Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2003-02-20 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS FEBRUARY 20, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Don Bowen at 7:03 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Don Bowen Bill Schopper Ted Nehring James Laubacher John Lewis Brenda Cole Richard Davis Alternate ABSENT George Tucker CITY STAFF Zoning Administrator Asst. Director of Public Works Recording Secretary Dave Green Lance Barton Holly Blake 3. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 16, 2003 APPROVED Bill Schopper, seconded by Brenda Cole, motioned to approve the minutes of January 16,2003. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Page 1 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes 4. PS 2000-10 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM ARCADIA REALTY CORP. FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS TOWN CENTER LAKES ADDITION LOCATED SOUTH OF MID-CITIES BOULEVARD BETWEEN DAVIS BOULEVARD AND GRAPEVINE HWY (26 ACRES). APPROVED Zoning Administrator Dave Green summarized the case. There are a series of two lakes south of Mid-Cities Drive in the Home Town Development. There will be a series of hike and bike trails that will go up and down the lakes. The Parks Department comments ask for removal of the drainage easement designation shown on the plat. This designation could potentially prohibit the introduction of substantial structures including retaining walls and railings required for the trail. Additionally, existing structures such as the water well and electrical control panels could conflict with allowable structures within a designated drainage easement. Public Works Department comments state that all relevant issues have been addressed with this plat. Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat of the Lakes Addition. Chairman Bowen called for comments. Mr. Davis suggested that only Public Works comments be included. He suggested that the Parks and Recreation Department comments be disregarded since they are not platting issues. Mr. Schopper commented that he agreed with Mr. Davis. There were no other comments and the Chairman called for a motion. Bill Schopper, seconded by James Laubacher, motioned to approve PS 2000-10 with the stipulation that Parks and Recreation Department comments not be included. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 5. PS 2002-28 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM JOHN DICKERSON REPRESENTING JFD LAND, INC. FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF FOUNTAIN RIDGE ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 6000 BLOCK OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (46.5 ACRES). APPROVED Zoning Administrator, Dave Green summarized the case. This plat came before P&Z as a preliminary plat and zoning change about a year ago. This is a site that most people are familiar with as they travel north on Davis Boulevard. This area has gone through extensive grading over the past year or so. It sits approximately across from the NRH Post Office. This is a 175-lot residential subdivision. It was developed under the Page 2 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes concept of the Town Center zoning, since it is adjacent to the Town Center development along the north and east boundary. Town Center was developed as its own unique subdivision with special rules and regulations. Fountain Ridge also has its own special designs and regulations. This final plat has met all criteria and there are no further comments from staff. Staff recommends approval of the plat. Mr. Green stated that the applicant, Mr. Dickerson, would like to give a short presentation to the Commission members regarding the concept and character of this development. Chairman Bowen asked the commission members if they would like to hear from Mr. Dickerson. Mr. Lewis responded yes and explained that he is concerned that the lots are too small and that dense parking might occur in the streets. He asked if there are plans to have a homeowners association and if parking would be restricted to the alleyway. John Dickerson, 8333 Douglas, Dallas, Texas, came forward and stated that Fountain Ridge is a subset of Town Center. He stated it was their desire to achieve zoning based on Town Center criteria and to use Town Center guidelines to create their own design manual. He stated that they have two builders for the 175 lots, with two zones - a general zone and an edge zone. There will be a series of lakes, which originally was a stream, which buffers this development from the La Casita Mobile Home Park (7800 Mockingbird Lane). He stated that they will allow three styles of homes: 1) a traditional style home, which will include Texas Craftsman style homes and Colonial style homes; 2) a regional home, which will look similar to a Texas Hill Country style home incorporating a lot of stone; and 3) an Old World style home, which includes the English Tutor and The French Rural Style. Primary building materials will be brick and stone. Mr. Dickerson explained that upon entering the community off Davis Boulevard, there will be a 36-ft. wide boulevard with a fountain at the first intersection and a fountain at the section intersection, hence the name Fountain Ridge. A vehicle entering the community will come down a long boulevard, creating the arrived sense, passing three fountains as they advance into the neighborhood. Mr. Dickerson showed examples of the two lakes and where the lake transitions back into a drainage facility and then moves on south through the La Casita Mobile Home Park, which is behind the community. He stated that they planned a hike and bike trail or jogging trail back between the lake and the La Casita Community. Mr. Dickerson stated that the paving section on the entry boulevard is 18 ft. face to face. No houses face the main boulevard. A standard street will be 27 ft. face to face of curb, which is much like an area as in SMU in Dallas or TCU in Fort Worth. The goal is to slow down traffic, but not impede traffic. Mr. Dickerson stated that these are all elements that are guidelines from Home Town, which they incorporated into the community at Fountain Ridge. He explained that Terry Cunningham of Terry Cunningham Architect's offices in Bedford helped design this plan. Mr. Dickerson showed examples of the turn in and boulevard entry, the screening fence, the stone base, and the arc. He stated that the arc shows a strong presence and drive up appeal. He stated that there will be planters in the center median. They will plant red oaks for the right-of-way on Davis Boulevard and have live oaks for the evergreen field on both Page 3 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes sides. He stated that there will be a tree lined boulevard leading down to the fountains and into the home sites. Mr. Lewis asked if there is going to be a Homeowner's Association. Will they be controlling some of the street parking? Mr. Dickerson answered yes. In the 40 and 50-foot wide lot sections, those are all rear entry homes. There will be a Homeowner's Association with police powers since these are not private streets. Mr. Dickerson explained that he wrote the guidelines and restrictions and they are very strict. He stated that the subdivision will also be under city enforcement. He stated that in private street communities many cities have a hard time enforcing city codes on those city streets. He stated that this subdivision is under the guidelines and control of the police powers of the City of North Richland Hills. Mr. Davis stated that he hadn't seen the preliminary plat. He asked for an explanation of Lot 17, which is shown as a common area. Mr. Dickerson explained that Lot 17 is designated to be a passive park with park benches. He stated that there is a passageway, so that somebody could get through to the other area walk on the sidewalk and go down to the lake area. He stated that they wanted to try to tie the common areas together. Mr. Davis commented that on the plat a street is called Barton Springs Court, but it is not a court. He asked if that could be changed to Barton Springs Drive. Mr. Dickerson responded that it could be changed. Chairman Bowen added that Bosque River Court is not a court either. Mr. Dickerson agreed to make corrections. Ms. Cole asked if Drees would be doing the entire general area and if Goodman would be doing all the edge or is it going to be a mixture? Mr. Dickerson answered that Drees would be doing the 65, 70, 75-foot lots, which are in the edge area. In the general area will be Goodman Homes, in the 40 and 50-foot lots. All the Goodman Homes will be rear entry. Drees 65-foot lots will be rear entry. He stated that they eliminated any "J" (side entry) drives. He stated that it was important to the City and to the Commission and the Council that there be no "J" drives. He indicated that they have a rear detached garage and that they may have the side swing garage, but it only fits on a 75-foot wide lot. There were no other comments or questions and the Chairman called for a motion. Richard Davis, seconded by John Lewis, motioned to approve PS 2002-28 subject to the engineer's comments and subject to two street name changes. