HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2009-03-19 MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
MARCH 19, 2009
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Randy Shiflet at 7:00 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT
Chairman
Vice-Chairman
Secretary
Randy Shiflet
Bill Schopper
Don Bowen
Mike Benton
Steven Cooper
Mark Haynes
Kelly Gent
Dianna Madar
Ex-Officio
CITY STAFF Managing Dir. Dev. Services
Director of Planning &Dev.
Chief Planner
Asst. Planner
Civil Engineer
Recording Secretary
Mike Curtis
John Pitstick
Eric Wilhite
Chad VanSteenberg
Caroline Waggoner
Tanya Hope
3.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Kelly Gent led the pledge of allegiance.
4.
Approval of Minutes from the February 19, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting.
Bill Schopper seconded by Steven Cooper, motioned to approve the minutes of
February 19, 2009. The motion was carried unanimously (7-0).
Page 1 of 17 03/19/09
P & Z Minutes
5.
SUP 2009-02
Public Hearing and Consideration of a request from Chesapeake Operating, Inc.
for a Special Use Permit for a Gas Drilling and Production Site on Tract Al of the
Northeast Campus Addition located at 828 W. Harwood Road. (Request by
applicant to be continued to April 16, 2009)
Chairman Shiflet said that we have a formal written request from applicant requesting
this case to be continued until April 16, 2009. We will not be opening the public hearing
tonight. It will be re-advertised and there will be a public hearing at the April 16, 2009
meeting.
THE COMMISSION ACCEPTED THE REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE
6, 7, 8
SUP 2008-07
Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request from Hometown Urban Partners,
Ltd. for a Special Use Permit for Multifamily Dwelling Units on a 30 acre (+/-)
parcel (TRACT 1) consisting of Tracts 4B and 4B1 in the D.C. Manning Survey,
Tract 5B in the Walker Survey (A-1653), and portions of Tracts 1A6, 1G, and 7 in
the Walker Survey (A-1652) generally located southwest of the intersection of
Courtenay Street and Parker Boulevard.
SUP 2008-09
Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request from Realty Capital Corporation
for a Special Use Permit for Multifamily Dwelling Units on a 16 acre (+/-) parcel
(TRACT 2) consisting of portions of Tracts 1 and 1A in the Walker Survey (A-1652)
generally located south of the intersection of Parker Boulevard and Bridge Street.
SUP 2009-01
Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request from The Venue at Hometown,
LTD. for a Special Use Permit for the Conversion of certain Commercial Units to
Multifamily Dwelling Units at The Venue at Hometown located at 6040 Parker and
6041 Walker Boulevards.
Chairman Shiflet stated that the applicant's representative, Dan Quinto, has requested
to discuss all three public hearings at once. Chairman Shiflet stated that they would
open all three hearings at once and will vote on them separately.
Dan Quinto, 602 Northwood Trail, Southlake, came forward representing Hometown
Urban Partners, LTD. Mr. Quinto stated that he wished to discuss all three
presentations simultaneously because he feels that they are all inter-related. Mr. Quinto
stated that all three SUP's constitute the Urban Core of Hometown.
Page 2 of 17 03/19/09
P & Z Minutes
Mr. Quinto presented a power point presentation explaining why Hometown Urban
Partners believes that the second phase to the Venue would be a good idea and how it
will help to get what is believed to be a common goal.
Mr. Quinto stated that the common goal that they are working towards is a Town Center
and discussed the methodology on how to get to a Town Center.
Mr. Quinto discussed live/work space, deed restrictions as a tool, quality/density and
how to achieve that, and talked about what healthy retail development requires, regional
growth patterns, and the intent of the SUP.
Mr. Quinto stated that 10 years ago there was a presentation to the city where a mixed
use urban town center was developed and the rules for the town center were passed by
the city. Mr. Quinto presented illustrations of the town center that were passed by that
ordinance. The illustrations depict a book store, clothing stores, grocery store, and a
library. All the components of a downtown. Mr. Quinto stated that those aren't the only
way to put together a town center. There are alternatives such as Southlake Town
Center and Wafters Creek as examples. Mr. Quinto presented a slide with a number of
town centers listed and states that housing is a major element in each and have had
mixed success with their retail components.
Mr. Quinto presented a slide that shows the divisions of each SUP application. SUP
2009-01 is the existing Venue and what they have requested are for the ground floor of
buildings 3a and 3b and converting them to live/work units.
SUP 2008-07 is the 30 acre tract that is currently owned by Realty Capital Corporation
that is being requested for the mixed use development.
SUP 2008-09 is the 16 acre tract that is currently under contract to Realty Capital.
