Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2004-02-19 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS FEBRUARY 19, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Don Bowen at 7:08 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Don Bowen Bill Schopper Ted Nehring Brenda Cole James Laubacher Ken Sapp Richard Davis CITY STAFF Zoning Administrator City Planner Asst. Director of Public Works Office Coordinator Asst. City Manager Director of Development Dave Green Donna Jackson Lance Barton Carolyn Huggins Richard Torres John Pitstick The Ex-Officio, Suzy Compton was present for the meeting. As stated in Ordinance 2714, an ex-officio member shall have no power to vote or participate in decision-making, but will be entitled to observe all proceedings of their respective commissions. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM JANUARY 15, 2004. APPROVED Page 1 02/19/04 P & Z Minutes Brenda Cole, seconded by Ted Nehring, motioned to approve the minutes of January 15, 2004. The motion was approved by unanimous vote (7-0). 5. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBDIVISION REGULATION REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING THE LOCATION OF ABOVE- GROUND UTILITY SERVICE APPURTENANCES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. APPROVED Mr. Green explained that several months ago the City adopted a revision to the subdivision code that required all above-ground appurtenances in new residential subdivisions to be located in the rear of the lots. After some input from the Council from Oncor concerning issues that they had with rear locations and the availability to get to rear location transformers that sometimes caused reliability problems, the Council sent this issue back to the Planning & Zoning Commission for a re-study. Staff feels this proposed ordinance is consistent with what the Commission has been looking at over the last few meetings with reference to the issue of the location of electrical transformers -- the electrical service lines must be underground; above-ground appurtenances must be located in the rear of a residential lot. There are times and locations where that will not be possible, either from an environmental standpoint where there may be a grouping of mature trees that provide more benefit leaving them in place rather than taking them out to allow locating a transformer in the rear of the property, or in many subdivisions there are water features, such as a lake, which would lead to difficulties in being able to service transformers. This ordinance language does provide for alternative locations for transformers, which would be in the front of a lot but not at the very front of a lot adjacent to a street or sidewalk. Locations would be moved further back into the lot, within 5-ft. of either the front or side building line, which will get the transformer away from the street and sidewalk and puts it in the yard close to the house for the purpose of being able to disguise it through landscaping. The ordinance does not automatically allow the developer to do this. It must be shown on the preliminary plat and discussed and requested at the P&Z discussion of that preliminary plat. As the Planning & Zoning Commission reviews preliminary plats in the future for multi-lot subdivisions, should there be an occasion where locations are proposed other than the rear of a lot that would have to be requested and approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission at that time. Ms. Cole stated that the term as far as for the exceptions to the rear reads, "to demonstrate rear lot utility location is not technically or environmentally feasible." She stated that previous discussion involved "topographical and environmental," not "technically." Mr. Green responded that he thought previous discussion included "technically," "environmentally," and "economically" and that "economically" was dropped. Ms. Cole stated that in the minutes from the last meeting Mr. Davis used "topographical." [Recording Secretary note: Ms. Cole is referring to the worksession notes of February 5.] Mr. Green asked Ms. Cole if she would be more comfortable with Page 2 02119/04 P & Z Minutes "topographically." Ms. Cole asked for an explanation of what is meant by "technically." Mr. Green explained that "technically" would indicate that there is no other way to get to that area. He stated that it would be a very simple change to make if there is a preference for "topographically" rather than "technically." Mr. Schopper stated that "technically" is more encompassing. Mr. Davis stated that topography is a technical reason for why it couldn't be done. He stated that "environmentally" is understandable such as a big row of existing trees that could be saved. Mr. Schopper added that each case would have to be made before this Commission, whether it is environmental or technical and the Commission has the ability to make the decision then. Mr. Davis and Chairman Bowen stated that this language allows the Commission some discretion. Mr. Schopper commented on the changes requested by Oncor: that in paragraph 3, Section 1, "10 foot wide