Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2010-12-16 MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS DECEMBER 16, 2010 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice - Chairman Bill Schopper at 7:00p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Vice - Chairman Bill Schopper Don Bowen Steven Cooper Mike Benton ABSENT CITY STAFF Managing Director Of Dev. Director of Planning & Dev City Manager Asst. Planner Civil Engineer Director of Economic Dev. Recording Secretary Randal Shiflet Dianna Madar Mark Haynes Kathy Luppy Svcs Mike Curtis John Pitstick Mark Hindman Chad VanSteenberg Caroline Waggoner Craig Hulse Teresa Koontz 3. Pledge of Allegiance Steven Cooper led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. Approval of Minutes from the November 18, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting. APPROVED Mike Benton, seconded by Don Bowen, motioned to approve the minutes of the November 18, 2010 meeting. The motion carried unanimously (4 -0). Page 1 12/16/10 P & Z Minutes 5. RP 2010 -01 Consideration of a Request from Ramon 4028 Rufe Snow Drive creating 5 acre s) Bl 1, J. M. Estes Addition (located Ramon Goheen, 4028 Rufe Snow, came forward with a request for replatting the property to the north of his existing business to add a parking lot. John Pitstick said this was recently approved as a Special Use Permit and is combining the two lots for his existing business. It meets the subdivision rules and regulations, sidewalks are required and the developer will be responsible for those. APPROVED Steven Cooper motioned to approve RP 2010 -01, seconded by Mike Benton. The motion carried unanimously (4 -0). 6. SDP 2010 -01 Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request from Michelle Thomas (The M Group) for a Special Development Plan for Temporary Office Uses in a Residential Structure on Lot 1, Block 3, Meacham Addition (TOD Core Subzone) with future access from Lot 3, Block 1, Meacham Addition (TOD Residential Subzone) in the Transit Oriented Development zoning district (located at 6333 Smithfield Road and 7828 Arthur Drive.) John Pitstick said this request from Michelle Thomas for her property. He said in August 2009 the City rezoned approximately 280 acres of land as part of the Smithfield area TOD and this is part of that area. Ms. Thomas owns the property on the corner of Smithfield and Mid Cities with an existing residential structure there and we understand there is a contract on the other property due west of her on Arthur Drive. She is requesting a Special Development Plan in the appeal process with the current regulations that allow for appeals, modifications, development bonuses and development incentives to be processed as a Special Development Plan. Her request is to utilize the existing single family building for a temporary office for approximately 18 months. By June 1, 2012 the existing residential houses on Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be demolished with construction plans submitted for new mixed use buildings. She is also showing to potentially tie the building of Phase 1 to the property. There are some qualifications as part of this SDP saying the goals and intent of the TOD be met, provide alternative master plan, consolidated multiple properties and fits the adjoining context provided appropriate transitions, provide public benefits such as open space, livable streets, shared parking, linkage to transit, does not hinder future opportunities for higher intensity transit oriented development. She is proposing initially to utilize the existing Smithfield Road access and build 5 parking spaces at that location. The access initially is her current driveway. The lot she is proposing is currently zoned TOD Core and allows for mixed use buildings and requires some commercial. The Arthur Drive is zoned for TOD Residential which allows for single family townhome development on Arthur Drive. Staff feels this is an unusual request and if this were requested for permanent request would recommend denial. But since she is proposing to build Page 2 12/16/10 P & Z Minutes commercial and mixed use hopefully within 30 months if a major commercial building would come it would encourage the transition of this area. Vice Chairman Schopper opened the Public Hearing and asked anyone to come with comments. Kevin Murphy, 7813 Arthur Drive came forward with a power point presentation. He currently owns the lot 7805 Arthur Drive. He said he has no problem with what the applicant wants to do on Smithfield, but has three issues regarding the development. Since there is no curb age there are issues with flooding at his house and has to have sandbags delivered from Public Works for the run off to the creek. With her developing the other side of the street he wishes it would take into consideration that the water would run another direction instead of across the street and adding to the existing problem. Mr. Murphy said traffic flow is an issue and has been told there is nothing that can be done with barricades on a dead end street because it is not a hazardous area, but he