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Page 4 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes 6. PS 2002-34 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM WILLIAM CHRASTECKY FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF RUMFIELD ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 8900 BLOCK OF RUMFIELD ROAD (1.53 ACRES). APPROVED Zoning Administrator Dave Green summarized the case. This is located in the 8400 block of Rumfield. It is a multi-acre tract, which has never been subdivided. Mr. Chrastecky wants to split the tract into two lots. This lot will be sold to another individual for the purposes of constructing a residence. The current zoning on the lot is AG (Agricultural). They understand that the zoning category will have to be changed to residential district in order to get a residential building permit for construction. Public Works Department comments indicate that all requirements have been met on this plat and staff recommends that this plat be approved. Chairman Bowen called for comments. Mr. Davis commented that someone should check to see if there isn't already a Rumfield Addition. Mr. Green stated that staff would do that. If a conflict is found, the name can be changed before the final is brought back. Ted Nehring, seconded by John Lewis, motioned to approve PS 2002-34. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 7. PS 2002-41 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM NORTHEAST TARRANT BAPTIST CHURCH FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF NORTHEAST TARRANT BAPTIST CHURCH ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 7000 BLOCK OF SMITHFIELD ROAD (6.2454 ACRES). APPROVED Zoning Administrator Dave Green summarized the case. This is the site of the Northeast Tarrant Baptist Church on Smithfield Road. For many years this was a large single family residence. The church purchased it approximately a year ago and is submitting a plat since the property has never been platted. During the past year, staff has reviewed the site plan for the church facility, and has also reviewed and approved the preliminary plat of the church. Public Works Department comments state that the applicant has addressed all items of concern. Staff recommends approval. Page 5 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes The Chairman called for comments or questions. There were none and the Chairman called for a motion. John Lewis, seconded by Ted Nehring, motioned to approve PS 2002-41. the motion carried unanimously (7-0). 8. PS 2002-46 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM CLASSIC CONCEPTS DEVELOPMENT FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF LOT 6, BLOCK F RICHLAND OAKS ADDITION, 4TH FILING LOCATED IN THE 8200 BLOCK OF GRAPEVINE HIGHWAY (.64 ACRES). APPROVED Zoning Administrator Dave Green summarized the case. The next two items on the agenda are both connected to the same site. Currently, there is a dentist office for a Dr. Williams who has a dental practice and a small building on this site. He has submitted plans through the Classic Concepts Development individuals to do a large expansion of the existing dental office. This particular site has been platted, but it was only platted as a block. It has never been platted as an individual lot within that block. The site is currently zoned C-1 (Commercial). Public Works Department has one issue concerning the labeling of an easement on the plat. This is considered a minor issue and staff recommends approval for the replat of this site. Chairman Bowen called for any comments. There were none and the Chairman called for a motion. Richard Davis, seconded by Brenda Cole, motioned to approve PS 2002-46 with the stipulation that Public Works issues regarding the labeling of an easement be addressed and to change the building line along EI Dorado Boulevard to a 24.5- foot building line. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 9. PZ 2002-39 CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST FROM CLASSIC CONCEPTS DEVELOPMENT FOR A DENTIST OFFICE IN THE 8200 BLOCK OF GRAPEVINE HIGHWAY (.64 ACRES). APPROVED Zoning Administrator Dave Green explained that this is the site plan for the same property that was just discussed. The property has frontage on two streets -- the lot fronts onto Grapevine Highway, and EI Dorado Drive is a side street so, in essence, this Page 6 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes is a corner lot. The existing dental office is at the back of the property away from Grapevine Highway. The expansion of the office is toward the front of the property facing Grapevine Highway. Several things are required. Since there is residential adjacency along the eastern property line, the applicant is providing a 6-foot masonry wall as required by ordinance. There is also a 15-foot landscape buffer occurring along this area, which is also required. Along the frontages of Grapevine Highway and EI Dorado Drive there are 15-foot landscape set backs, which are required. Also, there are a series of large street trees in those areas with some of the accompanying entryway features and shrubbery. There is a tremendous amount of landscaping and it should make it a very aesthetic looking project. The actual new construction that will take place is very similar to what can be seen in some other areas where there are professional offices. It takes on the character of a nice, high-end type of residential structure. There will be a rock face with composition roof with a very high-pitched roof structure. Since the project is within 200 feet of residential zoning, the zoning ordinance requires site plan approval for any kind of expansion. The site plan, as presented, meets all the criteria. In many ways, it exceeds the criteria for new development. Staff recommends approval of this project. The Chairman called for comments. There were none and the Chairman called for a motion. Bill Schopper, seconded by James Laubacher motioned to approve PZ 2002-39. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 10. PS 2002-49 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM HAROLD HEWITT FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 1 R-1 & 1 R-2, BLOCK 34 HOLIDAY NORTH ADDITION, SECTION 7 LOCATED AT 7504 CIRCLE DRIVE (.45 ACRES). APPROVED Zoning Administrator Dave Green summarized the case. This is a single R-2 zoned lot at the corner of Circle Drive and Wynwood Drive. The applicant wishes to replat the lot, dividing it into two lots. Under state law, a public hearing is required. Both of the lots that are being created meet all the minimum lot and area requirements of the R-2 district. The staff cover letter in your packet stated that there were some additional items needed, but an updated letter from the Public Works Department indicates that all items have been addressed. Staff recommends approval. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing. There was no one wishing to speak and the Chairman closed the public hearing. Chairman Bowen called for comments from the Commission members. Page 7 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes Ms. Cole commented that in looking at lot 1 R-1 there are 25-foot building sidelines and a 7.5 utility easement. She asked how much room that leaves to build on? Mr. Green responded that it does narrow the lot for actual buildable space, so the applicant may have to decide to build a narrower two-story structure. Mr. Davis commented that it still leaves 51 feet, which is pretty wide. There were no other comments and the Chairman called for a motion. Ted Nehring, seconded by John Lewis motioned to approve PS 2002-49. