Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2004-05-20 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS MAY 20,2004 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Don Bowen at 7:04 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Don Bowen Richard Davis Bill Schopper Ted Nehring Brenda Cole Ken Sapp ABSENT James Laubacher CITY STAFF Director of Planning Assistant Dir. of Public Works Recording Secretary Dave Green Lance Barton Carolyn Huggins 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 OF MAY 6, 2004. APPROVED Mr. Sapp, seconded by Mr. Schopper, motioned to approve the minutes of May 6, 2004. The motion was approved by unanimous vote (6-0). Page 1 OS/20/04 P & Z Minutes - '--~~_._--".._._~--"~"-,_.,-_._--~_.,---,,-~--,, 5. PS 2004-12 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM COY QUINE TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 1 R & 2R, BLOCK 1 NORTH EDGLEY ADDITION BEING A REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1 NORTH EDGLEY ADDITION, SECOND FILING LOCATED AT 7511 GRAPEVINE HIGHWAY (2.7 ACRES). APPROVED Mr. Green summarized the case. This was originally platted as one lot and the applicant's mortgage company has requested that the lot be split so that each business sits on a separate lot. Public Works memo states that all City issues have been answered by the applicant. Staff recommends approval of the plat. Mr. Davis asked for clarification on the right-of-way. Public Works memo calls for a 130- ft. right-of-way on Grapevine Highway, but the plat shows a 100-ft. right-of-way. Mr. Barton replied that the City wanted 130-ft., but because this is an existing, developed, platted property, existing parking would end up in the 130-ft. right-of-way. Mr. Schopper, seconded by Mr. Davis, motioned to approve PS 2004-12 as proposed. The motion was approved unanimously (6-0). 6. PS 2004-16 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM FAIRWAY REALITY LP TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF FAIRWAY REALITY ADDITION LOCATED AT 7000 BLOCK OF RUFE SNOW DRIVE (17.93 ACRES). APPROVED Mr. Green summarized the case. This is at the corner of Rufe Snow and Hightower and the property is currently zoned "C1" Commercial and the applicants are preparing the site for marketing by going through the platting procedure. What is being proposed is probably in the retail realm, although staff is not aware of anything definite at this point. A memo from Public Works states that the applicant has answered all issues. Staff recommends approval of the plat. Mr. Davis noted that there is a 32-ft. dedication on the southern portion, but a 20-ft. dedication near Blockbuster. Is there going to be a jog of 12-ft.? Mr. Barton replied that the 32-ft. dedication is there because the TIA for the project indicated that deceleration lanes were necessary at the driveways. Past the northern driveway, a deceleration lane is no longer needed and the right-of-way can decrease to 20-ft. Page 2 OS/20/04 P & Z Minutes -- '~--------'_"~--,,--,.._-,-_., .'.---------.-------------------- Mr. Davis, seconded by Ms. Cole, motioned to approve PS 2004-16. The motion was approved unanimously (6-0). 7. PS 2004-17 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM BOBBY JOE DOWDY TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF DOWDY ADDITION LOCATED AT 6525 HARMON SON RAOD (1.187 ACRES). APPROVED Mr. Green summarized the case. This is a very long, very narrow lot. It is a tract of land that has never been platted before. The applicant lives next door on the property to the west, which is platted. The purpose of platting this lot is to be able to obtain permits to build a single family house for another member of the family. Comment sheet from Public Works states that the applicant has successfully answered any questions or issues that staff had concerning the plat. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Nehring, seconded by Mr. Sapp, motioned to approve PS 2004-17. The motion was approved unanimously (6-0). 8. PZ 2004-11 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY JONES & CARTER, INC. ON BEHALF OF BRINKER INTERNATIONAL FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED CHILI'S RESTAURANT ON LOT 3, BLOCK 5, BRENTWOOD ESTATES ADDITION, 8485 DAVIS BOULEVARD (.01454 ACRES). APPROVED Mr. Green summarized the case. This site plan is for a Chili's on the west side of Davis Blvd. and north of North Tarrant Parkway. Site plan approval is needed because anytime that a new commercial business is proposed within 200-ft. of either existing residential zoning, or land that is shown on the Comprehensive Plan as being residential, site plan approval is needed by both the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council. Brinker International has indicated that this is a new prototype for a Chili's. It is 5800 sq. ft. in size and fronts onto Davis Blvd., but there are no access points from Davis Blvd. or Shady Grove Rd. directly into the site. All access points are from private access easements that are being constructed on the west and south sides of the property. There will be no direct access to/from Davis Blvd. This building will show a combination of decorative stone and brick. It meets the minimum masonry requirement of the current ordinance. On the side of the building there will be a place for people to Page 3 OS/20104 P & Z Minutes ,.. "" .'"'.....~--'_.._."'