disagrees because it is a turning area and he has to maintain that area. It is hard to maintain because of the ruts that occur when people turn so he would like to see if the City could consider something additional. In addition safety for the children on the street needs attention. Mr. Murphy also has concerns about the retaining wall between Ms. Thomas properties and the others on Arthur Drive. He asks that if Ms. Thomas in 18 months does not have the financing to do the additional townhomes what will happen at that point in time, would the property be demolished or will she be able to continue to operate her business there? Glenn Willis, 7820 Arthur Drive came forward with concerns of lot drainage since he is one property away from the proposed lot. He asks where the water would drain if she is boxed in and cannot build a reservoir like Mr. Kunkle had to. He said the only thing he sees she can do is build an underground drainage system to keep it from running down Arthur Drive and on his property. Mr. Willis said the retaining wall is a concern. Mr. Kunkle's wall dead ends into his property and the lot next door has a stockade fence and he does not want to look at a parking lot. He said; according to City code if you build a commercial property next to residential use have to put up a masonry wall. He questions the answer from City Staff who said because this is a new development that code does not go into effect. Mr. Willis said traffic on Smithfield Road is a nightmare and when this property is developed her only access is going to be on their residential street. He has been on this property for 30 years and it has always been a problem with construction vehicles, trash trucks who have to turn in the yards and other traffic. He thinks there should be another diversion for her traffic other than their residential street. He has questions about the left turn lane off Arthur onto Smithfield Road is dangerous and you cannot see very well pulling out. Page 3 12/16/10 P & Z Minutes Ernest Runyon, 5732 Starling Ct. Haltom City, owns the property that burned on 6337 Smithfield Road and it is in the process of being demolished now. He agrees with the concerns of other neighbors that have spoken. They are looking at developing the property for commercial retail establishment and have concerns about drainage there. He has deep empathy concerning the traffic on Smithfield, has concerns of the right turn lane on Mid Cities and suggests a left turn lane going east instead. Michelle Thomas, 151 Sandy Creek Trail, Weatherford came forward. She owns the property on the corner at 6333 Smithfield Road and said she cannot address many of the concerns of drainage as she would like to let her engineer, architects and City Planners answer and determine how that elevation should be set to avoid those issues. Ms. Thomas said access on Arthur Drive she said that is not something she wanted to do, but it is part of the City plans and TOD Core requirements and standards. She said when she bought the building four years ago, the building there now was too close to the street under those standards and we were going to move it back. Now everything has changed with the rezoning and has to be moved up. The turn lane submitted on the plans is allowed for in that drawing and has been cut out as a future lane and accounted for future visibility issues. She does not like it that close either but it according to the TOD requirements. On the front of the building she did not want a straight corner because of visibility, so the corner of the building is angled off and you can see balconies for better visibility. Ms. Thomas said she would like to have an entrance off of Mid Cities but Mr. Kunkle will not allow any crossing of his property so alternatives were designed from the City requirements. Regarding the wall, she understands the concerns because before she was taking on the additional lot that goes back to Arthur Drive they were going to put a wall around it because it was commercial use with residential next door. As she understands it the TOD has changed the regulations because the building is not all commercial, it is residential on top of the corner lot. Mr. Runyons lot north of it would follow the same rule where no wall would be required between her lot and Mr. Runyons. The lot next to it which will eventually be platted together is future townhouses all residential. So if there were going to be a wall at all, it would be between the corner lot and the townhomes. She said they were wanting to put in a green type of live screen since there will be a lot of buildings in the area and want to keep everything more nature and green as apposed to walls. Vice - Chairman Schopper asked when does she anticipate the feasibility of being able to build the main structures? What would happen if the feasibility is not there after 18 months and would you continue to operate the business out of those buildings? Ms. Thomas said in about 18 months would allow her to have two full tax seasons in that building to pay off the lots. The plans and other requirements would be ready by then to start