Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2002-08-08 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HillS, TEXAS AUGUST 08, 2002 1. CAll TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Don Bowen at 7:05 p.m. .. _..2. ROll CAll r- PRESENT Chairman Don Bowen Bill Schopper Ted Nehring Tim Welch James Laubacher Brenda Cole John Lewis Alternate Absent George Tucker CITY STAFF Director of Development Zoning Administrator Engineer Associate Recording Secretary John Pitstick Dave Green Andrea Jobe Kellie Smith 3. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2002 APPROVED Mr. Nehring, seconded by Ms. Cole, motioned to approve the minutes of July 25, 2002. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Page 1 08/08/02 P & Z Minutes The first three cases for consideration on the agenda concern Five Star Ford. These items were discussed concurrently. 4. PS 2002-29 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY RUSSELL KILLEN OF HALFF ASSOCIATES INC. FOR THE APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 1 ,2R AND 3R OF THE FIVE STAR FORD ADDITION IN THE 6600 BLOCK OF NE LOOP 820 (18.78 ACRES). APPROVED _ 5. PZ 2002-13 r- PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY SAM PACK OF PACK PROPERTIES FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM C-2 COMMERCIAL AND 1-2 MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL TO HC HEAVY COMMERCIAL AT 6618 NE LOOP 820 FOR FIVE STAR FORD AUTO DEALERSHIP (18.78 ACRES). APPROVED 6. PZ 2002-18 CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST FOR FIVE STAR FORD LOCATED AT 6618 NE LOOP 820. APPROVED Dave Green, Zoning Administrator, summarized the three items on the agenda that involve Five Star Ford. The first item is a replat of the site. Currently, the site (the entire Five Star development) exists as 5 lots. The property is being replatted so that the 5 lots will be reduced to 3 lots. Another reason for the replat is that the Texas Highway Department has purchased additional right-of-way along the frontage of Five Star Ford for the future expansion of Loop 820. The replat reflects the new right-of-way line. Secondly, at the present time, the dealership is zoned in two different categories. Part is zoned 1-2 (industrial) and part is zoned C-2 (commercial). There is no need for the 1- 2 zoning and it is not supported in our comprehensive plan. The applicant's rezoning request takes the entire site and rezones it to a new category that was adopted last year called Heavy Commercial (HC). The HC zoning designation is the ideal district for this type of use. The comprehensive plan supports that type of use. This will be the first property in North Richland Hills to carry this zoning designation. The third item on the agenda regarding Five Star Ford is for site plan approval. The dealership wants to expand in a couple of new directions. There will be a new entrance into the dealership. Page 2 08/08/02 P & Z Minutes The existing entrance is in front of the main display building. The new proposed entrance is a little to the east of the existing entrance. There is also a proposal to expand on a vacant area. This is inside the boundaries of the existing dealership. There is no expansion proposed outside of that boundary. This will become the pre- owned automobile sales area. The area directly east of the service facility will be used to park vehicles that are in for servicing. Because these two expansions are within 200 feet of residential zoning, site plan approval is required. Staff has reviewed the plat and it is consistent with the City's subdivision rules and regulations. There are no outstanding issues. The applicant's request to go to the HC zone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and removes the industrial zoning that exists in the area. There is a landscaping issue with the site plan. The boundary along the south on the adjacent service parking lot is adjacent to an existing entryway into the Meadowlakes Subdivision. At the present time, th~relsa certain amount of landscaping on this property as it enters the neighJ2orhood. There is a berm that is approximately 5 to 8 feet in height which visually separates the area where the service parking lot will be from the residential area to the south. There are some existing trees along this right-of- way. The applicant is proposing to put ornamental iron fencing along this southern boundary in-between the berm and the parking lot and they are proposing to add 8 trees along this area. Staff supports that but feels that the Meadowlakes Homeowners Association should be involved in this request because this landscaping would be occurring on property that is offsite from the dealership and would be in the Meadowlakes Subdivision. The applicant may be able to address this issue at their meetings with that homeowners association. Staff would support additional landscaping along this particular boundary. The other landscaping issue is along the new right-of-way line for 820 along the north boundary of the site. The plans are consistent with City regulations in terms of landscaping from the very east property line up to the existing entryway. From the existing entryway to the western portion of the property (approximately 