Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 1999-01-15 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS JANUARY 15, 1999 - 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Davis at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman ABSENT CITY STAFF Deputy City Mgr. Asst. City Mgr. Acting Director Recording Sec'y Director PW Asst. Director PW CIP Coordinator Staff Engineer Richard Davis Don Bowen Doug Blue James Laubacher Mark Wood David Barfield Ron Lueck Ted Nehring Randy Shiflet Ron Ragland Steve Norwood Valerie Taylor Greg Dickens Kevin Miller Mike Curtis Julia Skare 3. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 17, 1998 APPROVED Mr. Laubacher, seconded by Mr. Bowen moved to approve the minutes of December 17,1998. The motion carried with a vote of7 - O. Messrs. Blue, Bowen, Davis, Laubacher, Wood, Lueck & Barfield were in favor of this motion. Page 1 1 /15/99 P & Z Minutes 4. PS 98-55 CONSIDER REQUEST OF MARVIN SMITH FOR A FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 1 - 3, BLOCK 2, DOUGLAS ESTATES, PHASE II. (LOCATED IN THE 7500 BLOCK OF DOUGLAS LANE) APPROVED Mr. Marvin Smith, 7609 Douglas Lane stated they have agreed with all engineering comments. Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Bowen moved to approve PS 98-55, subject to engineer's comments. The motion carried unanimously. Page 2 1/15/99 P & Z Minutes 5. PS 98-60 CONSIDER REQUEST OF RICK SIMMONS FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, VILLA'S ON BEAR CREEK ADDITION. (LOCATED IN THE 8000 BLOCK OF DAVIS BOULEVARD) APPROVED Mr. Norwood explained that 15.5-acre tract of land is zoned as a Planned Development for Independent Senior Housing. He explained that there are some issues relative to the flood plain; a drainage study will be required with the final plat. Additionally, Little Bear Creek Corridor issues were addressed at the time of zoning. All other engineering issues have been addressed and staff recommends approval subject to engineer's comments. Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. Lueck, moved to approve PS 98-60 subject to engineer's comments. The motion carried unanimously. Page 3 1 /15/99 P & Z Minutes 6. PS 98-65 CONSIDER REQUEST OF KENTON HOLCOMB FOR A FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 1, TOWN CENTER ADDITION. (LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CARDINAL LANE AND SIMMONS DRIVE) APPROVED Mr. Curtis, CIP Coordinator stated that the applicant was not in attendance yet, and asked if these issues could be delayed until they arrived. The applicant was aware of the meeting this evening. Mr. Davis asked for a motion to delay this request until the end of the meeting. Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Blue moved to delay this issue until the end of the meeting. The motion carried unanimously. The hearing of this case resumed at the conclusion of hearing the last item on the agenda. Mr. Curtis, CIP Coordinator, stated this is a final plat of Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Town Center Addition. These two lots will represent Blue Line Ice-Skating Rink and parking for it. The owner and architect have agreed to the engineer's comments. He explained that offsite easements will be required for this project and the owner has agreed to this requirement. A shared parking agreement is required. A draft copy has been provided. Street improvements at Cardinal Lane and Simmons Drive will be required, and this requirement is understood and the owner realizes that prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued all street improvements will be made. Additionally, the owner is requesting that the City vacate some existing ROW at the intersection of Cardinal Lane and Simmons Drive; it will square up the intersection and the Public Works Department sees no problem with this request. He stated that the owner and his architect are present should the Commission have additional questions. Mr. Barfield stated that he really wants to see a standardized parking agreement throughout the entire Town Center, including Blue Line Ice. Chairman Davis asked the owner's representative to come forward. He stated that at the time of preliminary platting, it had been agreed that a parking easement or agreement would be filed on Lot 2, allowing Lot 1 the parking rights forever. He stated what was presented to the Commission was a Ground Lease Agreement. Mr. Craig Hutchins, owner's representative, apologized for being late and explained that he could provide whatever documentation the Commission wanted. Both pieces of land are owned by one person. He could not answer Page 4 1 /15/99 P & Z Minutes why it had been drafted as a Ground Lease, but stated that parking will always be there as long as the building is there. Chairman Davis asked if Mr. Hutchins would be opposed to this plat being approved subject to a Parking Easement be platted on Lot 2 and it be there for perpetuity. It could only be vacated by changing the plat. Mr. Hutchins stated he did not have a problem dedicating a parking easement in lieu of the ground lease on Lot 2. This will be indicated on the face of the plat as well as a document outlining it. Mr. Wood asked why the lots were platted separately, if they were owned by the same people. Mr. Hutchins responded by stating that Fitzgerald Holdings, the