated item twenty-seven is Mortuary, Animal Clinic or Hospital and this is recommended to be removed from the Specific Use Schedule and be placed in "C-2". He stated most of the animal clinics are now in "C-2". Chairman Tyson asked what the definition is of an animal clinic. He stated most animal clinics have boarding rooms for animals. He asked what kind of control the City has regarding odors caused by the clinic. Mr. Adams stated there is an animal clinic on Brown Trail that is next to an office building and there is no problem. Mr. Bullard stated a veterinary clinic is allowed in "C-2" without a Specific Use Permit provided animals are not kept over-night. This would prevent a veterinary clinic from also operating a kennel to board dogs. Mr. Adams suggested placing item twenty- seven in "C-2" but with no outside runs. Mr. Bullard stated this would be appropriate. Mr. Adams made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Section 7-1002(27) , however, amend it to read Mortuary, Animal Clinic (no outside runs) or Hospital . Mr. Fuller seconded the motion. Chairman Tyson stated he is concerned about the odor; can the type of structure be restricted so as not to allow an odor from the animals. Mr. Bullard stated if the odor is bad, the animal clinic can be closed with the aid of the Health Department. Chairman Tyson stated he is in favor of having an animal clinic remain in the Specific Use Schedule to restrict the area in which they are located. Mr. Wells asked what the difference is between item twenty-seven, Mortuary, Animal Clinic or Hospital , and item twenty- nine, Animal Clinic or Hospital or Kennel (Outside Runs) . Mr. Bullard stated outside runs are allowed in item twenty-nine and not in twenty-seven. Mr. Munir asked if "Hospital" in items twenty-seven and twenty-nine should be changed to "Animal Hospital". Mr. Bullard stated that rather than use the word "animal" twice, "or" was used. (Page Seven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 1 , 1977) Mr. Adams amended his motion to read Mortuary, Animal Clinic or Hospital (no outside runs) . The vote on Mr. Adams' motion as amended is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Adams, Fuller, Wells, Tyson, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. SECTION 7-1002(29) Mr. Bullard stated item twenty-nine, Animal Clinic or Hospital or Kennel (outside runs) , is recommended to be removed from the Specific Use Schedule and placed in " I -2", Heavy Industrial . Mr. Fuller made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Section 7-1002(29) as presented. Mr. Munir seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Fuller, Munir, Wells, Tyson, Adams, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None C Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. SECTION 7-1002(30) Mr. Bullard stated item thirty, Animal Pound, Public or Private, is recommended to be removed from the Specific Use Schedule and placed in "C-2". Mr. Wells made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Section 7-1002(30) , however, amended to include "no outside runs". Mr. Adams seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Wells, Adams, Fuller, Tyson, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. Mrs. Lightbody stated this will allow a private animal pound next to a Stop ' N Go store. She suggested deleting private animal pounds from item thirty. 4 (Page Eight, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 1 , 1977) Mr. Adams made a motion to delete "or Private" from item thirty. Mr. Fuller seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Adams, Fuller, Wells, Tyson, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. SECTION 7-1002(31 ) Mr. Bullard stated item thirty-one, Garden Shop and Plant Sales, is recommended to be removed from the Specific Use Schedule and placed in "C-2". Mr. Adams asked if it could be placed in "C-1" rather than "C-2". Mr. Wells stated a large, outside garden shop may cause problems in a Neighborhood Business District. Mr. Fuller made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Section 7-1002(31 ) as presented. Mr. Adams seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Fuller, Adams, Wells, Tyson, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. SECTION 7-1002(46) Mr. Bullard stated item forty-six, Heliport, is recommended to be removed from the Specific Use Schedule and placed in "C-2". He stated as the ordinance is written now, a helicopter cannot land without having a public hearing to grant approval . Chairman Tyson stated he is not certain a public hearing should not be required as helicopters generate a lot of noise. Mr. Bullard stated helicopters are allowed to land at Western Hills Inn and Passport Inn. Chairman Tyson stated there is nothing surrounding these locations that could be damaged by the helicopter noise. Mr. Bullard stated the surrounding