-"---..._.,,---,._--,, pull into parking spots and do pick-up orders from a window, and the main entrance of the restaurant is around the corner. There is a Chili's logo on the front, with a 3- dimensional fiberglass chili pepper. Both objects are consistent with the ordinance. There is a proposed monument sign at the corner of the property and that is also within the constraints of the Sign Ordinance. The minimum parking requirement for a business such as this is based on the square footage of the business and the current requirement is for 59 spaces. Chili's is proposing 118, which is a good thing for this type of business. The dumpster pad is located on the rear of the building. It will be screened with the same materials that will be utilized in the building itself. There will be landscaping along Davis Blvd. and along Shady Grove Rd. In both cases, there are street trees that are required at certain intervals and that criterion is being met. There will be exterior lighting but there isn't light bleeding over into a residential neighborhood. Mr. Green also mentioned that there are meandering sidewalks on both street right-of- ways which mirror existing public right-of-ways along North Tarrant Parkway. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Schopper commented that on the plan it looks like trees are proposed every 25-ft. along Davis and every 28-ft. along Shady Grove, but the description at the bottom states one tree per 50-ft. Mr. Green replied that one street tree per 50-ft. is the requirement but he would prefer that the applicant modify the statement to accurately reflect the visual exhibit which shows one street tree approximately every 25-ft. Mr. Sapp, seconded by Mr. Nehring, motioned to approved PZ 2004-11 with the provision that the notation on the plat be changed to the correct verbiage to identify the number of trees. The motion was approved unanimously (6-0). 9. PZ 2004-04 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM BH CH GA LLC FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM "AG" AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO "R-2" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 9200 NOB HILL DRIVE (2.145 ACRES). INDEFINITE CONTINUANCE Mr. Green explained that this request is to change the zoning of the property. The Commission has a preliminary plat, but it was only recently turned into staff and staff has not had time to review it. It is included to show that Nob Hill Drive will not be connected to the street that the applicant is proposing. This request came before the Planning & Zoning Commission on March 14 as a preliminary plat and as a rezoning request. There was concern at that time regarding the issue of connecting these two streets. P&Z denied the plat and continued the rezoning until a new plat design could be introduced. This was scheduled as a rezoning case last month, but the applicant requested a continuance to May 20. The original applicant is in the process of selling this property to another individual for the purposes of constructing single family homes. Page 4 05/20104 P & Z Minutes The applicant and buyer are in attendance. The drawing is for informational purposes only. The question on the agenda is the rezoning of the tract. The Chairman reopened the public hearing that was continued in March. Mr. Ted Brooks, 1905 Central Drive, Bedford, Texas, home builder and potential buyer of this site came forward. He stated that he became involved a couple of months ago and it was his understanding that the applicant asked that he not get the zoning without plat approval because he didn't want to lose his agricultural zoning. Mr. Brooks stated that he is a custom home builder and he intends to build custom homes on this site. He stated that they prepared a plat because there was a previous concern about the cut- thru street. He believes that fire and police would like the street to go through, but the adjoining neighbors don't want the street to go through. He plans to put a brick wall around the area to tie in with what's there, but with the terrain of the land and what's existing, which is residential on all sides, they would like to make this a self-enclosed subdivision with it's own amenities. Chairman Bowen asked Mr. Brooks if he prefers that the street not go through. Mr. Brooks responded, "yes sir." Mr. Sapp stated that there would be one lot that would be external. Mr. Brooks responded that there are actually two lots. He stated that they are also going to acquire Lot 2, which is on Nob Hill Drive. The house has been permitted but they are resubmitting that permit to change that house to their design. Chairman Bowen asked what they propose at the dead end of Nob Hill Drive. Mr. Brooks stated that the engineer would have to work that out with staff. He isn't sure what would be required. He would prefer to have a retaining wall with fences separating his subdivision off from the old subdivision. The Chairman then began to call on other members of the audience who had requested to speak. He asked Sharon Smith if she would like to speak. She declined other than to state that she is part of the project and is available for questions. Kent Davis, 6817 Nob Hill Drive (home address) and 9284 Huntington Square (business address) stated that he is here to speak because he is opposed to this zoning change because it is against the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. This piece of property is designated under the Comp Plan as "02" which would not allow a street to cut through into residential. Also, this is a preliminary plat which is subject to change. As homeowners, this is their only chance to be heard and contest what is happening in their neighborhood because they don't get any say so when it goes to plat. He does not want a gate, but he has to stick to zoning because that is the only time he gets a say-so. He has spoken in the past to this Commission about the Comp Plan and he would like the Comp Plan followed in this case. He also noted that even staff comments note that it