800 feet), no landscaping is proposed. Staff feels it is necessary, as Loop 820 is widened, to continue to invoke those rules and regulations that would require landscaping. Perhaps in this case the applicant might be able to visit with TXDOT to find out if there is an opportunity to show some sort of landscaping on the Five Star property, or possibly, what might be available within the TXDOT right-of- way to show some continuation of landscaping along that entire frontage. Mr. Welch asked if the 75-ft TXDOT right-of-way line is included with the replat? Will the applicant put a save and accept on the legal description? Has the Rufe Snow Drive right-of-way been acquired by the City? The applicant responded that the Rufe Snow right-of-way was dedicated on a previous plat. The TXDOT right-of-way has not yet been acquired. Mr. Welch requested that in the future when the right-of-way is acquired a 25-foot setback line be part of the new plat. The applicant needs to understand that once that Page 3 08/08/02 P & Z Minutes acquisition of property occurs, there is no setback line. This plat shows the 25-foot setback along the portion that is being replatted tonight. Mr. Green stated that those are all items that will be addressed before this goes to City Council. Mr. Lewis asked if the proposed improvements were going to be made in conjunction with the roadway work so that there could be a condition placed on the approval of the project if the applicant obtained landscaping from TXDOT. Mr. Green stated that staff understands that Sam Pack (owner of Five Star Ford) has lost a certain amount of frontage that has displaced his display area and we are recommending an agreement betwe.~n 1b~ property owner and TXDOT to include something along there in term,§. of landscaping. Mr. Lewis asked if the timing of the improvements will permit that? Mr. Green responded yes. Ms. Cole asked if there is traffic impact since the entrance is being moved closer to Rufe Snow. Andrea Jobe, Public Works Engineer Associate, responded that the driveway meets the minimum distance requirements from Rufe Snow. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing portion of this case (PZ 2002-13). Oscar Mohkamkar, ASM Architects, stated that they are not doing any improvements on the existing property other than extending the parking. He does not understand why they have to be responsible for landscaping for the portion impacted by the State expansion. He explained that there will be some green space between the state right- of-way and the Five Star property and they are proposing to have irrigation installed in order to maintain those spaces. Chairman Bowen asked if they had discussions with the Meadowlakes Homeowners Association regarding the maintenance and irrigation of the trees along the Meadowlakes side of the property. Mr. Mohkamkar responded that Five Star has proposed about 8 new trees on the south side of the property. There is no irrigation to the north of the berms so the HOA wanted to place the trees just to the south of the berms because there is existing irrigation at that location. Five Star has no objection to that. Page 4 08/08/02 P & Z Minutes Charles Hawthorne, 4917 Delta Court, came forward in favor of this project. He stated that his house lies just south of where Five Star Ford's shops end so he is interested in this matter and 100% in favor of it. He stated that if Five Star says they are going to plant trees, they'll do it. He said he has bought seven cars from Five Star and from experience he knows they are honest and have integrity and if they say they are going to do something, they will. Sam Pack, the owner of Five Star Ford came forward to make the comment that the dealership is willing to provide landscaping in the easement area if the State will allow it. Tim Welch asked Mr. Pack if he had any idea of when they would know that information from the State. Mr. Pack responded that he didn't know. He stated that they weren't having a lot of luck trying to get anything meaningful in the way of information from the State. Five Star objects to dedicating an additional 15 ft of landscaping. As it currently is, they are losing 274 parking places. If an additional 15-ft is taken, then it further cripples Five Star's operation, therefore, they don't mind the expense of landscaping on State property. As there were none others wishing to speak, Chairman Bowen closed the public hearing and called for a motion on the final plat portion of this case (PS 2002-29). Tim Welch, seconded by Ms. Cole, motioned to approve PS 2002-29 subject to the following: That the legal description include a save and except clause since the TESCO land is already a separate ownership; a general note stating that once TXDOT acquires the right-of-way dedication there is an understanding that there is a 25-ft setback along the frontage of the service road; and, prior to going to City Council, clean up of general notes, such as lot numbers, on the plat. The motion was approved unanimously (7-0). Ted Nehring, seconded by James Laubacher, motioned to approve PZ 2002-13. The motioned was approved unanimously (7-0). Mr. Lewis began to make a motion for approval of PZ 2002-18 but Mr. Schopper interrupted to make