property is "C-2". (Page Nine, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 1 , 1977) Mr. Adams stated some areas in "C-2" will be more applicable to heliports than others. Mr. Bullard stated it will depend on the location of the hotels and motels. Chairman Tyson stated there is property on South Ector zoned "C-2" that backs up to residential . Therefore, if a heliport is located there, there will be a noise problem for the neighboring houses. Mr. Bullard stated item forty-six is not an airport but a heliport, a place for a helicopter to land and let passengers out. Chairman Tyson stated they can come every five minutes to let passengers off if they so desire. Mr. Bullard stated it becomes an airport when there is a schedule. Chairman Tyson stated he is not certain of the difference between an airport and heliport. Mr. Bullard suggested making it a heliport for hotel or motel service. Chairman Tyson stated he feels heliports should remain in the Specific Use Schedule to prevent a heliport from going in where it would not be appropriate. Mr. Bullard stated the only reason there would be for a heliport would be to pick passengers up to take them to another location; or bring them in from another location. Therefore, he sees no other use for a heliport other than at a hotel or motel . Chairman Tyson stated there could be a heliport with only a parking place for the passenger and not necessarily be at a hotel or motel . Mr. Adams made a motion to delete item forty-six, Heliport, from the proposed amendments and have it remain in the Specific Use Schedule. Mr. Fuller seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Adams, Fuller, Wells, Tyson, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. (Page Ten, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 1 , 1977) SECTION 7-1002(1 ) (2) (3) (4)&(5) Mr. Bullard stated the next five items are items to be added to the Specific Use Schedule. They are (1 ) Topless Employee Establishments; (2) X-rated Movies; (3) Nude Employee Establishments; (4) Massage Parlors; and (5) Porno, Book or Artical Store. The permissive district for items one, three, four, and five is "C-2" and the permissive district for item two is " I -1". Mr. Wells made a request that the City Attorney write a definition for these items to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Chairman Tyson suggested tabling these items until a definition is furnished to be sure the definition written is what is desired. Mr. Wells stated he would be willing to let the City Council decide if the definition is adequate or not. Mr. Bullard stated it is his opinion that a definition definitely should be included for consideration. However, he feels something should be established at this time to give the attorney something to put a definition on. Chairman Tyson stated they will have to tell the attorney what they want the definitions to include. Mr. Bullard stated if there is a definite requirement to be included in the definition, it should be included in the motion. Mr. Wells asked what is now in the ordinance concerning these items. Mr. Bullard stated there is nothing at this time in the ordinance. He stated he recommends "C-2" for topless employee establishments because this is the zoning restaurants are already in and would allow an existing restaurant to change over to topless employees without requiring the zoning to be changed, but would require a public hearing for a Specific Use Permit. Mr. Wells asked why X-rated movies are recommended for " I -1" zoning and the other items are recommended for "C-2" zoning. Mr. Bullard stated the type of business that items one, three, four, and five would go into are already existing in the "C-2" district. (Page Eleven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 1 , 1977) Mr. Adams stated an existing restaurant that wanted to go topless would be required to obtain a Specific Use Permit. Mr. Bullard stated this is correct; this is the purpose of placing it in the Specific Use Schedule. A restaurant can go topless now without any type of control by the City. Mr. Adams stated an existing restaurant in "C-2" would be required to obtain a change of zoning to " I-1" if a topless employee establishment was required to be in " I -1". Mr. Bullard stated this is correct; however, a public hearing would be required either with the Specific Use Permit or the change of zoning. Mr. Adams made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Section 7-1002; the addition of (1 ) Topless employee establishments in "C-2"; (2) X-rated Movies in " I -1"; (3) Nude Employee Establishments in "C-2"; (4) Massage Parlors in "C-2" ; and (5) Porno, Book or Artical Store in "C-2", provided however, that items one through five be referred to the City Attorney to develop appropriate definitions. Mr. Fuller seconded the motion. Chairman Tyson stated there is a difference