Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-02-01 • Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 1 , 1977 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, Robert Johnson, Sam Munir, and Mrs. Helen Lightbody. Also present were Director of Public Works Jack Bullard and Recording Secretary Becky Gunter. VISITORS Visitors in attendance were Messrs. Gerald Meason, Marvin D. Hogan, Merrell D. Martin, Dave Denison, Mike Allen, Ronald Albertson, Robert Wyatt, C. J. Morgan, Marion Warren, Robert Pippin, and Mesdms. Betty Vowell , Gerald Meason, Marvin D. Hogan, Merrell D. Martin, Willie Mae McCormick, Ronald Albertson, Mary Baggarly, and Margaret Green. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Mr. Johnson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Wells stated that Tract 1A was not recently rezoned as stated on page three of the minutes of the regular meeting dated January 18, 1977. Therefore, Mr. Elliott's statement should be corrected as follows: "Mr. Elliott stated final platting was recently approved on Tract 1A for a retail sales center. It will be a 6900 square foot complex constructed of masonry or concrete." Mr. Adams made a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting dated January 18, 1977, as corrected. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Adams, Johnson, Wells, Fuller, Munir, Tyson, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Ily Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. (Page Two, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 1 , 1977) CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE NO. 257 REQUEST OF JOE P. FARINA FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM "R-1" SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT TO "C-2" COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT ON TRACT 3A3, S. HUITT SURVEY, ABSTRACT 705. (PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF CARTER DRIVE AND NORTH OF SPUR 350.) Mr. Denison stated he is with American Diversified Properties and they have a contract to purchase Tract 3A3 from Mr. Farina, subject to zoning. Mr. Mike Allen will be representing Mr. Farina. Mr. Denison stated that at the last meeting, some of the objections to the "C-2" zoning were discussed. At that time, they agreed to go back and formulate a plan that would ease some of these objections. Therefore, they propose that the full length of the Western side of the property, a minimum width of 125 feet, be designated for office use; if there is an actual office district, this would be appropriate. Also, a screen- ing wall would be erected between the commercial and residential properties as required by the city. Fuller Street would not be extended into the property unless directed by the city. At this time, they propose the extension of International Drive to curve to the West between the office area and the commercial area. However, an alternative to this would be to curve International 46 Drive to the East if Mr. Farina would agree to share the construction cost. If this is done, an interior development plan that would provide private drives within the site for access to the office area would be proposed. Therefore, they would like to retain the flexibility of extending International Drive to either the East or West. Chairman Tyson asked Mr. Denison if he had discussed these plans with Mr. Bullard prior to the meeting. Mr. Denison stated he had not. Chairman Tyson asked if it is allowed to require office usage on the Western 125 feet of the property without some kind of detailed plan. Mr. Bullard stated it would be necessary to zone the Western 125 feet of the property "C-1" Neighborhood Business District with a Specific Use Permit for offices only and have the field notes designated as such. There would, therefore, be two sets of field notes; one for the Western 125 feet, and one for the remainder of the property. Mr. Denison stated it would be no problem to submit the field notes. I (Page Three, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 1 , 1977) Mr. Munir asked if "C-2" zoning permits the uses permitted in "C-1". Mr. Bullard stated it does. However, by requiring the Specific Use Permit, the property is limited to office usage. Mr. Wells stated it is his understanding that the purpose of a Specific Use Permit is to allow a certain usage in a particular zone where it is not normally allowed. If the property is zoned "C-1", in which offices are allowed, a Specific Use Permit would not be necessary. However, if the property is zoned "C-1", it would not be restricted to only office buildings. Therefore, would zoning the property "C-1" with a Specific Use Permit for office buildings have the effect of restricting the use to office use only. Mr. Bullard stated the purpose of the Specific Use Permit is to allow a specific use. He stated that office use is not allowed in a lesser zoning than "C-1", which is the reason for the "C-1" request. Mr. Wells stated office use is not listed in the Specific Use schedule. Mr. Bullard stated it is not in the Specific Use schedule and that is the reason it must be zoned "C-1" with a Specific Use Permit for offices because offices are allowed in "C-1". • Mr. Wells asked if the Specific Use Permit supercedes the "C-1" zoning. Mr. Bullard stated the specific use that is placed on the property supercedes the zoning until the Specific Use Permit is removed. Mr. Adams stated the purpose of the Specific Use Permit is to restrict the use to a particular use. By zoning the property "C-1" and requiring the Specific Use Permit for office buildings, it becomes more restricted. Chairman Tyson asked if the zoning could remain "R-1" with a Specific Use Permit for office buildings. Mr. Bullard stated offices are not allowed in "R-1" so it cannot be done. However, they are allowed in "C-1" so this is the zoning that should be placed on the property if the use requested is offices. Mr. Johnson stated that, according to the Zoning Ordinance, each Specific Use Permit is evaluated each time they come before the Commission. Mr. Bullard stated this is true. He stated the Specific Use is a zoning within itself and cannot be changed without 1 akb coming back before the Commission. (Page Four, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 1 , 1977) Mr. Johnson asked if the property could be zoned "C-1" with a Specific Use Permit with the requirement that Mr. Denison come back each time he wants to build something there. Mr. Bullard stated if the property is zoned "C-1" with a Specific Use Permit for office buildings, he does not need to come back before the Commission each time he builds something there, if he builds only offices. However, if he wants to build anything else, he will need to come back and apply for rezoning. Mr. Johnson asked if the property could maintain the "R-1" zoning and have the Specific Use Permit for offices. Mr. Bullard stated if the property is zoned "R-1", the only use permitted will be single family dwellings and it will be necessary to rezone the property for any other use. Mr. Johnson asked if the Commission could limit the type of construction and allow only one story structures. Mr. Bullard stated that under a Specific Use Permit the type of construction can be limited along with almost any other type of restriction the Commission wants to require and it will be part of the zoning. Mr. Wells stated that Section 7-1001 (2) of the Zoning Ordinance states: "The City Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend to the City Council that certain safeguards and conditions concerning setbacks, ingress and egress, off-street parking and loading arrangement, location or construction of buildings and uses and operation be required." Chairman Tyson asked if the "C-1" height limits will apply if the property is zoned "C-1" with a Specific Use Permit for office buildings. Mr. Bullard stated all of the "C-1" requirements will apply to all office buildings erected. Chairman Tyson stated that the height requirement in "C-1" zoning states that a structure shall not exceed thirty- five feet, or 21- stories. Therefore, the maximum height under this type of zoning would be 2'-z stories unless otherwise required by the Commission. Mr. Bullard stated this is correct. Mr. Adams asked Mr. Denison what effect requiring a maximum of one story structures would have on his plans. (Page Five, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 1 , 1977) Mr. Denison stated he has not determined this at this time; however, it may ruin future possibilities for development. They are considering the price of the property in comparison to what it can be used for and, even though they will be limited to office use on the Western portion of the property, it will be the same price as the remainder of the property. However, this is not a consideration as far as the zoning change is concerned. Normally, the most objectionable thing about a two-story non- residential use adjacent to a residential area is the fact that people on the second story will have visual access over into the back yard of the residential area. They have used a restriction in other cities which prohibits visual site to the adjoining residential property from windows above the first floor. This is sometimes done by the use of a solid wall or windows with louvered screens outside the window which would allow natural light in, but would not allow direct vision to the adjoining property. This is the preferred method as it presents a nicer looking facade to the people on the other side of the fence looking at the building rather than looking at a blank wall . If the requirement is made that no structures be over one story, they may have to withdraw the request. Mr. Munir asked Mr. Denison if the thirty- five foot maximum would be