Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 1982-10-14 Minutes ~ . MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS OCTOBER 14, 1982 - 7:00 P. M. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Jack Roseberry, at 7:13 P. M. OATH OF OFFICE The City Secretary, Jeanette Moore, administered the Oath of Office to: Jack Roseberry, Jesse Range, Martin Erck, Harold Schubert, Bill Fenimore, and Hans Kossler. The Chairman stated Mr. Fenimore and Mr. Kossler were alternates and Mr. Fenimore would be acting in Dr. Hahn1s place since Dr. Hahn had moved from the city, and that Mr. Kossler could ask questions, but could not vote. ROLL CALL PRESENT: CHAIRMAN SECRETARY ME~1BER ALT. ME~1BERS Jack Roseberry Jesse Range Martin Erck Bill Fenimore Hans Kossler . MAYOR r~A YOR PRO TEM COUNCILMAN Di ck Faram Jim Ramsey Jim Kenna Ha ro 1 d Newman Dick Fisher Richard Davis BUILDING OFFICIAL P & Z COORDINATOR PRESS Bill Rice Wanda Calvert Richland High School Ruth Nelson CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1982 Mr. Range said on page 6, it should ~ead 40¢ per sq. ft. per month instead of $40, and on page 19, did the Board specify that they must have the 2~5 parking spaces. He said he knew the Board denied the request, but he did not remember them saying they must follow the City Ordinance of 2.5 parking spaces. . Ms. Calvert said she listened to the tape and that is what was said. ~ Page 2 Z B A Minutes October 14, 1982 . Mr. Erck made a motion to approve the minutes with the one correction. This motion was seconded by Mr. Range and the motion carried 3-0 with Fenimore and Schubert abstaining since they were not present. 1 . SA 82-15 WITHDRAWN 10-11-82 Request of Epoch Development Corp. to vary from the Zoning Ordinance #179 on Tracts 1, 1B, lC, & lCl, Abstract 1653, L. C. Walker Survey, and Tracts lAl & 1A1A, Abstract 308, E. S. Carder Survey, to request to change the square footage requirement to an average of 750 sq. ft. per unit rather than 750 sq. ft. per building. This property is located on the south side of Harwood Road and is bounded on the east by Haystack apartments. The Chairman stated he had a letter from Epoch Development Corp. dated October 11, 1982 which stated they wanted this request withdrawn. . 2. BA 82-16 Request of Arnold F. Mincey, Jr. to vary from the Zoning Ordinance #179 on a portion of Blocks 2 & 3, Snow Heights North Addition, and portions of Tracts 2A, 2B4, & 2B4A, Abstract 1606, W. W. Wallace Survey, to request the parking spaces per unit be decreased from 2.5 to 2.0 spaces per unit; request the square footage minimum of 750 sq. ft. per building be changed to an average of 750 sq. ft. per project; and request the requirement of 2200 sq. ft. of site per liying unit be changed to 1815 sq. ft. per living unit. This property is located on the north side of Northeast Loop 820 and is approximately 1196 feet east of the intersection of Northeast Loop 820 and Rufe Snow Drive. Arnold Mincey with J. D. Sims & Company came forward. He said he wanted to amend his third variance request. Mr. Mincey said he wanted to change the request fôr 1815 sq. ft. of site per unit instead of 2200 sq. ft. He said he wants to ask that . . . . Page 3 Z B A Minutes October 14, 1982 ~ the density be calculated on the 11 acres they are going to maintain instead of the 10 acres~ He said he was speaking of the additional acre of TESCO easement they will be maintaining. Ms. Calvert said she did not think he could change his request since the property owners were notified and given his original request. She said if he wanted to change his request, he would have to come back at another time, after the property owners have been notified. Mr. Mincey asked could he not change it since it is a lesser request. Mr. Roseberry said there is also the question if he could legally count this TESCO easement for density since it is not actually owned by this company. Mr. Mincey said he would let his original request stand. J. D. Sims came forward. He said he had been in Real Estate Development for the last 15 years, developing Commercial and industrial property and some residential property. Mr. Sims said his partner, Arnold Mincey, has previously been with severalì financial institutions and has been involved in 60 or 70 million dollars worth of financial analysis and acquisitions for apartment projects in the Dallas/Fort Worth area and also in the Houston area. He said their architectual people are Mr~ Bob Cunningham and Ron Bogard who have a combined 30 years of experi ence in apartment design. Mr. Sims said their contractor is Howard Smith who spent many years with Lincoln Property Company as a partner with them and Trammel Crow. Mr~ Sims said this property is zoned for apartments and they plan to build as the building codes require, however, they do have some requests to present. He said they had looked at the Dallas/Ft. Worth market place for several months and feel North Richland Hills and this site to be the best~ . . . Page 4 Z B A Minutes October 14, 1982 ~ Mr. Sims showed the Board a feasibility study they made. Arnold Mincey came forward. He showed their site plan which he said was a little different to the one the Board has because of the addition of the TESCO easement. Mr. Mincey said they have a basic loop pattern and the plan was designed to enhance the quality of life for the people who live there. He said the people would be the 30 year old professionals and families with children up to 2 to 5 years old. Mr. Mincey said they will feature tennis courts and they plan to name it Tennis Club West. He said they would have 3 tennis courts on the west side, a tennis practice court with a back wall planked by a small gazebo shelter. Mr. Mincey said they would also feature a jogging