between X-rated and triple X-rated movies as regular movie theaters show X-rated movies. Mr. Bullard stated he believes this is correct; it should be triple X-rated movies. Mr. Wells stated the motion picture board has four categories and "X" is the highest. Therefore, the purpose of a triple X-rated rating is for advertisement. Chairman Tyson asked if X-rated movies could be restricted from neighborhood and community type theaters. Mr. Adams stated it would be necessary to have the definition of an X-rated movie refer to the advertising ratings. Mr. Wells stated they are not advertising ratings, they are officially designated categories established by the Motion Picture Board. Therefore, the word "advertising" should be deleted. Chairman Tyson asked if the Motion Picture Board' s X-rated movies should be allowed in the neighborhood theaters. Mr. Adams stated they should not be allowed in the neighborhood theaters. (Page Twelve, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 1 , 1977) Chairman Tyson stated he thought movies were rated "X" for reasons other than nudity. Mr. Adams stated they may also be rated "X" because of vulgarity and violence. Chairman Tyson stated he would be in favor of allowing an X-rated movie to be shown in neighborhood theaters. Mr. Wells stated an X-rated movie is not necessarily a pornographic movie, but most of the time, it will be. Chairman Tyson stated if the Motion Picture Industry allows R-rated or X-rated, they should be allowed. Mr. Adams stated they do not control , they merely rate the movies. Mr. Wells stated he does not believe the movies shown at adult movie houses are rated by the Motion Picture Board. Mr. Adams stated he feels the definition of X-rated movies should follow that put out by the rating board; however, not apply only to movies rated by that board. Mr. Wells stated the difference between an X-rated and R-rated movie is that under eighteen are not allowed in an X-rated movie and they are allowed with a parent or guardian in an R-rated movie. Chairman Tyson asked what the difference is between X-rated and triple X-rated movies. Mr. Wells stated the only difference would be for advertising. Mr. Bullard stated adult movies should be added because they are not rated by the movie rating board. Mr. Wells stated the definition the City Attorney develops should include adult movies. Mr. Adams amended his motion subject to approval of the definitions presented by the City Attorney. Chairman Tyson requested Mr. Adams to repeat his motion as amended. Mr. Adams stated his motion was to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section 7-1002, items one through five; however, that the City Attorney is to develop definitions for each of the critical words in those five categories and that approval is subject to the review and adoption of the definitions. (Page Thirteen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 1 , 1977) The vote on Mr. Adams' motion as amended is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Adams, Wells, Fuller, Tyson, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. SECTION 7-1002(6) (7) (8)&(9) Mr. Bullard asked if there are other items the Planning and Zoning Commission would like to add to the Specific Use Schedule. The addition of new and used car sales, trailer sales, and recreational vehicle sales has been discussed. Chairman Tyson stated mobile home sales was also discussed. Mr. Adams made a motion to amend Section 7-1002 to include new and used car sales, trailer sales, mobile home sales, and recreational vehicle sales in "C-2" zoning. Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Chairman Tyson asked what effect this would have on service stations that have cars parked on their lot that are for sale. Mr. Bullard stated a definition of a car lot would need to be written to determine how many cars for sale constitute a car lot. Mr. Wells stated all of the service stations are located in "C-2". Chairman Tyson stated this would require a Specific Use Permit to sell the cars. Mr. Bullard stated the probable number of cars to constitute a car lot would be three. Therefore, a service station or individual will be allowed to display up to three cars for sale on their property without the Specific Use Permit. Mr. Wells asked if a Specific Use Permit is necessary. Mr. Adams stated a Specific Use Permit would prevent a mobile home park or recreational vehicle park from being erected on unpaved land with unsatisfactory lighting or other facilities. Chairman Tyson asked what the permissive zoning is at this time for the sale of trailers or mobile homes. (Page Fourteen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 1 , 1977) Mr. Bullard stated it is not in a zoning district. Mr. Wells stated "C-2" does not allow outdoor sales. Mr. Bullard stated an auto sales agency and repair work, provided, that storage facilities