Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2004-11-18 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS NOVEMBER 18, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Davis at 7:04 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Ex Officio Richard Davis Bill Schopper Don Bowen Randy Shiflet Brenda Cole Scott Wood Ken Sapp Suzy Compton 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. CITY STAFF Director of Planning Asst. Dir. of Public Works Planner Planning Intern Recording Secretary Dave Green Lance Barton Donna Jackson Jonathan Thatcher Carolyn Huggins 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Page 1 of 21 11/18/04 P&Z Minutes 4. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21,2004. APPROVED Scott Wood, seconded by Bill Schopper, motioned to approve the minutes of October 21, 2004. The motion was approved (6-0-1) with Randy Shiflet abstaining due to his absence on October 21, 2004. Chairman Davis called for Item No. 7 to be heard first on the agenda this evening as P&Z Commissioner Scott Wood is one of the applicants and will excuse himself from the room. Mr. Wood has signed the appropriate paperwork for the City Secretary that he has a conflict of interest and will not be voting on this zoning case. Mr. Wood left the room at 7:05 p.m. 7. ZC 2004-08 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM DWIGHT AND LINDA MANNING AND SCOTT WOOD FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM "R3" RESIDENTIAL TO "R-1-S" SPECIAL SINGLE FAMILY (LOCATED AT 8048 AND 8100 GREEN VALLEY - 4.082 ACRE). APPROVED Mr. Green explained that the current zoning is R3 but both lots are approximately two acres, which is consistent with the large lots in the neighborhood. This request is for a zoning change from R3 to R-1-S, which allows livestock on the property and also allows a certain amount of freedom from building constraints on accessory buildings, such as in the building height, pitch of roof, concrete access to a public street, masonry requirements, and size of the structure. Part of the reason for the relaxation of building constraints in the R-1-S district is because it applies to fairly large lots. The applicants wish to rezone to R-1-S in order to take advantage of the relaxation of building constraints for accessory buildings. The property to the immediate west of these lots is zoned R-1-S. The Comprehensive Plan denotes low density residential uses. This is consistent with the Comp Plan. Mr. Bowen stated that R-1-S indicates larger residence sizes [minimum square footage of a home] and Mr. Bowen wondered if the applicant would be required to meet the larger minimum square footage of R-1-S if he were to remodel his primary residence. Mr. Green explained that there is some leeway if the current houses do not meet the minimum square footage requirements. They are considered non-conforming structures. There is leeway in expanding a non-conforming structure. There is a certain percentage involved that is allowed by right. Once past that percentage, the owner Page 2 of 21 11/18/04 P&Z Minutes would have to seek a variance request from the Board of Adjustment to expand that particular building. Mr. Bowen asked if the applicants were aware of the minimum square footage size. Mr. Green stated that they are aware of the minimum square footage size. Chairman Davis opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. The owner of Lot 4, Dwight Manning, 8048 Green Valley Drive, came forward. Chairman Davis asked for the size of the existing house. Mr. Manning stated that his house is approximately 2,300 sq. ft. [The minimum is 2,000 sq. ft. for any property platted prior to January 1, 1998 and 2,300 sq. ft. for any property platted after January 1, 1998.] As there were no others wishing to speak for or against this case, Chairman Davis closed the public hearing and called for a motion. Mr. Schopper, seconded by Mr. Sapp, motioned to approve ZC 2004-08. The motion passed 6-0-1, with Mr. Wood abstaining. Mr. Wood returned to the Council chambers at 7:11 p.m. 5. SUP 2004-03 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM MIKE CLARK REPRESENTING UNITED FARRIS REALTY, INC. FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP) TO BUILD A NTB RETAIL TIRE STORE (LOCATED AT 8509 PRECINCT LINE ROAD - 1.085 ACRES). APPROVED This is a special use permit request for a retail tire store located on a lot just southeast of the existing Bank of America branch location. The lot is zoned C-1 Commercial, which permits a tire and battery service development with permission of an SUP. Two items should be considered when determining an SUP: 1) is this an appropriate use for this site; and 2) does the site plan, as submitted, effectively mitigate the negative impacts onto· the adjacent properties that may come from this type of business. The existing zoning on the surrounding properties is also C-1. The City of Colleyville is located to the northeast of this site on the other side of Precinct Line Road. The site plan, the location of the building, the amount of parking that is proposed is consistent with City standards. The landscaping is also consistent with City standards. Buildings that exceed 10,000 sq. ft. must meet certain building and architectural requirements. This building is just under 10,000 sq. ft. and does not need to meet those requirements, but the applicant included some of the characteristics of larger buildings, such as the uses of different colors of building materials in the entranceway, an awning architectural effect over the front entrance of the building, and the bands of different colors and Page 3 of 21 11/18/04 P&Z Minutes different materials that encompass the building. The Comprehensive Plan depicts a straight retail type of district. This mirrors what is seen with the Target store and bank facility in terms of being a service type of use. Automotive type uses are considered to be a little bit more intensive than a straight retail type of district. Several clarification notations have been made on the site plan which staff would like included in the motion if the P&Z Commission recommends approval of this request. Chairman Davis opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. Michael Clark, Winkleman & Associates, 6750 Hillcrest Plaza, Suite 100, Dallas, represents Pavillion Properties, the developer of this site. He stated that he was involved with the Target shopping center and he knows that this is the kind of use that these outparcels were created for - the size and the type of restrictions that Target puts on the availability of the outparcels. He stated that the access points are being utilized exactly as planned. He believes it is an appropriate use from the development side and that they have taken into consideration the effect on adjacent properties by