agreeable. Mr. Denison stated this would be sufficient. Chairman Tyson stated it would be much easier if there was a specific plan for the property. Mr. Denison stated he is aware of this; however, if a plan was presented at this time it would merely be a speculation. Chairman Tyson stated that since there is a transition from residential to commercial zoning, it is difficult to determine the actual use of the property and maintain the vested interest of the property owners to the West. There are variances in the City ordinances which would allow this type of zoning if the specific use is known so the property can be restricted to that specific use. However, what is being presented at this time would restrict the property to office complexes but not the height or any of the building requirements unless specified in the Specific Use Permit. Mr. Denison stated they will be required to follow all of the "C-1" district restrictions as well as any other restrictions that are included in the Specific Use Permit. The Specific Use Permit will eliminate any and all retail or commercial uses on the 125 foot wide strip. Chairman Tyson asked Mr. Bullard what the City' s plans are for Fuller Street. (Page Six, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 1 , 1977) Mr. Bullard stated the City has no plans to extend Fuller Street at this time. There would be no advantage to the extension of Fuller Street unless there is a housing development there. Extending Fuller Street would cause problems in the residential district if the property is not developed residential . Therefore, it is his recommen- dation that Fuller Street be closed if the zoning is changed. Chairman Tyson asked if Fuller Street dead ends at the property line. Mr. Bullard stated it does. Mrs. Lightbody asked if the closing of Fuller Street was a firm decision. Mr. Bullard stated that he does not have the authority to close Fuller Street; to close it, there would have to be a recommendation to the City Council . Mr. Wells stated the Commission could make a recommendation to the City Council that the developer be restricted from extending Fuller Street. Mr. Fuller stated the property owners may want Fuller Street extended to allow them to go to International Drive and then North rather than going through about five blocks of residential area to North Main which is crowded. Mr. Denison stated they will not ask for Fuller Street to be extended but if the City wants it extended at a later date, it could be. Chairman Tyson asked if the extension of Fuller Street could be required at the time of platting. Mr. Bullard stated it could be. The decision will be made when final platting is requested. However, he recommends that Fuller Street not be extended. Mrs. Lightbody asked if the location of International Drive would have any bearing on the extension of Fuller Street. Mr. Bullard stated it will not. International Drive will be required to enter at the center of the property and as long as the South end is West of the Spur 350 off ramp, it will not be hazardous. The lower portion of International Drive does not have any bearing on the traffic flow as long as it does not go too far East to miss the off ramp on Spur 350. If the South end is located East of the ramp, it would create a traffic problem. However, if the South end is located West of the ramp on Spur 350 so the traffic can flow into it, there will be no problem. I i (Page Seven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 1 , 1977) Chairman Tyson stated the further West International Drive is located, the better it will be. Mr. Bullard stated this is correct. This will give traffic a chance to get off and straighten up before making the turn. If International Drive is moved to the East property line, it will be very close for traffic coming off of the ramp to turn onto International Drive causing it to be a hazardous intersection. Chairman Tyson stated the location of International Drive will be determined at the time of platting. Mr. Bullard stated this is correct. The zoning will be set forth by metes and bounds. The location of the street will have no bearing on the zoning. Chairman Tyson stated the metes and bounds will locate the street as described and shown on the plan. Mr. Bullard stated it is his under- standing that the metes and bounds will call for a 125 foot width at the South end and he is not sure what the width is as the North end, but believes it is 250 feet. Mr. Denison stated the "C-1" will be 125 feet wide the entire length of the property. However, if International Drive is extended on the West side, the office use at the North end will extend into the "C-2" zoning which allows offices. If International Drive is extended on the East side, access to the offices will possibly be set by an interior circulation plan. Chairman Tyson asked if there were any questions from the audience. Mr. Ron Albertson, of 304 