Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 1981-06-25 Minutes . . . MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, JUNE 25, 1981 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Carl Greenfield, at 7:40 P. M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: CHAIRMAN SECRETARY MEMBERS Carl Greenfield Marjorie Nash Don Bowen George Tucker Mark Hannon COUNCILMAN CITY PLANNER DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/UTILITIES PLANNING & ZONING COORDINATOR CLERK Jim Ramsey Mike Monroe Cecil Forester Wanda Calvert Patricia Hutson CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 28, 1981 Mark Hannon said on Page 6 of the Minutes he understood the motion to be "subject to the engineer's comments and specifically Item 7, that the water line will be up to city code and satisfy the City Engineer and the Director of Public Works," and subject to his participation in the 12 inch line and that the developer also provide a minimum 8" water line to his site for the purpose of providing fire protection at the present time.. Mrs. Nash moved, seconded by Mr.. Tucker, to accept the Minutes of May 28, 1981 as corrected. The motion carried 5-0. NEW BUSINESS PS 81-30 Request of Folsom Investment, Inc. for replat of Lot 3, Block 4, University Plaza Addition. David Hughes with the consulting engineering firm of Elliott & Hughes came forward. He said he was speaking in behalf of Folsom Investments. He said this was a replat of a portion of Lot 2, Block 4~ He said . . . Page 2 P & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 Folsom Investments, a self-developing corporation, propose to replat this property and to develop it into l04 multi-family development units. He said the property is currently zoned for that particular use. Mr. Hughes said he would like to discuss Knowlton-English-Flowerst letters dated June 5, 1981 and June 15, 1981 and Elliott and Hughes' letter addressed to the Chairman and Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission dated June 18, 1981. He said they have no problem at all with Mr. Albin's comments about the Multi-family zoning being shown on the plat. He said this has already been taken care of. Mr. Hughes said he would like to discuss the history of University Plaza from its conception in 1974 and particularly as it pertains to Thousand Oaks Drive and the original recommendation that Thousand Oaks be extended across this property. Mr. Hughes showed the Commission some exhibits. He showed the plat where University Plaza was originally platted in 1974~ He explained to the Commission the layout of the streets on the plat~ He said the plat was approved by both the City of Hurst and the City of North Richland Hills. He said in 1974-l975 the economy took a -nose dive and Folsom Investments elected not to continue with the total development of this project. Mr. Hughes said that in 1975 two tracts of University Plaza additiön in the Hurst City limits were developed as Multi--family proj ects and are 'known as University Plaza Apartmentse: He said in 1976 another phase of University Plaza was developed on the North Richland Hills side known as Richland Square Apartments. Mr. Hughes said in 1978 Folsom Investments came back to the City of North Richland Hills with a proposal to develop the majority of the remaining portions of University Plaza~ He said the plat reduced the right-of-way width on Weyland Drive from 80 ft. to 60 ft. and the right7of~way width on Thousand Oaks Page 3 P & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 . Drive from Weyland Drive westward from 80 ft. to 60 ft. and abandoned the right- of-way on Thousand Oaks Drive from the east line of Weyland to the Hurst City limits. He said this decision was made after a discussion with Hurst and with the understanding that at some later time, the section of Thousand Oaks Drive within the Hurst City limits west of Campus Drive would be abandoned also. Mr. Hughes said this plat with the abandonment of Thousand Oaks was approved by North Richland Hills in 1978. Mr. Hughes said Folsom Investments sold the lower portion and kept the upper portion. He said the Bank of North Texas, under another ownership, built their drive-in banking facilities on the lower portion. . Mr. Hughes said in April of 1981 Hurst approved the plat that abandoned the portion of Thousand Oaks Drive in accordance with the earlier agreement with Hurst. Mr. Hughes said the only other question Mr. Albin had concerned the storm drainage.. He said the storm water naturally flows from North Rich1and Hills into Hurst~ He said the previous plat he showed the Commission, the development is currently out for bids. He said construction of Campus Drive, Thousand Oaks Drive and all of the improvements will be constructed in the near future. He said that they had discussed Mr. Albin's