is inconsistent with the Comp Plan. He urges the Commission members to stick with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and if it is going to change zoning, let it change to the "02" as designated by the Comp Plan. Page 5 OS/20104 P & Z Minutes Richard Davis commented that Kent Davis is incorrect in that office zoning does not prohibit that street from connecting. Platting controls street layout, not zoning. Even if office zoning is approved, that would not prevent a street from connecting to their subdivision. Kent Davis wondered about the likelihood of the Commission approving a plat that funnels an "02" zoning into a residential area. Richard Davis stated that it happens all the time where there is buffer zoning with office and a thoroughfare street may go through. Richard Davis stated that the P&Z Commission has made it clear that they are not happy with a street connecting to the Nob Hill Subdivision. He believes this layout, whether office and/or residential, is probably the only feasible one that blends with the neighborhood. He stated that this is the only street layout that he would consider reasonable. Mary Fields, 6800 Nob Hill Ct., stated that she has serious concerns of even the possibility that this project might cut through to her street. She stated that when you come out of her cul-de-sac it is literally impossible to see oncoming traffic because of a 6-ft. high wall. There is a common driveway that services some houses that isn't shown on any of the applicant's maps and right now there are only three houses that use that driveway so there is very limited traffic that comes around that curve. There have been several times that someone coming around that angle has almost hit her because it's impossible to see. Four years ago she was in a very serious accident coming out of the cul-de-sac and around the curve to the left because of the traffic that comes around that corner. She is very concerned if 8 to 10 houses are added and that traffic might funnel through there that it will be extremely dangerous. She stated that it took her almost two years to recover from that accident and she doesn't want to see traffic increase. Chairman Bowen repeated Richard Davis's comments that this is a zoning hearing and even though the applicant has submitted a display, the display doesn't guarantee that the street won't go through whether it's residential or office. As of right now, the applicant isn't proposing for it to go through, but the P&Z Commission is only looking at the zoning. Chairman Bowen announced that Mark Fields is against the rezoning, but did not wish to speak. Michelle Foster, 9125 Nob Hill Drive, stated that she is on the homeowner's association board and she has met with a number of the neighbors that live on Nob Hill Court. She stated that they are very upset about the possibility of a road going through there and inviting more traffic from Precinct Line into the neighborhood. She stated that there is nothing that prevents the applicant from changing the plans and having a street cut through and for that reason she opposes the zoning. Richard Davis asked if she is opposed to residential if the street doesn't go through. Ms. Foster stated that she is not opposed to residential if the street doesn't go through. Page 6 05/20104 P & Z Minutes Mo Rabii, 9117 Nob Hill Dr., stated that he is confused by this zoning request because some of the lots owned by Woodland Oaks Subdivision are already zoned residential. He opposes taking the Woodland Oaks Subdivision and combining it with the applicant's proposed site. Richard Davis stated that if they don't take those lots and put it in this layout, then there will be more houses bothering Nob Hill Court. This redirects those lots and takes them to Precinct Line Road. Mr. Davis also explained that the applicant is not rezoning the lot that is already zoned "R2". The applicant is only requesting a rezoning of the existing "AG" to "R2". Mr. Davis further explained that the existing "R2" lot layout will change, but not the zoning. Roy Sullins, 6705 Nob Hill Ct. stated that he has no problem with the residential zoning and he did not wish to speak further. Sue Sullins, 6705 Nob Hills Ct. is against the project and did not wish to speak. David Barfield, 6800 Nob Hill Dr., stated that he is probably the one most affected by this. He stated that this is a Planning Commission and that this street, in this situation, is very poor planning. He stated that the Commission should not try to zone and plat this as a complete accommodation for the developer. He stated that it needs to be platted right so that in 25 to 50 years people won't look at it and think "what fool designed this?" Mr. Schopper commented that the Fire Department had concerns about getting back into a cul-de-sac that doesn't exit to Precinct Line Rd. Mr. Davis added that the lady on Nob Hill Ct. stated that she didn't want any more houses coming out in front of her. Mr. Barfield suggested killing the street higher up on Nob Hill and adding a fire lane. Mr. Davis asked if there should still be an opening on Precinct for office. Mr. Barfield stated that he owns property north of this property and he believes office would be fine. The Huntington Court subdivision of offices a little bit further north has turned out to be very nice. He believes the City would be wise to keep "office" north of there because there is a demand for that type of office in the City. Mr. Barfield believes the Commission should consider tying the zoning and platting issue together. Sam Morrow, 6813 Nob Hill, who lives two doors down from Mr. Barfield, stated that if there is no way to tie the zoning and platting together to hold the applicant's feet to the fire