Carter, stated that as a homeowner, it would be ideal if the property could remain "R-1". He stated he was under the impression that the noise zone was 300 feet to the East of his West property line. However, he has discovered that it is actually 1500 feet. Therefore, the property probably could be maintained as "R-1". He asked if a noise level would be acceptable any closer to the airport than where he lives. The noise is not bad when the house is closed, but when the house is open in the fall and spring it does get a little annoying. Therefore, he understands why someone may not want to develop the property as residential . However, he has serious reservations about anyone putting in any kind of facility that is above one story next to his property for several reasons. The main reason, which has already been discussed, is visual access into neighboring back yards. Also, there is already a transition from residential to commercial and he feels if two story structures are allowed, the contrast will be too great. He therefore, is opposed to any structure above one story adjacent to his property. He stated his wife has contacted several in the area since the previous meeting and it seems to be the popular opinion that the property remain "R-1". However, if this is not possible, perhaps "C-1" restricted to one story would be acceptable. (Page Eight, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 1 , 1977) Mr. Wells asked Mr. Albertson if when he stated "C-1" restricted to one story would be acceptable, was he referring to any use permitted in "C-1" or just office space. Mr. Albertson stated he prefers office space but if one story offices are not possible, the "C-1" would probably be acceptable. Mr. Wells asked Mr. Albertson if he would prefer a one story 7-11 which would be open all night or a two story office building which would close about 5:30 p.m. and would probably never be open on Saturday or Sunday. Mr. Albertson stated he had not con- sidered this. Mr. Wells stated that he would prefer office space of either one or two story rather than any other use other than "R-1". Mr. Albertson stated he is in favor of offices but not two story. There is multi-story office space available now without building new buildings. Mr. Wells asked Mr. Albertson if he is aware that two story houses are allowed in "R-1" zoning. Mr. Albertson stated he is. Mr. Fuller stated he feels the days of the one story office building are over because of economics. The land cost is so high that it is more economical to build multi-story buildings. Mr. Johnson stated the two story offices would have limited visual openings in the back, whereas visual restrictions could not be placed on a two story house. Therefore, there are some advantages to the office use. Mr. Albertson stated he understands. Mr. Adams asked Mr. Albertson if he would be more favorable to two story structures if the use was limited to offices and there was a restriction on the visual access to the adjoining property. Mr. Albertson stated the visual access was the main objection. However, he also objects to the contrast in the profile of the land; what his horizon on the East would be. He objects to the possibility of seeing the sunrise at 9:30 each morning. (Page Nine, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 1 , 1977) Chairman Tyson stated the building would only be thirty-five feet high and would be twenty-five to fifty feet from the building line so he should see the sunrise before 9: 30 a.m. Mr. Albertson stated if the property is zoned for offices, even with the restricted visual access, he would like to have the buildings set back from his property line a substantial distance. He is not certain what this distance would be, but it would be more than twenty feet; at least fifty feet. Mr. Munir asked Mr. Albertson if he would rather have a driveway access to the back of the building. Chairman Tyson stated it is required to have fifteen feet of paving in the back. Mr. Munir asked if this would force the traffic to the back. Mr. Bullard stated he thinks Mr. Albertson was referring to the parking which he prefers to be moved to the back to move the building further East and the access and interior circulation remain the same. Mr. Albertson stated the reason he suggested moving the building line is to offset the contrast in the height of the buildings. If they are going to have to have paving behind the buildings anyway, it would be better to have a wider strip. Mr. Johnson stated if this is done, it will force all of the parking in the rear which will cause more of a noise problem than if it remained in front. Mr. Marion Warren, of 409 Fuller, asked if the paved area will necessarily have to be a parking area. Mr. Johnson stated if the buildings were moved East about fifty feet, the only place left for the parking would be in the rear. There is a twenty or twenty-five foot