Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2002-05-09 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS MAY 9,2002 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Don Bowen at 7:07 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Don Bowen George Tucker Don Pultz Ted Nehring Tim Welch James Laubacher ABSENT Doug Blue CITY STAFF Director of Development Director of Public Works Planner Engineering Associate Recording Secretary John Pitstick Mike Curtis Dave Green Jon Lovell Eliza Margenau 3. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2002 APPROVED Mr. Laubacher, seconded by Mr. Pultz, motioned to approve the minutes of April 25, 2002. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). Page 1 05/09/02 P & Z Minutes 4. PS 2001-44 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM S.T.S. CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF WOODLAND ESTATES ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 6700 BLOCK OF CRANE ROAD (17.70 ACRES) APPROVED Planner Dave Green explained to the Commission that this request involves a piece of property that already has an approved final plat. That plat was approved in 1986 for Block 6 of Nob Hill Addition. At that time, the plat showed a street connection on the north end connecting to adjacent subdivisions. The subdivisions to the north were approved and built but did not include the street connection. The purpose of this plat is to show a public street connection from this tract to Crane Road. This subdivision consists of 44 lots zoned R-2. The residential uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Tucker inquired as to when Crane Road will be updated. Mike Curtis, Director of Public Works, replied that the City is currently acquiring right-of- way. It is classified as a minor collector street and will be widened to 40 feet. Construction will begin mid to late summer. Mr. Welch stated that on the previous final plat there was an existing 50-foot drainage easement that tied into Woodland Oaks 7R1 and 8R1 and came down through Cedar Crest drive, exiting between Lots 18 and 19. Mr. Welch wondered if it is necessary for the easements to remain 50-foot wide on Lots 8 and 9 and 18 and 19? Mr. Curtis replied that the construction plans are still being reviewed. The applicant has not turned in a CLOMR (Conditional Letter of Map Revision) for this property. Part of the property is located in a flood plain. Instead of turning in a CLOMR, the applicant has elected to show the 1 OO-year flood plain in a drainage easement. That drainage easement bisects the two lots in the southeast corner. From a building permits issue, it would be easier for staff to keep record of those two lots if the entire lots were shown as the drainage easement until the developer comes forward with the CLOMR, and, eventually, the LOMR (Letter of Map Revision), which would take that property out of the flood plain. The 50-foot would remain after the LOMR is approved and that property is out of the flood plain. Mr. Welch replied that his concern is that in Woodland Oaks between Lots 7R1 and 8R1 there is about a 20-foot concrete flume and he would not like to see a continuation of that flume down between Lots 8 and 9 and punching out into the streets. He realizes that quite a bit of drainage comes over to that point from the Woodland Terrace Page 2 05/09/02 P & Z Minutes Addition and South ridge Estates, but there is nothing but concrete flumes back there, and Mr. Welch would like to see it collected in an enclosed system and taken down through the subdivision and stubbed out to the south. Mr. Curtis replied that from everything he has seen, it will not be in a flume, but will be underground. Since they haven't done the CLOMR, staff doesn't know yet how they are proposing to do the offsite. Mr. Nehring asked for an update on the environmental situation in that area. Mr. Curtis replied that City staff received a call from TNRCC who stated that there are some environmental issues with that property. Staff asked for specifics, but to-date has not received anything in writing from TNRCC. TNRCC has tested some samples taken from the site. City staff has contacted the developer for information. The property owner has informed the City that they are planning on complying with the TNRCC regulations and that they are not subject to City reviews or approvals. This issue was discussed with the City Attorney and he stated that if there are environmental issues, this platting is not going to negatively impact any adjacent property owners or general public. Mr. Nehring asked whether this matter is only between TNRCC and the developer. If the City were not involved, would TNRCC and/or the developer notify the City of the findings/results? Mr. Curtis stated that this may be a question for the City Attorney to answer, but to the best of Mr. Curtis's understanding, for the purpose of this platting issue, the environmental issues are between TNRCC and the property owner. Mr. Nehring inquired as to whether or not approving the plat has anything to do with the environmental problem. Mr. Curtis replied that according to the City Attorney, approving this plat does not have anything to do with the TNRCC issues. Mr. Welch asked if the developer has provided any information to the City regarding his plans to clean up this site. Mr. Curtis stated "no" -- other than a statement from the developer in which he has stated that he plans to comply with TNRCC, and the applicant feels that his