requirement with the staff of the City of Hurst and they have agreed to issue a letter in favor of the City of North Richland Hills acknowledging that drainage will be coming their way~ Mr, Tucker asked if Lot 3, Block 4 was made out of Lot 2 and if there was a change in ownership, was the plat recorded with the city. Mr. Forester said to his knowledge the Bank has not platted the property. . Mr. Tucker asked if somewhere in the City records there is no record of this piece of land being platted. . . . Page 4 P & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 Mr. Forester said this whole piece of land was platted at one time. Mr. Tucker asked if there wasn't a hole in the records somewhere. He said there was a piece of land that needs to be replatted. Mr. Forester said he didn't know how the city could require the owners to do that at this period in time. Mr. Tucker asked if the Bank property was the remainder of Lot 2. Mr. Hughes said the property south of Thousand Oaks was sold by Folsom Investments to another party. He said the Bank property may have been sold by the other party to the Bank. He said Folsom's interest was in Lot 3, all of the Richland Square Apts. and all of the property on the west side of Weyland. Mr. Hannon said it appeared to him that there was some land sold that was not subdivided in accordance with the city Subdivision Ordinance. He said he understood that the property to the south was owned by Folsom Investment and leased to the bank. Mr. Hughes said Folsom sold this property sometime ago and had nothing to do with the Bank. He said they were also curious how the bank built without subdividing. He said Folsom had no control or interest in the property to the south. Mr. Hannon said it appeared that Folsom Investments was a party to selling that land in violation of the Subdivision Ordinance and should replat the entire block. Mr. Hughes said that was a legal question he was not qualified to answer, but he was under the impression that that particular section of the ordinance applied to property which had never been platted or the preliminary plat had never been finaled. . . . Page 5 P & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 Mr. Hannon said the Ordinance says that no subdivision of land will take place without platting. Mr. Hughes said he was not qualified to answer that. Mr. Hannon said he did not feel the Commission could accept this plat without a plat on the rest of the property. He said he realized Folsom Investments does not own the property, but they should know who the owner is and should take the initiative to see that it is platted. Mr. Hughes said he questioned how the Bank was issued a building permit without platting the property. Mrs. Calvert said that when the bank came in they assured the city that they were only leasing the property and would not want to plat it. She said they were given the building permit on the assumption that they were only leasing the property. Mr. Hannon asked if Folsom Investments was listed on the tax records as the owner of that property. Mrs. Calvert said she hadn~t checked. Mr. Hughes said the tax records would show that Folsom Investments does not own that property. Mrs. Nash said Folsom Investments sold the property to another party who in turn either leased the land or sold it to the bank. Mr. Greenfield asked if there was a replat at that time. Mrs. Nash said she supports Mr. Hughes in that he was not involved in the last transaction. Mrs. Calvert asked if it was sold off by metes and bounds. 'Mr. Hughes said he could only as-sume it was sold as a portion of Lot 2~ Block 4 in metes and bounds t, . . . Page 6 p & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 Mr. Hughes said he did not believe that Folsom should be required to go to the Bank and these other people and require them to enter into this particular plat because the only property Folsom Investments has left is this Lot 3. Mr. Hughes said the primary reason for platting this property is to assure that Folsom Investments' ownership and the apartments are in a lot and block form. MrT Hughes said that since the property is platted in lot and block already, they could take the interior easements and dedicate them by separate instrùment with- out coming before the Planning & Zoning Commission. He said that this was the practice of some investment firms, but Folsom Investments and his firm did not like to do it. Mr. Hughes said that his partner pointed out that sometime in the future there will be an application for a building permit on the property to the south and at that time a replat can be submitted and the Bank tract can be cut out. Mr. Hannon asked if the city has any other recourse against a piece of property that has been sold in violation of the Subdivision Ordinance other than administrative refusal