Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-02-15The Planning and Zoning Cormdssion of the City of Grapevine, Texas met in Regular Session, Tuesday, February 15, 1983, at 8:00 P.M. in the Civic Center, 411 Main Street, following a joint public hearing with the City Council in the Council Chambers at 7:30 P.M. The following members of the Planning and Zoning Commission were present, to wit: Sharron Spencer Ron Cook Harlen Joyce Ann Glynn Tom Powers Chairman Vice Chairman Member Member Member constituting a quorum, with Members Gerald Norman and Klee Hawkins absent, and the following City Staff, to wit: J.R. Baddaker Director of Public Works Steve Richardson City Planner Joy Welch Secretary The first item for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission was Zoning Application Z83-03 submitted by Larry Lightner of Timberline Development Corporation. In the earlier joint session held for public hearing of this case, Mayor Bill Tate asked Mr. Baddaker to explain the applicant's request. Mr. Baddaker then introduced Larry Lightner who explained that originally, when application was made for a zone change on January 17, 1983, that he was requesting R-TH Zoning for Lots 1-24 and Lots 30-33, Block 2 of Timberline Estates. After negotiating an agreement with four single-family home owners in the area, the zone change is only being requested for Lots 1-13. Mr. Lightner displayed the plat of the area in which the zone change had been requested indicating the change in the initial request. He expressed pleasure in having been able to reach a compromise agreement with area property Owners which would hopefully result in the property being developed favorably for all concerned. Resulting questions from Conudssion members pertained primarily to size of the units, plans for garages or carports and plans for fencing and the number of structures planned for each lot. In answer to Councilman Dunn's question, the City Planner informed those present that the lots ranged from 80 to 90 feet wide, and in answer to Councilwoman Breken's question, Mr. Lightner said the minimum requirements for townhome size would be mt. Following Mayor Tate's invitation for any guests to speak, Mr. Andy Rudderrow, 3138 Stone Creek Lane, confirmed Mr. Lightner's statement that an agreement had been reached. Also verifying the aforementioned agreement were property owners Mr. Lawrence Chaffin, 3132 Stone Creek Lane and Mr. Chuck Bohall, 3150 Stone Creek Lane. The secretary then reported that three letters of opposition had been received. Further discussion principally pertained to fencing requirements as as well as questions directed to Mr. Lighter from Commission members. Resultant general consensus was that the motion to approve the zoning change request should not need to detail those points covered in the agreement between the four property owners and Mr. Lightner, but should P & Z Minutes 2-15-83 Page 2 include fencing requirements contained in the Ordinance relative to those requirements. Harlen Joyce then made a motion to recommend that the Council approve the Zoning Change Request Z83-03 with the stipulation that the fencing requirements be met: that a six foot (61) solid wood fence be built as screening between the R-1 area and the R-TH area's easterly edge(Lots 11, 12, and 13). Menber Joyce's motion was duly seconded by Ann Glynn, and prevailed by the following vote: AYES: Spencer, Cook, Joyce, Glynn and Powers NAYS: None ABSENT: Hawkins and Norman 110 a a FWAVW01 VMS) .14 W M N, LW.0) RM 7 J K01 W-11 C The next order of business was for the Commission to consider the replat of Lots 5 & 6, Block 5 of Creekwood West Addition for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Baddaker explained the proposed replat saying that it would combine Lots 5 and 6 into one lot, Lot 5R. Mr. Baddaker introduced Mr. Stewart and informed those present that it was Mr. Stewart's intention to build one house on the lot, and that the City Staff recommended approval of the request for replat. There were no questions from the Council or Planning and Zoning Commission during the public hearing. Ms. Krystyna Plut spoke in favor of the request for replat. There was no discussion in the Commission's portion of the meting. Commission Member Tom Powers made a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the replat as requested, and the motion was seconded by Member Harlen Joyce. It prevailed by the following vote: AYES: Spencer, Cook, Joyce, Glynn, and Powers NAYS: None ABSENT: Hawkins and Norman The next order of business was for the Commission to consider Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Numbers 70-10 and 82-73 for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Baddaker explained that, in accordance with previous Council instructions, the Staff had reviewed the reverse frontage setback requirements in the 1970 and 1982 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinances. He then outlined alternatives to current requirements. Mr. Baddaker also explained that the following changes were being considered in the 1970 ordinance only: 1. That side yard requirements in the "R-1" Single-Family the "R-2" Two-Family, and "R-3" Multi-Family Districts be changed to six (6) feet. 2. That the height limitation in the "C-1" Neighborhood Business District be changed to thirty (30) feet or two (2) stories. 