Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 1983-05-19 Minutes . CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. PZ 83-25 . . MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS MAY 19, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, George Tucker, at 7:30 P.M. PRESENT: CHAIRMAN MEMBERS George Tucker Don Bowen Mark Wood Marjorie Nash Mark Hannon John Schwinger Allen Bronstad Desi Smyth ALT. MEMBER ASST. DIR. PW/U CLERK Mark Wood asked to be excused from this Commission meeting due a conflict of interest in this matter. The reason being he lives within 200 feet of this proposed rezoning. Request of W. Brown Custom Builders, Inc. to rezone some tracts of land in W. A. Trimble Survey, Abstract 1520, R. P. Barton Survey, Abstract 175, and T. Akers Survey, Abstract 19, from their present classifications of Planned Development, Agriculture, and Local Retail to proposed classifications of Multi-Family, Planned Development, and Specific Use-Golf Course. This property is located on the south side of Northeast Loop 820 and is bounded on the east by Meadow Lakes Addition and on the south by Fossil Creek Trails Addition. The Chairman opened the Pubic Hearing and called for those wishing to speak in favor of this zoning request to please come forward. Marion Massey, Attorney, came forward to represent the developers of this request. He presented a conceptual plan of the proposed request. ~ Page 2 P & Z Minutes May 19, 1983 . Mr. Massey stated that there are two particular factors of concern the people of this area had. One being the golf course and the other being the repair of the lake. Mr. Massey stated that the dam would have to be repaired with the approval of the Texas Water Board. It would take about $750,000 to properly fix the dam, channel beneath the dam clean out and dredge out the lake to get it back close to the level it was. He stated item #2 in priority is to alleviate traffic problems which will ultimately be a problem regardless how the land is developed. . Mr. Massey stated that W. Brown Builders, Inc. got into the picture in 1976. In 1974, Tracts 1 & 2 were zoned Local Retail. When Brown Builders came into the picture and until the present time, the owner could have put apartments that are now asked for in the present zoning. He stated that the zoning we are requesting is apartments at 19 units per acre, the apartments will decrease the traffic which would exist if the local retail shopping center went in by 1/3 or to say it another way, the apartments would create only 1/3 the traffic that a shopping center would. Mr. Massey stated that they had contacted the State Highway Department and had a letter from Mr. French, District Design Engineer, which suggests that we propose to the City of North Richland Hills that we construct a street which we will call Colonial Drive up to the existing bridge that is up on Loop 820, east of the railroad crossing. . He stated this would give direct access to Loop 820 eastbound. It would be a one way horseshoe ~ Page 3 p & Z Minutes May 19, 1983 . turnaround that would take traffic to the west very similar to what you see under most interstate highways. Mr. Massey presented a diagram of how the turnaround would take traffic back to the west. Chairman Tucker stated that traffic coming from the west could skip taking the Rufe Snow exit by coming up over the bridge going into the subdivision. Mr. Massey stated that although the apartments would create some traffic the new street would dictate a convenience for a number of people coming in and out of the subdivision. . He stated that the next item of concern was the golf course which 2/3 if not 3/4 was actually in the flood plain and in Haltom City. Most of which is in the City of North Richland Hills is actually useable property that the developer is giving up for a good buffer zone. Mr. Massey stated that the conceptual plan here tonight has some adjustments from the previous plan. He stated that many probably felt that how do we know the developers are going to do what they say they are going to do. Mr. Massey then stated that they wanted to be tied to the commitments that item #1, the dam would be con- structed first and foremost and/or the money be put up in escrow with the City. . Secondly, item #2, the bridge would be built or the money put up with the City of North Richland Hills or the State of Texas, whichever depository is represented, and obviously when we put our money up that's about all they can do dealing with the State of Texas. Page 4 p & Z Minutes May 19, 1983 . Mr. Massey stated that thirdly, the golf course is ready to go, however, we will have the developers put up a performance bond. He stated that these three things will be done first before any construction begins. He also wanted to emphasis that it would be about six years before all of this is completed. Mr. Massey stated that they did have a deadline of June 30th to have an acceptable plan or Continential Bank will take over the mortgage. He presented the Commission with the letter from Mr. French and a petition for the request with 49 names on it with 28 names within 200 feet. . Chairman Tucker asked who the developer is and who will be the developer on all tracts, or if this is zoned the way it is requested, will the tracts be split up and sold off to other developers. Mr. Massey stated that he could only tell him what the immediate plans are. Except for the golf course, Brown Builders plan to develop the residential lots and their plan is to build and develop the condominiums. He stated that if someone comes up and says they are going to take it off our hands and do the same thing, I could only speak as if I was the developer, and if I could get close to the same return without the headaches, then I would probably sell the property. But we want whatever restrictions you feel are necessary or warranted in order that whoever would take this over