Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2003-08-21 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS AUGUST 21,2003 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Don Bowen at 7:06 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Don Bowen Richard Davis Bill Schopper Ted Nehring Brenda Cole James Laubacher Ken Sapp CITY STAFF Zoning Administrator Asst. Director of Public Works City Planner Recording Secretary Dave Green Lance Barton Donna Jackson Holly Blake The Ex-Officio, Suzy Compton was present for the meeting. As stated in Ordinance 2714, an ex-officio member shall have no power to vote or participate in decision-making, but will be entitled to observe all proceedings of their respective commissions. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF JULY 17,2003 AND AUGUST 7,2003. APPROVED Ted Nehring, seconded by Ken Sapp, motioned to approve the minutes of July 17,2003. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Page 1 8/21/03 P & Z Minutes APPROVED Bill SChopper, seconded by Richard Davis, motioned to approve the minutes of August 7,2003. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 5. PS 2003-30 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM ARK OF FAITH CHURCH TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF LOT 13-R, BLOCK 3 W.E. ODELL ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 6800 BLOCK OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (1.61 ACRES). APPROVED Dave Green, Zoning Administrator, summarized the case. This is a request from the Ark of Faith Church that involves a tract of land with portions that have already been platted in the 6800 block of Davis Boulevard. The church wants to replat the numerous lots into one lot for the purpose of development for the church. Staff has provided a letter stating that all of the City's requirements have been met with this plat. Staff recommends approval. Chairman Bowen asked Mr. Green if the applicant was aware of the different zonings on this piece of property. Mr. Green responded that churches are permitted in just about any district in the community. On this particular tract of land there are numerous residential lots, and one commercial lot on the end. A few things need to happen on this property before the church can develop it due to the church being a non-residential use and the church being adjacent to residential uses. The church will be required to have a site plan approval from the Planning Commission and the City Council. Staff has recommended to the church to zone the entire site consistently. If the plat is approved as it is, the plat will have a split lot zoning. This type of zoning doesn't affect the church for permitting; however, each zone has its own set of regulations which could affect the site plan. Brenda Cole asked Mr. Green about the "R-3" zoning of the northeast corner portion. Mr. Green believes that it may be an out parcel that was taken in a right-of-way dedication as a county road in the past. Bill Schopper added that it was a remainder left over from the State. The whole lot was taken for the widening of Davis Boulevard. Chairman Bowen asked who was responsible for maintaining the property. Mr. Schopper answered that the State was responsible for the property. Chairman Bowen called for a motion. Page 2 8/21/03 P & Z Minutes Richard Davis, seconded by Brenda Cole, motioned to approve PS 2003-30 subject to the Staff report. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 6. PS 2003-31 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM ALAMO CUSTOM BUILDERS INC. TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOT 1 BLOCK 1 DAWN DRIVE ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 3800 BLOCK OF DAWN DRIVE (.28 ACRES). APPROVED Dave Green, Zoning Administrator, summarized the case. This tract of land has never been included in any of the adjacent subdivisions. The purpose of the preliminary plat is to develop this single lot for residential use. Staff has provided comments from Public Works recommending approval of this plat. Chairman Bowen called for a motion. Ken Sapp, seconded by James Laubacher, motioned to approve PS 2003-31. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 7. PZ 2003-18 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM DON PHIFER FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM "R3" RESIDENTIAL TO "NS" NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES LOCATED IN THE 8000 BLOCK OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (2.18 ACRES). APPROVED Dave Green, Zoning Administrator, summarized the case. This tract of land is currently zoned "R-3" Residential. The applicant is requesting that the tract of land be changed to "NS" Neighborhood Services. The Comprehensive Plan shows a retail use in this area, which would be found in "CS" Community Services. The application reflects non- residential uses, but is not as wide ranging in the variety of uses that can be applied to it as seen on the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has provided a letter from an adjacent property owner concerning the rezoning of the property. Staff has no comments other than the fact that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of it being a non- residential type use. The applicant is present to answer any questions from the Commission. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing. Page 3 8/21/03 P & Z Minutes Don Phifer, the developer of this tract, came forward. Mr. Phifer stated that his intent is to rezone the front portion to a "NS" zoning for the development of garden offices. The rear portion will be developed as "R-2", with the average lot being over 10,000 square feet. Mr. Sapp stated that the property is heavily wooded. Mr. Sapp wondered if Mr. Phifer's intentions were to retain as many of the trees as possible. Mr. Phifer responded yes, he intends to keep as many trees as possible. Mr. Phifer is currently waiting on a permit to clear out the under brush on the property. By clearing out the under brush, Mr. Phifer can access what trees are actually there. Mr. Phifer stated that his intent is to design the front portion into smaller buildings. Mr. Phifer would like to integrate the commercial properties into the residential. By keeping the office buildings small, the design can be made to accommodate the trees and structures. Mr. Phifer stated that he would like to build four buildings with 3,000 square feet each. Johnny Gilliland, 2 Country Place Drive, came forward. Mr. Gilliland stated that he is not opposed or for the project. Mr. Gilliland is concerned about how Country Place connects with Davis Boulevard. Country Place is a hill that comes down to Davis Boulevard. Traffic in the morning and evening is constant with very little let up. Another concern for Mr. Gilliland is the State Wildlife Preserve on his property. Mr. Gilliland has been in contact with Mr. Phifer in regards to some type of fence to keep the properties separated. Mr. Gilliland is concerned about children leaving their subdivision and climbing the fence onto his property. There is a creek located down below the fence with coyotes and other types of wildlife. Chairman Bowen stated that he would like to discourage a chain link fence for aesthetic reasons. Mr. Bowen would prefer to see a wood fence. Chairman Bowen asked Mr. Barton if a Traffic Impact Analysis had been done. Mr. Barton answered no. A study has been done on how many trips will be coming in and out of the facility. Staff is looking at that and discussing it with Staff's transportation engineer to determine if a TIA is needed on this tract. There are some questions about site distances, speed, and the relative position of Country Place and the development across the street. Mr. Davis stated that he thought a TIA had been done, but the Trip Generation was not going to get the number that would require it. Mr. Barton stated that the Trip Generation has not hit the threshold numbers, but Staff still has concerns. Page 4 8/21/03 P & Z Minutes Mr. Davis stated if the tract was left "R-3" even more traffic would be a concern during the peak hours. As an office, the traffic would be more throughout the day instead of the peak hours. Mr. Laubacher stated that the issue is not the number of trips generated, but more so the turning lanes of "right only" and "left only" lanes. There are times when two cars are head to head in the turning lane. Mr. Phifer stated that the development would bring Country Place into a 90-degree angle onto Davis Boulevard and would also bring Country Place into an alignment with Bear Creek. The offset that exists now would either be alleviated or greatly reduced. Currently Country Place is a private road and is classified as a driveway. When Mr. Phifer looked at the project initially, the plan was to bring a road down the center, drop the lots, and place commercial on the corner. However, that presented a problem with a bad intersection that is already suffering. This plan did not make sense for the development of the City. After discussing with Staff, the 90-degree angle and alignment with Bear Creek makes more sense. Mr. Davis stated that when a site plan is done, there will be a cut on Davis Boulevard. Joint usage easements are going to be critical. Mr. Phifer stated that an extensive site plan will be done. The only restraint is the drainage easement located on Lot 1. The curb cut will have to be south of that. Mr. Phifer plans to yield to the City for placement. Mr. Phifer is also speaking with the church regarding cross access easement. Chairman Bowen closed the public hearing and called for a motion. Bill Schopper, seconded by James Laubacher, motioned to approve PZ 2003-18. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 8. PS 2003-32 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM PHIFER/HOGAN REAL TV, L.L.C. TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOTS 1-7, BLOCK 1, LOTS 1-9, BLOCK 2, AND LOTS 1-5, BLOCK 3 COUNTRY PLACE ESTATES ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 8000 BLOCK OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (8.097 ACRES). APPROVED Dave Green, Zoning Administrator, summarized the case. Staff has provided a letter from Public Works stating that all comments have been addressed. Staff recommends approval. Chairman Bowen called for a motion. Page 5 8/21/03 P & Z Minutes Ken Sapp, seconded by James Laubacher, motioned to approve PS 2003-32. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 9. PS 2003-33 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM MARVIN AND JILL SMITH TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 3 DOUGLAS ESTATES ADDITION PHASE III LOCATED IN THE 7600 BLOCK OF DOUGLAS LANE (2.98 ACRES). APPROVED Dave Green, Zoning Administrator, summarized the case. This particular tract of land has had a single-family structure on it for a number of years. The property has never been platted and was zoned "AG" Agricultural. The property went through rezoning and is currently zoned a residential district. This is the preliminary plat for this tract of land for the purpose of building a single-family home. The current structure would be demolished. Staff has provided a letter stating that all concerns have been addressed. Staff recommends approval. Chairman Bowen called for a motion. Ted Nehring, seconded by James Laubacher, motioned to approve PS 2003-33. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 10. PS 2003-35 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM WINKLEMAN & ASSOCIATES TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF UICI DRIVE ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 6300 BLOCK OF SIMMONS DRIVE (.800 ACRES). APPROVED Dave Green, Zoning Administrator, summarized the case. This is a tract of land for an expansion of the UICI campus facing Grapevine Highway. The road on the Thoroughfare Plan accesses Grapevine Highway. The Commission has some questions for the applicant in terms of intent. Staff has presented a letter stating that all issues have been addressed. Staff recommends approval. Mike Clark, Winkleman & Associates, came forward. Mr. Schopper stated concerns for the property owners to the south. Mr. Schopper asked Mr. Clark if the property owners are aware of their responsibility for building the other half of the road. Page 6 8/21/03 P & Z Minutes Mr. Clark responded yes. A temporary construction agreement has been executed to get a temporary construction easement. The property owner to the south is fully aware that half of the road is on their tract. Mr. Schopper stated that once half the road is done, the second half will have to begin. Is the property owner aware of this? Mr. Clark answered yes, the property owner will have to complete 16-ft. out of 40-ft. In return for the construction easement and the joint agreements, Winkleman & Associates is building more than half of the road. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Clark if there was one owner to the south or two. Mr. Clark responded one. Part of the tract is platted, the other half is not. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Clark if he is willing to provide the construction easements and joint agreements to Staff before going to City Council. Mr. Clark stated yes. Mr. Davis stated his concerns for approving a plat that does not meet subdivision regulations specifically. Mr. Davis pointed out an "L" piece of property that surrounds the road. Mr. Clark stated that there is a preliminary plat, but not a final plat. He said that a great deal of time was spent working on the preliminary plat at the time of purchase. The roadway showed an expansion of the property line as part of that preliminary plat. On the exit point, the fire lane goes all the way over to the current UICI parking lot. It is designed to get people out and off the fire lane behind the shopping center. Mr. Davis stated that there is not a final plat of the property to the east and north of this road. Mr. Schopper stated that this is the first part of the plat. Mr. Clark stated that the reason for this is to get the access out. Mr. Davis asked if the access will touch the cul-de-sac. Mr. Clark responded yes. The road will continue through, until the road is built and the cul-de-sac is completed. Ms. Cole asked Mr. Clark, once the cul-de-sac is completed, will the fire lane still feed into the cul-de-sac. Mr. Clark answered yes. Chairman Bowen called for a motion. Richard Davis, seconded by Bill Schopper, motioned to approve PS 2003-35 with the stipulation that the letter of temporary construction easement or agreement Page 7 8/21/03 P & Z Minutes with the property owner to the south be made available to Staff prior to going to City Council. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 11. PS 2003-38 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM SYLVIA THRASH, PATRICIA & CARRIL BRAUDRICK TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 13R1 & 13R2, BLOCK 2 WOODBERT ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 8200 BLOCK OF SAYERS LANE (.414 ACRES). APPROVED Dave Green, Zoning Administrator, summarized the case. This is an existing lot in the 8200 block of Sayers Lane. There is a house that is located on the western portion of the lot. The applicant is requesting to replat and add a property line to create a second lot for residential development. Staff recommends approval. Chairman Bowen asked Mr. Green if both lots meet the requirements of "R-3". Mr. Green responded yes. Chairman Bowen called for a motion. James Laubacher, seconded by Ken Sapp, motioned to approve PS 2003-38. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 12. PS 2003-41 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM H & H CAPITAL L TD PARTNERSHIP TO APPROVE A PLAT VACATION OF LOTS E-1 & E-2, BLOCK 14 RICHLAND TERRACE ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 7700 BLOCK OF MAPLEWOOD AVENUE (.637 ACRES). APPROVED Dave Green, Zoning Administrator, summarized the case. This plat is located in the 7700 block of Maplewood Drive. The two lots were created a couple of years ago. One building spans the frontage area of Maplewood Drive. This was originally looked at as an attempt to vacate a plat. However, the applicant is intending to eliminate the property line and make this one lot again, which is a replat. The City Attorney, George Staples, was present at the work session and stated that even though the plat states "vacated", the plat needs to be called a "replat" of the area. Staff can make a change on the plat prior to the plat going to City Council. The Commission can make a motion to call this a "replaf' rather than a "plat vacation". This does not involve a notice to anyone and it does not involve a public hearing situation. Page 8 8/21/03 P & Z Minutes Chairman Bowen clarified for the Commission that the applicant is taking two lots and combining them into one lot. Chairman Bowen called for a motion. Bill Schopper, seconded by Brenda Cole, motioned to approve PS 2003-41 as a replat combining Lots E1 and E2 into one lot. Lot E-R. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 13. PZ 2003-17 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM RIVERCROWN INVESTMENTS FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM "R2" RESIDENTIAL TO "PD" PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR "HC" HEAVY COMMERCIAL LOCATED IN THE 4800 BLOCK OF SUSAN LEE LANE (1.7354 ACRES). APPROVED Dave Green, Zoning Administrator, summarized the case. This a request for a "PD" Planned Development located in the 4800 block of Susan Lee Lane. The request is "PD" for "HC" Heavy Commercial uses. The applicant is expanding the existing Huggins Honda Auto Dealership. A "PD" request is open to potential changes that the Commission and eventually the City Council may want to make to it. Earlier this year the Commission approved a straight zoning change request, but the City Council denied it. Some of the discussion concerning that denial was that the City Council felt that a "PD" was a better zoning to deal with this property than a straight zoning change since that would allow the Commission and City Council to make changes, if necessary, to the site design. There is an existing Huggins Honda Dealership with Susan Lee running north and south on the west side of the dealership and Nancy Lane running north and south on the east side of the dealership. What is being proposed is an extension of the dealership. The original plan showed Susan Lee Lane terminating into a cul-de-sac at a certain point, however more property is now available and the cul-de-sac is now being shown further to the north. Nine residential lots are part of this particular request for the "PD". There are a couple of site design issues. The properties that are located to the east, off of Nancy Lane, back up to this property. This is the meeting point between properties on Nancy Lane and the properties facing Susan Lee. There is also another common line between this proposal and adjacent residential on the north. This requires a certain design feature to come forward. In the current ordinance a 6-ft. masonry wall needs to separate all non-residential uses from existing residential uses. A 15-ft. landscape buffer is also required to separate those areas as well. Within that landscape buffer a number of trees from the City's species list in the Tree Preservation Ordinance must be placed approximately on 30-ft. centers. Both of these items place a landscape buffer and screen along the exterior barrier. Also included in the landscape plan is a line of shrubs in the same area. One thing that needs to be pointed out is a 6-ft. thin wall masonry fence along the boundaries. Along the cul-de-sac and the frontage area is an ornamental steel fence with brick or masonry columns every 20-ft. to 30-ft. The solid Page 9 8/21/03 P & Z Minutes masonry wall will have a mow strip under it with a gap at the bottom to allow drainage from one lot to another, which will be placed on the exterior boundaries of the project. The photometric plan shows the exterior lighting of the site with a 20-ft. taillight standard. All the light standards in this project are going to be 400 watt bulbs. The lights seen adjacent to residential areas will be shielded or hooded so that the lights do not bleed over into the residential areas. This does not apply to the lights that are located in the storage or display areas for the automobiles. Once again, this is called a redevelopment "PD". In this situation, residential property that has been used for many years is being taken and redeveloped as Commercial. The applicant may ask for any number of variances from any number of regulations that the City may have. The landscaping that was seen around the exterior boundary is consistent with the current City regulations, in terms of separating commercial and residential properties and lessening the impact. One other requirement that the City has is tree islands every 20 parking spaces. The applicant has chosen not to do that. Staff would like to make that part of the discussion, that approval of this plan does include a request for a variance from that requirement. The applicant is present if the Commission has any questions. Mr. Schopper stated that all of the landscaping, fencing, lighting, and cul-de-sac is something the Commission has already approved, however, now it is further north at this point. Nothing else has changed. Mr. Green agreed. Ms. Cole stated that before there were no tree islands, however the site plan was a bit smaller. Ms. Cole asked Mr. Green if the light fixtures on the north are similar to what was looked at before. Mr. Green responded yes. When the Phase I plan came through, Commission made a motion that the lights on the exterior boundary be lowered, but when the site plan went to City Council, the height of the lights went back up. Mr. Schopper stated that is also when the wrought iron fence in the cul-de-sac was added. Mr. Green stated that was a feature that was added by City Council, so there wouldn't be a solid masonry wall. City Council felt, visually speaking, an ornamental fence with landscaping behind it would be a better feature. Ms. Cole stated that the lights, landscaping, and