moving dirt by then. If the feasibility is not there, it only be the building on Smithfield and not the one on Arthur Drive. it would be up to the City if they would allow a short extension if necessary or move out and it would be residential until it met the TOD requirements. Page 4 12/16/10 P & Z Minutes Glenn Willis, 7820 Arthur Drive came forward and said Ms. Thomas keeps saying residential but she is going to operate a business there. Regarding townhomes on her plan they are somewhere down the future. Since it is a business now she needs to run a wall down from Mr. Kunkle's property all the way down to Arthur Drive. John Pitstick came up for clarification on the walls. He said for existing single family zoned property adjacent to the TOD zone would be required to have a wall. All the buildings on Arthur are single family but are zoned for TOD residential. There is actually a wall required in the TOD for Mr. Kunkle to have a wall all the way out Smithfield, but he came in on the SUP allowing him to landscape that area. It is zoned TOD Core on Ms. Thomas's property and she has a contract on the other property which is zoned TOD Residential. In the TOD zone there is no requirement for screening walls between each zone. There is a requirement if there is an existing zone single family district that is adjacent to the TOD there would be a requirement for a masonry wall. Mr. Willis said they reason he brings it up is because he is 100 feet from that property and when the City had the TOD meetings, it was designated to him as residents that someone could come in a put a business next to his home. Kevin Murphy, 7813 Arthur Drive said that he anticipates she will have renters in the property to help pay the lots and it is a very hard lot to get out of which means they will park in the grass. He asks that the City to deny the permit until she gets her financing at a later date. Vice- Chairman Schopper asked if anyone else wished to speak for or against. Seeing none he closed the Public Hearing and opened it up for discussion. Don Bowen asked for Mike Curtis to explain the drainage questions. Mike Curtis said at this point in the process there are no detailed engineering plans provided since this is in the zoning stages. With the applicant asking to utilize the existing structure on Smithfield and access on Smithfield until the 18 month deadline and at that time would plat the property, engineering plans would then be submitted and we would get the details then. At that time we would be able to judge how much traffic would be coming down Arthur and we will see how specifically how the applicant would propose to carry the drainage across the property. At this time we do not know how these things will finalize. If this development shows that more traffic would be utilized on Arthur, then something may have to be done based on the findings. At this point in time, we just don't have the information needed to say anything. The City does have standards in how the drainage will be handled and it will comply with those standards in place. Vice - Chairman Schopper said then basically if we approve this tonight it would be more of a certificate of occupancy other than a zoning change. Mike Curtis said yes, that is the way he understands it that nothing will be built at this point and nothing changes now until the plans are submitted. Page 5 12/16/10 P & Z Minutes Mike Benton asked who would be responsible for Arthur Drive for improvements if necessary. Mike Curtis said a few years ago the laws changed and the terminology is rough proportionality. The developer of any property is required to pay their proportionate share of the improvements and what their impact of the development. Once we see exactly what is submitted and tell what improvements are needed, then we can determine what will be done. Steven Cooper asked what the future plans of Smithfield Road with the turn lanes that were asked by the earlier residents. Mike Curtis said the exhibits shown in previous meetings that show the two lanes in Smithfield Road and the on street parking only show the street section proposed to be, not the intersection requirements are or number of lanes. At a minimum at this intersection you will have a designated right turn lane, at least one through turn lane and a designated turn left turn lane. Vice - Chairman Schopper said he doesn't want to set the precedence of approving a temporary zoning with no plans in place considering it is at a main intersection. Mike Benton said he doesn't think the neighborhood should have to wait to see if the applicant would be successful or not before any decisions are made and could further escalate their existing drainage and other issues. Steven Cooper said he doesn't understand the concerns since nothing will really change in the proposal for the temporary business over 18 months. There was a general discussion regarding curb cuts off Mid Cities at other businesses with the same concerns. John Pitstick said Ms. Thomas is proposing to use the existing curb cut for the residential property to extend an asphalt drive and five parking spaces