Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-11-07 Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 1978 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 Carl Tyson. Other members present were Messrs. John Deithloff, Bob Eden, Neal Adams, Chris Jones, Sam Munir, and Mrs. Helen Lightbody. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Rick Barnes and Recording Secretary Becky Gunter. VISITORS Visitors in attendance were Messrs. Jim Huneycutt, Gene Adkins, Mahlon C. Ferrell , Keith A. McCall , Doug Simmons, J. B. Sandlin, Alan Hamm, Byron Folse, Roy Irvin, Troy Fuller, Bill Pasteur, and Mesdms. Billie McMillan, Judy Huneycutt, Jan Adkins, and Willie Mae McCormick. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Mr. Eden. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Adams made a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting dated October 3, 1978, as written. Mr. Jones seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Adams, Jones, Deithloff, Eden, Tyson, and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. lir (Page Two, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, November 7, 1978) CONSIDER FINAL PLATTING - TIMBER RIDGE ADDITION, FIRST SECTION. PLATTING OF 132 LOTS Mr. Alan Hamm of 408 Woodbriar Court in Bedford, stated he is representing Richland Enterprises and Timber Ridge Investment Company. He stated a final plat of Timber Ridge Addition was approved with a few changes to a portion of the addition. They are resubmitting a portion of the addition to divide the development into phases; this phase containing about 130 lots. Chairman Tyson asked Mr. Hamm if he was aware of Mr. Lynch's letter dated November 3rd regarding the street names. Mr. Hamm stated he was not. Chairman Tyson read the letter which is to be made a part of the minutes. Mr. Hamm stated he agrees to the • letter. Chairman Tyson asked Mr. Hamm why he chose this method of platting as there is already a final plat filed on this addition. Mr. Hamm stated the city staff requested him to resubmit the plat. He would have preferred developing the subdivision in two phases without replatting. Mr. Adams stated that by phasing the property, monies would not have to be escrowed for the improvements of the other phases. Mr. Munir arrived at this time. Chairman Tyson asked what type of utilities will be installed. Mr. Hamm stated they will install whatever is required by the city. Chairman Tyson asked if the re- platting of the development is based on the utilities to be installed. Mr. Hamm stated they want to avoid the requirement of underground utilities on all of the lots. However, this thw is not the only reason for dividing the subdivision. (Page Three, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, November 7, 1978) Chairman Tyson stated the intent of the ordinance was not to have developers split their land to avoid having to install underground utilities on a portion of the development. Mr. Hamm stated if this property was already split into two lots, there would not be a question concerning the phasing of the subdivision. Also, ownership of the property has changed; Haydn Cutler, who began the project, is no longer the owner. Mr. Sandlin asked if Chairman Tyson was implying that an owner cannot split his tract of land. He stated that, as a developer, he does this all of the time. It would be unfeasible to develop an entire tract if there is not a market for it. Mr. Adams stated he agrees with Mr. Hamm in that he has the right to split his land as he wishes as long as he complies with the ordinances which exist at the time of development. Mr. Hamm stated that about half of the lots will have underground utilities. He stated that a subdivider coming into the city does not want to pay the additional $500.00 to $700.00 per lot for underground utilities; the people will not pay for this. If the city does not want overhead utilities, this provision should be taken out of the ordinance. However, as long as the provision is there, there will be areas which will have overhead utilities. He stated it was decided that an ade- q uate way of protecting the areas which have i underground utilities tlities is to require areas adjacent to, or touching these areas to also install under- ground utilities. The subject property is quite a distance from any areas with underground utilities, therefore being well within the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Adams asked if any of the changes to the final plat already approved are located in Phase I . Mr. Hamm stated they are not. Mr. Eden stated he cannot determine what Mr. Hamm's intent is. He, therefore, assumes Mr. Hamm just wants to cut his development in half. Chairman Tyson stated this could be correct. However, when one lot is specifically omitted for no apparent reason other than the fact that if it were included the utilities would be required to be underground, the intent of dividing the subdivision is questionable. Discussion Mr. Adams made a motion to recommend i final plat approval of Timber Ridge Addition, First Section, as submitted, with the street name changes as requested. (Page Four, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, November 7, 1978) Mr. Jones seconded the motion. Chairman Tyson stated he feels the only reason the property is being divided is to avoid the requirement of underground utilities on the entire project. Mr. Munir stated he agrees