Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 1999-04-22 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS APRIL 22, 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 Richard Davis Doug Blue James Laubacher Ted Nehring Don Bowen Ron Lueck ABSENT Mark Wood CITY STAFF Planning Director Recording Sec'y Director of PW Asst. Director PW Marcy Ratcliff Valerie Taylor Greg Dickens Kevin Miller 3. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 1999 APPROVED Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. Bowen, moved to approve the minutes of April 8, 1999. The motion carried unanimously. Page 1 4/22/99 P & Z Minutes 4. PS 98-43 REQUEST OF BILL FENIMORE FOR A FINAL PLAT OF BLOCKS 5, 6, 7 & 8, WOODLAND OAKS ADDITION. (LOCATED AT CRANE ROAD AND AMUNDSON DRIVE) APPROVED Ms. Ratcliff explained that this proposed addition contains 35 single-family lots on 11.4 acres. She explained there are several easements that will need to be abandoned and the ordinance abandoning these easements will need to be shown on the plat. Access to Lot 17, Block 5, is currently a gravel drive off of Crane Road; once this plat is approved, access will be from either Lonesome Oaks Court or North Oak Drive. She explained that a 7-% foot utility easement is required along the rear property line and will need to be added to the plat. She explained that the detention pond would also need to be contained in a drainage easement. This pond will be located along Amundson Road and Crane will be directly along the frontage. The easement dedication needs to be incorporated into the closing paragraph of the metes and bounds description and ROW needs to be clearly labeled. Subdivision Regulations require the developer to provide his portion of the street improvements, curb and gutter along the east ROW of Crane Road and the south ROW of Amundson Road. The developer is requesting a variance specifically to the Amundson Road improvements. He is willing to escrow the funds needed for the improvements along Crane Road. She explained that the required screening wall would be located on the south side of the detention pond. She stated that staff recommends approval of PS 98-43, subject to the engineer's comments that abandoned easements are noted on the plat, access to Lot 17, Block 5 is decided, utility easements are provided along the rear of all lots, drainage easements are provided, a separate signed Maintenance Agreement prior to final acceptance of the public civil improvements, all streets are labeled as ROW on the plat, and the required screening wall is provided. Also, consideration should be given to granting a variance to the Perimeter Street Paving Ordinance specifically on Amundson Road. Delbert Stembridge, Stembridge & Associates, presented this request. He stated they are in agreement with all of the engineer's comments, and most of the corrections have already been made on the plat. He stated that because Amundson Road will not be accessible from this development, and because the construction of the required detention pond will be costly, they are requesting a waiver of the Perimeter Street Paving along Amundson Road. He stated that Page 2 4/22/99 P & Z Minutes construction plans have already been prepared for Crane Road and those funds will be escrowed. Chairman Davis stated the Commission had some concern as to the maintenance of this detention pond. Mr. Stembridge stated that issue would be resolved prior to the plat going to the City Council on May 10. The detention pond will not be fenced; it will be an open area with shallow slopes for accessible mowing. Chairman Davis stated that his understanding of detention ponds were only to hold water during peak periods. Mr. Stembridge explained that in theory, the most intense part of a storm is the very beginning. This will detain that early, heavy volume of water until the storm passes and it is then released at a slower rate that wouldn't overload the existing pipe. He explained that most of the time the detention pond will probably be dry. Mr. Barfield asked if this property will belong to the City and Chairman Davis stated that it had been dedicated as a drainage easement. Mr. Stembridge stated that ultimately it will belong to the developer or a homeowners association, but will be dedicated as a drainage easement. The mowing and upkeep of the proposed detention pond has not been decided, but they believe it will be up to a Homeowners Association. Chairman Davis believes that if the detention pond were inside the development, it would be the developers responsibility. However, this pond is outside the development and possibly won't be needed once Amundson Road is improved. Mr. Blue asked how the water would be channeled into the detention pond. Mr. Stembridge stated they would have flumes to reduce erosion that would dump directly into the pond itself, explaining that the lots that back up to the detention pond will be graded normally, but sloped to the back. The screening wall will be designed accordingly, allowing the water to drain out of the yards and into the pond. Mr. Lueck believes maintenance of the pond needs to be established now. Chairman Davis believes that if the City takes it as an easement, the City should maintain it. He believes the area has potential as a nice, open green area. Mr. Lueck was concerned about the City imposing a requirement on a developer that could actually end up an eyesore. Page 3 4/22/99 P & Z Minutes Mr. Kevin Miller, Assistant Director of Public