owner, found it in their best interest to plat it into two lots. Mr. Bowen, seconded by Mr. Blue, moved to approve PS 98-65 subject to engineer's comments and provided a parking easement is shown on Lot 2 on the plat. The motion carried unanimously. Page 5 1 /15/99 P & Z Minutes 7. PZ 98-55 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF MARSHALL MERRITT FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CAR WASH AND GASOLINE SALES AT A PROPOSED CONVENIENCE STORE ON LOT 5, BLOCK 1, WALKER BRANCH ADDITION. (LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GRAPEVINE HIGHWAY & HARWOOD ROAD) ORDINANCE NO. 2361 APPROVED Mr. Norwood stated that this is a SUP request for a car wash and gasoline sales at a proposed convenience store. The property was platted about a year ago. There are several issues regarding curb cuts and driveway spacing. He explained that a matter of interpretation on the right-in I right-out exists. One currently exists on Grapevine Highway for the Taco Bell. He explained that staff has met with the applicant trying to work out a compromise and this has resulted in the request for a right-in only for this property. Chairman Davis opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. Mr. Jackie Fluett, Washington & Associates, and Marshall Merritt, applicant, presented this request. Mr. Merritt explained that Mr. Fluett could answer any questions regarding the previous platting of this property. For clarification, Mr. Fluett gave an outline of the approval obtained on this platting request, as he recalled. He stated a comment letter had been received from staff regarding 4 lots of Walker Branch Addition. In these comments were the submittal of a site plan that reflected curb cuts and approvals of these, along with curb radii, etc. Subsequently, he recalled the architect submitting a site plan, which showed full blown driveways, that were not acceptable to staff. Revised drawings reflecting right-in/right-outs were submitted, as recommended by staff, and nothing was ever worked out with staff. The case moved forward to the P&Z, who denied additional curb cuts. The curb cuts for this property that were approved were shared access. City Council approved the site plan and plat submitted. From that Mr. Fluett assumed the curb cuts reflected on the site plan and plat were approved and they just needed to get a design on curb cuts that staff would approve. Mr. Davis asked if the night that City Council approved this plat, could Mr. Fluett remember if that site plan showed right-in I right-out curb cuts? Mr. Fluett stated yes, as far as he could remember it showed right-in I right-out curb cuts. Just like is existing on the Taco Bell today. Page 6 1 /15/99 P & Z Minutes Mr. Davis stated that this is a SUP request and site plan approval is required; and, planning staff is recommending no additional curb cuts be allowed on Harwood Road. Mr. Fluett stated that they have an alternative proposed and the engineering department has agreed to this, should the P&Z allow an additional curb cut. This is a proposed right-in only. Responding to a question, Mr. Fluett stated that this was originally proposed to eliminate gas delivery trucks from having to go across anyone else's property. Seeing no additional proponents, and no opponents, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lueck believes that the Commission has 2 obligations; to ensure the highest and best use of the property and to ensure safety for the citizens. The safety issue by far, in his opinion, exceeds the first issue. He believes any curb cut at this location is going to be unsatisfactory - and since staff is opposed to additional curb cuts, the Commission has their answer, in his opinion. He stated he would vote for approval, without any curb cuts. Mr. Barfield stated that with the opening of the apartments just east of this site, any additional curb cuts on this street will be a tremendous strain on traffic, even a right-in only. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Fluett if any consideration had been given to the entrance of this property from eastbound Harwood traffic. Mr. Fluett stated that traffic coming from Davis, east on Harwood would use the shared driveway with City Garage. Mr. Barfield asked if anyone had given any thought to increasing the size of the shared access with City Garage. Mr. Fluett stated that drive had been built at the maximum width allowed and the major concern is getting traffic off of Harwood into his site. Mr. Blue stated that the configuration of the intersection itself and the way it slants, access is extremely cut down and in his opinion, a traffic hazard. Mr. Wood stated that the only traffic that could use the right-in is west bound traffic. The goal is to get the traffic off of Harwood and into this site, whether it is through the shared access with City Garage or into the convenience store, as Page 7 1 /15/99 P & Z Minutes quickly as possible, to avoid traffic backing up. If the right-in only is eliminated, traffic has to go up to the next curb cut, stop and do a 90 degree turn in, or at least slow down significantly - which will slow up traffic significantly more. A right-in only will clear traffic off Harwood Road faster than the alternative. Mr. Lueck stated that his concern is not Harwood Road, but traffic coming off Grapevine