Mr. Quinto presented a slide with an overview of what the three SUP ground floor land
uses would be. Mr. Quinto explained the buildings that front Boulevard 26 would be
"forever commercial" on the ground floor. Buildings 3a and 3b along with the buildings
around the park and also that front Parker Boulevard would have live/work units on the
ground floor. The remaining would be "various flavors" of residential. Mr. Quinto
explained that the reason for breaking up the residential in so many different categories
in the packets were to give City Staff some "teeth" in reviewing the future site plans so
that the footprints of the residential scale breaks down as you get closer to the lake. So
you would get smaller footprints, more residential scale as you get closer to the lake.
Mr. Quinto presented a slide of Building 3a and explained that the intent is to liven up
the ground floor and put occupants in it; combination of residential and commercial.
Mr. Quinto presented a slide of flex space: live/work residential and explained live/work
units as units that have a living area in one part and perhaps a small shop or jewelry
store in it as well. The live/work unit could also be used just as a living unit or possibly
just as an office.
In order to control the pedestrian experience on the street we would use design
guidelines. Live/work is a fairly common component to many urban areas; many cities
have passed a five/work ordinance. Live/work is typically used to encourage small
business to create a unique environment. Where the ordinances leave off, the deed
Page 3 of 17 03/19/09
P & Z Minutes
restrictions and covenants take over to govern the minutia of the pedestrian experience.
An example is not allowing a bed to be against an exterior wall putting the private issues
on the public street. It would allow public places to meet public places making the
pedestrian experience a pleasant one. Through the deed restrictions you could govern
all aspects of the facade.
Mr. Quinto explained they are advocating the deed restrictions to not only govern the
quality control but also a method of economic control. Mr. Quinto presented a slide on
Woodhaven in Fort Worth, Texas. Mr. Quinto stated that the Woodhaven development
is roughly 1000-1200 acres and that with the commercial development there was no
design control, economic control or supervision. Because of those reasons twenty three
tracts were sold to twenty three separate multi family developments all competing
against one another. The result was a competition to get to the bottom of the market.
Mr. Quinto presented a slide on Montgomery Farm in Allen, Texas. Mr. Quinto stated
that the Montgomery Farm development is a 1200 acre development with mixed use
commercial, higher density residential, townhome and office development, with single
family and agricultural uses throughout the remainder of the development. Emerson
Partners says "... each of those projects has a different corporation building it and
they're each following the environmentally responsible lead of Frances Williams' family."
That meaning there is someone in charge. The result is a coordinated effort that
coordinates the design goals with the business goals. Each companies building the
residential, retail, single family housing are all successful and don't conflict with the
aspirational goals of the development. The restrictive covenants are the tools that they
employed to achieve that success.
Mr. Quinto asked how to get there from here? Mr. Quinto stated that the long term
trends are one of the tools that we propose to use in order to get there.
Mr. Quinto stated that historically in a town that is growing residential occupancy
changes to commercial. As the town grows outward the commercial core expands;
expanding into residential areas. The residential then becomes commercial.
Mr. Quinto states that to build empty commercial is not really a good strategy for
accommodating the future growth of commercial development.
Mr. Quinto asks how much commercial development is the right amount of commercial
development? Mr. Quinto states that in the United States there is roughly twenty
square feet of retail per person. The next highest amount in the world is Sweden with
three square feet per person and it goes down from there. In North Richland Hills there
is fifty square feet per person. Mr. Quinto stated that nobody is saying that is the wrong
amount of retail, they are saying that in order for it to be healthy the growth needs to
catch up to the retail.
Mr. Quinto presented several slides regarding the long term trends of population growth
around Hometown dating back to 1942. Mr. Quinto shows that there has been
substantial development in North Richland Hills around Hometown in the last thirteen
years than in the previous fifty years.
Page 4 of 17 03!19/09
P & Z Minutes
Mr. Quinto presented a slide regarding employment centers and stated that employment
centers tend to aggregate along arterials. Mr. Quinto stated that because of the location
of North Richland Hills it is well situated to become an employment center and to
expand its base as an employment center.
Mr. Quinto stated that the North Central Texas Council of Governments has done
commuting studies for transportation to employment centers. Mr. Quinto presented a
slide with North Richland Hills as the center and the average travel times to different
cities such as Fort Worth and Arlington each being a reasonable commuting distance
according to studies.
Mr. Quinto stated that the idea is to use the existing trends, build the streetscape, build
the buildings but don't let them remain empty; control the quality of the design with
design guidelines, deed restrictions, enforcement procedures; control the growth to
ensure the business, aesthetic, and social goals are all common to each other;
encourage retail to adopt a local character.