with Chairman Tyson. The vote on Mr. Adams' motion was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Adams, Jones, Deithloff, and Eden Nays : Messrs. Munir, Tyson, and Mrs. Lightbody Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. II . PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE NO. 274 REQUEST OF THE EULESS JOINT VENTURE, R. IRVIN, TRUSTEE, FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM "C-1" NEIGHBORHOOD BUS- INESS DISTRICT, TO "C-2" COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT ON A PORTION OF TRACT 27, BLOCK C, SOMERSET PLACE ADDITION LOCATED EAST OF NORTH MAIN STREET AND SOUTH OF EAST MIDWAY DRIVE Chairman Tyson stated the rules of a public hearing; proponents will be heard first, then opponents, then any questions will be answered. Mr. Irvin presented some exhibits showing the plot plan, elevation, and photos of the typical car wash design proposed for the property. Euless Joint Venture has owned the property for about eight years, as well as the adjoining property to the South and East. They are requesting the change from "C-1" to "C-2" because they have definite plans for a six-bay self service car wash of brick type construction for the property. Mrs. Lightbody asked Mr. Irvin if he feels there is a need for a car wash in that area. Mr. Irvin stated he has personally made a traffic count at this intersection, counted homes, and also made an indepth study of the wand-type car wash, which this would be, and feels there is a definite need for a car wash at this location. (Page Five, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, November 7, 1978) Chairman Tyson asked Mr. Irvin if he was aware of the car wash located within a couple of blocks of this location. Mr. Irvin stated he was. However, the proposed car wash will not in any way resemble the existing car wash. Also, the accessability to this location versus the other location is un- comparable. Mr. Adams asked the zoning of the property on which Dairy Queen is located immediately North of the subject property. Mr. Barnes stated it is zoned "C-1". Chairman Tyson asked the number of street cuts proposed off of Main Street. Mr. Irvin stated there will be two. Mr. Munir asked if the setback from Main Street would be of sufficient depth to allow a two-car stack up. Mr. Irvin stated the proposed set- 111 back is fifty feet, which would allow a four-car stack up at each bay. Mr. Deithloff asked the intended use on the remainder of the land on which the "C-2" zoning is being requested. Mr. Irvin stated it is for future expansion. They anticipate expanding to eight bays as Euless grows and installing a drying shed in back. Chairman Tyson asked the type of uses allowed in "C-2" regarding automobile garages. Mr. Barnes stated auto repair is allowed in "C-2" if it is within an enclosed building. Chairman Tyson stated if the "C-2" is approved, the remaining "C-2" zoned property intended for future expan- sion could be developed as some other "C-2" use. Mr. Adams stated there is "C-2" zoning existing along North Main Street. Chairman Tyson asked if there were any other proponents. There were none. He asked if there were any opponents. I lir I (Page Six, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, November 7, 1978) Mrs. Adkins, of 202 Primrose Hill , stated she is opposed to rezoning the property in this area as she would like the uses to be limited to enclosed commercial buildings such as a florist or cafe. She feels the zoning change would devalue the residential property and would allow undesirable uses in the future. Mr. Huneycutt, of 204 Primrose Hill , stated he is not familiar with the Euless Code and asked what uses are in- volved in "C-2" zoning as opposed to "C-1". Chairman Tyson read some of the uses allowed in each zone. Mr. Ferrell , of 305 Salem Drive, stated he is opposed to the zoning change. Mr. Huneycutt stated there is an existing car wash on Main Street which is in bad shape. The photos of the proposed car wash look nice. However, what is to prevent the proposed car wash from looking like the existing car wash in five years or so. Chairman Tyson stated he feels the supply and demand concept of the economy will preclude letting the car wash run down which would prevent any revenue from coming in. Chairman Tyson asked if there were any other opponents. There were none. He declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Adams made a motion to recommend approval of change of zoning from "C-1" Neighborhood Business District to "C-2" Community Business District on a portion of Lot 27, Block C of Somerset Place Addition as requested. Mr. Deithloff seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Adams, Deithloff, Eden, Tyson, Jones, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. • (Page Seven, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, November 7, 1978) III . PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE NO. 275 REQUEST OF THE EULESS JOINT VENTURE, R. IRVIN, TRUSTEE, FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM "C-1" NEIGHBORHOOD BUS- INESS DISTRICT, TO "PD" PLANNED DE- VELOPMENT FOR SELF SERVICE MINI - STORAGE ON A PORTION OF TRACT 27, BLOCK C, SOMERSET PLACE ADDITION LOCATED EAST OF NORTH MAIN STREET AND SOUTH OF EAST MIDWAY DRIVE. Mr. Fuller, with offices at 1004 West Euless Blvd. , stated the proposed mini-storage development is the first of two phases. He stated he received