Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-02-15 C Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 1977 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:40 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Euless City Hall by Chairman Tyson. Other members present were Messrs. Dick Wells, Troy Fuller, Neal Adams, Robert Johnson, and Mrs. Helen Lightbody. (Absent was Mr. Sam Munir.) Also present were Director of Public Works Jack Bullard and Recording Secretary Becky Gunter. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Mr. Wells. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Tyson requested more details be OF added to the February 1 , 1977 minutes. The tape of the February 1 , 1977 meeting has been erased. Therefore, further details cannot be furnished. CONTINUATION OF PROPOSED AMEND- MENTS TO ORDINANCE NO. 347 Mr. Bullard reviewed the previous amendments to Ordinance No. 347 discussed at the February 1 , 1977 meeting. He stated the recommendation for the minimum lot area as set forth in Section 7-102(4) to be changed from 7,500 square feet to 8,250 square feet was not approved; the recommendation that the minimum lot width as set forth in Section 7-102(5) to be changed from sixty-five (65) feet to seventy-five (75) feet was approved ; the recommendation that the floor area as set forth in Section 7-102(7) to be changed from 1 , 100 square feet to 1 ,250 square feet was approved ; the recommendation for a new section, Section 7-106 "Construction Requirements" was approved ; and the exception for Section 7-106 was deleted. Chairman Tyson stated he would like for the minutes to state that it is possible to vary from the requirement in Section 7-106 of 50% masonry veneer on exterior walls by going to the Board of Adjustment and, therefore the exception is not necessary. Mr. Bullard stated an appeal can be made to the Board of Adjustment for variation. (Page Two, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 15, 1977) SECTION 7-312 Mr. Bullard stated the next proposed change is in Section 7-312. The proposed amendment would delete item one of Section 7-312 "Parking", therefore changing the parking requirement in "R-5" zoning from one (1 ) parking space for each 500 feet of floor area, with a minimum of spaces per unit and a maximum of 2'—z spaces per unit to two parking spaces per unit as is required in "R-3" and "R-4" zoning districts. As it is now, there is more parking required in the lesser zoning districts which are a lower denisty. Therefore, a developer may request a change of zoning to "R-5" to allow less parking. Chairman Tyson asked if high density apartments are usually smaller than lower density apartments. Mr. Bullard stated there are more small apartments in the area, however, they are restricted to a certain number of units per acre so an acre of ground cannot be overloaded with all single family units or efficiency units. Chairman Tyson stated he was not sure two parking spaces are necessary in efficiency apartments. Mr. Bullard stated that in all of the units in the City, there are not too many parking spaces. Mr. Wells stated this is one of the I06, recommendations that resulted from the Code and Ordinance Committee. Mr. Adams stated that even if there is only one person living in the apartment, if there are visitors, the other parking space will be needed. Mr. Wells stated a requirement of a certain amount of storage area could be considered. Mr. Fuller stated he does not agree to the requirement of a storage area; that it should be a provision of the builder. Mr. Wells stated he is not recommending that a storage area be made a requirement. However, it would alleviate potential parking problems. Mr. Adams made a motion to recommend approval of the requirement of two (2) parking spaces per unit in "R-5" Multiple Family High Density Dwelling Districts. Mr. Fuller seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Adams, Fuller, Wells, Johnson, Tyson, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None 4 Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. (Page Three, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 15, 1977) Chairman Tyson stated that item one of Section 7-312 will be deleted to require the two (2) parking spaces per unit in "R-5". Mr. Bullard stated this is correct; that since two (2) parking spaces per unit are required in "R-3", this will also be the requirement in "R-5" if item one is deleted. SECTION 7-402(1 ) Mr. Bullard stated the P resent ordinance requires a minimum depth of twenty-five (25) feet from the property line to the face of a building in the "C-1" Neighborhood Business District. The proposed change would require only twenty (20) feet, which is the requirement in "C-2". This would make the requirements uniform in commercial districts. Mr. Wells stated if the requirements for "C-1" and "C-2" are the same, there will be no need for both zones. Mr. Bullard stated the uses will remain as they are; the only change will be in the set back requirement. Mr. Wells asked why the set back require- ments in "C-1" and "C-2" should be the same. Mr. Bullard asked why they should be different as the reason for the set back is for clearance from the street to the structure. This is done for site and safety and he sees no logical reason to make the requirements different. Mr. Adams asked what is the length of parking