Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2011-02-17 MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS FEBRUARY 17, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice - Chairman Bill Schopper at 7:00p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT ABSENT Vice - Chairman Ex- Off icio Bill Schopper Don Bowen Mike Benton Dianna Madar Mark Haynes Kathy Luppy Randy Shiflet Steven Cooper Chairman CITY STAFF Managing Director Of Dev. Director of Planning & Dev Police Chief Asst. Planner Asst Dir of Public Works Sn. Mnmt. Asst. Dev. Svcs Recording Secretary Svcs. Mike Curtis John Pitstick Mike Hamlin Chad VanSteenberg Greg VanNeiuwenhuize Kristin Weegar Gina Pastre 3. Pledge of Allegiance Dianna Madar led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. Consideration of Minutes from the January 20, 2011 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting. APPROVED Dianna Madar, seconded by Mike Benton, motioned to approve the minutes of the January 20,2011 meeting. The motion carried unanimously (5 -0). Page 1 02/17/11 P & Z Minutes 5. SUP 2010 -07 Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request from Arfa Group LLC for a Special Use Permit for an Auto Rental Business at 7109 Boulevard 26. John Pitstick came forward and stated that this is a request for a special use permit for Allied Rental Car. Basically in our current regulations all auto, truck and trade or rentals require a special use permit in the C -2 district. The purpose of the SUP includes the allowance for special conditions that may need to be considered to reduce the adverse affects on adjacent or surrounding properties. Conditions related to the SUP approval shall be evaluated by the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council as to its probable affect on the adjacent property and the community welfare. It may be approved or denied as the findings indicate appropriate. There are 21 items that are listed in our special use permit as items that could be or should be considered. The standards or conditions for approval of the SUP. Currently the Richland Shopping Center is deficient in landscaping, they have a pole sign and parking setbacks on the street. This is an older area of town and it is a revitalization area and certainly staff is encouraged about trying to promote businesses in this area however based on the non - conformities with the pole sign, no landscaping and asphalt parking right up to the right of way. Staff has recommended to the developer that at least something be brought into conformance. In the past 4 years we have had 4 cases of similar SUP's similar to this and in all cases the city council has approved those but with the stipulation that at least some conformities be made to the property. We have talked to the owner and have made him aware of our business improvement and growth program that allows for improvements to the signs and to the facade of the building. The city would reimburse improvements up to 25% match. Staff is recommending denial of the SUP primarily because without some conforming site improvements we don't think that the center will improve the adjacent properties or be a benefit to the community welfare at that point. It is not that we are against the use but we are doing everything that we can do to revitalize that area. Matthew Arfa, Newport, California came forward as applicant. Bill Schopper asked what he proposed to do to the site in regards to improvements? Matthew Arfa said that we bought the building back in 2007 and were told that the area is actually improving but we haven't been able to get any kind of tenant in the property. So we are trying to put the business that we have in California and put a branch or satellite office with a few cars in that location. That allows us to put one of our employees here and gives us some more cash flow to start improving the property. At this point we are in a negative cash flow every month and since we have been running this way for the past few years there isn't any funds for us to do any improvement to the property. Even though the city is paying 25% we would still have to come up with 75% and everything that needs to be done is going to cost around $20,000 to $30,000. We are trying to create some cash flow and in the mean time get the center a little more occupied so we can encourage other businesses to come in. The businesses that Page 2 02/17/11 P & Z Minutes come in are new businesses that end up closing after a few months. That area of town there isn't a lot of traffic and it is very difficult to get tenants in and keep them. Public Hearing opened 7:07 pm With none wishing to speak public hearing closed at 7:07 pm Don Bowen said that unless the applicant is willing to consider some type of improvements right now then I move that we deny this request. I think that we need to remain consistent on the requirements for improvements for Boulevard 26. Benton seconded the motion. Mike Bill Schopper opened discussion on the denying the request. I know in my opinion it seems counter intuitive to deny this request on a soft part of the city south of 820. That is a real rough part of the city and what we are trying to do is change that area by making things nicer. Is there anything aesthetically you could do out by the street or change the sign? Matthew Arfa said that he is willing to make changes and that is why I am interested in opening a business in there. This would give us more opportunity to start making improvements to the building. We are going to change the doors and we can go ahead and change the signage. But if you allow us to put the business and start making the improvements as we go so it gives us more funds to get it done. This would allow us to make it look better and create more tax revenue for the city instead of just being a vacant property. Bill Schopper is there any specific improvements that you propose? Matthew Arfa said that he proposes to get it started and try to do things that don't accrue too much expense such as painting the entire building to make it look better. We have been putting money into the building. We have replaced the roof and replaced the new air conditioning equipment. Since we have purchased the building it has cost us over $50.000 in improvements. I am open to suggestions