Highway. Mr. Wood stated traffic coming south on Grapevine Highway, turning onto Harwood Road and coming into this intersection would get off the road faster with the right-in only. Mr. Lueck stated that they see the same problem, but don't agree on the same solution. After much discussion, Chairman Davis stated he would entertain a motion on PZ 98-55. Mr. Lueck, seconded by Mr. Blue, moved to approve PZ 98-55 with no additional curb cuts and the site plan is revised to reflect it. The motion carried with a vote of 4 - 3. Messrs. Lueck, Barfield, Blue & Bowen were in favor of this motion. Messrs. Wood, Davis & Laubacher were opposed. Mr. Wood asked that the record reflect the three opposing votes were not against the use of the SUP request, onlv against no additional curb cuts. Page 8 1 /15/99 P & Z Minutes 8. PZ 98-59 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF ALL COMMERCIAL PROJECTS THAT ARE LOCATED WITHIN 200 FEET OF RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY OR PROPERTY THAT IS INDICATED TO BE RESIDENTIAL ON THE APPROVED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN. ORDINANCE NO. 2362 Mr. Norwood explained that this issue would establish site plan approval for all commercial projects within 200' of residentially zoned property. Commercial projects would include 01-0ffice, LR-Local Retail, C1 and C2-Commercial, OC- Outdoor Commercial and the Industrial zoning classifications. This ordinance amendment was generated by screening and buffer issues where residentially zoned properties are concerned. Staff does recommended approval of Ordinance No. 2362. Chairman Davis opened the public hearing and asked for proponents. Seeing none, he called for any opponents. Mr. Doug Long stated that he is not necessarily opposed, but had some questions for clarification. He said if you have a 15 acre tract of land and it abuts residential on one side, will the entire 15 acres have to have a site plan submitted or just the area within 200 feet of the residential property. He stated he understands the concern of what is actually abutting residential property, but with large tracts of land, it could be detrimental for the developer. Chairman Davis stated that his interpretation is that at the time of building permit approval, anything within 200 feet of residential would trigger site plan approval so if 3 lots were zoned commercial, only the lot abutting the residential property would have to be site planned. Seeing no additional opponents, the public hearing was closed. Much discussion ensued between the Commissioners on the wording of the ordinance as well as the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Blue stated that he believes the ordinance is to protect the tranquility of existing residential neighborhoods. Mr. Laubacher believes this is reasonable, minimal protection for residents. Page 9 1 /15/99 P & Z Minutes Mr. Barfield believes it will help with existing buildings in the redevelopment areas of the city. The ordinance will give the City the chance to implement some of the newer standards in the older areas. Mr. Long asked if where commercial abuts residentially zoned properties, but a street bisects the property, if the street frontage would be counted into the 200 feet. It was determined, by interpretation that the street would count into the 200 feet. Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. Laubacher, moved to approve PZ 98-59. The motion carried unanimously. Page 10 1 /15/99 P & Z Minutes 9. PZ 98-60 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REVISE THE SCREENING WALL REGULATIONS BETWEEN COMMERCIAL & RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. ORDINANCE NO. 2363 Mr. Norwood explained that this ordinance is being proposed to basically clear up an existing loophole in the current ordinance. The proposed ordinance language would be changed to better protect residential property. Chairman Davis opened the public hearing. Mr. Barfield asked if your on a public street and you have a commercial property with residential across the street. The street your business in on needs that exposure and the way he interprets the proposed ordinance, a wall would be required. Mr. Norwood stated that some clean up or clarification was needed; but the rational was the back of a building against a street being exposed to residentially zoned property. Mr. Barfield stated the ordinance should clearly state that commercial property fronting on existing streets is not required to be screened, and only commercial development backing up to residential districts are required to screen. He stated the Commission needs to clarify what is front and back, so staff will know. He stated he has a tract of land on Precinct Line and Martin Drive. The property adjacent to this on Martin is residential. But, the commercial lot he has on Martin definitely needs Martin frontage. This condition, he explained exists all over the City. Chairman Davis stated that he believes the ordinance is intended for the rear of commercial buildings only. Mr. Wood asked if there were some specific examples where staff felt it necessary to change this ordinance. He stated that when this item was a discussion item on the previous agenda, the Commission didn't see a need to amend this ordinance and wanted to know why staff had pursued it anyway. Randy