issues with TNRCC do not concern the City. Mr. Welch stated that they do concern the City because the streets are going to be dedicated to the City of North Richland Hills, and the City is going to have water and Page 3 05/09/02 P & Z Minutes sewer lines installed in the streets, which is a public safety concern. He asked the applicant to come forward and address these issues. Scott Shambacher, 1525 Bentcreek Drive in South lake came forward and stated that TNRCC contacted him when he started to do brush clean up at the site. He stated that TRNCC's approach was a little overbearing in that they came forward with tests from 1989. Mr. Shambacher said that the property owner has had tests performed as recently as six months ago. The property owner feels that TRNCC needs to prove his guilt rather than the owner proving his innocence. The owner has documentation that says the site is clean. The owner feels that there may be a couple of areas of concern, but before negotiation can take place on how to clean it up, TNRCC needs to approach the owner in the proper way and they haven't done that. The owner has hired an attorney who is dealing with TNRCC and has asked TNRCC to produce facts. Mr. Shambacher stated that the site would be cleaned up prior to the beginning of any construction. They do not want liability. Mr. Nehring asked if they would inform the City Staff once they receive the total results and clearance from TNRCC. Mr. Shambacher replied affirmatively. He stated that they would not commence with building permits until the City receives the right documentation from the property owner or TNRCC. Mr. Bowen asked if the applicant understands that approval tonight changes only the surface of the plat but does not allow the applicant to turn dirt? Mr. Shambacher stated that they understand. He stated that they also understand the controversy with the neighbors. He stated that they would educate the surrounding neighbors with facts at the right time. Chairman Bowen stated that this is not a public hearing but if any of the neighbors were present and had questions, they could come forward and ask their questions. There were none and Chairman Bowen asked for consideration on PS 2001-44 with the understanding that this is only a change in the face of the plat. Mr. Nehring, seconded by Mr. Laubacher, made a motion to approve PS 2001-44 with the stipulation that no work permits will be issued until the developer has received official clearance notification documents from TNRCC. The motion was approved unanimously (6-0). Page 4 05/09/02 P & Z Minutes 5. PS 2002-16 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM NORTHEAST TARRANT BAPTIST CHURCH FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1 NORTHEAST TARRANT BAPTIST CHURCH ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 700 BLOCK OF SMITHFIELD ROAD (6.245 ACRES). APPROVED Planner Dave Green stated that the church recently purchased this site. It contains a fairly large residential structure. The tract contains 6.245 acres and has never been platted. The applicant is seeking approval of the preliminary plat and site plan (which is the next case on the agenda). There are comments from Public Works. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to those comments. Mr. Welch asked if the applicant is aware of the Public Works comments. Mr. Green replied that the applicant is aware of the comments. There were no further questions and the Chairman called for a motion. Mr. Welch, seconded by Mr. Pultz, motioned to approve PS 2002-16 for the preliminary plat of Lot 1 Block 1, Northeast Tarrant Baptist Church Addition subject to the Public Works recommendations as outlined in the memo to Planner Dave Green. The motion was approved unanimously (6-0). 6. PZ 2002-10 CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST FOR NORTHEAST TARRANT BAPTIST CHURCH LOCATED IN THE 7000 BLOCK OF SMITHFIELD ROAD (6.245 ACRES) APPROVED Planner Dave Green stated that this is a request for site plan approval for the church. Churches are a permitted use in all zoning districts except for agricultural and manufactured home districts. Churches typically are considered a fabric of the community and their use in and around residential areas are considered consistent with those areas. The current zoning on this site is residential. The use of the church on this site is considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. By policy, Staff has considered churches to be nonresidential uses and as such they are subject to some of the ground rules and some of the regulations involving nonresidential uses. One of those rules is that when you have a nonresidential use, which is within 200 feet of Page 5 05/09/02 P & Z Minutes residential zoning you must ask for site plan approval for the location. For this location, all of the properties in all directions from the church are residentially zoned so the Applicant is asking for site plan approval for the church property. There is an existing entryway from Smithfield Road back to the existing residential structure. The church is proposing to close that entryway, dig up the pavement and put in a new entryway in the center of the property, coming to the same point of the circular drive in front of the residence. The Applicant has added the parking requirements for the church. Those requirements are based on the capacity of the Sanctuary, which are 100 people. City parking regulations require one parking space for each three people which means 