trail and they will sodd the one acre that TESCO has and maintain it for green area. He said they hope they will also allow them to put in a small 3 car fairway. Mr. Mincey said their complex would also feature a putting green, pool, and a cl·ub house with exercise equipment. He sai"d they may 'have a volleyball court or another pool in one area. Mr. Mincey said they plan to feature large burms in the front, lots of foliage, making it an attractive view of the project from Loop 820 and the burms would also protect their tenants from the noise of the freeway. Mr~ Mincey said the reason for the parking request was with North Richland Hills requirement, they would be losing amity area or green area. He said they feel their amity package is very important in marketing this project~ Mr~ Mincey said this site plan shows 216 units including the green area which they plan to sodd and maintain, the TESCO area. Mr~ Roseberry asked Mr~ Mincey if his percentage of land requested from 2200 sq. ft~ to 2016 sq. ft~ per unit was based on the addition of this TESCO right-of-way. Page 5 Z B A Minutes October 14, 1982 . . . ~ Mr. Mincey said it was. He said the request they originally made of 1815 sq. ft. was for 24 units per acre, but with this TESCO easement, they could ask for the variance of 2016 sq. ft. per unit. Mr. Mincey showed slides of the sister of this project which is located in North Dallas. He said it would have the same concept, the ,concrete flower beds and tree beds, concrete drives, sloped roofs, masonery walls, lots of landscaping, fireplaces, private balconies with exterior storage for residences. He said there would be some rough cedar on the project. Mr. Mincey showed slides of the project. Mr. Range asked what the parking space average was for that project, the average unit size, and the site per living area. Mr. Mincey said the parking was 1.6 spaces per unit with off street parking; the average unit size is approximately 700 sq. ft; and the density is 26 units per acre~ He said their original request was for 24 units per acre and now with the easement, they are requesting 22 per acre. Mre Schubert asked how old the project was he was showing~ Mr. Mincey said it was 1~ to 2 years old. Mr. Mincey said the 750 sq. ft. overall average would allow them to have more esthetics in mind, allowing their contractors bui'ld the same buildi'ngs repetitively, they find i't does not cost as much and they receive higher quality. Mr. Mincey said their site is very restrictive, you can only use the loop system for parking and they would have to take out some of the green area for more parking. He said they had not had one complaint regarding parking at the project shown in the slides which had only 1~6 parking spaces per unite Mr~ Mincey showed a comparison chart of the requirements from different cities in the ~ Page 6 Z B A Minutes October 14, 1982 . metroplex: Richland Hills-----------1.22 Hurst--------------------2.00 Bedford------------------1.75 Euless-------------------2.00 Arlington----------------1.8 Carrollton---------------2.0 Farmers Branch-----------2.25 Addison------------------1.72 Richardson---------------2.0 Garland------------------2.01 Fort Worth---------------1.50 Haltom City--------------2.0 Mr. Mincey said this list gives an average of 1.85 parking spaces per unit. He said he felt it would be better to offer a pool rather than empty spaces. Mr. Range asked how Mr. Mincey calculated the square feet of site per living unit. . Mr. Mincey said he divided the 216 units into 43,560 sq. ft. in an acre. Mr. Range said the Board has ruled on a variance and bargained with the customer. He said he felt the Board could consider a figure somewhere between the 1815 and 2016 sq. ft. per living unit. Mr. Roseberry asked what the smallest square footage was for a residential house and lot in North Richland Hills. Ms. Calvert said the smallest was 1F-8 zoning which was a 1200 sq. ft. house and an 8,000 sq. ft. lot~ Mr. Range asked what the size a parking space had to be. Mr. Rice said 9 ft. by 20 ft. . Mr. Range said he has a Mazda that would get lost in that large space. He said small cars could get by with 7\ ft. wide. Mr. Mincey said the extra 18 units they are requesting would only contribute approximately 10 more cars onto the freeway at peak hours. "1 Page 7 Z B A Minutes October 14, 1982 . Mr. Erck said they show one exit onto 820 and asked if they have checked with the State about this and their requirements and where the exit and entrance will be in regard to 820. Mr. Mincey said he has not checked with the State, but the exit would be considerably east of the exit of the loop. He said you could not come off the loop into the project, the entrance into the project would be east of the exit off 820 onto the access road. Mr. Erck said his concern is what type of traffic situation could come into 'play from where the exits are located. He said he knew there was considerable traffic build-up from the time school lets out at 3:30 until 6:00 P. M. and in the morning, it is the same way. . Mr. Mincey said they were also concerned with traffic even though they are 750 feet west of the school. He said the flow of people going to work would be from 5:00 A. M. to 8:00 A. M. and school starts at 8:00 A. ~1., so there would be a little overlap. Mr~ Mincey said the people living in the project going to work would go the access road west to Rufe Snow and then they would go north, south, east, or west, totally staying away from the school. He said they did not feel there would be any problem with the morning traffic. Mr. Mincey said they were interested in where the school children would be coming from, so they got the number of school children in each oensus tract within the school district. He