Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2002-02-14 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS FEBRUARY 14,2002 AT 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Don Bowen at 7:05 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Don Bowen George Tucker Doug Blue Ted Nehring Tim Welch James Laubacher Scott Turnage Don Pultz Alternate CITY STAFF Director of Development Director of Public Works Zoning Administrator Recording Secretary John Pitstick Mike Curtis Cathy Horton Carolyn Huggins ALTHOUGH SEATED, MR. PULTZ ABSTAINED FROM VOTING SINCE ALL PLACES WERE REPRESENTED 3. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 24,2002 APPROVED Ted Nehring, seconded by Doug Blue, motioned to approve the minutes of January 24, 2002. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Page 1 02114/02 P & Z Minutes 4. PS 2001-02 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY JOHN M MALONEY FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MALONEY ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 7100 BLOCK OF HIGHTOWER DRIVE (1.03 ACRES) APPROVED Zoning Administrator Cathy Horton summarized the case. This is a final plat of property zoned R-1-S single-family residential located south of Hightower Drive. The purpose of the plat is to build a single-family residential unit on this property. The Comprehensive Plan for this area shows low density residential. This plat complies with the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the plat subject to staff comments. The Chairman called for comments and questions from the Commission. There were none. The Chairman asked for a motion. Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. Turnage, motioned to approve PS 2001-02 subject to staff comments. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 5. PS 2002-03 REQUEST FROM WAYNE FLORES FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, HOUSE OF GRACE ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 7900 BLOCK OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (11.4 ACRES) APPROVED Zoning Administrator Cathy Horton summarized the case. This is a final plat for the House of Grace Church. The preliminary plat of this addition was approved by the Commission last year on October 25. The site is zoned residential and churches are permitted within that zoning district. The Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision rules and regulations are met by this plat. There is one issue outstanding with utilities. The applicant wishes to have the Commission and Council waive a requirement for a 7.5-foot utility easement on this property. The site is heavily wooded and a tree survey would have to be submitted during the permitting process for this development. Staff recommends approval subject to staff comments, including the requirement for the 7.5-foot utility easement. Chairman Bowen asked for clarification of the contents of a letter sent by House of Grace. Is the statement in the letter from House of Grace in agreement with the City or Page 2 02114/02 P & Z Minutes is this a request from the City that House of Grace participate in the cost of upgrading the street (Northfield Park Road). Cathy Horton replied that the property owner will not be requesting access in lieu of participating in the cost of upgrading the street. If at any time they change their mind, they will have to come to the City and request access to that road. Chairman Bowen asked that the applicant come forward and explain his request for waiver of the easement. Wayne Flores, Washington & Associates, came forward and stated that the requirement for the 7.5-foot easement came up late in the review process after the plans had been designed without the easement. Mr. Flores met with Mr. Curtis, Public Works to discuss this requirement. Mr. Flores feels that the easement is not needed because all the adjacent properties around the House of Grace church are already developed or they have direct access to Davis Boulevard, which is where all the franchise utilities are located. Washington & Associates did show a utility easement on the plans to serve Lot 1, but there has not been a plan done yet for Lot 2, therefore, they did not want to dedicate easements without knowing where they will be needed in the future. They would like to come back in the future and do that by separate instrument. Mr. Flores further stated that an issue regarding the entrance came up in the pre- briefing meeting and he wanted to clarify that it is not a one-in, one-out but a two-in, two-out. He stated that they did not have enough frontage along Davis Boulevard to have two entrances to meet City requirements. They were told they could not have access to the park road because it was not dedicated right-of-way, therefore they were told to line it up with Bursey Road. Mr. Flores stated that they came to an agreement, and the Fire Department is in agreement too, to make it a double-wide entrance separated by a median so if there is an accident, the Fire Department can go on the opposite side of the median to gain entrance to the property. Mr. Welch asked if the applicant had considered sight visibility restrictions for individuals coming out of the development and turning southbound. Mr. Flores replied that they did not look at sight visibility requirements because initially they had the entrance further to the South but that the City stipulated that they line up with Bursey Road. Mr. Welch objected that even though the City recommended the Bursey Road access it is the applicant's responsibility to look at visibility and sight distances and Mr. Welch suggested that the applicant go back, look at these issues, and then meet with Mr. Curtis to discuss this. Page 3 02114/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Bowen asked that Mike Curtis, Director of Public Works, come forward and address the Commission regarding the utility easement. Mr. Curtis explained that the current ordinance states that a 7.5-foot utility easement is required around the perimeter of the property. However, currently there is Davis Boulevard along the west, the park to the east, and in the future, there will probably be a public road to the south. Most likely, there will not be a need for franchise utilities on those sides of the property. The remaining side, the north side, is questionable. Some development could, and probably will, take place along the north and the question becomes whether or not there is need for 7.5-feet on both sides. Typically, we ask for 7.5 on each side so we can get a 15-foot utility easement down the property line. Mr. Welch inquired as to whether it would be