34 parking spaces are needed for this site and the applicant has provided that in the areas around the house. Landscaping requirements do not impact this site. Landscaping requirements are needed only if the existing site is expanded by 30% or more. A note has been added to the plat stating that any future development of this site would require a new site plan approval process, and if the expansion is more than 30% then the applicant would be looking at issues of landscaping around the exterior borders of the site. There is also a memo from Public Works listing two or three minor items that they would like to see added to the site plan. Staff recommends approval of this site plan. Mr. Welch asked if it is feasible to have just one access drive based on possible future growth of the church. Mr. Green replied that there is a note on the site plan face stating that when there are additions to this property, site plan approval must be revisited. At that time, staff can address access to the point. There are issues with some of the adjacent street intersections. There must be enough offset to not cause problems. There is also an issue of saving certain trees on the site. We can be assured that in the future that issue can be discussed since the site plan must be brought forward for approval if the applicant makes additions. Mr. Welch asked if the applicant would have exterior lighting. Johnny Bernstein, 5605 Cancun Drive, North Richland Hills, stated that they do not have any current plans to add any lighting. The church does have a lighting specialist, but their main goal and priority was to get in, get the parking put in, and begin to be able to use the property, and then see what type of lighting would be needed. They intend to be good neighbors so they want to make sure that the lighting does not adversely affect the neighbors. At this time, they do not have any plans to put in any lighting. The structure itself already has a lot of exterior lighting. Right now, they have one service at 10 a.m. on Sunday morning so there is not a need for exterior lighting. Mr. Welch stated that his concern is that once they put the new entrance in, the parking will be almost 400 feet back from the entrance. Has the Fire Department been notified and approved this change? Page 6 05/09/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Bernstein stated that as he understood it, each City department examined the site plan that they submitted. There is a request for a new fire hydrant in the back. Mr. Bernstein plans to comply with that request. There were no other comments or questions and the Chairman called for a motion. Mr. Welch, seconded by Mr. Nehring, motioned to approve PZ 2002-10 site plan approval subject to Public Works comments. The motion was approved unanimously (6-0). 7. PZ 2002-20 CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FROM REBEL PROPERTIES II LTD. FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 1, AND LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 2, BROWNING INDUSTRIAL PARK ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 6300 BLOCK OF BROWNING DRIVE (9.40 ACRES). APPROVED Planner Dave Green stated that this is a subdivision for industrial type use. It is located just off Browning Drive very near a common city limit line with Haltom City along the very western edge of the site. A preliminary plat of this site was approved late last year that included more land further to the north, but at this time, the applicant is coming forward and asking for approval of Final Plat of just four lots adjacent to Browning with Collins Drive running north and south between Blocks 1 & 2. The proposed use and zoning are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval, but once the property to the north is brought forward to platting Collins Drive will need to be extended to the north and brought to the east to connect with an existing street or the alternative is to end Collins Drive in a cul-de-sac. Chairman Bowen asked if the developer is aware of the requirement to extend the street or end it in a cul-de-sac. Mr. Green replied affirmatively. The Chairman asked for questions. There were none and the Chairman called for a motion. Mr. Nehring, seconded by Mr. Laubacher, motioned to approve PZ 2002-20. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). Page 7 05/09/02 P & Z Minutes 8. PS 2002-21 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM REBEL PROPERTIES II LTD. FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 1-18, BLOCK 1, AND LOTS 1-22, BLOCK 2, GLENWYCK VILLAS ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 6400 BLOCK OF GLENVIEW DRIVE (8.53 ACRES). Planner Dave Green explained that there was a planned development approved on this site last year as well as a preliminary plat approved more recently. This is the final plat for the site. The first change from the preliminary plat and PD involve drainage. Originally, Lot 22 was designated as a common space to be used as drainage detention. The applicants' engineer has obtained some drainage easements in a different portion of the plat that alleviates the need for Lot 22 to be drainage detention so that lot will be used for residential development. The second change is that Lot 18 was not included on the preliminary plat or the PD. That oversight is being corrected at this time. The third change is that Lots 14 to 17 of Block 1 were originally platted as an individual lot in a different subdivision. The applicants