paved surface" will be changed to "l-ft. wide dedicated Oncor utility easement" and that the reason this can be done and specified as "Oncor" is because this refers to electrical transformers only. He stated that instead of extending the pavement to within 25-ft. of the transformer, the easement is going to extend to the transformer. The access on the easement will be provided by a 5-ft. wide removable fence panel or gate. Mr. Schopper wondered whether or not the "5-ft. wide removable fence panel or gate" would suffice. Mr. Davis stated that this will be put on the plat and on a separate easement description, which will allow for better enforcement on both parts. Mr. Schopper stated that the current language "free from obstructions" needs more teeth since people stack items against fences. Mr. Sapp stated that he agrees and that he is also concerned about "designed to meet Oncor's 'specifications'" since "specifications" are not part of this instrument and can change over time. Without knowing what those specifications might be at some point in time, he is uncomfortable having the word "specifications" in there. Mr. Davis suggested "5-ft. wide removable fence panel or gate and provide security for homeowners and is free from obstruction" and take out the phrase "designed to meet Oncor's specifications." Mr. Sapp asked that the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph be changed from "must be located at least 20 feet from the curb" to "must be located a maximum of 5-ft. from the side building line." Mr. Laubacher asked for a clarification that "dedicated Oncor" will be left in. Mr. Schopper responded, "yes, because it is only electrical transformers and nobody else has them." Mr. Laubacher wondered if that would require revising the ordinance in the future if someone bought Oncor and changed the name. Mr. Green stated that Staff would look at it as the intent of the ordinance. The last item discussed was Section 2, Item 2, "screening." Mr. Davis suggested "recommended for the front and sides of the transformer only." He further clarified, Page 3 02/19/04 P & Z Minutes "Screening of above-ground appurtenances by a live vegetative screen is recommended for the front on the street side and sides of the pad." Mr. Sapp suggested specifying that "access to the rear of the transformer must remain unobstructed." Mr. Davis suggested on Item 3, "...provide for rear service access and will be so designed or located so that there are no obstructions in place for service maintenance." Ms. Cole suggested staying with "access to rear must be free from obstruction." Mr. Laubacher asked for clarification of other utility companies, such as cable, telephone, etc. Mr. Sapp responded that "all are in the rear." He stated that if there is an exception, it must be by utility. For instance, if Oncor can present a case for technical or environmental reasons that are accepted at preliminary plat, then the exception would be granted to Oncor only, unless the Planning & Zoning Commission is petitioned for an exception by cable or others, they remain at the rear lot as specified. Mr. Sapp, seconded by Mr. Schopper, motioned to pass the proposed amendment to the utility ordinance as written with the exception of the amending language previously discussed. The motion passed unanimously (7 -0). Mr. Davis thanked Oncor for their positive attitude during this long (3 month) process. He stated that this change is good for the utility company and the City because it meets Oncor's needs, as well as meeting the need of how the City would like things to look. He stated that it also gives Staff some teeth regarding access, as well as guidelines for Code Enforcement. He stated that is has opened "our eyes" to the way a proposed change ought to happen and that Oncor was informative, very fair, with good discussion and debate which has resulted in an ordinance that Council can be proud of and one that should work for the City for a long time to come. Chairman Bowen asked Mr. Green if he was going to pass this by some developers. Mr. Green responded that it would be valuable to notify pertinent developers and engineers that work in the City of North Richland Hills to take a look at it, providing them an opportunity to comment on it. The revised ordinance will be presented to the City Council on March 11. Staff would appreciate P&Z members being available at that Council meeting. 6. PS 2003-58 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM BOBBY JOE DOWDY TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, DOWDY ADDITION LOCATED AT 6525 HARMONSON ROAD (1.187 ACRES). APPROVED Page 4 02119/04 P & Z Minutes Mr. Green explained that this is a preliminary plat of an extremely narrow, unplatted tract of land on the north side of Harmonson Road. The applicant's intent is to plat the property for the purpose of building a single family residential structure on the site. Public Works comments state that all Staff's comments have been met. Staff recommends approval of this plat. A commission member asked if the property is zoned R3. Mr. Green responded that the property is zoned R2 although surrounding properties are zoned R3. Mr. Nehring, seconded by Mr. Laubacher, motioned to approve PS 2003-58. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). 7. PZ 2003-28 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM ARCADIA HOLDINGS, INC. TO APPROVE THE REVISED THOROUGHFARE PLAN OF HOME TOWN NRH ADDITION LOCATED WEST OF PRECINCT LINE ROAD AND S.H. 26. APPROVED 8. PS 2003-59/PZ 2003-28 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM ARCADIA HOLDINGS, INC. TO APPROVE THE REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT OF HOME TOWN NRH ADDITION LOCATED IN THE J. BARLOUGH SURVEY, A-130, L.C. WALKER SURVEY, A-1652 & A-1653, T.K. MARTIN SURVEY, A-1055 AND THE D.C. MANNING SURVEY, A- 1046 (284.0 ACRES). APPROVED Mr. Green stated that both of these items refer to changes that are being proposed in Home Town Addition. The changes are needed because Birdville ISD would like to locate a new elementary school within this subdivision. It would be located on a 10-acre tract at the corner of Bridge Street and Parker Blvd. and requires changes to the blocking or lotting patterns in the preliminary plat of this subdivision and also to alignments, street designations and street sizes in the addition. The applicant, Dan Quinto, 602 Northwood Trail, Southlake, came forward to answer questions. Mr. Schopper stated that the only issue seems to be the changing of the street along the eastern boundary from a Town Center street to a North Richland Hills street. Mr. Quinto responded that they would have no objection to returning that street to a Town Center designation. Page 5 02/19/04 P & Z Minutes Mr. Davis commented that he would have liked to see Cardinal Lane connect to multi- family rather than the alley. He stated that he would like the Commission to look closely at the site plan of the multi-family tract. Mr. Davis commented that he felt Simmons would be ok, but he has a concern with the streets south of Parker, because nothing has changed. The land uses are the same, but the streets have been made smaller: South Broad Street, Grand Avenue, Courtenay St., Parker Blvd. should be left alone. Mr. Davis stated that the only streets he would be interested in changing are the ones around the school site, and Parker, as it goes back up to Mid Cities Blvd. Mr. Sapp stated that he does not have a problem with the downsizing of Winter Park and Street N. Mr. Davis agreed that those are residential and could be smaller, but the streets south and west of Parker should be left alone. He also stated that changing the C2U (2-lane undivided collector) will probably help the school site. Mr. Quinto responded that they have no problem with leaving the streets south of Parker at their current size according to the existing thoroughfare. He further stated that the discussion on whether or not that was a Home Town street centered around parking. Home Town streets have parking along the sides and the street that was designated was a 70-40 which allowed for two 13-ft. drive lanes. Their traffic engineer thought that was fine, but the parking along the sides became problematic. Mr. Davis asked if only the recommended changes would go to the City Council - not what the applicant wants, but only what P&Z votes to change. Mr. Quinto stated that he could commit to getting Staff a plan that reflects what P&Z votes to change. Mr. Davis stated that he would not want to show any changes to Grand, Courtenay, South Broad and a portion of Parker. He stated that the preliminary plat does not go to Council so he suggests approving the preliminary plat subject to this action. Ms. Cole stated that in looking at this she stayed inside Home Town and didn't get onto Simmons and Cardinal. She asked Mr. Quinto to walk her through the top section at Blueline. Is that part of Home Town? How does that street look right now (Simmons coming south at Blueline). Mr. Quinto stated that it does not have the intimate character that the Home Town streets are designed to engender. Ms. Cole then stated that the residential fencing issue wasn't resolved earlier. Mr. Davis responded that they would have to do whatever is required next to a C2U. Mr. Quinto stated that it could be a requirement in final plat. Mr. Laubacher stated that his understanding is that the drop-off area for the school will be off of Simmons Dr. He stated that Parker Blvd. will be increased in size due to the school, which is facing Parker, but all of the traffic seems to be generated on Simmons in the back. Is Simmons's designation being changed? It is separate from the Home Town area. Is it large enough to handle this traffic? Mr. Schopper added that perhaps it should be increased to four lanes instead of two, increasing the capacity and requiring a masonry fence. He asked what the traffic study showed? Page 6 02119/04 P & Z Minutes Mr. Barton explained that a traffic impact analysis (TIA) was performed for the proposed changes to the Thoroughfare Plan for Home Town and the school site. The recommendation in the TIA was that Simmons should remain a 40-ft. street. The original Home Town designation was 70-40 (70-ft. of right-of-way, 40-ft. of width). C2U is also a 