turning the "L" so that some of the bays are shielded from the street. The building is somewhat articulated and has different color bands. It's an attractive building for the use. He stated that retail tends to congregate - the Target and Walmart back-to-back is an example, as are the banks, and the grocery stores. He respectfully requests approval. Mr. Bowen asked if NTB does oil changes and such or just tires. Mr. Clark stated that they do minor repair such as oil change, battery replacement, and wheel alignment. He stated they will not have anything that will result in engine removal or anything that would be considered heavy automotive. Chairman Davis stated that no machining is done there. Mr. Clark responded, "That's correct." Chairman Davis observed that they are planning to use a berm instead of a 15-ft. landscape buffer. He asked if the bank to the north and west used screening shrubs. Mr. Green answered that he believed the bank used screening shrubs. Mr. Davis stated that he would like to see something symmetrical that looks like it was planned. He noted that the applicant is proposing Chinese Pistache yet the bank used Live Oaks. Mr. Clark responded that the trees are in conformance with the Target side. He didn't know if they matched the bank side. Mr. Clark stated that the berm is already there which is why they chose to use it. He stated that continuity of shrubs sounds reasonable, but he would have to look at the grades in detail to know exactly where they would go. He didn't believe it would be an issue with his client. Chairman Davis asked for the hours of operation of an NTB store. Mr. Clark did not know. Mr. Wood asked if it is normal for an NTB to go across the street from a Discount Tire. He asked if it's like the pharmacies where once one builds others follow. Mr. Clark responded that its very similar to almost all retail uses. They follow the growth. He stated that the same groups are doing the demographic profiles and the population trends and they tend to be right so they do follow each other. Page 4 of 21 11/18/04 P&Z Minutes As there were no others wishing to speak for or against this case, the Chairman closed the public hearing and called for discussion or a motion. Mr. Shiflet asked for the distance from the bay doors to the roadway. Mr. Clark responded they are approximately 150 to 160 ft. Mr. Shiflet asked for further explanation of the landscaped area. Mr. Clark pointed out where trees would be located as well as the landscaping along the front. Chairman Davis stated that the Commission has to look at the impact of the neighborhood. He stated that this is a commercial neighborhood with offices, restaurants and large retail, but an SUP is required for a tire repair-type business because it's not quite as clean as a bank building. He stated that he doesn't like the berm. He would rather it matched the rest of the subdivision as far as the bank property and Target. He doesn't know what a Chinese Pistache is - he wished he had a picture. He'd rather have a live oak than a non-native tree. Mr. Schopper commented that Chinese Pistache is a hardy tree; that Simon put those in at Northeast Mall along the perimeter. Mr. Bowen commented that he has two in his backyard and they are good trees. Ms. Cole noted that Live Oak take forever to grow. Chairman Davis stated that if Chinese Pistache drops their leaves then there won't be any other visible barrier except the 3-ft. berm. He would like to see trees and landscaping bushes along there. Seven 3-inch trees with no leaves for four months of the year will be barren. Precinct Line Road is looking good with the landscaping requirements. The bar has been raised which is the reason for the 15-ft. shrub barrier. Mr. Clark responded that he takes no exception to adding those. He'll be happy to offer that. Chairman Davis noted that the applicant has agreed to add additional shrubbery within the landscape ordinance including the trees along Precinct Line Road. Mr. Wood commented that he does not want this store at this location. He believes it will have an adverse affect on the surrounding land. He stated that within approximately one-quarter mile there will be "three of these since everybody follows everybody". He used the example of CVS's buyout of Eckerd's to illustrate the problem of a number of empty stores throughout the city because there are too many of the same type of store too close to each other. He noted that there will be three tire stores, not counting Walmart. He stated that if the Commission says yes to this case then the Commission will have to say yes to the next one that comes up. Mr. Bowen disagreed. He stated that these are two separate cases. Mr. Wood reiterated that he believes these facilities are too close to each other. Mr. Sapp stated that he believes they are making a tremendous effort to make this look nice, but there are only several places that people come into the City and this is one of the most unique accesses to the City. There are two major thoroughfares that come together and particularly in this area a great deal of money was spent on roads and landscaping to try to create a certain image. He feels something is inconsistent with this Page 5 of 21 11/18/04 P&Z Minutes plot of land and what is trying to be accomplished as it is very close to residential to the south and west, even though it is unknown what Colleyville will do with their plot of dirt over there. From a point of aesthetics, Mr. Sapp feels it is the wrong thing to do. Mr. Shiflet, seconded by Ms. Cole, motioned to approve SUP 2004-03 based on the additional landscaping along the berm as has been discussed. Mr. Shiflet stated that there was a comment that there would be three in the area; there is currently one and the P&Z Commission is currently discussing a second one. The third one is not a part of the equation at this time. He stated that this area is basically at the top of a hill about 150-ft. or so from the gateway on the north end of town. He agrees that this area should be kept attractive, but this is a commercial neighborhood and this fits in the middle of it in his opinion. There is a gas station across the street with a car wash. There is another tire store north of that location. From the north, if you see the NTB and the bays, the next thing you will see are the drive-thru lanes for the bank and he doesn't believe those are any prettier than the bays of NTB. He doesn't see an inconsistency. Ms. Cole stated that the entry focal point is the bank. If a wonderful gateway entrance was wanted, the lot where the bank sits was the opportunity to do that. Mr. Schopper stated that Loop 820 is a gateway also and there is an NTB right on the Loop. He believes our gateway is more Davis Blvd. than Precinct Line Rd. He has a problem with the statement that "the third