spaces. Mr. Bullard stated they are nine (9) feet by eighteen (18) feet. Mr. Johnson stated that with head-in parking, this leaves only two (2) feet from the bumper and he is not sure that the twenty (20) foot set back is adequate. Mr. Bullard stated the twenty (20) feet is just the set back to the building; it is not necessarily to the parking. Chairman Tyson asked why there was the change from twenty-five (25) feet to twenty (20) feet in "C-2". Mr. Bullard stated the way the ordinance was originally written, the set back in "C-2" was fifty-five (55) feet from the center of the street, which in some cases such as SH183, would allow the structure in the right-of-way. He assumed the "C-1" set back requirement was changed at the time it was changed in "C-2", however, it was not. He also proposes the same change in Industrial zoning as he can see no reason for there to be a difference. If all of the set back requirements are the same, it will 4 410 be easier for the City staff. (Page Four, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 15, 1977) Mrs. Lightbody asked why it was changed fir to twenty (20) feet rather than twenty-five (25) feet. Mr. Bullard stated twenty-five (25) feet would be a little more restrictive and, therefore the twenty (20) feet is more desirable to the builder. Chairman Tyson stated the purpose of the set back is to determine visibility. Mr. Bullard stated this is correct. Mr. Johnson stated twenty-five (25) feet would allow more visibility, and in a "C-1" zoning district he feels this would be better because it is a semi-neighborhood district, if the only purpose of the set back is visibility. Mr. Fuller asked if there are any examples of a twenty (20) foot set back. Mr. Bullard stated Taco Bell on SH183 has a twenty (20) foot set back. Chairman Tyson stated that with the ten (10) foot right-of-way and the twenty (20) foot set back, the structure would be thirty (30) feet from the street. Mr. Bullard stated this is correct; that with the proper right-of-way which is 92 feet, the building is 292 feet from the street. Chairman Tyson stated, therefore the actual distance in discussion is either thirty (30) feet or thirty-five (35) feet. Mr. Bullard stated he does not feel the five (5) feet difference is that great and would not object to it remaining twenty-five (25) feet; the main reason for the change is to make the ordinance uniform. Mr. Adams stated twenty (20) feet is less restrictive than twenty-five (25) feet, therefore giving the developer five (5) more feet to work with. He does not feel the extra five (5) feet would make that much difference in visibility since there is 92 feet required right- of-way. Chairman Tyson stated that if the developer wanted to put the parking area in the front, he feels the additional five (5) feet would be needed to allow more visibility. Mr. Adams stated that the building in which he is located is right on the building line. Chairman Tyson stated that the parking is on the side of this building. (Page Five, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 15, 1977) Mr. Adams stated that he does not feel having the parking in front would change visibility a great deal . Chairman Tyson stated it would not in this particular case but it could in other instances. Mr. Bullard stated that the parking could go either in the front or side with the twenty (20) or twenty-five (25) feet set back. Mr. Johnson stated that with the parking in front, the additional five (5) feet would give the necessary visibility to back out and turn around in the neighborhood business district. Mr. Bullard stated it makes it better for those backing out in the parking lot. Mr. Johnson stated this is correct; it gives them more visibility behind them and beside them. Mr. Bullard stated that as far as the obstruction of the building is concerned and the street visibility, there is not that much difference. Mr. Fuller stated that in parking lots such as McDonald' s, it allows another If car leverage on the lot. liw Mr. Wells stated he would be less objectionable to the twenty (20) foot set back if parking in front was not allowed. He stated one of the items considered by the Code and Ordinance Committee was the requirement of a green area in "C-2" if it is across the street from "R-1" or "R-2". However, if this is not required, it is his opinion that the set back be changed to twenty (20) feet to agree with the City staff. Mr. Fuller stated the cost is greater on buildings such as Westpark Professional Building and some developers may not want this much expense. Therefore, there needs to be a provision for less expensive structures. Mr. Johnson stated this is correct; a provision needs to be made for businesses such as Stop' N Go. Mr. Adams made a motion to recommend the set back requirement in Section 7-402(1 ) be changed from twenty-five (25) feet to twenty (20) feet. Mr. Wells seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Adams, Wells, Fuller, Tyson, Johnson, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. (Page Six, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 15, 1977) SECTION 7-402(3) (4)&(5) Mr. Bullard stated Section 7-402(3) pertains to dwellings in "C-1" business district which were deleted in the last change of the ordinance. However, reference to single family dwellings in "C-1" was not deleted, which is the purpose of the proposed change. He