Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2006-11-16 Minutes MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS NOVEMBER 16, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Bill Schopper at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Acting Chairman Bill Schopper Secretary Don Bowen Brenda Cole Mike Benton Mark Haynes Steven Cooper Ex Officio Kelly Gent ABSENT Randy Shiflett CITY STAFF Chief Planner Eric Wilhite Asst. Dir. of Public Works Greg Van Nieuwenhuize Planning & Development Angela Brown Recording Secretary Dianna Buchanan 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 19, 2006 MEETING APPROVED Don Bowen, seconded by Mike Benton, motioned to approve the minutes of October 19, 2006. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). Randy Shiflett was absent. Page 1 of 12; 11/16/06 P&Z Minutes 5. ZC 2006-05 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM BRAD HARDY TO APPROVE A ZONING CHANGE FROM "C-1" COMMERCIAL TO "RI-PD" RESIDENTIAL INFILL — PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (LOCATED IN THE 8200 BLOCK OF STARNES ROAD. — 3.63 ACRES). APPROVED Mr. Brad Hardy, 6445 Love Dr., Irving, applicant, said this development is Crestwood Place Addition and they have been working on it for a couple years. They have looked at this property since midsummer of two years ago from a lot of different angles and rational with a lot of help from outside consultants. His company has done 54 subdivisions through out the State of Texas in the last 20 years. These have been primarily medium to high density residential communities with over 30 of those being medium density communities. This particular community we are working as consultants and fee based managers. That is what my role is here today-to help the local North Richland Hills owner get this property developed. The property is situated on Starnes west of Davis Boulevard behind a vacant building that was formerly Winn Dixie. Winn Dixie has been closed for several years. We are acquainted with the owner of that property and there are not any plans for it that we are aware of. To provide the best use for our property and to help stabilize the neighborhood we have come up with this plan for the property. It consists of 22 lots, 18 of which are residential. The remainders are reserved for open space for the development. We have divided the open spaces, as we intend to have a structured homeowners association, primarily of the developers and then it will be moved over to the homeowners. They will control the maintenance and the liability relative to the community open space which is at the front two lots and the front entrance and at the rear of the property and then along the private drive which constitutes the main street for the development. We have spent considerable time working with City staff on this project and feel that we have received a lot of good input. We are appreciative. We did not realize it would take as long as it has. The density is about 5 units per acre which for this property is a fairly low density for what we consider an infill where basically the neighborhood to the north, east and south is transitioning to commercial which is where Winn Dixie. Typically, this infill or transitional density can work for residential which we feel is very appropriate in this case because the lots to the west are very similar in structure to those lots even though being on a 2000 updated basis. We are trying to offer as many amenities as we can and keep the properties as affordable as we can. The home cost are relative to the size of the homes. The average size is to be a minimum of 2,000 square feet. We are going to offer three plans with variations of those three basic plans for the neighborhood and that mixture will provide closer to 2,400 sq. ft. average and give us some insurance that as we get through and build the property that if someone wants a smaller home we can accommodate that. Our concern is that we really can accommodate some people that want a smaller home of building up the property with some cushion rather than end up with three or four properties at the end that we can't build on. We are trying to control that at the onset by the 3 plans we have given the quantity of lots 3 lots that are front Page 2 of 12; 11/16/06 P&Z Minutes • entry garage homes, 5 or 6 that are swing-in garages and the balance will be rear-entry garages which are on the eastern side of the property which lend themselves to bigger, larger homes-2,000; 2,400 or 2,500 sq. ft. homes. We feel like most of these homes will be in the 2,400 sq. ft. range. This should give us some flexibility on the west side of the property to work with the neighbors that we are backing up to protect sight lines and visibility lines and be good neighbors with them. We can control on the 8 or 10 lots on the east side to get the average 2,000 sq. ft. home. The existing grove of trees there as you come into the property—virtually all will stay except where we are putting in the street that will come into the neighborhood. We will loose a few trees but we will more than mitigate the loss as we go through the