feasible to put a 7.5-foot utility easement on Lot 2 only rather than Lots 1 and 2. He suggested it would be a good compromise. Mr. Curtis replied that it would be acceptable. He stated that it would address the only "unknown" which is what will happen, in the future, to the north side of this property and whether there would be adequate easement to the north. Mr. Welch asked if Mr. Curtis perceived that a problem exists with the proposed access lining up with Bursey Road relative to the vertical grade of Davis Boulevard. Mr. Curtis stated that he did not check the sight visibility and it is unknown if there is going to be a sight visibility problem. He explained that the request for lining up with Bursey resulted from the fact that this is a City collector street intersecting Davis Boulevard. Staff recommended that the applicant line up there because there was not proper offset and it made sense to go ahead and line up with the intersecting street. Staff believes that this is the best place for the entrance because the applicant is correct in that he does not have the distance spacing to go ahead and try to put two access points along Davis Blvd. Mr. Blue asked if there would eventually be a signal light at that intersection. Mr. Curtis replied that there very likely could be in the future, but it is not needed due to the development of the church. The peak hours of a church typically are not the standard peak hours. Mr. Curtis added a point of clarification regarding the road. It is not dedicated as a public street. It is owned by the City and it is an access to the park. The applicant would have preferred to have their access onto that road as well as an access point on Davis, but staff advised them that if they tied into the road they would be required to either pay an escrow share of the road or improve it. The applicant choose not to pay an escrow or upgrade the road and therefore not to tie into the road. They furnished a letter that states that they will not tie into the street. If they come back in the future and want to tie into the road, City Staff will reassess at that point. Page 4 02114/02 P & Z Minutes Ron Bollinger, Secretary of the Building Committee for the House of Grace, came forward to explain the history of the project and to explain how the entrance changed from further south to its present location. Before buying Lot 1, the Committee met with City Staff on September 27, 1998. Andy Jones, Barry LeBaron, Julia Skare, and Bill Thornton were present. The applicant wanted to know the requirements and guidelines of the property. The applicant was told that there was no availability to the park road, that they would be required to access Davis Boulevard. After purchasing the property, the adjoining land became available. Since it might have future benefit to the church, the applicant purchased Lot 2. Coming forward with a joint plat, the City then requested the alignment with Bursey Road as far as ingress and egress. Since there were no further comments or questions from Commission members, Chairman Bowen called for a motion. Mr. Welch, seconded by Mr. Laubacher, motioned to approve PS 2002-03 subject to the following comments: A note added to the Final Plat that Block 1, Lot 1 of the House of Grace Addition shall not have an egress/ingress onto the Northfield Park Road without City approval; also there are a couple of typos to clean up on the owner's dedication. They indicate right now that they are dedicating alleys and parks as part of this plat. They need to remove that as part of the dedication statement. Also add a 7.5-foot utility easement only along the north lot line of Lot 2. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 6. PZ 2002-06 REQUEST BY THE HOUSE OF GRACE CHURCH FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN FOR A CHURCH LOCATED WITHIN 200 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL ZONING. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE 7900 BLOCK OF DAVIS BOULEVARD. APPROVED Zoning Administrator Cathy Horton summarized the case. This is the same property as the plat that was just approved. Because the church is adjacent to residential zoning, a site plan is required by our Zoning Ordinance. The church will be over 21,000 sq. ft in size. It has a 3-dimensional entryway and features columns. Window treatments include archways with columns and faux windows. Multiple planes are proposed for the roof structure which will be encased in Spanish tile roof material. All of the roof- mounted equipment will be screened by parapet walls and the building construction material will be of stone veneer. This complies with our recently approved building articulation and architectural requirements. Access is to Davis Boulevard. The Commission and applicant have agreed that no access at this time will be to Northfield Park Road. In terms of landscaping, this proposed plan meets and exceeds the minimum requirements of our Landscape Ordinance. The only notation we would make is that the dumpster pad screening should be of masonry construction similar to that of Page 5 02114/02 P & Z Minutes the main building. The applicant provided a detailed lighting plan for this development and that plan is consistent with our ordinance requirements. The Comprehensive Plan shows public/semi-public uses on Phase I of the development and this is consistent with our land use plan. We recommend approval of the site plan subject to revising the dumpster pad screening, regulations to reflect current ordinances, and we would recommend a ground sign or monument sign be shown rather than any pole sign along the Davis frontage and that signage will meet the current ordinance regulations. When Phase II is further developed, an additional site plan will be required for approval by the Commission and Council. Chairman Bowen asked if the applicant is aware of the changes in the dumpster screening. Mike McAdams with the Barron Companies, architect for this project for the House of Grace came forward. He stated that they are aware of the masonry requirement for the dumpster screening and they will take care of it. Mr. Bowen asked if they would use ground signage rather than pole signage. Mr. McAdams replied, "that's correct." Mr. Welch recommended that they move the dumpsters further north into the property away from the entrance to Northfield Park. Mr. McAdams replied that they would be willing to move the dumpsters to the north corner. Since there were no other comments, Chairman Bowen called for a motion. Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. Welch, motioned to approve PZ 2002-06 subject to staff comments, especially the masonry wall requirements around the dumpster and also to relocate the dumpsters on the site to the far northern portion of the lot. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 7. PS 2002-06 REQUEST FROM MARK LONG FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, LONG ESTATES ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 9000 BLOCK OF RUMFIELD ROAD (1.677 ACRES) APPROVED Zoning Administrator Cathy Horton summarized the case. This is a final plat on property owned by Mark Long. The property is currently zoned agriculture. The purpose of the plat is to get the site ready for residential development and the applicant Page 6 02114/02 P & Z Minutes will need to follow up with a zoning case to a residential zoning district in order to receive building permits for the development. The plat does comply with rules and regulations from the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. Our Comprehensive Plan shows a mixture of open space and office uses for the general area. When taking a closer look at the details, this site is developable and single family residential would be an appropriate use of this location. Access to the site is to Rumfield Road and staff recommends approval of the plat subject to the comments that are attached. Chairman Bowen stated that this is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If approved, would that designation remain? Ms. Horton replied that the plan would remain with that designatìon on it and in the future when the plan is revised, staff would revise the designation accordingly. There were no further questions for staff or the applicant and the Chairman called for a motion. Mr. Turnage, seconded by Mr. Nehring, motioned to approve PS 2002-06 subject to staff comments. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 8. PS 2002-09 REQUEST FROM ALAMO CUSTOM BUILDERS INC. FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF LOT 22R, BLOCK 1, RICHFIELD AT THE PARKS ADDITION LOCATED AT 7798 CHANDLER COURT APPROVED Zoning Administrator Cathy Horton summarized the case. The purpose of this replat is to ready the site for single-family residential development. An existing 7.5-foot utility easement located in the center of the lot is being moved to the eastern portion of the lot to create a more buildable lot area. The site does comply with the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. The property is zoned R-3-1800 which requires a minimum 1800 sq. ft. residence. Access to this site will only be permitted to Chandler Court. Staff recommends approval of the plat. Mr. Welch noted that the screening wall and sidewalk will fall 25 feet short of the concrete channel because on the original plat Lot 22R had a lot line of 65 feet wide which, with this replat, will now be approximately 85-90 feet wide. He inquired as to whether or not the applicant would be required to extend the screening wall and sidewalk an additional 25 feet to the concrete channel. Mr. Curtis responded that the Subdivision Ordinance requires masonry screening walls and sidewalks adjacent to the property. This replat falls under those ordinances so the applicant would be required to extend the screening wall and sidewalk to the channel. Page 7 02114/02 P & Z Minutes There were no further questions and the Chairman called for a motion. Mr. Welch, seconded by Mr. Tucker, motioned to approve PS 2002-09 subject to staff comments, and to include the requirements to extend the screening wall along Chapman and the sidewalk up to the existing drainage channel. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 9. PZ 2001-19 DISCUSSION OF A REQUEST FROM KAE SON KO FOR A ZONING CHANGE ON 1.006 ACRES FROM LR LOCAL RETAIL COMMERCIAL TO PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR ALL LR LOCAL RETAIL USES PLUS A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH ACCESSORY GASOLINE SALES. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 8015 GLENVIEW DRIVE NO VOTE - DISCUSSION ITEM ONLY Zoning Administrator Cathy Horton summarized the request. This request was before the Planning & Zoning Commission during December of last year. At that time, the Commission conducted a public hearing on the request and denied the request. The applicant then went forward to City Council and requested a public hearing. The City Council granted the applicant a public hearing. At that hearing, a number of issues came forward and the Council would like to hear comment on those issues tonight. The Council closed the hearing and made note that a number of variances, and there are quite a few, are due to existing site conditions (Le., building setbacks and landscape setback areas). Because two of these structures are existing on the site, a number of the variances would have to be granted even for the site to exist as it does today. They are nonconforming situations. Two outstanding variances that may need attention: upgrading the existing wood fence to a new wood fence, and requiring the dumpster location to be screened according to the ordinance requirements. Those two additions could add to what the applicant has already done. Since the Council meeting date, the applicant has come in and clarified more of the landscaping along Glenview, and clarified that he would only be requesting a monument sign and not a pole sign along the Glenview frontage, which is a major entrance to the City. Ms. Horton stated that the Commission members are looking at a balancing act with the request for planned development zoning. The Commission would be granting the applicant the additional use of a convenience store with gas pumps in the canopy area. By allowing that, the City would be receiving upgrades to the parking lot, to the landscaping along the street frontage and to the signage. The Council is interested in Page 8 02114/02 P & Z Minutes hearing the Planning & Zoning Commissioners thoughts and comments with regard to this request and improving site conditions in this area. Mr. Nehring stated that the applicant is trying to upgrade this property, which is what this Commission and the Council are interested in. The variances for the screening wall and the dumpster should not be granted, but the other variances should be granted because you cannot change some of those things because of the existing building. The applicant is making a good faith effort to improve his property and keep this business going. Mr. Turnage commented that the applicant has made real progress and he salutes Mr. Ko for trying to accommodate the City's desire to beautify this particular area. Mr. Turnage agrees with the comments already stated. The fence as it extends south beyond the building