shall be purely incidental to the principal use; and provided further, that the area allowed for the repair of cars shall be within an enclosed building is allowed in "C-2". Mr. Wells stated this does not state cars cannot be located outside. Chairman Tyson stated auto sales is in "C-2" zoning at this time. He asked Mr. Bullard if an ordinance with sales lot requirements is being written. Mr. Bullard stated the specifications for the sales lot could be required with the Specific Use Permit; there is not an ordinance for this being written at this time. Chairman Tyson stated without the requirement of a Specific Use Permit, there is no control . Mr. Bullard stated this is correct; however, one of the items to be discussed concerns parking requirements. Mr. Adams stated the parking require- ments would not effect the parking of cars for sale. Mr. Bullard stated the restriction would be on the amount of land required to park. Mr. Adams stated there is no control on car sales at this time and would like to have it placed in the Specific Use Schedule. Chairman Tyson asked Mr. Adams to repeat his motion. Mr. Adams stated his motion was to amend Section 7-1002 to include new and used car sales, trailer sales, mobile home sales, and recreational vehicle sales in "C-2" zoning. Chairman Tyson asked if a definition should be written for car sales. Mr. Adams stated he does not think it is necessary as the motion reads car sales and not car lot. Chairman Tyson stated this would require a Specific Use Permit for the sale of even one vehicle. (Page Fifteen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 1 , 1977) Mr. Adams stated he thinks it should be required for one vehicle. Mr. Bullard stated it will be difficult to enforce in residential areas. Mr. Adams stated this would allow action to be taken if necessary. The vote on Mr. Adams' motion is as follows: Ayes : Messrs. Adams, Wells, Fuller, Tyson, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. SECTION 8-200 and 8-300 Mr. Bullard stated Section 8-200 is the schedule of minimum off-street parking for single-family, two-family, and multiple-family dwellings in residential districts. He stated the amended schedule would require two paved parking spaces in R-1 , R-2, R-3, R-4, and R-5 per single-family dwelling (detached) , single-family dwelling (attached) , two-family dwelling (per unit) , and multiple-family dwelling (per unit) . The schedule now requires one parking space in R-1 , R-2, R-3, and R-4 per single- family dwelling (detached) and single family dwelling (attached) . In R-2, one parking space is required per two-family dwelling space per dwelling unit; in R-3 and R-4, two parking spaces are required for two-family dwelling space per dwelling unit. In R-3 and R-4, two parking spaces are required per multiple- family dwelling space per dwelling unit. Therefore, the recommended change would require two spaces per unit in all zoning districts from R-1 to R-5 for residential dwelling. Mr. Wells stated this is already in the ordinance as amended by Ordinance No. 509. Mr. Bullard stated he would like to maintain the same format as is in the Zoning Ordinance and make the changes from it. Mr. Adams asked if the new ordinance had this same format. Mr. Wells stated the purpose of the new amendment was to clarify the ordinance and bring it up to date. Section 8-200 and 8-300 were consolidated into one paragraph and the other paragraph added deals with existing structures. (Page Sixteen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 1 , 1977) Chairman Tyson asked what difference in off-street parking there would be whether the garage is attached or detached. Mr. Bullard recommended appealing Ordinance No. 509, and making the necessary amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Adams made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Sections 8-200 and 8-300 as presented. Mr. Fuller seconded the motion. Chairman Tyson asked what is being deleted in Section 8-300. Mr. Bullard stated Section 8-300 is a schedule of minimum off-street parking for single-family, two-family and multiple- family dwellings in non-residential districts. This is recommended to be deleted as residential dwellings are not allowed in commercial zoning. The vote on Mr. Adams' motion is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Adams, Fuller, Wells, Tyson, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. SECTION 8-501 Mr. Bullard stated Section 8-501 is special off-street parking provisions in residential districts. He stated Section 8-501 now states that no required off-street parking space shall be located in the required front yard in any singe-family, two-family or multiple- family, or mobile home districts. The proposed change would be as follows : (1) No required off-street parking space shall be located in the required front yard in any Single-Family, Two-Family, or