a comment. Mr. Schopper suggested that the Commission either approve the request as written or add an amendment for a 15-foot setback in order to give Mr. Pack a clear idea of how to negotiate with the State. Mr. Schopper suggested that if P&Z insists on the setback, then the State is going to have to pay more for the right-of-way since the damage to the remainder would be greater. If the setback goes right to the property line, then the State is not going to have to pay as much for the right-of-way since the remainder would not be as damaged. Mr. Schopper suggested that if Mr. Pack has to wait for an answer from the State regarding the right-of-way, he Page 5 08/08/02 P & Z Minutes could be waiting for a couple of years. Mr. Schopper suggested that the City shouldn't stop Mr. Pack's ability to progress while waiting on an answer from the State but provide Mr. Pack with knowledge to negotiate with the State by passing this the way it is written or passing it with the amendment that requires a 15-ft setback. Mr. Lewis withdrew his motion. Mr. Welch asked Mr. Schopper to clarify what he means by "as written." Mr. Schopper replied that as it is written now, there is no setback. The applicant could build to the curb, which could look very bad when this project is completed. Mr. Schopper stated that it is going to make a difference in value whether it is taken up to the curb or whether it complies with ~he...city ordinance for a 15-ft buffer. An additional 90 parking spaces will be lostlfthe 15-ft setback is required, but Mr. Pack should be compensated by the State for that loss by showing the State an ordinance that shows that he is required to have the 15-ft setback. Mr. Mohkamkar, ASM Architects, Inc., stepped to the podium to comment. He stated that they would be willing to place a landscaping island every 10 to 20 parking spaces to accommodate a tree in order to not lose the entire row of parking along the front. Mr. Schopper responded that during the plat approval there would have been the latitude to do that sort of thing, but during approval of the site plan, P&Z is restricted to dealing with what is submitted. Mr. Mohkamkar asked if approval could be given with the exception of adding the landscape islands every so often. Chairman Bowen pointed out that P&Z does have the latitude to make changes to the site plan. He asked for confirmation from John Pitstick, Director of Development, as to whether or not an exception can be given during site plan approval. Mr. Pitstick responded that approval could be given to add the landscape island with a tree every 20 spaces or whatever the commission wanted. Mr. Laubacher asked if the applicant could be allowed to appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment in the future? For instance, if P&Z recommends approval with the 15-ft landscape buffer and then the State takes the land, which leaves Mr. Pack unable to comply with the 15-ft buffer requirement, could he then appeal to ZBAas a hardship case? Mr. Schopper responded that he has had a lot of negotiations with the State and in his dealings with the State, he has found that they won't give something unless they have to. Mr. Schopper suggested that if the State were informed that the City was going to Page 6 08/08/02 P & Z Minutes enforce the 15-ft setback unless Mr. Pack was allowed to landscape on the State's part of the land, the State would then be more motivated to allow Mr. Pack to landscape on that land so that the State would not have to pay damages for the remaining parking spaces. Mr. Laubacher stated that it seems like it would be the best route to require the 15-ft because it would meet the City ordinance and give the owner an opportunity to work out something with the State. Mr. Pitstick stated that the primary issue with the landscaping is the requirement of trees every 50 feet. To meet the ordinance requirements, he suggested P&Z approve it with the exception of having an open area every 50 feet with a 3-inch caliper tree, and give the owner the option of providil1g this in a landscape island every 50-ft, or in the State right-of-way. Chairman Bowen called for any other questions or comments. Mr. Welch asked the engineer if they had a driveway permit yet from TXDOT and whether or not they were in compliance with the new access management policy. Russell Killen, Halff Associates, stated that they have not acquired the permit but they feel they are in compliance with the new policy and plan on submitting for that permit in the near future. Mr. Schopper motioned to approve PZ 2002-18 as written. Chairman Bowen called for a second. There was none. Mr. Welch began to make a motion but asked John Pitstick for direction on the frequency of the landscape requirements. Mr. Pitstick reminded the members that the ordinance requires a tree every 50 feet. He stated that a landscape island creates a little bit of a hardship because Five Star would lose a full parking space to the island. Mr. Welch withdrew his motion. Mr. Laubacher, seconded by Mr. Schopper, motioned to approve PZ 2002-18 with the stipulation that a 15-ft landscape buffer zone extend all the way to the extreme western end of the property. The buffer could be on Mr. Pack's property or on State