40-ft. wide street. The school will be required to build half of the permanent pavement and end up with 24-ft. total pavement. Theoretically they could built 20-ft. of concrete with 4-ft. of asphalt for a total of 24-ft. of width, which is sufficient capacity to handle the school. The other half will be built whenever the property across the street develops. Mr. Barton stated that the 70-40 Home Town designation has parking on the sides. He stated that would not work out well for the school site because the TIA recommended a deceleration lane be constructed for southbound traffic on Simmons. So folks will pull over to slow down to turn into the school site and striped-off parking would interfere with a turn lane. Chairman Bowen stated that this is not a public hearing but several citizens in the audience requested permission to speak so the Chairman will allow each person two minutes to make comments. Steve Koons, 6054 Lake Way Mews, stated that he has been a resident of Home Town for two years this coming May, as well as working in Home Town so he spends almost all of his waking hours there. He stated that he wants to encourage approval of the plan because he feels the addition of the school will be of great benefit to all of the residents of Home Town. Paula Janis, 5963 Winter Park Dr., stated that she has lived at Home Town almost two years (March) and she is glad that the school will go in as well as other changes. She likes the narrow streets as well, which cuts down on traffic. She hopes the proposal is approved. Jane Birkes, 8300 Euclid Ave., has been a resident of Home Town for a little over a year. She likes the narrow streets since it slows down the traffic and makes it more safe. She would like to see the proposal approved. Mr. Davis, seconded by Ms. Cole, motioned to amend the Thoroughfare Plan to note the changes on Parker Blvd., Bridge Street, Street N, Winter Park Drive, Cardinal, and Simmons. Everything "orange" that is south and east of Parker should not be changed. The motion was approved unanimously (7-0). Mr. Davis, seconded by Mr. Sapp, motioned to approve PS 2003-59 subject to the thoroughfare revisions voted for in PZ 2003-28. The motion was approved unanimously (7 -0). 9. PS 2004-01 Page 7 02/19/04 P & Z Minutes CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF LOT 11 R, BLOCK 3, J.L. AUTREY ADDITION LOCATED AT 4001 RUFE SNOW (1.987 ACRES). APPROVED Mr. Green explained that this is a plat request by the Fire Department for the City of North Richland Hills. This is an existing fire station located on Rufe Snow south of Glenview. There are portions of various lots and an unplatted tract of land which the City has purchased and this revised plat request combines these lots and tract into one lot. Public Works comments state that all City stipulations have been met and Staff recommends approval of the plat. Mr. Sapp asked why a 15-ft. sanitary sewer easement is necessary since it didn't exist before. Mr. Barton explained that it was discovered that the actual location of the existing sanitary sewer was different than thought. This is a correction to reflect existing conditions. Mr. Davis asked where the City sewer goes - does it turn north? Mr. Barton responded that he thought it did turn north. Mr. Davis asked that the plat be labeled to clearly show the location of the utility easement. Mr. Schopper, seconded by Ms. Cole, motioned to approve PS 2004-01. The motion was approved unanimously (7-0). 10. PS 2003-61 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, FIRE DEPARTMENT ADDITION LOCATED AT 7245 HIGHTOWER (2.7561 ACRES). APPROVED 11. PS 2004-02 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, FIRE DEPARTMENT ADDITION LOCATED AT 7245 HIGHTOWER (2.7561 ACRES). APPROVED Mr. Green stated that this site is located at the corner of Douglas and Hightower Drives. This is a future site. The preliminary plat and final plat are before the Commission tonight. The City Council is very close to accepting bids for the construction of the new Page 8 02119/04 P & Z Minutes fire stations and the preliminary and final plats are needed before those bids are awarded. Public Works requirements have been met and Staff recommends approval of the preliminary and final plats. Ms. Cole, seconded by Mr. Nehring, motioned to approve PS 2003-61. The motion was approved unanimously (7 -0). Ms. Cole, seconded by Mr. Sapp, motioned to approve PS 2004-02 with the suggestion that the City Council consider renaming this Lot 1, Block 1, Stan Gertz Addition to honor Mr. Gertz who retired from the City of North Richland Hills after serving as Fire Chief for 28 years. The motion was approved unanimously (7-0). 12. PS 2004-03 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM FOUNTAIN RIDGE, LTD. TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 1R AND 2R, BLOCK 3, FOUNTAIN RIDGE LOCATED IN THE 5900 BLOCK OF DAVIS BLVD. (.354 ACRES). APPROVED Mr. Green explained that the final plat on this addition had been approved some time ago, but as the subdivision began to be constructed and as streets were put in, there was an error that occurred at Creek View Drive and Davis Blvd. The original final plat had a very slight curve in it as Creek View approached Davis Blvd. It was field-checked after the street was poured and it was found that the slight curve was not installed. Rather than tearing up the pavement, Staff felt it would be better to replat these two lots. Mr. Laubacher, seconded by Ms. Cole, motioned to approve PS 2004-03. The motion was approved unanimously (7-0). 