should be masonry and the wood fence behind the building running back to the north should be replaced. There should be an underground irrigation system to provide irrigation to the landscaping to make sure that it is properly maintained. Mr. Tucker commented that we are worsening an already nonconforming situation. It may beautify, but that is no excuse. It can't be helped what is already there, but the only reason this is happening is because the applicant wants to put a gasoline island in and that is not a good enough reason to cause all of this commotion. Mr. Welch concurred with Mr. Tucker's comments. The applicant is trying to add a gasoline facility and even though he has done a good job, there should be additional improvements. Mr. Welch is against this. Chairman Bowen commented that he agrees with Mr. Nehring and Mr. Turnage. There are existing variances on the existing piece of property and you can only do so much. A new wooden fence would help. Masonry on the western boundary would not be necessary because the property next to it will eventually be a commercial property and at that point a masonry fence is not required. Mr. Blue agrees with Mr. Tucker and Mr. Welch on their comments. Mr. Blue does not feel that you can crowd more into the existing space and make it look better. In addition, there will be issues of safety. It will generate more traffic in that area with the gas pumps and it is a crowded area already. Mr. Laubacher concurs with the comments made by Mr. Tucker and Mr. Welch. 10. PZ 2002-02 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY WESTERN RIM INVESTMENT ADVISORS, INC. FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM R-7-MF MUL TI- FAMILY, C-1 RETAIL, AND 1-2 MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL TO PD PLANNED Page 9 02114/02 P & Z Minutes DEVELOPMENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY USES NOT TO EXCEED FOUR AND ONE- HALF (4.5) LOTS PER ACRE AND MULTI-FAMILY USES NOT TO EXCEED SIXTEEN (16) UNITS PER ACRE AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL IN THE 6800-6900 BLOCK OF MID-CITIES BOULEVARD DENIED Zoning Administrator Cathy Horton summarized the case. This is a request from R-7 Multi-Family, C-1 Retail and 1-2 Industrial to Planned Development for multi-family on a portion of the property and single family on a portion of the property. This is basically a down-zoning, taking a portion of the site from what could be developed as multi-family down to single family residential on detached lots. The variances requested associated with the low density single family portion of the request is for lot area, lot width, lot depth, side setback at street, and sideyard setbacks. In association with the multi- family request, two variances are requested -- the setback adjacent to single family for two story apartment units along one side of the development, and also a requested variance to our masonry requirements. The ordinance would require 100% masonry on the apartment units and the applicant is requesting a combination of masonry and siding materials on those structures. Mr. Curtis discussed traffic issues. He met with the applicant's engineer to discuss City requirements for a traffic impact analysis. With any development like this, a traffic impact analysis (TIA) is required. Consideration during the TIA is given to not just the land that is being developed but to look at the undeveloped land around it so that consideration is given to the full development, especially if the applicant is planning to connect up to the undeveloped land. This site plan has access going over to the undeveloped school property. During meetings with the applicant's engineer, Mr. Curtis explained that requirements for the TIA must take into consideration whether the connection to the undeveloped land is going to be a primary access, or a secondary or emergency access. The applicant's engineer said it would be an emergency access, or possibly a secondary access (i.e., a teacher's parking lot). The applicant's traffic consultant provided the TIA with the assumption that it was going to be an emergency access. Based on that analysis, the street widths and right-of-way widths are acceptable. The 30-ft residential street is acceptable if that is nothing more than emergency or secondary with no drop-off or pick-up. This is the plan that staff and the applicant started working on. Mr. Curtis further explained that he had discussions with representatives from BISD and they stated that in the future they would like to have an elementary school at that site. However, they have no definite plans. The property to the south is partially zoned for a school and the property adjacent to Mid Cities is zoned commercial. The next public street to the south is Dick Fisher Road, which provides the only access in and out of the City's Service Center. The school may want to connect up to Dick Fisher Road. That would not be a reasonable connection or access point because the Service Center has heavy construction equipment coming in and out of there during the times Page 10 02114/02 P & Z Minutes that parents would be trying to drop off and pick up their kids. That leaves Mid Cities and to the north for reasonable access. If the commercial property is developed before the school, that further limits the access for the school. The school prefers not to have their primary access to Mid Cities. So, Public Works recommends that if the applicant wants access connecting to the undeveloped BISD property, then the street should be considered primary access, rather than secondary access. Mr. Welch asked if the primary access into the school would be off of the intersection of Sunset, Rosewood Drive, and Mid Cities Boulevard, and if so, would signalization be required although there are already two signals to the east at Dick Fisher and Technol. Mr. Curtis responded that if that street were going to be a primary access to the school, a signal would be required for the buses and the school traffic. Mr. Welch stated that it appears that Dick Fisher is a better access. Mr. Curtis responded that if Dick Fisher were not connected to the Fire Station and Service Center, he would agree that it would be a better access. However, during the school peak drop off and pick up hours, 7:00 to 8:30 a.m. and 2:30 to 3:30 p.m., the Service Center peak times match those hours. Mr. Welch wondered if the school district had any idea of how many students would attend this school and from which direction they would come. He stated that it does not seem that the kids would come from the west, but more likely, they would come from the north and east. He wonders if