Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2002-11-14 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS NOVEMBER 14, 2002 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 Bill Schopper Ted Nehring James Laubacher John Lewis Brenda Cole CITY STAFF Director of Development Zoning Administrator Asst. Director of Public Works Building Official Recording Secretary John Pitstick Dave Green Lance Barton Dave Pendley Kellie Smith 3. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 24, 2002 MEETING. APPROVED Ms. Cole, seconded by Mr. Schopper, motioned to approve the minutes of October 24,2002. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Chairman Bowen moved agenda item 8 to the top of the agenda order. 8. PZ 2002-27 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONISDER A REQUEST BY BOBBY KUBIN FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP) IN THE "C-1" COMMERCIAL DISTRICT FOR A GASOLINE SERVICE STATION IN THE 6300 BLOCK OF DAVIS BOULEVARD. POSTPONED Page 1 11/14/02 P & Z Minutes Zoning Administrator Dave Green summarized the case. This is a special use request and public hearing for a Quiktrip convenience store and gasoline facility to be located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Mid Cities and Davis Blvd. The applicant faxed a memo to City staff on 11/13/02 requesting the postponement. Karen Mitchell, Mitchell Planning Group, 7823 Nine Mile Bridge Rd., Fort Worth, requested a postponement of this case in order for staff to look at the revised TIA and site plan change. She stated that they hope to bring this back before P&Z in December, 2002. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing, and asked for anyone wishing to speak for or against the case to come forward. There were none and he closed the public hearing. There were no questions or comments from the members and Chairman Bowen called for a motion. Mr. Tucker, seconded by Mr. Schopper, motioned to postpone PZ 2002-27. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 4. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED SMITHFIELD CONSERVATION PLAN. John Pitstick, Director of Economic Development summarized the case. He stated that the city is about 85 - 90% developed. Back in '92 or '93 the city did a study on the conservation district. The Council had listed last year in their major plans to look at the Smithfield Conservation District and locate a future rail stop. The rail line is owned by Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART). The City hopes that it will eventually be used for a commuter rail stop. Pitstick said there are some historic buildings, the city doesn't want a formal historic preservation district but does want unique character with that. Mr. Pitstick said the City has employed Ron Emrich with Urban Prospects and tonight he will present a presentation. Then Chairman Bowen will open a public hearing and follow through with City Council and an overlay and design criteria for that district. Ron Emrich, Urban Prospects stated that he is working on proposals on the Smithfield Conservation District. There was a study done in 1992. This is an update on that study with some exploration of design criteria or guidelines to help future development in the community. The Smithfield area does have a tremendous historic character for the City of North Richland Hills. The defined study boundary is different than what was defined in 1992. The proposed district boundary on the West by Smithfield road and on the East by Davis Blvd., on the South by Mid-Cities and on the North essentially by the elementary school. This is the core of the historic Smithfield community. Concentrate this special character area in a concentrated location so that we don't dilute that special character. We don't want to create false history by imposing a historical theme on areas that did not exist as historic community of Smithfield. This is not a Page 2 11/14/02 P & Z Minutes formal historic preservation district by any stretch of imagination but to protect historic character. A potential location for future rail stations would be in the diagonal boundary of Smithfield map lined out. There is potential for new retail and mixed use development as the rail stop should occur in that general area. This defines the boundaries and location for this study. We have had series of focus meetings in the last few months to gain information from members in the community. We have had three meetings from members who work in the Real estate development community and have some interest of land in this general area. We met with the historical groups such as the Church's, Lodge, Cemetery Association and others who have a passion and commitment to the preservation of the history of Smithfield and the community at large. We have also met with City staff and the folks from the infrastructure issues effected here. We have looked at the historic character of Smithfield and there are some historic images that define what Smithfield looked like. In the early 1920's there were buildings of one and two stories, wood and brick frame, flat and pitched roofs, and canopy's along the front of the buildings. The buildings were simple and utilitarian and gathering places for folks in the community. This was the center of Smithfield and we hope this area will be like that again. We hope that new development that occurs in this area will be generated in a way that will attract people, assembly, and retail places. This is to also celebrate the existing institutions and historic places that are already there. The historic school building no longer exists in it's historic fashion but the school is an anchor for the neighborhood and the Smithfield Cemetery is an important land mark for this whole part of the county. The Smithfield Methodist church had its beginnings in the 19th century on this site and location. The Hightower home is the last remaining 19th century residence in Smithfield. The current lodge building is not old but is still in the same spot in which they have been meeting over 100 years and the feed store is in the fond hearts of everyone in the community. There are buildings that are newer but represent the long range of history of the businesses along Smithfield road and Main Street. There are some new businesses that are beginning to occur and celebrate the history and character. The point of this conservation study and guidelines is to help foster this kind of approach as new development occurs in the neighborhood. Communities have several options as they begin to look at their history and acknowledge there is a special character that makes each individual city and community unique. The City of Grandbury has a wealth of historic and architectural resources to work with. Other communities such as South Lake have taken types of architecture, design and historic references that make these kinds of communities great and desirable and have used those architectural vocabularies to make their special places. Communities generally create some sort of established guidelines and criteria to help guide new development. This has been the focus of this study. Tonight being presented are a series of preliminary ideas that have come out of focus group meetings and studies on the historic resources documentation for Smithfield. This is still a draft and we would like some more community input before finalizing any of this. None of these images that you have seen tonight are identical or literally proposing what is being proposed for Smithfield but are similar of what is being proposed. Other communities such as the City of Bryan Page 3 11/14/02 P & Z Minutes has finished a downtown study that includes