said they found out there were approximately 860 or 29% students of high school age living north of the school, 563 or 19% living east of Davis and the rest would be south of 820. Mr. Mincey said they would be providing a service instead of a problem. Mr~ Roseberry said he appreciated the attractiveness of this project and he feels that not all the projects in North Richland . Page 8 Z B A Minutes October 14, 1982 . . . ~ Hills are that attractive. He asked if there had been any communication made with TESCO to use some of their easement for parking. Mr. Mincey said there had not been, they had only preliminary discussions with them about going in and putting grass on their land and maintaining it, but do not know if they would allow it for parking. Mr. Fenimore asked if they meet the backyard requirement where they back up to the TESCO easement. Mr. Mincey said they did. He said they have 15 feet. Mr. Rice said that in Local Retail zoning, they must have 20% of the depth of the lot for backyard. Mr. Fenimore asked how much that would be. Mr. Rice said for 657 feet, 20% would be approximately 150 feet for the depth. Mr. Mincey said he was not sure what he meant. He said they could shift their site plan, but it would still require a variance. Mr. Rice said this requirement is in Local Retail zoning when you build apartments. Mr. Fenimore asked how many parking spaces are they short. Mr. Mincey said the requirement is for 540 and they show 438. Mr. Range asked how they determine the front of the project and the rear Of it. Mr. Fenimore said it looked like their main entrance was from the north. Mr. Range said he could see no rationale:-to require a 147 ft~ backyard on this~develop~ ment simply to meet that statement in the Ordinance. Page 9 Z B A Minutes October 14, 1982 . Mr. Roseberry said he did not want it to seem that the Board is anti-development. He said they need good projects in this city. Mr. Roseberry said the questions the Board is asking are to decide the feasibility of the project. Mr. Mincey said they would work within the perimeters that they have to if at all possible. Mr. Rice said he would like to read the definition of the front yard which is found on page 98 of the Zoning Ordinance: IIFront Yard: An open, unoccupied space on a lot facing a street and extending across the front of the lot between the side yard lines and being the minimum horizontal distance between the street line and the main build- ing or any projection thereof other than the projection of the usual steps or eave over- ha n g . II There was some discussion about this. . The Chairman said he would rather the Board not address this as an issue since it is not one of the requests for variances. Mr. Range asked Mr. Mincey if there was any way they could get the 2.5 parking spaces. Mr. Mincey said they would have to give up some green area. Mr. Fenimore said, being a builder and developer, he understands the problem, but he is concerned with the parking on the east being such a long way from the apartments. He said they are a long way from the buildings. Mr. Mincey said if you break it down per apartment basis, it is not that far to walk. . The Chairman opened the Public Hearing and called for those wishing to speak in favor of these requests to please come forward. Robert Cunningham, Architect for the project, came forward. He said they could build a parking lot on the west side instead of the Page 10 Z B A Minutes October 14, 1982 . tennis court at a future date if the parking proved to be inadequate. John Cook, General Partner of Cross Roads Dev. Co. which owns this project, came forward. He said his company has spent a considerable amount in improvements so far, about one half million dollars, and have about that much more to spend to finish the project. Mr. Cook said their ability to continue to put in these improvements are contingent on completing these sales, and he would like to see these requests approved. The Chairman called for those wishing to speak in opposition to these requests to please come forward. . Jim Ramsey, Mayor Pro Tern, came forward. He said, first of all, he would like to apologize to the Board and to Mike Carrancejie and John Cook for the last time he spbke to them. He said he got carried away with the problems of the school. Mr. Ramsey said the Council·s posture, and there is a quorum here, is that the property is zoned correctly, they can build apart- ments there and there is nothing we can do about it. He said the Council wants to protect the Birdville School District1s interest in this thing, because of the parking situation. Mr. Ramsey said they know that the City will inherit the parking problems. RECESS BACK TO ORDER Mr. Ramsey said he had been meeting with both the developers and the owners in reaching a compromise. He asked for a recess so both sides could get together and decide what posture they would take. The Chairman called a recess at 8:15 P. M. The Chairman called the meeting back to order at 8:40 P. M. with the same members present. . J. D. Sims came forward. He said he feels like they can work out a solution and would . . . Page 11 . Z B A Minutes October 14, 1982 ADJOURNMENT ADJUSTMENT like to request a recess for approximately two weeks and come back with a decision. Mr. Range said he would be out of town for the next three weeks. There was a discussion between the Board and the developers as to when the meeting could be reconvened. Mr. Fenimore moved to recess this meeting until next Tuesday night, October 19, 1982, a t 7: 00 P. M. This motion was seconded by Mr. Range, and the motion carried 4-1 with the following vote recorded: Fenimore, yea, Range, yea, Roseberry, yea, Schuber, yea, and Erck, nay. The meeting adjourned or recessed at 8:45 P. M.