Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2007-05-17 Minutes MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS MAY 17, 2007 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Randy Shiflet at 7:08 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Vice Chairman Secretary Ex Officio Randy Shiflet Bill Schopper Don Bowen Brenda Cole Mike Benton Steven Cooper Mark Haynes Kelly Gent CITY STAFF Chief Planner Asst. Dir. of Public Works Assistant Planner Customer Svc. Asst. Recording Secretary Eric Wilhite Greg Van Nieuwenhuize Chad Van Steenberg Gina Harner Dianna Buchanan 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FROM THE MAY 3, 2007 MEETING APPROVED Brenda Cole, seconded by Bill Schopper, motioned to approve the minutes of May 3,2007. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Page 1 of 17; 5-17-07 P & Z Minutes 5. FP 2007-06 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM MARIA SALES TO APPROVE A FINAL PLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 20, BRIARWOOD ESTATES ADDITION (LOCATED AT 6941 SMITHFIELD ROAD - 0.98 ACRES). Mr. Xavier Chapa, Maranot Real Estate Services Inc., 1425 W. Pioneer, Ste. 129, Irving, TX 75061, representing the Mr. and Mrs. Sales on this project. They are trying to plat almost a one acre tract on Smithfield Road. In this project they would be dedicating some right-of-way that lies along the front of their tract on the west side of Smithfield Road. Mr. Shiflet asked if this is a single family residence? Mr. Chapa said yes they will be constructing a single family residence for their personal residence. It is not for commercial sale. Eric Wilhite said this is a R-2 zoned single family lot. It is nearly .98 acres for a single family residence. The Commission saw the preliminary plat for this property at their previous meeting. The applicant has now completed all of the engineering, drawings, and such in order to complete the final plat. It meets all the Subdivision Regulations and staff recommends your approval. APPROVED Bill Schopper motioned to approve FP 2007-06, seconded by Mike Benton. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 6. PP 2007-05 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM MO PERACHA OF NORTHLAKE CAPITAL, LLC TO APPROVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOTS 1-21, A, B, AND C, BLOCK 14 AND LOTS 1-8, A, B, AND C BLOCK 16, STONYBROOKE ADDITION PHASE II (LOCATED IN THE 8900 BLOCK OF HIGHTOWER DRIVE - 4.072 ACRES). Don Hall, 4316 McKibbin, Haltom City, representing the applicant Northlake Capital. This is Phase II. We already have Phase I done, approved and being built. We are looking for the Commission's approval on the preliminary plat to generate some more revenue in houses. Chairman Shiflet asked if this will be similar to what is under construction in the southeast corner? Page 2 of 17; 5-17-07 P & Z Minutes Mr. Hall said yes. Eric Wilhite said this is a preliminary plat for a Residentiallnfill Planned Development (RI-PD) that was approved by the Commission and City Council back in January, 2007. Staff has reviewed it for conformance with that RI-PD because there are different nuances with those and their zoning as far as lot size, configuration, dedication of the private street and then some of the common open spaces that are located on this tract. That being said, since it does meet everything that was indicated on the RI-PD, staff has reviewed it and recommends your approval. Subsequently after this one, you will see the final plat of this same project. APPROVED Don Bowen motioned to approve PP 2007-05, seconded by Steven Cooper. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 7. ZC 2006-23 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM CARY CLARKE HOMES TO APPROVE A ZONING CHANGE FROM "AG" AGRICULTURAL TO "RI- PD" RESIDENTIAL INFILL - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (LOCATED IN THE 9200 BLOCK OF AMUNDSON RD. - 4.339 ACRES). APPROVED Chairman Shiflet opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Cary Clarke Homes, 204 No. Dooley St., Grapevine, applicant, came forward and said he is here in support of the application as originally presented and will answer any questions the Commission has. Mr. Shiflet asked if this is basically what was previously presented to the Commission? Mr. Clarke said yes. David Barfield said he is the owner of the property to the south of this, the Martin Addition. He has no problem with the zoning but questions about the extension of whatever the storm utilities will be to his property because his property sheds water to this property. Without some sort of extension or easement or something, his property could not be developed down the road. Also the sewer at this point is in Precinct Line Road which is very shallow and he is not sure if the sewer can be accessed from that property. He would like to know about the extension of that and about what type of housing they will be building in there-the sizes and the standards. Page 3 of 17; 5-17-07 P & Z Minutes Mr. Bowen said he wanted to give Mr. Barfield information that the Commission has on the project. The RI-PD is a relatively new zoning category in the city. It is for small infill properties like this and the density starts with a basic R-2 density and with the extras that the developers put in-sometimes they are allowed to raise their density a little bit. This is an example