Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 1982-10-21 Minutes . . . ~ CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS OCTOBER 21, 1982 - 7:30 P.M. CONSIDERATION OF RESCHEDULING THE NOVEMBER 25TH AND DECEMBER 23RD MEETING DATES 1. PS 82-38 2. PS 82-39 The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, George Tucker, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: CHAIRMAN SECRETARY MEMBERS George Tucker Marjorie Nash Don Bowen Mark Hannon Mark Wood John Schwinger Gene Riddle Wanda Calvert ALT. MEMBER DIRECTOR OF PW/U P&Z COORDINATOR The Chairman stated the dates for the Plan- ning and Zoning meetings for November and December will be changed to November 18 and December 21 due to the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. Request of Stony brooke, Inc. for final plat of Lots 7-12 and Tract A-R, Block 13, Stony- brooke Addition. Mr. Hannon moved, seconded by Mr. Bowen, to move PS 82-38 to the end of the agenda. This motion carried 5-0. Request of YMCA for final plat of Lot 2, Block 11, Emerald Hills Addition. Dick Perkins, Teague, NaIl and Perkins, carne forward to represent the YMCA. Mr. Perkins said they had received the City Engineer's letter and it seemed he had not received information regarding the proposed water improvements there which will be looping in the sys~em there on Lynda Street and adding an additional fire hydrant. Mr. Perkins said the other Engineer's comment was the dedication and notary seal on the plat which the surveyor has done or will do prior to going to Council. Mr. Perkins said they are in full agreement with all the comments. . . . ~ Page Two P & Z Minutes October 21, 1982 PS 82-39 APPROVED Mr. Wood made a motion to approve PS 82-39 subject to the Engineer's comments. This motion was seconded by Ms. Nash and the motion carried 5-0. 3. PS 82-40 Request of TLB-GSC Enterprises, Inc. for replat of Lots 2R, 3, 4, 5, and 6, Block B, College Hills Addition. Dick Perkins came forward to represent TLB- GSC in their request. Mr. Perkins said they had received the City Engineer's letter and are in full agreement with the first three comments. He said they would like to have the fourth comment waived regarding requiring a 25 foot building setback on Lot 2R fronting on Holiday Lane. Mr. Teague said Mr. Bonham wants to build on the small lots fronting on Bogart street and later re- plat Lot 2R with a public street and all lots would side on Holiday Lane, this way they would only need the 15 foot building line. Mr. Perkins said they would request the Com- mission grant approval with the 15 foot build- ing line on Holiday Lane. Mr. Hannon said if he plans to replat at a future date, why can't he show the 25 foot building line at this time. Mr. Perkins said the City Engineer is wanting the building lines of Lots 2R and 3 to be compatible so you would not have a step in the building line, but that would restrict the building on Lot 3. He said Mr. Bonham could not build the building on Lot 3 that he wants to with the 25 foot building line. Mr. Perkins said if they wanted to restrict Lot 2R without effecting Lot 3, that would be agreeable. He said Mr. Bonham has a pretty nice size duplex he wants to put on that lot and the 25 foot building line would not permit this 2,200 square foot duplex. . . . ~ Page Three P & Z Minutes October 2l, 1982 Mr. Hannon said there was some problems here, he doesn't believe there was a Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block B and you cannot replat without including the adjacent property here, the rest of Block B. He asked if there was an error here. Mr. Perkins said they had some problems with this. He said they could not find one, but the Tax Office carried it this way. Mr. Hannon asked if there was a plat recorded at the Court House as Lot l, Block B. Mr. Perkins said they could not find one. Mr. Hannon said our record just shows a Block B. He said what they must do is resubdivide all of Block B and he feels there is also problems in that here is contiguous ownership of property to the west of Holiday Lane which has not been preliminary platted and also we do not have construction plans for Holiday Lane. Mr. Perkins said in regards to replatting all of Block B, he understands the ordinance states that, but most of Block B is owned by another party and am not sure if the college would be interested in doing this, it would be putting an unnecessary burden on Mr. Bonham. Mr. Perkins said regarding the construction of Holiday Lane, it has been dedicated in the past, and Mr. Bonham plans to build that portion of Holiday Lane when he develops Lot 2R. He said Mr. Bonham plans to develop Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 now and later when he replats Lot 2R he will construct Holiday Lane up to the end of his property. Mr. Perkins said in regards to the land west of Holiday Lane being contiguous, it was their opinion in researching the subdivision ordi- nance that the wording of this ordinance didn't apply since this is two different tracts of land, separated by Holiday Lane, that did not constitute it being contiguous land and do not feel they should have to preliminary plat it now. Mr. Hannon said he would if he was on this side of the table. ~ . Page Four P & Z Minutes October 21, 1982 Mr. Perkins said Mr. Bonham spent a lot of time and money working with the Corp of Engineers, the railroad and some other people trying to take care of that drainage problem and trying to releave the situation that exists on Bogart and Deaver right now. He said since this property is not impacted by the drainage condi- tion across the street, he doesn't feel, with the wording of the ordinance, that it is neces- sary to cause him to show a preliminary plat on this