Mr. Quinto stated that in addition to the streetscape that they are planning a central
park, amphitheater, and a special promenade between the park and the lake.
Mr. Quinto emphasized that they are not requesting any changes to the regulating plan,
thoroughfare plan, or zoning and are not requesting any variances. Everything that is
being proposed is consistent with the existing plans.
Mr. Quinto spoke about the Ad Valorem Taxes as it relates to the TIF. Mr. Quinto
stated that the total project value is $173,129,200 yielding $986,836 per year in ad
valorem taxes to the City.
Mr. Quinto stated that if they were required to build empty space on the ground floor it
would create a "dis-amenity".
Chief Planner Eric Wilhite came forward and presented a slide of the proposed site plan
and the different building types that are being proposed in each location of the site plan.
Mr. Wilhite defined typology as the different building types that were being proposed.
Building Typology A will be the mixed use type building that is being proposed. Mr.
Wilhite explained that the slides being presented are just illustrations of what the
building could look like however there are architectural controls, different type of design
guidelines that are included in the town center zoning, deed restrictions and covenants.
For the SUP purposes and the site plan the locations of building type A will remain
commercial or be built to commercial standards on the ground floor with multi-family on
the upper floors.
Buildings B identified on the SUP site plan are what will be classified as flex space with
the bottom floor proposed to be built to commercial standards but could be a live/work
space or converted completely into residential in nature.
Page 5 of 17 03/19/09
P & Z Minutes
Also shown on the illustrations presented on the slides are examples of the footprints
and how they would be subdivided out into units.
Buildings C identified on the SUP site plan would be all multi-family. All floors would
have residential units. Mr. Wilhite explained that Buildings C could be converted or
switched out on the site plan to other building types (building type D, E, F, H, I, J).
Mr. Wilhite pointed to the proposed site plan and stated that the remainder of the
different structures could be changed out to the different building types.
Mr. Wilhite presented slides of each building type:
• Buildings D -two to three story buildings with exterior corridor
• Buildings E -row house or stacked flat type buildings with individual entries
• Building F - townhome type buildings with individual entries
• Building H -large mansion flat type buildings containing several dwelling units
within the framework of a residential streetscape
• Building I -small mansion type buildings that keeps the residential character of
the street
• Building J -condominium type buildings containing multiple dwelling units owned
by individual residents
Mr. Wilhite stated that the row of buildings next to the lake is proposed to be single
family similar to the homes on the other side of the lake.
Mr. Wilhite stated that in total the potential that this development has in Tracts One and
Two are 1350 multi-family dwelling units if all Buildings B were to be built to flex and
have the potential of being residentially occupied.
Mr. Wilhite discussed SUP 2009-01 which is the conversion of some existing
constructed units in the Venue Phase I identified on the site plan as Buildings 3A and
3B. Buildings 3A and 3B were built to commercial standards on the bottom floor with
eleven foot ceiling heights. The upper floors are currently occupied multi-family
residential. The applicant proposes to covert Buildings 3A and 3B from commercial to
residential if the SUP is approved.
Mr. Wilhite presented a slide showing an example of what Buildings 3A and 3B could
potentially be if approved.
Mr. Wilhite stated that the SUP request is for twenty multi-family dwelling units, 10 in
each building as proposed in the exhibits.
Managing Director of Development Services Mike Curtis came forwarded and stated
that Staff does not support the application or request from the applicant.
Mr. Curtis stated that there are several reasons that Staff does not support the request.
The reasons are broken into three major categories:
Page 6 of 17 03!19/09
P & Z Minutes
1. Does not comply with the SUP ordinance
2. Does not comply with the Regulating Plan
3. Does not comply with overall HomeTown Master Plan
Mr. Curtis stated that he will discuss Tracts One and Two first and then the Venue.
Mr. Curtis stated that the application does not comply with the SUP ordinance and gave
the purpose of the Special Use Permit. The purpose of the Special Use Permit is: may
be authorized for a specific site for an additional land use when such use is determined
not to have an adverse effect on surrounding properties, when such use is consistent
with the purpose of the zoning district.
Mr. Curtis stated that there is a certain amount of information that Staff would need to
receive in order to evaluate the use that is being requested.
The evaluation process is a five step process:
1. Submit an application with a site plan
2. Conduct a public hearing by Planning and Zoning Commission
3. Receive recommendation from Planning and Zoning Commission
4. Conduct a pubic hearing by City Council
5. Receive approval from City Council
Mr. Curtis stated that the applicant has not gotten past step one. The City has not
received a complete application from the applicant. The applicant requested to come
before the Planning and Zoning Commission without the complete application.