3. That the height limitation in the "C-2" Community Business DIstrict be changed to forty-five (45) feet or three stories. P & Z Minutes 2-15-83 Page 3 4. That off-street parking requirements in the "R-1" Single Family, "R-2"Two Family, and any single-family or duplex construction in the "R-3" Multi-family categories be changed to two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit. There was little discussion, no correspondence was received and none were present to speak for or against the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. In the Planning and Zoning Commission's portion of the meting, there was a lengthy discussion relative to the side yard setback requirements on reverse frontage lots. There was little discussion relative to the height limitations, other than the three story buildings. There was no discussion relative to parking requirements. There was a general consensus that the requests for the aforenamed amendments were understood as a result of previous meetings. Ron Cook then made a motion to adopt all of the proposed amendments, except the amendment pertaining to reverse frontage on corner lots which should remain unchanged in the ordinance and side yard setbacks should not be shown on subdivision plats. Tcm Powers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: AYES: Spencer, Cook, Glynn and Powers NAYS: Joyce ABSENT: Hawkins and Norman FINAL PLAT OF PARKVILW ESTATES The next item for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission was the final plat of Parkview Estates for the purpose of making a rec- com,nendation to the City Council. It was noted that this project is located on the west side of Dunn Street and is a two lot subdivision, that the utility provisions are adequate, and it meets City requirements relative to size and frontages. There was no discussion, and Harlen Joyce made the motion to recommend that the City Council approve the plat as submitted. Tom Powers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: AYES: Spencer, Cook, Joyce, Glynn and Powers NAYS: None ABSENT: Hawkins and Norman N Do — I... . The next item for the Commission to consider for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council was the final plat of North Main Street Shopping Center. It was noted that Mr. Baddaker had requested additional right-of-way for future widening of Main Street, and that the City Staff recommended approval of the plat. There was no questions or discussion from the Commission. Tom Powers made a motion to recommend approve of the plat as submitted, and Harlen Joyce seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: AYES: Spencer, Cook, Joyce, Glynn, and Powers NAYS: None ABSENT: Hawkins and Norman P & Z Minutes 2-15-83 Page 4 1010MR161402F.Al . b The next item for consideration by the Commission was the preliminary plat of Autumn Hills. Chairman Spencer asked the Director of Public Works to review the plat for the benefit of Commission members. Mr. Baddaker advised that utilities are available. He said it will be necessary to dedicate a ten foot utility easement between Lot 34 and 35 for the purpose of future water and sewer line additions. He further explained that the developer's engineer was aware of these stipulations for utility lines and that there would be some provision for drainage at the north and south ends of the property. For all purposes, there does not appear to be a need for an access route from Autumn to Inwood or from Autumn through Lot 34 to Brookside Drive. During a short discussion, Chairman Spencer asked Mr. Mc Waters, the builder about the dedication of easement. He advised that there was not a problem for providing this easement for utility line usage. Harlen Joyce made a motion to approve the preliminary plat as submitted, and the motion was seconded by Tcrn Powers. The prevailing vote was as follows: AYES: Spencer, Cook, Joyce, Powers and Glynn NAYS: None ABSENT: Hawkins and Norman I•• • 1 11FIR r t 511F,•111• ii 11 The next item for the Commission to consider was the preliminary plat of the Lake Forest Addition. Mr. Baddaker reviewed the plat. He advised that it was property to the north of Lucas Addition, west of Brookhollow Estates and does not provide for an extension of Shadybrook west to Dove Road. Due to align- ment problems, it would be unadvisable to provide such an extension, nor would it be advisable to extend a north-south street through R-3 zoned property which would route multi-family traffic through a single- family neighborhood. He further advised that he would recommend approval of the plat with the final plat to show a cul-de-sac on the north end of the north-south street and a reworking of Lots 34, 35 and 42 to provide more buildable area if the arterial location is shifted to the north of the area. Chairman Spencer advised that if the plat is approved, the thoroughfare plan would have to be amended, and she requested that the item for discussion of amending the thoroughfare plan be placed on the agenda for the Special Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 24. There being no further discussion, Tom Powers made a motion to approve the preliminary plat. Harlen Joyce seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: AYES: Spencer, Cook, Joyce, Glynn and Powers NAYS: None ABSENT: Hawkins and Norman la, I we am ro g I •—• 111M 93 awn-10 Comma hm, Ism •g••�w SUBDIVISION RULES AND REGULATIONS Mr. Baddaker discussed the proposed amendments to Subdivisions Ordinance relative to procedures and processes. He listed the following changes which the City Attorney would put into legal jargon and draft an ordin- ance should Council so authorize. P & Z Minutes 2-15-83 Page 5 (1). That construction drawings be submitted to the City Staff with the final plat. (2). That the plat be filed in the City Engineer's office 21 days prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. (3). That 10 copies of the plat be submitted. (4). That the plat filing fee be increased to $20.00 per subdivision, plus $10.00 per lot. (5). That the preliminary platting requirements be waived on: (a) single lots; (b) one-owner subdivisions smaller than 5 acres; and (c) lots that do not require any city utility extensions or street improvements. There was a short discussion of these items, and the consensus of the Com-nission was that they were as they had previously understood. The next item for the Comission to consider was the minutes of the meting of January 18, 1983. The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the minutes; and, there being none, Ann Glynn made a motion to approve them as written. The motion was seconded by Tom Powers and prevailed by the following vote: AYES: Spencer, Cook, Joyce, Glynn and Powers NAYS: None ABSENT: Hawkins and Norman There being no further business, Chairman Spencer declared the meting adjourned at approximately 10:20 P.M. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PIANNING Al,;D ZONING Coge- I2W THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TDCAS, • THIS THE I- DAY OF orlem 40-OAP-qLd , 1983. VAJOU41 is