entire tract of land when he is still try- ing to work out the details of this drainage with the Corp of Engineers, the railroad, and other parties involved in trying to help these people who live in this area who have some flooding problems. Mr. Perkins said Mr. Bonham is not a fly-by-night developer, he has developed some land to the south of this area and he is vitally interested in enhancing the drainage condition of this area in North Richland Hills. . Mr. Perkins said all Mr. Bonham is wanting to do at this time is put duplexes on four lots. Mr. Hannon said the Commission has a memo from the Director of Public Works stating he and the City Engineer concur that it is contiguous property and should be preliminary platted in accordance with our subdivision ordinance. Mr. Perkins said if you would look at the word "contiguous," it is not contiguous. The Chairman called for a motion. PS 82-40 DENIED Mr. Tucker made the motion to approve PS 82-40 subject to the Engineer's comments. Mr. Bowen said since the Public Works Director believes the tract to the west should be platted, also could we make that a part of the motion. . Mr. Tucker said the matter of where it is con- tiguous or not, is a matter of opinion and is up to the Commission to decide. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and the motion failed 2-3 with Hannon, Nash and Bowen voting against approval. . . . ~ Page Five P & Z Minutes October 2l, 1982 The Chairman stated the plat is denied. Mr. Perkins asked what they could do now, we need some guidance as to what would be accept- able when we come back in. Mr. Tucker said he felt we could not require the other owners to replat, but need the other's signatures. I~. Tucker said it would also help if you would show what you plan to do with Lot 2R, the 15 foot building line would probably be granted. Mr. Perkins asked what avenue they had in appeal- ing to the City Council. He said he feels they have a good argument regarding the "contiguous property. " Mr. Riddle said the City Council can vary from the subdivision ordinance so you need to contact the City Secretary regarding this. Mr. Perkins asked if they would have to have a three-fourths majority of the Council to approve it as you do for a zoning appeal. Mr. Tucker said you did not. Theron Bonham, President of TLB-GSC Enterprises, came forward. He said to give the Commission a little background, the reason they chose this avenue on the plat, he bought this piece of land several years ago, and as everyone knows, it was a bad piece of land, no one wanted to fool with and after considerable expense, they have installed the channel adjoining the residential area, consisting of 51 lots. He said the 12 acres, which he received MF zoning on, he plans to put four-plexes and six-plexes to sell them off in a town home style. Mr. Bonham said he is trying to upgrade the area. He said he plans to build duplexes on these four front lots and replat the lots when he gets the slabs poured so they can be sold individually. . . . ~ Page Six P & Z Minutes October 21, 1982 Mr. Bonham said there had been a preliminary study made on the back side of the 12 acres running along the railroad tract, which he has taken to the Corp of Engineers and they have checked the channel hydraulics on it, and there can be a channel put from Smithfield- Watauga Road down to the channel where it comes underneath the railroad where his property begins. Mr. Bonham said when that channel is installed, that would control the water coming across Fort Worth Christian and running into those houses. Mr. Bonham said he plans to develop the four lots and then corne back in with a planned development for the rest of his property. He said it is a very difficult piece of land due to the lay of the land. Mr. Bonham said there was no record of a plat on this property at the City so he went to the Court House and found a plat and got a copy and brought it back to the City. He said the proposed Holiday Lane was called College Circle. Mr. Bonham said the plat showed the land divided into blocks A and B, so it is not a tract of land, it is a recorded plat of two blocks, the property to the west of Holiday Lane is still in abstract form, in a tract of land. 4. PS 82-41 Request of Lexus Murphy Associates for pre- liminary plat of Lots land 2, Block 3, Diamond Loch Apartments Addition, Unit II. David Washington, Washington/Wallace Engineers, came forward to represent Lexus Murphy in his request. He said they had received the Engineer's comments and agree to them. Mr. Hannon asked about the comment Mr. Albin made regarding the property which lies in Haltom City. Mr. Washington said they will do whatever is necessary. Mr. Hannon asked if they would be diverting some drainage onto Diamond Oaks Country Club. . . . ~ Page Seven P & Z Minutes October 21, 1982 Mr. Washington said there would be no diversion. Mr. Hannon said the topo is incorrect. Mr. Washington said he would assure them there would be no diversion of water and he would show it on the final platting. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Riddle about Item #7 of the Engineer's letter. He said they could not act on the land which is not in our City. Mr. Riddle said he had not talked to Haltom City. He said the approval of the plat would have to stop at our line. Mr. Washington said there would be no buildings on that property, only parking. Mr. Riddle said they might could get written approval from Haltom City. Don Murphy came forward. He said Diamond Loch Apartments plat was platted this way. PS 82-4l APPROVED Mr. Hannon made a motion to approve PS 82-41 subject to the Engineer's comments and subject to the developer working out an agreement with Haltom City. This motion was seconded by Ms. Nash and the motion carried 5-0. Mr. Murphy asked if a letter from the City Manager of Haltom City would be sufficient. The Chairman said it would be. 5. PS 82-42 Request of Epoch Development Corporation for preliminary plat of University Plaza Addition, Fourth Filing. Bob Bentel with Epoch Development Corporation came forward. He said this development would be the third phase of Haystack. Mr. Bentel said he had received the comments from the City Engineer and will comply with all six items. . . . ~ Page Eight P & Z Minutes October 21, 1982 PS 82-42 APPROVED Ms. Nash made a motion to approve PS 82-42 subject to the Engineer's comments. This motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and the motion carried 5-0. 6. PS 82-44 Request of Cross Roads Development Co. for final plat of Lots 1-5, Block 10, Snow Heights North Addition. John Cook with Cross Roads Development Co. came forward. He said they had received the City Engineer's comments and take no exception to any of them. PS 82-44 APPROVED Mr. Hannon made a motion to approve PS 82-44 subject to the Engineer's comments and subject to resizing the storm drain on the west side of Reynolds Road at the high school. This motion was seconded by Ms. Nash and the motion carried 5-0. 7. PS 82-45 Request of Dyna-Co Development Company for final plat of Lot 2, Block 6, Snow Heights North Addition. John Cook came forward to represent Dyna-Co. He said they have received the City Engineer's comments and take no exception to them. PS 82-45 APPROVED Mr. Hannon made a motion to approve PS 82-45 subject to the Engineer's comments. This motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and the motion carried 5-0. 8. PS 82-51 Request of BWBM Partnership for preliminary plat of Castle Winds Addition. Doug Long, Consulting Engineer, came forward to represent Mr. Daryl Barrett and BWBM Partner- ship, Inc. Mr. Long said they had received the City Engineer's letter and take no exception, they can comply with all the comments. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Barrett if he was the owner of the property. . . . ~ Page Nine P & Z Minutes October 2l, 1982 Mr. Daryl Barrett came forward. He said it is under contract, they have signed a purchase agreement. Mr. Tucker said the City's records show the property adjacent to this property is all owned by the same person. Mr. Barrett said there are several owners; that it took him about six months to get all the signatures. He said not all the same owners own the adjacent land. Mr. Tucker said our ordinance states the defi- nition of a lot says it must front a public street and there are lots fronting on private streets. Mr. Long said he had discussed this with Mr. Riddle. He said in order to get around the 20 percent rear yard requirement in Local Retail zoning for multi-family development, they divided the property into separate lots fronting on a private street. Mr. Tucker said they could sell these lots off individually. Mr. Long said it would be similar to condos. He said what they are trying to do is get around having that 20 percent of the lot for rear yard. Mr. Tucker said they could ask for a variance. Mr. Barrett said in discussion with the City staff, this was the quickest way. He said their intention is not for condos. Mr. Tucker said there is concern that the land to the north might be landlocked. Mr. Long said he understands these tracts were acquired to extend their backyards; they were acquired by metes and bounds. He said this land had been previously given to the City for a park, but was later sold for a small amount to these property owners. . . . ~ Page Ten P & Z Minutes October 21, 1982 Mr. Long said if you try to aline a street with Mike street, there would be some land lost and they could not have the head-in park- ing they had planned on the private drive. Mr. Tucker asked how many units they plan to have. Mr. Barrett said they plan to have l52 units. Mr. Tucker said there would be problems with traffic onto Rufe Snow. He said it would be better if they could make Mike street go through and also make a street to Glenview. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Barrett if he had any objection to meeting with the property owners and working out a solution to this problem. Mr. Barrett said he met with some of the owners and discussed this. He said none of these property owners have responded. Mr. Tucker said the solution would be to go Planned Development. Mr. Long said that would take too long, it would take a public hearing. He said the zoning change could help them. Mr. Long said these property owner's lots are 150 feet deep, and if they give 50 feet off for a street, it would not meet the minimum depth of a lot re- quirement. Mr. Long said his client could possibly give less than the 25 feet to help them out. He said his client does not feel he should have to give up his expensive land just to benefit the neighbors. Mr. Wood said he wouldn't be giving up land, he is going to have a street there anyway. Mr. Barrett said he would loose his parking because he plans to have head-in parking on his drive. He said the City would not allow this on a public street. Sharon Spencer came forward. She said she is speaking for her parents who live at 6628 Tabor Street. . . . Page Eleven p & Z Minutes October 21, 1982 Ms. Spencer said North Richland Hills received this property for a park, but decided a park was not needed. She said they sold it to the highest bidder. Ms. Spencer said this property was purchased by Mr. Daley who sold it off by metes and bounds to the adjoining property owners. Ms. Spencer said this property is not a part of these lots, they receive separate tax state- ments, and there is no access to this land. She said they can not get to this land because the homes are too close together. Ms. Spencer said if Mike Street is not extended this property would be landlocked. Ms. Spencer said Lariat Street has been stubbed out for at least seventeen years. Ms. Spencer said the property owners are aware of the cost of a public street and are willing to participate in the cost. Ms. Spencer said Mr. Barrett has not closed on this property yet so he would not be loosing a lot. She said if Mike Street is extended, these lots could be developed and would make more tax revenue for the city. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Long how he planned to get the people in and out of this project. Mr. Long said they did not feel Lariat would be that much help and it does not stub out to our property. Mr. Long said this property to the north, the owners got for a good price and they bought it knowing it was landlocked, and now they want someone to bail them out. Mr. Long said if the Commission thinks their private drive needs to aline with Mike Street, they could arrange it. He said anything that is built on Rufe Snow will create traffic. Mr. Long said his client would like for the Commission to approve his preliminary plat, but he does not want to pay for someone else a street. He said if the City wants to put in the street, they could assess property owners on both sides. . . . Page Twelve P & Z Minutes October 21, 1982 Mr. Barrett said he doesn't have a lot of time and with the loss of land for street right-of- way and front yard, he would not be able to meet the 2.5 parking space requirement. Mr. Tucker said he still feels the lots and block situation is a problem. Mr. Wood read the definition of a lot from page 99 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hannon said he does not feel this developer should have to give up his expensive land for a street to benefit these adjoining property owners. He said if the property owners could work out a solution, that would be fine. Mr. Hannon said he did feel this property should be platted into just one lot and go to the Board of Adjustment for a variance from the rear yard requirement. Mr. Hannon said he would like for Mr. Long to take another look at the ditch on the south- east corner. He said he feels he needs a wider ditch close to the property line. Mr. Long said as the property to the south develops, this would be carried on down stream. He said the City Engineer asked why they were just paving the bottom. He said they would like for it to be a natural flow, but they have a problem with the sewer line. Mr. Long said they were concreting the bottom to keep down erosion because of the sewer line. Mr. Long said it is a possibility that they may not be able to tie onto this sewer line. He said when they do the final engineering on it, if that sewer line is eight inches higher, they will have to tie into a sewer line down south. Mr. Hannon said he was in favor of approving this plat with the stipulation they get a variance. Mr. Tucker said he would like to see the two groups get together and work out a solution. Mr. Hannon said if they come back with a final plat and no solution, the Commission could deny the plat. . . . ~ Page Thirteen p & Z Minutes October 21, 1982 PS 82-5l APPROVED Mr. Hannon made a motion to approve PS 82-5l subject to showing the property as one block only and subject to private drives as fire lanes and public access easements and the northerly one be brought in to aline with Mike street, and also subject to the Engineer's comments. This motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and the motion carried 3-2 with Mr. Tucker and Ms. Nash voting against. Mr. Bowen said he would like to encourage these folks to get with Mr. Barrett to see if some- thing could be worked out. Ms. Spencer said Mr. Barrett said he had met with some of the property owners, but this is the first she had heard of it, she had not seen a set of plans or anything. Ms. Spencer said she did not feel it was fair for the individual property owners to bear the full cost of the street. Bill Ernst, 6612 Tabor, came forward. He said he had lived at this address for twelve years. He said he worked with Mr. Daley in dividing it up to the property owners, and it was not with the idea of having someone build us a street. Mr. Ernst said they are not here begging or trying to force anyone to build us a street, all they are asking is for some con- sideration be given to extending Mike street at pro rata cost. 9. PS 82-52 POSTPONED Request of Hospital Corporation of America for preliminary plat of Lot 1, Block E, Calloway Farm Addition. The Chairman stated this has been postponed until October 28, 1982. 1. PS 82-38 Request of Stonybrooke, Inc. for final plat of Lots 7-12 and Tract A-R, Block 13, Stonybrooke Addition. Doug Long came forward. He said he had received the City Engineer's comments and have responded to them. Mr. Long said when that property was . . . Page Fourteen P & Z Minutes October 21, 1982 PS 82-38 APPROVED ADJOURNMENT developed, they had stubbed out an 18 inch storm sewer into the northeast corner of this commercial tract so when this is developed, they will have to fill in the northeast corner. He said he had discussed this with the City Engineer and he understands now. Mr. Long said at the rezoning of this piece of land, there were neighbors present who spoke in favor of this development. Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve PS 82-38 subject to the Engineer's comments. This motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and the motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. ¿£J~c ~r CHAIRMAN, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 7r~ D ZONING COMMISSION