of permits. Mrs. Calvert said not that she knew of. Mr. Hannon said he did not like it, but the Commission couldn~t make Folsom Investments do anything about it. Mr. Tucker said he thought it should be judged on this plat as submitted and at sometime in the future when the owner of the land wants to build he will be required to replat it at that time. The Chairman said it was his understanding that the Public Works Director would like to have a letter concerning run off~ . . . Page 7 P & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 Mr. Forester said that Mr. Hughes has indicated that he will have a letter from Hurst. He said he would like the set back requirements for the transition changes from 80 ft. to 60 ft. to be transitioned with the narrowing of the dedication. Mr. Hughes said that would be agreeable. He said they would also like to make that transition over about a 100 ft. distance. Mr. Forester said that was fine. PS 81-30 APPROVED Mr. Hannon made a motion to approve PS 81-30 subject to receiving a letter from a responsible official of the City of Hurst stating that they are aware of the drainage problem and accept the situation and the building set back line be tapered at a distance of lOa ft. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Nash. The motion carried 5-0. The Chairman asked Mr. Tucker to assume the Chair at 8:l0 P.M. and he left the room. PS 81-32 Request of Showbiz Pizza Place for final plat of Lot 3, Block 25, Clearview Addn. Delbert Stembridge came forward. He said the only remaining thing to be done is the engineer's approval of the construction plans for the water and sewer extension. He said the plans are complete, but the city hasn't received them yet for final approval. Mr. Tucker said the 5 ft. easement was still shown on the plat. Mr. Stembridge said it had been taken off the final plat. Mr~ Hannon said he understood that there is a contingency to sell Tract B on the north end of this property. Mr. Stembridge said that was correct. He said they would be resubmitting a replat in the next few days. . . . Page 8 P & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 Mr. Hannon asked if it would serve his purpose to modify this plat to show the two lots. Mr. Stembridge said no, he wanted to keep it simple. PS 81-32 APPROVED Mr. Bowen moved to approve PS 81-32 subject to the engineer's comments. Mrs. Nash seconded the motion. Mr. Hannon asked if the motion should not include upon approval of engineer's plans by the engineer. Mr. Bowen said that was covered in the engineer's comments. The motion carried 4-0. PS 81-33 Request of R. S. Brooks for final plat of Lot 1, Block l, Brooks Addition. Mr. Delbert Stembridge came forward. He requested that the Commission approve this final plat with the same stipulations that were used for the preliminary plat. He said he wanted a further chance to plead his case to the City Staff and the City Council. Mr. Tucker asked if he would prefer that the Commission postpone this case until he talks to the City Staff. Mr. Stembridge said he was not sure if no action was better than denying it because it can be appealed to the City Council. Mr. Hannon asked if Mr. Stembridge was telling the Commission that the owner is not willing to extend this water line. Mr. Stembridge said he was implying that. Mr. Forester said that if the Commission does decide to approve this plat, he would like an additional 10 ft. Right-of-Way for the future widening of the street. Mr. Stembridge said they have no objections to that. . . . Page 9 P & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 Mr" Bowen said Mr. Stembridge was asking that the Commission act upon this request with the stipulations still included~ He said if the Commission were to approve this request with the stipulations, until Stembridge agrees to those stipulations this case will not go before the City Council. Mr. Stembridge said in that case it 'would be best to deny ite Mr. Bowen said if Mr. Stembridge is not going to agree to put in the water line then it will never go before City Council. PS 81-33 DENIED Mr. Bowen moved to deny PS 81-33. The motion was seconded by Mr, Hannon. The motion to deny carried 4~O~ PS 81-34 Request of Tenneco for final plat of Block 5, Snow Heights North Addition. Delbert Stembridge came forward. He said in regards to Richard Albin~s latest letter, they have no objections to meeting his comments. He said in regards to extending the sewer line, it will cross Rufe Snow. Mr. Bowen asked Mr. Stembridge if he was agreeing to everything in Albin's letter. Mr. Stembridge said yes he was. PS 81-34 APPROVED Mrs. Nash moved to approve PS 8l~34 subject to the engineer ~"s comments. Mr t Bowen seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0. Carl Greenfield resumed the Chair at 8: 20 P ~,M." PS 81-35 Request of