Mr. Barnes ' comments on the site plan submitted and has revised the plan to meet with some of the comments of the city staff. He presented the Commission members a copy of the revised site plan. Mr. Fuller stated he wishes to get away from the stereo-type warehouses with the typical doors which can be seen from the front. To do this, they will use some retail space along with some storage and office space along Main Street. • Chairman Tyson requested Mr. Barnes' letter dated November 3rd to be made a part of the minutes. Mr. Fuller stated he agrees with Items 1 , 2, 3, and 4 of Mr. Barnes' letter. He stated the existing "C-1" zoning would allow a six-story structure. They would, however, restrict the height to twelve feet, as indicated in Item 2. He would like the eight-foot fence requested in Item 5 to be reduced to six feet. He stated most people cannot see over a six-foot fence and the additional two foot height would be very costly. Mr. Adams stated Item 5 also refers to the fence being of stone or masonry as opposed to wood. Mr. Fuller stated all of the con- struction will probably be tilt wall , including the fence. Chairman Tyson stated the plat in- dicates buildings all the way to the property line at the Southeast corner of the property which would be in violation of Item 4 which requests a twenty-five foot setback from adjacent residential subdivisions. Mr. Adams asked what the rear de- sign of the buildings will be. (Page Eight, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, November 7, 1978) Mr. Fuller stated they will be tilt wall agregate. Chairman Tyson stated the building as indicated on the plat would be on the property line and only 92 feet from the curb. Mr. Eden stated the building would act as a screening wall in itself. Mr. Adams stated the twenty-five foot setback would be dead space which could not be utilized for anything. Chairman Tyson stated that without the twenty-five foot setback, the gentleman who lives next to the subject property would have a tilt wall fence all the way to the property line, which is not allowed in any of the other zoning categories anywhere in the city. Mr. Fuller stated he agrees with Item 6. He stated they will provide one parking space per 1 ,000 square feet of building space rather than one space for each ten cubicles as spec- ified in Item 7(a) . He stated he agrees with Item 7(b) , but not 7(c) . `.. Mr. Fuller stated he would prefer not to have a rear entry off of Primrose Hill with a locked gate as specified in Item 8. He prefers a solid fence. Mr. Barnes stated the original pur- pose of the rear entry was for fire protection. However, this has been discussed further with the Fire Marshal and it has been determined that the rear entry is not needed. Mr. Fuller stated Item 9 refers to the requirement of underground utilities which they will comply with. Item 10 refers to landscaping which they will provide whenever possible. The marquee sign requirements referred to in Item 11 can be eliminated as they will not have a marquee sign; the only signs proposed will be lettering on the buildings themselves. Mr. Fuller stated that in the past, some residents have stated their preference of apartments rather than some of the "C-1" uses. However, with apartments, the traffic is terrific as opposed 1 to the low traffic of mini-warehouses. There is not a screening requirement between apartments and residential as there would be between the mini-warehouses and residential . A restaurant or other use could go in there which could re- main open until 2:00 a.m. , whereas the mini-warehouses normally close at sun- down. Also, there will be a resident manager at the warehouses. (Page Nine, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, November 7, 1978) Mr. Folse stated the owners are attempting to achieve a buffer between the mini-warehouses and Main Street with an office building appearance on Main Street. Everything around the perimeter, of a building nature, will be exposed agregate. There will be a small amount of space fronting Main Street which will allow some landscaping. Mr. Deithloff asked if a screening fence would also be on the North property line. Mr. Folse stated a temporary fence of some type would probably be erected as the owners of the subject property also own the adjacent property to the North on which they have future plans of expanding the mini-warehouses. Mr. Munir inquired about the water drainage. Mr. Folse stated it would drain toward the twenty-foot drive. There may be some additional area drains needed but this will be resolved later. Mr. Fuller stated the second phase will have to go underground but feels this can be above ground with no problem. Chairman Tyson asked if there were any other proponents. There were none. He asked if there were any opponents. Mr. Huneycutt, of 204 Primrose Hill , stated the group he is with is opposed to mini-warehouses being built at this location. They are opposed to a rear entry with a gate as this would direct some of the traffic into the residential area. Chairman Tyson stated the rear entry gate has been discussed and it has been determined that it is not required. Mr. Huneycutt stated they would prefer the property to remain zoned "C-1" as the uses allowed in "C-1" are small , neat shops which would not require much maintenance as opposed to the "C-2" uses such as auto repair garages. Mr. Adams stated the proposed zoning on the property is not "C-2" but "PD" Planned Development which would limit the use of the property to mini-warehouses. Before any use other than mini- warehouses could be constructed on the property, a change of zoning would be required which would involve a public hearing with the residents being notified. Mr. Huneycutt stated these were their main concerns. ............ .. (Page Ten, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, November 7, 1978) Mr. Eden stated they are protected with this type of zoning in that any deviation from the proposed use would require another zoning change request. Mr. Adams stated with the "PD" zoning they would be tied down to the location of the buildings, width of the streets, etc. as presented on the plot plan. If the property remains zoned "C-1", any number of the "C-1" uses could go in, possibly of greater height, traffic flow, and noise level than the proposed use. Mr. Huneycutt asked what use in the "C-1" zoning could feasibly be six stories high. Mr. Eden stated an office space or bank could be up to six stories. Mr. Deithloff stated the definition of a Planned Development. Mr. Huneycutt stated he feels the location would be better suited to small commercial shops. Mr. Eden stated that in his opinion • this is the best use for the property considering the present "C-1" zoning. Mr. Huneycutt stated they had hoped that when the property was developed, they would not have a blank fence between the properties. Mr. Adams stated a screening fence would be required irregardless of what is developed there, whether it be in the "C-1" zoning or the requested "PD". Chairman Tyson stated the screening fence requirements in "C-1" zoning would not allow the fence to be nine feet from the curb as proposed; it would be required to be thirty-four feet from the curb. Mr. Adams asked if the fence along Primrose Hill would be on the property line. Mr. Folse stated it would, staff war Mr. Adams stated if the fence is set back, the additional twenty-five feet will be wasted. Chairman Tyson stated the twenty-five feet is a front yard requirement. I t (Page Eleven, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, November 7, 1978) Mr. Adams stated this is not a re- quirement with a "PD". He asked of what use the additional twenty-five feet would serve. Chairman Tyson stated it would serve as the front yard as in the residential areas. Mr. Adams asked what the difference in view would be if the fence were on the property line versus the building line. Chairman Tyson stated there would be quite a difference as it would be almost to the street if it were placed on the property line. Mr. Adams stated if the fence were set back the additional twenty-five feet, it would create dead-end drives. Chairman Tyson stated he is trying to resolve this in a way to maintain the same amount of storage space and still provide the residents with some kind of front yard requirement. Mr. Adams asked Mr. Huneycutt where he would prefer the fence to be located. Mr. Huneycutt stated he would prefer it to be on the property line. Mrs. McMillan asked what type of fence it would be. Chairman Tyson stated that it would be a tilt wall constructed fence similar to exposed agregate. Mrs. Huneycutt stated she does not see that there is a need for mini-warehouses at this location; usually they are located near an apartment complex where people need to store things. Mr. Fuller stated they would not put them in unless the economics would allow it. Chairman Tyson stated there is some property zoned for apartments on the North side of Midway Drive, East of North Main Street. Mrs. Huneycutt stated, concerning the twelve-foot height limitation, there are very few uses in the "C-1" zoning which would be more than one story. Also, because of the size of the lot, it is very remote that a multi-story building would be developed there. She stated she feels this will devalue their houses. (Page Twelve, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, November 7, 1978) Mr. Adams stated the property is not developed at this time but it is zoned "C-1". Therefore, the change must be considered with the possible uses in mind. Mrs. Huneycutt stated she realizes this. However, although the "C-1" uses are many, the probable use of the property would be a small neighborhood use such as a bakery, etc. which would not de- crease the value of the property. Chairman Tyson stated the "PD" zone is unique in that whatever is approved within this zone is what must stay. The City Council is responsible for seeing that the use of the property is the best suitable for the surrounding property as well as the subject property. The "PD" zone is the best way for the City Council to control this. With the "C-1" zone, the City Council has no lattitude as far as what goes in as they do with "PD". Therefore, the best zoning as residential owners in the area is "PD" zoning since this allows them to voice their input. Discussion Mr. Simmons asked if they as home- owners could change the zoning back to "R-1". Chairman Tyson stated only the property owner could change the zoning back to residential . Mr. Simmons stated he is opposed to the zoning change; even a two-story office building would be better. Chairman Tyson stated with anything over one-story, there would be visual access into the adjoining yards. Mr. Ferrell asked if the fence on the South property line will be six foot high. Chairman Tyson stated