property if the State agrees to it. [Motion Later Withdrawn] Mr. Pack stepped to the podium and asked for an explanation of how this motion would impact him. Mr. Schopper repeated his explanation of negotiating with the State. Mr. Pack stated that with all due respect, that is not what they want. He stated that they will lose an additional 90 parking spaces and they do not want that to happen. Mr. Schopper argued that it's possible they won't lose those spaces if properly negotiated Page 7 08/08/02 P & Z Minutes with the State. Mr. Pack stated that he didn't want to take that risk. He has already lost 274 spaces and he doesn't want to lose another 90 spaces. Mr. Schopper repeated his explanation of the State's taking and that Mr. Pack would be paid damages. Mr. Pack stated that it is not about money at this stage. He needs the parking spaces. If he loses those parking spaces, he is unwilling to go forward. Mr. Schopper asked Mr. Pitstick whether or not Mr. Pack could get relief through a variance? Mr. Pitstick stated that, in the future, he could request a variance, or change the zoning, but he believes Mr. Pack would like to settle this now rather than burden him with additional zoning or variance requests in the future. .- Mr. Schopper stated that the c!~sired end result is for Mr. Pack to keep the 90 parking spaces and for the City to get landscaping and the only way to do that is to motivate the State to help Mr. Pack. Mr. Pack stated that he has been to a commissioner's hearing and gone to mediation and accomplished very little at this point with the State. He stated that he wants to work with the City but he can't be the victim of another 90 parking spaces. Mr. Nehring asked Mr. Pack what he is willing to do if he can't get permission to landscape from the Highway Department? Mr. Pack replied that he is willing to give the City an island tree every 100 feet. The frontage is about 1600 feet. Mr. Pack is landscaping 800 of that 1600. He would be willing to place a tree island every 100 feet on the remaining 800 feet of frontage, which means he would lose 8 parking spaces. He stated that he understands what Mr. Schopper is saying regarding being paid damages by the State, but he can't take that money and spend it to get parking spaces anywhere else. There is no place to go. The only way to get those spaces back would be to create a parking garage and that's not a viable option. At the end of the day, every parking space is a premium to the dealership. Mr. Laubacher asked if there is a way that the site plan can be approved with the 15-ft buffer and, in addition, adding some type of automatic variance that kicks in if the State refuses to cooperate. Mr. Pitstick stated that the best way to protect the City and Mr. Pack is to get the trees on Mr. Pack's site. Mr. Pack could put in an irrigation system that fans out onto the State property, and the State right-of-way could be counted as part of the landscape buffer. Mr. Nehring asked if 100 feet is allowed? Page 8 08/08/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Pitstick responded that 50-ft is the current ordinance but P & Z could recommend 100-ft if the State provides some parkway area. He agrees with Mr. Schopper that there is no way to predict what the State will do, but he considers it unlikely that the State will run the frontage road right up to the property line. There should be some parkway area. By putting trees on Mr. Pack's property, the City guarantees that the trees will be there, and then counting the State's parkway area, it should look nice. From a precedent standpoint, 5 or 10 years from now when the road is completely done, we want the landscaping to look consistent as you drive down 820 and the consistency could be the combination of trees on Mr. Pack's property and State right-of- way landscaping that is irrigated by the irrigation system that Mr. Pack installs and maintains. Chairman Bowen stated that he believes 50-ft would be too close. It would hide the cars, which defeats the purpose of a car lot, so 1 OO-ft seems to be more appropriate for this site. Mr. Welch suggested a compromise. The new parking spaces along Rufe Snow have landscape islands. He suggested getting rid of those landscape islands and putting those trees along the south on the berm providing more of a buffer on that side of the dealership. This would allow Five Star Ford to gain parking spaces along Rufe Snow. They could then add landscape islands along the frontage road which would result in the loss of some parking spaces along the frontage road, which would be offset by the gain of parking spaces along Rufe Snow. Mr. Pitstick and the other Commission members agreed that this is a good idea. Mr. Welch, seconded by Ms. Cole, motioned to approve PZ 2002-18 with a recommendation of 8 landscaping islands with trees spaced every 1 OO-ft along the 800 ft section west of the main entrance. The four landscape islands along Rufe Snow will be eliminated to create 8 parking spaces. The trees and landscaping from those four islands will be placed on the south side of the property on the adjacent berm for additional landscape coverage. Chairman Bowen added a comment that the landscaping and trees on the south side of the property