Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2010-08-19 MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS AUGUST 19, 2010 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Randy Shiflet at 7:00p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Vice - Chairman ABSENT Ex- Officio CITY STAFF Managing Dir. Dev. Svcs Chief Planner Asst. Planner Asst Dir of Public Works Asst Dir of Parks & Rec Recording Secretary Randy Shiflet Bill Schopper Don Bowen Steven Cooper Mike Benton Mark Haynes Dianna Madar Kathy Luppy Mike Curtis Eric Wilhite Chad VanSteenberg Greg Van Neiuwenhuize Bill Thornton Gina Pastre 3. Mike Benton led the Pledge of Allegiance 4. Approval of Minutes from the July 15, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission APPROVED Steven Cooper, seconded by Mike Benton, motioned to approve the minutes of the July 15, 2010 meeting. The motion carried unanimously (5 -0). 5. ZC2009 -08 Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request from Gene Schay for a Zoning Change from "R -1 -S" special Single Family to "R -2" Single Family on a portion of Lot 3R, Block 14, Glenann Addition (located at 8620 Martin Drive- 0.532 acres.) Page 1 08/19/10 P & Z Minutes Public Hearing opened at 7:01 pm Gene Schay, 8620 Martin Dr, NRH, TX came forward requesting to divide the lot into 2 lots in order to sell the extra lot in order for a house to be built. Eric Wilhite came forward and stated that this is a zoning change from R -1 -S to R2. Mr. Schay currently owns a larger lot and they will be subdividing it and the following case is the replat of this property. He is requesting a zoning change for a portion of it which is the 0.532 acres from R -1 S to R -2 in order to sell that property once it has been replatted in order for another individual to construct a single family residence. This request does still meet the Comprehensive Land Use plan which in this area is low density residential and staff recommends your approval. With no one wishing to speak the public hearing was closed at 7:03 pm APPROVED Mike Benton, seconded by Don Bowen, motioned to approve ZC 2009 -08. The motion was carried unanimously (5 -0). 6. RP2009 -05 Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request from Gene Schay for a Replat of Lot 3R, Block 14, Glenann Addition into Lots 3R1 and 3R2, Block 14, Glenann Addition (located at 8620 Martin Drive- 1.960 acres.) Public Hearing opened at 7:05 pm Eric Wilhite came forward and stated that this replat is a public hearing because it is zoned residential. It is a 1.960 acre tract which includes the portion that he is going to be selling. It includes lot 3R2 that was just approved for a zoning change and also his remainder that he will be keeping where there is a single family structure indicated on lot 3R1. The replat will create 2 lots and they both have frontage on Martin Drive. It meets all subdivision rules and regulations and there will be a sidewalk put in once they construct the new home and the residential permit is released. With no one wishing to speak the public hearing was closed at 7:05 pm APPROVED Bill Schopper, seconded by Steven Cooper, motioned to approve RP2009 -05. The motion carried unanimously (5 -0). 7. SUP 2010 -04 Public Hearing and Consideration or a Request from the City of North Richland Hills for a Special Use Permit to allow the use of Building Materials other than those Specified in the Masonry Definition at the North Richland Hills Recreational Center to be located at the Southeast Corner of Hawk Avenue and Bud Jensen Page 2 08/19/10 P & Z Minutes Drive. The Masonry Definition is found in Section 118 -671 of the City of North Richland Hills Code of Ordinances. Bill Thornton, Asst Director of Parks & Recreation, came forward representing the City of North Richland Hills in the request for a variance of the masonry requirements associated with the design and construction of the recreation center. I have some images that I want to show you and I just want to qualify them first by saying that these are computer generated representations. Based on the fact that about the time these images were computer generated representations 60 -70 % through the design of the new facility. The software that our architect is using, called Revit, allows you to instantly model any portion of the building. We are able to closely model the building but what I wanted to draw your attention to is that specific colors or those kinds of things really haven't been worked through just yet. So the images are just to communicate our request based on building unit size and related to the variance request. In the Code of Ordinances, as you know, allows glass and requires 100% masonry where there isn't glass. It also references the use of color change, texture change and material module change which is the unit size of the exterior building unit. The proposed building that we have designed responds a couple things one is the large interior spaces. The two story spaces such as the gymnasium, indoor aquatics. These are combined with spaces that are more intimate, single story in height with lower scale components. The architectural features which are addressed as a part of the code of ordinances include color, texture, and material modular change. We are recommending that those best be accomplished with a palette of exterior building materials including a number of things such as glass or glazing, brick, stone and the use of architectural panels. In terms of glazing on the north elevation you can see a majority of the building on the back and the front is glass or glazing. One of our primary goals was to create a building that was transparent, one that you see in and out. Most of the interior of the building has been designed to be transparent as well with opening up spaces so that there aren't a lot of walls and confined spaces. In terms of glass we are proposing a structural glass material for the walls and this is actually designed to help us achieve LEED Silver Certification for this building. This particular type of material was selected because of its ability to efficiently conserve energy. We are also proposing stone in a large block unit. The inset images show that we are looking for a very big block, these are very large structural construction materials that are put together to give that big block effect