and upgrade for the temporary office building. Vice - Chairman Schopper said basically there would be business traffic pulling in and out of a ten foot intersection? He asked what is the purpose of Lot 3 Block 1? John Pitstick said she is zoning both lots so she can come back and replat and build the structures but the zoning cases is for the 18 months only, then she would have to conform to all the TOD requirements at that time. Ms. Thomas said the only reason she has the Arthur Drive property is because she was told she has to have access back there when she builds the new building. So otherwise you will land lock that corner and no available other access except move her to the north of the lot and that was not acceptable for future traffic. So this was a City directed idea and option and how to correct future traffic at the corner. Page 6 12/16/10 P & Z Minutes Steven Cooper said even though there a lot of concerns brought up, Mr. Curtis said they would be addressed in the future property and this proposal don't apply to those concerns. Don Bowen said he would not be comfortable with the temporary unless there is a guarantee at the end of 18 months if this plan doesn't come forth the house would be demolished no matter what. Vice - Chairman Schopper said he has a concern with fairness where P &Z have made professional office users go through many expenses, especially up and down Mid Cities Blvd. and this doesn't seem fair to allow this temporary office. DENIED SDP 2010 -01 was denied 3 -1. Don Bowen motioned to deny SDP 2010 -01, seconded by Mike Benton. The motion to deny carried 3 -1. Steven Cooper opposed. Mike Benton said he really likes the idea and looks forward to the area being developed, but feels that there is more information needed, nothing concrete for them to make a sound decision. Bill Schopper said to Ms. Thomas that P &Z is a recommending body only and she can still go onto City Council if she wishes with her request. 7. ZC 2010 -05 Continue Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request from The City of North Richland Hills for changes to the Town Center Regulating Plan and the Town Center Zoning Ordinance for the eastern portion of Home Town generally located in between Boulevard 26 and Mid Cities Boulevard. Mike Curtis said that the traffic study has been completed to determine the impact of the proposed development on the east and west sides of Hometown. The traffic consultant hired by the City will give a presentation of the results tonight. Mr. Curtis said he wanted to clarify some issues that keep coming up in emails. One of the concerns has to do with the Katrina style cottages that the developer is proposing. For the record, the developer has not proposed and the City will not approve Katrina style cottages. What the developer is requesting is the ability to build a smaller house on a narrow lot. These houses would be larger than the townhomes, but smaller than the typical single family detached home currently in Hometown. The smaller houses would be built to the same minimum quality standards that the larger houses are built. So there in not a decrease in quality that is being proposed by the developer on the smaller home. The smaller houses would also only be allowed in areas that are designated as townhomes. The developer does not have the option of substituting a regular typical single family detached home with a smaller home, but the developer is Page 7 12/16/10 P & Z Minutes asking that instead of building the number of townhomes he would have the ability to substitute some of them for this mid size housing unit. City Staff is open to the idea of considering this substitution for the townhomes because it decreases the number of housing units, provide a variety of housing options and has higher value than the townhomes. The other issue is related to the location and amount of the multi family units in Hometown. Mr. Curtis said many of the emails City Staff is receiving is requesting less or equal densities than what is required in the City's current zoning for a typical suburban neighborhood. Hometown has always been planned an urban development, not a typical suburban development. It has been planned as a mixed use community that combines office, retail, commercial with single family townhomes and multifamily. The residential densities for this type of development are planned to be higher than the typical North Richland Hills neighborhood. That is why the single family on the west side of the lake density is 6 units per acre. That is greater than the typical 3 or 4 units per acre. This is also another reason why the multifamily density has historically been planned to be greater as you get closer to the commercial core. No decisions have been made at this time in terms of what these densities are or locations of the apartments are. Mr. Curtis said he hopes this clarifies some of the questions and concerns that have been received in emails and highly recommends that if anyone has not seen the overview and history of the Town Center that they review that information. Mr. Curtis introduced Brian Shamburger