Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2003-12-19 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS DECEMBER 18, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Don Bowen at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Don Bowen Bill Schopper Ted Nehring Brenda Cole James Laubacher Ken Sapp Richard Davis CITY STAFF Asst. City Manager Zoning Administrator City Planner Asst. Director of Public Works Recording Secretary Richard T arres Dave Green Donna Jackson Lance Barton 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 Page 1 12/18/03 P & Z Minutes 4. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 20, 2003. APPROVED Bill Schopper, seconded by Brenda Cole, motioned to approve the minutes of November 20, 2003. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 5. PS 2003-52 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM PHIFER/HOGAN REALTY, L.L.C. TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF COUNTRY PLACE ESTATES ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 8000 BLOCK OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (5.866 ACRES). APPROVED Dave Green, Zoning Administrator, summarized the case. This request is for approval of the Final Plat for Country Place Estates Addition. The site is located in the 8000 Block of Davis Boulevard. The Commission approved the preliminary plat in August of this year. Public Works has provided a letter stating that all of Staff's concerns have been addressed. Mr. Green did point out that a few additional items needed to be discussed. According to Mr. Green when the preliminary was approved utility easements were located on the rear of each lot. In the proposed final plat, additional utility easements have been added to the front of the lots. The applicant has submitted a letter requesting that (due to the extensive number of trees on the site) the electrical utility easements be moved to the front of the lots. This would increase the number of trees that could be saved in the development of the site. Another issue involves Country Place Drive. At the present time Country Place Drive is an under-sized private road. The applicant is proposing to re-align and expand Country Place Drive as a public street. This would require dedication of ROW by the applicant and Oncor, the adjacent property owner. The applicant is working with Oncor to secure a dedication easement for this ROW. At this point in time the dedication documents have not been received. As far as City Staff is concerned, however, the plat meets all the current requirements and Staff recommends approval subject to obtaining the required street ROW easement and an additional sewer easement from Oncor. Chairman Bowen asked if there were any questions from the Commission members. Bill Schopper asked Mr. Green if the rear utility easements could be located to the front of the property as well in order not to impact the trees. Page 2 12/18/03 P & Z Minutes Mr. Davis stated to leave the easements as they are. The shallowness of the television and cable lines won't hurt the trees. All the deep utilities will be located in the front. Mr. Schopper stated that he would prefer everything up front, but he will leave the easements as they are in case it goes the other way. Richard Davis, seconded by Bill Schopper motioned to approve PS 2003-52 allowing the utility easement in the front as requested and subject to receiving the R-O-W dedication instrument and the drainage easement instrument from Oncor. Ken Sapp stated that the request to move the utilities to the front, because of the trees is commendable. However, consistent with the resent actions of Council and existing ordinances, Mr. Sapp believes there is a need to consider some method of disguising these utility transformers in the front yard, such as live vegetation and possibly setting them back. There is a 10-ft. easement which will put the transformers right on the sidewalk. Mr. Sapp asked Mr. Green, what kind of setback would be needed there? Mr. Green answered that if there were some kind of live vegetative screen, there would need to be some separation between the transformer and the sidewalk or where the property line is generally. Also, enough room would be needed to get a descent size (one gallon to three gallon) shrub, as well as a watering system. Mr. Davis stated that there is already a 10-ft. easement. The deepest a transformer goes is 4-ft. If it is pushed all the way back to the easement, minus a foot, with a 4-ft. transfarmer, it still leaves 5-ft. from the transformer to the sidewalk area. Mr. Davis will add to the motion that the transformers need to be screened with live vegetation or landscaping. Mr. Schopper stated that the reason the easements are being moved up front is because of the trees. The transformers would blend in anyway. Maybe not completely screened, but not sticking up in the middle of nowhere. Mr. Schopper would like to pass this plat as it is proposed and not worry about the screening. He doesn't believe it to be that overwhelming. Ms. Cole stated that if it is in a front yard it is overwhelming. Mr. Sapp stated that Council took action on Monday evening on similar properties and required vegetative screen. Mr. Schopper stated that the Commission should use the same language. Richard Davis amended his motion to include that the transformers be screened on three sides with live vegetation as proposed by Council. Bill Schopper amended his second to include Mr. Davis' motion. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Page 3 12/18/03 P & Z Minutes 6. PZ 2003-21 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM WALT LEONARD FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM "AG" AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO "0-1" OFFICE DISTRICT AND "CS" COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT LOCATED AT 8525 DAVIS BOULEVARD (3.32 ACRES). DENIED Dave Green, Zoning Administrator, summarized the case. This is a rezoning request. The property is located at 8528 Davis Boulevard, sitting across from the Target Development on Davis Boulevard and Precinct Line Road. The applicant is requesting that one parcel which is outlined along Davis Boulevard be rezoned "CS" Community Services. The remainder of the tract on the west side, the applicant is requesting "0-1" Office District. The current zoning on this property is "AG" Agricultural. The Comprehensive Plan does show that this property as well as property to the south and to the north to be shown as office uses. The property that is being requested for office use is consistent with the plan. The property that is being requested far Community Service is a much more intensive use than is promoted by the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has received a petition of opposition to this particular request. The petition is based on the individuals that signed the petition from the adjacent residential neighborhood to the west of this site. They are requesting that the property remain zoned "AG" or be rezoned "0-1" so it would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The petition does not have an affect at this stage in front of the Planning & Zoning Commission. There is no state requirement that would require the Commission to have a super majority vote because of the petition. That begins to enter the picture when this request goes on to City Council. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing. Walter W. Leonard, the applicant, came forward. Mr. Leonard stated that he is representing Dr. William Anderson, who has been a citizen and businessman in the City of North Richland Hills for a period of some 20 odd years. The property immediately to the south is currently zoned "C-2". It is an existing animal hospital. The history of this area has changed a little bit in the last few months or years. Our proposal is to rezone. It is a duel zoning. Mr. Leonard followed an application a couple of months ago, which stated "CS", in keeping with the property to the south of the existing use and the property across the way. This seemed the most logical in terms of uses. We consulted with Staff and with the people of the neighborhood. Staff came to us and told us there was a problem here. Some people believe that all "C-2" is too intense. There was also the question of the Comprehensive Plan. After much thought and discussion with Staff, the duel zoning seemed like a much better proposal. We believe this is the highest and best use of this property. This is the goal of any zoning activity. The protections of the neighborhood are fairly obvious. We have made sure that the City's plan for the Comprehensive Plan was maintained and protected by doing this. Half the frontage on Page 4 12/18/03 P & Z Minutes Davis Boulevard is office and all the areas fronting anyone in a residential capacity is office. The residents will have that boundary protection. In fact, this distance is 170-ft. from boundary to boundary of the zoning with setback requirements on either side, the residents will have a spacing in excess of 200-ft. between any residential structure. There will be a significant boundary. Of course, the City's own protections, such as landscaping, masonry walls, and lighting requirements will be in place to make sure the residents are protected from any intensity of use. The Comprehensive Plan seems to be more of a fact that the property to the south is already zoned "C-2", the area across from there is the Target Development, with Pad Sites. It is a heavy duty development separated by Davis Boulevard. Also, what has really changed the world is right here, a signalized intersection. In the Comprehensive Plan originally, this was just to be a straight stretch of Davis Boulevard, with comparatively limited access. This was appropriate for office, but because the world has changed, there is a signalized intersection; the highest and best use of these properties should be something different. There is an intersection here, that didn't exist before. An intersection is garden variety planning, which tells us there needs to be some sort of use to absorb that kind of traffic and that kind of activity. What we have here, is "CS" zoning. The general site there is based on a footprint of a possible Chili's Restaurant. That would be a very possible use for that sort of activity. This is not applicable anywhere else. What we have done to protect the Comprehensive Plan, is swing the office zoning around. Anyone up here is not going to be moving on from a different zoning, they will be moving on from office zoning. This is adjacent to a long standing, pre-existing commercial use. We believe this going to be the highest and best use. We understand the people's concerns, but if it is looked at carefully in light of what has happened out here, it actually is necessary. The traffic patterns that are now going to exist, dictate that something mare intense is needed to be able to draw the traffic in and