With an incomplete application Staff and Planning and Zoning Commission could not
evaluate the critical components that are outlined in the ordinance. There are about
twenty to twenty five specific things that the ordinance indicates for Staff to review and
to consider when a SUP is required.
Mr. Curtis explained that he would go over the items that were unable to be evaluated
for the SUP.
Mr. Curtis explained that there was not a specific site plan due to the flexibility that the
applicant is requesting. The applicant is requesting interchangeability of many of the
buildings; requesting the flexibility to eliminate certain streets from the thoroughfare plan
which would then have to be revised. Because of these factors the site plan cannot
show a specific use.
Mr. Curtis explained that we cannot evaluate specific building uses for the site. There is
a list of buildings and several buildings that are interchangeable but it is very difficult to
evaluate what impact the development is going to have if you don't know what the
building type may be. There are several building types that could be selected but based
on the flexibility being requested the selection would not come to the Planning and
Zoning Commission or the City Council.
Mr. Curtis stated that we cannot evaluate public street access and thoroughfare if the
request for some of the streets to be eliminated is allowed.
Page 7 of 17 03/19/09
P 8 Z Minutes
Mr. Curtis stated that the specific parking requirements and needs cannot be evaluated
if we don't know exactly what the building type and use would be.
Mr. Curtis stated that the applicant has generally provided areas that could be used for
landscaping and open spaces areas but in each of the locations there is a list of
amenities that the developer could choose from. An amphitheater is among the list of
amenities however it's not a given. It's up to the developer if a particular development
on the list is selected.
Mr. Curtis stated that the lot coverage is tied to the building types.
Mr. Curtis stated that the pedestrian circulation is tied to the building types and uses.
Mr. Curtis stated that they cannot evaluate accessory buildings or structures because
there has been no information submitted outlining what the accessory buildings and
structures would consist of.
Mr. Curtis explained that it comes down to the request being asked having a lot of
flexibility. The request goes from one end of the range to the other end of the range
depending on which buildings are actually selected. With the flexibility being asked the
City does not have enough information to property evaluate the eight or nine items that
are outlined in the ordinance.
Mr. Curtis stated that the second component of why Staff does not support the request
is because it does not comply with the Regulating Plan. Mr. Curtis stated that he is
aware that the applicant believes that they are in compliance with the Regulating Plan.
Mr. Curtis presented a slide of the current Regulating Plan map and explained that the
Regulating Plan is divided into different zones. Each zone on the map is represented
by a different color. Each independent zone has a definition of the use and the uses
that are permitted in each zone. Mr. Curtis explained that there is a land uses permitted
table that is associated with each zone. In many zones there are a lot of cross over
between uses. There are many uses that are allowed in several of the zones. Mr.
Curtis explained that you cannot just look at what uses are permitted because the
Regulating Plan also looks at and defines varying degrees of emphasis that are placed
on these individual uses. That is what defines how each of the zones are to be
developed and what they are to look like. Residential is allowed in almost all of the
zones however each zone has its own characteristics that are defined.
Mr. Curtis pointed to Tract One and Tract Two on the map being presented and
explained that Tract One and Tract Two have three zones: the Neighborhood Core
Zone, the Neighborhood Center, and the Neighborhood General.
Mr. Curtis explained that some of the zone names have changed over the years but the
definition has not changed. The Commercial Core, Core Zone, or Town Core Zone is
now the Neighborhood Core Zone. The ordinance defines the Town Core Zone as
having the most dense business, service and institutional. Street frontages are
Page 8 of 17 03/19/09
P & Z Minutes
continuous street with street walls with shallow setbacks for arcades, shop fronts,
stoops, and/or forecourts. Even though residential use is allowed there is usually
mandatory retail frontage at street level.
As presented by Mr. Quinto there are illustrations that were shown as part of the
ordinance. The illustrations help define and show what the different zones are to look
like. The Commercial Core according to the illustrations shows a dense use of service,
business and institutional. The illustrations show a downtown with buildings that have
different footprints and different sizes of footprints. Even though the applicant has
proposed different buildings the issue of flexibility still exists, the flexibility of
interchanging buildings.
Mr. Curtis stated that there could be a lot more of one type of building than another with
the flexibility and that there may not be the varying footprint or varying building footprints
that are shown on the current application. Based on the current request it would be up
to the developer to decide what the actual buildings would be.
Also illustrated is the main entry into the Commercial Core. The main entry is heavy
commercial and retail in use without any residential.