the cart is leading the horse. Is it possible that there could be cooperation between the school and the developer? Mr. Curtis responded that the school district doesn't have any idea of how many students would attend this school, which areas the school would service, and if or when the school will be developed. At this point, they are not far enough along to know. From a traffic standpoint, this is not a good location for a school. Ms. Horton then came forward to summarize the remaining staff concerns for this project. There are numerous variances requested. It is a planned development project and normally under those circumstances applicants request variances and then offer standards above and beyond minimum requirements in other portions of the development. In the staff report a few things are noted that could help this development along in the way of standards, for instance, dedicating an open space landscape area along Mid Cities in the single family section of the development to match what they've shown on the multi-family side. There are other ideas that could be explored. Based on these variances, the transportation issues that need to be resolved, and the lack of additional offerings from the applicant, any decision on this case may be premature at this time. Chairman Bowen announced a short recess at 8:04 p.m. Page 11 02114/02 P & Z Minutes Chairman Bowen resumed the meeting at 8:11 p.m. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing. The applicant, Rick Simmons, Western Rim Investments, came forward to explain the request. Mr. Simmons stated he was told by Barry Lebaron to show the City the quality of the development as well as the buildings and the way it laid out so that the City could be comfortable with the way the project was going to be developed. Mr. Simmons feels they have spent a lot of energy and time making what they consider to be very large trade-offs to make this project one in which the City would be happy. Mr. Simmons indicated that he had several meetings and telephone conversations with the school district. He met with Dr. Brewer from BISD. Dr. Brewer told him that they were not far enough along to know where the school would be located; there were four possible sites; but if a school were built at this location, he thought the main entrance would be off of Mid Cities. Mr. Simmons offered a stub out for emergency access or limited secondary access. He also offered to run water and sewer to that stub out for the school. Mr. Simmons feels that the 60-foot right-of-way running through the center of this property is a cost-cutting measure for the school. Since there is not any guarantee that this school will ever be built, the applicant feels that his development should not be burdened by a 60-foot right-of-way for something that is not known or guaranteed. In addition, the applicant stated that if this development remained all multi-family, the project would not have a school connector at all. There would be a fence around it with private access and private roads. Mr. Simmons stated that his company is considered one of the highest end developers in the State of Texas for multi-family. He explained that the proposal before the Commission this evening is taking a 43.9 acre site of which 37.375 acres is multi-family and they are proposing to scale that down to a little bit over 17 acres with 2.5 acres of industrial and 3 acres of commercial. Their intent is to build 275 fairly high-end multi- family units. The majority are two story units which the applicant considers to be a huge trade-off. He stated that they built the Villas on the Green on Highway 26. They also built the Villas at Bear Creek on Davis for senior citizens which used tax credit dollars. He stated that they continue to have a waiting list for that project. Mr. Simmons stated that the question to be asked is why support this project. He pointed out that they have the legal right to build 614 apartment units. A 614 unit multi- family project on this site would require the developer to build a mixed-use product. It would be an average grade product that meets the minimum ordinance, with some sort of tax credit or subsidized housing. He stated that perhaps that's why this property sat for the whole decade of the 90s when everything was being built in this city, and every other city, that had growth in Northeast Tarrant County. Page 12 02114/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Simmons stated that they maintain ownership of their projects. They have an interest in the appearance, the entryway, the neighbors, and the surroundings just as the City does. They take into consideration everything around the community from a developer's standpoint. It never entered his mind that they would be critiqued by staff on matching an R-3 or multi-family zoning to the tee. Mr. Simmons stated that they are reducing the project from 614 to 275 multi-family units. On the single-family side, they have 114 single-family lots with an average square footage of 7712 square feet per lot. That is a change from what is in the Commissioners packets, which stated a little over 8400 square feet per lot. Mr. Simmons is proposing taking some of the easements for a hike and bike trail which will reduce some of the lot sizes. By comparison, the minimum in R-3 is 7500. Mr. Simmons then addressed the two requested variances for multi-family zoning. Rather than 100% masonry, Mr. Simmons is requesting 75% brick and 25% siding. The siding will consist of fiber cement, a 50-year guaranteed product. Of the 275 units, 28 of the 31 buildings are two-story, all attached garage buildings. They look very residential. The remaining three buildings are three stories. They are up against the commercial property to buffer some of the not-so-attractive backs of those buildings to make this project look a little more attractive. The other variance is the distance between the single family and the multi-family. They have a 20-foot buffer. Regarding the 114 single-family lot, Mr. Simmons stated that they did not consider side-entry garages, but after meeting with staff they increased the side entry garages to 24%. Mr. Simmons then introduced an exhibit that adds another 11 lots with a 25-foot building line or a side-entry garage. In addition, for each lot with a front entry garage they plan to place four trees on those lots, with two trees being in the front. Mr. Simmons stated that he had the opportunity to discuss this project with the mayor and the mayor indicated he was concerned that single family lots that were smaller than 7500 feet would turn out to be inferior homes in the long run because the owners