Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2005-03-17 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS MARCH 17,2005 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Davis at 7:04 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Vice Chair Secretary Richard Davis William Schopper Ken Sapp Don Bowen Randy Shiflet Brenda Cole Scott Wood CITY STAFF Director of Planning Director of Public Works Planner Recording Secretary Dave Green Mike Curtis Donna Jackson Carolyn Huggins 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17, 2005. APPROVED The Recording Secretary explained that in the February 17, 2005 minutes there is a correction to agenda Item #11, ZC-2004-12. The unanimous vote (5-0) was not included in the transcribed minutes. The minutes will be amended to reflect the vote. Mr. Sapp, seconded by Mr. Bowen, motioned to approve the minutes of February 17, 2005, as amended. The motion was approved unanimously (7-0). Page 1 of 7 3/17/05 P&Z Minutes 4. ZC 2005-03 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM ROD MUNSELL FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM "AG" AGRICULTURAL TO "O-1-NR-PD" NON RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR "0-1" OFFICE DISTRICT USES AND A VETERINARIAN CLINIC WITH ENCLOSED KENNELS (LOCATED AT 8301 DAVIS BOULEVARD -1.1 ACRES). APPROVED Mr. Green explained that the Comprehensive Plan denotes office use for this site. This request has been fashioned as an "Q-1-NR-PD" in order to try to accommodate the applicant's request but also follow the regulations of the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning ordinance will allow a veterinarian clinic without a kennel in an office district. If kennels are added (whether enclosed or not) the zoning ordinance calls for the use to be in "HC" heavy commercial. The applicant wishes to have kennels for small animals only. Staff recommended that the applicant request a Q-1-NR-PD zoning which allows the applicant to add the kennels but also stay consistent with the Comprehensive Plan since there is an underlying office use. In the future, the only allowed uses on this property with that zoning is either a vet clinic with enclosed kennels or office uses. Staff feels that is fairly consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is also requesting a temporary waiver of site plan approval. With a PD, site plan approval is required, but the applicant is asking that the zoning be approved first before he spends the time and effort to design the property. The applicant has provided a conceptual plan. There will be one access point rather than two as the applicant is trying to save a number of the existing trees, one of which is a 42-inch caliper. Even though the applicant cannot be held to this specific drawing, it gives an indication of the intent of the project that they are willing to do on this site and Staff recommends approval with the stipulation that the applicant understands that before approval of plats or before permits can be issued for any kind of construction that a final site plan must be reviewed by staff, P&Z Commission, and City Council. The Chairman opened the Public Hearing. The applicant, Rod Munsell, 6800 Ridgewood Dr., came forward and stated that his clinic is strictly small animal - dogs and cats - no horses, no cattle. The Chairman asked if Mr. Munsell would be willing to do a joint access agreement with the property to the north in order to avoid another curb cut. Mr. Munsell stated that he is uncomfortable answering that question. He is willing to work toward a mutually agreeable access but his proposed parking does not allow a lot of "extra". He had hoped to originally obtain the property to the north, and he hopes he'll be able to have the opportunity to look at it again later, but as far as committing to something tonight, he would want to work with anybody who might want to purchase it, but he can't say. The Page 2 of 7 3/17/05 P&Z Minutes Chairman responded that Mr. Munsell might want to get with his neighbor to the north or work with staff and figure out how to stub it out so that it doesn't affect a loss of parking spaces for Mr. Munsell, but the property to the north would use that same drive entrance in order to minimize curb cuts. Mr. Sapp mentioned that it is also an area that approaches a curve so it has been an area of traffic concern as development occurs along that area. Mr. Munsell mentioned a 15-ft. landscape buffer along the north side of the property that could impact parking. After discussion between the Commission members and Mr. Green, the Chairman suggested removing the 15-ft. landscape buffer from the concept plan. Staff agreed. This would also allow the applicant to shift his drive entrance north just a little bit. As there were no others wishing to speak, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Schopper, seconded by Mr. Shiflet, motioned to approve ZC 2005-03 as proposed. Chairman Davis asked if the motion would accept a friendly amendment that would delete the