The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPZ 1997-04-10 Minutes · . MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS APRIL 10, 1997 - 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman David Barfield, at 7:30 p.m. Due to laryngitis, Chairman Barfield turned the chair over to Vice-Chairman Richard Davis. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman David Barfield Don Bowen Ron Lueck Ted Nehring Richard Davis Paul Miller Charles Owen CITY STAFF Planning Director Recording Secretary Planner Asst. Director of P.W. Staff Engineer Barry LeBaron Valerie Taylor Bill Longnecker Kevin Miller Julia Skare 3. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF MARCH 27,1997 APPROVED Mr. Owen made the motion to approve the minutes of the March 27, 1997, meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and carried 7 - O. 1 4. PS 96-33 REQUEST OF KTBN INC., FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOTS 1 - 16, BLOCK 1, AND LOTS 1 -14, BLOCK 2, NORTHRIDGE MEADOWS ADDITION (LOCATED WEST OF THE HOLIDAY LANE AND HIGHTOWER DR. INTERSECTION) APPROVED Because of a conflict of interest, Mr. Nehring stated that he would be abstaining from discussion and the voting on this item. Mr. LeBaron explained that this is a preliminary plat on a 9 acre tract of land located west of the Holiday Lane and Hightower Drive intersection that had been tabled at the March 27, 1997 meeting. The issues concerning this plat are: (1) a waiver on a portion of a masonry screening wall, (2) Flood Plain issues on proposed lots in this subdivision, and, (3) the drainage easement between Lots 5 & 6, Block 1, being included on the preliminary plat. Mr. Ernest Hedgcoth, presented this request He explained that they have revised the lot configuration and have complied with all other requests from staff. Mr. Hedgcoth stated that he has spoke with FEMA in Washington and explained that this property is not in the flood plain. It is shown in the flood plain on the flood maps, but was inadvertently included because it lies between two properties that are in the flood plain. This was determined when they did the topography for this subdivision. FEMA will issue a LOMR once they have received the application; the paper work for this is in progress. Additionally, Mr. Hedgcoth explained that the variance request for the portion of screening fence on Hightower Drive is because there are two existing homes on Hightower Drive that they do not want to fence in. Mr. Hedgcoth stated that he did concur with the remaining engineers comments. Mr. Bowen made the motion to approve PS 96-33 subject to the engineers comments, allowing the waiver on the portion of the screening fence on Hightower Drive. The motion was seconded by Mr. Miller and carried 6 -0. (Note: Mr. Nehring abstained from this vote.) 2 5. PS 97-11 REQUEST OF TECNOL INC., FOR A REPLA T OF LOT 5R AND TRACT 6R, INDUSTRIAL PARK ADDITION. (LOCATED BETWEEN THE S.L. & S.W. RAILROAD TRACKS AND INDUSTRIAL PARK BLVD., EAST OF RUFE SNOW DRIVE. APPROVED Mr. LeBaron explained this parcel is currently platted into two lots and that they are replatting into one lot. A proposed expansion showed they would be encroaching on some easements; this replat gives them the opportunity to relocate the lot lines. The issues associated with this are: 1) a waiver for the required sidewalks, 2) a waiver of the required street lights, 3) an undetermined amount of Right-of-way dedication for the Rufe Snow expansion. Mr. Gary Vickery, Teague Nail & Perkins, and Mr. Scott Johnson, Tecnol, presented this request. He stated that they were just informed that the right-of- way needed for Rufe Snow is an additional 3', another 5' for a utility easement and a 22' slope easement and they do not have a problem with this. Staff is also requesting additional right-of-way on Industrial Park Boulevard. Mr. Kevin Miller, Assistant Director of Public Works, stated that this is because they don't have enough parkway. Back of curb information from the latest survey shows some places of right-of-way as little as 6' and in other places 8 - 8 1/2 feet. There is sufficient property available to give the city the standard 9 1/2 foot parkway. Discussion ensued regarding the necessity for Tecnol to dedicate additional right-of-way when they are already dedicating 80 feet. It was determined that a 2 foot utility easement adjacent to the existing r-o-w along Industrial Park Boulevard and Tecnol Boulevard would accomplish the same thing, and Tecnol wouldn't have to give up additional land. Staff, applicant and Commission all concurred. Because pedestrian traffic does not currently exist in this industrial park and, there are no additional sidewalks in the area, the applicant is requesting the variance from the required sidewalks and street lights. There will be onsite lighting in the parking lot they plan to construct. Mr. Barfield made the motion to approve PS 97-11, waiving the sidewalk requirement and require that street lights be constructed along that portion of the property that is developed and a covenant be signed for street lights on the undeveloped portion and also the right-of-way dedication of an additional 3 feet, an additional 5 foot for utility easement and an additional 22 foot slope easement 3 for Rufe Snow Drive and the 2 foot utility easement for Industrial Park Boulevard and Tecnol Boulevard. Mr. Lueck seconded the motion and it carried 7 - O. 6. PZ 97-15 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF WESTERN RIM INVESTORS, L.L.C., FOR REZONING FROM R-7 MULTIFAMILY & C-1 COMMERCIAL TO A PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, ON LOT 2, BLOCK 2, WALKER'S BRANCH ADDITION. (LOCATED OFF OF EMERALD HILLS WAY AND GRAPEVINE HIGHWAY) APPROVED Vice-Chairman Davis opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. Mr. Rick Simmons, Western Rim Investors, presented this request. He explained that the Planned Development they are proposing is a gated, low density, multifamily housing with amenities such as clubhouse, daycare facility, attached garages for each unit, basketball, tennis and volleyball courts, hiking trails, swimming pools and picnic areas with gazebos. He explained that the density ends up being approximately 11.3 units to the acre. The property is currently zoned for 16 units to the acre. He stated that there is approximately 15.94 acres for the multi-family portion of this PD and 6.4 acres for the C-1 Commercial portion. Mr. Simmons passed out a revised site plan and six various additional hand-outs regarding this Planned Development. Mr. Simmons went into great detail regarding the amenities offered with this development and the overall project. Some major points brought out were: this will be a one gated community, the minimum dwelling unit size will be 983 square feet. There will be a daycare facility for residents only. Over-sized garages will be provided for each unit. Multiple recreational amenities are included. There will be a business center containing fax machines, copy machines and computers for each resident's use. Some of the in-home amenities offered are double-pane, energy efficient windows, oversized refrigerators, security alarms and marble tub Jacuzzi's. Chairman Barfield asked Mr. Simmons about the engineering on the wrought iron fence with brick columns every 30 feet. His concern is the columns leaning or falling after several years have past; he has seen this repeatedly in other areas. Mr. Simmons stated that they would meet or exceed all engineering requirements for the fence at the time the building permit is applied for. Mr. 4 Simmons stated that the only waiver they are requesting is in the required screening fence. They would prefer the wrought iron fence with brick columns every 30 feet and extra landscaping. They believe this is more aesthetically pleasing. There will be a minimum of one tree for every 30 feet. The trees of his choice are Bradford Pears or Live Oaks. The screening wall shown on the revised site plan is the screening wall they are proposing along the ditch. The fence along the stretch of Grapevine Highway will be constructed per ordinance requirements. The eastern property line will be screened by a 6' wooden privacy fence, but the applicant has no problem putting a wrought iron in this location if the Commission so desires. He explained that the cost difference would be minimal since he stains his stockade fences. In response to a question, Mr. Simmons stated that a turn around will exist for cars that, for what ever reason, are not granted access. The gate will be placed just past the club house, so entry for the club house is not required through the secured gate. A turn lane is proposed on Grapevine Highway to allow for stacking of cars waiting to turn into this complex. In response to a question, Mr. LeBaron explained that emergency access is coordinated with the Fire Marshal. Much discussion ensued regarding there being only one entrance proposed, and the possible traffic congestion that this could cause. The applicant stated that because the property along Emerald Hills Way is in the flood plain, a 175' bridge would be required before a second entrance could be constructed there, that would be a tremendous expense. Vice-Chairman Davis asked for any additional proponents. There being none, Vice-Chairman Davis asked for any opponents. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Vice-Chairman Davis asked the applicant if he was willing to make each handout the Commission received an Exhibit as part of this Planned Development. The applicant agreed and Mr. Davis stated that the following exhibits would be included: Exhibit #1 - Revised Site Plan; Exhibit #2 - General Conditions; Exhibit #3 - Site Plan Contents; Exhibit #4 - In Home Amenities; Exhibit #5 Common Amenities; Exhibit #6 - Letter of Intent for door to door trash pick up and Exhibit #7 - Lot and Area Requirements. Mr. Owen made the motion to approve PZ 97-15 with Exhibits 1 - 7 as outlined by Mr. Davis and the applicant as conditions of the Planned Development, that an emergency entrance be added to the site plan that is approved by the fire marshal and that a wrought iron fence be constructed in place of the stockade fence on the ilL" shaped part of the property. 5 Mr. Lueck stated that he has a problem with only one entrance for this community. He likes the lower density and the development overall, but wants the record to reflect that he objects to one entrance. Discussion ensued regarding this and it was determined that because of the location of the lot, a second entrance was not practical. Mr. Miller stated that what the applicant has planned for this property, on paper anyway, is phenomenal. Chairman Barfield seconded the motion and it carried 7 - O. 7. STAFF REPORT Vice-Chairman Davis reminded the Commissioners of the workshop scheduled for April 21. 8. CITIZEN COMMENTS There were none. 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to conduct the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. ~~~2-j':':-:7L-:;J . ~...~~. ...,.,.... . .c>~.~ ~...-' "';'.., ,<_" ......_...... ':/.~ ecretary, Charles Owen Chairman David Barfield 6