tend to rent them out and not maintain them. Mr. Simmons stated that they are using quality builders (Pulte and Ryland). The square footage works out to 15% at 1600 sf, 40% at 1800 sf and 45% at 2000 sq. Mr. Simmons guessed that the average size home in this community would be at least 2000 sf with home prices ranging from $160,000 to $180,000. He feels this is a high upgrade from what is across the street and from 614 multi-family units. Mr. Simmons feels that his product speaks for itself and that they do, and have done, a good product in the City. He further stated that there are only 28 lots that are 50-ft wide, 48 are 55-ft wide and the other 38 lots are over 55-ft wide. Because City Staff had a concern that there is not Page 13 02114/02 p & Z Minutes enough green space, Mr. Simmons took the easement and put in a hike and bike trail with landscaping and trees. In conclusion, Mr. Simmons stated that in addition to greatly increased dwelling unit sizes and a significant number of side-entry garages, he offers other increases to standards such as upgrading Mid Cities streetscape, high end apartments with mostly attached garages, mostly 2-story multi-family structures, connectivity for the proposed school and, finally, strong support from the school (a letter from Dr. Brewer, a copy of which is in the Commissioner's packets). Mr. Simmons stated that he offers the City a developer with a proven track record of building high quality residential projects in this City. He feels this is one of the best uses for this particular property given its zoning. Mr. Joseph Rue, Washington & Associates, came forward to address landscape buffering along Mid Cities. Staff has asked for a 15-ft buffer on the multi-family and a 10-ft buffer on the single-family side. The main entry has a 65-ft right-of-way dedication and as you drive down Mid Cities Boulevard and look at the masonry wall that will be placed there, they feel it would look better to add some undulation in the wall by moving it up to 10-ft in some locations and adding aesthetic features and landscaping. Mr. Simmons returned to the podium to explain that they require an HOA and his company would retain ownership and management of the HOA and would be responsible for maintaining the entire entryway. Marcus Miles, Chairman and CEO, Western Rim Investments, came forward. He stated that if they do the project as proposed, on the multi-family site there will be 1.15 attached garages per unit for a total of 319 attached garages on 275 units. These are 1 st floor entry from the garage, and everyone has a 1 st floor front door so it acts as a town home as opposed to an apartment. There are no catwalks. It doesn't look motel- ish. If they do the project as proposed, there would be 275 high end apartments with townhome quality, and 114 homes, which totals 389 units versus 614 apartments. The average income at all of their properties of this nature is $60,000 to $70,000 per household. On a 3-story walkup, the average income is in the $30,000 to $40,000 range. This represents a change in economics for the city. In this project, 389 units bring in the same amount of gross dollars as 614 apartments. The impact on city services is significant. From a purely net operating income standpoint, there is a higher profit (or less cost), with the same amount of revenue coming into the City with Western Rim's proposal. With changes in demographics, it affects City restaurants, dry cleaners, flower shops - there is higher disposable income per family and a positive impact on all City businesses with Western Rim's project. There are far less services that need to be provided so the City will experience far less cost. Mr. Welch inquired as to the average rent of the 275 multifamily units. Page 14 02114/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Simmons responded that the average square footage is 1200 and the rent averages 99 cents to $1.05 per square foot so the rent will average $1,200. Mr. Simmons explained that with computerization, existing apartment stock does not meet the needs of the people who use computers and work out of their houses. Mr. Simmons company traditionally builds a little bigger apartment to accommodate space for a computer. Mr. Welch stated that the average apartment rent on the multi-family side would match the average mortgage on the single-family side. He wondered if it would make sense to go with more of one or the other since the rents/mortgages are so close. How did they come up with this ratio of 275 MF and 114 SF? Mr. Simmons stated that it's all economics, but also these two products meet each other's needs. Approximately one-third to one-half of the customers will move into an apartment, like the community, and upgrade to a house in a couple of years. Mr. Nehring stated that he would vote to go 100% masonry on the multi-family. Regarding a 2-story multi-family next to residential, he believes that the 20-foot buffer should be maintained. Mr. Simmons pointed out that it is 20 feet from the guy's backyard that owns the house plus whatever the back building line is, which is probably 20 feet, so figure 40 feet. If it were houses backing up back-to-back the same issue would exist. Mr. Simmons talked to his builders and the builders were more concerned with a 3-story blocking views but felt that since it was 2-story and had a good-looking elevation with masonry requirements it would be ok. Mr. Simmons feels that the back of his building is going to be better looking than the back of the homebuilder's building. He also stated that it's not existing homes. Anyone who purchases a home will know in advance that apartments are going into the development. He stated that his multi-family project will be out of the ground as fast as the homebuilders will. Mr. Nehring stated that the City has tried to move away from the standard minimum required in R-3 to a minimum standard as stated in R-2. Mr. Tucker concurred. He stated that front entrance garages always end up unsightly because homeowners leave the garage door open, stuff the garage full of junk, and leave the cars outside. Small lots and small sideyards and crowding this much in one area is something he could not support. Mr. Laubacher asked for clarification on the applicant's intent to maintain ownership of the apartments. Mr. Simmons stated that their track record speaks for itself. In their 30-year partnership they have never sold a property. They have maintained ownership and management of every one. It's what they do for a living. Page 15 02114/02 P & Z Minutes Chairman Bowen asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in favor of this zoning