The second zone is the Neighborhood Center or Center Zone. The ordinance defines
the Center Zone as the multifunctional social center of the neighborhood with street
frontages that have continuous street wall with shallow setbacks for arcades, shop
fronts, stoops and/or forecourts.
Mr. Curtis stated that multifunctional is not one function but more than two. Mr. Curtis
stated that this is the true mixed use portion of Hometown. This is where you are going
to have some commercial, retail, home offices, and multi-family.
Mr. Curtis presented some illustrations of the mixed use and stated that in the
Neighborhood Center that you would be looking at mixed use with multi-family but you
do not have the option for the developer to choose one use. It is not defined to be all
residential. Although the B Buildings are identified to be constructed to commercial
standards with eleven foot ceiling heights on the first floor it is the option of the
developer whether or not it is commercial or residential based on the request.
The third and final zone is the Neighborhood General Zone. The Neighborhood
General Zone is defined as mixed in function but is principally residential. Mr. Curtis
stated that you could have a home office in this zone but it is primarily residential. The
west side of the lake is all single family residences.
Mr. Curtis presented slides of the current Regulating Plan and stated if we look at the
areas that are impacted by Tracts One and Two and overlay the site plan on the
Regulating Plan that forty percent of the site plan falls into the Neighborhood Core
Zone. Again Mr. Curtis states that the definition of the Neighborhood Core is the most
dense business, service, and institutional use. Mr. Curtis presented a slide showing
what the Regulating Plan would need to change to if the B buildings were built as
residential.
Page 9 of 17 03/19/09
P & Z Minutes
Mr. Curtis presented a slide showing the Neighborhood Center and what is approved on
the current Regulating Plan and what it would need to change to according to the
submitted site plan.
Mr. Curtis presented a slide of the Neighborhood General Zone on the Regulating Plan
and stated that the submitted site plan does match the current Regulating Plan.
Mr. Curtis presented a slide and stated that when we look at the current Regulating Plan
and the flexibility that is what the Regulating Plan would generally look like with the
possibility of the lines varying some. Mr. Curtis stated that the SUP request does not
comply with the Regulating Plan; maybe one option does or maybe some of the
flexibility complies but with the flexibility that is being requested it does not.
Mr. Curtis presented a slide showing the streets that the developer is requesting
flexibility to remove. These streets are part of the thoroughfare plan. Mr. Curtis stated
that it couldn't be allowed without a change to the thoroughfare plan.
Mr. Curtis presented a slide of the current Regulating Plan and then a slide of the
change to the Regulating Plan.
The last category as to why Staff does not support the request is because the request
does not comply with the overall HomeTown Master Plan. Mr. Curtis stated that in 1998
when they had the series of public meetings and for years after 1998 newspaper
articles, financial analysis for the TIF and other various documents have been
presented to the public in regards to the development in HomeTown.
The Master Plan as presented to the public showed:
• 650 Single Family Homes
• 800 Multi-Family and Townhomes
• 600,000 square feet of Office
• 170,000 square feet of Retail
Mr. Curtis explained that as of six months ago there are:
• 436 Single Family Homes
• 490 Multi-Family and Townhomes
• 10,000 square feet of Office
• 55,250 square feet of Retail
Mr. Curtis explained that based on the request the applicant is asking for the flexibility to
add: 1,350 multi-family and townhomes and 25,000 square feet of commercial.
Mr. Curtis stated that he wanted to go back to the illustrations which were Exhibit E to
Ordinance #2360 because when you look at the illustrations they do match the 800
multi-family and townhomes, 170,000 square feet of retail, 600,000 square feet of office.
This was the plan that was presented, approved, and related to the Regulating Plan.
Page 10 of 17 03/19/09
P & Z Minutes
Mr. Curtis stated that based on the documents that have been approved and the
information that has been submitted Staff does not support the request for the SUP for
Tract One and Tract Two.
Mr. Curtis stated that the Venue I is very similar in that Staff does not support the
request for the SUP for the same category reasons as Tract One and Tract Two. Mr.
Curtis stated that we have received an incomplete SUP submittal, it does not comply
with the Regulating Plan, and it is not consistent with the approved Venue Plan.
Mr. Curtis spoke previously about the purpose of the Special Use Permit and that there
is certain information that is needed for the application. The applicant is not asking to
specifically convert a unit or all of the units to a specific use. The applicant is requesting
the option of multiple uses. Mr. Curtis asked how can you have a specific site plan if
you are proposing multiple options and choices? These are choices that the developer
would make and a determination on a specific building use can't be made if we don't
know what the specific conversion would be and also parking.
