Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2005-04-21 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS APRIL 21, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Davis at 7:03 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Vice Chair Secretary Ex Officio Richard Davis Bill Schopper Ken Sapp Scott Wood Randy Shiflet Brenda Cole Mike Benton ABSENT Don Bowen CITY STAFF Director of Planning Director of Public Works Recording Secretary Dave Green Mike Curtis Carolyn Huggins 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 17,2005 AND APRIL 7,2005. APPROVED Mr. Sapp, seconded by Ms. Cole, motioned to approve the minutes of March 17, 2005. The motion was approved unanimously (6.0). Mr. Shiflet, seconded by Mr. Wood, motioned to approve the minutes of April 7, 2005. The motion was approved unanimously (6.0). Page 1 of 6 4/21/05 P&Z Minutes 5. ZC 2005.05 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM RICHARD RHODES FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM "C-2" COMMERCIAL AND "R-3" RESIDENTIAL TO "RD-PD-HC" REDEVELOPMENT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR "HC" HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT USES (LOCATED AT 7516 SMITHFIELD ROAD - 1.6 ACRES). APPROVED The applicant owns and maintains Smithfield Storage at this location and this proposal is to expand the facility onto adjacent vacant property. This is a redevelopment PD request which allows the applicant to request a number of variances. There will be 84 units with single story tilt wall construction. Most of the buildings are under 10-ft. tall. There are 15 spaces that will be allocated to storage of vehicles such as boats and RV's. The landscaping along the Smithfield Road frontage and along the north side of the property meets or exceeds current landscape requirements. There is a pattern of using street trees alternating with crepe myrtles with 15-ft. minimum requirements. Where the property backs up to the residential district to the north the applicant has exceeded landscaping requirements. A common property line between a non-residential use and a residential use requires the more intensive use to provide landscaping and a masonry screening wall. The houses behind this facility are elevated a minimum of 4-ft. above the applicant's property and there is a railroad tie retaining wall along the area. To put a 6-ft. masonry screening wall along that common property line doesn't serve a purpose. It doesn't screen the adjacent non-residential use from the residential area. The applicant is requesting that he be allowed to use the back wall of the unit as the screening wall. This unit will have no openings, doorways, or windows. It will be a blank wall and function as a screening wall. Adjacent property to the north is zoned R2 residential which requires the more intensive use to provide a screening wall and 15-ft. landscape buffer. During the discussion of this rezoning and during the discussion of the preliminary plat for this property, the owner of the neighboring residential development, Integer Developments, Inc., indicated they are willing to accept the responsibility of both the landscaping requirement and screening wall. They have said this in numerous letters, the most recent of which has been provided to the P&Z Commission members. The applicant is asking for a variance for the landscape buffer and masonry screening wall to be provided by the residential neighbor (Integer Developments, Inc.). The applicant is also asking for a variance so that the development of the screening wall will be timed with the development of the residential area. Page 2 of 6 4/21/05 P&Z Minutes The applicant is requesting a variance for parking. There is a parking requirement of approximately seven (7) parking spaces for this expansion. Staff has reviewed this request and spent quite a bit of time in tailoring this request. In terms of its land use, staff supports the request. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan calls for commercial development on this site. Commercial development as it is interpreted in the Comprehensive Plan includes uses that would have open storage. It includes uses that would be automobile related. Staff feels that the expansion of the existing use on this property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. From that standpoint, staff recommends approval and supports this request. With regard to the letter from Integer Developments, Inc. concerning the responsibility for the landscaping and the screening wall, that is a private agreement between two property owners and, from staff's perspective, is not enforceable. The Chairman opened the public hearing. He asked anyone in favor to please come forward. Mr. Rhodes, 1625 Suncrest Dr., Keller, stated that he felt Mr. Green did a good job of presenting his case and he only wanted to add that he is not requesting additional signage for this site, and the existing entrance and exit will be used. Mr. Schopper asked if customers would park close to their spaces as opposed to some other parking area. Mr. Rhodes stated that there is very little need for parking. Most customers simply unload their belongings. The only parking that is used is when a new customer comes in to sign a new lease. Chairman Davis stated that what usually happens is a person parks in the fire lane for a few minutes while unloading their things and then they leave. Mr. Rhodes stated that the lanes are wide. Mr. Schopper commented that parking spaces aren't really needed then. As there were no others wishing to speak, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Mr. Schopper stated that this situation came about because of a sequence problem on the adjacent property which was down-zoned from commercial to residential. A landscape buffer would not have been required if that property had remained commercial. Mr. Rhodes is a nice guy and made this private agreement with that property owner to have him build the wall if he was going to change the zoning and the 15-ft. buffer would be on the adjacent property instead of his property. That is what has triggered this and because the adjacent property is now residential it doesn't seem fair that Mr. Rhodes