once it's approved, then he is against it being approved. He bought his lot and built a nice home ona dead end street. If the end lot is now going to be taken away and the street becomes a thru-street, then his whole deal changes and he is against that. As no one else wished to speak, Mr. Brooks returned to the podium to address a few issues. He stated that if he takes the project, he has no intention of tying into the other subdivision. He agrees with Mr. Barfield that there are some bad designs. He mentioned several designs given to him by an engineer, but that all of them were put Page 7 05/20104 P & Z Minutes together very quickly. He believes the best use for the land is residential. He would not want an office building on this land and is not interested in an office project. He plans to keep this project separate from the existing subdivision. Mr. Sapp asked if the zoning and platting can be tied together. Mr. Green stated that he agrees with Mr. Barfield that things are out of sync. He explained that most of the time, in situations like this, staff will bring a preliminary plat and zoning to P&Z and tie the two together. In this situation it did not happen because of the history of this project. In March, P&Z denied the preliminary plat and continued the public hearing for the rezoning case so that the applicant would have enough time to resubmit the preliminary plat 30 days later with the zoning case. The applicant did not resubmit the preliminary plat and staff received a letter from the applicant and the case was continued for another 30 days until this meeting. Staff did not receive this preliminary plat until about a week ago, yet were obligated, because of the P&Z motion and vote, to bring the rezoning case back as a public hearing at this meeting. Staff does not have any discretion to say that it won't be brought back without the redesign, because P&Z made the motion that it must be brought back at this meeting. Mr. Green suggested a few options. The P&Z Commission could, once again, continue this public hearing for the rezoning until staff has had sufficient time to review this preliminary plat, and bring it to P&Z on the same night that the public hearing is held. Mr. Green would prefer that the case be open-ended, rather than brought back in 30 days, because the plat process in the City of North Richland Hills runs (worse case scenario) 13 weeks, whereas zoning runs approximately 8 weeks. Therefore, automatically, the plat is the controlling factor to how it is scheduled. The platting process is long because it involves technical designs, drainage, and close work between the staff and the applicant. Close correspondence can move the process along much faster. Without close correspondence, situations like this case occur. Mr. Green stated that staff was ready the very next day to receive a redesigned plan and it wasn't forthcoming the first or second month. It was received a week before this P&Z meeting. Mr. Green suggested continuing this case until such time as the preliminary plat has been reviewed so that when the public hearing is called once again and all of the appropriate parties have been notified once again, they are assured that the plat is on the agenda. The plat would be placed on the agenda first so that its design can be discussed, followed immediately by the zoning case. Mr. Schopper stated that he thought the only reason this happened was that the P&Z Commission was trying to be considerate and accommodate the property owner so he wouldn't have to pay another fee. He stated that they would have turned the zoning down too. Mr. Davis stated that the applicant didn't respond as quickly as staff would have liked, but he feels that this case is not out of sync because the property has to be zoned before it can be platted. Page 8 05/20104 P & Z Minutes Mr. Green stated that we've platted property in the past where the developer was looking to see if a design was going to work, but it's happened both ways - zoning first and platting later, but staff doesn't prefer to do it that way. Mr. Davis stated that a piece of property can't be platted that isn't zoned. The P&Z Commission may hear a preliminary plat where the zoning is still in process.... Mr. Green interrupted to state that a piece of property cannot be "final" platted without zoning. Mr. Schopper stated, "what we're trying to do is get away from speculative zoning and I'm not prepared to change zoning on a property unless I know how it's going to be used." Mr. Sapp stated that this particular property will be a challenge with the utility arrangements. Mr. Green responded that Mr. Sapp makes an excellent point in this case in that as the property ownership changes hands, the new owner will need to be aware of the new Oncor Ordinance which will require utilities in the rear. If a deviation is to occur from that, a reason why and a request for that at the preliminary plat level must take place. Whoever develops this property must understand that approval of this preliminary is going to have to involve that request. Mr. Nehring stated that perhaps Mr. Barfield's comments are accurate in that perhaps proper planning of this case hasn't taken place. Mr. Nehring stated that he's not sure he's ready to do anything on this. Mr. Green stated that staff always points out when a case is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and also that there has been a trend over the last two years to convert what is either proposed commercially zoned property, or already commercially zoned property, to residential. Ms. Cole stated that the P&Z Commission asked the applicant, in March, to bring back something that looked like this. She stated that the applicant was asked to design a