to get this thing going. Mike Benton said that he knows you are from California and one of the things that we are doing in this area is revitalize this entire area. We even changed the name to Boulevard 26. We are hoping that it will one day be a beautiful street. If we start cutting back on our requirements for you and others than we are not going to get the full feel of what we originally wanted for Blvd 26. We had some standards that we had set and I feel that if you aren't going to take the pole sign down and improve the outside, putting in landscape buffers and some of the main requirements that we have established than don't think I can approve that. Bill Schopper said that when you look at the last few folks that we have required them to make those changes and they spent the money to get it done. Chuck E Cheese's expansion, The Paw Spa, Rock and Roll Offroad. There are a bunch of them that have done that and if you look at the aerial your pavement goes right up to the side of the road. That is one of the things that we are trying to accomplish by breaking up by placing some green landscaping in. I don't know how difficult it would be to allow a Page 3 02/17/11 P & Z Minutes i greenspace along that road and lose the pole hers that m not willing e wiill ng to compromise our setback and the signs, but I agree with the o standards that we have set for Blvd 26. Matthew Arfa said that he does want to do the N improvements Want to are as Cheese and those have a lot more money than possible in there but again if you look at that whole area like across the street from us. It became an empty vacant building now and has been vacant for 2 years. Bill Schopper said that across the street is in a different city. Matthew Arfa said that the building on the left hand side is an empty lot and has been that way for over 2 years and the one on the right hand side used to be UHaul and is now empty. That whole area is becoming empty and we are trying to do something for the shopping center to get tenants in there and make that area more lively. We can change the sign and around the sign we can put grass. Dianna Madar asked if they are willing to make the improvements if we are to approve the SUP on that basis or later? Matthew Arfa said that they could commit to making the change in the sign and around the sign put a grass area and landscaping it is our property and we want it to look better but we have to have the funds available to Bill Schopper asked John Pitstick what is have to be moved s etback and greenbelt? Could you point out on the aerial what John Pitstick said that typically if you look up and down Boulevard 26 you don't normally see the full 15 foot landscape buffer. We realize that it was built a long time ago. I think that the primary issue would be from the city council would be the sign. The sign is the biggest visible issue. If we could a monument sign down there and maybe get some if we landscaping around the monument sign in that area t at would r a that start. feet of could get 5 foot of landscaping or something like landscaping would just destroy the driveway. If we could remove the pole sign and get a monument sign that is to code and get some adjacent landscape around there. 1 think that would be a good start. If he begins to get some income then there is also some programs available to him and he can get reimbursed for a portion of the improvements that he makes to the actual building. The BIG program actually pays for the removal of the sign and then they could get reimbursed a portion of the new monument sign. Mike Benton asked if we do approve some minimal standards like that our hands are tied as far as having him improve it beyond that or are we locked in to what is approved? John Pitstick said that if he expands the building or does any changes in the building than he would have to conform or come back to request a variance. There are many non conforming areas and I think that the two biggest issues would be removing the pole sign and putting up a new monument sign and landscape in that area. We would Page 4 02/17/11 P & Z Minutes also just encourage Mr. Arfa to make changes to the building such as fresh paint etc_ We can't necessarily require it but we could certainly encourage that. Mike Benton asked if there is a sidewalk required in that area along the curb? John Pitstick said that potentially there could be a requirement for sidewalks. That is difficult for us to determine unless there are any changes to the roadway I don't know how we would get many sidewalks in that area. The Boulevard 26 study isn t really a walkable area like Hometown. It is based on roadway requirements and sidewalks right there on the street may not be able to happen. Don Bowen said that Boulevard 26 is a State Highway. John Pitstick said yes. That is correct. Bill Schopper asked if we would like to amend the previous motion? Don Bowen said that if the staff is satisfied, I feel like I can amend my motion if he will remove the pole sign and there should be funds to help with that. Establish a minimum green space. Does anyone have any suggestions on defining the amount of space? Mike Benton said if we put 5 -7 foot of grass off of that curb will that eliminate some parking that is needed? Matthew Arfa said yes. Mike Benton said that there is no way that they would be able to do that. Matthew Arfa said no. We are limited on the amount of parking that we have. Bill Schopper asked about the landscaping on the sign? Matthew Arfa said that we could do that. Bill Schooper asked how much space would you anticipate? Instead of taking these spaces where there is head in parking if we went to another place and put a sign ? Matthew Arfa said that it would be equal to 1 %2 parking spaces. That would be the amount of landscaping that we could put around the sign. Mike Benton asked about on the east end of the corner of the street. Is there any room there for landscaping? Bill Schopper said that he could see cars backing out right into it. Mike Benton said that he didn't want to see a bunch of asphalt. I would like to see some landscaping. Matthew Arfa said that area is where the dumpster and garbage trucks will be going. Page 5 02/17/11 P & Z Minutes Don Bowen said that he thought that they are talking about the area by the sno cone stand. Mike