Works, stated that the City did not ask for a detention pond. Public Works requested the developer to verify downstream calculations. With their hydrologist, it was determined that the downstream pipes could not handle the water, without getting beyond the ROW's downstream, which doesn't meet current criteria. The alternative to putting in additional pipes downstream is a detention pond. Additionally, Mr. Miller stated that the City does not want to own or maintain this detention pond. There are a few detention ponds in the City, all of which are privately maintained and owned. Responding to a question, Mr. Miller stated he isn't aware of any detention ponds adjacent to a roadway, most detention ponds are an internal part of the development. Mr. Barfield suggested the possibility of making this a detention / retention pond, moving the masonry wall back to Amundson Road, and making the pond an internal part of the development. Detention / retention ponds are deeper, therefore holding water all the time. Mr. Lueck was more in favor of an internal lake. Mr. Miller stated that Retention Ponds ultimately require more maintenance as a negative but, if well maintained, can be an amenity to development. Bill Fenimore, developer, stated that this plat was originally submitted in June of 1998; six months later it was determined that because of the Oak Hills Addition, new drainage issues existed. He was instructed to obtain a hydrologist to address these drainage issues. The next stumbling block they encountered was the downstream problem - DART. DART is not willing to accept the runoff. The end result became the creation of the detention pond. Public Works originally requested 7 lots for the detention pond. They have gotten it down to 4 lots. He explained that is why they are requesting a waiver to the improvements along Amundson Road. At one time the main entry to this development was from Amundson; however, because of the drainage issues, he has totally lost all access to the road. He doesn't believe it is fair to make him pay for improvements to a road that his development has no access to. He stated it is his intention to have a homeowners association that will be required to maintain the pond. Mr. Barfield asked Mr. Fenimore if he would be willing to construct the masonry wall along Amundson Road, put in a Detention / Retention Pond and give the responsibility of the maintenance of the "lake" to the homeowners association. Mr. Fenimore stated if it can be engineered and staff likes it - he'd do it. Page 4 4/22/99 P & Z Minutes Mr. Lueck doesn't feel that this development should pay for any improvements to Amundson Road; however, he is concerned with whom and how the pond will be maintained, and how it will look when it's empty in the heat of the summer. Chairman Davis stated that this item really has two different considerations to it. The first being maintenance of the detention pond; this can be a separate vote if need be. Secondly, consideration needs to be given to the waiving of the improvements on Amundson Road. Chairman Davis stated if the plat was approved subject to the engineer's comments, some recommendation should be made on who should maintain the detention pond and also if there should be any assessment on Amundson Road. Chairman Davis stated that as far as future development in the area, either construction of additional storm drains will be required through Oak Hills Addition or they will have to keep the detention pond. If funds are available, landscaping, picnic tables and open green area could be a positive result of the pond, stating that the key is to detain water, keep the area from flooding and keep it mowed. Mr. Nehring asked if it was a Detention / Retention Pond, would the developer want it inside the development. Much discussion ensued regarding the pros and cons of the pond and it's location. Mr. Blue asked if the City had ever waived street improvements for a developer in the past. Chairman Davis stated that he wasn't aware of any; however, he had never seen a case where the City required a detention pond to take off 130' of someone's property adjacent to a road. Mr. Lueck moved to approve PS 98-43 subject to the engineer's comments with the exception that the street improvement fees are waived for Amundson Road. Mr. Bañield seconded the motion. The motion carried with a vote of 6 - 1. Mr. Blue was opposed to this motion. Mr. Barfield moved that the screening wall be located along Amundson Road at an elevation that would be adequate for the future widening of Amundson Road, and that the drainage area be added to the lots backing Page 5 4/22/99 P & Z Minutes up to this area, so the property lines would go right out into the drainage area and that would be considered as any other floodway. The motion dies for the lack of a second. Mr. Lueck stated for the records that his opposition to that motion was that those lots would really be unusual. Mr. Barfield stated if they can't be given to the Homeowners Association, it's no man's land, so why not give it to the lots that abut it. Chairman Davis stated they could give it to the City. He stated that if the screening wall is built as planned, along the rear of those lots, then a motion would be in order that the City maintain it and own it. Mr. Barfield stated he agreed, but if not, the wall should be constructed at Amundson Road and the pond be added to the lots backing up to it. Chairman Davis reiterated that motion died for lack of a second and asked if there was