required front yard which would prevent having the parking in front. Mr. Warren asked if the area of pavement on the back side of the building has to be for parking. Chairman Tyson stated the fifteen foot requirement is only for circulation of traffic. Mr. C. J. Morgan, of 300 Carter, stated he was not sure about how far the noise zone extends, but it has been stated it extends 1500 feet East. FHA will not loan money if it is in the noise zone. He asked if there is any other problem why the property cannot be developed residential . (Page Ten, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 1 , 1977) Mr. Bullard stated the noise restriction line is 1500 feet East of the West property line. The noise restriction line is a line located on the map for guidance and does not necessarily mean that there is no noise beyond that point. It is noisy up to the existing houses although the line is 1500 feet East. There is a transition point in this area and no loans are available beyond this point for houses. Mr. Morgan asked what the width is of the property. Mr. Bullard stated he thinks it is 550 feet. Mr. Denison stated it is 526 feet wide. Chairman Tyson asked what noise zone the property is in. Mr. Bullard stated it is in noise zone A. Chairman Tyson asked if it is in noise zone Al or A2. Mr. Bullard stated the map is not divided that specific, but it is probably in A2, which is a noisier zone as it is on the East side of the A zone. Chairman Tyson asked if residential is permitted in all of the A zoning. Mr. Bullard stated it is. Mrs. Albertson, of 304 Carter, asked what effect there would be on their taxes if the land remains "R-1" or is changed to commercial . Chairman Tyson stated there will be no change in their taxes if it remains "R-1" or is changed to commercial . Mr. Johnson stated he thinks she is referring to what effect there will be in the future. The tax structure now with the commercial base that we have is more or less the burden of the residential owner and as time goes along and this type of property develops where it is more and more commercial , the tax burden is less on the residential owner and more equally divided among the commercial property owners. Mrs. Albertson stated it is not planned to develop the property for about five years. Mr. Wells stated the tax on all land is based on the intended utilization of the land. He feels the property is being taxed as commercial land as the potential is commercial . However, this will not effect other property. Mr. Johnson stated that, hopefully when the property such as this is developed, the tax burden on residential property owners will be stabilized. (Page Eleven, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 1 , 1977) Mrs. Albertson stated she realizes if the property cannot remain residential it will develop as commercial . However, 125 feet is not very far between the residential and "C-2" which will allow uses such as theaters. Chairman Tyson asked Mrs. Albertson if she is referring to some type of X-rated theater. Mrs. Albertson stated that there are not very many theaters that she would not be opposed to considering the films shown now are mostly R-rated. Also, she would be opposed to a massage parlor or anything in this category that could go in there. She would like the entire tract to remain "C-1" to prevent these uses from going in this close to a residential district. A gradual change would be to have office space, "C-1", and then "C-2" and Industrial . Mr. Fuller asked if there is a zoning district for massage parlors. Mr. Bullard stated there is not but we have a very restrictive ordinance which is the reason there are no massage parlors in Euless at this time. Mrs. Mary Baggarly, of 308 Carter, stated that if more offices or commercial is developed, more population will be necessary to fill these areas. She has noticed that Wilshire Shopping Center is about 60% vacant and there is an office building on SH183 that is vacant and, therefore prefers not to have office buildings behind her property. She asked if she is correct that taxes are being paid for a new school in the area. Chairman Tyson stated there is a school site purchased where Midway Drive intersects International Drive. Mrs. Baggarly stated it seems the only way to fill these schools is to let more population in, and to let more population in, more houses are needed. Therefore, she is opposed to the change of zoning. Mr. Warren asked what would happen to the value of his property if the zoning is changed and these things are built. Mr. Fuller stated there would be no change. Mrs. Meason, of 200 Carter, asked why the property has to go "C-2" rather than "C-1" as "C-1" allows a number of uses. Mr. Adams stated it is to give more flexibility. (Page Twelve, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 1 , 1977) Mr. Denison stated that "C-1" allows neighborhood type businesses and, since