cul- de-sac that would meet the fire code or bring a cul-de-sac in off of Precinct Line. Ms. Cole stated that she made the motion to continue with the intent that the case would be brought back as originally delivered to P&Z which was in connection with the planning. She stated that it probably should have been part of the motion and in hindsight she'll keep that in mind next time. She does have a concern with suddenly saying to the applicant, "never mind we've changed our mind even though we told you in March that this is what we wanted to see." Mr. sapp motioned to continue the zoning case to an unspecified future date with both the preliminary plat and zoning heard at the same time, abd that the applicant pays for the renotification mailing. Mr. Davis seconded the motion. Page 9 05/20104 P & Z Minutes The Chairman called for additional comments. Mr. Davis reminded the Commission that platting and zoning are two separate items. There is information before the Commission to help make a decision on whether or not this should be residential. He stated that the P&Z Commission was firm and said "no" on the preliminary plat in March for two reasons: 1) the fire in the long cul-de-sac, and 2) not one neighbor said it was a good idea to connect with Precinct Line. Mr. Davis stated that this layout, whether it be office or residential, does not dump any Precinct to the neighborhood. This would be a very similar layout if it's office. Mr. Schopper stated that the point is that a public hearing is required on zoning, but not on platting. So if the zoning is changed and this dies down, someone else can make another run at the Zoning Commission and be allowed to do things by right and the neighborhood cannot have any input. Mr. Davis speculated that if the zoning were approved in July and in the very next action approved the preliminary plat, that plat can then sit there for one year before anything has to happen to it. "Who knows where the P&Z members will be in a year so there isn't any guarantee there either, but the decision is being made based on the best evidence available today." Mr. Schopper stated that he is still bothered by the fact that the neighbors don't get a say in the platting process and their input influences how the Commission votes. Mr. Sapp stated that he agrees with the statement made earlier that this "looks like a mistake". He believes there are some mistakes you can undo and some you can't undo. He believes that by continuing this case the potential purchaser of this property is given the opportunity to come up with a better plan. Mr. Davis stated that it wouldn't be wrong to put both eggs in the basket and talk about it one night and get it done by making the best effort upon the information before the Commission. The Chairman called for the vote. The motion for indefinite continuance was approved unanimously (6-0). 10. PZ 2004-07 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM RAND CARLSON FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM "1-2" MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL TO "HC" HEAVY COMMERCIAL LOCATED AT 5750 RUFE SNOW DRIVE (2.2669 ACRES). APPROVED Page 10 05/20104 P & Z Minutes Mr. Green explained that this site is located on the northeast corner of Rufe Snow and Industrial Park Blvd. There is an existing office building at the site. The current zoning is "12" medium industrial zoning and the use on this property is much less than that. The applicant is proposing downzoning the site from "12" medium industrial to "HC" heavy commercial. Heavy commercial will allow the applicant to put in a beauty salon which is the reason for the change in zoning. The HC also allows the individual to maintain some of the current uses on the property right now. In other words, this would keep them from becoming nonconforming. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan shows this site to be commercial, in which case the "HC" heavy commercial district is the intended district for that particular use on the Comprehensive Plan. The Chairman opened the Public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward if he wished to speak. Rand Carlson, 1427 Kensington Court, Southlake, stated that the major purpose for wanting to make this change is because they have a prospective tenant who wishes to put in a small, 1100 sq. ft. beauty salon. They found that it didn't fit in the existing zoning. Mr. Carlson stated that the building is not suited for "12". There is no raised freight dock. It has been used for office during the 12 years that Mr. Carlson has owned the building. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Carlson if he would object to the Commission recommending approval of his request with the exception of any automobile or body shop repair. Mr. Carlson stated that he would be fine with that. Mr. Davis stated that the City Attorney may say that auto repair can't be restricted, but he would like to ask. The Chairman closed the Public hearing as there were no others wishing to speak. Mr. Davis motioned to approve PZ 2004-07 to zone the property to "HC" heavy commercial with the exception of auto repair and auto body work. Mr. Schopper seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously (6-0). 11. PZ 2004-09 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM INTEGER DEVELOPMENT FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM "C2" COMMERCIAL TO "R-3" RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LOCATED IN THE 8000 BLOCK OF STARNES ROAD (4.11 ACRES). APPROVED - FROM "C2" TO "R2" Mr. Green explained that the property is located north of Starnes between Smithfield and Timberhill Dr. The site is surrounded on three sides (north, south and east) by "R2" residential zoning. There is industrial type use on the west side of the property, with a mini warehouse, RV storage and a cell tower. The applicant is requesting a change Page 11 05/20104 P & Z Minutes -.. --. -- -._-------_.,--~---".