Baen-Bec, Inc. for dedication of Epoch Drive. Ernest Hedgcoth came forward. He said he was a consulting engineer representing Baen-Bec on this dedication. He said in regards to the engineer's comments concerning a need for additional right-of-way, he has Page 10 P & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 . consulted with the owner of Lot 2, Block 5 and they are unable to comply because their architect has already got their building plans underway and construction is scheduled to start at the end of this month or the early part of July. Mr. Hedg~oth showed the Commission plans of the new building and the location. He said the building was located lO ft. off of the property line which is the east right-of-way line of Epoch Drive. He said it was to be a two-story professional office building constructed of steel and brick. . Mr. Hedgcoth said in the original plan there were two driveways in the 190 ft. section from Hwy. l2l up to the bend in this property and in consulting with Mr. Forester, he suggested that there be only one drive way to eliminate the turning off of Hwy. 121. Mr. Hedgcoth said he consulted with the Architect who also agreed that this could be accomplished. He said this worked out for the better because they were able to get a couple of extra parking spaces from it. Mr. Forester said that was much more what he had in mind. He asked if it was a 30 ft. wide drive. Mr. Hedgcoth said it was a 25 ft. wide drive. He said he went back to the drawing board and designed a center section which would keep the eastern curb of Epoch Drive in the Right-of-way by about a foot and the building where it is presently located. Mr. Hedgcoth said this resulted in the need for an easement of 220 feet. He said he had a letter from the owner of Lot 2, Block 5 granting this easement to the city for access and he said this would give them a drive way and still allow the city to have access for any pavement repair. He said it would be a smoother curve. . Page 11 p & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 . Mr. Hedgcoth said since the street is only 413 feet long, its main use would be an access road to the Haystack Apartments to the north. He said they feel like it will accomplish the purpose and still have the city a right-of-way standard and provide a driveable roadway. Mr. Hedgcoth said in reference to Item 3, they have also furnished a letter from Mr. Darrel Lester, the trustee for the property agreeing that the street will be built to city standards and specifications. Mr. Tucker asked why they were dedicating this street to the city, why not make it a private drive. . Mr. Hedgcoth said the main reason was in the original agreement to purchase the property from Miller Epoch, they had agreed that they would provide them access thru their 7~ acres. He said it was a legality. He said the intent of the purchaser was to provide a 30 ft. access easement. He said it was Miller Epoch's understanding that it be the dedicated right-of-way. He said the intent was for it to be dedicated to the city and in order to fulfill the legal requirements of the purchaser and the seller, the lawyers decided this property needed to be dedicated to the City of North Richland Hills~ Mr. Tucker said two different owners have decided that they want to dedicate it to the city.. Mr. He~gcoth said a few years ago Miller Epoch owned all of this 33 acres of land. He said Miller maintained that they must give them access to the apartments. The Chairman asked if there was anything in the actual contract of sale that it had to be a dedicated right~of-way. Mr. Hedgcoth said that was what the lawyers had told him. . Mr. Tucker said he was confused as to how lawyers can dedicate something the city might not want. . . . Page 12 P & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 Mr. Hedgcoth said he had consulted with Cecil Forester. He said his client was concerned about $48,000 of land that could possibly be sold as development property. Mr. Forester asked if the street coincides with any driveway location in University Plaza. Mr. Hedgcoth said that one of the things that decided the size of Lot 2, Block 5 was that there be an access drive coming out of University Plaza~ Mr. Hannon said it seemed to him that Mr. Hedgcoth client has a problem~ He said he didntt like the close proximity of the roadway to the building and he said he didn't think the City would like to accept the maintenance and liability of what is essentially a private drive. He asked Mr.IHedgcoth if he could think of any reason why the city would want to accept this street. Mr. Hedgeoth it would benefit the taxpayers of the University Plaza Apartments by providing them access to their property by Hwy. 121. Mr. Hannon said they had access to Hwy. lZ¡ when they sold the property. Mr. Hedgcoth said the attorneys were