Benton said yes. Don Bowen said that if you put it over there you would still lose those 3 parking spaces because you wouldn't be able to get in them. Bill Schopper said that if you angled them in it might be allright. John Pitstick said that if we could get the monument sign in the front area and some landscaping and not interfere with any parking. All the parking by the building is still good. We wouldn't ask for 10 or 15 feet but just what we could get in that area. That would be a significant improvement. Bill Schopper said that they will have a rental car business in there and it is going to be busy with cars_ Matthew Arfa asked if there would be anyway that he could do some landscaping up by the building. Mike Benton said that he would really like to see more toward the street. Matthew Arfa said that this where the sign is and we can do the landscape around the sign. That wouldn't take away the parking spaces that we have. Bill Schopper said that car folks generally want their cars by the road so people can see them. Matthew Arfa said that we would go down from the 4 spaces they have now to 3 spaces so it would take one space to do the landscape. Mike Benton said that when you go down Rufe Snow and see the Enterprise Rental Care do they have a landscape buffer? Don Bowen said that the Enterprise just south of here does. Mike Benton do we know how much of a buffer is there? John Pitstick said that is probably 5 -10 feet. Matthew Arfa said that Enterprise Rent a Car has a free standing building. That is the only business that is on that lot. We are talking about a shopping center that has 18 stores in there. Every single parking space counts. Dianna Madar said that towards the right there aren't any parking spaces towards the road. Page 6 02/17/11 P & Z Minutes Bill Schopper said that if you are parking head in you aren't going to be able to back out without it being in the way. Dianna Madar said that she would like to see a business there rather than an empty building but still stay conforming to the plan. Mike Benton said that he is looking to the future for Boulevard 26. We as citizens will be living here and he won't be here and could possibly sell the property and we would be stuck with nothing done. Matthew Arfa said that they would like to do whatever is possible to the property because it is our property. Right now we are running on negative cash flow and we would like to change it and we want to get as much done as possible. Mike Benton said that he isn't trying to pick on him but just trying to think of what would be the best solution for our community. We have set some standards. Matthew Arfa said that it would make it better than it is now. Anything that would bring traffic into this area would be good. Mike Benton said that we are making improvements and there used to be a business on the corner of Glenview and Blvd 26 that has now been torn down. This is the main area that needs to be revitalized. Bill Schopper asked if we can take the sign down and replace with monument sign and give us those 2 parking spaces as green area? Matthew Arfa said yes. Bill Schopper asked if that is something that everyone can live with or do they want the entire frontage? Mike Benton said that he liked John's depiction of what they could. Bill Schopper said that this area is a zero lot line and there isn't a lot they can do with it. I have had rental car agencies as tenants before and it will overwhelm the shopping center. Mike Benton said that on the other side of the drive where there isn't any parking. Is there anyway you could put some landscape there? Matthew Arfa said that we could put a small area of landscape there. If it is too big then it would block cars from passing. Don Bowen said that we can establish 5 feet back from the curb for landscaping. Bill Schopper on the other side of the driveway and around the sign and make them look the same. Page 7 02/17/11 P & Z Minutes Mike Benton said that they would need to look the same. Bill Schopper said that it would be an improvement. Mike Benton said yes. With the monument sign. Matthew Arfa asked if they wanted it 5 feet from the curb? Bill Schopper said that you would have to figure out where your property line is. Don Bowen asked if that would still allow space for a car to pass? Matthew Arfa said yes. Mike Benton asked what the requirements for the buffer area, is it curbed completely around? How would that be constructed? John Pitstick said that you would have to have a landscaped area. The smaller it is the harder it will be to maintain. We would normally require it to be irrigated and in parking lots when we require 5 % of a parking lot to be landscaped we normally encourage them to bunch it in big areas so that you can maintain it better that way. Don Bowen said that we are going to take the pole sign out and we have 5 feet back , how wide are we going to require. Bill Schopper said the width of 2 parking spaces. Mike Benton said 18 feet. Bill Schopper said yes. Matthew Arfa said that where the sign is now is taking one parking space so we could use that and 1 more additional space and use that. Bill Schopper said that you can take the monument sign between the two parking spaces and place it in the middle of the landscaping. We would like to figure out a way to irrigate it. You can do that as time permits. Matthew Arfa said that they will run irrigation to it. APPROVED SUP 2010 -07 Don Bowen motioned to approve SUP 2010 -07 with the amendments to remove the pole sign and establish minimum of 5 ft green space or landscaping on both sides of the drive with 18 foot width of landscaping with monument sign and irrigation, seconded by Mike Benton. The motion carried unanimously (5 -0). Page 8 02/17/11 P & Z Minutes 6. ZC 2011 -02 Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request from Janet Hallman for a Zoning Change from AG Agricultural to R -1 Single Family on Lot 2, Block 1, French Addition located at 8808 Amundson Drive. John Pitstick came forward and stated that this is a request for a lot currently zoned AG to R -1 Single Family. The property owner Janet Hallman is requesting a zoning change for approximately .7 acres. Currently there is a house on the property and they would like to live in and operate it as a customary home occupation. In customary