13. PS 2004-06 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 1, BROWN ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 8200 BLOCK OF SHADYWOOD (7.010 ACRES). APPROVED 14. PS 2004-08 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 1, BROWN ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 8200 BLOCK OF SHADYWOOD (7.010 ACRES). Page 9 02119/04 P & Z Minutes APPROVED Mr. Green explained that this is a new fire station location and a park. This site is located at 8200 Shadywood Lane in the Forest Glenn East Phase" Subdivision. Fire Station No.1 will relocate to this site. The neighborhood park that surrounds the station on two sides will be known as the Tommy and Sue Brown Park. Staff comments have been satisfied and Staff recommends approval of both the preliminary and final plats. Mr. Sapp stated that he is troubled by the fire station location because unlike other fire station locations, this location is not on a significant thoroughfare. He feels this location requires additional thought. The Chairman stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission can determine if the plats are legal and correct, but determining location is not within the scope of this Commission. Mr. Schopper agreed with the Chairman but stated that he was concerned with whether or not Shadywood Lane is going to have a traffic signal onto Davis. The Chairman stated that he also shares their concerns, but feels location is not within the scope of the P&Z Commission. Mr. Sapp stated that he would like his comments forwarded to Council and that although there is no zoning hearing done on this, he feels it would be in the best interests of a number of people to allow for citizen comments before a final decision is made. Ms. Cole asked how far Shadywood goes. Mr. Schopper stated that it comes out to Davis. He further stated that the intention was for the fire trucks to come out to Davis rather than North Tarrant. He also hoped that the Fire Department would be allowed to put a traffic light where they enter Davis. Richard Davis suggested that perhaps they could do the same type of traffic light as exists on Mid Cities, which blinks yellow until it is needed. It then changes to red and stops traffic so the fire trucks can enter onto Mid Cities. Mr. Davis suggested that obtaining a traffic signal on Davis might be more difficult than Mid Cities since the highway department has jurisdiction over Davis Blvd. Mr. Laubacher, seconded by Ms. Cole, motioned to approve PS 2004-06. The motion was approved 5-2 with Mr. Sapp and Mr. Schopper voting against. Mr. Nehring, seconded by Mr. Laubacher, motioned to approve PS 2004-08. The motion was approved 5-2 with Mr. Sapp and Mr. Schopper voting against. . 15. PZ 2000-36R1 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM TODAY REALTY ADVISORS, INC. FOR A ZONING CHANGE TO REVISE THE APPROVED "PD" Page 1 0 02119/04 P & Z Minutes PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO INCLUDE A "TRADE OR BUSINESS SCHOOL" LOCATED AT 6311-6361 GRAPEVINE HWY (42.090 ACRES). APPROVED Mr. Green stated that this is the Richland Business Center located on Grapevine Highway. It is currently zoned "PD" Planned Development. The allowed uses for this PD include: telecommunications tower, related outdoor storage and parking areas; retail office commercial uses permitted in the "C2" commercial district; "12" industrial district; and all uses are required to be located in a fully enclosed building. Specifically prohibited: wrecking and auto salvage yard, adult entertainment establishments, food processing plant and reclamation centers. The applicant is proposing to move the A TI Career Center from an adjacent city to the old Montgomery Ward Building on this site. This would be a trade or business school. Our current ordinance allows this use in "C2" with an SUP. Staff is asking to include "trade or business school" language in the "PD" language. Staff encourages this use and feels this will provide a good anchor for the south end of the City along south Grapevine Highway as redevelopment occurs. Staff feels there will be a good domino effect from this type of use. Mr. Green stated that both the Applicant and Mr. Pitstick, the Director of Development, are available to answer questions. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing. David Scroggins, 10907 Lubbock Dr., Dallas, came forward. He works for Today Realty Advisors, the asset manager for the owner of the Richland Business Center. He explained that over the last year they were approached by two business schools. The negotiations with the first school never got far enough along to require pulling out the use chart to make sure of the use. The negotiations with ATI are pretty far along and Mr. Scroggins was caught by surprise that this was not a permitted use in the PD, since "12" zoning includes almost everything such as a college or university. He is requesting that this change to the PD be granted. Chairman Bowen stated that the Commission members received a letter from someone who lived in the area who was not in opposition, but was concerned about traffic issues along Charles St., Onyx South and Richland Plaza. The Chairman then closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion or comments. Mr. Sapp motioned to adopt PZ 2000-36R1. Mr. Schopper seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously (7-0). Ms. Cole commented that Staff should look at speed bumps and 4-way stop signs for the area. Mr. Davis commented that there would be quite a few students attending this school, but there are good barriers to the street. The Chairman stated that traffic impact should be looked into, but he didn't feel a stop sign would be appropriate on Richland Plaza Blvd. because it is too close to Grapevine Highway. Several Commission Page 11 02119/04 P & Z Minutes members noted that this school will be a terrific addition to the City of North Richland Hills. The Chairman made the final comment on this case, which several other Commission members agreed with, "personally, speed bumps are the worst thing in the world." 16. PZ 2004-05 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM SERVICE KING PAINT AND BODY L.P. FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP) FOR AN AUTO ALARM, STEREO ELECTRONICS INSTALLATION AND/OR REPAIR LOCATED AT 6920 N.E. LOOP 820 (.37 ACRES). APPROVED Mr. Green explained that Service King approached Staff in December of last year with a zoning request on this piece of property. The current zoning is "C1" commercial. At the time, they were requesting a revision to "C2" commercial, which is a higher impact type of use. That category was supported by the Comprehensive Plan. This is a Service King building that is no longer being utilized by Service King. They have a leasee, ProTech Electronics, that will be using the building. This is the same proposed use and same people as discussed in December. There were two ways to approach this issue: 1) to ask for an SUP in "C1" which would permit this type of use; and 2) the direction that the applicant chose, which is to ask for a rezoning to "C2." The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended by split vote to approve the request for "C2," however as that case went onto Council in January, it was denied unanimously by the City Council because the City was getting ready to embark on an 18-month study of the 820 corridor. There was a discussion at Council of the amount of money put into that study and they felt that rezoning this property at that time was premature. Knowing that the study would be coming along in short order, there could be other things that study might propose for this particular area other than a "C2" type of use. Council also discussed leaving the zoning as "C1" and allowing an SUP, which they felt they could support because it was not the more intensive zoning. Also, SUP's require site plan approval and during the course of reviewing a site plan, either the Commission or the Council could make requests of the applicant of any kind of feature that the Commission or the Council may think is appropriate to help mitigate the proposed use from adjacent property, which, on the south side of this property, is a residential neighborhood. Staff has gone through the applicant's proposal and there are a couple of things that need to be revised. There are a couple of oak trees proposed on the northwest corner of the site, referred to as 2" minimum caliper. Those need to be 3" minimum caliper in order to meet the requirements of the Landscape Ordinance. Staff would also like some language to make sure they are going to be irrigated and that any vegetation that dies or is damaged would be replaced. Also, along the rear of the site is a fire lane and at the edge of the fire lane there is a masonry fence that ranges from 4-ft. to 6-ft in height, because the property has a slope to it so the fence is a little higher at one end than it is Page 12 02119/04 P & Z Minutes at the other end, but there is a very small area between where the fire lane stops and that fence. There is enough area there that could be utilized for some landscape screening. This site was developed before the current landscape requirements were adopted so there were no screening requirements between a commercial use and a residential use. With this opportunity, Staff would like to add some landscaping between the fire lane location and the fencing. The applicant has indicated landscaping on most of the boundary, but not the entire boundary, because there are a substantial number of trees on adjacent residential property. Staff feels that the entire boundary should be done rather than relying on the residential boundary. Mr. Sapp asked if the primary purpose of the photinia is for appearance or if they also serve as sound abatement. Mr. Green responded that they work both ways. Photinias are a recognized