the ones who decided that it should be a dedicated right-of-way. Mr. Hannon said he could see that it would be to their advantage, bu t he couldn ~:t see what advantage it would be to the city. Mr. Hedgcoth said concerning the building location in relation to the property line? 10 ft. is a proper side yard according to . the Zoning Ordinance. There was a discussion as to what the Ordinance said in regards to the lO ft. side yard requirement. Mr. Hedgcoth said he had a design in his office that would keep the building 10 ft. . . . Page 13 p & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 off of the property line. He said they were trying to comply with the engineer's comments to keep a smoother curve. Mr. Hannon said a possible alternative would be to move the drive but that still would not change his feelings as to whether the city would like to have this street as a dedicated right-of-way. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Forester what the City Staff's feelings were. Mr. Forester said they would prefer to have it as a private drive, but if there are no problems with the dedication for the right-of-way and the street is built according to city specifications, he saw no reason, for not accepting the street. He said the set back does not meet the code and a variance would be needed and it would need to be ded~cated as a street. PS 81-35 DENIED Mrs. Nash moved, seconded by Mr. Tucker, to deny PS 81-35. The motion to deny carried 5-0. PZ 81-22 Request of Federated Stores Realty to rezone a portion of Lot 2, Block A, Calloway Farm Addition, from the present classification of Local Retail to a proposed classification of Local Retail~ Specific Use~Sign. This property is located at the northeast corner of Glenview Drive and Cagle Drive. Peter Nichols, General Manager of North Hills Mall came forward. He said they are proposing to seek permission to install a directional sign on property at Cagle and Glenview that is owned by the Northeast Clinic~ He showed a photo to the Commission that the sign would be similiar to. Mr. Tucker asked if he had checked the design and location of the sign with the City ordinances. Mr. Nichols said he had Allen Bronstad to take a look at the site. He said that he had also measured and allowed for the ~ Page l4 p & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 . expansion of the roadway and reviewed the design of the sign. The Chairman asked how many feet off of Glenview would the sign be after G1enview is widened. Mr. Nichols said he could not answer that question. Mr. Hannon said the sign looks too close to the right-of-way and it would pose a sight hazard at the intersection. Mr. Forester said he was having difficulty in reading the plat as to the location of the sign in relation to the right-of- way. He said a 50 ft. clearance would need to be kept both directions from the iintersection. He said they would need to measure 50 ft. from either direction of the intersection, draw a triangle, and the sign needs to remain out of that area. . Mr. Hannon said it appeared to him that the sign was sitting right on the right-of~way according to the small sketch~ He said it appeared to him that the sign needs to set back 50 ft~ from the future right-of- way. Mr. Forester said if Mr. Nichols stakes off 50 ft. from the intersection and drew a traingle, he needs to stay out of the triangle area unless the sign is elevated. Mr. Nichols said they could elevate the sign. He said they were proposing to erect a sign similiar to the sign owned by Glenview Pharmacy so it would not block the Pharmacy sign. Mr. Hannon said the Commissions~s concern was with the sign location. The Chairman said there needed to be a change in the metes and bounds description of the sign. He asked Mr. Nichols if he was agreeable to this. . Mr. Nichols said he would accept the Commission~s decision, b~t he would have Page 15 p & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 . to get the Clinic's approval for a new location since they had only approved the sign at this location. The Chairman asked if the Commission approved it subject to a change in the metes and bounds description meeting the approval of the Ddrector of Public Works, would it be suitable. Mr. Forester said it would be o.k. He said he had no objections to the sign. He said his concern was to keep the sign location from causing a traffic hazard. The Chairman called for anyone wishing to speak for this request to please come forward. . Dr. Jim Cobb came forward. He said he had an office at 7600 Glenview. He said he did not know if he was for or against this request. He said he had a few questions concerning the sign ordinance of North Richland Hills. He said Glenview has been a political issue between Richland Hills and North Richland Hills to get the street open and not to offend