of that. The dimensions that we have here-the minimum house size is 2,100 square feet; minimum lot area is 6,300 square feet; minimum lot width is 50 feet with a 58 feet average; and minimum lot depth is 100 feet average. It is denser than the R-2, but we get extras with it-curved linear streets and things like that. This is getting popular. We have seen several of these lately. Eric Wilhite said some preliminary engineering has been done, but full engineering has not been done as the applicant is still going through the platting process. Brenda Cole said the Commission did see samples, renderings and photos of actual houses that Cary Clarke has built in the past the first time this matter was considered. He will continue to build the same type of product. His homes are of very high quality and something that will be pleasing. Greg Van Nieuwenhuize said the current Land Use Plan indicates that the property to the south is to go residential and this site is designed to be able to accept the drainage for the future residential from the south. The natural flow of water is from the south to the north in this immediate area. Regarding the sewer, I am not sure if the applicant has submitted sewer plans. Being that this is a zoning case, I suspect the applicant has submitted some preliminary construction plans, but I don't have an answer for you on the sewer presently. The public infrastructure is all handled at the time of platting. Eric Wilhite clarified for any citizens watching and those in the audience why this RI-PD is back. Staff could bring up some of the elevations and what not, but as Ms. Cole mentioned, this is coming back having already gone through the Commission and City Council based on a recommendation for reconsideration by City Council. There was a condition that was placed on the RI-PD at City Council above what the Commission had recommended and that is the only reason it is back before the Commission. David Barfield asked if he would be notified again at the time of replatting? I served on this Board for 15 years and we normally did not notify for the platting. I would like the opportunity to look at that. Mr. Shiflet said surrounding property owners are not notified at the time of platting. Mr. Schopper said the best thing for Mr. Barfield to do is to get with the applicant, Mr. Clarke, and work any issues out. He likes good neighbors just like you do. Mr. Schopper said if he remembered correctly the issue here is the fencing between the subject and the commercial properties to the east. There are basically masonry post or pillars that have wood sections between them and we are trying to figure out what to do Page 4 of 17; 5-17-07 P & Z Minutes with that as opposed to a normal masonry screening fence. I believe the Commission recommended leaving it the way it is, because the fence is already there. Eric Wilhite said that is correct. There is an existing masonry column fence and portions of it have about a 3 foot masonry base with wood panels in between those columns along the existing office. The applicant requested they use that as part of their fencing. That is how it was approved by the Commission. Then it went to City Council. City Council put an additional condition that the wood panels in between the masonry columns on the existing fence be replaced with masonry. That is what initiated the reconsideration to send the item back to the Commission. Mr. Schopper said he wants to see what the applicant has to say about that. Whether it is more prudent to leave the wood where it is at, or are homeowners going to say "that's ugly" and want to replace the fence? Will we have double fences on some properties? Has the applicant thought about what he wants? Mr. Clarke said he thinks the reconsideration for City Council, which got us back here, is that they came to the conclusion after their vote, that it wasn't fair to ask me as the applicant to make improvements to property that actually wasn't mine. So what my desire is, what I think would be best for the benefit of our project and also for our neighbors at Huntington Square, would be to see about improving that fence. That fence has the basis for a very nice fence, but it is in somewhat disrepair. So what I would like to do is to come up with a win/win situation to see about working with them to improve that situation on maybe a cost sharing basis that would be a nice amenity and benefit to both sides. Short of that, I could probably put up a six foot wood stockade fence all the way around it, which wouldn't be very attractive and would be fine on our side, but I don't think that would really be for the benefit of everybody. Once this requirement is removed, my goal is to contact the individual property owners. I believe there are eight different property owners so I will generate some cost estimates and go visit with them individually. At this point I cannot tell you if I will get one hundred percent buy-in or not. It seems like it makes a lot of sense because sooner or later they will have to improve their properties, since the fence is falling apart. I don't know what kind of cooperation I will get. That is my goal and my desire to make it a win/win situation and make it improved for the benefit of both projects. Mr. Schopper said the reconsideration by the City Council is a classy thing to do. Mr. Clarke said absolutely, he is very happy about it. Mr. Shiflet said to Mr. Barfield that two of his other neighbors, Mr. Gray that owns the large tract of land to the west and also one of the other owners to the south, were present for the first public hearing, and expressed concern about the drainage as well. I know that the drainage will be looked at closely. Chairman Shiflet closed the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. Page 5 of 17; 5-17-07 P & Z Minutes APPROVED Brenda Cole motioned to approve ZC 2006-23, seconded by Mike Benton. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 8. ZC 2007-01 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM CLIFFORD LAND COMPANY TO APPROVE A ZONING CHANGE FROM "AG" AGRICULTURAL AND "1-1" INDUSTRIAL TO "RI-PD" RESIDENTIAL INFILL - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (LOCATED IN THE 8800 BLOCK OF MID-CITIES BLVD. - 7.685 ACRES). APPROVED Chairman Shiflet opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. Cliff Harris, 7952 Davis Boulevard, North Richland Hills, applicant, said he is here to support his project and will be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Shiflet said he knows that Mr. Harris was before the Commission previously regarding the same project. Can he explain how the project is back? Mr. Harris said he is in the same situation as Mr. Clarke with the fences and the reconsideration of the height of them. Eric Wilhite said this RI-PD went through at the same Planning & Zoning Commission meeting and the same City Council meeting as the previous item just heard. On this particular issue, City Council took the Commission's recommendation of approval and added a condition that was passed that everywhere it was indicated as 6 foot wood stockade fence on this particular project, that the height be increased from 6 foot to 8 foot. All the other conditions are exactly the same as what you previously saw and what is indicated on this exhibit. One of the City Council members requested that staff bring this back forward to them by a motion of reconsideration. That motion was approved and hence we are bringing the item back to the Commission to get reviewed again and approved for a new recommendation to the City Council with the removal of the extra height requirement on the wood stockade fence which was indicated on the site plan to go as 6 foot not 8 foot. Mr. Schopper asked what the landscaping will be where the fence is located? Eric Wilhite said the landscaping on the fence of the common open space lot will be owned and maintained by the Home Owners Association, and will be something similar Page 6 of 17; 5-17-07 P & Z Minutes to either pond cypress or wax myrtles, a fairly tall evergreen type shrub, will be along in that area as well as regular ground cover type landscaping. On the rest of the portion of it, which will be other people's back yards, there will be a tree and whatever shrub planting and landscaping they do above and beyond on their own. Mr. Dennis Lang, 8800 Martin Drive. I have lived here for 30 years and used to shoot dove from the back of my truck. We have lived there a long time and I don't want to hold back progress. When this project started, the main thing we were talking about is fencing. That is exactly what the Commission is talking about now and what these people are here to argue about tonight. When I talked to them and they approached me about my property, I said well if you are going to do that, I would like to have a privacy fence. The applicant said no problem we are going to put a fence up. I agreed and we all got along. We went to City Council and they agreed to put a fence in and requested an 8 foot fence be put in for our privacy because they are putting these homes in on people that have lived in this area for a long time. We are used to our privacy and yet this is going to happen. So we got an 8 foot fence and so now we are back to the argument and politics of trying to save money and lower the height of the fence. I don't agree with that. I don't oppose the fence size on the west side of their project because that is pretty open anyway. I would still like to maintain the height of the fence along our side and maintain our privacy and our neighbor's privacy next to us as well. We were there first and they are squeezing in and that's fine but we shouldn't have to put up with their-the reason we bought our property was for privacy. The reason the neighbors bought their property was for privacy and now it is imposing on us. That is why we would like to maintain the fence height of eight feet. Ms. Cole asked where his property? Mr. Lang showed his property on the exhibit and his neighbor's property that he used to own as well and at one time was his son's house and since then has been sold to a physician. She has expressed the same thing. They are both very happy that the City Council gave them--first of all, the fence was to be constructed before the project was to be started, which would protect us from the workers and the people over there, and the dirt, and the problems that go with it. That was a good item that the City Council gave us. The 8 foot was a real nice thing to give us the privacy we like. Adjacent on this side are horses and farm land and so it is still a very special thing with those people with the horses-Joann Payne. It is where we have been for thirty years and here comes the thing that is going to start up and we can't stop it, but we