planting material in the landscape ordinance. He explained that the point behind this landscape screening is to soften the edge of the commercial area and abate noise, smell, dust, trash and any number of things. Typically, this would be required in a 15-ft. wide buffer, which is not an opportunity on this particular site. This is a narrow dimension, but Staff would like to attempt to have something put there. Mr. Sapp stated that he would support Staff's recommendation to do the whole wall. Mr. Nehring asked if the SUP would stay in effect if the business leaves. Mr. Green responded that his understanding is that if the business leaves, the SUP is gone. Mr. Nehring responded, "even if another business similar to that - they would have to get their own." Mr. Green stated that there is a little bit of a gray area in determining when something is legally gone. A nonconforming use - where there is a particular use of property that doesn't match the way it is zoned - it is allowed to remain and function and be maintained, but if it is ever closed down for a period of six months or more, then that use is gone forever. An SUP is the same scenario. Ms. Cole stated that the reasons why the City Council voted against this are still in effect, therefore, she still has the same reservations as when it came up earlier. The SUP may allow more control, but the same concerns exist. Mr. Sapp stated that he thought the Council was considering corridor zoning at the time, rather than zoning individual plats piece-by-piece. Mr. Green responded that the City has been interviewing architects, engineers, and planning firms for this proposal and the City has a concept for this area, but how that concept becomes implemented could take different forms. Corridor zoning, an overlay district, could occur. Uses, urban design, signs, etc., will be discussed. Mr. Schopper stated that, in the meantime, the landlord of this building can't leave the building empty as all of this is decided. Mr. Schopper stated that he felt this would be the most expeditious way of doing something without having a long-term commitment. Mr. Davis stated that the corridor study will take a year at least and it wouldn't be fair to say to someone that they can't use their property until the City decides what the whole area will be. This is a reasonable highest and best use for this property. Page 13 02119/04 P & Z Minutes The Chairman opened the public hearing. Pat Remington, 1000 Ballpark Way, Suite 300, Arlington, came forward on behalf of Service King Paint & Body. He stated that he served for six years on P&Z in Arlington and six years on Council and he has heard thousands of zoning cases and that it is always a pleasure for him to sit on the other side of the podium. He explained that Service King is simply trying to get permission by this SUP to lease this property to Pro Tech Electronics which is a use similar to the prior uses on the property since this property was built. He stated that the landscape plan calls for two 2-inch live oaks on one corner of the property and 31 dwarf holly at the front of the building. Those two items appeared on the original landscape plan at the time that the property was developed. That plan was changed before the actual building permit was issued so neither the two trees or the holly currently exists. The client has just learned that TX DOT's widening of 820 will take out those areas. The applicant is asking the P&Z Commission to delete those requirements from the SUP. He stated that they will, however, be more than happy to extend the landscaping and the irrigation at the rear of the property. He stated that there are people from Service King and from Pro Tech available to answer questions. Mr. Sapp commented that he is assuming that the wall had some damage and that Service King will repair that. Mr. Remington stated that one section has a broken cap or section of the brick and they will repair it. The Chairman closed the public hearing. Mr. Laubacher commented that he voted against this the first time it came up. He knows that 820 is going to work itself out over time, but his concern was in granting an industrial zoning and that if then a new owner came in and wanted to go with industrial, the classification was there and nothing could be done about it. He made the comment at the time that an SUP would be better and since that is now the situation, he stated that he will happily back this. Mr. Laubacher motioned to approve PZ 2004-05, removing the requirement of two trees from the landscaping, but everything else as Staff recommended. After further discussion among the Commission members, Mr. Laubacher revised his motion. Mr. Laubacher motioned to approve PZ 2004-05 with 3" trees and other recommendations as made by Staff. The motioned was seconded by Ms. Cole. The motion was passed unanimously (7-0). Page 14 02119/04 P & Z Minutes 17. REPORT TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - "IMPACT FEES" POSTPONED 18. ADJOURNMENT As there was no other business, the Chairman adjourned the regular meeting at 8:36 p.m. Chairman 1:; f~ ~Q~ Don Bowen Ted Nehring Page 15 02119/04 P & Z Minutes