Multiple-Family dwelling district constructed after October 1 , 1976. (2) Each single-family, two-family dwelling shall have two covered and surfaced parking spaces connected to the street by an all weather surface, either car ports or double garages or a combination thereof. Mr. Adams asked if there has been any construction since October 1 , 1976. Mr. Bullard stated there has been. Mr. Wells asked why October 1 , 1976 was chosen. (Page Seventeen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 1 , 1977) Mr. Bullard stated this was the approximate date that he began work on the proposed amendments. Mr. Wells stated that officially the date would have to be the date of the ordinance. He stated that Ordinance No. 509 allows off-street parking in the front yard. Mr. Bullard stated this is correct. Mr. Wells stated it is allowed in new and existing houses. Mr. Bullard stated this was in conflict with the Police Ordinance. Chairman Tyson asked what this would do to a house with no garage. Mr. Bullard stated if the house was built before October 1 , 1976, it does not apply. Mr. Munir asked if item two should be first and then item one. Item two states the requirement and item one is the exception. Mr. Bullard stated it should be reversed. Chairman Tyson asked if a garage would be required if he closed in his garage and his house was built prior to October 1 , 1976. Mr. Bullard stated a garage would not be required. Mr. Wells stated the opinion of the Code and Ordinance Committee was that if a citizen wanted to close in his garage, he should be able to do so and park in the driveway. Chairman Tyson asked when the side yard requirement was put in. Mr. Wells stated it has been in effect quite some time. Chairman Tyson asked if the date should be changed to the date of the side yard requirement rather than October 1 , 1976. Mr. Bullard stated there could be no control over the construction that took place that long ago; they will only be able to control what is being constructed now. (Page Eighteen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 1 , 1977) Mr. Adams stated that paragraph one states there will be no requirement for off-street parking. Mr. Bullard stated this is correct. The ordinance approved before, allowed off-street parking in the front yard because there was not access to the back yard. Mr. Wells stated the purpose of allowing parking in the front yard was to allow a citizen to close in his garage. He stated the problem was that the ordinance was not restrictive enough; there was not a restriction on what could be parked there and the number. Mr. Bullard stated the Police Ordinance has a requirement on the number allowed. Chairman Tyson stated if the garage was closed in, a covered car port or garage would be required even if it was not used. Mr. Bullard stated this would apply only to new houses. If a house was built before October 1 , 1976, and the owner wanted to close in the garage, it would be allowed. Mr. Adams stated that item two states the required parking must be covered. Mr. Bullard stated this only applies to new houses constructed after October 1 , 1976. Mr. Wells stated the Code and Ordinance Committee wanted to require all new houses to have either a two car garage or covered car port of the same architectural design. There would not be a restriction preventing a citizen from closing in the garage and parking in the driveway. He could close in the garage as soon as he buys it. There would be a restriction preventing trailers, boats, or more than two vehicles to be parked in the front yard. Mr. Bullard stated this is not an ordinance to reinforce parking in the front yard; it is an ordinance for construction. Mr. Wells stated the ordinance now does not allow a garage to be closed in unless another covered parking area is provided. Mr. Bullard stated he thinks a covered parking area should be required. Mr. Wells stated the Code and Ordinance Committee wanted to require new houses to have double garages. Therefore, if they do close in the garage, there would still be the double car drive way to park in. (Page Nineteen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 1 , 1977) Chairman Tyson stated there could be a requirement of a parking area in the back yard that does not have to be covered and that each single-family or two-family dwelling shall have two surface parking spaces. Mr. Wells read from the July 15, 1976 Code and Ordinance Committee minutes regarding Section 8-300 as follows: "After a discussion it was decided that in Single-Family and Two- Family Districts, two parking spaces should be required and that they be either covered or enclosed. It was agreed that the proposed amendments should accomplish the following: 1 . Allow the citizens of Euless who have already closed in their garages to be in compliance with the ordinance. 