design guidelines. This second image shows what these guidelines will result in. This simulation is what they have adopted for their Main Street. The street-scaping, streetlights, and sidewalks are already in and their private sector development is yet to come. The guidelines will result in development somewhat of what is in this simulation. In the city of Coppell, the same effort has been made with a simulation of how their guidelines for their main street, Coppell Road, would possibly develop. Communities have seen this kind of historic character development occur on their own. Grapevine has some historical references in their architecture, but this particularly did not develop because of the cities design guideline program. Some of the results may not be necessarily what the community wanted to see. The next couple of slides show the area within their design review district beginning to depict the kinds of things being explored for Smithfield. These are new private sector developments that have resulted from the design guideline programs in Grapevine. They consist of one story brick buildings that reference the history and architecture of Grapevine built up to the sidewalk with the parking tucked behind it, hidden by the building. Some two stories have also been developed following these same guidelines, including canopies. This is a larger scale project than would be developed in Smithfield. Some outside edge design guidelines in Boulder, Colorado there is a two ad a half story-parking garage tucked within these retail and office buildings that have been built. In Denton, on the courthouse square, where a beloved historic building burned down some years ago and their guidelines resulted in this new building which has some of the architectural references that you see around the square and the historic buildings with the brick and the cast stone on the corner and the parking tucked to the side and the rear. These kinds of elements are the kinds of elements being looked at to develop for the Smithfield Conservation district guidelines. Issues such as where the buildings and parking are placed. Buildings not setback far from sidewalk but set forward which helps foster and generate pedestrian activity. Canopy's are an important part of the architectural traditions of Smithfield and will be addressed in the guidelines. Parking is recommended to be tucked behind the buildings with as few curb cuts on Main Street and Smithfield Road as possible to maintain and foster pedestrian character. The guidelines will address building form and a combination of one and two-story buildings, their scale of pitched and flat roofs, materials will be a combination of wood or wood-like hardiplank products. This does not meet the citywide standards but those are a part of Smithfield, so we recommend a combination of wood and masonry for the materials. On street parking for those communities who have successful downtown "retail" is very important to allow for and encourage on street parking. This is what merchant and patrons look for and will look for at the cross-section of Main Street, not Smithfield, on how to insert some on street parking into the district. Landscaping as well as trees along the streets need to be treated in this particular instance. The trees have obscured the storefronts, making them non-welcoming retail streets. It is important to address these issues in the guidelines to set the stage for good pedestrian, retail friendly development that could occur from the private sector in this area. In viewing the boundary, we are recommending inserting some street extensions within that boundary internal to the portion of the Smithfield Conservation District North of the railroad tracts. This would be to create a connection to Center Street from Page 4 11/14/02 P & Z Minutes Smithfield. And a connection northward from Main Street that would go to the property to the West of the feed store. By creating these potentials for street extensions it does create opportunity for more concentration of retail and commercial development in this small area. These guidelines will generate more of this kind of architecture development that will become a destination. The extension from left to right from Smithfield to Center below Main and above Main the extension northward and off to Davis Boulevard. Any development that would occur on the main thoroughfare's which is Mid-Cities and Davis Boulevard would not be subject to this architecture design guidelines. Any that would occur internally, within that area, would be subject to the design guidelines to reinforce that special character of the area. Finally the street scaping that would extend the entire length of Smithfield from Mid-Cities Boulevard North to the school as well as those internal streets North of the railroad tracts, with simple historic referenced street-light fixtures and traffic signals that would be differentiated from the city-wide image study fixtures. It is important to reinforce that this is a special character place that is unique to the City of North Richland Hills, so that this differentiation can be achieved not only with the architecture built in the future by the private sector but also with the public improvements that would occur over time. Mr. Emrich thanked everyone for their input and said that all of these improvements and guidelines would be applicable to future development. Chairman Bowen asked Mr. Emrich, if he has already looked at the possibility of the commuter station and will it at least be part of the study? Mr. Emrich answered yes, within the larger boundary, it is a more likely the location where a commuter rail station would occur. In talking with DART facility managers the decision of where a commuter rail station would occur has to do with the availability of land and quantity for parking. Some of these questions can't be answered at this time and stage of this plan. The level at which we are charged with making a recommendation suggests that somewhere within that boundary is the likely location for a rail stop and will be planned as much as possible. Mr. Ted Nehring questioned Mr. Emrich, about the portion of Mid-Cities on the South side conforming to the standards. Mr. Emrich replied that any development that would occur facing Mid-Cities or facing Davis Boulevard would not necessarily need to conform to the guidelines. Those are high traffic volume thoroughfares, but any development that would turn inward either northward towards the rail from Mid-Cities or westward from Davis would conform because they would be orientated toward the Conservation District and not outwards towards the thoroughfare. Mr. Pitstick said that COG has just recently started a study to look at future rail stops in the whole area. City Council has asked that we have at least a semi- annual or quarter report to them on the status to where the future rail stops would be. We have about a two and a half-mile area within our city. This rail line goes from Grandbury to Wiley. We see it as getting our citizens in the traveling public from this station to the north end of the airport. This rail goes all the way up Page 5 11/14/02 P & Z Minutes through Carrollton to Wilie. We have met with DART. Tarrant County could manage this. They would have to have a funding mechanism for that. Chairman Bowen commented that this would be a tremendous asset to our Smithfield Conservation District if there were a commuter rail stop. He said he was sure the city doesn't want to limit to this one area because there are a lot of other places too. Mr. Pitstick commented that we would at least get one stop within our city. The City of Hurst, Colleyville, and Grapevine have