one's not on the table yet. We know that it's coming. The developer is right in that it was laid out for these types of uses." He likes the berms and the curvy sidewalks, but recognizes that consistency is a good thing. Chairman Davis encouraged the Commission members to make their decisions based on this site and this site alone with what is before them, whether there be one more case or five more cases of the same type of use. He stated that existing conditions are a factor and that the Commission members should consider what kind of impact this piece of property and this type of use has on this commercial community. Mr. Bowen asked that additional stipulations be added to the motion: 1) HVAC units are properly screened; and 2) remove the "pylon" sign notation on the landscape plan and replace with "monument" sign. The motion and second agreed to those stipulations. The motion was approved 5-2-0 with Mr. Sapp and Mr. Wood voting against. Page 6 of 21 11/18/04 P&Z Minutes ...... ~. ··---'-~'--'_·_·_'_·_~"__'~".._'·'~'_'_'m".._.._~.~___.___..____ ._.._ 6. SUP 2004-04 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM EDWARD MOORE FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP) TO BUILD A GOODYEAR RETAIL TIRE STORE AND MINOR AUTO REPAIR (LOCATED AT 8500 DAVIS BLVD. - 1.312 ACRES). DENIED This request is for a Goodyear Tire Store located on the west side of Davis Blvd. across the street from the Wal-Mart development. The property immediately to the west of this site is the City's elevated water tower. The property is zoned C-1. The request requires a special use permit. This building will be perpendicular to the street. Access to this site will be provided by an additional future retail development which will be immediately to the south of the Goodyear location. This site has a very narrow width along Davis Blvd. The landscaping is internal to the site, and particularly toward the rear of the lot, none of the landscaping as shown is required by ordinance. The ordinance requires landscaping along the public street with tree islands through the development as warranted. The applicant is proposing an all masonry structure. The building has a pitched roof. There are accents on the pitched roof. There is a defined entranceway with stone accents. The bays will run north and south. The property to the north is zoned C-2, which is not a retail district but a commercial district. The Wal-Mart property to the east across the street is zoned PD, and the Target development is zoned C-1. To the south of this site is proposed future retail which is zoned C-1. The properties to the west are large lots with residential structures and are zoned AG. The applicant has submitted three letters of support from adjacent property owners (commercial and the AG zoned property). There have also been two letters of opposition. A site plan providing final engineering drawings has not been completed yet as staff would like to know whether or not a Goodyear Tire Store is a good fit for this location before these drawings are requested. The Public Works Department has attested that this particular site, in terms of the information that is shown on these plans, is consistent with city requirements. There are drainage issues. The Summit Bank property to the south has a large drainage detention area in the front. Both of these developments will also have drainage detention in the frontage area as well. The sizing, dimensions and flow characteristics have yet to be final designed; therefore, this is a conceptual plan. The applicant is looking for an approval of the land use - is this a good area, a good site, for the Goodyear store. Subject to receiving approval of that, the final design elements will be put into place and a final plan will be brought back to the Commission. Chairman Davis asked if the 7 -ft. sign fits within the ordinance. Mr. Green answered that 7-ft. is the maximum height allowed for a monument sign. Chairman Davis stated that for such narrow frontage on Davis he feels this is too big of a sign. Mr. Shiflet stated that there is cross access easement along the backside. He asked if it connects with the Summit Bank property. Mr. Green explained that it does and it was Page 7 of 21 11/18/04 P&Z Minutes purposely put there to be incorporated into Summit Bank's. Mr. Shiflet said that there would then be Shady Grove access. Mr. Green responded that in a roundabout way there could be access. A person could choose to access the backside of the bank and follow the fire lane to the Goodyear site. Mr. Shiflet asked if the traffic signal at Target would be a possible use for this site. Mr. Green stated the signal at Target is a distance away to the north of this site. Mr. Shiflet stated that access to and from this site would not then be at a signalized intersection. Mr. Green responded that it would not. Mr. Shiflet asked if access is through the current driveway of Summit Bank. The applicant responded that it is. Chairman Davis opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. Ed Moore, 5601 Courtyard Drive, Austin, stated that he used to live here and for the last 20 years he has been doing work for Goodyear. He stated that they have built a lot of these stores in very sensitive areas. He stated that Goodyear is a 101-year-old company with a remarkable success rate. They do not like to go where they are not wanted. They do an in-depth market research plan before they choose sites. He stated that these are very expensive buildings for their size, that this area was picked for several reasons, and that they are not like other tire stores. The other stores, including Wal-Mart, deal in cheaper tires. This store could be compared to a Neiman Marcus. They deal in expensive tires and expensive repair. Major repair is not done, only minor repair. Goodyear's targeted customers have an income of at least $50,000 to $60,000 a year and higher. Mr. Moore stated that all of the buildings are made of quality material. There is no EIFS (exterior insulation finish system), no fake material, no fake rock. All of it is very high quality material. Mr. Moore obtains the location, gets the lease from Goodyear and he supervises getting the store built. He stated that he has a good quality group. Mr. Moore spoke to Mr. Anderson [owner of the contiguous property north and west of the proposed Goodyear], and the Wilson's [owners of contiguous property south and west of the proposed Goodyear] who had no objection to the development of the Goodyear Tire and Automotive Center. Mr. Moore also stated that he has several stores in Austin, and there were people opposed who spoke at the Council meetings, yet both P&Z and Council voted for it and ironically during the next two years some of his best customers were the people who were originally opposed. Mr. Moore