Shiflet, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Mayor and Council asked staff to look at these issues. He stated that currently the potential exists in a Page 11 1 /15/99 P & Z Minutes certain area of town where the potential developers would be backing up to an existing street, and fronting on another existing street where the back of their building would basically be at the entrance of an existing subdivision. This developer is not willing to discuss screening, so staff was directed to look at it and bring it forward as action items. However, with the approval of the previous action item, (Ordinance No. 2362) this concern is basically addressed, making this additional ordinance unnecessary. Discussion continued regarding the pros and con's of this proposed ordinance, as well as additional insight for future proposed ordinances. Chairman Davis called for any proponents. Seeing none and seeing no opponents, the public hearing was closed. After much discussion, Mr. Shiflet stated he see's the previous ordinance being in concert with what Council is trying to accomplish. Mr. Lueck, seconded by Mr. Wood, moved to deny PZ 98-60. The motion carried unanimously. Page 12 1 /15/99 P & Z Minutes 10. DISCUSSION TO DETERMINE THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION'S REVIEW AND PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE REGARDING THE PROPOSALS OF THE LAND USE AD-HOC COMMITTEE. Chairman Davis thanked the members of the Land Use Ad-Hoc in attendance for coming. He stated that the Commission did see the presentation the Committee made to City Council. He explained that last year City Council had assured the P&Z that once the LUAH had made their recommendation to the Council, P&Z would be given a chance to review them. He understands the Council is trying to fast-track this item and he is looking for direction so he can let staff know how soon P&Z can schedule meetings, as well as understand the Committee's time frame of recommendations to Council. Chairman Davis stated that these are two major changes to existing ordinances regarding signage and landscaping and he wants to know what kind of time frame the P&Z Commissioners are willing to work under. Mr. Wood stated that some very good information was presented Tuesday night and believes it is the Commissions job to help the Ad-Hoc Committee to publicize this information and get support from the community, as well as make the community aware of what's being proposed. In order to do this he believes public hearings should be conducted. Mr. Norwood stated that in order to meet the timeline that the Council has established, they've asked the respective boards to get feedback on their issues by the 26th of January. Chairman Davis stated that he was under the impression the meetings would be conducted on February 2 and comments could be brought forth at that time. Mr. Norwood stated that was correct, but in order for the comments to be sent to the Council members, a January 26th cutoff date has been established. The consensus of the Commissioners was that they didn't even meet again until the 28th of January. They believe these are major changes that will have a drastic impact on many people. They believe that citizens in the business community should be made aware of the proposed changes. Mr. Lueck stated that "this committee was one of the hardest working committees he has ever seen, and most of their decisions were made at the dark of night and it would probably behoove the Commission to shed a little sunlight on it and have a public hearing." He believes the Committee needs the opportunity to speak and the Commission the opportunity to ask questions. Page 13 1 /15/99 P & Z Minutes Mr. Robert O'Reilly, 9001 Trails Edge Drive and Chairman of the Land Use Ad- Hoc Committee stated that the Committee was unaware this discussion was on the P&Z's agenda until late in the day. He stated that he was more interested in the Commissions personal feedback. Mr. Davis stated that he is just trying to establish a time line with the Commissioners on how soon they feel they can review the proposals and make an informed recommendation to the Council. Mr. Shiflet stated that a meeting could be conducted on January 21, 1999 and advertised as a public meeting for the Commission to obtain input on the proposed regulations. Mr. Davis stated that while no public hearing is required, he believes it is expected by the citizens. Mr. Wood believed the proposals could not be marketed that fast and it needs to be scheduled on the regular agenda of January 28. Leslie Jauregui, 7812 Ember Oaks Drive, stated that she knew P&Z would make a recommendation on the LUAH's proposed ordinances, however, she thought any public hearing would be conducted by the City Council. Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Barfield, moved to conduct the public hearing for the proposed changes to the sign and landscaping regulations at the regularly scheduled meeting of January 28, 1999. The motion carried unanimously. Page 14 1 /15/99 P & Z Minutes 10. STAFF COMMENTS There were none. 11. CITIZEN COMMENTS There were none. 12. ADJOURNMENT Having no additional business to conduct, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. C '=R,' &..w ~~ ~ ;;; #~! 9~ Secretary, Ted Nehring v Chairman Richard Davis " Page 15 1 /15/99 P & Z Minutes