the bulk of that on the north are all behind the fence. Mr. Green agreed. Chairman Bowen asked Mr. Green about the screening wall profile. On the eastern edge of Phase II, Mr. Bowen pointed out green space outside the wall and wondered who would be responsible for maintaining it and how would anyone be able to access it. Mr. Green responded that the applicant would be responsible for maintaining it and would have to access it from the outside area. The wall is placed first on the common Page 10 8/21/03 P & Z Minutes line and then the landscaping is placed interior to that. However, in this situation, the landscaping will be done first, then the wall. Chairman Bowen pointed out the green space and continued to wonder how the applicant was going to access it. The only access seen is through private property. Mr. Green suggested that the applicant answer Mr. Bowen's question. Ms. Cole stated that the north section of Phase I goes to the property line and then it cuts back in. Ms. Cole asked Mr. Green if the placement of the fence is arbitrary. Mr. Green answered that in the ordinance the fence is usually placed on the common property line. Inside of that point is where the 15-ft. landscaping is. It is not unusual in a "PD" to see variations of that. However, that is not how the ordinance is intended. Mr. Schopper stated that at the north where the screening wall is, all the landscaping will be inside the fence. That would look nice with the wrought iron, but not the masonry. That is a waste of effort. Mr. Green stated that is a concept with some argument. What is the most powerful thing that can be done in between dissimilar uses? It comes down to looking at trees or a wall. For most cities, the screening wall will come up first followed by the interior landscaping. The landscaping isn't so much to look at, but it offers mitigation in terms of wind, noise, smoke, and smell. It acts as a filtering devise for anything that leaves that property. Mr. Davis stated that there will be a brick wall with 6-ft. to 8-ft. of grass, and the fences of lots 17, 18, 19, and 20. Mr. Green agreed that there will be a gap. In the past, an area like this becomes problem areas due to a maintenance feature. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing. Ernie Hedgcoth, engineer for the property, came forward. Mr. Hedgcoth stated that the applicant would like to place the wall on the property line. There is a 5-ft. easement back there. Staff recommended the wall be placed back there due to the sewer line. There is a sewer line back there that runs along the back of the lots on Nancy Lane. Chairman Bowen pointed out that if the applicant moves the wall back 5-ft. the applicant would be losing around 300-ft. Mr. Hedgcoth stated that the applicant would like to meet with Public Works in order to design the wall and miss the sewer line with the columns. Hopefully the sewer line is in the middle. The wall will be located a foot or two off the property line anyway, due to the columns being 2 x 2. Those will be set 6-in. to a foot off the property line. Page 11 8/21/03 P & Z Minutes Chairman Bowen stated that would make more sense, because there is no access to that property otherwise. Mr. Davis asked if the applicant moves the wall to the east, will the landscaping still be interior to the wall. Mr. Hedgcoth responded yes. Mr. Davis stated that no one likes to look at plain walls. With the cost of the sewer line, the applicant may be able to do some offsets in between some panels. Mr. Hedgcoth agreed. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Hedgcoth if the applicant would be opposed to having the "PD" approved with the change that the retaining wall along the east line be moved to the eastern limits of the property and working with the Staff to locate and miss the sewer line as much as possible. Mr. Hedgcoth responded that would be fine. Lance Barton, Assistant Director of Public Works, came forward. Mr. Barton stated that jogging the fence around is not an issue. Mr. Barton is concerned about the sanitary sewer back there. With this type of fence having masonry columns and ornamental iron, it makes it difficult to get back there and make repairs if necessary. Mr. Barton is even more concerned with this sewer, due to the age. There is a real chance in the near future that maintenance will be required. For this reason, Public Works is requesting that the fence be placed away from the sewer. Mr. Schopper asked Mr. Barton if the entire 5-ft. was necessary. Mr. Barton responded yes. A backhoe needs to be able to get back there. Mr. Schopper asked if the fence is moved back 5-ft. does the area have to be landscaped to the east or can it be left open. Mr. Barton responded that the resident's fences are right on the property line. Chairman Bowen added that there is still 5-ft. that doesn't have access for maintaining. Mr. Barton stated that Public Works is concerned that the masonry wall be installed in such a manner that Public Works has access to the sanitary sewer without having to move any panels. Mr. Hedgcoth stated that there are two to three different possibilities to do the columns. The fence can have solid panels or just single brick. Ms. Cole suggested that the fence have a small opening or a gate for access. Mr. Nehring asked if the fence can be left the way it was designed. Chairman Bowen responded that the neighbors would complain about the lack of maintenance. Mr. Nehring suggested that the backyards be extended. Page 12 8/21/03 P & Z Minutes Mr. Barton agreed, but from a Public Works