Mr. Curtis stated that the current Venue plan in regards to Buildings 3A and 36 were
approved and constructed with commercial on the first floor. Mr. Curtis also stated that
when the Venue Plan was submitted to the city it wasn't submitted to be converted over
to residential. The Venue Plan was submitted to be commercial or retail on the first
floor.
Commissioner Bowen asked if the SUP was approved if the City would lose all control
over what would happen in this area and asked if everything would be left up to the
developer?
Mr. Curtis answered that based on the request the developer would have the options of
substituting buildings, selecting the uses at the Venue I, and possibly eliminating
streets. Mr. Curtis explained that with a change like that the process would be to come
back before Council but with what the applicant is requesting is basically to not have to
come back before Council.
Commissioner Haynes asked if Staff had presented the applicant with the same
information that had been provided at this Planning and Zoning meeting?
Mr. Curtis answered yes.
Chairman Shiflet stated that according to the rules and procedures the next step is to
have the supporters of the change speak. Once the supporters are heard then Mr.
Quinto would have the opportunity to come forward again and then the opponents of the
change will speak. Once the opponents are heard then the public hearing would be
closed and the items would be voted on separately.
Carmen Sosa, 1300 Keller Parkway, Keller, spoke in favor of the SUP application. Ms.
Sosa stated that she is a small business owner of Carmen's Babycakes and that with a
live/work space she would be able to have her business where she lives therefore,
saving her money on double rents.
Page 11 of 17 03/19/09
P & Z Minutes
Mr. Quinto came forward again to summarize the past six to eight months that Staff and
himself were working together on this project.
Mr. Quinto stated that there were many points that during that time they believe that
they were a "hairs breath away" from an agreement on getting Staff's support which led
the applicant to continue for those months.
Mr. Quinto stated that when the process began it didn't start out as strict adherence to
the SUP ordinance but that of an understanding that this was a "slightly different kind of
animal".
Mr. Quinto stated that as far as not complying with the Regulating Plan he believes that
it is a matter of interpretation. There were things in the original design drawings which if
assumed to be "law" would make it virtually impossible to build. Mr. Quinto stated that
the original design drawings do not constitute what is in the Economic Study; the
amount of retail and office shown in the original drawing that were represented on the
slide do not constitute 600,000 square feet of office and barely constitute 160,000
square feet of retail. As far as the compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan the
Thoroughfare Plans that were in the packets provided to the Planning and Zoning
Commission show the existing approved Thoroughfare Plan. What that Thoroughfare
Plan does is divide the subject property into blocks. What the applicant is proposing is
to add additional streets to further subdivide those blocks or to have the right to change
those further subdivisions. Mr. Quinto stated that the streets shown in the current
Thoroughfare Plan would not change. Mr. Quinto also stated that they are permitting
themselves some alignment adjustments but the Thoroughfare Plan would remain the
Thoroughfare Plan.
Mr. Quinto stated that an Economic Study not an ordinance establishes the numbers of
units. There are three categories of the Economic Study. Mr. Quinto stated that the
1450 units that Mr. Curtis was quoting is from the middle section not from the most
dense study. The most dense study was the study that was adopted and it has 1730
units.
Mr. Quinto stated that saying the Regulating Plan is not in compliance and that it is a
matter of emphasis, emphasis is in the "eye of the beholder" and is not in the "letter of
the law" for the restrictions that Mr. Curtis spoke of.
Mr. Quinto stated that he has always had a good relationship with Staff and would like
to keep it that way. Mr. Quinto stated that he knows that Staff has worked very hard on
this and that this is a difficult proposition. Mr. Quinto stated that it's not a "slam on the
staff' but rather a difference in the way the Regulating code is perceived.
Chairman Shiflet called forward the speakers that are in opposition to the SUP request.
The speakers in opposition to the request were:
Page 12 of 17 03/19/09
P 8 Z Minutes
Randy Stayskal, 6066 Lake Way Mews, spoke in opposition due to the amount of
density that the development would bring and the location of school in relation to the
project.
Jane Birkes, 5809 Lake Way, presented a slide show to show the reasoning of her
opposition. Ms. Birkes showed slides of Woodhaven in Fort Worth and another
complex in Arlington. The slides showed such things as the crime stats and the lack of
maintenance and upkeep for the apartment communities. Ms. Birkes also showed
slides from the current Venue apartment community that showed burned out light bulbs
not being replaced, trash in trees, landscaping not being maintained and the trash on
the lot adjacent.