areas available. We have one of the longest runs through our community at the west of the airport. We should at least get one site, possibly two. This is centrally located and the Hometown developers have shown some interests. The intersection of Mid-Cites and Davis Boulevard is a central focus for traffic and is a potential site, but we don't want to limit any sites. Ms. Cole asked Mr. Pitstick, if it was just a lamp and awning for people to get on or will they be developing around it? Mr. Pitstick answered that he and Mr. Emrich viewed the stations in Dallas and Collin County with DART and all of them were different. We want it to be destination driven. Mockingbird station is unbelievable and we want to envision that. Another key point is the key for small shuttle buses where there is isolated parking further away and small shuttle buses that could take people down Main. There are all types of situations in DART alone. Mr. Emrich lives in Dallas and utilizes it. They are utilized all the way from Richardson and tying back into the Tram at McKinney Avenue. We saw this to tie back in to a natural area such as Smithfield who has some natural history. We don't want to make up history, but we do want to set an image and tone for that area. Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Pitstick , although we are limited to tract side properties what else is available in our city? Mr. Pitstick answered on our far west and east, the Tarrant County garage is available and on the east side of north Precinct Line have been mentioned. On the site of 820 where there are some industrial pieces behind Sam's have also been mentioned. This one centrally located would better access our citizens more with direct access of these freeways with major thoroughfares. On the eastern boundary there is some acreage by the county garage and vacant land near Iron Horse where it crosses 820. Chairman Bowen opened the Public Hearing. Thomas Falcony, 6805 Smithfield Road. was curious about homeowners' guidelines and if they would be allowed to add to their homes such as sheds and closed-in patios, etc. Mr. Pitstick commented that he doesn't see any changes. Smithfield would be more of a streetscape area. We have only included the first 50' west of Smithfield in this area. Possibly in the future we would be more worried about Page 6 11/14/02 P & Z Minutes the streetscape where we would come in and add street lights and some special treatment for street lights where needed and maybe extra wide sidewalks. Terry Snider 317 Chandler, is for the Smithfield Conservation but didn't wish to speak. Jan Hamilton 6612 Snider, is for the Smithfield Conservation. She has lived there for 25 years and is concerned about the street proposal. She is excited about the commuter station. She asked if she was going to loose her home? Chairman Bowen answered Ms. Hamilton's question by stating that the City wouldn't do that. He explained that the City is trying to establish a conservation area just as a focal point for this city, a destination, and possible commuter stations. He restated that Mr. Pitstick mentioned about a possible shuttle bus. He said that we do have the Hometown North Richland Hills, which is to the east. Ms. Cole asked where Ms. Hamilton's property faces? Ms. Hamilton answered that she faces the proposed street. She is concerned with the amount of business along that street. Chairman Bowen commented that there are a lot of things that still need worked out that this is just an initial preliminary study. He asked Mr. Emrich what he envisioned for this street. Mr. Emrich commented that the primary parcel through which this goes is commercial and vacant. There are a couple of houses there. The design guidelines apply to new development, non-existing properties. Anyone's home or business that is already there will not be required to do anything to their property. If that large vacant parcel that butts up against Davis to the north were to be re-developed the guidelines suggest that there be a street connection there that would function that way. The guidelines are not being proposed for immediate future development but to guide any future development that should occur. Mr. Tucker commented that he though that Ms. Hamilton's concern was if streets were added would it take her property. Mr. Emrich said that this plan is not to condemn any land or take any streets. Only if development occurs and a street or access was to be developed that it would be developed in that manner. Not that it is being imposed upon the current property owners. Mr. Tucker commented that this is not cast in stone. Jim Makens, 2300 Airport Freeway, #233, Bedford, TX 76034. He thanked the Commissioners for their time. He said that he wasn't prepared here and didn't know what they are really talking about from a conservation district standpoint. The only thing he has is what he received in the mail that spoke about his property being considered for a historical conservation district. Tonight with the Page 7 11/14/02 P & Z Minutes flyer out front there is a proposed road going through the center of his property. He said he knows this is not a proposed road but a suggested guideline and guidelines scares him a little because they turn out to be law or rules and interpreted as a future thoroughfare plan. He commented about sending a road through his property, the playground for the school and the cemetery. There is some vacant land down this area and down Mid-Cities Boulevard. He said he was probably the single largest vacant landowner within this conservation district. The last study he was aware of was done in 1996. His property wasn't included in that study. He was surprised at what was being taken place here and of him not being aware of what is being taken place in regards to the Conservation District. He asked "what are we conserving"? The buildings have historic markers and we are conserving the original theme of Smithfield. There is nothing historical about the mini mart. There are three or four buildings that truly represent a historical significance in Smithfield. The balance of the buildings is existing. He can understand to prevent these buildings from being built in the future such as metal buildings but doesn't think his property should be included in this Conservation District. There has been a road that has been dedicated from Main Street to his property and with this proposed road going through it divides it into three parcels. He commented that he hasn't been involved in this study and only knew what he had seen tonight. He stated that he would have to be in disagreement with the proposed conservation overlay district. Billy Campbell, Secretary of Smithfield Masonic Lodge 225 Baker Dr. Hurst. The Masonic Lodge is on Main Street and has been there since 1876. He said they have talked about changing the front of the building and adding some structure to it. The lodge would not be responsible for the case. There would probably be some grant money that would go on and he said they are in favor of the proposed district. Marvin Smith, 7617 Douglas, Ln, North Richland Hills. His office is one of the new buildings that looks historical. He felt that we might be expanding this a little more than needed such as restricting Jim Makens by creating a hardship for him. He would like to inquire about the closed up grocery store on Main Street, if he bought it he would rebuild it to look like a new building from the 1900's or tear it down and build something like what was proposed tonight. He built his office to look like the 1900's. There are some other pieces of property on Main Street and on the corner of Smithfield Road. There is potential for retail