point of view, the columns need to be placed back. If the line is offset to the east, there would be a little more room to maneuver. When a hole is being dug down to a sewer 6-ft. or more, the hole gets to be a big hole fast and maneuvering room is needed. The outriggers on a backhoe can stretch out up to 6-ft. on the sides. Mr. Davis stated that the bottom line is a gate is needed for access in order to maintain. Mr. Hedgcoth stated that this is the same basic plan that was approved previously. The only change is the zoning from commercial to "PD". The lights will be directed away from the property and hooded. Chairman Bowen asked Mr. Hedgcoth about the wrought iron placed on the east side of Susan Lee and how far will it extend. Mr. Hedgcoth responded that it will continue along around the cul-de-sac. Mr. Davis asked if a gate will be placed in the cul-de-sac for security purposes. Mr. Hedgcoth responded that the Staff preferred not to have a gate. Mr. Davis recommends a gate be placed for security reasons. Mr. Schopper stated that the reasoning may be that Staff didn't want there to be access into the residential neighborhood from a commercial property. Ms. Cole added that there is wrought iron all the way across there. Mr. Hedgcoth stated that the applicant has submitted a replat for this item to include both of the lots into one single plat. The applicant has also requested that the public right-of-way for Susan Lee be abandoned. Ms. Cole asked with the approval of Phase I being so much further south it was understandable not to have landscaping throughout the parking, but with the move all the way up, what is the intent for not putting any landscaping throughout that section. Ron Huggins, the applicant, came forward. Mr. Huggins believes with the amount of landscaping the runs around the perimeter both up the east and north property lines, it is still a fairly limited size piece of property. In regards to the tree islands, tree sap, birds and cars don't get along very well. Mr. Sapp asked Mr. Huggins in regards to the parking spaces, are the spaces for inventory or public parking. Mr. Huggins responded that the parking would be for inventory. Page 13 8/21/03 P & Z Minutes Mr. Sapp explained that made a difference. If it was public access in and out, landscaping would make more sense. Mr. Huggins explained that in regards to the gate, City Council did not want a gate in the cul-de-sac and did want the screening wall on the property line with the landscaping on the inside for maintenance purposes. Having a 5-ft. area back there to run a mower straight down will be somewhat chaotic. In order to maintain that property correctly, the sewer access in there creates a difficult situation especially with a masonry wall. Mr. Huggins asked the Commission if it would be possible to put up a decorative wooden fence for about 300-ft. Chairman Bowen answered no. Ms. Cole asked Mr. Huggins if the wall could be moved further in west and give Public Works more maintenance room with landscaping all along the east. Mr. Huggins answered that currently there is enough room right now from the landscaping to have a drive-thru lane and parking on each side. If it is encroached any further, it will not make the parking function at all. Ms. Cole stated that the landscaping and fence would only be switched. Nothing else would change. Mr. Schopper asked Mr. Barton what it would cost to put in a new 6-in. PCD sewer line along there? Mr. Davis responded at $30.00 a foot with 300-ft. it would cost $9,000. Mr. Barton responded that even with the new PCD sewer line, Public Works would still not want the fence on top of the line. Mr. Davis stated that he understood, but it would minimize the need for that. Mr. Davis asked what it would cost for 6-in. iron caste pipes. That would never have to be replaced or repaired. The City would be looking at $9,000 to $12,000. The City has funds for maintenance on sewer lines. Mr. Barton stated that it goes beyond the main as well. There are issues with laterals coming in through the side. The lots that back up to Nancy sewer to the west and would be connected to the main. Even with a new main there would still be old laterals, unless they got replaced up to the houses. This still leaves open the potential for maintenance which would have to occur at the main. Mr. Davis believes that Mr. Barton is clouding the water with the lateral issue on those houses that front on Nancy. Their sewer taps go west to that back fault line. If a new sewer line is replaced, new taps will also be installed. Whatever happens from there to the house Public Works cannot control anyway. Page 14 8/21/03 P & Z Minutes Mr. Nehring explained even if a new line is put in, there will still need to be room for maintenance. Mr. Sapp asked if the fence was wooden and placed on the property line, what issues would that alleviate for Public Works? Mr. Barton responded that a wooden fence is easier to take down and replace after the repairs. The panels can be placed aside and then placed back. It is much less complex than having cast, masonry columns in place that would have to be removed and then redo the brick work once the repairs were done. Mr. Sapp stated that in this case the wooden fence would serve as the backyard barrier to the present residence and there would be a landscape buffer inside of that. Mr. Barton stated that would be correct if a wooden fence was allowed. Ordinance states that a masonry type wall is required between a commercial element and a residential. Mr. Schopper stated that he respects what