anyone. He said that he was Mayor ,of Richland Hills at one time. Dr. Cobb asked Mr. Nichols if there was undue pressure brought on by 7601 Glenview at the time this street was being built to get an entrance from the parking lot of 7601 onto Cagle Drive. The Chairman said he did not see what the question had to do with the zoning. Dr. Cobb said he was trying to clarify it for himself and withdrew the questÍon. Dr. Cobb said if the street is widened and is leased to Federated Stores, it would be considerable expense to the City to buy the lease back. . Mr. Forester said that there were plans to widen"Clenview in the future and the City is encouraging Mr. Nichols to take it into . . . Page 16 P & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 consideration and to try and locate the sign so it would not interfere with future widening plans. Dr. Cobb asked if the sign ordinance controls the height of the signs in accordance with the height of the building. Mr. Forester said he did not know that answer. Dr. Cobb asked if this also controlled the height of the sign. The Chairman said it did. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak for or against this request. There being no one, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing. PZ 81-22 APPROVED Mr. Bowen moved, seconded by Mrs. Nash, to approve PZ 81-22 subject to the metes and bounds of this sign being changed in accordance to meet the city code and meet the approval of the Director of Public Works/Utilities. The motion carried 5-0. PZ 81-23 Request of Northeast Construction Company to rezone Lots 14 thru 30, Block 20, Holiday West Addition, Section 3, from their present classification of IF-9 to 2F-9. This property is located on Sierra Drive, approximately l,018 feet east of Rufe Snow Dr. Alan Hamm, representing Northeast Construction Co., came forward. He said they were making this request to rezone from Single Family to duplex a strip of lots bounded on the north by industrial property~ He said when this property was rezoned several years ago from Industrial, it was the feeling that this property would not develop as such_ He said that this is not the case today_ He said they were asking for duplex zoning to buffer it against the neighboring property that is zoned industrial. The Chairman said that if this request is granted some changes would need to be made in terms of water service. Mr. Hamm said they were aware of that. ~ Page 17 P & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 . The Chairman called for anyone wishing to speak for this request to please come forward. There being no one, the Chair called for those wishing to speak against this request to please come forward. There being no one, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Tucker said that since it backs up to industrial zoning, it makes more sense to make the transition into two-family instead of single family. PZ 81-23 APPROVED Mr. Hannon moved, seconded by Mr. Tucker, to approve PZ 8l~23. The motion carried 5-0. PZ 81-24 Request of Cross Roads Dev. Co. to rezone a portion of Tract 2, Abstract l606, w. w. Wallace Survey, from the present classification of Multi-Family to a proposed classification of Local Retail. This property is located north of Lewis Drive and approximately 500 feet east of Rufe Snow Drive. . Delbert Stembridge came forward. He said he was speaking in behalf of Cross Roads Development. He said they were requesting that this tract be rezoned from Multi-Family to Local Retail. He said the current activity seemed to be toward office buildings and strip centers. He said Cross Roads was going to request that a strip of land on the north side of Lewis Drive be rezoned to Local Retail, but at his suggestion they are requesting that the whole tract be rezoned Local Retail since Multi~Family can still be put in Local Retail zoning. Mr. Tucker asked if he was saying that the present zoning was not adequate to meet today's conditions or economy. . Mr. Stembridge said yes.. He said the inquires that the developer is receiving is for strip centers or office buildings~ He said rather than just rezone a portion of the tract Local Retail, they are requesting the whole tract be rezoned to Local Retail. ~ Page 18 p & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 . Mr. Stembridge said that Multi-Family can still be put there with a Local Retail zoning. He said that if this request was not granted, they would come back in with a request to rezone a strip along Lewis Drive. The Chairman called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of this request to please come forward. There being no one, the Chairman called for those wishing to speak against this request to please come forward. There being no one, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Hannon said there is no specific