would be required to do the same thing as we are. . Mr. Massey stated that it would not be a low rent district when you consider the land cost and the developers cost. They have to get a ~ Page 5 p & Z Minutes May 19, 1983 . high return on these apartments, rent wise. Mr. Hannon stated that his main concern was the traffic in this area. It appears that the solution is to build an access road on the south, as well as bridges over the railroad to the west & on and off ramps at that location. Mr. Hannon asked if his client would be willing to construct these or agree to contract with the City to have the State construct these. Mr. Massey stated no because they have looked into this and the cost of extending that railroad bridge is so phenomenal that the State Highway Department said there is no plan nor will there ever be any for that to be done. He then asked if it was the service road where it goes thru that was being discussed. . Mr. Hannon stated that he considered this to be a potentially hazardous situation having to come down on the freeway. Mr. Massey stated that their engineer said there was no way and so did the State Highway Dept. As far as the potential traffic hazard, it is my understanding that the State Highway Dept. designed this and the fact is this is the required distances and they considered this to be non-hazardous. Chairman Tucker asked how do you assure the City and how do you give the Commission and City Council the chance to really approve your plan as Planned Development. You have a conceptual plan, but according to ordinance, it does not meet the ordinance as it is written today on the submission of this plan. . He stated that the ordinance states that we want to know where the buildings are going within ~ Page 6 P & Z Minutes May 19, 1983 . limitations of construction, where are the parking lots, what is the parking ratio, where are the green areas going to be and what is the real density going to be. When you say a conceptual plan that means it is subject to some pretty good changes when you get into some engineering problems. . Mr. Gene Worrell, Engineer for the developers, stated that on projects of this magnitude and after reviewing your ordinance on planned development, the detailed requirement on planned development approval is substantial more than what we have presented to the Commission and Staff. In discussion with the Staff, we asked if we could submit a planned development district request and establish the criteria in accordance with your zoning ordinance and provide in that planned development district ordinance, that prior to issuance of any building permits, detailed site plans would be submitted and approved by the Commission and City Council before a final subdivision plat could be filed. He stated that it is our feeling that by using the criteria established in your subdivision ordinance as this property is developed under and provided further in the PD ordinance the final site plan would have to be approved before the issuance of any building permits,thereby assuring that these plans are in conformance with the conceptual plan. This would give the City the final review of the product before it is ever approved. . Chairman Tucker stated that in normal circumstances in zoning you have to give a site plan anyway. It is unusual on the PD portion because actually you are asking for a zoning change then going through the normal zoning channels. You use the word PD and I am wondering why you use it. ~ Page 7 P & Z Minutes May 19, 1983 . Mr. Massey stated that they have found that if you say planned development, that most the time those who under- stand zoning feel more comfortable that the City has a better ax over the developer to see that he does what he says he's going to do. In a mere zoning change you can do anything required in that zoning. We under- stand that the people want to know the whole project and frankly, it is so huge that we wanted the PD so there would be a last say in what we would have to put in. Chairman Tucker stated that what Mr. Massey was stating is that the City can tie them to a schedule. Mr. Worrell stated that what they were trying to do is assure you that we are going to do what we say. If we are tied to a schedule and if we don't meet that schedule then the zoning would be null and void. . Mr. Jack Mayberry, 6405 Riviera, came forward. He stated that he built the first house in Meadow Lakes in 1977 and he is president of the association that was formed to save the lake, but tonight he is speaking for himself and not the association. He stated that he agreed with Mr. Massey in effect that the lake needs to be fixed. He can't see why anyone would want to live out here and not get some benefit out of it. If the lake is not fixed then it will be an open storm sewer by this time next year. . Mr. Mayberry stated that being a CPA, he is very familiar with builder's costs, profit motives, and developing and if anybody in the audience thinks that phase will ever be developed 100% single family homes similar to the homes in Meadow Lakes, then he would like to sell them some uranium stock. ~ Page 8 p & Z Minutes May 19, 1983 . He stated the lots would be just too expensive to sell and there is no way you could develop that into all single family homes. If this fails to pass then it will be a long time before we see anyone else develop this area. Mr. Mayberry stated that if this request is turned down the residents may see a worse plan several years from now. He stated that he thinks this is the best deal for the area. . Mr. Richard Gallaher, 4809 Woodcreek, came forward. He stated that he was an officer of the Meadow Lakes Assoc. and that they had been working for a year trying to get the concept that the only alternative is apartments in the entire area and in the year it has developed into the plan you see here. We as residents of this area requested that the developer