stated it was a needed store. He said that as far as longevity, Goodyear signs a long lease and will remain in the location. They will be a good citizen, do a lot of business and pay a lot of tax. Mr. Moore stated that the residential adjacent to the water tower will not be able to see this location. It will only be visible from Davis. He stated that the Goodyear building will be much prettier than the bank. He explained that they are going to cut down the site and build an 8-inch concrete retaining wall. There will be a nice, paved easement up to the water tower. There are two million gallons in that tower and they will not allow any possibility of erosion. He stated that Goodyear intends to be there a long time and will be a good citizen. Page 8 of 21 11/18/04 P&Z Minutes Pan Sribhen, Project Engineer, PSA Engineering, 17819 Davenport Rd., Suite 215, Dallas, stated that they have submitted a traffic study which shows that there will be no impact in terms of ingress/egress. There will be a fire lane exit to Shady Grove. The building sits 100-ft. away from Davis Blvd. The first bay door is 150-ft. from Davis Blvd. The future building will screen the bay doors from traffic. They have worked with the City to provide fire lanes around the building and access to the water tower, which currently has a gravel driveway which they propose to pave. They plan to build 10-ft. high retaining walls. The site slopes to Davis Blvd. so the detention pond will have to be in the front. They are proposing a pink colored brick with Austin stone highlights and columns. Cupolas have been added to the top. There is a nice entryway to the showrooms. All shrubbery along the front provides screening. There will be live oak trees. Crepe myrtle will be planted 7 -ft. tall at time of planting. Shrubbery will be 3- caliper. He stated that the sign is a monument sign and meets all City requirements. Nick Ibarra stated that he represents the owners of the property contiguous to the south. They are under contract to Mr. Moore for the Goodyear development. He explained the path of the fire lane behind this project through to the bank. He stated that with approval of this project, they hope to kick off development of a small retail strip. He explained that this is a unique property because of the drainage, water tower, and access. They are sensitive to what they can and can't do. They don't wish to add any other drive onto Davis. With their retail development, they plan to leave a lot of open space behind the retail because it is so deep off the road and it affords a nice buffer between the proposed retail and the residential behind this project. He stated that they considered putting the Goodyear next to the bank to utilize some of the depth of the site, but they felt this side of the property would work best since it would back up directly to the water tower. Chairman Davis asked if the fire lane, down to Shady Grove Lane, would be constructed at this time if the project is approved. Mr. Ibarra stated that it will be constructed. Chairman Davis asked if the proposed retail would face Davis Blvd. Mr. Ibarra stated that it would face Davis. The Chairman asked who owns the property west of the fire lane and wondered what would be there. Mr. Ibarra stated that they own it and that one of the challenges with this piece of property is the elevation as it goes back up towards the water tower. He stated that to go deeper into the site would add a lot of cost with such things as retaining walls. They felt this was a better utilization of the property. He thought that perhaps in the future they might consider a small office building but it isn't a consideration in the near future. Their current plans are to leave it as it is in its natural state. Chairman Davis stated that anything that varies from this plan would have to be resubmitted. He explained that the Commission would not be approving the proposed retail, but that the fire lane is part of the project being considered this evening. The Chairman wanted to be sure that Mr. Ibarra understood that he couldn't deviate from any part of the plan that might be approved this evening. Mr. Ibarra stated that he understood that requirement. Page 9 of 21 11/18/04 P&Z Minutes Mr. Sapp stated that there won't be any possibility of vertical landscape between the boulevard and the retail center. There aren't any islands or anything to landscape. Chairman Davis stated that they could push it back if necessary. Mr. Green explained that when the applicant returns with a final design, particularly with the retention area, under the current detention ordinance, that area must be landscaped. Therefore, there will be another opportunity to come back and look at it. Mr. Green stated that the detention area at Summit Bank is an example of what the City will require. He stated that staff expects additional landscaping in the drainage detention area. Mr. Moore stated that he could assure the Commission that additional landscaping will be done. Chairman Davis stated that a petition dated November 17 has been submitted to the Commission. Copies are available in the minutes and record. There are approximately 18 or 19 different properties that have signed a letter that says, "As property owners and residents of North Richland Hills we are requesting you reject the Special Use Permit for the Goodyear Tire Store and Auto Repair Center on Davis Blvd. A business of this kind is inappropriate for this property as it is too close to residential property. Other tire stores and auto repair centers are already located in the vicinity and therefore another will not aid in serving the community." Mr. Bowen stated that two letters in opposition were received, one from Steven VanWie and the other from Renato and Sally Minacapelli. Jerry Jarzombek, 8558 Shadybrooke Ct., stated that Goodyear is not an appropriate use for this property as it would not be the highest and best use and it is not a good fit. The value of the tire will not make a difference to the sound he will hear as the tire comes on and off the machine or the lug nuts come on and off. He stated that the Wal- Mart traffic is bad and there are many near head-on collisions when trying to turn left onto Shady Grove from Davis Blvd. More traffic on Shady Grove will cause more problems. He stated that he doesn't care if the customers make $60,000. The value of the tire or the income level of the customer won't make any difference as to the value of his home. He stated that projects work when the residents, the Commission and the City work together and that the value of his home has gone down since some of this development has taken place. He would rather his property value go up. He doesn't believe this is a needed store as there will be others just a couple of minutes away. He doesn't want it to be