office shops. This could be a family type atmosphere. A mini version of what downtown Grapevine looks like. There is a little bit of history to reserve. He felt that we just need to be careful not to expand too far. He thought the overall idea was good. He installed a couple of historic streetlights. They weren't cheep or he would have put up more. Mr. Pitstick commented that staff has tried on several occasions to meet with Mr. Makens. He commented that this really is the smallest area they could get from a reasonable standpoint. He stated that the City doesn't want to force anyone to rezone his or her property. Anyone on Davis or Mid-Cities could sell their property if they wanted to and develop it for our current standards and develop and extend some streets that are thought to have some streetscapes that can be offered off Main. This is a study at this time. It is not to set another zoning Page 8 11/14/02 P & Z Minutes district necessarily but to be used as a future guideline. On Davis, there doesn't appear to be a lot of development in mid-block areas. Mr. Pitstick commented that the City is seeing a lot of activity in corners such as Mid-Cities and Davis Boulevard, North Tarrant and Davis, and Mid-Cities and Precinct Line, Mid-Cities and Rufe Snow. The historical folks that he met with wanted to see this district bigger than it is right now. He felt this is a small enough area to capture the historic core. He commented they felt they needed the elementary school and Autrey homestead. He said he would like to meet with anyone. This is just a recommended study at this time. Mr. Smith could have put his structure approximately 5' closer than it is today. You can get a larger building on a smaller lot by these guidelines. He stated that he is hoping to wrap this study up by the end of the year or middle of January and needs more input. Mr. Schopper commented that he agrees with Marvin Smith with the size of the district and that there is a real impediment to develop south of the railroad tracts. The lumberyard isn't historical. Nothing will happen with Bates Container. All you will see in the Northwest corner of Davis and Mid-Cities is commercial development. Mr. Schopper didn't know if it was feasible to talk about a railroad station there. On the north side is residential area and vacant land. That type of land is to be put on top of each other instead of being spread out. He felt we need to focus on a few blocks on Main Street and our energy there would develop out and be a lot more beneficial to everyone. Mr. Tucker said this isn't a cast in stone zoning. This is more guideline of what we encourage. Jesse Johnson, 6413 Smithfield Road, asked what we were going to do with Smithfield road? Mr. Emrich said the only reason the line comes off of the street slightly to the west is that is where the proposed streetscaping is to occur from Mid-Cities to the elementary school on both sides of Smithfield. That would be the historic streetlights and wider sidewalks to encourage pedestrians. If there is a rail station in this general location there will likely be more pedestrian activity. It would not impact buildings to the west of Smithfield but is only in the boundary of Smithfield because of the more public right of way improvements that would be proposed in the guidelines. Jesse Johnson asked if Smithfield Road was going to be widened and if the line was going to take that? Chairman Bowen answered that the line won't move over as far as widening Smithfield. This plan won't change anything for Smithfield road. Chairman Don Bowen closed the public hearing. Mr. Pitstick commented that he would like to take the comments tonight and look at the study and present it to City Council. They would like another public hearing at the City Council and make recommendations at that time. This is a study that is recommended for future development and doesn't want to take Page 9 11/14/02 P & Z Minutes away existing zoning or existing buildings that want to continue to develop there. Because we are running out of property we would like to put a boundary on that general area. We want to encompass the school district and go on down. He agrees with Mr. Schopper that much of the south of the railroad tracts is already developed commercial and industrial. It may only be the streetscape that can be south of the railroad tracts and the property on the West Side here would affect the streetscape. As you come down Main you begin to tie so that when you are driving your car you get a since of when you enter and leave the district. That is why the line is put on the other side of Smithfield. Ms. Cole commented that in earlier meetings it has been mentioned that on the northwest corner of Mid-Cities and Davis Boulevard possibly being the entrance to the look of Smithfield. Maybe that is why they brought it down to Mid-Cities. Chairman Don Bowen commented that the next three items are together but will be voted on separately. 5. PZ 2002-32 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM MIKE CLARK REPRESENTING MARGARET CHASE CHAMBLESS AND CARDINAL LANE INVESTORS LLC FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM "I-L" LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND "AG" AGRICULTURE TO "0-1" OFFICE AT 8901 CARDINAL LANE (18.278 ACRES). (POSTPONED FROM THE OCTOBER 24TH MEETING) APPROVED 6. PZ 2002-37 CONSIDERATION OF A THOROUGHFARE PLAN REVISION FROM MIKE CLARK IN THE 8900 BLOCK OF CARDINAL LANE. APPROVED 7. PS 2002-39 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM MIKE CLARK TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1 UICI ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 8900 BLOCK OF CARDINAL LANE (19.78 ACRES). APPROVED Zoning Administrator Dave Green summarized the three requests. He stated that these cases are related and generated by a proposed future westward expansion of the UICllnsurance development located immediately to the east. The applicant's first request is to rezone the site from "I-L" Light Industrial and "AG" Agricultural to the "0-1" Office District. The second request is to revise the street system in this area of the proposed expansion by the elimination of two future streets. The third request was the approval of a preliminary plat of the site Page 10 11/14/02 P & Z Minutes known as Lots 1, 2, 3, & 4, Block 1 UICI Addition. Mr. Green pointed out that the Public Works Department has requested a minor revision to the wording of a detention area on the plat, otherwise the proposed plat satisfies all staff's comments. Chairman Don Bowen opened the public hearing. Michael Clark, Winkleman & Associates, 6750 Hillcrest Plaza, #100, Dallas 75230 representing the landowners as well as a proposed purchaser B-3 Realty and UICI. Mr. Pat Fox from B-3 Realty and Mr. Makens were present. Mr. Clark commented as far as their zoning request it is the same as what Mr. Green stated. As far as the thoroughfare amendment is concerned, they have worked with staff on an agreement to eliminate the part of the roadway leg that goes to the east property line and dead ends. This roadway is on the Thoroughfare Plan and is an encumbrance for UICI from a security standpoint as it creates a no- mans land from the alignment with Walker Drive. As a solution, the applicant is proposing a covenant restriction on this roadway (designated roadway "B") that would run with the land. The covenant will stipulate that roadway "B" would not be deleted from the Thoroughfare Plan unless there was contiguous ownership of the two developments and a single lot development were proposed that included a cui de sac on road "A". This situation allows UICI and B-3 Realty to purchase the property with the knowledge that they can develop it like they want to and gives the city the hammer to have the roadway shown on the preliminary plat. The applicants are in agreement with Staff's comments on the preliminary plat and will make the change. Chairman restated that this is an open hearing and asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor or against the zoning request. Chairman Don Bowen closed the public hearing. Mr. Nehring, seconded by Mr. Schopper, motioned to approve PZ 2002-32. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Mr. Tucker, seconded by Chairman Don Bowen motioned to approve PZ 2002-37. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Mr. Tucker, seconded by Ms. Cole motioned to approve PZ 2002-39 to include engineer's comments. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Chairman Don Bowen announced that the next two cases are related. 9. PZ 2002-33 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM CHARLES SMITH ON BEHALF OF NORTH HILLS HOSPITAL FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM "R- 2" RESIDENTIAL TO "NS" NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE AT 7800 ROGAN DRIVE. Page 11 11/14/02 P & Z Minutes DENIED 10. PZ 2002-34 CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST FOR NORTH RICHLAND HILLS HOSPITAL AT 7800 ROGAN DRIVE. DENIED Zoning Administrator Dave Green summarized the case and stated that the next two requests were being brought forward by North Hills Hospital. The first request is to rezone property from "R-2" Residential to "NS" Neighborhood Services. The purpose of this request is to locate a 55-space parking lot across Booth Calloway from the hospital. The site is currently zoned residential and is located in a residential neighborhood. The "NS" District is the first district that would permit this type of activity. The second item is for approval of a site plan. Any time there is property proposed for commercial development and located within 200' of residential zoning, a site plan approval is required. Residential uses are located along the northern (across Rogan), eastern and southern boundaries of the proposed parking lot. Mr. Green further stated that certain landscape improvements were required to the site and that the applicant is requesting a variance to the requirement of 15' landscape buffers along the eastern and southern boundaries of the site. This variance request will be presented to the Landscape Review Board (City Council) in the near future and is not a consideration of the site plan approval request. Ms. Cole asked if we aren't approving the parking up to the masonry wall but to include the 15' setback? Mr. Green answered, no, that the landscape variance request can only be heard but by the City Council acting as the Landscape Review Board. This variance request is set for the November 25th City Council meeting. Chairman Don Bowen opened the public hearing. Randy Moresi, Administrator CEO North Hills Hospital, 429 Lindell, Hurst addressed the Commission. He began by stating that any time there is a rezoning request, it brings up a lot of questions. He stated that the property that the Hospital wants to locate the parking lot on is undeveloped and he felt that developing it as hospital parking would improve the property. Over the last two years the Hospital has added more parking and they are completely full to the west toward the flood plain. They have added several hundred parking spots during this time but the growth has outstripped everything they have tried to do. The only reason they were looking at these two pieces of property is because they were undeveloped. He said he knew there is some concern about us going further into the neighborhood and to piecemeal it but that was not their plan. These two pieces would provide close parking. There are 58 doctors on site. The emergency room sees approximately 3,000 people per month. Mr. Moresi stated that what the Hospital submitted was a very pretty plan with more bushes and trees than what is required. There.is low-set lighting instead of stadium Page 12 11/14/02 P & Z Minutes lighting. Hospital security would make it a part of their rotation to drive this property. They felt that this would be an opportunity to help patients as well as improve the area. Mr. Moresi stated that the Hospital felt that the parking lot was an opportunity to utilize two unused properties to prevent people from parking on the streets in the neighborhood. Mr. Schopper questioned whether or not the project (being on the opposite side of Booth Calloway) would invite J-walking. He asked if there was a way to put a curb cut on the side street and a masonry wall. This way it would only allow one opportunity for people to cross instead of people crossing at the whole frontage. Mr. Schopper continued that he would like to see the access blocked to Booth Calloway to ensure that pedestrians would cross at one place. Mr. Lewis complimented Mr. Moresi and the Hospital for the good work they do in the city. However, he has some concerns that someone could possibly have a desire to build on that vacant lot. He asked if this was a temporary deal and if they would end up in the future with a parking garage? He asked if this was only a "stop gap" for a problem that might ruin this area for the residence. Mr. Moresi responded that it is a "stop gap" measure but it is the only thing they can do on a short-term basis. Parking garages are unbelievably expensive. He was told by several engineers that putting a parking garage in a flood plain would have to go through FEMA and had only a 50% chance of approval. It could happen if they were going to also have an expansion for the hospital. He felt that although they would get a parking garage they would also continue to use this space for parking. Mr. Nehring commented on the number of doctors and growth the Hospital has experienced. He felt that the Hospital should have already considered this problem some time back and now they are grasping at property across the street where the hospital doesn't need to be. Mr. Moresi answered "guilty as charge" to the fact on not planning well. He stated when they expanded in 1998/99 they forecasted that the expansion with the additional parking would last them at least 5-10 years. They never expected it would grow like this. John Lewis asked about a shuttle from North Hills Mall. Mr. Moresi answered that hospital employees would be the only ones requested to park across the creek (to the west of the hospital) and with the current shortage of medical staff, the lack of good parking is a the major issue in retaining employees. John Lewis asked if a parking garage is in the plans on their side of Booth Calloway? Mr. Moresi commented that the only way they could expand the Hospital in the future would be to purchase a portion of the mall or an auto dealer. Short of that expansion would have to include a parking garage. Page 13 11/14/02 P & Z Minutes Chairman Don Bowen read off the names presented on the blue cards. Charlie Smith and Anna Ream, associated with the hospital, are both in favor of the requests. Chairman Don Bowen asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. No others replied. Chairman Don Bowen said there are several individuals wishing to speak in opposition. He asked if there was a representative and to limit speaking to three minutes. In addition, staff has received a petition. Staff has determined that 20% of owners of property within 200' of the request had signed a petition in opposition. Approval of this request by the City Council and will require a super majority vote meaning 6 members of our City Council would need to vote for PZ 2002-33 in order for it to