they are paying a freeway frontage price for the property, they want to utilize the property in a freeway frontage use; something that does not cater just to neighborhood needs but would cater to the traffic that passes by on Spur 350. Chairman Tyson asked Mr. Denison if there is a possibility of the property being developed as "C-1". Mr. Denison stated this is a possibility. However, they will probably develop the property with the uses that require freeway frontage. Mrs. Meason stated she does not object to offices but does object to over one story buildings as they will block the view of the sun. Chairman Tyson stated that Mr. Denison is offering some protection with a two story office building that they would not have with residential . The vision will be restricted so that there will be no visual contact between the office building and their back yards. If a house or apartment building was built there, there would be no restriction on visual access. Mr. Denison stated a one story house is approximately eighteen feet high and will have a pitched roof. A two story office building normally does not have a pitched roof and would rarely exceed twenty-five or twenty-six feet. Therefore, there would only be a difference of six to eight feet in height. Mr. Gerald Meason, of 200 Carter, asked if a wall or fence will be erected between the offices and residents if the zoning is changed. Chairman Tyson stated there will be a six foot masonry fence constructed between the commercial and residential property. Mr. Bullard stated if the fence is masonry, it will be because the Commission requires it because it can be solid wood. Chairman Tyson stated there will be a six foot fence as required by the Zoning Ordinance which states : "A required screening wall or fence shall be constructed of masonry or of a concrete or metal frame or base which supports a permanent type wall material , the surface of which does not contain openings more than forty (40) square inches in each one (1 ) square foot of surface of such wall or fence, and which surface shall constitute a visual barrier. No openings shall be permitted for access unless a solid gate shall remain closed at all times except when in actual use." (Page Thirteen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 1 , 1977) Chairman Tyson stated the fence, therefore does not necessarily have to be masonry. Mr. Meason stated the ordinance did not state the fence could be wood. Mr. Bullard stated the ordinance states that it can be a permanent type with a base and as long as the posts are set in concrete, it can be wood if there are no openings in it. Mr. Meason stated wood fences come down a lot easier than cement. Mr. Bullard stated that as long as the posts are set in concrete, wood fences are allowed and have been since the adoption of the ordinance. Mr. Wells stated they are required by ordinance to maintain the fence and there have been several cases within the last year that the screening fence has been required to be repaired. The City does not have a full -time inspector that checks on these fences but action will be taken when home owners call it to the attention of the City. Mr. Meason stated he would prefer offices to be developed there with the thirty-five foot height requirement with louvers on the windows on the upper level where there would not be visual access into his back yard. Mr. Fuller stated he has had several people call him concerning this and this has been the most courteous group, both on the phone and in the audience that he has witnessed and would like to commend them for this. Mr. Bullard stated he too would like to commend the audiance for their extreme courtesy; it is appreciated. Mr. Adams made a motion to recommend approval of Zoning Case No. 257, request of Joe P. Farina for change of zoning from "R-1" Single Family Dwelling District to "C-2" Community Business District on all property within Tract 3A3, S. Huitt Survey East of the 125 foot wide strip along the West property line of Tract 3A3, S. Huitt Survey, and that the 125 foot wide strip along the West property line be zoned "C-1" Neighborhood Business District with a Specific Use Permit for office buildings subject to submittal to the City of appropriate field notes for said 125 foot wide strip, the office buildings constructed on said 125 foot wide strip be restricted above the first floor to no visual access to the adjoining residential property to the West, and subject further to the closing of Fuller Street at the West property line unless requested to be reopened by the City. Chairman Tyson asked if it is necessary that the requirement to close Fuller Street be a part of the zoning. (Page Fourteen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 1 , 1977) Mr. Bullard stated it is not necessary for it to be in the zoning request; the street requirements will be discussed at the time of