2. Insure that all new buildings in the City of Euless have either a two car enclosed or covered parking area behind the building line. 3. If a citizen wishes to take action that will not allow him to use the enclosed or covered parking area behind the building line, it will be permissible to use the front driveway for the required parking. 4. Prohibit non-passenger or inoperative vehicles from parking in the front yard at any time." Chairman Tyson stated the builder is required to build a garage or covered parking and he feels that if the owner wishes to close it in and not have a garage, he should be allowed to do so. Mr. Bullard stated a new paragraph could be added stating "all homeowners shall be permitted permits to enclose garages or car ports. Chairman Tyson stated a builder is a homeowner. Mr. Wells stated it could be changed to read all new buildings will be constructed with two off-street parking spaces behind the building line and then delete any terminology that would require a continuation of that requirement after the home is built. He stated Section 8-200 requires two off-street parking spaces and if there is a requirement that a house be constructed with a two car parking area behind the building line, there will be a two car driveway. (Page Twenty, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 1 , 1977) Mr. Bullard stated paragraph two could be changed to read "Each single-family, two-family dwelling shall be constructed with two covered and surfaced parking spaces connected to the street by an all weather surface, either car ports or double garages or a combination thereof." Chairman Tyson stated it would be necessary to delete item one if this was done because item one does not allow off-street parking in the required front yard. Mr. Adams suggested deleting item one and changing item two as follows: "Each newly constructed single-family, two- family dwelling shall have two covered and surfaced parking spaces connected to the street by an all weather surface, either car ports or double garages or a combination thereof after October 1 , 1976; however, this would not restrict enclosure of car ports or double garages after completion of construction." Mr. Wells suggested changing it to read as follows: "After October 1 , 1976, each newly constructed single-family, two-family dwelling shall have two covered and surfaced parking spaces behind the building line connected to the street by an all weather surface, either car ports or double garages or a combination thereof; however, this would not restrict the enclosure of car ports or double garages after completion of construction. Mr. Adams made a motion to delete paragraph one of the proposed amendment to Section 8-501 and maintain paragraph two as follows: Each newly constructed single-family, two-family dwelling shall have two covered and surfaced parking spaces behind the building line connected to the street by an all weather surface, either car ports or double garages or a combination thereof; however, after completion of construction, enclosure of car ports or double garages will not be restricted. Mr. Fuller seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Adams, Fuller, Wells, Tyson, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. SECTION 8-502 Mr. Bullard stated Section 8-502 is special off-street parking in non-residential districts. The proposed amend- ment adds a chart with the minimum parking area requirements for typical parking angles. Mr. Adams asked who developed the chart. (Page Twenty-One, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 1 , 1977) Mr. Bullard stated the chart came from the City of Arlington. Chairman Tyson asked if anyone has checked to see if the City of Arlington has had any problems with the use of the chart. Mr. Bullard stated the City of Arlington has had no problems with the use of the chart. Mr. Fuller made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Section 8-502 as presented. Mr. Adams seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Fuller, Adams, Wells, Tyson, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. SECTION 8-500(1) Mr. Wells stated item one of Section 8-500 would need to be amended if Ordinance No. 509 is repealed. Mr. Wells made a motion to amend Section 8-500(1 ) to add to the last sentence; however, this does not apply to the "R-1" zoning district. Mr. Fuller seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Wells, Fuller, Adams, Tyson, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. II . ORDINANCE NO. 509 Mr. Wells made a motion to repeal Ordinance No. 509. Mr. Fuller seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Wells, Fuller, Adams, Tyson, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. (Page Twenty-Two, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, March 1 , 1977) III . ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. () APPROVED gliiie-p...,