from Kimley Horn and Associates who will present the TIA results. Brian Shamburger, 801 Cherry Street, Fort Worth, TX, representing Kimley Horn and Associates came forward with the results of the TIA. He said this presentation and study will start with current conditions and talk about what the proposed development will bring. He said the process by which this information was gathered includes several steps. First you generate the number of trips that will be generated from the site. Based on current conditions we will develop a distribution and assignment to the roadway network. An analysis of the existing and future conditions and wrap it up with the findings. A summary of what they determined the current conditions are today definitely need a snapshot and collect information and the geometries, how many lanes, what the current traffic control is, are there signals or stops signs and their locations. It was determined which intersections were critical to the analysis. We not only counted twenty four hour counts during the week day, but also collected a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning counts. There were people in the field making hand counts at the intersections during peak hours. We also spent a lot of time in the field driving around during these time periods understanding where the ques where and where the backup was occurring, etc. We felt it was important to spend some time out there in the environment understanding what the issues were before trying to predict what might happen in the future. We then take all that and provide an analysis, not only from an intersection level where we might currently see some congestion but also the thoroughfares making sure the roadways are sized properly based on current and proposed development. The area evaluated was the undeveloped east side of the lakes, the northern limits was Mid Cities, the eastern was along Hawk and included the Page 8 12/16/10 P & Z Minutes future recreation center to Walker and Boulevard 26, the western perimeter was the lakes included. Mr. Shamburger showed the power point presentation with all the illustrations of the T.I.A. results. Vice - Chairman Schopper opened the Public Hearing at 8:41 p.m. He said that he wanted to caution the citizens that at 9:00 p.m. there will be a brief stop for putting a new tape in. Jennifer Mathews, 5813 Lakeway, came forward with comments asking if the decrease in number of trips because of the lack of retail? Mike Curtis said yes retail and office. Mr. Mathews said she cannot support this level of density and is against the multifamily being proposed. She thinks the density caps should be closer to what the other parts of North Richland Hills has for multifamily. She also asked for more clarification on the cottages being proposed. John Osborne, 8528 Bridge Street, came forward and asked Mr. Shamburger why the study had no details of Winter Park and Frost Street and how it intersects with Bridge Street. Mr. Shamburger said they were aware and the information was collected on Winter Park and Frost. Mr. Curtis said everything shown for Winter Park a.m. and p.m. was that intersection that included Frost and Winter Park. Mr. Osborne read a presentation asking for density rate that does not exceed 15 units per acre and not supporting the proposed development. Don Bowen said that the Planning and Zoning Commission has no relation to the lawsuit that is pending. He said they have less information about it than the general public and this Public Hearing is only to determine how to recommend to the City Council what the plan should be. Andy Gomez, 6716 Rolling Hills Drive agreed with the comments of the previous speakers and stated that he has concerns with density because his children attend Walker Creek Elementary. Sheri Lee Norris, 6041 Turtle Creek Court, came forward with concerns traffic, density and upset that they purchased the property in Fountain Ridge with no notice of this development plan. There was a five minute break for the tape to be restarted. Vice - Chairman Schopper called the meeting back to order at 9:10 p.m. Page 9 12/16/10 P & Z Minutes He read additional cards of names of those who didn't want to speak but who were against the development. There were thirty names read total. Matt Schaffstall, 8524 Olmstead Terrace came forward stating that outside neighborhoods have come to express their concerns as well as Hometown Citizens. He thinks the proposed property decreases the quality of life for the individuals of Hometown based on the traffic study. The density and mix of use still continues to be a concern and why the need for an economic study is needed. He also stated that he disapproves with the cottages. Sam Akins, 8600 Beetlenut, came forward with concerns of density. He thinks balance is what is needed for the community and development. Don Bowen moved to suspend the Public Hearing until January 20, 2011, seconded by Steven Cooper. The motion carried unanimously (4 -0). 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m. Chairman Secretary Randy Shiflet �. D. - : // Page 10 12/16110 P & Z Minutes