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 11. PS 2002-50 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM REBEL PROPERTIES II, LTD. FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF IRON HORSE PHASE II ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 6300 BLOCK OF BROWNING DRIVE (30.9 ACRES). APPROVED Zoning Administrator Dave Green summarized the case. Two or three months ago this was a rezoning request. The site was rezoned from industrial to R-2, which requires lots in the range of 9000 square feet and houses in the range of 2000 square feet. The applicant is proposing 101 residential lots. The site is located on the north side of Browning Drive. The boundary on the west side and the boundary on the north side are both boundaries of Watauga and Haltom City. On Browning Drive, there are two access points that have been provided into the subdivision. There are a series of cul-de-sacs along the eastern boundary of this subdivision. On a cul-de-sac, sometimes it is difficult to get the minimum lot size and depth that the ordinance requires. The applicant's engineer prepared an exhibit to identify the ten lots along the eastern boundary of the site that do not meet the minimum lot size and depth. Some lot dimensions are slightly less than the minimum requirements. The zoning ordinance allows the Planning Commission the authority to grant variances to minimum lot size, if the situation merits the variance. The applicant's plot layout meets the minimum requirements of the zoning district. Public Works Department comments have been satisfied. Staff recommends approval of this subdivision. Staff asks that the motion include acknowledging waivers on the ten lots that do not meet minimum lot size requirements. Mr. Lewis commented that the issue is not minimum lot size, but rather minimum lot dimensions. He commented that the lots are very generous in size. Ms. Cole asked what "special pad" means in their exception request. Page 8 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes The applicant, Mark Wood, 6317 Riviera Drive, North Richland Hills, explained that it is a matter of interpretation. The lot size is in excess of the minimum. The ordinance requires a minimum of 110-ft. depth, but the issue is in how that depth is defined. Mr. Wood's interpretation from the zoning book is that you can define that from a middle of a lot front to the middle of a lot back and under that interpretation, they meet the requirements. He stated that if you go to both sides you can find any extreme and it is not 11 O-ft. at every point. He stated that in his opinion it is not defined that way in the book, but to be consistent they are asking for exceptions. He stated that the 50 x 70-ft. pads they put on the lots are for exhibit purposes, for the builder's benefit, not for ordinance purposes. He further stated that those that are shown as special might be less than 50 x 70-ft. pads, but they can still hold well in excess of 2000 square foot homes. Ms. Cole commented that the15-foot industrial strip is going to be permanent open space, which will provide at least some backyard even though pools and buildings cannot be built on it. Mr. Wood replied that the cul-de-sac lots are very large lots. The new ordinance requires a much larger cul-de-sac size that what has been allowed in the past. He stated that they were able to achieve the ordinance requirements, but it pushed those lots back a little bit and caused the front of the lot to be narrower, but the overall size is still there. Richard Davis, seconded by Brenda Cole, motioned to approve PS 2002-50 with the acceptance of the exception plan. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 12. PS 2002-51 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM THE MAKENS COMPANY FOR THE APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOTS 2, 3 & 4, BLOCK 1, GIBSON ADDITION LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF PRECINCT LINE ROAD AND DAVID BOULEVARD (3.6 ACRES). APPROVED Zoning Administrator Dave Green summarized the case. This is a plat request and the next item on the agenda concerns one of the lots on this site. This site is located near the intersection of Precinct Line and Davis Boulevard. There is an existing Lot 1, Block 1 of Gibson Addition which has a fairly newly built service station, although the service station has gone out of business. The applicant is adding additional lots along the periphery. The next item on the agenda requests a special use permit for the lot at the very north end of the site. Public Works Department comments indicate that all issues have been resolved. Staff recommends approval of this plat. Page 9 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes Mr. Davis asked if the sign easement that the City wants should specifically say North Richland Hills sign easement. Mr. Green responded that he neglected to mention that. Both on the plat and on the site plan, the applicant has granted the Parks Department a 20 x 30 tract of land. There are two common boundary lines - one with the City of Keller and another with the City of Colleyville. The Parks Department is responsible for putting up the signs that say "Welcome To North Richland Hills" and the applicants have allowed the City to have two easements for these signs. Chairman Bowen stated that Mr. Davis had a good idea to designate that it is a North Richland Hills sign easement. Mr. Davis explained that he would like to see it more clearly stated that the easement is for NRH signage, rather than someone thinking they can put a billboard there. Bill Schopper, seconded by Richard Davis, motioned to approve PS 2002-51 with the stipulation that the North Richland Hills Sign Easement be designated. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 13. PZ 2002-41 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM THE MAKENS COMPANY FOR THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP) FOR A RETAIL TIRE FACILITY (DISCOUNT TIRES) IN THE 8700 BLOCK OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (1.55 ACRES). APPROVED Zoning Administrator Dave Green summarized the SUP. This is a portion of the plat, which was just approved by the P&Z Commission. This is the very north lot, which forms the frontage road to this particular site. North of the north boundary is the City of Keller, past the eastern boundary line of the site is the City of Colleyville. Property immediately to the south contains the closed gasoline service station. This is a request in the C-1 (Commercial) district for a special use permit for a Discount Tire Facility. The applicants have presented a request for a single story, flat roof design with 4 bays. The front of the building will be facing Davis Boulevard. Building materials include a combination of concrete block and split face concrete block with some detailed features. They are providing the required 15-foot landscaping along the frontage of the building. Along the south boundary, landscaping is being proposed that is adjacent existing commercial. In terms of signage, under the recently revised sign ordinance, a maximum of two signs are allowed - one on the frontage and the other must be over a public entrance. It appears that there is a public entrance on the north side. Each of the bays along the Page 10 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes south side could be considered a public entrance. One of the wall signs will need to be eliminated or the applicant could proceed to City Council for a waiver on that. City Council is the sign review board and can grant a waiver towards that signage. There is no monument sign being proposed by this development. Typically there are monument signs with developments like this. This one doesn't have one. Mr. Green further stated that on the site plan there is a reference to a retaining wall. The land has sharp elevations over the adjacent property to the east and to the north. A retaining wall is required and staff would like to see an elevation of the retaining wall since this is an entryway to the City. Staff would prefer to see a decorative wall since about 1000 cars pass this point everyday. A "Welcome to North Richland Hills" entryway sign will be erected and a retaining wall with a decorative touch to it would be a welcome feature and give a positive image of the City. Chairman opened the public hearing. The applicant, Jim Makens, 2300 Airport Freeway, Ste. 230, Bedford, Texas, 76022, stated that his engineer, Bruce Dunn, had a comment regarding the retaining wall. Mr. Makens stated that if there were any questions concerning the store itself, representatives from Discount Tire were present. Bruce Dunn with Welch Engineering at 4901 Cagle Drive, North Richland Hills, Texas, 76180, stated that they are proposing a natural millsap stone wall. Mr. Schopper asked why there would be no monument sign. Rick Sims, Vice President of Discount Tires responded to Mr. Schopper's question but his reply could not be heard. He answered from his seat in the audience rather than coming to the podium. Mr. Davis commented that this is one of the best tire stores he has seen in a plan in years. He wished the applicant the best of luck. He commented that he knew there were busy at Rufe Snow where he goes for service. The Chairman called forward others wishing to speak. Dr. Guthrie, 1200 W. Murphy Road, Colleyville, Texas, 76034, resides next door to this site. He stated that he is not against Discount Tires. He believes they are proposing a nice building. He is concerned that tires will fall down onto his property. He owns the property to the east and there are large deep slopes leading down to his property. On the northeast corner there is a 10-ft. deep, 8-ft. wide gully. He stated that on the east side of his property the slope already has a rock slide. His property begins at the bottom of the rock slide. There is another rock slide on the east border. There is debris in the slope. He would like to see a retaining wall between the two properties. He mentioned and showed examples of existing retaining walls in the