adjacent to Meadowlakes Drive must be in conjunction with Homeowner Association approval. Mr. Welch amended his motion to include Chairman Bowen's comment. Mr. Nehring suggested adding a comment regarding TXDOT property as part of the buffer. Mr. Welch amended his motion to include an irrigation system for maximum coverage of 15-ft width along the buffer, which would incorporate TXDOT right-of-way. The motion was approved unanimously (7-0). Prior to voting on the motion, Ms. Cole reminded the Commission that there was a previous motion on the floor from James Laubacher. Mr. Laubacher withdrew that motion. Mr. Schopper withdrew his second of Mr. Laubacher's motion. Page 9 08/08/02 P & Z Minutes 7. PS 2002-36 REQUEST FROM LARRY AND LINDA KJELDGAARD FOR THE APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1 KJELDGAARD ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 7300 BLOCK OF BURSEY ROAD (5.2 ACRES). APPROVED Dave Green, Zoning Administrator, summarized the case. This is a preliminary plat by Mr. and Mrs. Kjeldgaard. This involves a narrow, deep lot along Bursey Road. There is a single family residence just off theJ3ursey Road frontage. The applicants would like to plat this property into two lol~. One lot would include the existing single family residential structure which is under contract for sale. Lot 2 would be located on the southern two-thirds of the property and would have access from Londonderry Drive. The applicants would like to divide that lot so they could continue to keep horses on that site and build a single family residence. Staff is recommending approval of this plat, with the requirement that when the applicant returns with the final plat there must also be an application to rezone Lot 1 to R-1, and rezone Lot 2 to R-1-S. Chairman Bowen called for questions or comments. There were none and the Chairman called for a motion. Mr. Laubacher, seconded by Mr. Nehring, motioned to approve PS 2002-36 with the understanding that there will be a zoning change accompanying the final. plat. The motion was approved unanimously (7-0). 8. PZ 2002-19 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY RIVER CROWN INVESTMENTS LLC FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED EXPANSION OF HUGGINS HONDA AUTO DEALERSHIP. APPROVED Dave Green, Zoning Administrator, summarized the case. This site is the proposed expansion of the Huggins Auto Dealership along 820. This includes an area on which the P&Z Commission recently approved a final plat. It included the closing of Susan Lee Lane and the formation of a cul-de-sac. Nancy Lane is the eastern boundary. The westbound Loop 820 service road runs along the southern portion of the property. This expansion is taking place within 200-ft of residentially zoned property, which requires site plan approval. The pre-owned automobile sales for Huggins Honda will be located Page 10 08/08/02 P & Z Minutes on this site. A 3200 sq. ft. building is proposed. This particular property has residential along the northern boundary of the site so a screening wall and 15-ft landscape buffer is required. The applicant has satisfied the City requirements. Along the Nancy Lane frontage (which has no proposed entrance or exit to the dealership) is a 15-ft setback requirement with trees each 50-ft, and a low shrub row. There is a proposal for some lighting standards, which are situated close to residential property just to the north of the site. Staff would like an illumination plan, which shows that light is being reflected away from those adjacent residential areas. Staff would like a note placed on the site plan that all rooftop mounted equipment will be screened from view. The building elevations will match the existing Huggins dealership in terms of the style of architecture, color and trim. A reference on the elevation page states that the building will be constructed of masonry material, but the reference is not specific as to which type of material will be used. One h.undred percent (100%) masonry is a requirement since this is a non-residential þ.uilding. Staff suggests that the plan be revised to indicate the actual type of building material that is being proposed. A representative for River Crown Development, Ernest Hedgcoth, came forward and explained that there is a note on the site plan that states that all of the lighting will be shielded from the residential property. He stated that the landscape ordinance has been met with trees every 50-ft along Nancy Lane. Mr. Hedgcoth pointed out that the Commission allowed Five Star Ford to place trees every 1 OO-ft while Huggins Honda is required to meet the ordinance with trees every 50-ft. He also explained that Mr. Huggins has not yet chosen the masonry material. He is considering a tilt wall building with a stucco EIFS-type arrangement. It will look very similar to the existing building. Mr. Huggins is also considering white brick. Mr. Hedgcoth assured the Commission that the applicant will come up with a plan for the materials that will be satisfactory to the City. Mr. Hedgcoth stated that the fencing meets the City standards and he assured Mr. Welch that it will be on Huggins' property [this issue was brought up in pre- briefing - the site plan fencing lines appeared