out right there. The highest and best use is going to require the efficient use of these resources. The intersection will mesh with the existing activities and will give the traffic an obvious spot to go. We believe that we are preserving the plan, by making sure that the progression of the office zoning is preserved. We will also make sure that the neighborhood is protected by a very substantial, almost 200-ft. of office space zoning. It is fairly obvious planning. The offices will probably wrap themselves around the harseshoe. The result of that would be an even further barrier protecting the neighbars. We do believe this will protect the area. We also believe that this will enhance the area, which is also a duty the Commission and the City has to think about. It is a perfect site for a restaurant. It will maximize the amenities for the citizens, and assure protection for those there. It will also maximize things such as a tax base and so forth for the City, allowing the City to provide benefits and amenities the other citizens need. Justin Landes, the engineer, came forward. Mr. Landes stated that he has been retained by the owner to prepare the maps that are seen here tonight. I am available to answer any technical questions that may come up in regards to engineering issues. Chairman Bowen stated that this is just a zoning case. Any engineering issues would not be appropriate. All that needs to be decided tonight is whether this is the most appropriate use for this site. Chairman Bowen stated that Alan Schiller of 8636 Page 5 12/18/03 P & Z Minutes Shadybrooke Court is present and is against the rezoning, but would not like to speak. Sally Minacapell, 8562 Shadybrooke Court, came forward. Ms. Minacapell stated that she lives within 200-ft. of this property. One thing that Mr. Leonard did not mention is that our neighborhood is primarily up on a hill and we look down upon this property. Regardless of there being any terrific screening or fencing, we will still have a view of it, as we already have a view of the Target, Wal-mart, and all the adjacent strip centers. The value of my home, as well as many of my neighbor's homes has gone down in recent years since the development of the land in this area. I am very concerned that further development along the lines of commercial properties or community service could bring our home values down even further. I do not oppose the rezoning of the property to Office, but I am definitely opposed to Community Services. Jerry Jarzombek, 8558 Shadybrooke Court, came forward. Mr. Jarzombek stated that he has addressed this Commission before in regards to the Wal-mart and the Murphy Oil. I have been fortunate that the Commission has heard my concerns, considered them, granted them, and allowed there to be berms built, some were signage issues that were resolved that allowed less sign pollution and light pollution in that area. I would like to focus on some of the things that Mr. Leonard said about the land and the highest and best use. When this item first came about, Dr. Anderson wanted to have it zoned as Heavy Commercial. Mr. Jarzombek stated that he has lived behind Dr. Anderson since 1992. When Mr. Jarzombek bought his home in 1992, he didn't believe that the zoning would remain "AG". Land is going to be given its highest and best use, but Heavy Commercial was a bit much. Mr. Jarzombek explained that Dr. Anderson had told him that he needed to get out, due to the lights of the Wal-mart and the Target were shining through his windows with such intensity that he couldn't stand it anymore. Nor could Dr. Anderson stand the sweeper that was going through the Wal- mart parking lot at 1 a.m. in the morning. These are some of the things that all of us live with because things have progressed. We don't have a two-lane Davis Boulevard; we have a four-lane Davis Boulevard with a divided turn in the center, which everybody uses to make illegal u-turns. Mr. Jarzombek further explained that when he lay down at night, if his blinds weren't shut tight, the bright neon lights from Wal-mart shine in his bedroom. Office is probably fine. That is where we are going and that is what the Comprehensive Plan should say. When that time comes, we will talk about the height of the office building. If there is going to be a masonry wall for my house, I will have to ask the Commission to make some kind of an exception in arder to have one about 20- ft. tall. That is what it would take not to have to see that stuff anymare. The highest and best use of property also applies to the preservation of property that already has a use. That is residential property which affects every single one of us that lives right there. This is the first year ever that my property evaluation has gone down. Mr. Jarzombek explained that his kids leave their bikes out in front sometimes and he may not be the quickest guy to clean his pool after the rain, but he can't believe that alone made the $8,000.00 decrease. Mr. Jarzombek believes it is the development that is going across over there. Mr. Jarzombek doesn't want anymore of it to happen. For all of us, that have residential property, we are entitled to the full use of enjoyment of the property we have bought. We are entitled not to have that use taken away from us. That is what will happen by putting a Chili's there. The same thing that Dr. Anderson wants to get away Page 6 12/18/03 P & Z Minutes from, the bright lights, the traffic, and the noise are the same items that are