would like to have something that would protect us a little bit. We were very pleased the City Council gave us the 8 foot fence prior to construction. Mr. Shiflet asked Mr. Harris on the west side from Mr. Lang's property line, approximately how close would the house be? Mr. Harris said the open space is roughly 15 to 20 feet wide, then the street, then the lot. Page 7 of 17; 5-17-07 P & Z Minutes Mr. Shiflet said that is one of the things done at the previous Public Hearing that the Commission did discuss and address that even though the property line is there, that you still have a significant distance between the closest residence there on the west side of Mr. Lang's property. Mr. Harris said there won't be any residences on his western border. There will be a significant border with the street and the open space. His southern border will have backyards up against that fence. Ms. Kay Lang, 8800 Martin, we have been there 35 years, not 30, and I think what the problem we are seeing is that the street that is going into this subdivision is going to run parallel to our driveway. That is why we are concerned about our privacy because we are going to have cars and sidewalks with foot traffic as well. So an 8 foot fence was music to our ears because when we walk out our back door, we are going to have cars, 10 or 15 feet away going right down where our driveway is. Do you understand? Mr. Schopper said the Commission does understand. The issue we are looking at is 8 feet versus 6 feet. The 6 foot fence is a done deal. I believe 8 foot fences are obnoxious. We have required those before, and then when we get out on the site, we look at it and think that is ugly. There is one right off of Davis Boulevard that we ended up coming back and knocking it down. When we actually saw the fence out in the world, the 8 foot looked obnoxious. Ms. Lang said there are some 8 foot stockade fences that are obnoxious. I put an 8 foot fence as a screen between myself and our neighbors so we weren't looking in their garage. At the top of it, we have lattice work. There is a way to make it look attractive even though it is 8 foot tall. It doesn't have to be a cut and dried stockade fence. At the back of our property we have an awful pole barn that has been there for 35 years. It looks to me like you would want to cover that up so the people living in these $300,000 homes are not looking at our stuff that we have had back there since day one because we used to have horses. It is a rural piece of property actually. That is my concern because my husband said when they first talked to us, the road was going to be on the west side and we would be looking at the backyards of these homes. Now we are going to be looking at the road and the houses are on the other side. That is a big difference because we are going to have people turning into that subdivision right beside our driveway. Mr. Schopper said he is thinking that if you were going to have to look at anything, it would be better to look at a less obtrusive fence because the cars are all going to be less than 6 foot tall that will be going down the street so you will not see any of those. If I am looking at houses out my back or side window, I'd like to look at the pretty fronts of them and their front yards as opposed to their backyard. I am just rationalizing. Ms. Lang said he is not in her backyard so he doesn't know what she is looking at. You don't know the perspective I'm coming from. Page 8 of 17; 5-17-07 P & Z Minutes Mr. Schopper said where he is coming from is that the property in question is zoned Industrial. We could build boxes over there. Ms. Lang said yes you could but then I think you would have to put me up a masonry fence. Mr. Schopper said yes that is true but it would be 6 foot tall. Ms. Lang said we are not happy about a stockade fence, but we have accepted that and the fact that it was to be 8 feet tall. We were ok. So we went from a masonry fence, to an 8 foot tall and now we are back to a 6 foot tall stockade fence. Mr. Schopper said he was even considering asking her husband if it would be worth it for them to pay for the height of the additional 2 feet but I don't think that will matter because it will be ugly. You know what I am saying? Sometimes bigger is not better. Ms. Lang said sometimes, but in this instance. .. Like they said, well you are really going to like the green-scaping. I've got greenscaping. I don't need any more greenscaping. What I want is when I walk out my back door, then I am not looking at a car driving down beside me. You know when they first opened up the street across from us for the subdivision across from us we had people coming down our driveway thinking it was an extension of the street. I am not sure how many people we will have driving down our driveway thinking they are going into the subdivision. It is an unknown. So to me the higher the fence is the better. Thank you. Chairman Shiflet closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Mike Benton motioned to approve ZC 2007-01, seconded by Brenda Cole. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Mr. Bowen advised Mr. Lang he will have the opportunity to address City Council when the item goes back to them. 9. SUP 2006-08 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM JEAlHYDROTECH ENGINEERING TO APPROVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTOMATED CAR WASH (LOCATED AT 8409 BEDFORD-EULESS ROAD) APPROVED Chairman Shiflet opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Ed Guiterrez, Principal with JEA Hydrotech Engineering, 3610 W. Pioneer Pkwy., Arlington, TX 76013, came forward. Our firm is representing Mr. C. W. Rogers, the Page 9 of 17; 5-17-07 P & Z Minutes owner of the site referenced. Briefly our proposed project consists of both site improvements and the renovation of an existing tire retail facility formerly operating as a Goodyear Store. We propose to convert the existing tire retail building to an automated car wash facility. With regard to the land use, the automated car wash facility we propose complies with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan that allows automotive business enterprises to operate. In so far as the renovation of the existing building is concerned, we propose to eliminate the use of two bays with overhead doors by removing the structural components in the exterior wall for those particular bays. Secondly, we plan to construct a new façade that would consist of tan cultured stone covering all of the corners of the building and also apply a stucco finish on new and existing exterior wall surfaces. By eliminating the bays, more land becomes available for us to provide the landscaping features that we propose as you can see on the exhibit. We have directed special efforts and attentions to providing a very well developed and densely planted landscape plan. Thanks to the staff, we are able to diligently to work up what we believe to be a fine layout. We also believe that in conjunction with the building improvements, we will elevate not only the aesthetics of our site, but improve the visual impact of both the surrounding areas as well as the site. On a further note, I'd like to share with you that we have incorporated the modifications of the Bedford Euless Road drive approach into our property as we also outlined in our Traffic Impact Analysis. Also, as recommended by the City of North Richland Hills and the City of Hurst officials, these modifications are shown in the packet passed out for your review. The detail of page CS 1.1 will give you a brief overview of how those will be implemented. We will develop full construction plans to give you the concrete raised island. With this in mind, we request that you favorably look upon the redevelopment of this site and approve our SUP request. I will be happy to entertain any questions that you have. Eric Wilhite described the site in further detail. When the applicant first came in to the Development Review Committee (DRC), DRC noted that the Land Use says this project would require a Special Use Permit whether that be a preferable type land use. Taking into consideration that this is currently a tire automotive service center, it could operate as that if someone else besides Goodyear or whoever wanted to do that, as long as that operation stayed the same it could go on for perpetuity as a legal non-conforming use. So when the applicant came in we knew it was a difficult site to work with. It is an adaptive reuse. We kind of looked at the redevelopment potential of the site. It is a difficult site because it is narrow and deep for commercial type projects we see. Obviously in order to reuse it, there are lots of building setback issues that exist. There was no way you could use the site and meet the landscape buffer requirements. So coming in with a new car wash facility and having a SUP mechanism gave staff a lot of latitude and really work creatively in the redevelopment process and the design with the applicant. It has been a fairly long process because it has been difficult. It is a different type of land use than the tire retail use that it was and so as mentioned the Traffic Impact Analysis had to be done. We looked at the potential of the reduction of the 50 foot landscape buffer around the perimeters. They are working with three street frontages which would typically even taken more property out of use for onsite development because there is a 15 foot landscape strip all the way around. In lieu of Page 10 of 17; 5-17-07 P & Z Minutes doing that in areas where there was potential when they relayed out the design, they increased the landscape plant material that was used and at the intersections it increased it to very close to the 15 foot that would be required. Staff believes the landscaping and the building renovations will enhance the existing facility that could go back in to use as a tire retail center. As one street is controlled by the City of Hurst that the site fronts, the Public Works Department has been working with the applicant. Staff went ahead and put this on the agenda for the Commission's consideration because it had been such a long process. The Traffic Impact Analysis was still going to be worked on. They have planned to some extent with what was needed with the raised island and the traffic control devices that are needed on Bedford Euless Road. However, we still probably need to make as a condition for approval by City Council that Staff did contact the City of Hurst and there are a couple of issues relating to this that still need to be addressed before we take this forward to City Council. The applicant has been forthcoming to get these taken care of and this should not be a problem. Another item, on the larger site plan-typically on redevelopment or new projects, by