include everything you see on the plan here as planned development. We did not want the proposal that was brought to you several weeks ago where the apartment area was straight apartment zoning. Our fear was that the land would be sold off and none of the other things would happen. As a total plan the majority of the people and Meadow Lakes Assoc. are prepared to accept this concept. Mr. Hannon asked if he was speaking for the homeowner association. Mr. Gallagher replied yes. He was speaking for 16 members of the assoc. Mr. Bill Fenimore, 6041 Riviera, came forward. He stated he was in favor of this request because they are providing for another way out of the area at their cost. They are planning to construct a bridge which is totally unbelievable to me as a developer. He also stated that apartments are a lot better than a shopping center or mall. . ~ Page 9 P & Z Minutes May 19, 1983 . Mr. Bert McDaniel, 6409 Meadow Lakes Drive, came forward. He stated he was neither for or against but had a question about the turnaround. Mr. McDaniel asked how many lanes it would be, right now the left turn lanes back up greatly on the access road. Mr. Worrell stated that it would be an additional left turn lane and widened. Mr. McDaniel asked how the residents who don't live on the lake were suspose to have access to it. Mr. Worrell stated the developer has reserved a lot to provide an access. They were not sure if it would be private or public access. . Mr. David Reasor, 6545 Lakeside Circle, came forward. He stated his main concern was the condition of the lake. It is literally turning into a swamp. This is the best plan that has been offered this area. Mr. T. D. Horton, 3805 Diamond Loch W. came forward. He stated that he is opposed to this because of the traffic. He did hope that they could work out a compromise. Chairman Tucker stated that the Comm- ission and the City Council could place many restrictions on this project. We can see that any stipulation is carried out before any building permits are issued. The Chairman called for those wishing to speak in opposition of this request to please come forward. . Mr. Charles Herndon, 5000 Skylark, came forward. He stated that he was opposed to this because of the traffic that would be generated from tracts 1 & 2. The increase would be approximately 2800 cars and people. Mr. Herndon stated he wanted single family there. Page 10 P & Z Minutes May 19, 1983 . Mr. Frank Metts, 5002 Skylark, came forward. He stated that he agreed with Mr. Herndon and that this was not a satisfactory plan to him. He presented the Commission with a petition of 104 signatures representing 36 homes within 200 feet and 68 homes not within 200 feet. Mr. Judd Brock, 4904 Lariat, came forward. He stated his main objection is the traffic problem that would be created. RECESS Chairman Tucker called a recess at 9:05 P.M. BACK TO ORDER Chairman Tucker called the meeting back to order at 9:25 P.M. with the same members present. . Mr. Gary Neisler, 6216 Riviera, came forward. He stated that he lived within 200 feet but did not receive a letter notifying him of the meeting. Mr. Neisler stated he was concerned about the traffic. He stated he would like to see the property south of the power lines be single family. Mr. Dale Mazachek, 4913 Dory, came forward. He stated he was opposed to this because of the increase in density. He also stated that as a matter of clarification the Meadow Lakes Association never had a formal meeting. Several other homeowners came forward and stated that their main objection was because of the traffic. There being no one else wishing to speak, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing. . Chairman Tucker stated he was aware there wasn't more time to fully plan this development but that was one reason why they postponed it. ~ Page 11 p & Z Minutes May 19, 1983 . He stated that this land will never be single family residences. It will be some type of commercial or maybe multi-family with business park mixture. Mr. Hannon asked who the developer was on the golf course. Mr. Johnny Pelcher stated Mr. Jim Redford is the architect and the engineer on site of construction is Jim Turf. Mr. Hannon stated he would like to say that this may be the last chance to fix the lakes. . Mr. Hannon made the motion to approve PZ 83-25 subject to the following stipulations. 1. The developer put in escrow with the City the estimated cost of the left turn bridge across 820 and agree to reimburse the City for any additional cost over and above the original estimate. 2. They put in escrow with the City the estimated cost of constructing an excess road on the south side of 820 and agree to reimburse the City for any additional cost over and above the estimate. 3. They complete construction of the lakes prior to issuance of building permits. 4. They have executed with contractor a contract for construction of the golf course and appropriate performance bond to ensure its construction prior to issuing of building permits. 5. All areas east of Colonial and south of Meadow Lakes be single family in conformance with our existing ordinance for IF-12. That green space be provided between the upper and lower lakes to be a park benefited by all the people not living on the lake and this open space be a minimum of five acres. That individual site plans of development sites be approved by this Commission prior to issuance of building permits, that a 6' masonry wall be constructed on the north line of TESCO easement, and within 150' of the south line of the TESCO easement, the apartments will be limited to one story, and . Page 12 P & Z Minutes May 19, 1983 . finally, City Council amend the PD ordinance to allow the approval of this zoning, if required. This motion was seconded by Mrs. Nash, and the motion carried 3-1 with Mr. Bowen voting against. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. &~C ~r 7)) ~/fì-/.-1"ë t3f? ~ ~ . .