i5-ft. landscape buffer on the north side since it is not going to be required if that property also develops. Mr. Schopper stated that It is a concept plan only so it doesn't exist. Mr. Green added that he is not sure if it is necessary for the motion to do that. As staff begins to work with the applicant on designs to accomplish a mutual access easement, and if the landscape buffer is a hindrance, then for everyone's benefit, what is brought back to P&Z probably wouldn't include it anyway. Mr. Sapp asked the motion if he would accept a friendly amendment to add a footnote that the clinic will serve small animals only. Mr. Schopper asked if there is something in the nuisance ordinance that defines small animals. Mr. Green stated that he is not an expert in those areas of the code, but from what he has read, it is tied to how a person keeps personal ownership of animals, not necessarily how they would be treated in a medical situation. After further discussion, Mr. Sapp withdrew his request. Mr. Green added that staff recommends approval subject to the applicant returning for final site plan approval. The motion and second agreed that there Is a note is on the conceptual drawing to that effect. Page 3 of 7 3/17/05 P&Z Minutes The motion was approved unanimously (7-0). 5. PP 2005-06 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM RICHARD RHODES TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1 SMITHFIELD STORAGE ADDITION ESTATES (LOCATED AT 7516 SMITHFIELD ROAD -1.62 ACRES). APPROVED Mr. Green explained that the applicant also owns the development to the south, which is a mini warehouse facility. The purpose of platting this property is for the future expansion of that facility onto this lot. Public Works comments have been met and staff recommends approval. Mr. Shiflet, seconded by Ms. Cole, motioned to approve PP 2005-06. The motion was approved unanimously (7-0). 6. SP 2005-01 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY LIFE CHURCH FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF PROPOSED LIFE CHURCH ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, HOUSE OF GRACE ADDITION (LOCATED IN THE 7800 BLOCK OF DAVIS BLVD. -11.409 ACRES). APPROVED Mr. Green explained that a number of years ago the church had approached the Planning & Zoning Commission for site plan approval and that site plan was approved. However, a site plan expires after 18 months if a building permit is not obtained. A building permit was not applied for and the site plan is no longer valid. The church has now renewed their interest in developing the property and so the site plan needs to be approved again. Similarities between this site plan and the previously approved site plan: 1) one access point onto Davis Blvd, and 2) the building is sitting in approximately the same location with the parking in the same location. Differences: there have been changes in the past couple of years with fire codes and building codes relating to assembly in a building of this size. That has caused some changes to the site plan. Where there previously was not a fire lane around the entire building, there is now, including along the south boundary line. There are also some other changes about the number of access points to the site that would be used by emergency vehicles and they have addressed that in their site plan by showing the fire lane all the way around the building and two access points off of Northfield Drive that will be gated and utilized for emergency use only. On the landscaping portion of their particular design, along the frontage with Davis and along the frontage with Northfield Drive there is a requirement of one 3-inch caliper tree every 50-ft. for street trees. They are placing the trees every Page 4 of 7 3/17/05 P&Z Minutes 35-ft. so they are exceeding the City's requirement for landscaping. There is also a minimum requirement of 15% on the entire site and they are also exceeding that level. The building elevations are a little bit different style of architecture. There is approximately 23,000 sq. ft. of development in Phase I and because of that size there are City architectural requirements that must be met and the applicant has met and far surpassed the architectural standards. Staff recommends approval of this request. Mr. Sapp asked how the recent Council discussions on retention/detention areas would apply to this site. Mr. Curtis, Director of Public Works, explained that a couple of years ago the City adopted a new detention/retention pond ordinance. That ordinance very specifically defines how the detention ponds are to be designed, look, and what is required. There is much more now required of developers who want to install detention ponds. In this case, this site was originally approved prior to the passage of the current ordinance so there are some things that do not meet the current standard; however, there is a maintenance agreement signed and executed with the property owner so they will be maintaining the detention pond. In addition, some time has lapsed so prior to