area and in Grapevine by a Wal-Mart. Page 11 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes Dr. Guthrie stated that he has two opposing concerns: 1) too much erosion due to too much water runoff, and 2) not enough water for his pond. He has a pond on his property that is going dry. He would like water for his pond but with this proposed development he is concerned that he will end up with too much water. He stated that during a rainfall all of the water will come out of a 24-inch pipe on the northeast corner. He is concerned about how much water is going to be there. He would like a retaining wall, because there is already soil erosion and a huge gully at that corner with dirt coming down onto his property. He restated that he is not opposed to Discount Tire. He stated that the retaining wall that is being proposed on the north side is an excellent idea. He stated that much of the traffic traveling south on Davis seems to turn left onto Precinct Line Road. He believes signage at that point will be very important for North Richland Hills so the proper elevation is important. He repeated that he is concerned about the 20-ft. drop onto his property and that he would like to have water for his pond. Lance Barton from the Public Works Department stated that the preliminary plans indicate that adjacent to the east side of the property the applicant will be stabilizing the slope. It will be a three-to-one slope, which is a standard degree of slope for this type of fill. It is mobile and maintainable and it will be stabilized with erosion control blanket and hydra mulching. Mr. Barton asked the applicant if the property would be irrigated. Mr. Dunn replied yes. Mr. Barton then stated that since it will be irrigated, grass would grow and help maintain a stable slope. Mr. Barton stated that some water could actually make it into Dr. Guthrie's pond. Most of this site drains from the southwest to the northeast. It is hard to tell where the drainage divide is that would affect the pond directly. The run off from the site will be collected in a storm drain system at the inlet in the corner and exit at the northeast corner of the site. It will dump into a creek channel and flow in its natural direction. Mr. Lewis asked if any water could be deflected to Dr. Guthrie's satisfaction? The applicant's engineer, Mr. Dunn, responded that on this lot for Discount Tire the development plans do not allow any of the water to go to Dr. Guthrie's pond. The water from two of the vacant tracts go there. He stated that they will be more than happy to take water over to his pond. He said that it is not very often, as engineers, that they are asked to give more water - usually it is the opposite. He stated that as the other two tracts develop, they could work something out to send water to his pond. The Discount Tire site does not affect the pond because it is up stream. The current slope is two to one. It is kind of steep. It will be laid back to a three to one for more stabilization. It will be grassed and irrigated. Mr. Davis asked if Mr. Dunn was positive it would be irrigated. Mr. Dunn responded affirmatively. Chairman Bowen asked Mr. Makens if he wanted to say anything further. Page 12 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes Mr. Makens stated that Dr. Guthrie's concerns have been addressed with the exception of a stone or masonry type wall on the east side of the property. He stated that he is not sure what they can do about that. He stated that they are going to meet afterwards and talk about possibly getting him some additional water. He explained that they jumped through hoops to take all the water north because they never dreamed in a million years that somebody wanted the water. Mr. Davis asked if the engineer's retaining wall drawing was going to be made part of the application. Mr. Makens' response was "absolutely." Dr. Guthrie returned to the podium to restate that he would like a retaining wall on the east side of the property to control debris. He understands that the Discount Tire property will not give him any water, but that the property that is east and south of the existing Conoco will drain into his pond. He remains concerned about all of the drainage ending up at the northeast corner. Chairman Bowen closed the public hearing. Brenda Cole, seconded by Ted Nehring, motioned to approve PZ 2002-41 with the stipulation that a retaining wall and irrigation of the slope be included. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 14. PS 2003-05 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM ERNEST HEDGCOTH CONSULTING ENGINEERS ON BEHALF OF CENTER POINT CHURCH FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1 CENTER POINT CHURCH ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 7800 BLOCK OF MID-CITIES BOULEVARD (8.49 ACRES). APPROVED Zoning Administrator Dave Green summarized the case. Mid Cites Boulevard forms the northern boundary of this property. Smithfield Rd. forms the eastern boundary. Abbott Avenue forms the western boundary. Within the last couple of months, the preliminary plat and site plan for this church were approved. This is now the final plat for the site. There is a minor comment from the Public Works Department concerning the survey of the site. Staff recommends approval subject to that one comment from the Public Works Department. There were no questions or comments and the Chairman called for a motion. Ted Nehring, seconded by James Laubacher, motioned to approve PS 2003-05 subject to Public Works comments. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Page 13 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes 15. PS 2003-06 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM GREATER N.R.H. PARTNERS, L TD FOR THE APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 19R, 20R, 22R, 23R, & 24R, BLOCK 1 OF THE NORTH RIDGE MEADOWS ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 7000 BLOCK OF RIDGE CREST DRIVE. APPROVED Zoning Administrator Dave Green summarized the case. This site is located north of Hightower Road, parallel to Holiday Lane, which forms the eastern boundary to the site. This subdivision went through preliminary and final approval of the site and the plat was filed in the courthouse. Certain streets were put in and there is a screening wall along the Holiday Lane side of this plat. As utilities were being placed in this site, it was noticed that there is a drainage easement that is tied into a storm water sewer inlet. On the original plat that was filed at the courthouse, this easement is located in an inaccurate manner. This amendment shows the correct location involving Lots 19R, 20R, 22R, 23R and 24R of Block 1. Public Works comments have been addressed. Staff recommends approval of this amended plat. There were no comments or questions and the Chairman called for a motion. Richard Davis, seconded by Bill Schopper, motioned to approve PS 2003-06. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 16. PS 2003-08 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM LARRY AND LINDA KJELDGAARD FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 1 DOUBLE K RANCH ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 7300 BLOCK OF BURSEY ROAD (5.2 ACRES). APPROVED Zoning Administrator Dave Green summarized the case. This is a narrow lot, which fronts on Bursey Road. It is a long lot that travels to the south. There is an adjacent residential subdivision to the east of this site. Londonderry dead-ends at the site. The preliminary plat was approved in August 2002. A rezoning request was also recently approved. Originally the entire tract was zoned AG (Agricultural) even though there was a residential structure located on what is the proposed Lot 1. Lot 1 was rezoned to R-1. The balance of the site, which is Lot 2, is zoned R-1-S. Mr. and Mrs. Kjeldgarrd have intentions of building a house on that lot. The tract has a number of out buildings and horses. They want to retain the horses and have the ability to build a house. That is Page 14 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes allowed in R-1-S. This is the Final Plat of the two lots. Public Works Department comments state that all requirements have been met. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Schopper asked if Londonderry is a permanent easement for turnaround. Mr. Green responded that the site has been designed with the approval of the Fire Department. The Fire Department had concerns about being able to get their equipment to the site. Mr. Green indicated he didn't know if there would be a hammerhead or circular drive. He wondered if temporary needed to be removed. Mr. Davis stated that he didn't believe it meant temporary easement, but rather that it is a temporary turnaround. The easement is permanent. He suggested that it be called a 30-ft. emergency turnaround easement. Mr. Schopper suggested replacing the word "temporary" with "emergency." Mr. Green suggested that the Commission stipulate it as such. Bill Schopper, seconded by James Laubacher, motioned to approve PS 2003-08 with the stipulation that "temporary" easement be replaced with "emergency" easement. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 17. PZ 2002-23 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM JEFF MCKINNEY FOR THE APPROVAL OF A ZONING CHANGE FROM "C-1" COMMERCIAL TO "R-4-D" DUPLEX LOCATED AT 8023 STARNES ROAD (3.92 ACRES). DENIED Zoning Administrator Dave Green summarized the case. The applicant came forward last year with a request for townhouses, but he was also considering doing duplexes. The applicant withdrew the request for townhouses and is now bringing forward a request for duplexes. The applicant is requesting a rezone from "C-1" Commercial to "R-4-D" Duplex. The site is located off Davis Boulevard behind the closed Winn Dixie store site and beside a residential area. A fire station is located nearby. Northeast Tarrant Baptist Church originally intended to build a church facility on this location. The Comprehensive Plan reflects that intention and calls for public or semi-public use. Staff has no comment as to whether or not this fits with the Comprehensive Plan. What is being proposed is up to this Commission to decide whether it is proper for this location. Based on planning principals, it does fit in terms of a step down in intensity before reaching the adjacent single-family area. The only other comment that staff has is that the applicant has not submitted a street or lot pattern, or how many duplexes would be placed on the site. That information will take place later at the platting stage. The Commission members have a letter that was received when this case came up Page 15 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes previously. Another letter was received this afternoon that was handed out during the pre-session. Both are concerns from individuals in the adjacent subdivision. Mr. Laubacher asked if there are any plans for the Winn Dixie property. Mr. Green answered that he did not know of any. Nothing has been introduced to the Planning Department. Mr. Laubacher asked about the property to the north. Mr. Green responded that there was an inquiry by phone from an individual interested in a residential use. Mr. Green stated that he did not personally take the call, but was aware of it. There has not been further contact from the individual. The applicant, Jeff McKinney, 7428 Hightower, stated that he is trying to mimic what Hurst has done on Mountain View. He explained that they have duplexes that separate a residential neighborhood to the north and at the south end of the street is a retail strip center. He stated that he intends to build approximately 12 duplexes. Mr. Horton (Travis Horton & Associates, a real estate appraiser and consultant) did a study and determined that the "C-1 II zoned vacant property is devaluing the residential property next to it at this time. The study indicates that a duplex development will not further devalue the adjacent residential property. Ms. Cole asked if the duplexes will be single story with two-car garages. Mr. McKinney responded that he plans to build 1 00% brick, single story duplexes with two-car garages. He stated that he could go rear entry or front entry. He has three bedroom, two bath, and two-car garage plans. Ms. Cole asked if he had any idea on the roof pitch. Mr. McKinney stated that he did not. Mr. Davis asked if Mr. McKinney had the planned square footage of each unit? Mr. McKinney stated that he did not. He guessed that it would be anywhere from 1350 to 1550 sq. ft. per site. Mr. Davis inquired as to the existing zoning requirements for a duplex minimum. Mr. Green responded it would be a 3500 sq. ft. lot. Chairman Bowen added that he believed the minimum to be 1100 sq. ft. per side. Mr. Davis asked Mr. McKinney if he was willing to commit to a square footage minimum tonight. Mr. McKinney indicated he would. Mr. Davis explained that he believes that the main thing the neighbors are concerned about is how the duplexes are going to look. Are they going to look like residential Page 16 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes homes? Are they 3000 sq. ft. with just a dividing wall? That is fairly larger than some of the houses to the west. Mr. Davis suggested that the neighbors are looking for whether or not the duplexes are going to enhance the neighborhood. He suggested that the applicant give the neighbors and this Commission some assurance or he would be fighting an uphill battle. Mr. McKinney responded that he does not have a problem stating that he will put a minimum of 1350 sq. ft. per side. Mr. Lewis commented that if rezoning to R-4-D, the applicant would have to design his duplexes within those limits. He stated that if it is a PD, then this Commission, and the neighbors too, would have an opportunity to look at it before it occurs. He asked if the applicant is willing to consider a planned development. Mr. McKinney explained that with a planned development he has to spend a lot of money up front and then still take the chance of getting turned down. He stated that he would rather know now and then come back with plans and let this Commission approve the plat. Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Green for verification of plat approval if R-4-D is approved. Mr. Green stated it would be considered later along the same guidelines as every other plat. Mr. Schopper commented that he is not in favor of zoning this for duplexes. He hypothesized that if the applicant decided he did not want to meet the criteria set out for the development, he could sell it to another duplex developer and the process would start over again. He suggested a planned development. Mr. Davis commented that house size controls the value and that 1100 sq. ft. is too small. He suggested 1400 sq. ft. He asked if a minimum square footage could be designated. Chairman Bowen stated that he did not think the Commission could do that, although a recommendation could be made to the Council. Mr. Green added that he has some reservations about that. He would want an opinion from the City Attorney. Mr. Green believes that conditional zoning is not permissible thus a conditional stipulation could not be added. Mr. Davis stated that as a recommending body on zoning his goal is to make the homeowners feel more comfortable. The square footage is what concerns the neighbors. If this body cannot recommend that it be approved with a minimum of some square footage, then the recommendation should be for denial. Mr. Nehring asked if a minimum square footage would apply to a new owner if the current owner sold it? Mr. Davis stated that the zoning would stay with the property. Chairman Bowen reminded the Commissioners that they are a recommending body and minimum square footage cannot be made a stipulation. Mr. Laubacher mentioned an example of down zoning. Mr. Green suggested that what Mr. Laubacher was eluding to is the ability to change in one direction, but not the other Page 17 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes direction, at a public meeting. Generally speaking, that can be done when going to a less intense district. It would not be possible to go in the opposite direction because that would be more intense than what was advertised. Last year, the Ember Oaks Estates subdivision came before the P&Z Commission with a request for R-3 and there were concerns about the minimum house size. That case was forwarded to the City Council and Council stopped it. In this case, because of the opinion of the adjacent neighborhood, staff would rather see a PD or R-3 lots with R-2 size houses on it. There is still room to maneuver between here and Council. Mr. Green also clarified that the minimum size allowable for duplexes is 1200 sq. ft. Mr. Davis remarked that 1200 per side would be a 2400 sq. ft. home. He stated that he did not believe the neighbors want a shopping center behind them with truck traffic and dumpsters. However, the applicant is asking for a free reign whereas the neighbors and Mr. Davis are asking for some commitments. Mr. Davis stated that he feels a recommendation of a square footage size can be given to Council. Mr. McKinney responded that he has no problem committing to a minimum square footage. He stated that one concern that many people had is they did not want two- story buildings. Once you get into 1500 sq. ft. per side there is the potential of having to go up depending on how the lot sits. Mr. Davis responded that the applicant has the potential of needing a bigger lot. Mr. Lewis commented that this is where planned development might come in handy. There could be single story along the fence line and two story configurations on the opposite side. Mr. Davis added that two story would be better because it would block the Winn Dixie. Mr. Lewis further stated that the applicant wants to be assured that he is not wasting his time. Mr. Lewis does not have a problem with duplexes being allowed there, but he would like to see it as a planned development so the residents can be assured that it will have quality, particularly on the fence side for the adjacent property owners. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing. The following were in favor, but did not wish to speak: Thomas Blessing, 6963 Lowery Lane, Rick Figueroa, 8800 Kirk Lane, Laverne Howard, 6721 Fair Meadows, and Paula Howard, 6736 Fair Meadows. The Chairman announced that a letter was received from Tim and Elisa Darnell. He explained that it states that they encourage the Commission to maintain its commitment to single family residences in this case. Jeff Holden, 8312 Juniper Drive, stated that he considers duplexes to be an eyesore and that they usually end up being rental property. He stated that there are already Page 18 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes several rental homes in the neighborhood and he believes that most of the rental homes have created, and continue to create, problems for the neighborhood. He gave specific examples and expressed his displeasure with the response he has received from the City of North Richland Hills in trying to resolve these problems. He believes the City has ignored the problems in the neighborhood and that if duplexes are built there will be additional problems that will be ignored by the City. He further suggested that there is a shantytown along Davis Boulevard. He stated that graffiti is showing up on the empty Winn Dixie building and that trucks are starting to use it for overnight parking. The Chairman asked Mr. Holden to get back to the property in question. Mr. Holden stated that he believes duplexes would further devalue his property. He would like to see single-family residences. He stated that one of the City Council goals, listed on the website, is security. If anything other than single family residences are allowed, he believes the neighborhood will lose what little security they have and that crime will increase in the neighborhood. Aaron Reale, 8204 Starnes Road, lives directly across the street from this property. He stated that he has many of the same concerns as Mr. Holden. He stated that most of the houses that back up to this property are around 1600 sq. ft. with an appraisal of about $100,000. He has about 2300 sq. ft. and the people on both sides of him are similar. They both have swimming pools. His tax appraisal was $139,000 last year. He believes the City might have an opportunity to make this a win-win situation by purchasing the property and developing a park or a small library. Mr. Reale stated that the applicant has bought a piece of property that he can't do anything with, but Mr. Reale does not want the applicant's bad investment to adversely affect the property value of Mr. Reale's home. Allan Fitzwater, 7409 Forrest Lane, stated that his property value has gone up every year since he moved into the house in 1998. He stated that there have been about three or four houses sold on his street at $110,000. He believes one sold about a year ago at $125,000. He does not believe his property value has decreased since the Winn Dixie moved out, but he stated that it does not help having the grocery store empty. With 12 duplexes coming in, that means 24 families, and with only 1200 sq. ft. per side, those are small units. He would prefer to see single-family dwellings. He suggests 12 homes instead of 12 duplexes. He stated that he would really like to see a nice, quiet, doctors office go in there or single-family residences. Penny Sherley, 7404 Forrest Lane, stated that her property directly backs up to the vacant piece of property owned by Mr. McKinney. She is an underwriting manager in the mortgage business and she looks at appraisals everyday in the North Richland Hills area. She is familiar with appraisal values and what situations cause a derogatory in an area. She stated that one of the things that attracted her to her home is that her house directly backs up to a lot of trees that buffer the vacant lot from Starnes. In the summertime she can sit out on her porch at night and it is quiet. If trees are removed, the aesthetics of the neighborhood will change. She stated that the whole North Page 19 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes Richland Hills area is being built up at $200,000 and up. Her property values are increasing. Currently her home is worth $135,000. She paid $104,000 for it in 1997. She stated that if the buffer is taken away and duplexes are built, her neighborhood will lose homebuyers. The duplexes on the other side of Davis on the corner of Rumfield have been in foreclosure and HUD notices have been issued. Duplexes are typically rental property and rental property means potential burglaries in the area. Only investors buy rental property. They buy duplexes and they buy town homes because they are like apartments and that is what turns over. In the current zoning of C-1 Commercial it is going to take a select type of business or church to build on this lot. They are less likely to dispose of the trees and it will only be one-story. If that happened, she would not have to lose her privacy. She asked that the petition for Mr. McKinney be denied. Jack Vise, 7420 Forrest Lane, stated that he lives directly against the property in question. He stated that his neighbors have covered everything, but he would like to point out one thing. He went onto the North Richland Hills website and pulled off the goals and values of the City Council. He assumes that every other department in the City supports these goals and values. One item that caught his eye was protection of home value and ownership, and below that, protect and maintain property values. Back to the top again it says community pride and identity, increase our image unto others and ourselves outside the community. He stated that he completely supports that as a member of the North Richland Hills community. He feels that duplexes devalue property value. Something commercial that operates during the day when they are all at work is not going to matter to them. He believes there is plenty of room for single- family residences even if it is on a cul-de-sac type situation. He is opposed. Tami Gieder, 7428 Forrest Lane, stated that when she purchased her house in 1999, she did not buy in a particular neighborhood over on Holiday Lane because there were duplexes in the neighborhood. She said they were nice duplexes and they fit in with the homes that were over there, but they didn't buy because they were rental properties. She stated that statistics show that sex offenders live in rental properties; people who commit crimes live in rental properties. She has two small children and she does not want to live backed up to a duplex. She would rather look at the empty field and empty Winn Dixie. She hopes the Commission does not approve this request. Joe Gieder, 7428 Forrest Lane, stated that in 1979 he lived about 8 blocks away from the current house he lives in. He is proud of the City. He and his wife lived in Euless, but came back to North Richland Hills for the family feel available here. He feels they are not getting the right deal. He believes the right deal is putting houses in there. Carlos Garcia, 7336 Timberidge Drive, stated that like everyone else here, he is worried about the value on his house. He has been living there for 7 years. The people across the street rent and do not take care of their yard. He said that he works hard on his yard to make it look nice. He does not want this case to be approved. Page 20 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes Tammie Hussey, 7328 Timberidge Drive, stated that every evening she sits in the front yard. All of the neighborhood kids play with her children. She has a perfect view of that property. She was excited about the church coming in and extremely disappointed when that fell through. She works for a civil engineering firm, and is familiar with the process. She is surprised that Mr. McKinney was not better prepared for this evening. She is concerned that he is not sharing some information. She stated that in her opinion he wants to get this passed without giving the Commission and neighbors what he knows. She would not buy property without knowing minimums and maximums up front, especially not a commercial deal. She believes the fire station is about to go empty too. She went to Smithfield Elementary and this area has always been her home. She wants to stay there. Day Spring Day Care went right up against her property 30 days after she bought it. They completely cleared that property. She asked the Commission, "please don't let this happen again." Janie Jackson, 7324 Timberidge Drive, stated that she has been in her home for 20 years and has seen a lot of changes. She loves the idea of a park and wonders if there is any way that idea could be implemented. She stated, "I beg you not do this." Orville Crow, 7432 Forrest Lane, stated that his property backs up to the vacancy. He