~--_."---"~--~--- from "C2" commercial to "R3" single family residential. R3 is the densest single family detached residential district allowed in the City. The Comprehensive Plan shows commercial as the future use for this site, so this request is not consistent with the plan. The zoning ordinance states that "R3" zoning can be used as a transition district between a lower density residential and either a higher density residential or in this particular case, a nonresidential area. It's location on the map does have some validity based on the zoning ordinance and some general planning principles, but once again this is a situation where the Comprehensive Plan calls for an area that should be set aside for commercial use. In most other instances where a commercial area has been pared down, it usually was from commercial to "R2". So, even though this case mirrors a trend, it represents a step toward a denser situation. Along the west property line of this site, should this request be approved, it automatically puts a burden on the adjacent properties to the west because whenever a residential district and a nonresidential district share a common property line, the more intense use or the nonresidential use is required to do a 15-ft. landscape buffer and also do a 6-ft. masonry wall. There has been some indication on the part of the applicant in this case that they would be willing to accept the responsibility for those two things. Chairman Bowen asked if the 15-ft. landscape buffer would be inside or outside the wall. Mr. Green explained the wall must be along the common property line so the 15-ft. would be in the backyard of the residential lots. Mr. Davis stated that it really is intended to be 15-ft. on the commercial [industrial] side. Mr. Green concurred. Mr. Sapp asked if the 15-ft. then becomes an easement. Mr. Green stated that it would be permanent open space and a pool, storage building, etc., would not be allowed in that space. Mr. Davis stated that the buffer really belongs in the commercial [industrial], but the commercial [industrial] property isn't part of this case so the commercial [industrial] property owner can't be forced to put a buffer there unless he comes in to plat. Mr. Green stated that the intent of the ordinance is to provide a softening of the edges of those two types of uses. Chairman Bowen stated that the point of his question was that he doesn't want a no man's land to exist where no one knows who has to maintain it. Mr. Green stated that most likely this will take the form of a 15-ft. permanent open space easement on the residential side and that the Landscape Ordinance will require that this space be irrigated, and that no one would be allowed to drive through it, park on it or build a structure on it, and these requirements would need to be apparent to those who purchase these lots. Trees are required every 30-ft. in the setback. Mr. Nehring stated that he noticed that staff is opposed to this. He asked why. Mr. Green responded that one reason is because it goes against the Comp Plan, but also because usually a downsizing like this calls for "R2" size lots, not "R3". Mr. Nehring noted that staff had earlier stated that "R3" is a good buffer for situations like this. Mr. Green stated that using "R3" in situations like this is an accepted planning theory and it is also acceptable according to the North Richland Hills Zoning Ordinance - using this as a transition between lower intensity/density uses and higher intensity uses. This isn't a perfect example, but it is acceptable. Page 12 OS/20104 P & Z Minutes Mr. Nehring stated that he goes along with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, but he also likes to be flexible. He wondered, though, if too much commercial is being given away to other types of zoning. Mr. Green responded that staff thinks it is very important to keep marketable property in the City, but there are some areas of commercially zoned property where that property isn't sustainable to be commercial. Mr. Green stated that staff is requesting a build-out study for the City in the next fiscal year's budget. The purpose of this study is to look at issues such as this to see whether what's being done is ok or whether thresholds have been crossed. Perhaps thresholds need to be established; perhaps refinement of the Comp Plan should occur. If this budget proposal is approved by Council, staff will be working on that study next year. Chairman Bowen opened the Public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward to speak. Charles Dibrell, 2109 Franklin Dr., Arlington, stated that their intent is to rezone and build according to a site plan given to the P&Z Commission in their packets. Mr. Dibrell stated that the site plan that they are proposing is a blend between an "R2" and an "R3". 4.8 units per acre are allowed in "R3". 