Public Works accepting the project, their engineer is aware that Public Works will have to verify any grades in that existing detention pond. The applicant is aware of the new, more restrictive ordinance and the applicant agreed to put in some additional landscaping. Staff felt it was a good compromise even though it is not what the current ordinance would allow. The Chairman asked if the property has already been platted. It had. He then asked if that plat shows this area of detention. Mr. Curtis stated that it is shown on the plat as a drainage easement. The Chairman then asked if the maintenance agreement runs in perpetuity with the land. Mr. Curtis responded that it does. Mr. Curtis also explained that the agreement specifically outlines what maintenances are to be performed and if they are not performed, there is a provision that the City can come in and provide the maintenance and assess those costs to the property owner. The Chairman stated that there is also a comment on the landscaping along Northfield Drive that the City is allowing the use of some of the parkway to do some landscaping and trees. He stated that they are also taking responsibility for irrigation. He asked if that would be a separate agreement. Mr. Curtis stated that it will be a separate agreement. He also explained that the applicant may be interested in someday utilizing the access onto Northfield. The agreement in the past was that access could not be accessed unless the applicant paid a share of improving that section of Northfield. The new Fire codes required that the Fire Department would need access and staff met with the pastor of the church to discuss that since there is a driveway there staff felt that the members of the church someday may put pressure on the pastor to open up the gates for easier in and out access. The pastor is aware of this and he is interested in the City Developer Agreement because it gives him some assurance that someday they do have that option. From the church's benefit, the City Developer Agreement is going to define that they will have that option. From the City standpoint, the City Developer Agreement is going to say that when the church wants that option, we have to talk about improving the street. Mr. Curtis then explained that regarding the landscaping in the right-of-way, the agreement outlining and talking about the Northfield issue is also going to address Page 5 of 7 3/17/05 P&Z Minutes the maintenance of any landscaping or trees placed in the parkway. Staff doesn't want landscaping 15-ft. out into the parkway so it will be confined to about a 5-ft. strip. In the future, if the road is improved, that landscaping will not be wiped out. Mr. Sapp asked if the road was ever dedicated. Mr. Curtis stated that it is a 50-ft. public right-of-way. Public road. Mr. Wood asked what the applicant is doing with the detention pond that would not meet current standards. Mr. Curtis stated that there are two items. One is the side slopes. The current ordinance has flattened the side slopes to make it milder - a 5: 1 ratio is required. The church has a 4:1 rather than a 5:1. The other item is landscaping. A landscaping plan is required by the current ordinance. Additional landscaping in the bottom of the detention pond would be required. The applicant has agreed to some landscaping in the detention pond. Mr. Shiflet stated that in the not too distant future there will be a traffic signal at Bursey and Davis and the entrance to this church. Will the church be involved in that in any way? Mr. Curtis responded that they probably would not be obligated for any portion of a traffic signal there. He explained that at the time that they platted - two to three years ago - that area wasn't coming along like it is now, but also the traffic from the church occurs at offbeat times from everybody else. Mr. Shiflet asked if TXDOT would allow a deceleration lane to make a right turn into the church parking lot. Mr. Curtis thought it was already approved. He stated that a couple of years ago the applicant received a TXDOT permit for this driveway. No deceleration lane was required by TXDOT. The Chairman added that one of the requirements for a deceleration lane is count. He didn't believe this small piece of property would have the count to warrant it. The Chairman asked if the applicant had any comments or questions. Wayne Flores, GSWW Engineers, commented that when the TXDOT permit was approved there was a traffic study done and TXDOT was ok with not having a deceleration lane based on the traffic count. He stated that in the past they did have a fire lane going all the way around the building but the new codes require that it be wider and a minimum of 15-ft. from the building. Mr. Bowen, seconded by Ms. Cole, motioned to approve SP 2005-01. The motion was approved unanimously (7-0). 7. ADJOURNMENT As there was no other business, the Chairman adjourned the regular meeting at 7:38 p.m. Page 6 of 7 3/17/05 P&Z Minutes Chairman c ';K\-~'J)aMnB- Richard Davis Page 7 of 7 3/17/05 P&Z Minutes