code, sidewalks are typically required along the public right-of-way whether they are there now or not, they have to be placed. There would typically be a sidewalk required along Bedford Euless Road, Blackfoot Trail, and Airport Freeway. Based on this being in somewhat of a redevelopment area, the applicant kind of looked at it and the Commission may want to discuss this with the applicant further. Staff's belief is that sidewalks are probably still necessary and should be required but the applicant is going to ask through the SUP process to grant an essential variance for that because there are not other sidewalks at this time going across some of the areas so there might not be a lot of potential pedestrian traffic going to this facility. We look at the overall opportunity to increase and bring things up to standards where there opportunities are without being too laborious we think on that. That is another item for your consideration. Mr. Schopper said he wonders if you could even cross this street as a pedestrian there. Mr. Wilhite said he personally did it twice when he went to look at the site during his review of the applicant's request to get a feel for what the request. I think there is potential for more sidewalks to be at the site. Staff has not gone out and down pedestrian usage counts. Mr. Schopper said Mr. Wilhite is saying that probably Bedford Euless it is a good idea to have a sidewalk there but Airport Freeway and Blackfoot Trail are probably not going to have sidewalks. Mr. Wilhite said has seen people walking on the eastside of Blackfoot Trail because it is a little more accessible for one thing and there is a fast food restaurant that people walk to. When I went to the site, I saw no reason for pedestrians to go on the former Goodyear side. As far as the Airport Freeway side, we are just being consistent with a couple other site plans, that were just approved at the Staff level for new development and redevelopment and we have required sidewalks in those instances as well. Page 11 of 17; 5-17-07 P & Z Minutes Mr. Schopper asked if adding sidewalks makes the site unusable parking and traffic flow wise? Mr. Wilhite said no because the sidewalks would end up being in the public right-of-way. They are a public facility so they would be outside of their required landscape buffer within our parkway. My understanding from being out there, there is room for the 4 foot sidewalk behind the curb or off the curb to meet the design standard as far as I am aware. Mr. Benton asked if Staff could require the applicant to put money in escrow for future sidewalks? Mr. Wilhite said that is one avenue to do that. That is typically done if there are planned future street improvements so it doesn't just go in and get torn out. Normally on new development or when new construction is happening we want the sidewalks put in because the escrow covers it at today's price not the future price. I would have to talk to the City Attorney to find out if this is an avenue or option at this time. It is still going to be up front money out of their pocket before they actually do construction. It would be part of their building permit to have that secured and taken care of before they start construction. Mr. Schopper said that is the problem why doesn't it have sidewalks now is because everything is paved. You really don't need a sidewalk it is all pavement in every direction you go. Mr. Wilhite said everything is paved and I don't know that sidewalks were required back when this facility was built. That is just an item staff wanted to bring up. Mr. Shiflet asked if the sidewalk on Bedford Euless Road be 4 or 5 foot? Mr. Wilhite said it would be required to be 4 foot by code. Mr. Shiflet asked what about the freeway side? Mr. Wilhite said the freeway side technically is 5 foot. TxDOT would dictate that so it goes 6 foot. Our code has certain street classifications that require 4 or 5 foot. I believe Bedford Euless Road even though it is a good sized street still falls under the classification of 4 foot. Mr. Charles Rogers, 404 Northcrest Road, Fort Worth, applicant said this has been an interesting project for his company. Mr. Rogers said he has been a developer in Tarrant County for over 30 years. He is former president of William Rigg Realtors which was sold in 1999 and for the past 10 years has been in development business. He has built a 550 car parking garage in downtown Fort Worth which is leased to the Star-Telegram and Fort Worth Club. He did a residential development called Rivercrest Landing in west Fort Worth which was very challenging and the topography drops from 700 feet to Page 12 of 17; 5-17-07 P & Z Minutes less than 600 feet at the bottom. There were 15 lots developed and I also built several homes there. I am currently building a facility in the Lynwood addition of Fort Worth for a charitable trust that will be mixed use. We think this is a great piece of property. It did have more challenges than I realized when I bought it. I think we have come up with a plan that will work very well in this area. We have been working on the carwash idea for two years and did a lot of research and visited with many people in this industry. This will be a flex wash where people will have the option of coming in for a full service car wash/interior clean or for an express drive thru wash. The car will go through the wash and then the customer