going to be inflected upon us if this zoning request would be approved. For that reason, we are going to ask the Commission to deny that request, deny that there be a Community Services zoning and at least give us a good opportunity to talk to the Commission again when we will have office buildings coming up. It will be a bit of a taking far folks like me if the thing is anything more than a story tall. Steven VanWie, 8551 Shadybrook Court, came forward. Mr. VanWie stated that he is the one who started the petition that was mentioned earlier. At this point, we have 162 homes in the Steeple Ridge Subdivision. Our collective concern is the development adjacent to our subdivision, as well as the whole north part of North Richland Hills. In this particular case, it is PZ 2003-21 for rezoning from "AG" to "0-1" and "CS". We are opposed to this Community Services portion because it does not confarm to the Comprehensive Plan. I don't know who's highest use and best use of property that we are talking about. Are we talking about dollars or are we talking about a community. We believe that the subject should be about a community, not just dollars in Dr. Anderson's pocket. The petition that the Commission has will eventually go to the Mayor and to City Council since they are the approving authority. At this point, it is specifically 78.6%, of the 162 homes and 100% of the individuals that are within 200-ft. We are asking the City to not authorize any rezoning higher than Office adjacent to the land of the subdivision on the east side. This includes the whole area east of the subdivision in this particular petition. I have been here before. This is a fall out from the Wal-mart and Target. Along with the gentleman who wanted to put in mini-warehouses before. Ideally, we would like to see the area stay the way it is, "AG", or better yet, we would like to have the trees that were indiscriminately bulldozed a couple of years ago. We do realize that will not happen. We know that development is happening and we are not arbitrarily objecting to good quality commercial development. Many residents bought in this specific neighborhood because of the rural nature, the trees and based on this Comprehensive Use Plan. Unfortunately, this plan through the years has changed. Our subdivision is approximately 12 to 13 years old. I have been out there for almost 12 years. We have seen additions, such as the Wal-mart and the Super Target which has added tremendous amount of traffic, noise, light, and now if we add a Chili's we are going to add a smell pollution to us. Many of these same residents have opposed other developments. We have to deal with the situation. We are trying to protect our land values. The Commission has heard from some of my neighbar's stating that their land values have gone down. This is not the first time that I've said this before this Board and also City Council. In closing, we are asking the City to live up to the commitment to the citizens and keep the current land use plan as is and not authorize anything higher. In addition, we are asking that the highest standards for setbacks, screening walls, architectural and landscaping be applied to any development that will add value to not only the residential area but the commercial area as well. Chairman Bowen stated that Edward Harry, 8617 Kensington Lane, is opposed to the rezoning, but does not wish to speak. Mary Alice Harry, 8617 Kensington Lane, is opposed to the rezoning, but does not wish to speak. Gordie Holt, 8616 Kensington Lane, is opposed to the rezoning, but does not wish to speak. Page 7 12/18/03aP & Z Minutes Pete Hillier, 8636 Kensington Lane, came forward. Mr. Hillier stated that he has been before the Commission before. He believes the articulation and preparation of our community has been very well represented by two key speakers. There is one thing that he would like to reinforce. Mr. Hillier believes it was addressed as an intersection coming out of a parking lot. He travels a great deal and has never heard of an intersection coming out of a parking lot. It is an entrance and exit for safety. That is not an intersection. Precinct Line and Davis Boulevard are an intersection. The safety of our community is in question. Someone is going to get killed on Davis Boulevard if we allow that to go in place. Mr. Hillier doesn't know how emphatic it has to be made. Mr. Hillier arrives home at 5:30 p.m. every night. It seems like an exaggeration, but it is reality. Mr. Hillier has to address someone 25% of the time coming at him head on in the wrong lane to make a U-turn into Wal-mart. It is the worst case scenario. People are trying to pull out of that same street that other people have to turn into to make a left hand turn to dodge the people making left hand turns in an illegal U-turn. Mr. Hillier doesn't know how much the Commission is aware of that. Mr. Hillier believes that when some family gets wiped out then we will wish we had done something about it. In the meantime, we are going to put a Chili's in the same neighborhood. Not only is it land value, it is safety value. We have to evaluate it. Anybody that has been out there and has not noticed that, take a ride at 5:15 or 5:30 in the evening at any given night. Watch the people make a left hand turn. Your tax money will go back up. Shannon Child, 8550 Shadybrooke Court, came forward. Ms. Child stated that when she bought her home eight years ago, she was very happy with what she saw. All around her was