with the glass. We are also proposing brick that would be on the senior part of the building and leading into the banquet space. One of the things that we wanted to do was borrow materials since we are next door to the Library and wanted to stay with things that are in the color palette of the Library. We are proposing for that smaller scale changing that building module size down to something a little more suited for the scale as a single story building. We have talked about architectural panels that are up high on the building. What we are proposing to do is on those spaces that are higher up and giving the size and the magnitude of the building we want to have a large building unit. If you use a small brick up there you lose the effect of the scale of the building. We are proposing to use these large architectural panels. The purpose of the architectural panels is a way to mimic masonry, It is designed to look like masonry but it Page 3 08/19/10 P & Z Minutes allows you to do so in a cost effective manor. If you were to try to use a very large block module in stone the structural engineering that you have to perform and the space it would take to accommodate that would be astronomical in cost and then it would also change what we would be doing inside the building in terms of support. The architectural panels are actually made of a zinc product. They vary from unit to unit and isn't very monolithic and they are put together to mimic masonry. The variance from the masonry percentage our request follows that format that we are saying that the architectural panels allow for that larger block and allow us to address other requirements in the code of the ordinances dealing with module change but also meet the intent of the masonry requirement. We believe that we will be able to accomplish that using the architectural panels. Don Bowen asked what is the composition of the panels? Bill Thornton said that there are a couple of different panels we are looking at one that is actually made of zinc there are some that are made of copper but we are looking for something that would appear that it was a masonry product. Randy Shiflet asked if it was going to be anything that looked like split faced? Bill Thornton said no. There is different ways that the material can applied and overlapped and we are looking for something that looks more like the picture on the left. It isn't monolithic, in each of the tiles the colors and the hues vary a little bit just like the stone would appear. Bill Schopper asked about the maintenance? Bill Thornton said that this is another reason why it was attractive to us because it doesn't even have the maintenance that you would have with stone with the bleaching and cleaning. It actually requires very little to no maintenance at all. Eric Wilhite came forward and stated that we are treating this the same as we would any private sector project. The masonry percentages are pretty significant and they aren't that far off from the 85% because above 8 feet you can do 15% non masonry as accent. As you see in the staff report the exterior material calculations a couple elevations are barely over 10% below what is typically required and the other is 30 %. Because of that and the maintenance and durability of a non masonry product and the visual aesthetic quality of it and we reviewed it and feel that it still met the spirit and intent of the masonry ordinance. Due to the unique nature and architectural style and construction methods the Development Review Committee was in total support of the request for the variance on the masonry and recommends your approval. Don Bowen asked if this was an approved material? Eric Wilhite said yes. From what the Parks Dept has reviewed and showed other staff and from discussions from the architect it is an approved material. I think that they are using the same type of material on the Tarrant County College Campus in downtown Fort Worth on the overpasses. It seemed very similar the way it was applied and seems very durable. Page 4 08/19/10 P & Z Minutes Public Hearing opened at 7:16 pm With no one wishing to speak public hearing was closed at 7:16 pm APPROVED Steven Cooper, seconded by Don Bowen motioned to approve SUP 2010 -04. The motion was carried unanimously (5 -0). 8. FP 2010 -02 Consideration of a Request from Thomas Andrews to Approve a Final Plat of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Barrett - Andrews Addition (located at 8500 Clay Hibbins Road - 4.8487 acres.) Thomas Andrews, 6020 Parker Blvd, NRH, TX came forward requesting approval for final plat for Lots 1 and 2 for the property at 8500 Clay Hibbins Road. I plan to build house on Lot 1. Chairman Randy Shiflet asked if there were any changes since preliminary plat? Thomas Andrews said no. Eric Wilhite came forward and stated that this is a final plat for a 4.84 acre tract that will be subdivided into two lots as indicated on the exhibit. Mr. Andrews is going to purchase Lot 1 and build a new single family residence. Lot 2 currently has a single family residence on it that will remain. As you recall at the last P & Z meeting there was a zoning change request to the portion of Lot 1 for Mr. Andrews to rezone that from AG to R -1 -S. Lot 2 will remain AG but they are final platting it so that all of their current holdings will be platted. They will then sell the property to Mr. Andrews. There has been a rough proportionality determination performed by the city engineer. It has been divided up into two portions for Lot 1 and Lot 2 and the total is a little over $15,000 for some concrete sidewalk and public improvements for curb and gutter. There are 2 separate methods that those moneys are going to be secured on Lot 1. Mr. Andrews will be paying at the time of the final plat which is now and then the other lot the property owners or developer is entering into an agreement that would place a lien on Lot 2 for the remaining money which would be $9,408. It does meet all subdivision rules and regulations and staff recommends your approval. APPROVED Mike Benton, seconded by Don Bowen, motioned to approve FP 2010 -02. The motion was carried unanimously (5 -0). Page 5 08/19/10 P & Z Minutes 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 7:30p.m. Chairman Secretary le 1!!� no,.. /-) &Aav-/ Randy Shiflet owen Page 6 08/19/10 P & Z Minutes