another motion regarding a recommendation on the detention pond. Mr. Bowen made the motion that the maintenance of the drainage easement be put upon a homeowners association. Mr. Blue seconded the motion. Mr. Lueck asked if a homeowners association exists. He was advised that no, not today - however, one could be established. Mr. Barfield asked where the screening wall would be built. Mr. Bowen and Chairman Davis stated that it would be constructed where originally proposed, behind the lots. Mr. Nehring asked why you would make a homeowners association responsible for the maintenance of a pond that is not within their development. Chairman Davis stated that it is very possible that City would need the property in the future, when Amundson Road develops. Chairman Davis reiterated the motion that a homeowners association be required to maintain the drainage easement used as a detention pond. There was a second to the motion and called for a vote. Page 6 4/22/99 P & Z Minutes The motion failed with a vote of 5 - 2. Messrs. Davis, Nehring, Barfield and Lueck were opposed to the motion. Messrs. Bowen and Blue were in favor of it. Chairman Davis stated he would ask for one last motion. Mr. Barfield recommended sending the plat forward to the Council with a recommendation that staff work with the homeowner and decide where the maintenance falls. Chairman Davis stated that if the Commission does nothing what will happen. He stated that he feels STRONGL Ythat because the City is requiring a detention pond, and because its adjacent to a roadway, and because it is going to be outside the subdivision, there is someway the City can make use of that area, such as a green belt, and possibly use the area in the future as continued detention when Amundson Road is built. He would like to see the City own and maintain it because it may be needed someday. Mr. Barfield stated he would make that motion, that the City maintain and own the detention pond. Mr. Nehring seconded the motion and it carried with a vote of 6 - 1. Mr. Blue was opposed. Page 7 4/22/99 P & Z Minutes 5. PS 99-10 REQUEST OF MICHAEL CLARK FOR AN AMENDED FINAL PLAT OF LOPTS 1R1, 2R1 AND 3R -7 R, BLOCK 4, BRENTWOOD ESTATES ADDITION. (LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND NORTH TARRANT PARKWAY - ALBERTSON'S - 8300 BLOCK OF DAVIS BOULEVARD) APPROVED Ms. Ratcliff explained that this is an amendment to an approved replat. The applicant is changing lot lines. The total acreage is not changing, nor is the number of lots changing. The property is zoned C1-Commercial. She covered the outstanding issues with this property, stating that a notarized letter of permission accepting the grade to drain has not been received yet. She stated that staff recommends approval of PS 99-10, subject to the engineer's comments that any additional utility easements required will be provided, submission of a notarized letter of permission from the offsite property owner to the west accepting the grade to drain shown on the construction plans, and submission of signed offsite easements. John York, Regency Realty, 8140 Walnut Hill Lane, Dallas, stated that he is the developer of this project. He explained that this is merely internal lot lines being modified at the request of Albertson's. Agreements have been made with Mr. Long for the required letter of permission and easements downstream. Mr. Nehring, seconded by Mr. Blue, moved to approve PS 99-10, subject to engineer's comments. The motion carried unanimously. Page 8 4/22/99 P & Z Minutes 6. PZ 99-06 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF ALAN NEWLAND FOR A ZONING CHANGE AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL ON LOT 5, BLOCK D, RICHLAND OAKS ADDITION FROM R1-RESIDENTIAL TO LR-LOCAL RETAIL. (LOCATED AT 4909 STRUMMER DRIVE) APPROVED Ms. Ratcliff explained that this lot contains 22,389 square feet and is currently zoned residentially. The applicant is requesting a zoning change to Local Retail and also asking for site plan approval since the property is within 200' of residentially zoned property. A house currently exists on this property and contains about 2600 square feet. Ms. Ratcliff further explained the properties to the north, south and west are currently zoned R-1, Single Family and is designated as low density residential on the Land Use Assumption Map. Ms. Ratcliff stated that ample parking has been provided. Only one driveway entrance is proposed, and the applicant has been informed that future development would be strongly encouraged to use shared access, eliminating as many drive cuts as possible. Feature landscaping is proposed for the front and rear. Fifty percent of the lot will be landscaped; with the majority of this landscaping in the rear yard. The applicant is providing a 6' masonry fence at the rear, along the west side and two wooden fences on the north and south sides. The applicant will be requesting variances to the landscape regulations because he is only providing a 5' landscape strip along Strummer. Ten feet are required by ordinance, however, based on the depth of the front yard and parking, they are unable to provide that. Four 2-inch caliper live oak trees are proposed along the front with hedges to screen the parking. He is also proposing photina's along the rear. She stated that staff recommends the Commission consider approval of PZ 99- 06 as submitted with a condition that a fire hydrant be added at the developers expense if rezoned. She stated that a fire hydrant is located