request. Mark Woods, 6317 Riviera Drive, North Richland Hills, stated that the south property line of this property is up against the Dart rail line. That presents a major obstacle to marketing the product that they are putting on the ground. The multi-family that exists there today is for 614 units multi-family plus an industrial next to the multi-family, which they are taking down to 275 units. The average sizes of the units are larger than anything in the City, including the two properties that they have already built, which are the two highest quality properties in the City. These are not cheap, low-end properties. Average monthly rentals of $1200 will take a relatively high-income occupant to afford that. This is not a request for R-3 zoning. It is a request to go down from multi-family to a very reasonable single-family product that fits within the definitions of R-3. Looking back at the ordinances, they do not call for the elimination of R-3, but the use of R-3 only as a buffer between commercial and residential properties. This is a buffer between a proposed possible school site and multi-family. The multi-family would be up against existing commercial as well. There are a number of obstacles with this project that lend some credibility to the fact that this is a reasonable request. Forty-five percent of this project is deed restricted to 2000 and above minimum size houses. Another 40% is 1800 and above. R-3 is only 1600. Size of the lot does not dictate the quality of the project. Although cities want open space, and amenities that open space affords, it is the quality of the home that dictates the value of the neighborhood. Considering the masonry issue, Mr. Woods stated that not very long ago this very Board looked at how to define masonry. Cement fiber board used to be considered masonry and this product is better than the product this Board and the City Council approved for Home Town. In addition, the 46-acre project recently approved adjacent to Home Town has 40,50 and 60-ft lots which are the small lots that this Board is stating they don't want in this project. Mr. Woods asked that the Board consider that size of lot does not dictate value and quality in a community. He asked the Board to focus on the fact that the project is going from 614 lower-end units to a lower density single-family use strongly supported by the school district. He reiterated that the school district has four sites and that they have stated publicly that they intend to build on two of those four sites but they haven't chosen those two sites yet. Mr. Woods stated that the developer for this project would like to see the school built because it would benefit the area and this project, but Mr. Woods requested that the school decision not be allowed to drive the decision on how this project is developed. Mr. Woods then repeated most of the TIA information that Mr. Curtis had previously stated. He objected to Mr. Curtis's suggestion that Dick Fisher shouldn't be used because the City Service Center and Fire Department are located there. Mr. Woods stated that those are public streets and everyone has the right to use them. He also stated that the fact that the school wishes to sell off the frontage of the property for commercial uses is not an issue that the Board and this developer should have to worry about. The school will have to replat the property to sell off any of it and they will have to provide Page 16 02114/02 P & Z Minutes -~" -~..-._" ""._"··"_.___......"'~·H"._~____~.___.____ adequate access. This developer should not be burdened with providing primary access when that was never the point to start with. Chairman Bowen called for any other comments in favor of this request. There were none. He then asked for anyone opposed to come forward. There were none. The Chairman closed the public hearing and called for comments from staff. Mr. Pitstick stated that there have been some comments made regarding non- cooperation of staff and the developer. He explained that both staff and the developer have been working on this project for quite a while and have made significant changes from the original plans that were presented. Both staff and the developer have been cooperative. He commented that there is still a concern regarding access to the school and it probably can't be resolved tonight. Staff's main concern with this development, as directed by the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council, is to follow the City's guidelines and regulations. As a result, staff recommended that the developer stay with straight R-3 zoning and straight R-7-MF zoning. Staff would support a change from MF to R-3, and we encouraged the developer to do that, but they stated that they need more density. Staff then encouraged them to use side-entry or rear-entry garages to make the development more attractive. The multi-family is a high quality development. They are asking for a variance on masonry, as masonry is defined by staff. The applicant is asking for five variances in single-family but they are giving some back with the improved dwelling unit size. The applicant brought up several things tonight that staff would support, for instance, the undulation of the entryway and the hike and bike trail. However, this is the first time staff has heard these suggestions and we would like an opportunity to visit with the applicant about these items. Staff has concerns about the significant oil and gas easements that crisscross the property. Based on our understanding, they cannot be fenced, yet they cross lot lines so a question remains of who will maintain those. Mr. Pitstick summarized that the bottom line is that the applicant has R-7 -MF and they could develop fully multi-family on the lot today. If the Commission wants to allow them to go to single family then the issue becomes what are the trade-offs that the Commission expects to see. In recent history, the only time that 50 or 55-foot lots were allowed was because of significant increase in square footage and some means of either rear-entry or J-drive entry on the lots. Mr. Nehring asked if staff could support the proposed SF use of this property~ Page 17 02114/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Pitstick responded that staff could support single-family but would like the opportunity to do further work on this project with the developer. As stated, some items presented tonight were new and staff needs an opportunity to look at those. Staff does not recommend approval or denial but based on the single-family presented tonight, it does not live up to the standards we have approved in the past. Mr. Turnage commented that he