use intended for this property at the present time and the situation is that the property owner would like to obtain the highest zoning for the property to give him as many options as possible. He said there is already a lot of Local Retail in that area. . Mr. Greenfield asked if there would be a change in density. Mr. Tucker said it would just be a higher variety of use. He said this was the type of area he would like to see go Planned Development. He said there is some residential along this tract, some multi- family and then local retail along Rufe Snow. He said he personally has not seen anything that tells him what is there now is wrong. Mr. Greenfield said the burden of proof is on the applicant to justify why the zoning should be changed. Mr. Bowen said he thought the zoning change would give a greater variety of use. He said he was not sure that there would be a density change and Multi~Family would still be allowed. . Mr. Hannon said he was having a hard time finding a reason to change the zoning~ He said the entire area might be a good Planned Develop'ment area and if the Commission cOInmits it to Local Retail t'hat would never happen .. ~ P ag e 19 P & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 . Mr. Bowen said Planned Development would be ideal for the whole city. He said he felt it would be unrealistic for this area. PZ 81-24 DENIED Mr. Tucker moved to deny PZ 8l-24. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Nash. The motion carried 4-1 with Mr. Bowen voting against the motion to deny. PZ 81-25 Request of Gene Stone & Brian Utzman to rezone Oak Leaf Park Addition, 2nd Filing from its present classification of Agriculture to a proposed classification of Planned Development. This property is located west of Precinct Line Road and is bounded on the north by Oak Leaf Mobile Home Park. . Gene Stone, 8013 Irish Drive, came forward. He said he was the developer for this project. He said he had the letter from the engineer and he and his partner agree to all the comments in the letter and the signing of the covenants. Mr. Stone said in regards to the inadequate fire protection for the area, they will agree to pay their pro rata share when the larger water line is put in and install fire plugs wherever the city requires. He said they have an insurance agency and can insure the homes to be built there and relieve the city of this burden. He also 6tat~d that none of the commercial buildings be constructed until there is adequate fire protection~ Mr. Greenfield said the city will need an additional 5 ft. easement for water and sewer in addition to the easement already provided for. Mr. Stone said that would be fine. . Mr. Tucker said in Planned Development the land use must be totally developed so that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council can understand what is to take place. He said it appeared to him that there would be soft ball and soccer fields, a recreation center, two private residences, and close to Precinct Line1a trophy shop and office. Page 20 p & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 . Mr. Stone said there would be a recreational facility. He said they intend to build their homes there and to maintain the grounds. He said the bat cages will be soft ball and hard ball related to be used by anyone involved with the use of the fields. He said the recreation center and the trophy shop would be used in accordance with the fields. He said he would like to move his insurance agency to the office by the trophy shop in the future. Mr. Tucker said he was concerned about the difficulty for the city to control this high use area when people come to these recreational facilities. He said he did not know if it was in the best interest of the taxpayers of North Richland Hills to consider this request at this time because it is so far from fire and police protection. . Mr. Hannon said he did not believe that there should be a high density use so far from the core of the city and he was not sure that this type of development should be a private development. Mr. Hannon said the Commission would need more detailed plans on the development in order to approve a Planned Development zoning. He said he did not think it would be fair to approve this request with inadequate water lines after one man had already been turned down for that reason. Mr. Bowen said in the engineer's letter it suggests that Wayne Snyder be consulted. He asked if this had been done. Mrs. Calvert said when Mr. Stone brought in his plans, she called Mr. Snyder and he came and got a copy of Mr" Stone "'s plans ~ She said Mr. Snyder talked to the surveyor who drew up the plans and told him a few more things that needed to be added, which they did. She said Mr. Snyder said that if this request was approved, Mr. Stone would need to come in each time