to extend beyond the property line]. Mr. Nehring asked for clarification on lights that will be located in the cul-de-sac area. Mr. Hedgcoth pointed out on the map where the light standards would be located. He showed which lights will be directed in an arc away from the residential area. He pointed out other lights which will have a circular pattern that will spill over into the cul- de-sac area. He stated that they do not want to create a dark area in the cul-de-sac. He also stated that in discussions with Mr. Pitstick it was mentioned that the City might put a street light on the cul-de-sac since the cul-de-sac is dedicated to the City and becomes City property. Mr. Laubacher asked if the four lights that are directly next to the residents along the back wall could be lowered. Page 11 08/08/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Hedgcoth indicated that those will be shielded and that it would be possible to lower them to 15-ft. Mr. Welch thanked Mr. Hedgcoth for providing trees every 50-ft. He stated that he is concerned that there are street lights every 50-ft along Nancy. He asked for an indication of the wattage of those lights. Mr. Hedgcoth stated that the engineer told him it is a type P-1 fixture. The wattage ranges from 40 to 400. Mr. Hedgcoth believes the bulbs will be 400 wattage. Mr. Welch agreed with Mr. Laubacher's suggestion that the lights along the back be reduced to 15-ft. Mr. Hedgcoth stated that he ~i!1 furnish an illumination plan, showing the coverage, before going to City Council. ' Mr. Welch asked if Mr. Hedgcoth had any questions on the Public Works comments. Mr. Hedgcoth indicated that most of those have already been handled. Chairman Bowen asked for further questions. There were none and the Chairman called for a motion. Mr. Nehring, seconded by Mr. Laubacher, motioned to approve PZ 2002-19 subject to Staff and Public Works comments and to include submission of an illumination plan when this goes to Council. Mr. Welch asked for an amendment that the architect have the specific masonry type to present to Council. Mr. Nehring also asked for four 15-ft lights along the back and six 15-ft lights along Nancy (instead of the 25-ft lights). Mr. Hedgcoth stated that he is concerned that there might not be enough illumination from a 15-ft light to expand to all Huggins's areas along Nancy. Mr. Welch replied that he would like to keep it in the motion and suggested that Mr. Hedgcoth justify other use to the Council. Chairman Bowen explained to Mr. Hedgcoth that if he could demonstrate to the Council that Huggins would need 25-ft lights along Nancy, the Council would give consideration for it. Mr. Nehring restated his motion at the recording secretary's request. Mr. Nehring, seconded by Mr. Laubacher, motioned to approve PZ 2002-19 subject to Staff and Public Works comments to include a submission of an illumination plan, to include lowering the lights along the back side of the property and along Nancy Lane from 25-ft to 15-ft, and to include the type of masonry that will be used. The motion was approved unanimously (7-0). Page 12 08/08/02 P & Z Minutes Other Business The Chairman called for Other Business and Mr. Pitstick came forward. Revision of the Planned Development District. The City Council would like to establish guidelines for Planned Developments. Three Planned Development Districts would be created. (1) Redevelopment District. An example of this would be an existing building and parking lot where there might be a lot of grandfathering in effect, which require a number of variances. This would be left open where the applicant(s) could vary any number of regulations and guidelines with that. There would not be a minimum requirement in terms of acreage. We could see some of this in the South Grapevine Corridor. This would encourage proper development if someone wanted to come in and redevelop their properties. (2) New Residential Planned I?~velopment. With the changes we've made to R-3, hopefully we'll see some requests for straight zoning for R-3, but we could see some other residential planned developments. What guidelines would you allow in terms of changing this district? The City Attorney has looked at this and he recommends a residential PD be allowed, while not allowing an increase in the total allowable density. If a reduction in lot size is desired, more common areas must be provided. The entire area could not increase the density more than maximum allowable for that district. The City Attorney does not recommend specifying the architectural requirements. He recommends general categories for 10-acre sites (clean tract development). They must describe a unique develôpment situation other than financial as to why they can't go with a straight R-3 or C-1 or whatever it might be. (3) Non-Residential and Mixed Use Development. Minimum 3-acres with possible waiver of lot widths and building materials. Mr. Pitstick stated that Staff would like to prepare the ordinance and bring it back to P&Z for a formal recommendation to City Council. The next item Mr. Pitstick brought to the Commission's attention is that the City is buying some property for future public buildings and sites. Right now, a Community Center is not allowed in