across the street but because the street width is greater than 40', the design manual requires additional fire hydrants for commercial development. Chairman Davis asked why staff would require a fire hydrant as part of a zoning issue. Ms. Ratcliff stated that the use of the property would change on the property and to provide adequate fire protection, according to the Subdivision Regulations. Chairman Davis stated that he doesn't believe this is an appropriate recommendation from staff. Page 9 4/22/99 P & Z Minutes Ms. Ratcliff stated that one letter of approval had been received and the Commissioners were given a copy of the letter earlier. Chairman Davis stated that a letter of support had been received from Elroy Pavlovich at 4904 EI Dorado. The public hearing was opened and the applicant was asked to come forward. Mr. Steve Smith, contractor for the project presented this request. He explained that he has 5 different listings from local realtors showing this area as easy to rezone commercially. Responding to a question, Mr. Smith stated the proposed use is a Stationary Shop and office building. He stated that most of the company's sales are distribution, through mail order or local carriers. Mr. Smith stated that the lots advertised as easy to rezone included 5009 Strummer, 4913 Strummer, 4909 Strummer, 4901 Strummer and 4809 Strummer. Chairman Davis asked if they would consider an office type zoning, since they do not propose walk in customers. Alan Newland, applicant, 1117-A Bedford Road, Bedford TX, stated that the ultimate goal is for brides, etc. to be able to come in and order invitations. Currently the facility they are in is not designed for that. He stated that he has been in business for 13 years. Chairman Davis stated that when the original property on the corner was rezoned, the Commission forsaw the area as a potential office, commercial type buffer area. He stated that the residents were encouraged to bring requests back 3 or 4 lots at a time rather than one lot at a time. Chairman Davis called for additional proponents. Mr. Doug Gilliland, owner of 4901 Strummer, was in favor of this request. He stated that anyone familiar with the area knows the character of the community has changed dramatically over the last 5 years. He stated that Strummer, which has increased to a five-lane road, carries the majority of the traffic between Bedford-Euless Road and Grapevine Highway, and services a tremendous amount of retail usage. He explained that residential values no longer exist. He has been trying to sell his property for 4 years residentially and unsuccessfully. Additionally, he has had a tremendous amount of commercial prospects, but none willing to carry forward a zoning change request. He encourages the P&Z to approve this request and believes once this process begins, it will accelerate and within the next couple of years, the transition will be complete. Page 10 4/22/99 P & Z Minutes Seeing no additional proponents, and no opponents, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Nehring asked if common drives would be provided between the lots as laid out currently. Ms. Ratcliff stated that since this lot is the first to be requested to be rezoned to commercial, it probably wouldn't have a common drive. However, future applicants will be encouraged to have shared access. Mr. Bowen suggested the existing curb cut be relocated to accommodate another lot. He believes this is an appropriate change for the area but would prefer to see multiple lots developed together; he also wants to see shared access. Chairman Davis stated that since this application requires site plan approval, the Commission has the ability to require an access easement to the north and to the south. Discussion of possibilities continued regarding drive cuts and Ms. Ratcliff stated that based upon the Commissions comments that would be recorded in the minutes, staff would be able to address these issues with future applicants. Chairman Davis stated that the Commission could require the applicant dedicate an access easement for future use. Mr. Smith stated that they originally designed the drive on the south side, however, Mr. Newland is in the process of purchasing the lot just north of his as well. Chairman Davis asked if the applicant would be willing to table this request, and take the time to visit with the neighbor to the south about shared access for those two lots as well. He stated that the site plan could show a common entrance being shared on the north property line and only half would be built immediately. Mr. Barfield stated that past policy has required double driveways, allowing a landscaped median for monument signage, prohibiting building signs. Mr. Smith asked if the Commission wants them to move the entire approach, or enlarge the existing approach. The Commission stated that the resident to the south is willing to commit to shared access tonight and would like to postpone this case until a later meeting. Page 11 4/22/99 P & Z Minutes Mr. Newland stated they are on a time line for closing of the property and he has already gotten an extension. If this case is postponed, he will most likely loose the deal because the seller was reluctant to grant one extension. He feels certain they won't grant another one. Mr. Barfield stated the Commission could approve the rezoning of the case and table site plan approval. He stated he has no problem with the rezoning, however, he does with the site plan. Much discussion ensued regarding