home occupation there can be no visible signs or activity that there is a business there. Staff is recommending approval of this request. If it was new the house does not meet all of the requirements and is a frame and brick house on that lot but by rezoning it to R -1 that establishes it as a residential lot and any improvements would have conform to the R -1 district standards. Janet and Doug Hallman, 8808 Amundson, NRH, TX 76180 came forward and stated that they purchased the property in 2010. There was a little old farm house that was built in the 1950's. We did a remodel job on about half of it which was about all we could afford. It is zoned AG and we can't use it for that. We don't have the real legal acreage for Agricultural and we would like to use it as a home. We live in it, eat in it and sleep there sometimes. This is not our primary home. We use the bike trail and our kids go to school in that area. My wife is a Psychologist and provides a service and would like to use it as a home occupation as well. Janet Hallman stated that her specialty is very young children aged birth to age 6. 1 see children and their parents sometimes. It is very low volume and I see maybe 10 to 12 people a week. It is not very busy and I don't foresee having a lot of people there. I do not see sex offenders or drug addicts or severe mental illness patients. It would be safe. It would be fairly transparent and the neighborhood probably wouldn't even know it was going on to the neighborhood. There will not be any signage. Public Hearing opened 7:31 pm Ginger Burton, 6921 Clift Street, NRH, TX 76180, came forward and stated that she is not against the rezoning to residential but my concern is the business aspect of it. Are there rules in the city whether it must be a primary residence in order for you to run a business out of it? The reason I ask that is because I don't think that they are living there full time now. It appears that it was bought specifically for the purpose of running this business out of it rather than using it as their residence and home occupation. John Pitstick said that the R -1 requires a residential property. The customary home occupation would be allowed as long as there is no evidence of the home occupation. The property is maintained as a residence. It is established as a residential property. Bill Schopper said that it is a residential property but you don't have to live there? Page 9 02/17/11 P & Z Minutes John Pitstick said that it would be very difficult to enforce that. It has to be maintained as a residence. It has to have restrooms, kitchen etc. Ginger Burton asked if they had to maintain this as their primary residence? They can live in another part of the city and just come there 3 days a week and conduct business? Is that the city regulation? John Pitstick just said that it just has to be established as a residential property. Ginger Burton said that the city is not concerned that they aren't living there full time? John Pitstick said that we cannot determine where and when someone is living there but I will say that if we get a call and complaint and there are 5 cars parked out there and it is a nuisance or there is a sign in the window then we will shut them down from the business perspective. Jane Munoz, 6901 Clift, North Richland Hills, TX 76180. Does it have to be a residence? Will you go in and inspect that they have remodeled the whole thing and that half of it isn't just a shell of the house and the rest of it for the business? Because right now I don't think that it has restrooms or kitchen facilities or anything like that in the house. I believe that has been gutted. Would it have to be completed? John Pitstick said yes. Jane Munoz asked in order for them to run their business even if they do not live there all the time they have to complete it to be like a house with all of the facilities. John Pitstick said that the primary use would have to be a residence. Jane Munoz asked if they would have to finish the remodel? John Pitstick said that it is hard for me to say because I have not been in the house. It would have to be occupied as a residence with full residential facilities. Jane Munoz said that right now she doesn't think that it is a full residence with all of the facilities. Don Bowen said that if there is a major remodel there had to be a permit from the city for the work. The permit would have to be signed off by the inspector. Mike Benton asked if there is a Certificate of Occupancy required? John Pitstick said no. We don't issue Certificate of Occupancy for houses. Doug Hallman said that the building that we bought was pier and beam. We only remodeled about 900 square feet. We did put a full bathroom with shower and we have a kitchenette with refrigerator, sink, microwave. Page 10 02/17/11 P & Z Minutes Janet Hallman said that it is set up in the old part of the house that isn't fixed up to have the refrigerator and stove. We can have it in there but we don't have it installed now. We don't use it very often. I shower there and I exercise across the street. I bring my pets and my children there. We have a TV and we use it as a residence. Bill Schopper asked if they obtained a permit to do the work? Janet Hallman said yes. It has all been inspected and passed the final inspection. Mike Benton asked if they are residing there? Doug Hallman said no. We do not live there full time but we spend a great deal of time there and I would say that we are there 7 days a week. Janet Hallman said that they are there everyday and we have slept there also. Public Hearing closed 7:37 pm APPROVED Mark Haynes motioned to approve ZC 2011- 02, seconded by Don Bowen. The motion carried unanimously (5 -0). 