The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1982-11-15LAJ 9 WAILM WIN 11010 VVV I III I The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Grapevine met in Special Session, Monday, November 15, 1982, at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 413 Main Street. The meeting was for the purpose of discussing and formulating two recommendations to present to the City Council at the joint meeting to be held Tuesday, November 16, 1982, at 7:30 P.M.: (1) a recommendation relative to amending Comprehensive zoning Ordinance No. 70-10 in four areas, and (2) a recommendation relative to instituting a zoning case under the City's comprehensive zoning ordinance #82-73. The following members of the Commission were present, to wit: Sharron Spencer Chairman Harlen Joyce Member Ann Glynn Member Gerald Norman Member Tom Powers Member Ron Cook Vice Chairman Klee Hawkins Member and the following City Staff, to wit: J.R. Baddaker Director of Public Works Tommy Hardy Building official Joy Welch Secretary Chairman Spencer advised that the order of business would be reversed to allow time for arrival of Tom Powers, Ron Cook and Klee Hawkins to participate in the new business. AMMMENTS-COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE The first order of business was for the Commission to Consider formulating a recommendation to the City Council relative to amending Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 70-10 in four areas: 1. The first area of consideration was height restrictions in the C-1 Neighborhood Business District. In the discussion, the Commission's concensus was concern that, according to city Attorney John Boyle, the ordinance was too vague regarding height restrictions. Also it was noted by Chairman Spencer that there should be some consistency in the old and new ordinances as to what exact heights and number of stories are allowed. It was agreed that the possibility of the addition of high rise buildings near residential districts should be avoided. 7-403 Height Limit, did read as follows: "No building in the "C-111 Neighborhood Business District shall exceed the height of thirty-five (35) feet or two and one-half (22) stories; however, one-family dwell- ings may be increased in height not more than ten (10) feet, when two (2) side yards of not less than fifteen (15) feet each are provided. In the "C-1" District, public or semi-public buildings exceeding seventy-five (75) feet when the front, side or rear yards are each increased an additional one (1) foot for each foot such buildings exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height." Harlan Joyce made the motion to amend 7-403 to read "No building in the "C-1" Neighborhood Business district shall exceed the height of forty-five (45) feet or two and one half stories; however, one family dwellings may be increased in height not more than ten (10) feet, when two (2) side yards of not less than fifteen (15) feet each are provided." The motion failed for lack of a second. P & Z Minutes 11-15-82 Page 2 There was further discussion as to what should be the exact footage allowance and maximum stories. Ann Glynn then made the motion to change the present 7-403 to read as follows: "No building in the "C-1" Neighborhood District shall exceed the height of thirty feet (30') or two stories; however, one-family dwellings may be increased in height and not more than ten (10) feet, when two (2) side yards of not less than fifteen (15) feet each are provided." The motion was seconded by Gerald Norman and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Spencer, Glynn and Norman Nays: Harlen Joyce Absent:Ron Cook, Tom Powers and Klee Hawkins There was further discussion regarding the "C-2" Zoning District's ordinance as it exists. Section 7-503 did read " No building in the "C-2"Business district shall exceed the height of forty-five (45 feet or 3 stories. In the "C-2" Business District, public or semi pubic buildings, hotels, hospitals, sanitariums, or schools may be erected to a height not exceeding eighty (80) feet when the front, side or rear yards are each increased an additional one (1) foot for each foot for each buildings exceed forty five (45) feet in height." Harlen Joyce made a motion to cut the height restriction to thirty-five feet (35') for a three story building maximum height. The motion failed for lack of a second. Gerald Norman then made the motion to change Section 7-503 Height Limit: to read: "No building in the "C-2" Business District shall exceed the height of forty-five (45) feet or 3 stories." Harlen Joyce seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Sharron Spencer, Gerald Norman, and Harlan Joyce Nays: Ann Glynn Absent: Tom Powers, Ron Cook and Klee Hawkins 2. The second area of consideration the sideyard Setback Requirements in "R-1" Single-Family and "R-2" Two-Family Districts. After a short discussion, Member Gerald Norman made the motion to recommend the ordinance be reworded as follows: "7-102 Side Yards: There shall be two (2) side yards for each structure in the "R-1" Dwelling District, one on each side of such structure, not less than six (6) feet, except that the side yard of a corner lot adjacent to a a side street shall not be less than fifteen (15) feet, measured from the side property line to the side of the structure, and no covered porch, covered terrace, or attached accessory building shall project into any required side yard space. All required side yards shall be open and unobstructed, except for fences and for ordinanry projections of sills, belt courses, cornices, etc.; but in no case shall any such projections exceed twenty-four (24) inches; and it was recommended that Section 7-202 be amended as follows: (3) Side Yards: There shall be two (2) side yards for each structure in the "R-2" Dwelling District, one on each side of such structure, not less than six (6) feet, except that the side yard of a corner lot adjacent to a side street shall not be less than fifteen (15) feet, measured from the side property line to the side of the structure, and no covered porch, covered terrace, or attached accessory building shall project into any required side yard space. All required side yards shall be open and unobstructed, except for fences and for ordinary projections of sills, belt courses, cornices, etc.; but, in no case, shall any