obtained those lots and included them, along with Lot 18, with this plat. This use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Welch asked if the development will have a homeowners association. Mr. Green stated that an HOA was required by Council for the maintenance of the common areas, as well as the maintenance of the fencing along the common western boundary. There were no other questions and the Chairman called for a motion. Mr. Welch, seconded by Mr. Tucker, motioned to approve PS 2002-21. The motion was approved unanimously (6-0). Chairman Bowen complimented the developer for being able to get rid of the detention pond. Page 8 05/09/02 P & Z Minutes 9. PZ 2002-11 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM A. PATRICK MCENVOY REPRESENTING COMMERCIAL WESTERN REALTY FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP) IN A C-1 AND C-2 DISTRICTS TO ALLOW THE USE OF BUILDING MATERIALS OTHER THAN THOSE PERMITTED BY SECTION 605 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE 8200 BLOCK OF BEDFORD EULESS ROAD. TABLED Planner Dave Green stated that this is an existing retail center on Bedford-Euless Road. The center has been there for a number of years. The applicants are considering remodeling and updating the look of the center. When the applicants presented plans for permitting, some of the materials that were being used to renovate the façade of the buildings was a material called Drivit. They are attempting to make a 3-dimensional approach to the frontage and using some decorative brick or stone on some of the column supports. Drivit is a material that is not permitted for use in the City of North Richland Hills. However, the Zoning Ordinance does provide for using materials other than what is listed in our ordinance after obtaining a special use permit to do so. The applicants are requesting permission to use this particular material on this development. Staff recommends that if approved, consideration should also be given to requiring additional landscaping to aesthetically improve the site. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing. Tom Hines, Addison Design Group, architects for this project, stated that he believes the concern with this material pertains to the durability of a particular type of exterior insulation and finish system, which would not necessarily be the type used on this project. He stated that there are several advantages that go along with this type of material which benefit this type of development. The material is consistent with other projects in the area. It is an economical, beneficial material to put on, retrofit and remodel buildings, especially projects of this type. It also presents some aesthetic qualities over stucco or masonry given the location of the center close to Loop 820. The material does not crack easily and can be sealed and stay a cleaner looking material given the amount of traffic that is in the area which creates pollution. It also will enhance the project and be beneficial aesthetically since there are several projects in the area that have similar materials on them. It will also lend a way that the owner and developer can maintain leasing in this property and keep it occupied as opposed to vacant. There are several buildings in the area that are vacant and do not produce tax revenue. Updating buildings with this type of material is beneficial. Not all materials that are considered an exterior finish system are the same. That presents a problem to try to pull everything into one pool. He asks for consideration because they use a proper material that will overcome the objections of the ordinance. Page 9 05/09/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Nehring asked if they are using it mainly because it's easier and cheaper to use in remodeling the building. Mr. Hines stated that he would say economical rather than cheaper. The material at the low level, which people have access to from 8 to 10 feet, resists graffiti and destruction. The bulk of the material being applied to the building is above the 8 foot level. That area is not going to be available for people to destroy because it's up high. In a remodel retrofit, this material is beneficial and economical and generic to the application in that it is easy to apply and change the face of the building, which will help keep rents down. This material is durable and clean. Mr. Nehring stated he does not know much about this material. He asked Mr. Laubacher if this was the material that he brought up at one time. Mr. Laubacher stated that some samples were brought up when the Commission was considering the ordinance. An effort was made to provide alternative products, but no one could prove to the Commission that one item versus another was good, so the ordinance was done the way it was. It was not just an issue of durability, but also looks and upgrading the environment of the City. There were not any products that satisfied the needs at that time. Mr. Welch stated that he would like to see a sample of this product. Mr. Hulsey, Hulsey Construction Co., stated that he could bring samples. He also stated that he could show the system and how it is applied. There are different types of Drivit. The particular system that Mr. Hulsey prefers is Sto. There is only one dealership that sells this product, and the contractors that apply it have to go through their school and be certified to apply that product. They show up and inspect it while it's being constructed and they will not