land, a barn, and a two-lane road. It was quiet and beautiful. The City widened the highway and that was fine. Then the trees were chopped down and the development of Target and Wal-mart began. The view from her backyard are those developments. The property value has gone down. Yes, the world has changed, but why here. There is already too much there. Someone earlier mentioned a 20-ft. masonry wall and at least 200-ft. between us. I would need at least a 30-ft. wall and definitely more than 200-ft. I already have a horrible view. The Target lights come into the front living room. Ms. Child could live with perhaps an office complex, especially with the trees that Mr. Leonard had mentioned every 15-ft. She believes it should be less than that. If Mr. Leonard would like to buy our homes for market value, he can move in and watch the property grow all he likes. Then there is the bank that is already there but is not seeing any business. The parking lot is always empty. It will become vacant. With a Target and a Wal-mart side by side, how long do you think it will be before one goes under just like K-mart on Precinct Line Road? It will become the high school hang out. If something needs to be built, build a park. Charles Banner, 8613 Twisted Oaks Way, came forward. Mr. Banner stated that he is concerned about the engineering. I realize that this is a zoning case, but I believe that the engineering could have an effect on the rezoning. There is a tremendous drop in elevation on that property. Just to the north of this property is being developed as a one-story property. It has a huge retaining wall and is essentially about a two to three- story building when you look down there at it. Mr. Banner believes it will make a big Page 8 12/18/03 P & Z Minutes difference on how much these people see. His backyard doesn't back up to it, but he is sympathetic to those it does back up to. In addition, Summit Bank cleared out that whole corner of trees. Our tree ordinance doesn't work in North Richland Hills. All you have to do is drive up by Home Town and the trees are leveled. On traffic patterns, Mr. Banner saw a car southbound on Davis Boulevard that went up the exit at Wal-mart came nose to nose with another car. He had to drive across the island to go around it. Mr. Banner has sent two letters to the Mayor and City Council. They were forwarded onto the State, but the State didn't do anything. Until, the State does something, this area shouldn't be rezoned. This area is out of control. Mr. Banner believes everything should be held up until this is resolved. Leonard Newman, a property owner, came forward. Mr. Newman stated that he owns more property adjacent to this property than anyone else speaking here tonight. Mr. Newman has not signed any petition and neither has he been asked to sign a petition. The voices that have spoken here tonight have not represented everyone concerned. All the north boundary of this property says Leonard Newman on it. Mr. Newman has lived on this property since 1968 before the City annexed the property. He has paid more property taxes than anyone else. If anyone has a complaint about losing their country living, Mr. Newman stated that he does. If there is any intrusion it started at my back property. When Mr. Newman built his current home in 1973, he cut down one tree to build his current home. Mr. Newman loves the trees and the property. When he was told that his property would never be sold, and yet it was zoned commercial in the Master Plan, he had to come to a time in his life when he would have to give up his country living. He can't help it if that doesn't please all his neighbors. In order for our City to grow and to put a tax base under our City, we must have development. There is a neighboring City named Euless, it had no commercial property. It only had bedroom taxes. For many years that City suffered in development and their tax base. We have been blessed in this City to have commercial properties that blend with our residential people. Mr. Newman thought the zoning on the west side of Davis Boulevard would be appropriate for commercial development. Mr. Newman still does. That is what the master plan called for. In regards to the subject on traffic, there is a street outlet on the north end of the development where this Commission has been representing tonight. There is a cut already laying there tonight where a street could have been put right straight through to Davis Boulevard and they would have an in and out twice in that community. This would have alleviated the danger. Mr. Newman has come many times to this Commission in the spirit of compromise and has never seen that same attitude expressed by his west side neighbors. All Mr. Newman has ever got out of his west side neighbors is their trash over his back fence. He has never complained to the City Officials. Mr. Newman has come tonight to express to the Commission his support to Dr. Anderson. William Child, 8550 Shadybrooke Court, came forward. Mr. Child stated that his property is located directly behind the proposed rezoning. Mr. Child is not opposed to rezoning this property as the Commission has suggested in the master plan from 2001 to Office. Commercial development is fine, as long as a restaurant isn't backed up to his house. Page 9 12/18/03 P & Z Minutes Walter Leonard, the applicant, came forward. Mr. Leonard stated that he is City Attorney in four other jurisdictions in this area. People move into the country, believing