the developer has proposed a twelve-foot high wall on the South and a six-foot agregate fence on the East along Primrose Hill . Mr. Ferrell stated the twelve-foot wall will be jammed up against his property and he does not want it. If he could put it twenty feet or so from the property line, he would not be opposed. Chairman Tyson asked Mr. Ferrell the distance from his house to his North property line. Mr. Ferrell stated it is about eight to ten feet. (Page Thirteen, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, November 7, 1978) Chairman Tyson stated if the property remained zoned "C-1", there would be a five-foot setback required between the "C-1" and "R-1" zoned properties. However, the setback in a "PD" is set by the City Council within the Planned Development. Mr. Ferrell asked what would be between the building and his property. Chairman Tyson stated the developer is not proposing a setback between his property and the adjoining residential property. Therefore, the building would be built on the property line which is about ten feet from Mr. Ferrell 's house. Mr. Ferrell stated he would not be opposed to it if it was set back five feet to allow more air movement. Chairman Tyson asked Mr. Ferrell if he is opposed to the twelve-foot building going out to the front property line on the North side of his house. Mr. Ferrell stated he would like to have barbed-wire along the top of the fence to keep people out of his yard. Chairman Tyson stated the proposed height is between ten and twelve feet which would be difficult to scale. He stated he does not feel a five-foot setback would provide any more air movement to the residential lot. Chairman Tyson asked if there were any other opponents. There were none. He declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Adams stated if the buildings were set back five feet from the South property line, a problem would possibly be created with high grass and trash. Chairman Tyson stated he agrees with this. There is another more major problem concerning the parking. The distance between the buildings is twenty feet which is also the designated fire lane. Since no parking is allowed in a fire lane, the people will be required to park in the designated spaces at the back of the buildings. This will encourage people to park in the fire lanes to unload their items to be stored. Mr. Adams stated he does not feel the people will be parked in the fire lane for more than five or ten minutes and therefore, does not feel this would be a problem. Also, they will be right there with the vehicle. (Page Fourteen, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, November 7, 1978) Chairman Tyson stated the fire lane would still be blocked , whether it be for five minutes or thirty. Mr. Adams states this is a problem in every parking lot. Chairman Tyson stated he does not feel this is typical of the majority of the citizens of Euless. Mr. Barnes stated this does happen and the Fire Marshal does, on occasion, issue citations. Chairman Tyson stated if twenty- nine feet were left between the buildings, this would provide for the twenty- foot fire lane as well as nine feet for parking. The parking on the East end could be eliminated to provide for the front yard. Mr. Eden asked Mr. Folse what the normal distance is between the buildings. Mr. Folse stated this is the first mini-warehouse he has designed. However, he has looked at a number of mini- warehouses and found that mostwere much more narrow. He stated they do not 16 want to provide enough room for the cars to back up to the units as they tear up the units as well as block the entire drive. Most had more narrow aisle- ways between the buildings with a dedicated fire lane around the perimeter. Discussion Mr. Adams asked if the drives between the buildings had to be designated fire lanes. Mr. Barnes stated the Fire Marshal had stated that all drives are fire lanes. Therefore, the twenty-foot minimum between buildings must be maintained. Chairman Tyson stated another item he would like to discuss is the fence on Primrose Hill . He does not feel it will blend in with the residential neighborhood which this development abuts. "C-1" requires a minimum twenty-foot setback off of the street, and residential requires a twenty-five foot setback. He, therefore, does not feel this setback requirement should be any less than the "C-1" requirement. Mr. Adams stated it is not going to make a lot of difference whether the fence is nine feet from the curb or twenty feet; it still is going to be a six-foot tilt wall agregate fence. (Page Fifteen, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, November 7, 1978) Chairman Tyson stated that with the setback, thirty feet of green space would be provided. Mr. Adams stated there probably would be a problem maintaining that thirty feet. Chairman Tyson stated the City ordi- nance requires that it be maintained by the property owner. Mr. Pasteur_,stated the added setback would be greatly detrimental to the project in that it would cut down the number of buildings. Also to consider, is the maintenance of the property, which would be outside the fence. Since a rear gate in the fence is not pro- posed, it would be necessary to go around the property. He does not feel that it would serve any useful purpose. Chairman Tyson stated this would provide a more desirable aesthetic view for the residential owners. Mr. Adams stated if the property