leave the project. In the low area on this building, there is a high impact product that is put on as well as mesh, so it can take a lot of abuse. It is easier to maintain. It would look better over the duration, especially since this is a high traffic area with a lot of pollution, as well as the seismic movement that is going to be in that area with IH 820 running behind the building. Mr. Hulsey also pointed out that as tenants change, the signs will on the building will need to be changed. They will use this material in the sign band criteria, and it is a lot easier to maintain patch and keep it aesthetically pleasing when somebody leaves. Mr. Hines asked Mr. Welch what type of presentation would be needed to satisfy the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Welch replied that he would place the burden of that decision on the applicant. He stated that he has a site plan and a few pictures only. Page 10 05/09/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Hulsey asked if a representative of Sto could make a presentation. Mr. Welch stated that the ordinance gives the applicant the flexibility of presenting alternatives. Mr. Hines stated that the Municipal Courts building in the City of Grand Prairie has the Sto system on it. Next door, the Housing and Human Development facility (the old Lone Star Gas building) has quite a few square feet of this material. He stated that they would be happy to provide the Commission with more information. Mr. Nehring stated that he would be reluctant to vote for this project at this point because he does not know much about these products. He would also like direction from John as to whether or not other SUPs of this type have been approved. John Pitstick stated that he believed there was one, a bank, about a year ago that was approved. Chairman Bowen asked if the Commission could stipulate an exact product. Mr. Pitstick stated that it could be designated on the site plan. Mr. Laubacher asked if the bank example was also a scenario where there was a lot of glass and wood. Mr. Pitstick replied that there were extensive architectural features on that particular bank. Patrick McEvoy, the owner of the property, came forward. He stated that nothing is cheap today. He stated that he used the same green on this strip center that Bennigans used because he has tried to stay part of Bennigans. He would like to enhance his property and redo it in a nice way similar to Bennigans. Masonry would be very expensive. He has three vacancies and current tenants threatening to go across the street because there are some pretty buildings and locations across the street. He stated that he must fix the place up or leave it be and drop the rent which would mean less attractive tenants. He would like to use material similar to Bennigans and make it a nice corner. Mr. Nehring stated that he has an open mind on this matter, but he does not want to approve anything until he is comfortable with the material. He also reminded the applicant that it would then have to go to City Council for final approval. Chairman Bowen pointed out that Bennigans has been at their location a long time and there have been ordinance changes since then. He asked Mr. McEvoy if he is willing to add landscaping at the open areas. Page 11 05/09/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. McEvoy stated that he doesn't have open areas. He has concrete. He guesses he could add something. Bennigans has one tree and three large bushes and he doesn't have a problem with that. Mr. Tucker noted that he is familiar with Drivit and it weathers well. He does not believe it would be durable on the columns. He stated that he does not need to see samples because he knows this product. Mr. Hulsey stated that on this particular project, the columns have stone below and high impact material above. He stated that they will bring a full sample of the material for the P&Z Commission to look at. Mr. Nehring asked the applicant to provide pictures of the buildings in Grand Prairie. Chairman Bowen asked if anyone else wished to speak for or against this project. There was no one and the Chairman closed the public hearing. He called for discussion asking if the Commission wished to postpone this matter until the product material is seen. Mr. Welch would like to see a continuance and have the applicant modify his site plan showing the areas where the Drivit will be. He'd also like the applicant to show limitations on the area of high impact material and what type of stone columns will be used. Mr. Welch would also like to see additional landscaping on the site plan. Mr. Pitstick recommended postponing to a specific date so that the public hearing would not need to be readvertised. Mr. Welch, seconded by Mr. Nehring, motioned to table PZ 2002-11 until May 23, 2002. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). The applicant asked for direction on how much time they would be allowed to make their presentation and whether that would be in pre-briefing or here in the regular meeting. Mr. Nehring asked for a fairly thorough presentation. Mr. Pitstick recommended a presentation in the pre-briefing session, but that the applicant should be prepared to give the full presentation in the regular meeting also, if needed. Page 12 05/09/02 P & Z Minutes 10. ADJOURNMENT As there was no other business, Chairman Bowen adjourned the meeting at 8:06 p.m. Chairman f}... Q~ Don Bowen Page 13 05/09/02 P & Z Minutes Secretary 1;) ¡¿~ Ted Nehring .