4.0 units per acre are allowed in "R2". Mr. Dibrell stated that they are planning 4.1 units per acre. He said that eight of the lots are above the 9000 sq. ft. requirement of "R2". He stated that they are asking to rezone the property with this site plan and that they will meet or lower (one to two feet) the elevations of the pads that would be adjacent to existing homeowners who are concerned about losing privacy in their backyards. He stated that they wanted to come forward with a planned development (PD), but they did not meet the minimum 10-acre requirement for PD. They are proposing to improve the floodplain conditions by reducing the floodplain flows and sizes that go down the existing Timberlane Dr. to the east of the development. They will build the screening wall and they want to create a landscape canopy above the wall to screen the residential areas from the views of the storage buildings. They plan to plant a larger tree that has a more developed canopy to provide privacy and protection of homes along the west side. They would like to protect some of the backyards for pools and wondered if it would be possible to provide a smaller buffer/easement than the required 15-ft. They propose increased masonry standards. They propose side or rear entry garages. They anticipate selling the homes in the range of $220,000 up to $270,000. He stated that they have a preliminary plat that they would like to introduce tonight as well or they would be willing to package the rezoning with the preliminary plat. He asked for the Commission's approval of their request. Mr. Schopper asked what is keeping the applicant from making this request an "R2". Mr. Dibrell responded that the "R2" zoning requires a wider lot which would cost them three lots, which is a significant change for them to incur. Chairman Bowen stated that the plat and zoning can't be tied together unless they are heard at the same time. Mr. Dibrell replied that they submitted on the week of March 10 and they received staff comments and revised accordingly. He stated that they were Page 13 05/20104 P & Z Minutes also asked to bring forward a preliminary plat. He stated that they submitted the site plan and the preliminary plat expecting it to be on the agenda tonight with the zoning case. Mr. Schopper stated that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan originally called for a big, affiliated, anchored grocery store that is now a church and was an industrial area that is now self-storage warehouses. This area hasn't built out as a commercial corridor and he doesn't have as much of a problem down-zoning this area versus the property on a 7 -lane major regional arterial. He believes this would be a perfect planned development. He wondered if there would be a way to put a variance on the size. Mr. Green explained that this is a request for R3 zoning and nothing else. There is no vehicle that allows the Commission, outside of a PD or SUP, to adopt a site plan. This was submitted back in March and staff commented on it, but there isn't a vehicle to address this type of project. A site plan cannot be included. He explained that a preliminary plat was turned in but staff has only had the plat for two weeks which is not enough time to get it done to present to P&Z. Mr. Davis stated that zoning and platting together don't matter in this issue. Either this is an R3 or it's not. Chairman Bowen agreed. Mr. Schopper stated that in his mind it's either an R2 or not. Mr. Sapp agreed. He stated that he wouldn't have any problem approving this if it were an R2. Mr. Dibrell stated that the only way this project could go denser is with a U-shaped road which would double-load both sides of the street. Chairman Bowen explained that the Commission is not looking for a higher density. Mr. Davis stated that Mr. Dibrell's layout would work for an R2 zoning even though they would lose a couple of lots. He encouraged the applicant to stick to the zoning issue of why this piece of property needs to be R3, rather than discussing street layouts and such. Mr. Dibrell stated that he didn't see how one could get to 4.8 units per acre. Chairman Bowen responded that R3 is more than density. It also involves lot sizes, garages, setbacks, etc. Mr. Schopper stated that the applicant has addressed some of those things in his comments, by restricting the side entry and rear entry garages. He stated "front entry garages are something we just plain don't like. That's why I'm saying it's real close to being an R2 and you guys are saying it's just a straight R3 period and I'm saying he's trying to do stuff to camouflage it to make it look like an R2." Mr. Davis stated that if the request was for R2 it would fit in this neighborhood since the surrounding neighborhood is R2. Mr. Dibrell responded that the surrounding neighborhood has 75-ft. lot widths. Mr. Sapp stated that R2 is 76-ft. Mr. Davis asked to hear others who wished to speak on this case. The Chairman called Mo Chaudry, 813 Tradonna Lane, Hurst, who stated that he did not wish to speak but he was in favor of this project. Lee Bartel, 8404 Baywood Dr., is in favor of the project but did not wish to speak. Page 14 05/20104 P & Z Minutes Marva Alderman, 7928 Lucian, stated that her property backs up to this proposed subdivision and she is concerned about flooding. She stated that two weeks before they closed on their property they found out that part of their yard is in the floodplain and they were assured that when the City finished their drainage work east of them they would no longer have the problem, but the government still approves them for flood insurance so she believes they still have a problem and that it will be worse when the property behind them is built. She stated that there is a flume running along their property and all of the water drains to there. She stated there is an overflow basin behind her fence which isn't on the applicant's drawing that acknowledges that its back there. She doesn't have a problem with houses back there but she believes the plan is too dense and that flooding will be a problem. She also is concerned about rear entry garages and that their driveways will be right behind her fence. Chairman Bowen stated that flooding is an issue that will come up during the platting process. The density of the lots is part of the zoning process and that's one thing that the commission is looking