Twyla Hornsby, 8309 Euclid Ave, reiterated what Ms. Birkes had said previously about
the lack of maintenance and upkeep on the current Venue community. Ms. Hornsby
also stated that she had lived across the street from a crime filled apartment community
growing up and has seen first hand that apartment communities can bring crime into the
neighborhoods. Ms. Hornsby stated that she believes that there is enough room for
apartments but you need the right people to manage them.
Diane Spradling, 8609 Lantana Dr, spoke in opposition due to the number of
apartments being requested, the amount of increased traffic, the number of building
stories, increased noise, school crowding, and the burden on city services.
Cory Schroeder, 8081 Caladium Dr, spoke in opposition due to the "premature"
planning that he saw when looking at the plans at the library. Mr. Schroeder asked the
question of where the dumpsters would be located and would there be enough to
handle the occupancy. Mr. Schroeder also commented on the traffic issues that would
arise with the development and also the parking garages across from the elementary
schools. Mr. Schroeder asked about construction traffic and re-routing children around
the construction to get to school.
Warren Kneis, 6216 Lake Way, stated with the additional amount of people and traffic
presents a hazard to Hometown residents and the children at the school. In addition,
Mr. Kneis stated that the developer needs to be more specific in what they are
proposing for the area.
Scott Carlson, 8605 Nichols Way, asked for the Commissioners to look into what has
made other projects successful and other projects fail. Mr. Carlson just asked the
Commissioners to protect the citizens.
Robert Cesare, 5813 Lake Way, spoke in opposition due to the number of units that are
being requested, commercial being across from the elementary school, and the traffic
hazards of today and in the future with the amount of additional traffic the request would
bring.
Ron Zodin, 8116 Bridge St, stated that he doesn't want to see Hometown turn into
another Woodhaven.
Page 13 of 17 03/19/09
P & Z Minutes
Ginny Irvine, 6068 Lake Way Mews, asked the Commissioners to revisit the
Thoroughfare Plan as far as Parker Boulevard is concerned. Ms. Irvine also asked the
Commissioners to revisit the original Venue Plan because the Venue was a good plan
but it seems that we have strayed away from the original plans. Ms. Irvine commented
on the commercial and that the Kroger shopping center is about 25% empty now, why
add more commercial?
Jac Irvine, 6068 Lake Way Mews, stated the density is out of line with Hometown and
with North Richland Hills. Mr. Irvine stated that he had a problem with commercial and
mufti-family being across from the elementary school and also with the traffic that the
development would cause.
Brad Marling, 8513 Olmstead Terrace, stated the balance between economics,
development, safety, and planning is very important. Mr. Marling stated that there is a
positive correlation between homeownership and reduced crime. Mr. Marling asked if
we are going to move from a predominately high end neighborhood that is a major
drawing element for North Richland Hills into a predominately rental neighborhood that
has the potential of deterioration?
Pat Marling, 8513 Olmstead Terrace, stated that in future plans that a "spade is called a
spade". Ms. Marling stated she keeps hearing the units being called residential units
and asked to call it what it is, we are talking rental property. We aren't talking
residential units. A residential unit is where somebody lives yes, but they are trying to
camouflage apartment rentals with homeownership. Ms. Marling suggests that in the
future if this is defeated and a new plan comes up that we call an apartment an
apartment so there is no hiding behind residential units. Ms. Marling stated that
property values are at stake and that the developer deserves to make money but the
residence don't deserve to lose money either.
Bill Livesey, 5950 Lake Way Mews, stated that he is concerned with the number of
apartments and what it is going to do with crime and the devaluing of the neighborhood.
Mr. Livesay stated that he realizes that the land across from his home would eventually
have to be developed and that it would have to be reasonable. Mr. Livesey stated that
having mixed use would not be bad and having condominiums that people own and not
rent would be better. Mr. Livesey stated that the current Hometown residents that faced
the lake were not allowed by deed to have garages that faced the street. Mr. Livesey
stated that he didn't see anything in the plans that provided for rear entry garages and
felt it was inappropriate to have garages opening out onto Street Four against the park.
Gale Ammons, 8128 Bridge Street, spoke about the safety of the children in the
neighborhood as far as traffic is concerned. Ms. Ammons spoke on when she moved in
and had a repairman fix something in her house that he came out to find that his side
mirror had been hit.
Boyd Dollar, 8604 Nichols Way, stated he couldn't agree more with the people that have
already spoken and that he is against the SUP request.
Page 14 of 17 03/19/09
P & Z Minutes
Sean McGaughey, 6229 Sherbert Dr, stated that his and his wife's dreams are for their
two year old to go to Walker Creek Elementary and that with what is being proposed is
very scary.
Steve Jackson, 8320 Euclid Ave, stated the he didn't want apartments period. Mr.