pass. Bobby Marshal, 7805 Randel Dr., spoke in opposition. He felt that the shrubbery would block the vision on Rogan Street and will cause accidents. If this zoning is changed, there could be more zoning changes and it would depreciate his property and make it harder to sell in the future. Mrs. Bobbie Marshal, 7805 Randel Dr., spoke in opposition. She doesn't want a parking lot in her backyard and their lights shining in her yard. If there is anything she can do to stop it she will do it. Danny McGuire, 7800 Arnold Terrace, spoke in opposition. He lives two houses down from this site. The Hospital can build a parking garage in their open field with a concrete culvert across the creek just like the Waffle House did. He stated that it was wrong to bring commercial into our residential. Lee Centella, 7812 Rogan, spoke in opposition. He lives to the east of the proposed area. He recently drove through the existing hospital and professional building parking lots. He observed at 10:30 in the morning that there were 112 vacant parking places around the whole complex. This did not include handicap places. He noted that 51 of the 112 spaces were south of the professional building located exactly across the street where the new parking lot is proposed. At 2:30 p.m. there were 184 vacant parking places. Roberto Torres, 7804 Rogan Dr., spoke in opposition. He stated that he built his house seven years ago and it was classified as the most expensive one in this area. The west wall of his house is 10' from the proposed 6' masonry wall. His house sits high and he can see over his 6' fence. His concern was is that strangers who park there could see over his fence into his home. He thought that Mr. Smith & Ms. Ream who signed in favor of this request shouldn't be accepted because they work at the Hospital and don't live in their residential area. He wouldn't feel safe if there is a parking lot next to his home. It would also depreciate his property. Page 14 11/14/02 P & Z Minutes Frank Johnson, 7828 Arnold Terrace, spoke in opposition. He commented that he has lived here 30 years and in the past they were trying to rezone this property to build a doctor's office. He counted approximately 80 empty Hospital parking places and this was without anyone having to park on Booth Calloway. Also if they put parking on these two lots, people would have to walk in and across the street to get to the hospital. Booth Calloway is a very busy street. The Hospital has a 150' X 300' of piece of empty land at the northeast corner. They would have to fill it some but it could be used. He stated the neighborhood was residential with no other commercial properties and approving this request would depreciate his property value. Robby Smith, 7805 Rogan, spoke in opposition. The Hospital's proposed parking endanger lives. Rogers Line Dr. has opened and people have used this road as a short-cut shortcut. Alternatives to the proposed parking at Booth Calloway & Rogan Drive could be a bridge across the street, a parking garage behind the Hospital, or moving the Hospital's helicopter pad. He said he was sure the Hospital staff's consideration has been the cost of alternative parking and bottom line profit. He wonders if they have consulted with their insurer about additional liability of exposing patients to the risk of crossing Booth Calloway. He would like to ask the question "does one life equate to the alternative parking cost"? Teresa James, 4304 Booth Calloway Rd., spoke in opposition. Her property immediately borders this site. She has two main issues; 1) The property value will go down; and 2) It could create a domino effect. They have lived in this neighborhood eight years and there are always empty parking places at the Hospital. Maybe they need to send a note out to their patients to not park on the street. One thing no one has brought up is about their driveway and where their proposed exit is of how hard it will be for them to get out and people to get in and out of that exit. David Johnson, 4304 Ashmore, spoke in opposition. He lives about one and a half blocks away. He felt that this rezoning would create a domino effect in the neighborhood. He felt that it is nonsense for only the people who live within the 200' buffer to receive a notice. Something like this would impact all of their property values. This will take away from their neighborhood and create safety problems. Chairman Don Bowen explained that State Statutes require only those property owners within 200' of the request have to be notified. He also noted that the City places a sign on the site before the hearing. Asya Kareem, 4300 Booth Calloway, spoke in opposition. She lives in front of the Hospital and has lived there for twelve years. She thought that the Hospital side of Booth Calloway should remain commercial and her side should remain residential. She has seen empty parking places at the Hospital. She stated "on the side toward North Hills Mall, that side is all commercial" and believes that is the side the Hospital should consider expanding on. She has four children and the traffic is already busy. Page 15 11/14/02 P & Z Minutes Jamie Hernandez, 7801 Rogan, spoke in opposition and noted and noted her previous opposition when they tried to change it to a doctor's office. She has lived in the neighborhood for 33 years. The traffic is already busy and would be worse extended on to our side into the neighborhood. She has grandchildren that she takes care of and doesn't want any more traffic added to their neighborhood. Jeff Conkle, 4324 Ashmore, spoke in opposition. He has children who play in this area and felt it would create accidents for people trying to get out onto Rogan Dr. Chairman Don Bowen read three cards filled out who were opposed but didn't wish to speak: Sharon Garrison, 4312 Ashmore, opposed. Jeff Lawrance, 4208 Lynn Terrace, opposed. Michael White, 4204 Lynn Terrace, opposed. Kevin Barber, 7817 Rogan Dr., spoke in opposition. The nearby car dealerships currently test-drive cars on Rogan. If you add a parking lot there it will increase the traffic. Gary Vaughn, 7809 Rogan,spoke in opposition. Has lived in the neighborhood 23 years. Doctors tried to get this rezoned a few years ago. This is called spot zoning. If parking is allowed here doctors will come in and start picking houses for their own offices. Keep the Hospital on the west side of Booth Calloway and residential on the east side. Mark Rogers, 7813 Arnold Terrace, spoke in opposition. He commented that this piece of property could be sold to someone wanting to build a home if the doctor who owns it would sell. There is a Car Painters business on the east side of the creek that could have been bought by the Hospital as a parking lot less than a year ago. Lee Centella spoke earlier and wanted to ask who owned the subject property? Chairman Don Bowen said they are representing the Hospital. The owner or their agent can ask for the request. Theresa James, 4304 Booth Calloway, spoke earlier and wanted to add that she and her husband did acquire previously about that the two lots in question. She stated that the two doctors who owned the lot two doctors said that they would have to build a $150,000.00 - $250,000.00 home on that land. They would not sell it to them to purchase to go with their property. They thought that both doctors were deceased and the land was turned over to their nephews. Carol Centella, 7812 Rogan, spoke in opposition. She questioned how will 55 parking places benefit the Hospital at their explosion rate they talk about. How Page 16 11/14/02 P & Z Minutes long would that really help them? This is a short stopgap-type of situation and also would be spot zoning by going