property and put a minimum of 2-3" caliper trees on each lot. The grove of trees will be kept except where the street passes through and then we will put in brick pavers with a boulevard island, ornamental light posts and lamps, up light it, and install some nice brick and wrought iron fencing intermingled with the trees and try to have a nice differentiation for the community from Starnes. Again towards the rear of the property as you go back towards the hammerhead—that came out of Public Works and gave a lot more green space and the Fire Department liked it just as well as the cul-de-sac. Given the fact that we are in the flood plain back there we have to be able to change grades as we get back there over that 100-year limit. That hammerhead configuration at the back of the street on the turnaround lends itself to what we are trying to do. Chairman Schopper opened the Public Hearing at 7:08 p.m. and asked if there was anyone present to speak in favor of the request. Mr. Jack Vise, 7420 Forrest Lane, whose property backs up to the proposed development. Mr. Vise expressed his concerns regarding the sight lines of two-story house looking down into the yard of one-story houses. The other was water shed. Now when it rains there is a river running through my back yard. I understand in developing the property drainage would be directed a different way which will help my problem. Greg Van Nieuwenhuize said drainage will be taken care of during platting. If the property drains toward Mr. Vise's back yard, Mr. Hardy can probably get his property to drain to the street. If Mr. Vise's back yard is low, the water that is there will still collect there. Drainage will be addressed during the platting process. Mr. Bowen said that there is no way the City can legislate that the applicant can't build a two-story house that will look down into a backyard. Mr. Vise said he understands that. He is not against the development. In fact, this plan is preferable to other that have been presented in the past. He is in favor. Mr. Bowen said he thinks there will definitely be some two-story homes in there just because of the home sizes and the smaller lots. Ms. Wanda Mollett, 7404 Forrest Lane, spoke against the request. She and her husband are the second lot on Forrest Lane. Their back yard will abut the new Page 3 of 12; 11/16/06 P&Z Minutes development. She shares the same concerns as her neighbor, and realizes that the Commission cannot legislative the two-story homes, but as you drive through the neighborhood, just since she has lived there, she has seen neighborhood after neighborhood come in. It is cram as many houses on top of each other as you can. We don't need houses with 10 foot backyard depths right behind us where we bought because we had mature trees and larger lots--where you couldn't borrow sugar from your neighbor by raising the window. It's too much. We bought there because of what the neighborhood looked like. We knew this could be an issue, but we were hoping that the current taxpayers would be protected by the Commission and that you would protect our investment and not let them stack them in as thick as you can get them. We have some of the largest, nicer lots around and would like to keep that consistent. Would they be willing to try not to make such a killing on the land and maybe pluck a few houses out of there? Can they put the single story homes on the side that abuts Forrest Lane and put the two story homes across the street? Also the trees look like they are only going to be saved up on Starnes. What about the trees that are behind my house? Chairman Schopper read a letter into the record that was received—dated November 12, 2006 to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding this case. "Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, We are property owners at 7400 Forrest Lane, on the corner of Starnes Road and Forrest Lane, adjacent to the west of the property that Mr. Brad Hardy is requesting to be rezoned from C-1 Commercial to RI-PD, Residential Infill. As property owners adjacent to this property, we have several concerns. First, being that whatever residential infill that Mr. Hardy is going to build that it would not in any way devalue our property. That it would hopefully add to our property value by being attractive, being an asset to our neighborhood and our city. Many people view this area everyday as Starnes Road is one of the most heavily traveled roads in our city. We would also hope that this would not cause more traffic concerns on Starnes Road. Our other concerns are the beautiful trees up and down the property line behind our home and our neighbors homes. Please allow the trees right behind our property line to remain and also as many to remain on and around the building site as this only adds beauty to our neighborhood and our city. We are trusting that you will work for our neighborhood and our city to keep them looking beautiful. Thank you in advance for addressing these concerns. Al and Martha Bertrum". As there were no others wishing to speak, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing at 7:19 p.m. Mr. Haynes asked Mr. Hardy, how