remained zoned "C-1", the subject thirty feet could be paved parking space. Chairman Tyson stated this would be better than a fence. Mr. Barnes stated a visual barrier would be required between the parking and the residential property. Discussion Chairman Tyson asked Mr. Pasteur if he would consider working with the Fire Marshal to determine if the fire lanes could just surround the perimeter to allow the interior lanes to be more narrow, thereby recovering the units lost. Mr. Barnes stated the Fire Marshal has stated the drives must be twenty feet. He may, however, consider more narrow drives if a break is provided between the buildings to allow room for the fire equipment if necessary. Chairman Tyson stated this is a new site plan that no one has seen or reviewed before. He feels a decision should not be made at this time to allow more time for review by the Fire Marshal and city staff. Mr. Pasteur stated his main objection would be the thirty-four foot green belt requested on Primrose Hill . In his opinion, it would be a waste of time, effort, money, and land. (Page Sixteen, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, November 7, 1978) Chairman Tyson stated this opinion is from the viewpoint of his project. However, the residential owners have a vested interest in this also as the project abuts their land. Mr. Pasteur stated it would be different if this would help their situation. However, it will not help; it will only be detrimental . Mrs. Adkins asked in what way the thirty-five foot setback would be detrimental to the residences. Mr. Pasteur stated the greenbelt would be outside of the project. Taxes would have to be paid on it, it would have to be watered, mowed, fertilized, etc. , and it serves no use. Mr. Simmons stated the further away the fence is, the better. Chairman Tyson stated he would like to know if the residents would still be opposed to the project if the twenty- five foot greenbelt was required. Mrs. McMillan stated they would still • be against it but the greenbelt would make it better. Mrs. Huneycutt stated it would help. Mrs. Adkins stated it would be a better alternative. She would be willing to compromise if the greenbelt is required. Mr. Ferrell stated he would still be against it as it would not help his situation. Chairman Tyson stated the fence would not go all the way out to the property line as proposed, thereby allowing more air flow. Mr. Ferrell stated he is still against the project. Chairman Tyson stated the two prob- lems he sees with the plat are the parking in the fire lane and the setback from Primrose Hill . He stated he would be in favor of tableing the zoning case until the Fire Marshal can review the plat. Mr. Adams stated the Fire Marshal can look at it before the City Council hears the case. lip (Page Seventeen, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, November 7, 1978) Mr. Munir asked Mr. Fuller if he has time for the item to be tabled to allow more review. Mr. Fuller stated he would rather have a decision at this time; whether it be for or against the zoning change. Discussion Mr. Munir stated he feels the setback from Primrose Hill needs to be more than nine feet. However, he does not necessarily feel it should be thirty-five feet. Therefore, if the item is tabled, he would like to consider a setback of possibly fifteen feet in addition to the nine feet of public right-of-way, or a twenty-four foot greenbelt. Mr. Adams made a motion to recommend approval of change of zoning from "C-1" Neighborhood Business District to "PD" Planned Development on a portion of Lot 27, Block C of Somerset Place Addition as presented on the amended plat subject to the following items of Mr. Barnes' letter dated November 3, 1978: Items 1 ; 2; 3; 5, changed to six feet; 6; 7(a) , eliminating the existing language and making it the existing parking as presented on the plan which would be approximately thirty- six spaces; 7(b) ; 10; and 12. Chairman Tyson stated the two spaces for the manager's quarters mentioned in Item 7(b) are included in the thirty- six spaces. Mr. Adams stated he amends his motion to eliminate Items 7(a) and 7(b) to make the parking as presented on the plan. Mr. Deithloff seconded Mr. Adams ' amended motion. Chairman Tyson asked if the motion should mention the elimination of the rear entry as requested in Item 8. Mr. Adams stated he eliminated Item 8 from the motion thereby not making it a requirement. Discussion Mr. Adams amended his motion to elim- inate the rear entry gate off of Primrose Hill and require a solid fence in accordance with Item 5. (Page Eighteen, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, November 7, 1978) Mr. Deithloff seconded Mr. Adams' amended motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Adams, Deithloff, Jones, and Eden Nays: Messrs. Tyson, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. Chairman Tyson informed the audience that notices will not be sent to the residents to inform them of the City Council public hearing date. However, anyone wishing to attend the meeting may call city hall for the date and time. IV NEW BUSINESS Mr. Barnes stated that he would be scheduling a joint meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council in the near future to discuss the citizen participation element of the "Comprehensive Planning Program for Euless". V ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. APPROVEP : Chairman