read Section 7-402(3) as follows: "No side yards are required in the "C-1" Neighborhood Business District except in instances where a building is erected or structurally altered for dwelling purposes, in which cases there shall be two (2) side yards, one on each side of the building, of not less than five (5) feet for each side. If property in the "C-1" District is not used for dwelling purposes, but abuts upon the side of a lot zoned for dwelling district purposes, there shall be allowed a minimum space of ten (10) feet in width between buildings; provided, however, that the side yard of the property zoned for "C-1" District shall not be required to exceed five (5) feet." Mr. Bullard stated the proposed change is as follows: "No side yards are required in the "C-1" Neighborhood Business District except in instances where the "C-1 " abut upon the side of a lot zoned for dwelling purposes, in which case, there shall be a five (5) foot set back requirement on the "C-1" property." Olf Mr. Wells stated that with the change, the ordinance would be much easier to understand and enforce. Chairman Tyson stated he is not certain that five (5) feet is adequate. Mr. Bullard stated the minimum set back in residential districts is five (5) feet. Chairman Tyson asked why the request is for five (5) feet. He asked Mr. Wells if there was some discussion in the Code and Ordinance Committee concerning this. Mr. Wells stated this is not one of the recommendations from the Code and Ordinance Committee. Mr. Bullard stated that this change, and the next several recommended changes were prepared by the staff in an effort to remove things remaining in the ordinance after it was amended that should also have been removed. He stated this will not be changing any of the other requirements; the only thing taken out will be the reference to dwellings in "C-1". Mr. Johnson asked what would happen if a building was erected next to "R-1" with the five (5) foot set back and the "R-1" was later zoned commercial , in which case, the five (5) foot set back would not 4 46., be necessary. (Page Seven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 15, 1977) Mr. Bullard stated it may be desired to change the lot line and join the two together by selling the five feet. Mr. Wells made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Section 7-402(3) as presented. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. He asked if an amendment could be made to Mr. Wells' motion to delete Sections 7-402(4) and 7-402(5) as they also make reference to dwellings in "C-1". Mr. Bullard stated items four and five refer to the lot area and lot width for dwellings in "C-1" and since dwellings are not allowed in "C-1" , he suggests the reference to the lot size be deleted. Chairman Tyson asked if there is a minimum lot width in commercial property. Mr. Bullard stated there is not; as long as they can meet the set back requirements and parking requirements, it can be of any width. Mr. Fuller asked what the minimum practical width of a commercial lot should be. Mr. Bullard stated the minimum width should be about fifteen or twenty feet and the depth should be about eighty- five feet. The vote on Mr. Wells ' motion as amended is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Wells, Johnson, Adams, Fuller, Tyson, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. SECTION 7-403 Mr. Bullard stated Section 7-403 presently reads as follows: "No building in the "C-1" Neighborhood Business District shall exceed the height of thirty-five (35) feet or two and one-half (22) stories, however, one-family dwellings may be increased in height not more than ten (10) feet when two side yards of not less than fifteen (15) feet each are provided. In the "C-1" District, public or semi-public buildings, hotels, hospitals, sanitariums, or schools may be erected to a height not exceeding seventy-five (75) feet when the front side or rear yards are each increased an additional foot for each foot such buildings exceed thirty-five feet in height." (Page Eight, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 15, 1977) Mr. Bullard stated the proposed amendment would delete the reference to housing as follows: "No building in the "C-1" Neighborhood Business District shall exceed the height of thirty-five (35) feet or two and one-half (21) stories. In the "C-1" District, public or semi-public buildings, hotels, hospitals, sanitariums, or schools may be erected to a height not exceeding seventy-five (75) feet when the front, side or rear yards are each increased an additional foot for each foot such buildings exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height." Mr. Johnson made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Section 7-403 as presented. Mr. Adams seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Johnson, Adams, Wells, Fuller, Tyson, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. SECTION 7-502(3) (4)&(5) Mr. Bullard stated that, as in Section 7-402(3) in the "C-1" District, the purpose of the proposed amendment to Section 7-502(3) is to delete reference to dwellings in the "C-2" District. Mr. Wells recommended deleting items four and five of Section 7-502 at this time also. Mr. Adams made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Sections 7-502(3) (4) and (5) as presented. Mr. Fuller seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Adams, Fuller, Wells, Johnson, Tyson, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. SECTION 7-702 and 7-802 Mr. Bullard stated the ordinance now requires the set back in "I -1" and " I -2" to be fifty-five (55) feet from the center line of the street and the proposed set back would be twenty (20) feet from all public streets. (Page Nine, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 15, 1977) Mr. Wells asked why the requirement is twenty (20) feet from the public street as opposed to twenty (20) feet from the property line. Mr. Bullard stated the property line and public street are the same. Chairman Tyson stated this would include the entire street, with the right-of-way. Mr. Wells stated he would think twenty (20) feet from the public street would be twenty (20) feet from the curb, which is not correct. Mr. Bullard stated this is an assumption of many homeowners. However, the property line is 92 feet behind the curb. Mr. Wells asked Mr. Adams if it would be legally more correct to use the phrase property line rather than public street. Mr. Adams stated it would be much less confusing to use property line. He stated property line was used in Section 7-402(1 ) and he thinks it should be the same. Mr. Bullard stated it would be clearer to use property line. Chairman Tyson asked what effect this would have on construction on private streets; will there be any enforcement. Mr. Bullard stated that there is no enforcement now as there is no restriction on them. The property line is going to be the outside edge so property line is acceptable. Mr. Adams stated the use of property line will depend on whether it is a public or private street. Chairman Tyson asked if there are any private streets in the City at this time. Mr. Bullard stated there are none in industrial development. However, there is one, Willow Street, located in Lakewood Addition across from Lakewood School with small interior concrete streets. Chairman Tyson asked if the small streets are for drives for rear entry. Mr. Bullard stated this is correct; the townhouses are all rear entry townhouses and these are the drives going into them. (Page Ten, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 15, 1977) Chairman Tyson asked if they are actually like an alleyway. Mr. Bullard stated these streets are the only service streets there are. Mr. Johnson asked what kind of protection the City has concerning the fire code. Mr. Bullard stated there is a twenty (20) foot fire lane required. Mr. Fuller asked if there is a problem when a private street serves as a fire lane. Mr. Bullard stated the purpose of the street being designated as a fire lane is to allow citations to be issued to anyone parking there. Mr. Fuller stated that there can be a private street, but it must be designated as a fire lane. Mr. Bullard stated the City requires twenty (20) feet of the private street. Mr. Adams stated the City will have some control when application is made for a building permit. Mr. Bullard stated the fire lane is filed with the plat. Chairman Tyson stated that each private street is not required to be designated as a fire lane. Mr. Bullard stated the City only requires access around and within the development. Mr. Adams made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Sections 7-702 and 7-802 as presented with the amendment that public street be changed to property line. Mr. Wells seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Adams, Wells, Fuller, Johnson, Tyson, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. (Page Eleven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 15, 1977) SECTION 7-908 and 7-909 Mr. Bullard stated Section 7-908 makes reference to mobile homes located in "R-3", "R-4", "R-5", "C-1", "C-2", 1L-1 11, "I-1", and " 1-2" Districts. However, mobile homes are no longer allowed in these districts; there is now a Mobile Home District. Therefore, the proposed amendment will delete reference to these other districts. The proposed amendment is as follows: " In the Mobile Home District, no mobile home or house trailer shall be placed, located or erected nearer than thirty (30) feet of any dedicated street or highway right-of-way nor shall any such mobile home or house trailer unit be located nearer than twenty (20) feet to any private drive used for access, circulation or service to the plot, lot, tract, or stand upon which a mobile home or house trailer is located." Chairman Tyson asked if dedicated street in the proposed amendment is actually the property line. Mr. Adams stated there may be problems if the mobile home is to be located on some highways if it is changed to property line. Mr. Bullard stated it should be clear what the highway right-of-way is. 111, Chairman Tyson asked if dedicated street should be changed to property line to be consistent with the other sections. Mr. Wells stated the amendment is concerning the front yard so it should be clear that it is the front property line. Chairman Tyson stated that in Section 7-909, there is only a ten (10) foot side yard required. Therefore, on a corner lot, a mobile home could be located only ten feet from the side yard. Mr. Johnson stated that on a corner lot, one side has to have ten feet and the other side thirty feet. Mr. Adams stated this is not correct; the most restrictive requirement has to be met. Therefore, it will have to be thirty feet all the way around. Mr. Bullard stated the thirty feet is to the dedicated street. Mr. Wells asked how the requirement is worded in "R-1". 