said that it is an ideal situation for a park. He does not want to be ducking bullets, and people fighting and screaming in the middle of the night. He has lived around duplexes before and that is the atmosphere. He is very much against it. If the applicant wants to build a 12-foot brick wall around that property with a gated area, Mr. Crow would support that idea, but he realizes that wouldn't be feasible. However, he also cannot afford to take a beating because of this situation. Addressing Mr. Schopper, he stated that he believes Mr. Schopper lives in the neighborhood. He very strongly encourages Mr. Schopper to vote against this. The Chairman read from the remaining cards stating that they were against this matter: James Henson, 7441 Timberhill Drive, Susan Fitzwater, 7409 Forrest Lane, and Martha Bertram of 7400 Forrest Lane. He explained that the Commission members have a letter in opposition from the Bertram's in their packets. The Chairman called for any others who wished to speak. James Henson, 7441 Timberhill Drive stated that he is opposed to duplexes because of the duplexes on Davis Boulevard. He stated that they really don't look that bad from the street, but he drove behind them and they are not attractive back there. The applicant, Mr. McKinney, returned to the podium to comment that everyone is comparing his project to the duplexes on Davis. He agrees that those are not the prettiest duplexes. He stated that the difference is how much those rent for versus his selling price. In his proposed project, people will be paying $1,100 or$1,200 a month per unit. It will be a mortgage payment. Typically, those people will take care of their property. Right now on C-1 Commercial, the only thing that can be built there is a retail center. He would rather have duplexes than a retail strip center. Page 21 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes Chairman Bowen closed the public hearing. Ms. Cole asked for a recess. Chairman Bowen called for a 5-minute recess. After the recess, the Chairman called the meeting back into session and called for comments from the Commission members. Mr. Schopper stated that he lived in a neighborhood off Timerhill for 17 years before moving to his current home. He stated that he still owns houses in that area. He keeps the houses very nice, immaculate, security system, and the whole nine yards. The applicant believes he will get $1,100 or $1,200 a month on a duplex. Mr. Schopper stated that he has 1500 sq. ft. homes in that area and the most he can get is $1,050 and that includes paying the security alarm. He explained to the applicant that the numbers may not work out the way he wants. Typically when you buy a piece of property like this, the sale is subject to the zoning being approved. Mr. Schopper stated that what really concerns him is the empty Winn Dixie. Taking this parcel of land behind the Winn Dixie really lessens the flexibility of marketing the Winn Dixie site. Some of the users that would buy are not going to be regular supermarkets. They might need the additional lot parcels. Even the old Food Lion on Rufe Snow just sold and nobody ever thought anyone would do anything with that. There are folks working diligently trying to get that done. Getting scared and down zoning this property from commercial to residential is just not appropriate. Right now there is just a temporary dip in the road. Mr. Schopper stated that he would like to say to the neighbors that he knows all about the aesthetics and trees, but that's not really something that the Commission can do anything about. He stated that he was heartbroken when they put the Chevron/McDonalds up and cut down all those trees. Whoever owns that property has the right to do stuff with that property. It is their dirt. If they need to cut down the trees, all the City can do is make them put the trees back as part of a plan. The City has the most control over a commercial development, because when those guys come in and cut down all the trees, the City can make them put them back. This needs to be left commercial. It will develop out and something else will go in that Winn Dixie and will all be a part of a development there. Duplexes are not appropriate at this time. The numbers just don't work. Ms. Cole stated that the current zoning is commercial. The neighbors keep talking about the trees and the vacant land and that it's wonderful to look at. They are gambling everyday that a commercial doesn't pop up behind there and take away those trees and that vacant land. They would prefer to back up to the vacant land and single family. They don't want to back up to duplexes, but want to put single family there. It is emotional when it is your property. Ms. Cole stated that she was involved in a subdivision in North Richland Hills that got into the same heated debate for years over a park going in behind them. In that case, they didn't like the kind of park. She recommended that the neighbors not think of the Davis Boulevard duplexes as typical duplexes because they are not. She is not saying that she is for this. She stated that she is asking the neighbors to get a little less emotional and think about it. With the Page 22 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes Mountain View duplexes and some of the other ones, just half of each duplex will sell for more than the neighbor's entire house. She stated that these are not going to be $50,000 or $60,000 duplexes. These are three bedrooms, two baths, and two-car garage duplexes. The applicant is not going to be able to do it at 1200 square feet. It is going to have to be larger. There is a high demand for owner/occupant duplexes. There is nothing to keep those from going to rental, just as there is nothing to keep the guy next door from going rental. There is no control over single family or duplex from being owner/occupant or not. Based on history in northeast Tarrant County in these types of duplexes, again the PD would help to have a little more control, value is not going to go down. Mr. Schopper and Ms. Cole exchanged comments regarding duplexes, and then the Chairman yielded the floor to Mr. Nehring. Mr. Nehring stated that as far as he was concerned the duplexes are not the best use of the property at this time. He understands that the current zoning is C-1 and some type of commercial development could go in there, but he is not sure when or if that would happen. It could also be neighborhood services, which would be doctors, dental or something like that. At this time, he cannot see that this is the right use for this property even though it is commercial. He stated that he would vote against it. Mr. Lewis commented that he is leaning more towards Ms. Cole's statements. He would like to see this as a PD, so that the quality of the duplexes can be controlled. He would like to say to the residents that he knows it is very emotional for them, but it is unreasonable to expect the property to remain undeveloped. Mr. Lewis stated that he does not own properties in North Richland Hills, but he is an investor and has owned income properties, many of them duplexes, for 20 years. As an investor, he does not want to see his property devalue. Because of that, he maintains his duplexes at a high level, anticipating growth. Mr. Lewis would anticipate that anyone buying a duplex at the values that the applicant is likely to be selling them at would behave as Mr. Lewis. He stated that he would vote against the zoning as it is presented but he would encourage it as a PD. Mr. Laubacher commented that about eight years ago he became involved in local activities because a developer wanted to put something on a piece of property next to where Mr. Laubacher lived and he did not want it there. Having a similar experience to what the audience members are currently going through, he can understand exactly how they feel. He stated that the two lessons he has learned in this field in the last 8 years is, first, to keep looking and asking because no one knows what is going to happen. Mr. Laubacher explained that they won the battle and the development did not occur, but the whole approach and attitude that were trying to accomplish was to elevate the standards in North Richland Hills. He did not feel they were successful in that battle. What they have is not what they really envisioned and he is not sure the neighbors in this case will necessarily end up with something dramatically better either. The second lesson he learned is that the obligation of this board is to enhance and protect the community. The proposed zoning for this property does not allow enough Page 23 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes control. Generally speaking, a property owner has the right to do what they want with their property as long as it doesn't affect others. In this case, this particular request does affect others. Without proper controls, Mr. Laubacher stated he has to go against it. He would entertain a planned development type