at. The Chairman called on Omar Alderman who stated that he is against the project and doesn't wish to speak. Linda Morris, 7920 Lucian Drive, stated that her property is directly north of these proposed buildings. She has a fear of 17 homes jammed in that area with front entry garages and cars in the street, which would totally detract from the neighborhood. They moved to their home because of the wide, deep lots. She doesn't want these homes to devalue her home. She's feels better about this project based on the site plan shown by the applicant, but she wanted it known that she didn't want homes jammed in there. Richard Rhodes, 1625 Suncrest Drive, Keller, stated that he owns the property just to the west, the self-storage, and he owns the vacant lot that is north of the self-storage. He bought this about 3 years ago. He stated that at one point the City was going to buy a portion of it and he was going to develop a portion of it but that didn't happen and so it sat for three years. He is potentially going to put more self-storage there and he is in favor of this project because he believes it is a good use for the property. He believes the wall would be nice and to his advantage, but his concern is that he could potentially lose buildable property because of the setback regulations for residential to commercial which is 35-ft. Since he is going to have to have an SUP, he might be able to ask for a variance, but he'd like some input on how to proceed. Chairman Bowen stated that even with an SUP he didn't think he would be able to get a variance on the open space. Mr. Davis stated that if he developed the piece of property to the north of the self- storage, he would have to submit a site plan to the staff and it wouldn't affect the existing structures but would affect the new structures put in on the north lot. Within the current rules and regulations he could abut commercial, but not residential. He would need a 35-ft. setback with residential. Page 15 05/20104 P & Z Minutes Mr. Rhodes stated that if he were to use that for outside storage then the wall would definitely be a benefit. Mr. Schopper suggested that perhaps he shouldn't put buildings there. Mr. Davis suggested he submit his plans immediately and get his business established before the residential goes in. Mr. Dibrell returned to the podium to ask if the plat and zoning could be brought back together. The Commission members (Schopper, Davis) suggested that the applicant change his request to R2. Mr. Dibrell asked if he could keep his same site plan if they changed to R2. Mr. Davis explained that his minimums wouldn't work for R2; he would need to rework the plan. Mr. Dibrell requested a brief recess to decide if he wished to change his request to R2. The Chairman granted a recess at 8:59 p.m. and reconvened at 9:05 p.m. All commission members and staff members returned and were present when the meeting reconvened. Mr. Dibrell stated that he would like to accept the proposal to convert the zoning request from an R3 to an R2. He stated that their primary concern is that the contract they are obligated to is to reach City Council on June 10, 2004. If the R2 is approved, they would like to bring a preliminary plat back in two weeks. Mr. Davis stated that it has to go through a staff review process. Mr. Schopper suggested that the applicant go back to the buyer and ask for additional time. Mr. Davis stated that if the zoning request is approved tonight, Mr. Dibrell could go to City Council on June 14 [not June 10 as stated by Mr. Dibrell] with the zoning request but not the preliminary plat request. Mr. Davis stated that with the change to R2, the lot widths and depths will change so he will lose one or two lots. Mr. Davis also wondered if the self-storage neighbor, Mr. Rhodes, could submit a site plan a day before this zoning case goes to Council, so that the clock starts on his development prior to the adjacent property changing to residential and therefore he wouldn't have the burden of the buffer. The Chairman asked Mr. Green to explain the requirements for R2 for the benefit of the applicant and the audience. Mr. Green explained that R2 is the standard residential district for the City of North Richland Hills. R3 requires an 1800 sq. ft. minimum house on a 7700 sq. ft. minimum lot. R2 requires a 2000 sq. ft. minimum house on a 9000 sq. ft. minimum lot. Some of the setbacks will change a little bit, but the main change is slightly larger lots and slightly bigger homes. Mr. Sapp mentioned there are also mandatory side and rear garages and a broader width between the homes. The Chairman asked if the audience had any questions or comments with the change to R2. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Mr. Schopper asked if the residential would include the 15-ft. buffer and that the residential applicant would be responsible for the screening wall. Mr. Dibrell stated they will meet with their adjacent property owner and discuss a way of including the wall and perhaps sharing the landscaping buffer. He stated that they will go back to their seller and ask for more time. Page 16 OS/20104 P & Z Minutes The Chairman closed the public hearing and called for a motion. Mr. Schopper motioned to approve PZ 2004-09 zoning change from "C2" commercial to "R2" residential district and that the 15-ft. buffer be incorporated into the backyards of the residential side and also the screening wall does not have to be paid for by the existing user. Mr. Davis seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously (6-0). 12. ADJOURNMENT As there was no other business, the Chairman adjourned the regular meeting at 9: 16 p.m. Chairman s:¡;; ;!/~ ffr- a~ Don Bowen Ted Nehring Page 17 05/20104 P & Z Minutes