like the pharmacies. There were five on the corner and now there are four with the loss of the Eckerd's store. This isn't needed. He asks, selfishly, that this Commission deny the special use permit as proposed for the Goodyear store. Sally Minacapelli, 8562 Shadybrooke Ct., stated that she has lived here for 12 years and from her house she will have a great view of this project. She stated that there are no trees of any significance that would buffer her view. She represents 19 of her neighbors who would like to voice their opposition to this SUP. A business of this kind is too close to residential property. She and her neighbors have to contend with very loud noise coming off of Davis Blvd. A tire and auto repair center would only add to that. She stated that they feel it will cheapen the appearance of North Richland Hills' Page 10 of 21 11/18/04 P&Z Minutes entrance to the north. There are too many businesses of the same type going into the north end of the town. It is becoming a mecca of supercenters, banks, and now the possibility of tire stores and auto repair centers. There is already a Wal-Mart auto repair and tire store, a Discount Tire Store and perhaps an NTB tire store. She would prefer to see new businesses coming into the area that would better serve the community rather than more of the same. Virgil Lynn, 8616 Shadybrooke Dr., stated that he is not as close to this site as his neighbors but he supports their objection to this project. He stated that they are not opposed to bringing more businesses into the community but the businesses should preserve quality of life and increase property values. He moved here three years ago from Oklahoma and he stated that he hasn't seen his property values appreciate as he had hoped. He stated that they met with the mayor in the last two weeks regarding the property to the north of this area that has been in extensive debate for a number of years. He supports his friends and neighbors in opposing this project. He stated that even if the building is marble, the visual isn't as important to them as the impact of the sound pollution. As there were no others wishing to speak, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Chairman Davis stated that this property is zoned C-1 and he asked if it touches any residential property. Mr. Green explained that there is residential use versus residential zoning. The properties immediately to the west are residentially used but zoned "AG". Mr. Sapp asked how the property zoned "AG" is listed in the Comp Plan. Mr. Green responded that it is shown as low density residential on the Comp Plan. Mr. Green further stated that if the retail strip center is built, the 200-ft. radius will just clip the property to the west and the Zoning Ordinance states that if proposed non-residential development is within 200-ft. of either residential zoning or property shown to be residential on the Comprehensive Plan, then the applicant must do site plan approval. This same property triggered the site plan approval request for the Chili's restaurant project. So if the proposed retail occurs, Planning & Zoning Commission will see the property as a site plan approval request. Mr. Shiflet asked if the property immediately to the north is C-2. Mr. Green explained that it is zoned C-2 but is used as residential and has a residential structure and outbuildings on it. The Comprehensive Plan calls for Office (0-1) for that property. Mr. Shiflet thought it was "NS" Neighborhood Services. Mr. Green explained that the Comprehensive Plan calls for Neighborhood Services for the proposed retail site which is currently zoned C-1. Mr. Shiflet commented that regarding the property to the north, anyone could come in tomorrow and pull a permit for a straight C-2. Mr. Green responded, "That's correct." Mr. Schopper stated that Mr. Moore builds a quality product but that doesn't change the fact that there is an air gun that creates a lot of noise. The national tire on the other side of the road is far away from houses. He stated that P&Z has put other tire stores in Page 11 of21 11/18/04 P&Z Minutes the City and has been down this road before. If approved, the City Council chamber will be overwhelmed with people in opposition. He feels it is too close to residential - that the problem is sound. Mr. Shiflet asked if a tire store is allowed in C-2 zoning. Mr. Green responded that an SUP would also be required in C-2. He explained that an SUP is required in order to ask if the business fits in that specific location. It is a use that can work in some areas and not work in others. Chairman Davis asked for the standard hours of operation. Mr. Moore responded that it is approximately 7:30 a.m. to about 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and Saturday from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. and some stores open Sunday afternoon. He stated that he will get that specific information to staff tomorrow. [On December 1, Pan Sribhen advised staff that hours are typically 9-6 Monday through Friday and 10-6 on Saturday. The store would not be open on Sunday. There may be extended hours on holidays.] [Ms. Cole left the room - 8: 18 p.m.] Chairman Davis asked if they would agree to provide an illumination plan with shielded or hooded lights. Mr. Moore stated that they would "absolutely" agree to that requirement. Chairman Davis asked if they agree that additional landscaping is needed along Davis Blvd. Mr. Moore agreed. The Chairman also asked if additional visual and sound barriers could be placed on the top of the retaining wall. Mr. Moore stated that the engineer, Pan Sribhen would answer that question. Pan Sribhen pointed out where they plan to cut the hill down 10-ft. The wall will be 18- inches above the ground to keep sediment and such from flowing over into the parking area, as well as a safety feature if anyone were to go walking above the wall. It will be reinforced concrete rather than a block wall. The City requires matching brick to the building so the retaining wall will be poured concrete with a brick facia. The Chairman asked if there is any landscaping that can be done along the wall. Mr. Sribhen stated that they could add 8-ft. tall red-tipped photinia along the back. They are planning to plant a bunch of screening along that side. He stated that the City has asked them to not plant anything in the easement since there will be City vehicles driving over it to the water tower. The Chairman asked that if they go to Council that they show where the existing trees are and then where the red-tipped photinia would be added. They agreed to do that. Mr. Sribhen also added that all elements of their plans push the noise toward Davis. [Ms. Cole returned to the room - 8:22 p.m.] Chairman Davis observed that they have a lot of outside parking places. The