scenario. Mr. Davis commented that the Commission's responsibility is for a zoned property's highest and best use. Churches can go in any type of zoning - a church would have been great. The highest and best use of this property is commercial. It has been zoned commercial for a long time. The subdivision these people live in was zoned commercial. As Mr. Schopper pointed out, flexibility is lost of what could and should happen to a major street. Starnes and Davis are both collector streets. Mr. Davis admits that he would not want commercial behind me, but he also wouldn't have bought that house in the first place because, eventually, something is going to go there. Duplexes sound better than commercial. But really, the City has more control over commercial development than over duplex development. They will have to do a site plan that will require approval because it is adjacent to residential property. There would be screening fences. We could do things in regards to outside lighting. There is a 15-foot landscaping buffer. Maybe it is not time to develop it. This guy wants to, but the church may have sold him a bill of goods too soon. I think we can control it and help the neighborhood if it is commercial and we get some control over that site plan and what is going to be there. I am not even sure I would be in favor of a PD. Then again all you are doing is taking the lesser of two evils here and maybe make it smell better. Remember that whenever we vote. Chairman Bowen commented that a duplex is not the best use of this property. He stated that he does not think it will ever be a commercial piece of property unless it is in conjunction with the Winn Dixie. He does not believe it has the visibility to be commercial. It is C-1, which is retail, neighborhood services or office. He stated that he is like a lot of the neighborhood people in the audience. When he bought his house and moved into the city, he had a nice empty field out there. He fought against duplexes and won. He believes the best use for this property is in conjunction with the Winn Dixie. There were no other comments and the Chairman called for a motion. Bill Schopper, seconded by Ted Nehring, motioned to deny PZ 2002-23. The denial carried (6-1) with Brenda Cole voting against. The Chairman reminded the applicant that he has the right to appeal to the City Council. Mr. Green explained that if the applicant wished to appeal his case would go to City Council on March 13. This is not a typical Council night, but the March 10 City Council meeting has been rescheduled to March 13. The applicant has the right to appeal within the next ten days for that meeting date. The Chairman advised Mr. McKinney to contact Mr. Green if he would like to appeal. Page 24 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes Mr. Davis asked that the following comment be included in the minutes if the applicant appeals to the City Council: Mr. Davis would like to suggest to the City Council that if they decide to allow this applicant to move forward with duplexes that the City Council consider a PD. That way, Planning & Zoning would get a chance to look at it. If the City Council does not want to do a PD, Mr. Davis suggests that they consider a minimum of 3000 sq. ft. footprint as 1200 is not enough for each side. That will bring the values up and take away the passive investors that don't care about how the property is maintained. Chairman Bowen asked Dave Green if the neighborhood would receive notice if the applicant decides to appeal. Mr. Green responded yes. Fifteen day notice is required prior to council. Even though the applicant has 10 days to appeal, the timeframe for it to actually go on the March 13 agenda is getting rather short. If the applicant were to take 10 days to decide to appeal, it may be necessary to shift this to the first Council meeting in April. The same people who were notified of this meeting will receive a new notice of the appeal meeting date. The sign that has been placed on the property will remain there if the applicant decides to appeal. If he withdraws, the sign will be pulled. 18. PZ 2002-40 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM EMBREE CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC. FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP) FOR AN OIL CHANGE FACILITY (VALVOLlNE) LOCATED AT 8401 DAVIS BOULEVARD (.63 ACRES) APPROVED Zoning Administrator Dave Green summarized the case. This is a special use permit request for a Valvoline Instant Oil Change. This is on Davis Boulevard to the south of the intersection with North Tarrant Parkway. The area to the west and to the north is usually referred to as the Albertson's Shopping Center. Albertson's is located further back. Immediately adjacent to this site is an existing Sonic. This is one of the last tracts in this particular retail area that has not been developed. This is an automotive type use in a C-1 commercial district, which requires a SUP. The building will be laid out parallel to Davis Boulevard, but the bays themselves will be facing in a southwest and northeast manner. The bays will not look directly on to Davis Boulevard. Cars will enter the property from the rear and go through the site, exiting through the front. This is a one-story structure with a pitched roof. It is all masonry construction. There are three through bays, whereas Discount Tire was a bay that was not open ended. It was pull in and back out. These would be a pull through type bay. Landscaping meets City code with responsibility for the 15-foot landscape buffer that parallels Davis Boulevard. The landscaping has been pulled back toward the building, further than 15 feet because off major water and sewer service lines. This is to avoid future conflict between the Page 25 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes landscaping and the ability to service those lines. A monument sign is proposed out front. The size is consistent with the sign ordinance. It has a masonry surround on it. There will be a logo on the building with a lighted feature that will run lengthwise with the building. All proposed signage is consistent with the sign ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan calls for retail uses and this use is slightly more intense, but it is considered consistent with the Comp Plan. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing. Danny Smith, 8050 Airport Freeway, Georgetown, Texas, 78628, stated that he is here to request approval for the SUP for the Valvoline facility and to answer any questions with regard to the plans and specifications. Chairman Bowen asked Mr. Smith if auto repair would also occur in addition to oil changes. Mr. Smith responded that it is basically oil changes and windshield wiper blade repair. He read the following statement from Valvoline: Valvoline Instant Oil Change is a small drive-through automotive service center that performs minor services like lube, oil changes, wiper blade replacements, and replacement of other fluids that are no longer done at standard gas stations. Valvoline is a low volume business creating little or no impact on local traffic conditions. Valvoline Corporation and franchise operate more than 600 stores nationally. Our store is designed in a residential type style, because that is usually more consistent in the neighborhoods. All of the services are done quickly and completely inside the building. That means that there are no vehicles that are dropped off or picked up late. No vehicles are left on the premises over night. The stores are environmentally friendly and it will store above ground UL listed tanks in the service pit area. Valvoline accepts used motor oil from people who choose to change their own oil for their own safety. In addition, we generate tax revenue for the community and provide a facility that safely disposes and uses automotive fluids. Valvoline Instant Oil Change provides 6 to 8 full-time or part-time employees. Their employees are consistently participating in local and community projects and fund raisings. We ask for your consideration in this SUP for Valvoline Instant Oil Change on this site. Chairman Bowen asked if they do tune-up's or the like. Mr. Smith responded no that they are only a minor automotive facility. Jason Claunch, 2300 Airport Freeway, Suite 230, Bedford, Texas, 76022 stated that he works for the Makens Company and he thinks this use complements and enhances the development. He stated that they have been working with the developer and that they also have Albertson's support. Chairman Bowen closed the public hearing and called for a motion. Page 26 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes Bill Schopper, seconded by Brenda Cole, motioned to approve PZ 2002-40. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 19. ADJOURNMENT As there was no other business, Chairman Bowen adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Chairman Secretary ~Q~ ¡;; ;I/~ Ted Nehring Don Bowen Page 27 2/20/03 P & Z Minutes