Mr. Barton is stating about the utilities and he understands that Mr. Barton is trying to not make this a problem for someone down the road. Chairman Bowen expressed that a wooden fence is out of the question. The fence needs to remain masonry as the ordinance states whether it is moved back 5-ft. or not and a way to maintain the area needs to be figured out. Mr. Huggins stated that is fine. Also, based on what was just discussed in regards to replacing the pipes and the masonry wall, Mr. Huggins stated he would have to see some money figures and would entertain that as a solution. Mr. Davis stated theoretically the wall could be built on the property line and replace 270-ft. of sewer. It could be moved all the way over to the edge of the east property line. What are the chances of a leak or the break being right where the footing is. Sonny Graham, 4805 Nancy Lane, came forward. Mr. Graham stated that the sewer line is about 5-ft. into the residential backyard, 20-ft. down. Mr. Huggins stated that if it is set inside on the east side of that then it shouldn't affect the ability to put the masonry wall on the property line. Mr. Davis suggested that Staff research some of the records or other repairs and find out if the sewer really is on the eastern limits of that. Mr. Davis respects that Mr. Barton is doing what he is suppose to be doing. The site plan as seen here today is fine, but create an access by gate. However, if the easement line is found on the eastern limits and City Council says move it over, there is nothing more the Commission can do. The Commission can approve the site plan as it is stating that if the wall is capable of being moved over to the property line, then it should be. Page 15 8/21/03 P & Z Minutes Mr. Schopper stated that when a masonry wall is built on an easement, the applicant is doing it at their own risk. Gilberto Tijerino, 4817 Susan Lee, came forward. Mr. Tijerino stated that he is not opposed to what Mr. Huggins is doing for Huggins Honda, Mr. Tijerino is opposed to the way Mr. Huggins is doing it. Mr. Huggins bought many homes on the street with three houses remaining. Mr. Huggins approached Mr. Tijerino for the purchase of his home. Mr. Tijerino stated that he would sell his home for $87,000. Mr. Tijerino was offered $62,000 by Mr. Huggins. Mr. Tijerino is opposed to the way Mr. Huggins is conducting business and believes it is unfair. Mr. Tijerino is also upset with the Commission for allowing it to happen. Ms. Cole asked Mr. Green about Five Star Ford. Ms. Cole wanted to know if the Commission added islands and landscaping to the expansion of the parking lot that was not for inventory of vehicles. Mr. Green answered that a portion of the expansion had to do with used vehicles, then there was the parking lot. That was an area where an automobile was taken in for work. Ms. Cole stated that the landscape was increased. Mr. Schopper stated that the difference here is the landscape is behind the building not in front of the building. Chairman Bowen closed the public hearing and called for a motion. Richard Davis, seconded by Ted Nehring, motioned to approve PZ 2003-17 as submitted with the following two notes. The masonry wall along the eastern side of Phase II needs to have a gate access to maintain the lights and landscape area as submitted. If it is physically possible to relocate the brick wall on the property line, this Commission has no objection to that. The motion carried unanimously (7 -0). 14. PZ 2002-27R1 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM QUIKTRIP CORPORATION FOR A REVISION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN LOCATED IN THE 6300 BLOCK OF DAVIS BOULEVARD. APPROVED Dave Green, Zoning Administrator, summarized the case. Earlier this year this was an SUP on behalf of QuikTrip Corporation. The property that was approved for an SUP was going to be a convenient store with 24 gasoline pumps. This is located at the Page 16 8/21/03 P & Z Minutes intersection of Davis Boulevard going north and Mid-Cities running east and west. The applicant is proposing some temporary reductions. At this time QuikTrip would like to build 20 gasoline pumps instead of the original 24 pumps. On the back side there was going to be a public entrance with 17 parking spaces and a paving area to grant as a cross access easement to the adjacent lot to the west with an access point on to Mid- Cities Boulevard. QuikTrip has decided to scale back and build less than what was originally proposed. On the rear of the building the logo sign with a QuikTrip sign has also been eliminated. The City Attorney believes this was something that needed to go back through for approval. The potential is always there for additional items in the future if QuikTrip decides to add on. There is landscaping from the original plan that follows the frontage along Mid-Cities. That will still have to be done. The original landscape plan is still approved. This may offer some form of vegetation along this street that would screen a certain amount of the rear portion of the building. The applicant's engineer is present if the Commission has any questions. Mr. Nehring asked Mr. Green if something needs to be said in the motion regarding the screening. Mr. Green responded no. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing. Walt McMennamy, engineer for the applicant, came forward. Mr. McMennamy stated that the landscaping along Mid-Cities is going to stay. The drives will stay in the original positions with the exception that the cement will not be poured to the drive further to the west on Mid-Cities. The integrity of the building will not change either. QuikTrip will construct the building with the thought in mind that later on the back door will be added. The drive and concrete going to the west will at some point be put in. With the alleviation of some of the problems and traffic issues that are occurring at that intersection with the stacking that is occurring, QuikTrip believes that a thru lane will improve the stacking issues. Ms. Cole asked Mr. McMennamy about the west elevation. Did the west side also have a window? Mr. McMennamy answered that the rear entry door, the QuikTrip sign, and logo will be taken out until further notice. Mr. Green added that the only sign that will remain is the wall sign and one other logo sign. Ms. Cole stated that it was going to be a long brick wall. Chairman Bowen closed the public hearing and called for a motion. Brenda Cole, seconded by James Laubacher, motioned to approve PZ 2002-27R1. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Page 17 8/21/03 P & Z Minutes 15. PZ 2003-20 DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRING ALL RESIDENTIAL UTILITY SERVICES TO BE LOCATED ALONG THE REAR OF LOTS. APPROVED Dave Green, Zoning Administrator, summarized the case. For many years the utility services have always been located at the rear of the lots. Here recently, electrical transformers have been placed on the front of the lots, usually behind the sidewalk. The transformers are very visible. The consensus of the Commission has been that this is an item or an issue that astatically the Commission cannot support. In addition to electrical transformers, there is also the possibility in some subdivisions, phone equipment, cable equipment, and above ground apparatus are located in the front of the lot. The Planning Commission has discussed this issue for the last couple of months. Staff has done some research regarding this issue as well. The City of Euless has passed a change to their subdivision code that requires all service drops to be underground. If there is some reasoning these services need to be above ground then the services need to be located in the rear of the lot. For whatever the reason, if the services cannot be located underground or in the rear of the lot, the Planning Commission should have the right to grant a waiver through a review of a preliminary plat. Staff has put together an ordinance that has been drafted using a lot of the language from the City of Euless, but the basic issue is the ordinance is requiring above ground services be placed on the rear of the lot. Staff recommends approval of PZ 2003-20 to be forwarded to City Council for consideration. Chairman Bowen asked Mr. Green if the electric meter is placed in the normal location it has always been. Mr. Green answered that he believes the meter is located on the house in the side yard towards the front. Mr. Nerhing asked Mr. Green if the underground services meant the lines. Mr. Green responded yes. Chairman Bowen explained that this was not a public hearing, but gave the representative for ONCOR a chance to come forward. Marilyn Ackman, representative for ONCOR, came forward. Ms. Ackman stated that this amendment would pose an operational burden for ONCOR. ONCOR has a tariff that is a standard installation at the front of the lot. If the developer decides to go underground or is required by the City there is a difference in cost. By requiring utilities in the rear or underground the Commission will be posing additional costs on the developers. For ONCOR it creates an access problem. Ms. Cole stated that due to the way it is currently set up, the Commission is seeing subdivision plats come in with utilities easements in the front and back of the yard. With Page 18 8/21/03 P & Z Minutes the City's requirements for garages and driveways, there is little to no backyard with the easements at the front and back. Aesthetically, residents do whatever it takes to cover these utilities with decking and landscaping. Ms. Cole can only imagine what the residents will do to cover the utilities up in the front with equal landscaping. Mr. Davis stated that there is a typo ten sentences into section 1 "Additionally, if such easement is located with a floodplain...." with should be within. Also, in the first sentence to whom an appeal should be taken needs to be added "New electric, telecommunications and cable... shall be placed underground absent a reasonable demonstration to the Planning & Zoning Commission...." This way it is known where the appeal should start. Mr. Schopper suggested to Mr. Green that when Staff presents this item to City Council, the pictures that the Commission has seen need to be included. Mr. Sapp stated that the utilities that were visible had signage on the transformers that were unprofessional. Mr. Nehring asked Mr. Green if the developer has liberty to place the transformers in a location that would be easier for ON COR. Mr. Green responded that it is something that needs to be looked at, possibly even added to the recommendation for City Council. Ms. Cole added that Staff has talked with the developers in the past three months and the developers are in favor of this as well. Brenda Cole, seconded by James Laubacher, motioned to approve PZ 2003-20 with the additions made by Richard Davis. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 16. ADJOURNMENT As there was no other business, Chairman Bowen adjourned the meeting at 9: 1 0 pm. ffr- Q~ p ¡t/~ Chairman Don Bowen Ted Nehring Page 19 8/21/03 P & Z Minutes