existing and proposed curb cuts with Chairman Davis stating that he doesn't like the site plan as drawn. Ms. Ratcliff stated that two different actions could be taken. The zoning can be approved immediately and the site plan tabled until the next meeting. Mr. Newland asked if the site plan showed a common drive to the north that was wide enough to service both lots would be adequate. Chairman Davis stated yes, and that the existing driveway on the north side of the lot should be closed. Mr. Newland stated that his offer has been accepted on the lot to the north, so he will widen the drive and share access for both lots. Chairman Davis asked if the applicant would have a problem extending the turn around area on the south end of this lot, to allow the property to the south common access. Mr. Newland stated he would be glad to accommodate that request. Chairman Davis asked that the applicant give some consideration to a common access to the south property. Mr. Barfield stated again that he would like to see monument signs dividing the entry and minimal or no building signage. Chairman Davis stated that the public hearing was closed and explained that it is allowable to recommend approval of the rezoning request to the Council and table site plan approval until further review, taking into consideration that it is the Commissions desire for a curb cut to be moved to allow common usage amongst adjacent lots. Mr. Barfield stated that no consideration had been given to making a common access to the south. Ms. Ratcliff suggested the Commission vote on a recommendation for the rezoning first, and then entertain a second motion for site plan approval. Page 12 4/22/99 P & Z Minutes Mr. Lueck moved to approve the rezoning request on PZ 99-06 with Mr. Laubacher seconding the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Lueck moved to table the site plan for further review, and encouraged the applicant to use common drive entrances and to have cross access easements to adjacent lots. Mr. Nehring seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Chairman Davis reiterated that no building signs would be allowed. Page 13 4/22/99 P & Z Minutes 7. PZ 99-07 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF TERRY BROWNING OF CABLE ELECTRIC, INC. FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CONTRACTORS OFFICE WITH SHOP INA C2-COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT ON LOT 5, BLOCK 2, J.M. ESTES ADDITION. (LOCATED AT 3716 RUFE SNOW DRIVE) APPROVED Ms. Ratcliff gave an overview of the case, explaining that this is an existing building containing 4,914 square feet. A future addition is proposed at the rear and will contain 3500 square feet. Screened outside storage is proposed at the rear of the building and will contain approximately 1650 square feet for electrical piping and devices. Two driveways currently exist with 26 off-street parking spaces. Feature landscaping will be added to this existing development, although none will be required until time of the addition. Ms. Ratcliff stated that staff recommends approval of PZ 99-07 as submitted provided that prior to any future expansion a fire hydrant is added and water meters located on the two-inch water line at the rear be moved, at the developers expense. Chairman Davis opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. Terry Cunningham, explaining that he is Mr. Browning's architect, presented this request. He stated the property would be used for an electrical contractor office and plans on using the property as is for the time being. Any proposed additions would be in the future. Mr. Cunningham stated that fencing exists currently along the east side of the property. Additional chain link fencing with slatted screening will be installed along the Rufe Snow side for security. Staff received written concern from the property owner to the south over the fencing proposed for the storage area. Mr. Cunningham stated that Mr. Browning has agreed to install a galvanized fence with wood panels on the south property line to appease this concern. Mr. Terry Browning, applicant, also spoke in favor of this request. He stated that the outside storage would be minimal, and would prefer to only install a stockade Page 14 4/22/99 P & Z Minutes fence on the south side. He stated the chain link that he will be installing will be institutional grade and will have slats in it and is willing to go to 8' in height. Seeing no additional proponents, and no opponents, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Davis read Dr. Phillip Abbott's letter of concern for the record, which stressed concern over the screening of the storage area. Dr. Abbott requested a stockade fence in lieu of chain link fencing. Mr. Barfield, seconded by Mr. Lueck, moved to approve PZ 99-07 subject to the chain link fence being of institutional grade and 6' in height and a stockade fence with galvanized steel posts installed on the south property line. The motion carried unanimously. Page 15 4/22/99 P & Z Minutes 8. PZ 99-09 REQUEST OF FRED WILLIAMS FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200' OF RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY ON LOT 4, BLOCK 1, NOB HILL NORTH ADDITION. (LOCATED AT 8280 HUNTINGTON SQUARE) APPROVED Ms. Ratcliff explained that site plan approval is required for this lot because it is within 200' of residentially zoned property. She explained that this will be a 4,015 square foot office building on this triangular shaped lot. Huntington