will he insure that the trees on the north and south ends of the property will not be damaged during construction? Mr. Hardy said during the permitting process, prior to starting the work on the subdivision infrastructure, we propose and probably be required to provide a survey of what is existing and also indicate any impact with the development of the property and how we intend to protect and preserve the trees. Fundamentally protection will be by fencing the trees off in the areas where we intend to save the trees to keep people from Page 4 of 12; 11/16/06 P&Z Minutes backing into the trees when loading and unloading materials. They will be fenced with temporary type screen fencing and more than likely posted as well. Mr. Benton asked, will the trees be removed from the lots where homes will be developed because there is no room for them on the back of the homes on the west side of the development? Mr. Hardy said that is correct. There are not many of them there now. There are drainage issues where we will have to drain the back of the property to the street. Mr. Benton said he is also concerned with the roads coming in and the access coming in behind some of the homes seems quite narrow. It is all squeezed in so tight and I am looking at the lots next to it —it doesn't look real appealing to me. I don't know if eliminating a lot on each side and spreading that out if it is a possibility. Mr. Hardy said the site plan shows the maximum outside limits which shows more ground coverage than will probably be used, but it does show the worst case scenario. If more 2-story homes are done on the east side, then there will more be more open space. We have to keep all the lots proportionate in size, to keep a balance in the neighborhood both from a marketing standpoint and homeowner association maintenance and expense. Mr. Bowen said concerning the design of the hammerhead that it has been approved by the Fire Department. The thing is if someone is parking there car up there then it is not available. It seems to me that at least in this hammerhead there should be no parking in there as it is used for a turn-around. Mr. Hardy said that it will be striped as a no parking zone. It will also be laid out in the homeowner's association rule book but physically marked on the street as well. Mr. Cooper asked since it will be a private street, who will enforce the parking? He thinks the hammerhead is a good alternative to the cul-de-sac. He is concerned about the fire access. Eric Wilhite said the Fire Department will enforce it. The Fire Marshall will. It is the same when there is a cul-de-sac. Also on commercial development the Fire Department enforces fire lanes and no parking zones. Also the HOA will have control of that as well since it is a private street. Ms. Cole said in the narrative the applicant stated that in order to shield the neighborhood from the commercial property, that where permitted along the east side you would put the fence. Now where permitted —is there a place where it is not? Mr. Hardy said at the north end of the site plan which is northerly of the 100 year flood plain they are restricted by some city requirements in constructing that fence within the limit of the flood plain. So we could go from the point up which is basically all but Page 5 of 12; 11/16/06 P&Z Minutes maybe the very northern 20 or 30 feet down the our property line on the southern edge of Starnes. Ms. Cole asked then what will be put in that area? Mr. Hardy said as a screening fence—there is a picture of it in the back of the narrative book. It is a cast stone cobblestone fence. Ms. Cole said in the place where you can't put this fence. That small area—what will be there? Mr. Hardy said that now there are trees there and we will work in conjunction with those trees to try to make sure that the intent of the screening fence is served in that area. If it is the addition of some more trees and bushes to continue that screening effect then we will do that. It will have to be something natural so we don't change the existing contours of the grading. Ms. Cole said for clarification on number 2, there is shown the 3 front entry garages. In your sample on the elevations it indicates lots 12, 13 and 14 which don't match. Can she presume you are talking about Lots 14, 15 and 16? Mr. Hardy said it would be the northern 3 most lots on the west side. Chairman Schopper said the matter at hand is the zoning case—whether to change this parcel to a residential parcel. The problem why you think the neighborhood is stressed is because the Winn Dixie is dark and if you talked to the property owner you know the reason it is dark is because Winn Dixie is still on the lease and they can't get the new users into it because they can't get Winn Dixie off the lease because typically Winn Dixie would cash in those leases. We recently approved a site plan for a property to the east of Winn Dixie putting a video store in there and there is a tremendous demand for property for professional office sites which would go well back behind that Winn Dixie if it was open. Right now it looks distressed and nobody is going to spend $150 