The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1984-02-16STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TARRANT CITY OF GRAPEVINE The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Grapevine, Texas, met in Special Workshop Session on Thursday evening, February 16, 1984, at 6:30 PM in the Conference Room, 307 West Dallas Road, with the following members present, to wit: Sharron Spencer Ron Cook Harlen Joyce Tom Powers Rick Atkins Chairman Vice Chairman Member Member Member constituting a quorum, with Members Gerald Norman and Shane Wilbanks absent, with the following City Staff, to wit: James L. Hancock J.R. Baddaker H. T. (Tony) Hardy Steve Richardson Joy Welch ;�Mys MCOXQT- 90 7 City Manager Director of Public Works Building Official City Planner Secretary Chairman Spencer called the meeting to order and explained the procedures and purposes of the meeting. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSIONS & /OR REPORTS The first item for consideration for discussion by the Commission was two alternatives for arterials relative to the Box Tract area. There was a brief discussion relative to the subject tract which is an agenda item Tuesday, February 21, 1984. OLD BUSINESS The Commission was to conduct a workshop and review session relative to the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and zoning map and take any necessary action relative thereto. As a result of a discussion with Mr. Marlin Smith relative to townhome /duplex zoning whereby there are requests to rezone existing duplex hares to a townhome classification for the purpose of selling, it was the general consensus to set a uniform requirement for townhouse and duplex -4 -plex requirements to eliminate such requests to rezone duplex units. Chairman Spencer advised the Commission that she would question Mr. Wiles on the feasibility of setting uniform requirements for these districts. Following a lengthy discussion relative to the Highway Commercial and Community Commercial Districts, it was the general consensus of the Commission to combine these two districts. Then, the Commission reviewed the two subject districts and made suggestions relative to the feasibility of combining the two because of outdoor storage requirements being non existent in the Community Commercial. In a discussion relative to the "PCD" Planned Commercial District the requirement of 20 thousand square foot lots for PCD" as opposed to 30 thousand square feet for "PID" was discussed. It was noted tr.a.t the industrial uses would require more space than the commercial uses. There was also an extensive discussion relative to minimum yard requirements, and the general consensus was not to waive them. Then, following a deliberation relative to space between buildings, it was the general consensus to retain the distance as advised by Mr. Wiles. P &Z Minutes 2 -16 -84 Page 2 Note: Mr. Powers arrived at this point in the meeting. In discussing Section 37, the following were recommendations relative thereto: In Section A -1, retain the 3 acre requirement. In discussing the 20 acre parcel size, it was the general consensus to retain this acreage. There was a lengthy deliberation and recommendation to allow 8 foot berms, being 60 feet wide. In the "PRD -6" District it was recommended to: On page 8, Permitted Uses, add "s" to the word district. On page 10, Word "or" should be used rather than "on" and also re- tain the word "accessory" RECESS AND RECONVENE Following a discussion relative to questions to ask Mr. Wiles, Chairman Spencer suggested a recess to make a call to Mr. Wiles. Then following this brief recess, the Commission reconvened the meeting. WORKSHOP Chairman Spencer reported that in the telephone discussion with Mr. Wiles, he had suggested strict limitations on outdoor storage in the proposed "LI" district. Further discussion pertaining to the "PRD -6" and "PRD -12" districts resulted in suggestions for revisions as follows: Page 3, Line 8, strike the word "primarily ", Line 15, strike the word "if ", Line 16, strike the words "are to" and Line 24, strike the words "and" and "or". Page 4, Paragraph 1, strike "the R -7.5" and "had that" and change "classification" to "classified ". Page 7, question Mr, Wiles and Mr. Smith about eliminating "permitted" which is redundant. Page 8 & 9, Eliminate (c) completely and 5, correct grammar "is" should be "are ". Page 10, (b) Eliminate "Usable" Page 11, Strike in (c) "providing for ", "care and maintenance" and "space" in the first sentence. Page 12 „ Strike the ward "association" in line 4 and "its" in line 8. Page 13, Strike "general landscaping" in 6, second sentence. Page 14, 9, (a) Strike "three" and "the planned development ". Page 15, 10, in lieu of the last words "and through "height" insert the following: "Multiple family dwelling units that abut a portion of a planned development that is planned for or developed with, single family detached dwellings, shall not exceed the height of the existing or proposed height of the abutting single family dwellings. P &Z Minutes 2 -16 -84 Page 3 Page 16, continuing #11 should read as follows: "of the regulations and requirements for the most restrictive district in which the lot or lots would also comply with the minimum lot area requirements. All other residential buildings shall comply with the minimum yard, lot width, and lot depth requirements in the most restrictive zoning district in which such buildings would otherwise be permitted by this ordinance; provided, however, that such buildings shall also comply with the following restrictions: (a) the minimum distance between multiple family buildings shall be not less than twent (20) feet. Page 17, continuing #11 should read as follows: the development plan shall provide reasonable visual and acoustical privacy for residential dwelling units; and (c) The maximum number of shall not exceed sixteen I units within the multiple family area .ts per acre. Page 18, eliminate (c) completely and add (c) Access from individual lots to collector or arterial streets, or to major thoroughfares, shall be prohibited. Page 19, G- Strike "except through "included." Move sections "H" and "I" to Chapter 6. The following changes in the "PRD -12" Districts were recommended: Page 1, Eliminate "and single family homes" on #2. Page 2, Delete "and RMF -1" in the (B) Purpose Paragraph. Page 4, Delete "and" before "R -TH" and "and RMF -1" before Residential in 11D11. Page 5, Delete "34.D in Line #3. Page 6, Delete in (e) "Each" through "purchases" Page 7, Delete the word "permitted" in 2, (a) and (b) and (c) "LB and" Made these consistent with "CN- Neighborhood" Page 8, "CN- Neighborhood" should be consistent and (5) is should be are Page 9, Correct spelling of "application" in (b) and "if" should be "is" Page 12, Delete in 6. "general landscaping plan" Page 13, Delete "three" and "the planned development, "adjacent or facing "development or zoning" in (a) Page 14, Question Multiple family—height in #10 and #11 delete "yard requirements" and "lot width and depth" then "in ". Page 15, Second sentence "All through restrictions" are remaining and (a) has "the through feet" with remainder deleted and (b) delete "will" Page 16, Delete (c) entirely and the new (c) should read as follows: "The maximuun number of dwelling units within the multiple family area shall not exceed sixteen (16) dwelling units per acre., Delete (c) entirely. P &Z Minutes 2 -16 -84 Page 4 Page 17, (c) Delete "restricted" through "approval" and "F" Delete "Off- street through "Ordinance ". Page 18, Move Sections H and I to Chapter 46. WNW-100410 The meeting was declared adjourned by Chairman Spencer at approximately 10:45 PM. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING PWUSSION OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, ON THIS THE ,L DAY OF , 1984. ATTEST: Secretary