7. ZC2011 -01 Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request from Brian James for a Zoning Change from AG to R -1 Single Family on Tract 2T, Abstract 1055 located at 6832 Clift Street. John Pitstick said that this is an Agricultural property that has never been zoned and Mr. James has requested to rezone to R -1. This is on our comprehensive land use plan for low density residential. R -1 is a very appropriate zoning for this area. The next item you will see is for the preliminary plat also in order to subdivide this lot into 3 lots. There is a .6 acre. _9 acre lots. Staff recommends approval of this and would be more than happy to answer any questions. Brian James, 8920 Rumfield Rd, North Richland Hills, TX 76180, came forward as the applicant. This has been a lot of work and has been a bigger project than what I considered in the beginning. As a family we are excited to be working to Clift Street. We do have our house up for sale on Rumfield and this is going to be our primary residence as well as my brother and sister in law. The reason that we like it is because it is a nice quiet addition and it has great features which is hard to find that in this area. Our Number 1 goal in dividing these lots was to allow our kids grow up together. We all have our plans together and we would like to show the neighbors so that they can see the quality of homes that we will be building. We have put a lot of time, effort, and money into this and are trying to maintain the same kind of standards that are already set. We really like the housing addition and houses. We think that it has a lot of Potential. The original property owner had passed away and it had fallen into the hands of family members and had a lot of people living there. The property went downhill and the city ended up condemning the property. We got the property in that state and we Page 11 02/17/11 P & Z Minutes went in there were 9 dumpsters of trash taken out and the house was demolished. It was hard to see what was there with f there and t was really bad The water there. \r cleared wa the surveyors come out. There wa s a o of trash had been cut off for 3 months before it was condemned. People were just piling trash and it was just like a dumpster behind the fences. Once we got the survey and went into it the property was a lot larger than what we expected. We knew what the acreage was as far as the surveying but when you actually saw it we started thinking about how we would position our houses on there. It just made sense to break it into 3 separate lots. The primary lot which will be my lot and is the larger lot to utilize the back part of the lot since there isn't any street access to it. Then the other 2 lots would not be on Clift but will be on Walter. One is a little bigger than the other just because the way the survey came out. They are .57 acres and .65 acres are the actual sizes. I did some research and looked at it and our lots are comparable to the other size lots that were recently built on. The home that we will be building on Clift looks very similar to our house on Rumfield with a few changes here and there. My sister in laws house is the same quality or nicer than our home. The actual homes are about 4000 square feet. We are just trying to improve the neighborhood and it is already great and we love it. We are just doing our part and keep the standards as high as possible. With adding the third lot we don't have any plans to build on it right now. It just worked out with the survey to try to break it into 3 lots based on the land the dimensions after we went to the building code. Public Hearing opened at 7:47 pm Ginger Burton, 6921 Clift Street, North Richland Hills, TX. came forward. The property that Mr. James is talking about is just caddy cornered from our home. I have no problem with them rezoning the property to residential but I do have a problem with separating the property into 3 lots. That particular street is a small, dead end street. There are 11 families that live on this street. Of the 11 families, 6 of those families have property that is equivalent to about 1 acre, 3 families have 2+ acres. We have spoken to several other people on our street and we would like to keep that neighborhood to the 1 acre size lots. We want to maintain the country atmosphere. Mr. James had mentioned several times about the quiet, nice neighborhood which is what attracted him there as well as our larger lots. It is an area with lot of trees and we welcome Mr. James but we would prefer it to just be 2 lots at 1 acre each. I would appreciate your consideration. Bill Schopper said that this public hearing is just regarding the zoning change and not about the breakdown of the lots. Jane Munoz, 6901 Clift Street, North Richland Hills, TX came forward. I am not against them changing the lots from Agricultural to residential however all along we were told that they were going to build 2 houses with 1 acre each. We were happy with this and didn't realize that there was a change until we had called the city regarding the zoning that it had been changed to 3 lots. He could take 2 acres and face 2 houses on Walter and each have a full acre. It is not like the lot is unusual like it was in the other situation down the street where you had another house already built there therefore you couldn't really create 2 acres. The other was unusual and that is why it ended up with 3 houses Page 12 02/17/11 P & Z Minutes on that one. We would really like it to be 2 one acre lots to fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. Public Hearing closed at 7:50 pm APPROVED Mike Benton motioned to approve ZC 2011 -01, seconded by Dianna Madar. The motion carried unanimously (5 -0). 8. PP 2011 -02 Consideration of a Request from Brian James for a Preliminary Plat of Lots 1 -3, Block 2, Clift Addition (located at 6832 Clift Street — 2.237 acres.) John Pitstick said that this is a preliminary plat for 3 lots as part of the preliminary plat approval there is a requirement for a rough proportionality determination. The staff has determined that there would be approximately $25,000 due for future road and drainage and sidewalk improvements in this area. Mr. James does have a request to keep the rural type setting on the development of the lots and he is requesting that the concrete street and sidewalks not be built to keep the rural setting. Staff is recommending approval of this with the determination, based on the regulations we have today the Planning & Zoning Commission determines the rough proportionality. Staff is recommending that this be determined based on the current thoroughfare plan designates this street as a typical residential street that would require concrete curb and gutter. We have previously collected escrow from other properties. Mr. James has 10 days after your determination to file a formal request to wave that. That could be determined