it will always be that way. Unfortunately, a lot of people move into the country and then other things follow such as roads, facilities, public services, and places to shop. The Wal-mart and Target are there due to the people living in this area who need to shop there. The developments have nothing to do with our proposal. Everyone is mad at Wal-mart and Target, but this is not the case. This case is about the highest and best use for this property. We are trying to take care of the best use for this property. There have been complaints about the trees being cut down. My client has kept this area up as the Silva nary that the community wanted. It can't stay there and we knew that. Some of the trees that were cut down were not cut down by Dr. Anderson. We are hearing the woes of the people in that area, which are undoubtedly true, but they have nothing to do with this case. There is an intersection there; it is a functional intersection due to those lights. It gives us the opportunity to control traffic in that area and make it safer. An intersection like this with the lights and the controls is safer. It also gives us the opportunity to make the best use of this property because that will control traffic in and out of anything that goes there. The most appropriate use of this property is to recognize that. To recognize what is south of that and what is across from that. We have also tried very hard to make sure that there are provisions that protect by more than a 200-ft. separation between anything that could happen in Community Services and the nearest houses. We understand their problem, but this is not their problem. We need to develop it as proposed and do properly as it is required under the City's own ordinances and develop it as it suppose to be. It will not change their problem. Their problem is across the way at Wal-mart and Target. Both will glow in the dark no matter what we do. We will make the most viable development that will allow us to do things that will help protect these folks. Bill Schopper asked Mr. Leonard about site plan approval on this site. Do you have any specific users lined up? Mr. Leonard responded to Mr. Schopper that at some point a site plan approval will be required, but this is just a zoning issue. A site plan will be required whenever someone actually comes in and applies for whatever the use. Mr. Schopper stated that the Commission is changing a zoning based on the speculation of some future use. Mr. Leonard stated yes, but only to a degree. In terms of the Comprehensive Plan this is for Office zoning. No site plan is required. It is very dangerous when a site plan is mixed with zoning because you get into contract zones. What we have is an obvious plan based upon the locations, the traffic patterns, and so forth that we believe would develop into a predictable matter. The City's own site plan requirements will control whatever is put in there and how it is put in there, in terms of traffic flow, lights, amenities, and protection. For example, I believe the City would have a fit if someone wanted to put in a 20-ft. wall. Chairman Bowen asked if anyone else would like to speak in regards to PZ 2003-21. There were none. Chairman Bowen closed the public hearing. Page 10 12/18/03 P & Z Minutes Ted Nehring stated to Mr. Leonard that he understood what Mr. Leonard was trying to do. The Commission spent about a year with open public meetings to discuss the Comprehensive Use Plan. The Commission went over every piece of property in this City. I believe we did that for a specific purpose on that piece of property for "0-1 ". I believe that is the best use for that property. It would be nice if it was a park, but it is on Davis Boulevard. Mr. Nehring believes that is the best use of that property and that is the way he will vote. Mr. Nehring sticks to the Comprehensive Plan very closely. Chairman Bowen called for a motion. Ted Nehring, seconded by Ken Sapp, motioned to deny PZ 2003-21. The motion carried unanimously (7 -0). Chairman Bowen stated to Mr. Leonard that he has the right to appeal. Dave Green stated that the zoning ordinance requires an appeal to be submitted to the Staff within ten calendar days. Our issue with January Council meetings is if Staff was to go to the January 12, 2004 meeting that means, Staff would have to have an appeal come in early next week. Prior to the appeal going to Council, the same individuals that were notified will be notified again. In this case they must be notified within 15 days in front of the Council. If Staff goes to the first Council meeting in January, that requires the applicant to give Staff an appeal very quickly. If that is not an issue with the applicant and they can go to a later date, then the applicant needs to at least meet the 10 day requirement. 7. PZ 2003-26 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM SERVICE KING PAINT & BODY FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM "C-1" COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO "HC" HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 6920 N.E. LOOP 820 (.37 ACRES). APPROVED Chairman Bowen stated for the record that Richard Davis is leaving before this last case is considered. Dave Green, Zoning Administrator, summarized the case. The case involves a request to rezone a lot located at 6920 N.E. Loop 820. Mr. Green further described the site as being located on the south side of Loop 820 and having frontage along the east-bound frontage road of the Loop. The property is currently zoned "C-1 Commercial. The applicant is requesting "HC" Heavy Commercial. The site contains a former Service King Paint and Body Building. Service King, however, has not used the building for some time. Instead the site has been leased for several uses over the past 4-5 years. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning for the reason that the current "C-1" use is somewhat limited in its range of uses and intensities that are permitted. "HC" Page 11 12/18/03 P & Z Minutes allows a wider range of commercial uses. Mr. Green pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan does depict this particular frontage areas supporting "HC" type uses. The applicant's request is therefore consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing. Pat Remington, the applicant's representative, came forward. Mr. Remington stated that he is representing Service King Paint and Body, L.P. who is the record owner of this particular property. It is about a three quarter acre tract of property that was developed in 1998 as a single-story building, about 6,000 sq. ft. in size. Initially Service King occupied it and for the most part used it as general offices. They did estimating, window repair and replacement at this facility. Over the last few years, they have also leased that property to different tenants. The building is currently vacant and is zoned "C-1" which from Mr. Remington understood is no longer recognized as a zoning category under the current zoning ordinance. Mr. Remington further stated that Service King has made arrangements to lease the property to a company called Pro Tech Electronic, Inc. They are a major sub-contractor of Service King Paint and Body specializing in the installation and repair of electronics, stereos, and alarms in automobiles. Pro Tech specializes in the installation of DVD screens, stereos and car alarms. The business does not involve any body or engine work. All repairs are done inside the facility and there is no outside storage. Mr. Remington noted that Pro Tech would require the approval of a Special Use Permit or SUP in order to receive a Certificate of Occupancy. Another option would be to rezone the property to "HC" Heavy Commercial which would support the Pro Tech use. Mr. Remington stated that the owner thought it was more appropriate to request the "HC" zoning district rather than the SUP for this property. Mr. Remington further stated that the proposed zoning category is consistent with the Plan. Bill Schopper asked Mr. Remington about the testing of car alarms and as to whether or not Pro Tech is considering any sound abatement for the adjacent residential neighborhood? Mr. Remington suggested that Gary Grant from Pro Tech answer that question. Gary Grant, Pro Tech, came forward. Mr. Grant stated that the building is air conditioned so in the summertime all the work is done inside with the bay doors down and in the winter time the bay door stay down as well. Alarms and stereos are tested after installation, but all testing done inside. Mr. Grant stated that he felt very doubtful that the alarm testing could be heard outside the bay doors. Chairman Bowen recognized John Halbrook, 808 S. Central in Richardson, as supporting the rezoning but did not wish to speak. Also, Leland Hardage, 3884 S. Shiloh Road in Garland, supports the rezoning but did not wish to speak as well. Chairman Bowen asked if anyone else would like to speak in regards to PZ 2003-26. There were none. Chairman Bowen closed the public hearing. Page 12 12/18/03 P & Z Minutes James Laubacher asked Mr. Green about what would happen if the Commission approved heavy commercial zoning and Service King eventually sold the site to someone who wanted to put in something else that as permitted in the Heavy Commercial District. Mr. Green responded that anything listed as a permitted use in the "HC" District would be allowed by right. However, if there were issues with noise, lighting.. .etc. there could be some recourse through code enforcement. Mr. Laubacher stated that personally he would not have any problem granting an SUP for Service King far the proposed auto electronics use under the "C-1" category. He further stated that he felt it was safer to approve an SUP for the residents who live behind the existing building than to rezone to "HC". Chairman Bowen stated that he does not question the proposed "HC" District because it is consistent with the master plan. He also noted that there is so much inherit noise due to the site's location along 820 that he didn't believe that there would be a huge increase in noise. Mr. Schopper stated that he doesn't have a problem with the proposed user because it is a part of the Comprehensive Plan. He does have a concern with outside storage and questioned if the "HC" District allows outside storage. Mr. Green responded to Mr. Schopper that the "HC" District does allow a certain amount of outside storage and display, but there are conditions that apply to it such as location, percentage of site and screening. Bill Schopper, seconded by Ted Nehring, motioned to approve PZ 2003-26. The motion carried with James Laubacher and Brenda Cole voting in opposition (4-2). Page 13 12/18/03 P & Z Minutes _._.~~'----"_.__..._"_.~--,------ 8. ADJOURNMENT As there was no other business, Chairman Bowen adjourned the meeting at 8:21 p.m. Chairman Secretary r ",.tZ.. . I. f) ~ - / /dÃJV\ L( ~v-' i"15on Bowen 1;) ¡t/~ Ted Nehring Page 14 12/18/03 P & Z Minutes