per foot to build professional offices back there as long as it is dark. I am looking at down zoning this to residential as a permanent solution for a temporary problem. That is why I have a problem with it. I am intimately familiar with the property. The product that you are bringing is a good product. I don't have a problem with that. The biggest problem you are going to give to the adjacent Crestwood property is that you are going to cause their property taxes to go up because they are going to be more valuable properties and the comps people use to appraise with will be higher. I just have an issue why this is not a commercial property? We just down zoned the hard corner of Davis Boulevard and Hightower for a similar kind of thing. We down zoned the catfish farm, Liberty Village. There is a lot of stuff that what the problem was it wasn't feasible for that use at the time, but for residential because everybody wants to live in North Richland Hills. I need you to tell me why it is not a commercial site. Page 6 of 12; 11/16/06 P&Z Minutes Mr. Hardy said because fundamentally it is more an industrial site than a commercial site because it is backing up to the Winn Dixie. If that Winn Dixie building was 20 years older, or if it was in less of a condition, or had more short-term obsolescence, which it physically is good for another 40 years and there is no way to transfer it. That is always going to be the back side of that building. The way the layout is designed, whatever goes in that building is going to be allowed to have trucks all night loading and unloading just like Winn Dixie did. That is the current approved use there. Mr. Schopper said that is why he has a problem with residential being there. It is a transitional use that should be in there and we don't need anymore duplexes. Mr. Hardy said duplexes would not be satisfactory but the garden offices wouldn't either. We worked on that concept for 6 to 8 months. We have developed garden homes in this area and know several other garden office developers and asked them to look at it as well. They see some potential in the properties in the next 5 to 10 years to the northeast of the Winn Dixie that actually has Starnes Road frontage. We agree with that, but the depth relative to the frontage on this property is not conducive to a garden office development because only 1 or 2 building would have frontage on Starnes and the rest would not. Starnes is a residential feeder, not a commercial street. So we couldn't generate even any long-term interest in this property as a commercial property as an office. There was some interest from an industrial use-an automotive garage-but we felt like that would not work. That is the type of uses we encountered-more of an industrial type but we don't do that—we don't see it fitting there. We have had some success with this type of development in conjunction with the Winn Dixie type building. We did close to 200 active adult houses in a community called Villas of Bedford over on Bedford Road and east of Central Drive and actually Winn Dixie backed out on us on that project as well and it sat vacant for several years after we finished the property. We have also worked with Kroger in Arlington at Lamar and 1-30 with a community called Villas of Pebblebrook that has worked really well. It has a nice homeowner's association and a lot of private ownership. We could not generate office building or commercial uses. It is worth more money as commercial and we would prefer to see commercial from a development stand point, but from a near term to long term need of this neighborhood on this particular property, like I mentioned earlier, it wasn't just us, we took this to various area and statewide consultants. We had then look at it and drive by to give us their thoughts and it pretty much universally came back we need to work up some type of a non-rental non-income producing residential development. That led us to where we are today to try to pack the very most bang we can put in that for the dollar. Being a transitional piece of property and being under 4 acres the price of the community is high. They want to be a good neighbor to the people with homes on Forrest Lane. Mr. Schopper said to bear in mind that a lot of people are still upset about the trees that were taken down for the Chevron station so bare that in mind and if you could address the tree issue that you will probably go a lot further. There is a drainage issue because there used to be a pond down in there so you have to rework the dirt and then the trees have to go. That is just part of the hard thing of that. Page 7 of 12;11/16/06 P&Z Minutes Mr. Hardy thinks the site drainage was addressed when they put the Winn Dixie in. He understands there are some drainage issues in the back yards to the west of the property, which to some extent we will help those conditions. If their backyards are low, they are low, but we will not exacerbate them. The Public Works Department will make sure of that. We have a good 2% slope on the property off Starnes back to the creek before we hit the flood plane so it is a good workable site for the layout we have