by the City Council and there has been some discussion about looking at streets within the city to keep them in a rural nature with asphalt streets. They would have to take care of the drainage issues but there could be a potential that the City Council or Planning or Zoning Commission could consider future rural streets that would not require that escrow requirement. Staff is recommending approval of this with the rough determination for the full concrete curb and gutter sidewalk streets and then it be determined by an appeal and City Council. He will still have to come back before us for the final plat and the City Council could consider several things such as a developers agreement established or a lien on the property that could be forgiven if we change it to a rural street. I don't think that we are trying to debate whether that should or should not be a rural street but based on the current guidelines through the thoroughfare plan and the fact that we have already collected money for previous escrows that we are recommending this preliminary plat be approved with the rough determination based on the engineers estimate. We do have Greg Van Neiuwenhuize and Mike Curtis here if you have any specific questions about the rough proportionality. Mark Haynes asked how we would normally determine a rural versus and non rural or normal residential road? John Pitstick said that we do not have a current designation for a rural road. There certainly could be some candidates when you look at it_ When you look at it from a staff perspective we would rather look at the whole city rather than just one lot. Clift and Walter and some others maybe appropriate. We would rather look at that on a citywide Page 13 02/17/11 P & Z Minutes basis and come back to the Planning & Zoning Commission or City Council with recommendations for rural roads. What you would be waiving would be the future sidewalks or future concrete streets but we would still require an asphalt street and storm drainage. Bill Schopper said that is something that the Planning & Zoning Commission does every few years when we update the Thoroughfare Plan. John Pitstick said that there could be a designation of a rural street and we have brought up the R -1 S and the 1 acre lots and there are particular areas within our community that have a lot of R -1 S or 1 acres lots and those are dead end streets that aren't major streets and that could be considered. We aren't arguing this point but we are requesting that you follow the current guidelines which has it designated as a typical residential street that requires concrete, curb and gutter and sidewalks. Don Bowen said that he isn't prepared to make any kind of change from what we currently do based on a 10 minute conversation. That is something that is going to require a lot of study. Bill Schopper said that it is also something that is not fair to the people who have already have had to pay those fees. He does still have an avenue for appeal if we approve it as it was presented. APPROVED Mike Benton motioned to approve PP2011 -02 with staff recommendations, seconded by Don Bowen. The motion carried unanimously (5 -0). 9. 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. John Pitstick said that we have the previous slide show and we would be happy to go through that but instead of that we would rather listen to the public or requests from the Planning & Zoning Commission. At this point we think that it would be more appropriate to begin to establish some stakeholder meetings. The only other thing that was brought up last time was the discussion of the crime. We do have Chief Mike Hamlin here today and he can take a few minutes to discuss the crime report and then I came back up and recommend a schedule for you. Chief Mike Hamlin said that it might help to provide a little bit of background information or historical data about crime and apartment complexes to help you see what you are dealing with. When we look at the crime in Hometown over the 3 years we find some fairly significant pieces of information. When we look at 2010 we find that only 13 crimes were committed in that apartment complex. That is a tremendously low number for a complex coupled with the fact that the vast majority of those crimes were only property crimes and not crimes against persons or people. Not violent crimes that we Page 14 02/17/11 P & Z Minutes tend to think about. When we look at 2009 we find that there were 11 and 2008 there were only 10. When we compare those crime numbers to the area to the west of The Venue we find that the residential area had 77 crimes for 2010. When we look at the crimes that are for similar sized complexes not necessarily demographics we find that The Venue had the lowest of those that we compared it to. Those numbers varied from 19 all the way up to 77 for 2010. They are considerably less at 13 then those we compared it to. That will give you a reference point when you think about crime that is associated with an apartment complex. If there are any questions I would be happy to try to answer them for you. John Pitstick said that we would like to move forward and there are several people here and we want to hear what they have to say. Staff looked at this and felt that we wanted to have some small group stakeholder meetings. We have scheduled 3 specific meetings and we will also have this posted on the website tomorrow morning as well. We are recommending that the next regular scheduled meeting for March 3 be postponed and at the continuation of this public hearing we would recommend that this be continued until the March 17, 2011 meeting and at that point we would listen to everyone:s comments and bring forward our final recommendation to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Depending on what the Planning & Zoning decided the first available public hearing date for the City Council would be March 28 We have scheduled meetings at the North Richland Hills library community room which is in the heart of hometown for Tuesday March 1" between 1:00 -2:30 pm, Wednesday March 2 d between 5:00 -6:30 and Thursday March 3` which would be a typical meeting would be in the NRH City Hall Council Workroom between 6:30 -8:00 pm. We are requesting that residents reserve or register for the specific meetings so that