Square is a private drive and the property is zoned 01-0ffice. The applicant will be applying for variances to the landscape regulations. Thirty-eight percent of the total lot will be landscaped and the applicant has made a significant effort to save existing post oak trees on this lot. Fred Williams, builder for the proposed tenant, presented this request. He explained that this is the future site of a CPA's office. The building has been designed to accenuate the lot with the existing trees and buildings in the area. Mr. Bowen, seconded by Mr. Laubacher, moved to approve PZ 99-09. The motion carried unanimously. Page 16 4/22/99 P & Z Minutes 9. PZ 99-10 REQUEST OF STEVE STALLARD FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200' OF RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY ON LOT 6, BLOCK 1, NOB HILL NORTH ADDITION. (LOCATED AT 9289 HUNTINGTON SQUARE) APPROVED Ms. Ratcliff summarized this case by stating that the applicant is proposing a 5,550 square foot office building on a 25,150 square foot lot. The property is zoned 01-0ffice and is within 200' of residentially zoned property. This lot fronts on Amundson Road, but will not have access to the property from Amundson. All access will be from Huntington Square, which is a private street. The applicant is providing 20 parking spaces; 19 are required. The applicant will be applying for a variance to the required landscaping, because of the depth of this lot and the first 45' are Huntington Square, he is unable to meet the 10' landscaping requirement along Amundson Road; five feet will be provided. Eighteen percent of the total lot area will be landscaped. Steve Stallard, applicant, presented his request stating that he would answer any questions the Commission may have. He stated that in order to preserve as many of the large post oak trees as possible, they would be requesting a variance to the landscaping regulations. Mr. Bowen, seconded by Mr. Blue, moved to approve PZ 99-10 and the motion carried unanimously. Page 17 4/22/99 P & Z Minutes 10. DISCUSSION ITEM REQUEST OF GENE HUGGINS TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW PARKING LOTS AS A PERMITTED USE IN EXISTING COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL DISTRICTS. Chairman Davis stated that the Commissioners had a copy of Mr. Huggins letter requesting this amendment, and asked Ms. Ratcliff for a brief overview. Ms. Ratcliff explained that Mr. Huggins has formally requested the Commission consider amending the Table of Permitted Uses in the Zoning Ordinance to allow parking lots, by right, in commercial zoning districts. Currently off-street parking lots are considered an accessory use to a principle use. Accessory uses are required to be located on the same lot as the principle use. She explained that Mr. Huggins has some special concerns because of a specific lot he owns that is zoned LR-Local Retail. He would like to utilize this small lot as parking for his employees. Ms. Ratcliff explained that amending the ordinance to allow parking lots is a matter of right across the board in all commercial districts, and serious consideration should be given to the impact a change like this could have. She explained that if the Commission so desired, each case could be looked at individually as a Special Use Permit in certain districts. Staff requests direction from the Commissioners regarding this request. Chairman Davis read the staff recommendation from the coversheet in their packet, which stated that the Commission not consider allowing parking lots as a permitted principal use in any district and then asked Mr. Huggins if he had any additional comments. Gene Huggins, 6632 Diamond Ridge Road, presented his request. He stated that he wants to utilize his small piece of land as employee parking. No display or car storage would take place on this lot. He showed pictures of the lot presently; stating that it has been in that shape for some time. Chairman Davis asked for comments from the Commissioners. Mr. Barfield stated that if approved, he would only consider it as a Specific Use on a case by case basis and the consensus of the Commission agreed. Chairman Davis asked if there was a motion to direct staff to schedule a public hearing to amend Section 310, Table of Permitted Uses, to allow parking lots in Page 18 4/22/99 P & Z Minutes C1-Commercial, C2-Commercial zoning districts as well as the industrial districts and to be applied for as a Specific Use Permit. Ms. Ratcliff stated that Mr. Huggins lot is zoned LR-Local Retail, and Chairman Davis stated that he would have to change the zoning and apply for a SUP. Mr. Barfield stated that he has no problem turning Mr. Huggins lot into a parking lot provided it meets all the criteria the City is looking for. He would like nice landscaping with proper fencing and lighting to dress the lot up, stating that a masonry screening wall would be required along the north property line. Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. Bowen, made the motion to direct staff to schedule a public hearing to amend Section 310, Table of Permitted Uses, on C1, C2, 11 & 12 to allow, by Special Use Permit only, accessory parking lots. The motion carried unanimously. Page 19 4/22/99 P & Z Minutes 11. STAFF COMMENTS There were none. 12. CITIZEN COMMENTS There were none. 13. ADJOURNMENT Having no additional business to conduct, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Ri::~:=~~~ Ted Nehring, Jr., Secr Page 20 4/22/99 P & Z Minutes