such projection exceed twenty-four (24) inches; and it was recommended that Section 7-302 (3) Side Yards be amended to read as follows: Section 7-302 (3) Side Yards: There shall be two (2) side yards for each structure in the "R-3" Dwelling District, one on each side of such structure, not less than six (6) feet, except that a side yard of a corner lot adjacent to a side street shall not be less than fifteen (15) feet, and no covered porch, covered terrace of attached accessory building shall project into any required side yard space. All required side yards shall be open and unobstructed, except for fences and for ordinary projections of sills, belt courses, cornices, etc., but, in no case, shall any such projection exceed twenty-four (24) inches. For the purpose of side yard P & Z Minutes 11-15-82 Page 3 regulations, two (2) or more detached one or two family dwellings shall be considered as one building when occupying one lot; provided, however, there shall be minimm of ten (10) feet between the sides of the buildings on the same lot. In the case of group houses or court apartments, when buildings back upon the side yard, the width of the side yard shall be increased by one foot for each building or apartment abutting thereon. If any stairway opens onto or is served by such side yard, the minimum width of such side yard shall be ten (10) feet. Where a building is erected or structurally altered for dwelling purposes, for buildings more than three (3) stories in height, each of the two (2) side yards shall be increased on (1) foot in width for each additional story above the third. For dwellings more than eight (8) stories or one hundred (100) feet in height, the front, side, and rear yards shall be increased an additional one (10 foot for each foot such buildings exceed one hundred (100) feet in height. The motion was seconded by Ann Glynn and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Spencer, Norman, Glynn and Joyce Nays: None Absent: Powers, Cook and Hawkins 3.The third item was for the Planning & Zoning Commission to consider parking relative to downtown Grapevine. In this discussion, Mr. Hardy advised that technically every building permit application for the downtown area should be denied and sent to the Board of Adjustments because of inability to comply with parking requirements, therefore, the ordinance should be amended to align realistically to the present downtown situation. A lengthy discussion then insued relative to possible alternatives to correct the parking situation downtown, and ways to eliminate the inconsistency relative to the issuance of building permits under the old ordinance. Arm Glynn then made the motion to table the discussion to enable the City Staff time to formulate a study and a draft ordinance. Tom Powers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote. Ayes: Spencer, Norman, Glynn, Joyce and Powers Nays: None Absent: Cook and Hawkins 4. The fourth item for discussion was parking regulations relative to "R-1" and "R-2" zoning districts. After a short discussion in summation of previos meting discussions relative to this item, Tom Powers made a motion to accept the recommendations of the City Staff relative to requiring that the "R-111 and "R-2" off-street parking be two spaces per dwelling unit. The motion was seconded by Gerald Norman. It prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Spencer, Joyce, Glynn, Powers, and Norman Nays: None Absent: Cook and Hawkins IV. Miscellaneous Reports-Board of Zoning Adjustments Tommy Hardy then led a discusssion regarding the Board of Zoning Adjustments. He summarized the past years's cases to cow before that board for public hearing. In most cases, he advised that variances which were requested were legitimate, and the Board did usually grant those. Mr. Hardy explained how some contractors abuse the right to seek a variance by their failure to apply for a permit. In some cases they blatantly ignore the ordinance governing this requirement and start a building that they claim would be a "hardship" to tear down. Mr. Hardy advised that he hoped such cases could be avoided in the future to insure more consistency in requiring the same regard for law from each citizen.It was the general concensus of the Commission to attend the next meting of the Bord of Zoning Adjustments on December 2 for the purpose of discussing with the BZA the new zoning ordiance and determine if the two boards are in agreement on interpretations. P & Z Meeting 11-15-82 Page 4 NEW BUSINESS-CITY INITIATED ZONING CASES, P & Z RECOMAENDATION The next order of business was for the Planning and Zoning Coninission to discuss the formulation of a recommendation to the City Council relative to instituting a zoning case under the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 82-73, enacted November 2, 1982. The purpose of this item was for the Commission to formulate rec=vzidations to present to the City Council, November 16, 1982, relative to the City initiated rezoning of certain tracts not in compliance with the City's Master Plan Land Use Map. Chairman. Spencer questioned Ann Glynn relative to her attendance at the November 9 City Council meeting, then played the tape of that meting. The Commission then discussed at length the fairest approach relative to this recommendation, principally a geographic division of property or a present zoning designation. To clarify further methods, Ann Glynn and Mr. Baddaker provided dates each parcel of property had last been zoned. Following further discussion, Chairman Spencer suggested that Commission members do their best to be prepared on November 16 to comply with the Council's request for P & Z direction relative to recommending an appropriate procedure for hearing the City's intituted zoning cases. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion or business for consideration by the Com- mission, Chairman Spencer called for a mtion to adjourn the meting at approximately 10:45 P.M. Gerald Norman so Mved, and Klee Hawkins seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Spencer, Cook, Joyce, Glynn, Powers, Norman and Hawkins Nays: None Absent: None PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COM4ISSION OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, ON THIS In-EE DAY OF NGWtbSBR, 198�-�?, APPROVED: CHAIRMAN FAMURWip SECRE41AM I/