to make everything to drain. Mr. Bowen has a little concern about the RI-PD. The base zoning for RI-PD is R2 and we trade the density for amenities. His concern is that some of the other RI-PD's that have been reviewed are not this dense and they are providing more fountains, gazebos and curved linear streets. What in this development are you giving the city that gives the reason to permit the increased density? Mr. Hardy said they are putting some curve in the street. The site line from Starnes is only 4 lots deep into the community. Were it not for the grove of trees at Starnes we could do some more fountains or entry amenities, but we feel the real value is the trees. We are going to intermix within the trees iron and brick low profile fencing to delineate the neighborhood but not necessarily right up at the sidewalk. We are going to mix that up with the trees in a manner that we don't disturb the trees but still give the feeling that the trees are part of the community—off limits. Mr. Bowen said he understands that the trees are a good amenity. He just wants to make sure that he understands. Mr. Hardy said they have put a nice brick paver island with some landscaping and nice expensive street lighting both at the front entrance and at the midway access of the property and at the towards the rear of the property where the trees are at the back at the creek. We are going to be doing as much landscaping as possible, fully irrigated homeowner association maintained sprinkler system, grounds maintenance, wood garage doors, try to offer a look and feel to this community to justify the effort and expense going into it. Mr. Cooper asked how far it is from the back of the property on the east side to the back of the Winn Dixie building? Mr. Hardy said from the actual Winn Dixie building to the screen wall being proposed there is a 20 ft. fire lane and then a 7 or 8 ft to the fence and 5 or 10 ft. from the back of the building to the fire lane so something less than 50 ft. Chairman Schopper called for a motion. Mike Benton motioned to deny ZC2006-05. There was no second and the motion died. Page 8 of 12; 11/16/06 P&Z Minutes Brenda Cole, seconded by Steven Cooper, motioned to approve ZC 2006-05. Mr. Schopper asked if there was further discussion. Ms. Cole said in trying to think through the comment from Mr. Schopper that he thinks this is a transition piece and should be used for that. She cannot think of the number of commercial pieces we have that residential backs right up to. So, she is trying to understand why Mr. Schopper feels that this property should be a transitional one, when there are a lot of pieces that we have that backup right against commercial. So that is her question to Mr. Schopper. And of course as with any infill she realizes this is a rezoning and that they have got to get creative. It is never the best piece of property or the best situation. As compared to some of the things we have seen, this has got a lot of positives to it. She would like to see one less lot on the west side but doesn't know if it is economically possible for the developer. At the same time if he was going to do a cul-de-sac, he would loose some lots. It might be something to consider. The way they do have them laid out if you look at it with the lots there is not any one house that backs up to the existing Crestwood homes. They are going to get some 10 plus feet in between there and they are not going to gat a 2-story house exactly backing up. So thank you for helping to explain. Every time this comes to us I don't do enough commercial to know and I can't figure out what you are going to put there since you don't own the Winn Dixie, what are you going to put in this little strip? We are not ever going to get estate lots on this. The depth won't allow it. The configuration isn't going to do it. I think we're trying to find if it is residential, then what is the best mix? Mr. Schopper said that the transition is not so much to buffer the residential but to buffer the commercial and to feed off from the commercial use and to link them to Davis Boulevard. What you are looking at is professional office buildings that are built two or three deep. There are some on Davis Blvd. and also on Harwood in tiny pieces and nooks and crannies that are 3 and 4 deep. Several are in the works in our neighborhood. You've got them on Turner Drive that are three and 4 deep. There's a lot of that stuff going on right now that immediately. . . commercial doesn't just mean retail and traffic counts. It means convenience to streets and you have got the light there at Starnes. I am not thinking of it as transition to protect the houses. The houses were there first. That is why see commercial abutting residential because what they do is they build houses out as far as they can. Then they sell the commercial land. They just thought this was going to be a bigger deal. Mr. Cooper asked the developer to be friendly to the neighbors as possible regarding the trees. His concern is the trees. As Mr. Schopper said, all were crying when the trees were taken out across the street a few years ago. Please do what you can with the neighbors. The other concern brought up was the loading dock at the building on the east end. The loading dock can have trucks delivering at all hours. That is why I asked about the distance from the building to the property. There being no other discussion, Mr. Schopper asked for the vote. Page 9 of 12; 11/16/06 P&Z Minutes • The motion carried (4-2). Bill Schopper and Mike Benton voted to deny the motion. Randy Shiflett was absent. 