platting. The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council will determine at that time whether or not they want the street to be extended. Mr. Adams stated that the Fuller Street requirement could be deleted from his motion. Mr. Wells asked if there should be some guidance concerning the street as to what the Commission considers what is best. Mr. Bullard stated if the Commission has an opinion concerning the street, it should be stated. Mr. Wells stated he would like the motion to remain as stated; with the requirement that Fuller Street cannot be extended by the developer without approval of the City. Mr. Fuller seconded Mr. Adams' motion as stated and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Adams, Fuller, Wells, Tyson, Johnson, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. Chairman Tyson asked Mr. Bullard when this zoning case will be heard by the City Council . Mr. Bullard stated it will be on the February 8th agenda to set a Public Hearing but it must be published in the newspaper fifteen days prior to the Public Hearing. Therefore, the date will probably be March 8, 1977. Chairman Tyson informed the audience that they will not be notified of this Public Hearing as they were for the Public Hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The date can be confirmed by contacting City Hall . Mr. Bullard asked Mr. Denison if he would furnish him a surveyor's plat and field notes of the property. Mr. Denison stated he would. (Page Fifteen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 1 , 1977) II . CONSIDER REPLAT OF BLOCK C - REQUEST OF METRO EQUITIES. FINAL PLATTING OF LOT 3, BLOCK C, INTERNATIONAL REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. (PROPERTY LOCATED ON REGAL PARK WAY, SOUTH OF WEST EULESS BLVD. AND EAST OF WESTPARK WAY. ) Mr. Bob Wyatt stated he is Vice- President of Metro Equities and they are the owners of the subject property and are requesting consideration of the platting of Lot 3, Block C of International Regional Industrial Complex. Chairman Tyson asked Mr. Wyatt if there is a purchaser for the property. Mr. Wyatt stated there is. Chairman Tyson asked what the purchaser plans to develop on the property. Mr. Wyatt stated he has not talked to the purchaser and therefore does not know his plans. The sale was made through a real estate agency. However, to his knowledge, the building will be a warehouse type construction. Chairman Tyson asked if it is correct that no other engineering plans are required as the engineering was with Block C. Mr. Bullard stated this is correct; the entire subdivision has previously been approved and installed. Therefore, this is merely identification of this lot. Mr. Johnson made a motion to recommend approval of the final platting of Lot 3, Block C, International Regional Industrial Complex as requested by Metro Equities. Mr. Wells seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Johnson, Wells, Adams, Tyson, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Abstain: Mr. Fuller Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. Chairman Tyson stated this will be on the February 8, 1977 City Council agenda. (Page Sixteen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 1 , 1977) III . WORK SESSION - ZONING ORDINANCE After a discussion, Chairman Tyson requested a vote on recommending the minimum lot area as set forth in Section 7-102(4) , be changed from 7,500 square feet to 8,250 square feet. Ayes: Mrs. Lightbody Nays: Messrs. Johnson, Wells, Adams, Fuller, and Tyson. Abstain: Mr. Munir After a discussion, Chairman Tyson requested a vote on recommending the minimum lot width as set forth in Section 7-102(5) be changed from sixty-five (65) feet to seventy-five (75) feet. Ayes: Messrs. Wells, Fuller, Adams, Johnson, Tyson, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None After a discussion, Chairman Tyson requested a vote on recommending the floor area as set forth in Section 7-102(7) be changed from 1 , 100 square feet to 1 ,250 square feet. Ayes: Messrs. Johnson, Munir, Tyson, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: Messrs. Adams and Fuller. Abstain: Mr. Wells After a discussion, Chairman Tyson requested a vote on recommending a new section, Section 7-106 as follows: 7-106 Construction Requirements All dwellings and detached garages hereafter erected in the "R-1" Dwelling District shall be 50% masonry veneer on exterior walls exclusive of windows and doors. Ayes: Messrs. Wells, Fuller, Adams, Johnson, Tyson, Munir and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None The following addition to Section 7-106 failed: Exception may be allowed on homes of $50,000. or more valuation for architectural design purposes only. (Page Seventeen, Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning Commission, February 1 , 1977) I V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10: 15 p.m. APPROVED r Chairman