Zoning Ordinance requires 14 and the applicant is proposing 38. Mr. Sribhen stated that Goodyear requires 38 parking spaces. The Chairman stated that he is concerned about Page 12 of 21 11/18/04 P&Z Minutes outdoor storage of vehicles; he asked Mr. Sribhen how many bays there are and Mr. Sribhen responded that there will be 10 bays; 8 with lifts and 2 bays used for alignments. There will be six employees. The Chairman observed that if the bays were full and there were as many as 15 customers waiting that would still only require a need of 21 parking spaces. Mr. Sribhen stated that the traffic study they conducted shows that there are no more than 4 vehicles per hour in and out of the site from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Mr. Schopper asked how tall the wall will be at the northwest corner of the site. He is concerned about sound in that area. Mr. Sribhen stated that the wall will be about 6-ft. at that point. The wall runs from a maximum of 12-ft. down to 18-inches above the ground. Chairman Davis suggested that perhaps they didn't need the row of parking along the west property line. Mr. Moore responded that most of the time the parking requirements are at the request of the City but in this case Goodyear asks for this amount of parking so there is a place to put the cars until the customers come to pick up their vehicle. Mr. Moore stated that they will not have a bunch of junked cars around the facility. He stated that at night most of the cars go back into the bays and there are not any cars out at night in order to reduce liability, but during the day the cars are waiting for the customers to come pick them up. Mr. Schopper noted that many customers drop their vehicles for the day and come back at night to pick them up so it would be normal for the vehicles to be parked there throughout the day. The Chairman asked if they would be willing to stipulate that there will be no outdoor storage or parking of vehicles after business hours. Mr. Moore stated that he couldn't say that they would never park a vehicle outside the bays overnight. Mr. Schopper stated that some people drop off their vehicles the night before. Mr. Bowen stated that it would be tough to say no outside storage of vehicles at all. Mr. Moore summarized that he will try very hard to please the City of North Richland Hills and its customers. Mr. Bowen stated that this project is on Davis Blvd. close to the entrance of the City and he feels that is where premier facilities should be located. Mr. Bowen does not feel this should be the first look as a person comes into the City. Mr. Bowen, seconded by Mr. Schopper, motioned to deny SUP 2004-04. The Chairman commented that this is not a bad plan, but he doesn't feel it is the right plan for this area. He feels it will have a negative effect upon the neighborhood and upon the type of retail that will go into the proposed strip center. The motion to deny carried unanimously (7-0). Page 130f21 11/18/04 P&Z Minutes The Chairman advised the applicant that he has the right to appeal the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission by writing a letter to the City staff within 10 days asking to appeal this recommendation. 8. PP 2004-08 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM INTEGER DEVELOPERS TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 1 AND BLOCK 2 PARKWOOD ESTATES (LOCATED AT 8000 BLOCK OF STARNES - 4.102 ACRES). WITHDRAWN Mr. Green explained that this property is to the east of the intersection with Smithfield Rd. and Starnes Rd. There is a mini-warehouse development and cell tower location next to this property. Earlier in the year the property owner requested a change in zoning. The property had been zoned C-2 Commercial and the applicant requested a down-zoning to R-2 Residential which was recommended for approval by this Commission and was subsequently approved by the City Council. The applicant is now asking for a preliminary plat of this site. There is a drainage issue and there may be a future revised preliminary plat for one area of the plat. Staff has reviewed this design and Public Works comments verify that this design meets City standards. Staff recommends approval. Charles Dibrell, 3D Engineering, representing Integer Developers briefly reviewed the history of the property. He explained that they had originally asked for R-3 zoning and during the meeting's lengthy discussion they revised their request to R-2. A revised configuration was needed for the R-2 zoning. They reduced their lots from 17 to 16 in order to meet and exceed the 4-units per acre, which is the R-2 requirement. The developer is proposing a PD-type development which has the additional features such as stamped concrete, meandering sidewalks, screening walls, landscaping and aesthetic amenities that enhance neighborhoods and bring in the nicer homes. He stated that they are also looking to increase through deed restrictions some of the building requirements. They understand that there is a side or rear entry requirement. The first two lots will have a shared driveway. They have increased the depth of the lots so there will be a rear entry since they front on Starnes Dr. They are discussing increasing masonry requirements above what the City has but they have not finalized that out. They have coordinated this project with the adjacent property owner to the west and they are fronted by neighborhoods on the north and the east. The property owner to the west is Smithfield Storage and they are proposing to build a screening wall along the west property wall. They are still looking at samples, such as Lexstone. The screening wall and entranceways will be enhanced from what was previously presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission. They are proposing to bring these types of features with the development to the City of North Richland Hills. Chairman Davis asked Mr. Dibrell to talk about platting issues rather than zoning issues. Page 14of21 11/18/04 P&Z Minutes Mr. Dibrell responded that he was just trying to bring some history to the project since there are some new faces on the Commission since he was last here. He stated that the platting issues are that they will built a screening wall adjacent to Lot 1, and there is a landscaping buffer in front of the building line. "There has been some discussion on whether the landscaping buffer should be reduced in certain areas.... " Chairman Davis: "Did you not agree at your zoning application to put a 15-ft. landscaping buffer there?" Mr. Dibrell: "No sir, we did not." Chairman Davis: "You did not agree in your zoning application to put in a 15-ft. landscape buffer. Mr. Dibrell: "No, we discussed it in the presentation when I was here with you last." Chairman Davis: "Mr. Green, we'll need to get your confirmation of