he develops a portion and have the plans approved by Planning and Zoning and City Council at each phase. . Page 21 P & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 . The Chairman called for those wishing to speak for this request to please come forward. Marshall L. Lajoie, 7909 Precinct Line Road, came forward. He said he owned the property immediately south of Mr. Stone's property. He said he did not have any objections but needed some assurances. He said he was afraid it would become a junky establishment and asked would it be taken care of. He said he realizes that if they make their homes there it should be taken care of. He asked if this request is approved but never develops as planned, would the zoning revert back to Agriculture. The Chairman said no, it would not revert back but no one else could build there unless they used the specific plans that were approved. Mr. Lajoie asked if Mr. Stone would object to their operation of an arena and horses next door. . Mr. Greenfield said if the use of the property is consistent with the zoning, there is not anything that can be said about his activities. Mr. Lajoie asked if there was a time limit for the completion of the proposed project~ The Chairman said there was not a time limit. . Mr. Monroe said to clairfy some questions, the Zoning Ordinance states ~'The City Council shall, after receiving the recommendation of the City Plan Commissioner, establish the standards for yards, signs, building spacing, site coverage, access, screening walls or landscaping, building area, open space, pedestrian ways, public or private streets and alleys to be observed in a Planned Development District and such standards shall be specified in the ordinan~e establishing the district~ He also said Section VI states " Upon the recommendation of the City Plan Commissioner and for good cause shown by the owner and developer, the City Council may also extend the development schedule or adopt such new development schedule as may be indicated by the facts and conditions of the case. . . . Page 22 P & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 Mr. Greenfield said all plans for immediate construction must be submitted for approval. Mr. Monroe said that anything of a man made nature that is changed must be approved by Planning and Zoning and C~ty Council. Mrs. Calvert said that Mr. Snyder told her that the city has required too much previously. She said the Commission can approve the zoning with the plans submitted now and then approve or deny each phase of the development at later dates. Mr. Greenfield said the Ordinance says that everything will be submitted at the time of the zoning request. Mrs. Calvert said Mr. Stone has provided everything that Mr. Snyder told him to. She said it was not his fault that he does not have everything. Mr. Lajoie said if they build their houses there first, he has no objections to Planned Development Zoning. The Chairman asked if there were others who wished to speak for or against this request. There being no one wishing to speak, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Hannon asked Mr. Stone if he intended to fence the property. Mr. Stone said they intend to fence it to meet the cityts requirements.. Mr. Hannon asked if any of the buildings were to be two~story bui1dings~ Mr. Stone said they were all single story. Mr. Tucker said he did not see enough need to satisfy Planned Development. He said he needed to see all the phases and a time table to reach a decision. The Chairman said his conc·ern 'was the inadequate fire protection~ . . . Page 23 P & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 Mr. Bowen said he was not sure that the Commission had enough information to make a decision. Mr. Hannon said he felt it was not a good location since the type of activity would require a substantial amount of time from the Police Department and it is so £ar from the central area of the city. Mrs. Nash said the traffic situation on Precinct Line would become worse. She said this area would be used the most when the traffic is the heaviest. Mr. Greenfield asked Mr. Stone if he currently owned the land.- Mr. Stone said yes. PZ 81-25 DENIED Mrs. Nash moved, seconded by Mr. Tucker, to deny PZ 81-25. The motion carried 3-2 with Mr. Tucker, Mr. Hannon and Mrs. Nash voting for the denial and Mr. Bowen and Mr. Greenfield voting against the denial. Mr. Bowen said his vote was not saying he was for or against the request, but he did not think that the Commission had enough information to make a decision. PS 81-37 DENIED Request of Gene Stone and Brian Utzman for replat of Lots 1 thru 7, Block 1, Oak Leaf Park Addition, 2nd Filing. Mr. Bowen moved, seconded by Mrs. Nash, to deny PS 8l~37. The motion carried 5-0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p. M~ ~ CHAIRMAN PLANNING AN