Jackson stated that he just wants his daughter to be safe. Mr. Jackson stated that
when he moved in that they were told there was going to be a recreation center and an
amphitheater on the lake and that the original developer hasn't done what they said that
they'd do.
The following people were in opposition to the request but did not wish to speak:
Mark and Darlene Hutzel, 8632 Bridge St, oppose apartments being built in Hometown.
John Hoffman, 5800 Arbor Road
Carroll Carlson, 8605 Nichols Way
Minnie Capello, 6016 Frost Street
Victoria Flynn, 8256 Bridge Street
Michael Bradstreet, 8613 Nichols Way
Kay Hyde, 8316 Bridge Street
Dana and Russell Maddox, 8608 Bridge Street
Tammy and Craig Woodman, 6213 Winter Park Drive
David Long, 6004 Frost Street
Randall and Laura Chamberlain, 8601 Hudson Street
Bob and Jackie Hellums, 6001 Lake Way
Ken and Kathy Thompson, 6109 Winter Park Drive
Robert Hall, 6009 Lake Way
Walt and Vonnie Waiser, 6220 Lake Way Mews
Amber & Peter Kahle, 5904 Barton Springs Drive
Clifford Granger, 8524 Hudson Street
James Hornsby, 8309 Euclid Avenue
Jerrod Smith, 8608 Newman Drive
Chris and Jarrett Parr, 8225 Euclid Avenue
Judy Briley, 8621 Lantana Drive
W.M and K. Jennings, 8632 Riverdale Drive
Karla and Steve Gentry, 8533 Hudson Street
Joe and Caroline Tower, 8625 Lantana Drive
Cassie Murphey-Green, 8304 Euclid Avenue
D. Franklin, 5801 Arbor Road
Kristi and Jeff Reneau, 8613 Summer Tree Lane
John and Cindy Martin, 6062 Lake Way Mews
Renita and Bob Carpenter, 5954 Lake Way Mews
Charles Koonce, 6113 Lake Way
Kimberly Bradstreet, 8613 Nichols Way
Myron Hammond, 8608 Lantana Drive
Jaylon and Talmadge Buie, 8621 Nichols Way
Rose Rinkevich, 8024 Mimosa Drive
Ben and Alice Logan, 8617 Lantana Drive
Linda Dollar, 8604 Nichols Way
Page 15 of 17 03/19/09
P & Z Minutes
Ruedele and Eldon Turner, 8609 Nichols Way
Dolores Smith, 8609 Beetle Nut Ln
Kenneth Stogdill, 8068 Caladium Drive
Garry Stogdill, 6263 Sherbert Drive
SUP 2008-07
Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request from Hometown Urban Partners,
Ltd. for a Special Use Permit for Multifamily Dwelling Units on a 30 acre (+/-)
parcel (TRACT 1) consisting of Tracts 4B and 4B1 in the D.C. Manning Survey,
Tract 5B in the Walker Survey (A-1653), and portions of Tracts 1A6, 1G, and 7 in
the Walker Survey (A-1652) generally located southwest of the intersection of
Courtenay Street and Parker Boulevard.
DENIED
Mike Benton, seconded by Mark Haynes, motioned to deny SUP 2008-07. The
motion was carried unanimously (7-0).
SUP 2008-09
Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request from Realty Capital Corporation
for a Special Use Permit for Multifamily Dwelling Units on a 16 acre (+/-) parcel
(TRACT 2) consisting of portions of Tracts 1 and 1A in the Walker Survey (A-1652)
generally located south of the intersection of Parker Boulevard and Bridge Street.
DENIED
Bill Schopper, seconded by Kelly Gent motioned to deny SUP 2008-09. The
motion was carried unanimously (7-0).
SUP 2009-01
Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request from The Venue at Hometown,
LTD. for a Special Use Permit for the Conversion of certain Commercial Units to
Multifamily Dwelling Units at The Venue at Hometown located at 6040 Parker and
6041 Walker Boulevards.
DENIED
Mike Benton, seconded by Steven Cooper motioned to deny SUP 2009-01. The
motion was carried unanimously (7-0).
Chairman Shiflet stated that the applicant does have the right to appeal to the City
Council and that those who were notified previously will be notified again.
Mr. Shiflet stated that they Staff had received over fifty emails and then received one
letter that sent in after the Commissioners had received their packets on Friday. All the
emails and letters that were received were reiterating the comments of tonight.
Page 16 of 17 03/19/09
P & Z Minutes
9.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 9:01 p.m.
Chairman
Randy Shiflet
Secretary /J
Kt
Don Bowen
Page 17 of 17 03!19/09
P & Z Minutes