would be horrified to see this property developed as currently zoned with 614 apartment units. He'd like to see the property developed into $160,000 to $180,000 R-2 homes, but economics are not going to allow that. Homes valued at $180,000 are not going to be built up against a grocery store and a rail line. Given what surrounds this property, this is probably the best use that can be expected. R-2 would be better than R-3. Front entry garages are not attractive, but alleys are even less attractive. Since the developer brought up new issues tonight which the staff has not had time to study, Mr. Turnage would prefer to continue this case until next month and let City staff and the engineering department work further with the developer. Mr. Welch stated that he likes this plan. The alternative of 614 multi-family units is not an attractive option. It is a relatively good plan with the multi-family backed up to the grocery store parking lot and surrounded with lots. The recently approved addition adjacent to Town Center matches the value and footprint of these homes. This is a piece of odd-shaped property, which is difficult to develop, and he applauds the developer for this plan. Mr. Nehring asked Rick Simmons to return to the podium to answer a question. He asked if it's possible for Mr. Simmons to meet the R-3 standards. Mr. Simmons replied that they could not meet R-3 standards due to the hardships that go with this property, for instance, the crisscrossing easements and the railroad tracks. He stated that they tried to layout the property differently. They laid out the property in four different ways but there were too many issues and too much variation in the lots. They cannot drop the number of lots and still make it financially. Mr. Blue asked if the average lot size was affected when the easements were taken away. Mr. Simmons affirmed that the average lot size was affected. It was reduced to 7712. He further stated that he would be willing to work very closely with staff on the easement issues. He also stated that he believes the single-family builders will exceed the R-2 minimum standard of 2000 sq. ft. Mr. Welch asked Mr. Joseph Rue, Civil Engineer, Washington & Associates to explain the proposed plan for drainage. Page 18 02114/02 p & Z Minutes Mr. Rue stated that the main concerns are the existing petroleum lines and Lone Star Gas lines. The drainage of the property depends on the depth of the existing lines. In some locations, they are very shallow. Some fill will be necessary. Everything drains down from northwest to southeast. All the water and sewer will be coming in from that southeast corner. Drainage easements and utility easements will be acquired from the school site. There is a ridgeline where the gas line runs and nothing can be cut over the gas lines, which presented a lot of constraints. There is an existing drainage channel on the City's Service Center area and everything drains down to there. The existing drainage channel was designed for industrial use zoning, which is a little bit higher density than single family and multi-family combined so this existing drainage system should be adequate to handle the drainage for this project. Mr. Welch asked if they anticipated a need for a detention pond. Mr. Rue stated that they did not anticipate a need for a detention on site. Mr. Welch inquired if there was drainage back to Mid Cities Boulevard. Mr. Rue stated that there is one low spot so about 150 feet of the property will drain to Mid Cities Boulevard. Chairman Bowen commented that there is not a market for 614 multi-family units. He also stated that he does not have a problem with the multi-family portion of the project, but he does have a problem with the single-family lot size. He stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission has worked for years to get away from R-3 and to have larger lot sizes. He also stated that this is not a buffer zone. It is too large to be called a buffer zone. Mr. Blue commented that this project is being compared to the project approved adjacent to Home Town, but none of those had front entry or J-entry drives. Lots were about the same size. He does not feel this project is where it should be. He cannot support this project. Mr. Laubacher stated that he is in favor of this project. A single-family development on this site is unrealistic. Combining possibly a school on one side, retail on one side and a railroad on one side, does not attract single-family residence homebuyers. R-2 development is not realistic. Multi-family is possible but not the greatest alternative. This plan puts together a realistic combination of the two. If this project were approved this evening, he wondered if staff would have adequate time to resolve outstanding issues before it went to Council. Mr. Pitstick responded that it would not be possible. Mr. Laubacher responded that he would prefer to table this and let staff address any outstanding issues. Page 19 02114/02 P & Z Minutes As there were no other comments, the Chairman called for a motion. Mr. Welch, seconded by Mr. Turnage, motioned to approve PZ 2002-02 with the requested variances except there must be 100% masonry on the multi-family building structures, and all the variance setback requirements on the PD on single family including the open space across the gas line easements, and additional frontage along Mid Cities Boulevard. The motion failed (2-5) with Mr. Turnage and Mr. Welch voting for the motion and Mr. Laubacher, Chairman Bowen, Mr. Nehring, Mr. Blue and Mr. Tucker voting against the motion. Mr. Laubacher commented that he voted against the motion because Staff would not have a chance to review this prior to it going to Council. He would have preferred that the Commission tabled it. Mr. Laubacher, seconded by Mr. Turnage, motioned to table PZ 2002-02 until March 14, 2002, so Staff can have a chance to look at the various new information that came up in this meeting. The motion failed (3-4) with Mr. Turnage, Mr. Laubacher and Mr. Welch voting for the motion and Chairman Bowen, Mr. Nehring, Mr. Blue and Mr. Tucker voting against the motion. Mr. Tucker, seconded by Mr. Nehring, motioned to deny PZ 2002-02. The motion passed 4-3 with Chairman Bowen, Mr. Nehring, Mr. Blue and Mr. Tucker voting for the motion and Mr. Welch, Mr. Laubacher and Mr. Turnage voting against the motion. Chairman Bowen advised the applicants that they have ten days to appeal the denial decision. 11. ADJOURNMENT As there was no other business, the Chairman adjourned the regular meeting at 9:24 p.m. Chairman Secretary fP.- Q~ Don Bowen 1;) ¡t/~ Ted Nehring , Page 20 02114/02 P & Z Minutes