4 (Page Twelve, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 15, 1977) Mr. Bullard stated the requirement is different in the Mobile Home District from the requirement in "R-1" because most mobile home parks have private streets within the park. The only mobile home park in the City does not have a dedicated street within it; the only set back requirement is on Pipeline Road. Mr. Wells stated in "R-1", there is a twenty-five foot set back in the front and five feet and twelve feet on the sides. There are no specific requirements for a structure with the side next to the street. Mr. Bullard stated the side set back requirements on a public street are platted; the building lines are on the plat. Mr. Wells asked where the twenty-five foot side yard requirement is located in the ordinance. Mr. Bullard stated there is a fifteen foot requirement on the side yard. Chairman Tyson stated the side yard requirement is twelve feet and five feet. Mr. Bullard stated the fifteen feet is from the building line and it is probably located in the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Wells asked if the Subdivision Ordinance also covers the Mobile Home District. Mr. Bullard stated it does not. He stated the reason for the thirty foot requirement in a Mobile Home District as opposed to the twenty-five foot requirement in "R-1", is because normally, all of the interior streets in a Mobile Home Park are private. Mr. Wells asked if the thirty feet can be utilized for parking. Mr. Bullard stated it can if a road is put in. Mr. Wells asked if parking in the front yard is restricted in the Mobile Home District. Mr. Bullard stated parking in the front yard is permitted. Two paved parking spaces are required and are allowed right on the street. Mr. Adams asked if dedicated street could be changed to property line without any problem, since there is reference to the front yard. Mr. Bullard stated this could be done if referring to only the front yard. (Page Thirteen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 15, 1977) Chairman Tyson asked what the front yard is of a mobile home. Mr. Bullard stated it is anything next to a dedicated street front. Chairman Tyson asked what if there is not a dedicated street. Mr. Bullard stated there has to be a dedicated street there for access. Chairman Tyson stated there could be a private drive. Mr. Bullard stated the private drive has to come off of a public street. Chairman Tyson stated Knob Hill trailer park is not within thirty feet of Pipeline Road. Mr. Bullard stated there is about thirty- five feet of disputed land fronting Pipeline, which is the reason why the park is as far back as it is. If it was not for this, the park would have been up to the thirty foot set back. Chairman Tyson asked how far back the trailer park is from Pipeline Road. Mr. Bullard stated it is approximately forty feet. Chairman Tyson asked if there is only ten feet of right-of-way remaining on Pipeline Road. Mr. Bullard stated this is correct. Chairman Tyson asked why thirty feet is required in a Mobile Home District rather than twenty-five as in "R-1". Mr. Bullard stated it was the opinion at the time the ordinance was approved that mobile homes needed to set back further than a house. Mr. Adams made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Section 7-908 as presented and change Section 7-909 to make the same changes recommended by the City staff, however, at the end of the sentence, add a semi-colon and "however, if the side yard abuts a dedicated street or highway right-of-way, the set back shall be thirty (30) feet from the right-of-way of the dedicated street or highway." (Page Fourteen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 15, 1977) Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. Chairman Tyson stated it is not clear to him what is recommended in Section 7-909. Mr. Adams stated reference to mobile homes in districts other than a Mobile Home District is deleted and a thirty (30) foot set back from any dedicated street or highway right-of-way is added. Mr. Johnson stated that for corner lots, the thirty (30) foot set back requirement will require a thirty (30) foot set back in front and on the side. The vote on Mr. Adams' motion is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Adams, Johnson, Wells, Fuller, Tyson, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. SECTION 7-1002(3) Mr. Bullard stated Section 7-1002 is the Specific Use Schedule and item three is Community Center (Public or Private) . In the present ordinance, the permissive districts are "R-1", "R-2", "R-3", "R-4", and "R-5" and he sees no reason why community centers should not be allowed in the "R-1" district without a Specific Use Permit as most cities have community centers built in the housing districts of a particular development. If it is allowed in "R-1", they will automatically be allowed in the higher zonings. Mr. Wells stated community centers are now allowed anywhere in the City, but a Specific Use Permit is required. Chairman Tyson stated a community center could be built in the middle of a residential area without any plans or zoning change if Community Center is deleted from the Specific Use Schedule. Mr. Bullard