into a neighborhood. They would eventually have to turn that area into a parking garage. Mr. Moresi, answered that the vacant area where Roger Line Road and the creek come together is not buildable because it's in a floodplain. The Hospital has built up to the edge of the flood plain. He continued that he has been with the Hospital for twelve years and since improvements were made to the creek channel, it has never been a problem. However, the area still remains in the flood plain and you have to deal with FEMA. Mr. Moresi continued by saying that the Hospital has considered building a parking garage on the south side but they are prevented by an Exxon pipeline. Exxon has an easement in which they will not grant any construction. The doctor that owns the subject property in this request is, Doctor Mesh Nehire, a Cardiologist. He didn't know about the office building. The sale of this site is a contingent contract between the property owner Dr. Nehire and the Hospital. He commented that the Hospital would love to stay on the west-side of Booth Calloway but there are huge restrictions to expansion. The Hospital has spent the last year and a half trying to overcome these restrictions. Chairman Don Bowen closed the public hearing. Mr. Lewis asked about subdivisions bringing land out of the flood plain all the time. He said he knows you can park on an easement, but not a gas line easement. Mr. Tucker commented that he isn't going to go into a neighborhood that has been there that long. He realizes the hospital needs some relief but not here. He is opposed to the request. Chairman Don Bowen said as long as the character of the neighborhood stays the way it is, he is not going to vote to change anything on the east side of Booth Calloway. Although this is a parking lot, once it gets zoned to Neighborhood Services, which is restricted, it would be a retail piece of property and wouldn't go back to residential. It is an intrusion to the neighborhood and he is opposed to the request. Mr. Laubacher commented that this is a piecemeal approach and would set a terrible precedence for the future of this area and he is opposed to the request as well. Ms. Cole commented that Hospital employees parking at North Hills Mall wouldn't be a safe option due to the times they get off work and for the Hospital to possibly move the driveway due to the owner next door adjacent driveway. Mr. Nehring commented on the property being preserved and their property value. Once it becomes a Neighborhood Service that changes everything. This would only be a temporary fix for the Hospital. There needs to be other areas for them to look at. He is opposed to the request. Page 17 11/14/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Schopper commented that a hospital is a lot like a school. He wouldn't want to send a message to the Hospital that they have grown all they can. The decision that was made in 1998 was a bad decision. He doesn't like the parking design and how people cross the street. He is in favor of accommodating the Hospital but this might not be the time or plan. Ms. Cole commented that the potential property value effect of this request would be on very few. It would be primarily on the properties that are adjacent to the site. For properties two houses away, it wouldn't have an effect on them as currently presented. Chairman Don Bowen called for a motion. Mr. Tucker, seconded by Mr. Lewis motioned to deny PZ 2002-33. The motion carried (6-1-0) with Mr. Schopper voting in opposition. Chairman Bowen told the applicant they had ten days to appeal to City Council and needed to get with Mr. Green if they wish to appeal. The staff has determined that the petition submitted is valid and that it will take a super majority of six votes from City Council to approve this request. Mr. Tucker, seconded Mr. Schopper by motioned to deny PZ 2002-34. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Chairman Don Bowen announced a five-minute break. 11. PZ 1998-15R1 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM DUANE NESS ON BEHALF OF TRIAD SENIOR LIVING IV L.P. FOR A REVISION TO THE APPROVED "PD" PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR THE WELLINGTON SENIOR RETIREMENT COMMUNITY AT 6150 GLENVIEW DRIVE. DENIED Dave Green, Zoning Administrator summarized the case by stating that this property was zoned "PD" Planned Development in 1998. What is being requested tonight is a revision to the approved PD plan. This site has been developed as a senior living retirement facility. On the side of the development (facing the rear of the property) the applicant wants to add canopies over existing parking spaces. Mr. Green noted that a number of years ago the City Council "raise the bar" on a number of ordinances that affect the aesthetics of development in North Richland Hills. One area that was revised by Council concerned carports. The standard flat top, all aluminum, steel post, carport would no longer be permitted. In their place pitch-roof canopies with masonry support columns are now required. This was considered an enhancement to the typical carport and a better product. The applicant is requesting to revise the approved site plan by adding carports over 20 existing parking spaces. In addition, the applicant is requesting variances from the required pitched-roof and masonry columns. Page 18 11/14/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Tucker asked if it can be broken up or if the PD has to be voted as a whole. Mr. Green answered that is correct. Mr. Tucker asked if we agree they can put in a flat roof. Or deny the whole PD. Mr. Schopper asked if we can make a stipulation that we want the carports but want the pitch. Mr. Green said there is some latitude administratively if the individual wants to revise the site plan by putting a carport in with a pitched roof and masonry columns, and in the revision to the site plan, it doesn't involve traffic circulation, access, increasing intensity of development, doesn't involve impacting adjacent properties, then could possibly approve administratively as opposed to a public hearing. Ms. Cole asked, if the Commission were to deny this request based on the variances, could they can bring the site plan back to staff showing pitched-roofs and masonry columns and not have to bring this request before the Council for a site plan change? Mr. Green responded that, in his opinion, would be correct. Mr. Green further stated that the Zoning Ordinance grants the Building Official a small amount of authority to grant minor variances when it is in keeping with the intent of the Ordinance. Chairman Don Bowen opened the public hearing. Duane Ness, 4817 Eagle Trace Dr., Keller, representing The Wellington, 6150 Glenview Dr., North Richland Hills. Mr. Ness stated that back in 1997 or '98 this property was selected for this project mainly due to the potential view of the open space and golf course located to the west of the site. There is a drainage ditch easement and a pond along the western boundary of the site that is controlled by the Core of Engineers. The residents have been selecting the back apartments because of this nature view. However, the residents also want carports. Mr. Ness stated that his concerns with the pitched roof and the larger pillar brick column they will add to carports covering up the view of the open area. He felt that first and second floor residents would see nothing but roof and big brick pillars instead of seeing the pond and nature. The large pillars will take up approximately one and a half car places more than a regular 5" metal pillar. He said he would loose two spots and parking after putting in 20 carports. Chairman Bowen asked Mr. Ness