6. FP 2006-13 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM RANDY SEALE TO APPROVE A FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 1-4, BLOCK 15, WINDCREST ADDITION PHASE II (LOCATED IN THE 7400 BLOCK OF DOUGLAS LANE — 1.234 ACRES). APPROVED Mr. Randy Seale, 6529 Meadow Lakes Drive, applicant, came forward in support of his request of the Final Plat of Lots 1-4, Block 15, Windcrest Addition Phase II. The property is currently zoned "R-2" single family. The property will be divided into 4 lots, two fronting Douglas Lane and two fronting Starnes Road. Mr. Mark Long, 1650 Precinct Line Road, represents the applicant, is the engineer for the project. They want to develop 4 residential lots with R-2 zoning. All comments have been addressed regarding drainage and water sewer. Eric Wilhite advised that staff recommends approval of FP2006-13. As there was no further discussion, the Chairman called for a vote on the motion. Don Bowen, seconded by Brenda Cole, motioned to approve FP 2006-13. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). Randy Shiflett was absent. 7. PP 2006-11 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM DENCIL S. LONG III TO APPROVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, DENCIL LONG III ESTATES (LOCATED IN THE 6700 BLOCK OF MEADOW RD. — 2.838 ACRES). The applicants, Dencil Long and Nancy Traficanti, 6704 Meadow Road, are requesting approval of the preliminary plat of this 2.83 acre tract for development of a single family residence in order to accommodate their aging parents. Mr. Schopper asked what is the goal—to build another house? Ms. Traficanti said they are trying to put an addition onto the existing residence for their parents-her in-laws--so they can have them close and watch them. The current ordinance for development will not allow an addition to any residence located on a property that has not been platted. Page 10 of 12; 11/16/06 P&Z Minutes Mr. Schopper said so it needs to be platted to get a permit for this addition. Staff recommends approval of this request. APPROVED Mike Benton, seconded by Steven Cooper, motioned to approve PP 2006-11. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). Randy Shiflett was absent. 8. FP 2006-14 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM DENCIL S. LONG Ill TO APPROVE A FINAL PLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, DENCIL LONG III ESTATES (LOCATED IN THE 6700 BLOCK OF MEADOW RD. —2.838 ACRES). APPROVED The applicants, Dencil Long and Nancy Traficanti, are requesting approval of the final plat of this 2.83 acre tract for development of a single family residence in order to accommodate their aging parents. The current ordinance for development will not allow an addition to any residence located on a property that has not been platted. The site is currently zoned "R-1-S" (special single-family residential). Staff recommends approval of FP 2006-14. Eric Wilhite wanted to note on the case that the applicant would like staff to mention the rough proportionality determination of $15,928 as determined by the city's engineer. The applicant will speak about this but I believe they are going to request an appeal process that will go to City Council appealing that rough proportionality. Greg Van Nieuwenhuize said that on this property rough proportionality determination was for gutter, residential driveway approach, sidewalk and some drainage. As you are probably aware, Meadow Road right now is what we consider an unimproved street, it has no curb and gutter or ditches. Therefore in order to just meet the minimums, the amount that is needed to bring the property up to our minimum standards is the $15,928. It is my understanding that the property owner would like to appeal that. I have talked to the property owner and believe she understands the appeal process. I am sure she is not happy about the process but she does have the ability to appeal. As it stands right now that is what the city believes is the exaction for that property. The applicant has 10 days to appeal from approval of her plat. We have given the applicant the requirements for appeal. It is ultimately up to the City Council to determine whether the $15928 is appropriate for the property or not. The applicant has some circumstances which she feels are extenuating. Page 11 of 12; 11/16/06 P&Z Minutes Mike Benton, seconded by Brenda Cole, motioned to approve FP 2006-14. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). Randy Shiflett was absent. 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, the chairman adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m. Chairman Secretary 1/)/- �. l �I Bill Schopper Don Bowen Page 12 of 12;11/16/06 P&Z Minutes