stated this is correct. Mr. Wells stated he does not agree with allowing private community centers without a Specific Use Permit. He feels that there would be irate citizens complaining to the City Council about anyone being allowed to purchase land and build a so called "community center" on it anywhere in the City. Chairman Tyson asked what exactly a community center is. (Page Fifteen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 15, 1977) Mr. Bullard stated there is a housing addition in Arlington in which there is a community center for what they call the East development. It has a playground, swimming pool , and a community house. All of the owners of property in this development are allowed the use of the facilities with a reservation. There are about five of these and one that they call the central community center which has a larger swimming pool and playground. This is what a community center is called. They were added to the development to promote sale of the houses. Chairman Tyson stated he has no objection to this type of community center, but if a Specific Use Permit is not required, any type could be constructed. Mr. Adams stated if it was private, it could not be open to the public. Chairman Tyson stated he could build one on the lot next to him for himself and friends and it could be a bar or whatever he wanted. Mr. Bullard stated all that it could include would be a swimming pool , building, and playground equipment. Chairman Tyson asked if a community center is defined in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Johnson asked if it could be worded to allow an apartment developer to build a community center within the apartment development without a Specific Use Permit but not allow a private citizen to build one. Mr. Bullard stated this could be done by allowing a community center in the "R-3" District. Mr. Wells read from the zoning ordinance the definition of a community center as follows: "A building or group of rooms designed and used as an integral part of a residential project or Community Unit Development by the tenants of such a project for a place of meeting, recreation or social activity, and under the management and unified control of the operators of the project. A private Community Center shall not be operated as a place of public meetings, or as a business, nor shall the operation of such facility create noise, odor, or similar conditions perceptible beyond the bounding property line of the project site, nor shall any alcoholic beverages be issued for such facility." Mr. Wells stated this definition disallows alcoholic beverages and precludes someone from building a community center anywhere in the City; it must be an integral part of a residential project. He feels that an apartment or residential developer should be allowed to build a community center without a Specific Use Permit. He stated that, for further control , the community center is required to be under the management r and unified control of the operators of the project. (Page Sixteen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 15, 1977) Chairman Tyson asked what would happen if, like Midway, the swimming pool is built and left under the control of the home owners. Mr. Adams stated he feels this would not be objectionable. Mr. Wells made a motion to delete item three, Community Center (Public or Private) , 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. Wells, Fuller, Adams, Tyson, Johnson, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. SECTION 7-1002(9) Mr. Wells asked what a water standpipe is. Chairman Tyson stated the definition in the zoning ordinance of a water standpipe is "any public or private structure for the storage above ground of water for distribution or protection purposes." Mr. Bullard stated the City owns the water system and will , therefore be responsible for selecting the location. Chairman Tyson stated he does not agree to this as a water standpipe could be erected next to a residence without a hearing or anything. Mr. Wells made a motion to delete item nine, Water Standpipe or Elevated Storage, 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. Wells, Fuller, Adams, Tyson, Johnson, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. (Page Seventeen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 15, 1977) SECTION 7-1002(14) Mr. Bullard stated the proposed change will allow a day nursery or kindergarten in "R-3" without a Specific Use Permit as long as it is not located in an apartment. Chairman Tyson asked if this would only allow a day nursery or kindergarten in "R-3". Mr. Wells stated if a use is permitted in "R-3", it will be allowed in the higher zones. Chairman Tyson stated a day nursery or kindergarten is now allowed in "R-2", "R-3", "R-4", "R-5" , "C-1" , and "C-2". Mr. Wells asked Mr. Bullard if he meant that a day nursery is not allowed in an apartment complex or not allowed in an apartment dwelling unit. Mr. Bullard stated it cannot be in an apartment dwelling unit. Mr. Wells asked if an apartment complex could provide facilities for a day care center. Mr. Bullard stated they could, but not in a dwelling unit. Mr. Johnson stated there are more and more industries providing day care centers within the plant. Chairman Tyson asked if the wording should be changed to dwelling unit instead of apartment. Mr. Bullard suggested apartment