has the option of pulling around to the express detail area or leaving the car wash. We are not concerned about the right hand turn only out of the site, because people who are wanting to go the other direction on Bedford Euless Road have the option of going around and coming back up Blackfoot Trail and making a right hand turn. We think that will work fine. We are pleased that the City of Hurst has agreed that we can have the left hand turn off of Bedford Euless Road into the car wash. Mr. Benton said he likes the landscaping and it looks really nice. I like the idea of all the stonework the applicant is going to do. I am concerned with the canopies. What are the canopies going to look like? Mr. Rogers said the canopies will be what you would typically see on a carwash. They will be a colored canvass. Obviously what we want to do is make this building stand out. We are using pretty calm tones on the building-beige and brown-so there is not a lot of color. The canopies give us the opportunity to introduce some color to attract people into the car wash. Relating to the sidewalks, I have spent a substantial amount of time on the site over the last 10 months. I have been there almost every day of the week. If the Commission tells us we must put the sidewalks in, we will. The concern that we have is that by encouraging pedestrian traffic on that, we are encouraging people to make the trip down to where you intersect with the turn coming under the access road under the freeway. Directly in front is the overhead with a u-turn for people coming in there. There is really not anyplace to go. We thought to encourage people to do that would be detrimental to them and plus they have to cross a driveway that we are hopefully going to have traffic coming in plus then they go into the Conoco station and have to cross another driveway. There are sidewalks over on the other side of the street and I think it would be safer for them to go that way. Mr. Shiflett asked on the other side of what street? Mr. Rogers said on the other side of Bedford Euless Road at the mall. Mr. Cooper said the applicant shows in the exhibit of the cars coming out after the wash making a right hand turn. How many cars can be backed up? Just say it is during Christmas season with all the traffic on Bedford Euless, how many cars can be backed Page 13 of 17; 5-17-07 P & Z Minutes up? I am sure you can control the car wash-stop it-from inside but approximately how many cars will fit from the car wash exit to the road? Mr. Rogers said he does not know, but he can have the engineers do a layout. You are correct. At both ends of the car wash there will be attendants. One guy at the beginning of the car wash helping people getting on the car wash to make sure they get on correctly. Another guy at the end will help them get off the car wash and make sure they know where to drive in they are getting additional services or if they are leaving, which way to go to get out. Mr. Cooper said he was curious if there was control of the traffic flow. Some of the other car washes I've seen or been to, the vehicles really stack up. Mr. Rogers said the tunnel washes are able to run a car through very quickly but it is possible that you could have some congestion. We can manually slow the car wash down. We can stop it and not let anybody else out. The guy at the end will have a hand held unit that will give him control over that. Mr. Wilhite said that staff was really concerned with the queing space not only at the entry to tunnel area but also at the kiosk. That is why it is imperative to keep two lanes. There was some discussion at one time that there might have to be a fire lane through the kiosk area and if it only went down to one lane that would severely impact what the Traffic Impact Assessment we did but also as people come out and que up if they can get two cars through at a time that is why it is so long from the kiosk to the beginning of the car wash so they don't end up backing up and blocking the drive onto Blackfoot as well. Staff tried to look at a lot of those type of design issues with the applicant as well. Chairman Shiflet closed the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. Bill Schopper motioned to award creativity and approve SUP 2006-08, with traffic control measures that are in agreement with the City of North Richland Hills and the City of Hurst, seconded by Mike Benton. Chairman Shiflet asked what about sidewalks? Mr. Schopper said he agrees with the applicant on the sidewalks. He does not want to encourage pedestrian traffic to that part of the world. Mr. Cooper asked if we are talking about sidewalks on Bedford Euless or other parts too? Mr. Schopper said he is talking about the way the project is proposed with no sidewalks and with the addition of the traffic control measures. We are assuming the applicant's newest package included the island. The proposal went from having speed bumps and paint to adding the island. Page 14 of 17; 5-17-07 P & Z Minutes Chairman Shiflet said you have the island in the middle and the painting where Hurst is now saying they'd like to have the bumps. Mr. Schopper said what we are saying is that the plan has to be in coordination with both city's traffic management requirements. Greg Van Nieuwenhuize said the exhibit on the screen is what the applicant submitted today and from talking with the City of Hurst today they want