that." Mr. Green: "To be perfectly honest with you because of Mr. Dibrell's feeling that they absolutely did not, that causes me to really want to go back to the minutes of that particular meeting and double check and make sure because, myself, I believe that was a point of contention from the very beginning when we began to discuss this project. The first thing that comes up in your mind is the issue of the buffering and landscaping so I know it was an issue we discussed." Chairman Davis: "In my memory it was included." Mr. Schopper: "It seems pretty clear to me too." Chairman Davis: "In all your staff reports it's pretty clear so we definitely have a difference of opinion, Mr. Dibrell, and we'll get to that issue so Mr. Green will research that for us." Mr. Dibrell: "My recollection is that we presented it in this manner and I actually commented that we would provide the landscaping area in all the areas except adjacent to the building on Lot 1. We would need relief for Lot 1 to work. That was my comment. We are still here proposing to provide the landscaping buffer. Our neighbor to the west has a developed track and an undeveloped portion on the top. It is my understanding that the developed piece is grandfathered from the requirement of the 15-ft. landscaping buffer so what we originally submitted to staff was just to provide it up to this property line so that he would not incur that when he comes in. He is completing site.... Yes sir?" Page 15 of 21 11/18/04 P&Z Minutes Mr. Schopper: "I'm on the same wavelength that Richard is about platting issues here. It's my understanding that you are wanting to just preliminary plat these two lots out and then we're betting on the come on the rest of it. I don't think...." Chairman Davis: "Can you tell us why?" Mr. Dibrell: "We want to preliminary plat the whole thing..." Chairman Davis: "But you don't want to provide a drainage study." Mr. Dibrell: "No, we are working through the draining study. We have a CLOMR (Conditional Letter of Map Revision) application...." Chairman Davis: "And I would recommend that you ask real quickly here, before you are denied, that we withdraw this application so you can submit a complete preliminary plat then." Mr. Dibrell: "I need help from staff because that's what we originally did and we were asked to change it to this scenario so that we could separate the two pieces because of the floodplain, but we have a cul-de-sac shown to come in here and we were...." Chairman Davis: "I understand, but see, as far as a preliminary plat, what is before us, that is terrible planning. This is a 4-acre piece and two lots is terrible planning. We don't know where the actual street location is going to be. That's part of the things you have to do with a preliminary plat is some drainage analysis and things of that nature. My understanding is you didn't want to do the drainage analysis and stuff. Not true?" Mr. Dibrell: "Not true." Chairman Davis: "Has it been done?" Mr. Dibrell: "We have a CLOMR submittal, that we've already submitted, it's gone through a review. We've got comments back. We've revised them. We've resubmitted and the consultant for the City is Graham & Associates and they are reviewing that and once they approve on that then what will happen is the floodplain will be reduced. We wanted to preliminary plat all of the property and just final plat these two lots because we see the opportunity for two construction projects and so we are trying to separate the construction phases of the project. ..." Chairman Davis: "Two lots is a phase?" Mr. Dibrell: "Those two lots are a different phase than the remainder because they don't require the public street. We still need to provide..." Page 16 of21 11/18/04 P&Z Minutes Chairman Davis: "We do require some commitments that this body feels, and staff feels, is required regarding a landscape buffer and a wall along the west property line. That needs to be resolved." Mr. Dibrell: "Did you get the exhibit that showed the remainder of how Block 2 is..." Chairman Davis: "Right, but that's not on our agenda to vote on. We're looking at two lots and I'll tell you what we'll do. Let's take a 3-minute recess and we'll come back and discuss if that's ok with the Commission. You can talk to staff on what's your best avenue to go." The Commission stood in recess at 8:49 p.m. and resumed at 8:54 p.m. with all members present. Mr. Dibrell: 'We would like to present this in a manner that is what you want to see and so I'm a little confused or looking for some direction or feedback from you on if this is a bad way to represent the project and that's not what we want to do. We could bring back the entire piece; we could finish up the floodplain modeling. What we were trying to do was create some overlap while the floodplain modeling occurred to allow a little bit of development activity to occur simultaneously." Chairman Davis: "In my opinion, you'll be better served if this Commission sees a preliminary plat of the entire property showing what you truly believe the future development of the property to be." Mr. Bowen: "I agree. This plat is not representative of what is going to happen..." Chairman Davis: "The development is going to be, so... and I think you are within in your rights to just withdraw your application without any kind of prejudice at all and allow to do just that... to submit a revised plan showing the true representation of how you intend to develop this property." Mr. Dibrell: "Ok." Chairman Davis: "Is that a request?" Mr. Dibrell: "That is; the only thing I'm not sure about is the timing of when we can bring the preliminary plat back to you." Chairman Davis: "Do you have the drainage information yet and everything that's.... there is a checklist of things you need to have in a preliminary plat. Go down that checklist and if those things are turned in at an appropriate time whether it be tomorrow; I don't know what the deadline is, but tomorrow with staff they can tell you the next available time that your development review committee meets and also when the next Commission meets. Commission won't meet again to vote until December 16. Is that possible?" Page 17 of 21 11/18/04 P&Z Minutes [The Chairman then had discussion with staff, but staff did not come to the microphone so the recording equipment could not pick up what was said by staff.] In response to something said by staff, the Chairman said: "It depends on how thorough your information is, particularly the drainage information." Staff commented and the Chairman responded: "Who do we send it out to?" Staff commented and Mr. Schopper said: "Isn't that who has it now?" Mr. Dibrell: "They do; we've corresponded back with them on a resubmittal to address a majority of their comments and I've had several meetings with them. I have not properly communicated