staff can have available adequate materials and personnel to properly address those concerns. I would be happy to answer any questions. You have all of the recommendations and we had a recent letter from Ms. Darlene Hudsell and I think you have copies of that and I believe that you are updated on where we are at this point. It has been a long haul with that and we want to continue to work to resolve as many issues as we can. We have talked about crime. school, traffic etc. We want to do whatever we can to resolve it but also realize that there was an existing development in there with existing zoning so we are trying to work where we can to move forward with this. That is our recommendation that we hold the public hearing tonight and recommend continuation until the March 17 meeting and hold the 3 stakeholder meetings and then come back for potential vote on March 17 2011. Public Hearing opened at 8:03 pm Bill Schopper said that you all have noticed all of us up here listening to a lot of the same things over and over again. There has been some misconceptions and you don't think that we are listening to what you are saying and you can't understand what our struggle is. Our struggle starts with the first thing that the U.S. Constitution says anytime you take something from a U.S. Citizen you have to compensate them for it. That is called just compensation. I am a Commercial Real Estate Appraiser by trade and I get involved in these kind of deals all of the time with other cities and if this was a right of way type of acquisition where they were taking a strip of land from this developer the city that took the land for that road would have to pay them fair market value for that. What we have here is something that's called a taking. If the city comes in and tells Page 15 02/17/11 P & Z Minutes them that they can't do what they originally told them they could do and what they made promises to them that they could do that in turn impacts the land. Whoever takes that whether its by overt act or just by the way it worked out is on the hook for paying them for that. It is not just a little bit of change it is big money we are talking about. That is why we can't listen to you and say well you can't have any apartments. This is why the city has painstakenly gone through every step of this trying to show how things started and how things have come to present day. By the virtue of being a Commercial Real Estate Appraiser before the internet we were all forced to be packrats and any type of information we got from any city or project we would keep. I happen to be going through old paperwork which I basically put in crates in 1998 and it turns out in that box I found the original presentation that the guy that was running Hometown. In this package I have aerials of the project when it was just dirt. This was from before the project was ever started. I respectfully don't doubt that a lot of people believe that they were misled and people told them that it would never be like this. When you look at this brochure it kind of looks like downtown Dallas as to the density. I will just read one quick paragraph. This is the section on the inside of the brochure talking about multifamily apartments. "Although the community includes more than 800 multi family apartments the range of available apartment types varies greatly. Along the lake upscale apartments are available with a variety of amenities for residents who want comfort without the responsibilities of home ownership. Closer to town offers convenience and security with simple but spacious layouts and views of city lights. All units are within short walking distance of park, recreation center, regional library, performing arts and conference center, shops, restaurants and schools. "That is what was represented when this city bought into this project. You can see the front and it looks like a downtown street. I'm sure the city can make copies. That is what was represented to our city and our chamber and the Commercial Real Estate Brokers in town. Tal Buie, 8621 Nichols Way, North Richland Hills, TX 76180 came forward to speak against the Town Center changes. I appreciate your comments and would like to review what you commented on. Basically the subject development is extremely important to all citizens of North Richland Hills and as it is currently planned if it has a current plan it has an adverse affect not only on the citizens of Hometown but on the city as a whole. I too have the original plans that were first presented to the Mayor and City Council by Arcadia there is considerable difference in their original proposal and the current proposal relative to the apartment density. The original 2 sheet proposal shows a detail layout on one of the sheets there is a written statement which is what Chairman Schopper had said. Although the community includes more than 800 multi family apartments the range of availability of apartment styles varies greatly. Logic tells you that the statement means more than 800 but less than 900. Today we have 193 units in the Franklin Park Apts and 189 living units in The Venue. When you deduct these numbers from 899 then you get 517 remaining apartment units for future development. This is based on the Arcadia proposal presented to the City of North Richland Hills. To me it is a written agreement and should be abided by the city and the developer. The density of any apartments should be a primary concern. History has proven that when you put a large number of people crowded together bad things happen. I hate to mention Woodhaven because it has been mentioned so many times before but it was a beautiful development with a big golf course in the middle and a clubhouse and then someone decides that we should put a lot of apartments in and then all of a sudden the Page 16 02/17/11 P & Z Minutes property values went down. We have citizens who reside in Hometown that moved from Woodhaven to get away from the crime and the declining property values. The attached layout created by Arcadia gives the impression that there are a number of lots for single family housing. The written narrative to this is almost comical, "this site rendering constitutes one possible development plan that is in conformance with development and zoning regulations not yet enacted by the City