even beyond that. Mr. Schopper asked if the motion made "with traffic control measures in agreement with the City of North Richland Hills and the City of Hurst" should cover any further traffic control agreements between the cities regarding this site. Greg Van Nieuwenhuize said that is right. Mr. Benton asked if there could be a sidewalk requirement on the Hurst side of Bedford Euless Road later on? Mr. Wilhite said that would be Hurst's requirement on the Bedford Euless side since it is their street. As development continues, even if we do something down on other streets that the development is on our side but the street is actually Richland Hills or another city we would typically still require sidewalks as part of the development. Blackfoot is definintely all North Richland Hills as is the access road. Mr. Cooper said he wants to understand this. We want to discourage pedestrian traffic on that side of Bedford Euless and put it on the other side where the traffic is running into the mall. Mr. Schopper said no, we want to not to encourage pedestrian traffic to the west of Blackfoot because basically what you have is people walking to the convenience store and to the Jack In The Box and people hitch hiking along Airport Freeway. That is your pedestrian traffic and city planners out there counting stuff. So basically what we have is a motion and a second as proposed just with the traffic control nothing about sidewalks. What your point was the traffic control doesn't mean we are saying if Hurst wants a sidewalk we are not putting a sidewalk in. Mr. Shiflet said he would like to ask consideration on, and I think that you've done a wonderful job on this, but I really have strong feelings that a sidewalk is needed at least on the Bedford Euless Road side. Blackfoot is a cut through street both directions. Airport Freeway the service road is a whole other matter. You are going to have grass on the site that will be mowed. If there is pedestrian traffic there, then they are going to be walking across the grass or cutting through your parking lot potentially damaging trees, landscapes, irrigation, and things like that. My personal feeling is that on a 5-lane road that carries traffic that Bedford Euless carries to not have a sidewalk-I just see Page 15 of 17; 5-17-07 P & Z Minutes that as irresponsible on my part and I can't go along with that. I am saying that offering a friendly amendment to the motion. Mr. Schopper asked just on the Bedford Euless side? Mr. Benton asked where would you stop that at? Mr. Schopper said you'd start it at Blackfoot and stop it at where the convenience store does not have a sidewalk. Mr. Benton said the convenience store parking lot you would end up walking across and then it will direct you across Blackfoot Trail. Mr. Schopper said yes, and you would have to do the handicap thing down Blackfoot Trail so you would basically get across this property on the pavement of the convenience store. Mr. Benton said he is concerned that it is going to make people want to run across the street right there. That could be a dangerous area right in there. I like the idea of sidewalks, I am always real concerned with that busy of an area and that corner. Kids get over here, want to run across from the convenience store. . . Mr. Shiflet said he hears everything being said, but I think if we don't do the sidewalk there are going to be on the applicant's property or be out in the street. This is a way to make it safer. Mr. Cooper said he supports that too. He would really like to see a sidewalk on Bedford Euless Rd. Chairman Shiflet called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried (5-2). Randy Shiflet and Steven Cooper voted against. 10. ZC 2007-07 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF FROM FROM TERRY FREDEKING TO APPROVE A ZONING CHANGE FROM "AG" AGRICULTURAL TO "R-1" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (LOCATED IN THE 8300 BLOCK OF CARDINAL LANE - .949 ACRES). APPROVED Chairman Shiflet opened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. Page 16 of 17; 5-17-07 P & Z Minutes Mr. Fredeking spoke in favor of his request. He intends to rezone the property so that a future residence can be developed. Former Mayor Charles Scoma who resides across from this property also expressed that he is in favor of the zoning request. Chairman Shiflet closed the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. Eric Wilhite said that staff recommends approval. Don Bowen motioned to approve ZC 2007-07, seconded by Mark Haynes. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 11. ZC 2007-08 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST ROYAL BUILDING CORPORATION TO APPROVE A ZONING CHANGE FROM" AG" AGRICULTURAL TO "R-1" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (LOCATED AT 8700 AMUNDSON DRIVE- .99 ACRES). APPROVED Chairman Shiflet opened the Public Hearing at 8:24 p.m. Mark Comis, representing Royal Building Corporation, the applicant, spoke in favor of the request to approve the zoning change. Chairman Shiflet closed the Public Hearing at 8:29 p.m. Eric Wilhite said that staff recommends approval. Mark Haynes motioned to approve ZC 2007-08, seconded by Mike Benton. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, the chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:29 p.m. Chairman Secretary ~c.~ Randy Shiflet Page 17 of 17; 5-17-07 P & Z Minutes