that to Lance." Chairman Davis: "If we can't make it the December 16 meeting, I don't think we'll be too far stretched to try to help your situation. We have a worksession meeting on January 6. I know we have at least one item that will be voted on that night. I would not be opposed to staff adding this one preliminary plat to that. Worst case scenario is January 6. So you are asking that this item be tabled?" Mr. Dibrell: "Yes sir. Do you want us to review the landscaping issue?" Mr. Schopper or Chairman Davis said: "We need to take care of that immediately to give you direction." [they were both speaking - not sure which one said it] Chairman Davis: "We are going to do what the minutes and stuff said. I do know, my opinion, that there was going to be, and my intent was, there was going to be a 15-ft. landscape buffer along your west property line and a 6-ft. wall because this guy has a quiet business but you are adjacent to commercial property and you need to protect our future citizens." Mr. Dibrell: "What if we built an 8-ft. wall and asked for relief next to the building pad. There is a pretty good tree line in there." Chairman Davis: "I'll tell you what you need to do. You need to look at what was voted on by this body and the Council. Unless you want to change your zoning, you better be willing to live with that. You want to change your zoning you have the right to come in. If we made it, and I'm pretty sure we did, make it a stipulation of your zoning that there be the landscape buffer on your west property line and the 6-ft. fence, I feel strongly that was our recommendation." [Mr. Sapp said something but his microphone was not on so his comments are not audible and both the Chairman and Mr. Schopper are speaking at the same time.] Mr. Schopper: "....Because we've done it before over on Iron Horse...." Chairman Davis: ".. .sure, so if you want to vary from that then prepare yourself for another two to three month delay by going through another zoning request because it is a variance if you vary from 15-ft. to 14.5-ft. you are varying from what the ordinance says you are required to do." Page 18 of 21 11/18/04 P&Z Minutes Mr. Dibrell: "And if there was no mention of either of those items in the motion or the minutes, then. ..." Chairman Davis: "I'm going to hang you with it in the preliminary plat. You've got a good zoning. It does fit this neighborhood. Let's make sure we protect these future land owners, these homeowners in there, with adequate landscape buffer. That's the whole purpose of it is to buffer you from commercial property. Luckily, this is a pretty quiet commercial property. Don't forget, years ago, mini warehouses were just a holding zoning. They didn't really cash flow forever like they're doing now. Someone could come in and bulldoze those down and build something else in that commercial [industrial] zoning. Let's make sure that this subdivision builds what it needs to build to create that sound barrier and that landscape barrier." Mr. Shiflet: "For the entire parcel, what you have shown here as Block 1 and 2, is it fair to summarize that they be required to meet all of the engineering requirements." Chairman Davis: "There is a checklist on preliminary plat..." Mr. Shiflet: ".. .and my recollection is that is a part of it." Mr. Barton: "Yes it is. We require them to provide sufficient information on drainage, utility, and grading issues to adequately review a subdivision and say, yes, this will work." Mr. Shiflet: "Isn't that one of the items on the checklist and that seems to be the key issue at this point - the engineering requirements have not been met." Mr. Barton: "That's correct." Chairman Davis: "...and if we're sounding harsh... I really don't care that you go build two little models down there. I'm looking for the whole picture here. If it sounds harsh of the applicant, I'm sorry. If staff was trying to help you get a couple of deals working there to get two houses started I commend them for being thinkers and trying to help an applicant out, but in this particular case in my mind it doesn't fit. There are too many drainage issues and things hanging out there." Mr. Barton: "As to the CLOMR, I don't know if it's at the consultant's office. If he sent it directly to him, that's a little bit unusual procedure since we have the contract with the consultant to review the document. We have not seen it yet. So I don't know what it says." The applicant withdrew his request. Page 190f21 11/18/04 P&Z Minutes 9. AP 2004-02 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM B. H. & L. JOINT VENTURE TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 1-21, BLOCK 1 FOREST GLENN NORTH BEING AN AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 1-21, BLOCK 1 FOREST GLENN NORTH (LOCATED IN THE 8400 BLOCK OF PARK BROOK COURT AND SPENCE COURT - 10.00 ACRES). APPROVED The Chairman announced the case and noted that all engineer's comments have been addressed. He asked if there were any questions from the applicant. Mark Long, 1615 Precinct Line Rd., Hurst, stated that this final plat is to correct a surveyor oversight where the building lines were listed as 25-ft. instead of the correct measurement of 20-ft. Chairman Davis called for a motion noting that staff recommends approval. Mr. Schopper, seconded by Mr. Bowen, motioned to approve AP 2004-02 as presented. The motion was approved unanimously (7-0). 10. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM J & J NRH 100 FLP TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 53-65, BLOCK 1 AND 1-9, BLOCK 11 BRANDONWOOD ESTATES PHASE III BEING AN AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 53-65, BLOCK 1 AND LOTS 1-9, BLOCK 11 (LOCATED IN THE 7700 BLOCK OF BARFIELDS WAY AND THE 8400 BLOCK OF JOHNS WAY - 6.700 ACRES). APPROVED The Chairman announced the case and noted that Mr. Long is also the applicant for this case. He called for any questions. Ms. Cole noted that the existing Brandonwood has 25-ft. building lines rather than 20-ft. Mr. Long explained that the ordinance at the time allowed 25-ft. building lines. "The ordinance has been changed since then to allow 20-ft. building lines and the builders are trying to build bigger houses on the same size lots. Normally, John Barfield deed restricts to 2,500 sq. ft. although the ordinance only calls for 2,000. He normally builds a bigger house than the ordinance calls for.. u" Chairman Davis: "... he needs more footprint. Any more questions for Mr. Long?" Mr. Schopper, seconded by Mr. Sapp, motioned to approve AP 2004-03 as presented. The motion was approved unanimously (7-0). Page 20 of 21 11/18/04 P&Z Minutes 11. ADJOURNMENT As there was no other business, the Chairman adjourned the regular meeting at 9:07 p.m. Chairman C '=R,' ~ vCJ.AÀ" Q Richard Davis Page 21 of 21 11/18/04 P&Z Minutes