unit s ince it is in "R-3". Chairman Tyson stated he is concerned about someone coming in with intentions of opening a day care center and only sees it listed under "R-3" and thinks that is the only zoning in which it is allowed. Mr. Bullard stated most people realize that zoning ordinances are written to allow the uses allowed in lesser zones. Also, if their property is zoned something other than "R-3", and they see day care centers in "R-3", they will then ask if it is also allowed in that particular zone. Mr. Wells stated item one of the uses permitted in each zoning district states that any use permitted in the foregoing districts except dwellings is allowed. (Page Eighteen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 15, 1977) Chairman Tyson stated the proposed change would delete day nurseries and kindergartens from the Specific Use Schedule and place them in the "R-3" zoning which would not require a Specific Use Permit, public hearing or anything. Mr. Bullard stated this is correct. Chairman Tyson asked what the number of units is per acre in "R-3". Mr. Bullard stated "R-3" is twelve units per acre. Mr. Johnson asked what the number of units is in "R-4". Mr. Bullard stated "R-4" is sixteen units per acre and "R-5" is twenty-four units per acre. Chairman Tyson stated that a day nursery will be allowed in "C-1". Mr. Bullard stated this is correct. Mr. Adams stated a day nursery will not do well if it is in the middle of an industrial area. Chairman Tyson stated he is concerned about the danger of children in a commercial district. Mr. Bullard stated there are State requirements that have to be met regarding fencing yards. He stated there is a day care center being built on Villa Drive and one next to the drug store on Main Street. It was the opinion a few years ago that they should be allowed in "R-1" as this is where the use is. However, this was not approved. Chairman Tyson stated if this is done, the City will be giving up some control over where a day nursery or kindergarten can be located. Mr. Wells stated it is good to give up control if it is unnecessary control . Mr. Adams made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Section 7-1002(14) as presented. Mr. Wells seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Adams, Wells, and Fuller. Nays: Mrs. Lightbody Abstain: Messrs. Tyson and Johnson (Page Nineteen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 15, 1977) Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. Mrs. Lightbody stated she feels that when children are concerned, control is needed. SECTION 7-1002(16) Mr. Bullard stated the ordinance now has Fraternity or Sorority in the Specific Use Schedule with "R-3", "R-4", and "R-5" as the permissive districts. The proposed change would allow a fraternity or sorority in "R-3" without a Specific Use Permit. Chairman Tyson asked if fraternity or sorority is defined. Mr. Johnson stated that item twenty- two is Lodge or Fraternal Organization, and asked if this would be the same as a fraternity. Mr. Bullard stated they are not the same, according to the dictionary. Mr. Wells stated he considers a fraternity or sorority to be like a womens' sorority where they meet in a home. Mr. Johnson asked if it could be made to read where it would be a fraternity or sorority from a college or university. Chairman Tyson stated there are no colleges or universities in this area. Mr. Adams made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Section 7-1002(16) as presented. Mr. Fuller seconded the motion. Mr. Fuller stated the only fraternity that he is aware of in Euless at this time is Masonic Lodge. Chairman Tyson stated Masonic Lodge would be in the category of item twenty-two, Lodge or Fraternal Organization. Mr. Wells stated he feels a fraternity or sorority is referring to a building; not just meeting in homes. Mr. Adams stated this was probably put in the ordinance when it was first written when there was a possibility of a college being built in Euless and they did not want a fraternity or sorority in "R-1". (Page Twenty, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 15, 1977) Mr. Wells asked why item sixteen is only allowed in "R-3", "R-4", and "R-5" and item twenty-two is allowed in "R-1" through "C-2". Mr. Bullard stated item sixteen is a college organization with a building whereas item twenty-two is a private organization such as Masonic Lodge. Mr. Johnson stated a fraternity or sorority is also living quarters, whereas a lodge or fraternal organization is a building to meet in and then leave. Mr. Wells stated he feels a fraternity or sorority should be restricted to the campus so the City will not have to get involved with the enforcement factor. Chairman Tyson stated if item sixteen remains in the Specific Use Schedule, it can be restricted to the campus. Therefore, he is in favor of having item sixteen remain in the Specific Use Schedule. Mr. Adams withdrew his motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Section 7-1002(16) as presented. Mr. Wells made a motion to delete item sixteen of Section 7-1002 from the proposed amendments and have it remain in the Specific Use Schedule. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Wells, Johnson, Fuller, Adams, Tyson, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. II . ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. APPROVED Chairman