any residential districts. Staff recommends that they be allowed by special use permit for community centers. Staff recommends that Fire Stations be allowed and permitted by use in residential districts. Staff recommends that private schools be allowed by special use permit in residential districts. Staff recommends that municipal buildings and senior citizens centers be permitted in residential districts. Currently, post offices, schools and churches can go in any districts so this is not unprecedented. These properties would still have to be platted but this would open the doors a little bit to allow public buildings to be allowed in residential areas. Mr. Schopper stated that he is concerned about fire stations. He suggested that they should be closer to thoroughfares since they have emergency lights and sirens. Page 13 08/08/02 P & Z Minutes _..~ _·___~···_·__·"__·~·__~'_______'Æ'··'.'_"~_·'-.~·_~__~_·__~~.,_~~.......,..._._- Mr. Pitstick stated that most of the runs made today are ambulance runs for people having heart attacks in residential areas. Allowing fire stations in residential zoning would place the paramedics closer to where they are needed. The buildings that are being built today are well sprinkled and have caused most of the runs over the last few years to change from traditional fire runs to more ambulance runs. We are an aging society and the need has switched to runs to residential areas for health matters. Mr. Welch stated that the older schools in our community never have enough storage facility for the parents dropping off and picking up children. The newer schools in Keller have 1 OOO-ft of storage. Our school on Ranch Road has a little two lane road that becomes a parking lot when parents are trying to drop off and pick up children. Mr. Pitstick agreed. He stated that V!e llilve the ability to ask churches and schools for traffic impact analyses. Scho9!s, churches and public buildings must have proper access for the health and safety of their users. It wouldn't necessarily come forward as a site plan or zoning request to the Planning & Zoning Commission or City Council, but the Staff would have the ability to require a TIA. Chairman Bowen asked if the ordinance requires off-street loading and unloading for new schools. Mr. Pitstick replied that it is required. He also restated that post offices and schools are currently allowed in any district, but the community centers, senior citizen centers, fire stations and private schools are not allowed. The community centers and private schools would be required to have SUPs. The fire stations and municipal buildings would be allowed in residential zoning districts by right. Mr. Laubacher asked how large municipal buildings usually run. He stated that he might like to see a site plan if it is a large building. Mr. Schopper suggested that fire stations and municipal buildings also be required to have SUPs. He is concerned that some of these buildings can be large and intrusive. A site plan would allow the Commission to say no if it overwhelms the neighborhood. Chairman Bowen suggested that it would not be onerous on anyone to be required to obtain an SUP. Mr. Schopper asked what is driving this request. Mr. Pitstick stated that the City is acquiring property and expanding the growth in parks and fire stations. Mr. Schopper asked if fire stations are currently allowed in residential. Page 14 08/08/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Pitstick stated that, currently, it has to be rezoned commercial. Fire stations, libraries, and post offices are being built in residential settings and it creates a reverse spot zoning. The final item Mr. Pitstick brought to the Commission's attention was the required masonry for residential. Seventy-five percent (75%) masonry is required based on the first floor. As a comparison, Bedford requires 65%, Hurst requires 80%, and Euless requires 90%. Colleyville and South lake do not have regulations for masonry requirements. Mr. Pitstick explained that we need some percentage of non-masonry. 100% masonry is onerous. The two issues are increasing the percentage, and including the entire elevation, which would include the second floor. Ms. Cole stated yes to both issues. Mr. Schopper proposed using the same standards as Euless. He stated that in some North Richland Hills neighborhoods the second floor wood siding sticks out and is faded and needs to be painted. It looks terrible. Mr. Welch asked what Euless requires on the second floor. Mr. Pitstick stated that they consider the entire elevation. If it's two stories than it's 90% of the entire elevation. Mr. Welch stated that he worries about it starting to look like a box. There is no articulation. Mr. Pitstick summarized that, next time, Staff would like to bring back the 3 categories of Planned Development, changes to the permitted use tables for allowing public and other facilities in residential areas by special use permits, and finally, increasing the residential masonry requirements. As there was no other business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting. 9. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Chairman Secretary ~Q~ Don Bowen 1;) ¡t/~ Ted Nehring Page 15 08/08/02 P & Z Minutes