should be penalized for that. Mr. Schopper stated that he wants to make it clear to the City Council that it is the P&Z Commission's intention for there to be no harm done against Mr. Rhodes because the adjacent zoning was changed. Chairman Davis added that the zoning was changed to residential because of the commitment of that applicant to do the landscaping and the screening wall. He Page 3 of 6 4/21/05 P&Z Minutes repeated Mr. Schopper's comment that there is no intent on this body to recommend to Council to do anything that would harm the existing user of this property. Mr. Schopper wanted to make it clear that the variances requested are to get this property back to where it needs to be as opposed to Mr. Rhodes trying to get out of doing something. Chairman Davis agreed. The intention of the variance requests is to bring the requirements in line with what would be required if the adjacent property had never changed its use. Ms. Cole motioned to approve ZC 200S.oS. Chairman Davis asked if the motion includes the four variances requested on this plan. Ms. Cole replied, "absolutely." Mr. Sapp asked if they needed to be enumerated. Chairman Davis replied that Mr. Green mentioned them: 1) exterior wall on the northernmost storage building instead of the required masonry wall; no windows, no openings; 2) construction of the required screening wall on the east side of the site to coincide with the issuance of the first residential building permit issued for Parkwood Estates; 3) the requirement of a 1S-ft. landscape buffer and landscaping along the east boundary of the site; and 4) providing required parking for the development. Mr. Green clarified that item #4 regarding parking was not originally included but staff will make sure that item is on the drawing before it goes to Council. The motioned was seconded by Mr. Wood. The Chairman called for the vote and the motion was approved unanimously (6.0). 6. FP 2004.06 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM ANGEL FREEZE TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF ALLEN ADDITION (LOCATED IN THE 7700 BLOCK OF CHAPMAN ROAD - 1.S0S ACRES). APPROVED This is a final plat of Lots 1-4, Block 1, Allen Addition on Chapman Rd. The current zoning is R2 residential, requiring a minimum of 9,000 sq. ft. lot with a minimum 2,000 sq. ft. house. The Comprehensive Plan calls for low density residential type uses and that is what is being proposed. The preliminary plat was approved last year. Public Works memo states that all Development Review Committee (DRC) issues have been addressed and staff recommends approval. The Chairman asked if the applicant wanted to add anything. He shook his head no and the Chair called for a motion. Page 4 of 6 4/21/05 P&Z Minutes Mr. Shiflet, seconded by Mr. Wood, motioned to approve FP 2004.06. The motion was approved unanimously (6.0). 7. FP 200S.o4 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM WINKLEMANN & ASSOCIATES TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 2 & 3, BLOCK 1 U.I.C.I. ADDITION (LOCATED IN THE 9000 BLOCK OF WALKER BOULEVARD - 4.33S ACRES). APPROVED The preliminary plat took in a much larger area, but this final plat is for Lots 2 and 3 only. U.I.C.I is final platting these two lots in order to go ahead and build a 30,000 sq. ft. office building on this site. The property is zoned 01 "office" and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Public Works memo states that all issues have been addressed and staff recommends approval. Mr. Sapp, seconded by Ms. Cole, motioned to approve FP 2005.04. The motion was approved unanimously (6.0). 8. FP 200S.o6 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM RICK FIGUEROA TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 1-4, BLOCK 1 TAYLOR'S PLACE ADDITION (LOCATED IN THE 8800 BLOCK OF KIRK LANE - 2.996 ACRES). APPROVED This final plat is for four (4) residential lots near the intersection of Kirk Rd. with Kirk Lane. This was rezoned to R2 residential and preliminary platted at the beginning of the year. The Comprehensive Plan indicates low density single family use in this area. The plat complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Public Works memo states that all issues have been resolved. Staff recommends approval. Chairman Davis asked if the property owner to the east, Cristi Figueroa, is related to this applicant and was that property included in the preliminary plat but not included in this final plat. Mr. Green confirmed that the property to the east was included in the preliminary plat but is not part of this final plat. Mr. Sapp asked for clarification of why the driveway was put on the northeast corner of Lot 1. He believes it would create a blind spot for the drivers heading north on Kirk Road and swinging east onto Kirk Lane. The applicant's representative, Ed Childress, SD Engineering, Inc., Aledo, Texas, came forward to explain that two items dealt with Page 5 of 6 4/21/05 P&Z Minutes the location of the driveway: 1) there is an existing driveway on the lot located on the northwest corner of Kirk Lane and Kirk Road, and 2) the two roadways intersect in a slightly "off" manner - it is not a straight shot on Kirk Lane into the existing residential. Drivers are into the curve a little bit and then they make the turn. The thought was that if the driveway was on the southwest side of Lot 1 it could interfere with the intersection so moving it to the northeast corner of the lot took it farther away from that intersection. The existing driveway on the opposite lot was a concern but the intersection was the bigger concern. Mr. Childress stated that the applicant would agree to either way. Chairman Davis asked if the applicant would restrict the drive to the northeast corner for Lot 1. Mr. Childress responded that the applicant would be ok with that because it gives the ability for the house to face to the west and have a side or rear entry. Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Shiflet, motioned to approve FP 2005.06. The motion was approved unanimously (6.0). 9. ADJOURNMENT As there was no other business, the Chairman adjourned the regular meeting at 7:31 p.m. Chairman ǣR\.~'V~<tJ Richard Davis Page 6 of 6 4/21/05 P&Z Minutes