Council, if and when such regulations are enacted the plan is still subject to change." That is a very confusing statement. The attached document in my opinion shows a large number of single family lots, however the written narrative basically says the developer can do as he pleases. I don't think that was the understanding of the city council that received the original proposals. I thank you for everything that you do for the city and you have a very difficult job. John Osborne, 8528 Bridge Street, North Richland Hills, TX 76180 came forward in favor of the Town Center Changes. Thank you again for allowing me to speak to you today. It is obvious that the city planning department and the city managers office have been listening. Many positive changes have been made as a result of these meetings and the efforts of our legal representation. Some of these include the 23 of the 41 acres involved and 2,3A and 3B will be single family homes. That is over half of it. That is a significant difference and Bridge Street to Parker will also be single family homes John Pitstick said yes, but town homes could be built as you turn the corner. John Osborne said that what this does for the residents of Hometown West is that it creates an addition to the neighborhood which looks the same. That is vitally important. In addition to that I am of the opinion from the number of single family homes that are to be built that a substantial amount of the homes will be built around the park. I think that is also a significant change. We have seen a substantial 1/3 reduction from the original apartment plans which I saw when they had the first meeting. There are conditions now attached to the flex space in that new apartment buildings which is tied to residents. occupancy and for ever so many feet they are allowed to be used for an apartment. The Venue will only be able to convert the flex space in the back 2 buildings which will be 20 apartments. The front buildings would continue to have the 20 business locations which are located there. That is also a very good move. Tract 6A and 6B near the library would no longer would developed as multi family or town homes instead those parcels will be used for public use, recreation buildings and commercial. So who is the winners here? We all are, the developer, the city and the residents of North Richland Hills. Each of you who have contributed to this effort are huge winners and you should be congratulated have been heard and listened to. Are we completely happy? No but I believe that we have made significant differences and there are still some changes that will result. We do have a few problems that I would like to discuss. These are a few minor things that I think are vitally important. Presently the greenbelt part in 3B at the north eastern corner it border the arena at Ice House and Bridge Street. This is a very busy area because of the arena. It is vitally important that we have a good fence on the north and eastern border of that park. The other reason is that it is currently used as a parking lot and I guarantee you that if a fence is not there it will still be used as a parking lot and it will destroy the greenbelt area. I think obviously the fence is needed because it is so busy for the safety of the children in the park. It is not like Winter Park where the traffic is much of a problem. That is considered one of the most used traffic Page 17 02117/11 P & Z Minutes areas. I have a concern about an area that is currently planned for business townhomes that is where you have a business and also live. That area is also in that park area. Now what that is going to do is to bring outsiders who are not residents into that area for that business. They will be adjacent to the park which will create the same threats that we had discussed not have business /residences across from the elementary school. We don't know who those people are or what their backgrounds are, they aren't residents. It doesn't mean that area can't be townhomes but I don't think they should be live in business town homes because it will create parking and traffic too close to the park. I would like to make a recommendation to the developer. Marketing businesses in the apartment buildings does is not a matter of putting up a sign that says For Lease and hiring a realtor to handle inquiries. If you are going to have the type of businesses that we want in that development they need to have a professional who will approach businesses to come there. A Bank would be a good, obvious addition. It would not only bring people but also businesses. I suggest to the developer that they consider looking at better ways to market those buildings. I thank you for listening and I thank for the Planning & Zoning Board. You have listened to a lot and I hope in many ways we have helped influence you. I know that we have influenced the Planning Dept and City Managers Office and have made significant changes. Jennifer Matthews, 5813 Lakeway, North Richland Hills, TX came forward and I just wanted to clarify the numbers for the crime reports. The differences on the crime statistics. You gave 13 for the complexes. What was the 77 crimes for? Was that Hometown? Chief Mike Hamlin said that is for the residential neighborhood west of the apartment complex. Jennifer Matthews said that is Hometown. There was 77 in 2010. Do you have the numbers for 2008 and 2009. Chief Mike Hamlin said No. But we can get those for you. Jennifer Matthews asked how the parking spaces are determined for the apartments? Bill Schopper said that is determined by the code. Jennifer Matthews asked if that is part of the current plat or is that decided at another time? John Pitstick said No. That is part of the regulations. Our current requirement would be 1 ' / 2 per 1 bedroom unit, 2 parking spaces for 2 & 3 bedroom units. Jennifer Matthews asked if that would be the requirements for all apartment complexes going in? John Pitstick said yes. Public Hearing continued at 8:26 pm Page 18 02/17/11 P & Z Minutes APPROVED Don Bowen motioned to continue ZC 2010 -05 Public Hearing until March 17, 2011, seconded by Mike Benton. The motion carried unanimously (5 -0). ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 8:26 p.m. Chairman Secretary "Oe Randy Shiflet en Page 19 02/17/11 P & Z Minutes