if he thought that aluminum carports would add to the esthetics? Mr. Ness answered that they visually disappear. The construction and look of them would be nice even though they wouldn't have masonry columns or pitched roof. It doesn't bother the view. Page 19 11/14/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Nehring asked how many apartments would that affect? Mr. Ness answered there is 25 residents facing the back. Mr. Schopper asked the possibility of moving it to the south end where the driveway goes around. Mr. Ness answered that there isn't room to put 20 carports in this area or in the front either. To put any less than 20 wouldn't be worth it. 50% of our population drive their own car. The other 50 % use our transportation. Ms. Cole asked about constructing the carports in the front of the development. Mr. Ness said that this location would not be a good area being the front entrance to the development. Other places wouldn't be good due to the site's topography and being too far away for seniors. Mr. Lewis commented that the concern would be of reversing the trend that has been set before us about raising the bar on developments. Neighborhood apartments would see this and feel they could do the same. Mr. Ness said that you couldn't see the carports from Glenview Drive. Diamond Lochs and the Waterford Apartment's manager told him that they don't have any intentions of putting up carports. The only visible part would be along the back lots of the two opposing apartments or the golf course. Chairman Bowen asked if there out of view from this lower end of the golf course? Mr. Ness said not really, sometimes possibly a golf cart now and then. Chairman Bowen asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor or opposition of this request. There were none. Chairman Bowen closed the public hearing. Mr. Lewis commented about the City Council raising the bar on these types of structures. He commented that he understands the resident's desire for this, but he couldn't grant the variances for the roof or the column. Mr. Schopper commented that he wished he had some pictures to see. He commented that he felt the aluminum carports would junk up the natural view along the back of their property. Chairman Bowen called for a motion. Mr. Lewis, seconded by Mr. Laubacher motioned to deny PZ 1998-15R1. The motioned carried unanimously (7-0). Page 20 11/14/02 P & Z Minutes PZ 2002-22 CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE MASONRY REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. APPROVED Director of Development John Pitstick explained to the Planning and Zoning Commission that they had already voted on this for residential. Mr. Tucker, seconded by Ms. Cole for 100% masonry on the first floor and 80% on the second floor. In order to be consistent for both residential and commercial staff has proposed 100% on the first floor and 85% on the second floor. Above 8' you can include a 15% of non-brick material. Dave Pendley has some examples of non-masonry to show. It will be up to the Building Official on what type of non- masonry materials will be allowed to use for the 15% that would look like masonry such as reinforced EFIS. Dave Pendley, Building Official, said that there are some holes that need filled in order to enforce this properly. Masonry for non-residential is a combination of brick, ceramic block, stone, decorative concrete block or masonry materials installed in a craftsman like manner that are a minimum of 1" thick and imbedded in a cementious substrate. The building trim and accent areas shall not exceed 15% of any exterior wall area. Stucco, fiber reinforced cement board, reinforced EIFS or simulated masonry systems approved by the Building Official may only be used for accent areas located no closer than 8' from the adjacent grade level. Masonry - a combination of brick, ceramic block, stone or masonry materials installed in a craftsman like manner that are a minimum of 1" thick and imbedded in cementious reinforced substrate. We want full-blown ACME-type brick as a masonry material and materials installed in a craftsman like manner to refer to materials such as simulated brick or stone, man-made material installed on a plaster or stucco like substrate and pressed into place. The stucco over the plaster is installed over the metal type lath material and the mortar joints are filled similar to regular masonry. Reinforced EIFS with the brick pattern put into the material. It is not intended to be a substitute as an actual bonified masonry and won't be able to use in residential at all. Since it is reinforced and a Sto-type product, it can be used as the trim and accent areas in commercial. You can't put a knife through it. Up close you can tell that it isn't brick, but not by driving by. It will also be above 8' so that it won't be subject to damage. The masonry definition is slightly expanded and would include the brick and stone veneer as written. This opens the door to some new uses. Eldorado Stone is precast concrete stone veneer made out of Pumas and cement. This material is an EIFS spin-off with metal backings, Styrofoam attached to drywall, and then tiles are glued in place on top of foam and grout installed in the joints. This looks like brick too and is proposed only in the 15% and is slightly above EIFS. Mr. Lewis asked if in the products other than masonry if we can include in our definition products proven life with life guaranteed X such as the plastic product? Page 21 11/14/02 P & Z Minutes Dave Pendley said that it would be a manufactures guarantee. Mr. Pitstick said that anyone is welcome to come before council with a SUP. 15% of each elevation above 8' can be other materials. Residential, 85% of all elevations to be brick and the other 15% can be wood or other alternative materials. This is what is in the ordinance other than what Dave Pendley added. Mr. Lewis asked if Mr. Pendley feels comfortable with the definition and is this of what we are after? Mr. Pendley answered yes. Ms. Cole said she doesn't like the 3/8" thickness. Someone will figure out how to make an inch. How far can we get and still include those type products. Mr. Pendley answered stating this one is made in widths from %" up to 2". Ms. Cole said she would like to see it more than 1". Mr. Tucker asked what is the difference from 1" to 1 Y2" what would we be gaining? Ms. Cole commented that it would be used over the eaves? Mr. Pendley said that because of the cementrous substrate. They could get this in an inch. Mr. Pitstick said if they got it to an inch they would have to put it on a stucco finish and installed in a craftsman like manner. Mr. Pendley said this is about as enforceable as can be right now. It gives some guidelines and leeway. Should something come up that we don't like or agree with, we can always change it. Mr. Pitstick said this is the same ordinance you recommended to council of 100% of first floor and 80% of second floor and they tabled it because they knew we would be talking about this. The new definition is a proposed ordinance of 100% for non-residential buildings. In the definition we are allowing, 15% of the area is not strictly that way. Mr. Pitstick stated that tilt wall, concrete block, EIFS not allowed in residential. In commercial you can allow it. Ms. Cole, seconded by Mr. Laubacher motioned to approve PZ 2002-22. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 13. DISCUSSION OF OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS. Page 22 11/14/02 P & Z Minutes There were no other items for discussion. 14. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10: 15 p.m. Chairman Secretary ~eg~ T];¿ ¡t/~ Page 23 11/14/02 P & Z Minutes