Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 1999-05-13 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS MAY 13,1999 -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 ABSENT Mark Wood Ron Lueck CITY STAFF Planning Director Recording Sec'y Asst. Director PW Staff Engineer Marcy Ratcliff Valerie Taylor Kevin Miller Julia Skare 3. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF APRIL 22, 1999 APPROVED Mr. Nehring, seconded by Mr. Blue, moved to approve the minutes of April 22, 1999 with the change of "Chairman" to "Mr." Barfield on Page 4, Paragraph 3,. The motion carried unanimously. Page 1 5/13/99 P & Z Minutes 4. PS 99-11 REQUEST OF DELBERT STEMBRIDGE FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOTS 1 - 26, BLOCK 1, RICHFIELD AT THE PARKS ADDITION. (LOCATED IN THE 7800 BLOCK OF CHAPMAN ROAD) APPROVED Ms. Ratcliff explained that this proposed addition contains 26 single-family lots on 6.4 acres and is currently zoned R3-Residential with a minimum house size of 1800 square feet. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates this property as low density residential and several issues remain outstanding. She explained that the Subdivision Regulations state that no cul-de-sac may exceed 500' in length; the applicant is asking for a waiver to this requirement, the proposed cul- de-sac is 640' in length. She explained that the P&Z will need to make a formal recommendation to allow the applicant to have a cul-de-sac exceeding the maximum length before the final plat can be submitted for approval. Chapman Road is designated as a C4U on the Master Thoroughfare Plan - this is a collector with four lanes, undivided. This designation requires 68' of ROW. The ultimate ROW requirement is a total of 34 feet and needs to be shown on the final plat submittal. Additionally, several lots in the proposed addition don't meet the minimum lot width requirement. The applicant will be required to either move the building line back or change the physical widths of several of the lots. She explained that water line and drainage easements should be indicated on Lots 15 - 17. She stated that staff recommends approving PS 99-11, subject to the engineers comments listed in Julia Skare's letter and consider granting the variance to exceed the maximum cul-de-sac length requirement by 140'. Mr. Delbert Stembridge, engineer for this project, presented this case. He stated that the lot widths will be adjusted to meet City standards, but stated this property does not lend itself to a two-entry type subdivision, so asks the Commissioners. to .considergranting the variance to. the maxirnumJeogth of a cul-de-sac. Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. Nehring, moved to approve PS 99-11 subject to the engineer's comments and granting the variance to exceed the maximum cul-de-sac length. The motion carried unanimously. Page 2 5/13/99 P & Z Minutes 5. PZ 99-06 REQUET OF ALAN NEWLAND FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200' OF RESIDENTIAL Y ZONED PROPERTY ON LOT 5, BLOCK D, RICHLAND OAKS ADDTION. (LOCATED AT 4909 STRUMMER DRIVE) WITHDRAWN Chairman Davis stated that this case had been tabled at the April 22, 1999 meeting. Since that time the applicant has submitted a letter requesting to withdraw all his applications. Page 3 5/13/99 P & Z Minutes 6. PZ 99-11 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF WASHINGTON & ASSOCIATES FOR A ZONING CHANGE ON 62.05 ACRES OF LAND IN THE Y.C. YATES SURVEY, A-1753 FROM R7-MULTIFAMILY AND 12-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL TO R7 -MULTIFAMILY, 12-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL AND C1- COMMERCIAL. (LOCATED IN THE 6900 BLOCK OF MID-CITIES BOULEVARD) APPROVED Ms. Ratcliff explained that this request is mainly a reconfiguration of the existing zoning on a 62.051 acre tract. The request would add 3 acres of commercial, which currently does not exist, and take away 3 acres of industrial zoning. The applicant requested to rezone a total of 35.26 acres. The applicant requested to rezone Parcel 1 (17.630 acres) from 12-medium Industrial to R7-Multi Family, Parcel 2 (14.630 acres) from R7-Multi Family to 12-Medium Industrial, and Parcel 3 (3 acres) from R7-Multi Family to C1-Commercial.The total acreage of multi- family zoning will remain the same; it will only be reconfigured. She explained that the reconfiguration of the zoning would remain in the spirit of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, while allowing the property to be more marketable for development. Staff recommends approving PZ 99-11 as req uested. Chairman Davis opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. Mr. David Washington, Washington & Associates, presented this request explaining that E Systems owns a total of 62 acres and are only reconfiguring 35.26 acres of them. Seeing no additional proponents, and no opponents,.LhairmanDavisclosed the public hearing. Mr. Bowen, seconded by Mr. Nehring, moved to approve PZ 99-11. The motion carried unanimously. Page 4 5/13/99 P & Z Minutes 7. PZ 99-12 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF EDWARD LETT FOR A ZONING CHANGE ON TRACTS 1 & 2 OF THE W.C. NEWTON SURVEY, A- 1182 FROM AG-AGRICULTURAL TO C1-COMMERCIAL. (LOCATED AT 7601 & 7605 PRECINCT LINE ROAD) TABLED Ms. Ratcliff gave an overview of the case, explaining that this is two-tracts of property totaling 1.56 acres of land on Precinct Line Road, which is currently zoned AG-Agricultural. The property is currently developed with a single family structure and a one story frame building. The Lett's have stated that they are proposing to use the existing single family home for a wedding chapel and will be adding on to the front of the building. Future additions are proposed as well. Should the zoning change be approved, all permitted uses in the C1-Commercial classification would be allowed. If approved, site plan approval will be required because the property is within 200' of residentially zoned property. She explained the applicant is aware of the landscape and sign regulations. She showed a map of the existing property and the existing development. She also showed the property on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which is designated as low density residential for single family development, stating this request is not in compliance with this plan and staff recommends denying this request for that reason. There was discussion of what is existing and what is proposed on the east side of Precinct Line Road. Mary Jane Lett, applicant presented this case, explaining that she and her family have successfully run several businesses in Hurst for 30 years. She made a formal presentation, stating the tract north of tract 1 will be their future residence. Tract 1 is vacantexceptforared barnpand tract.2 nas.a red~brick house that may be used as a parsonage. South of this property is all agricultural property, but only a small part of it is developable, explaining that it lies within the flood plain. They plan on utilizing this property by cleaning it up and using it as a buffer - to insure privacy for the chapel. Mrs. Lett showed pictures and a map she had compiled showing a combination of the three adjoining cities Master Plans for the area. The name of the chapel is already registered as "The Little White Chapel" and showed pictures of the proposed facility, stating that it will be visually stunning, with a soft, romantic atmosphere; they anticipate an average wedding size of 75 - 150 people. Page 5 5/13/99 P & Z Minutes Ms. Lett stated they would be purchasing the property north of the request for their residence. Additionally, they will purchase the property south of the request, which is in the flood plain. They proposed to clean it up and use it as a buffer and scenic area for weddings and pictures. Chairman Davis called for additional proponents. Seeing none he called for opponents. Ms. Janet Sidmyer, 6725 Rolling Hills Drive spoke against this request. She stated that while a wedding chapel would be a compatible use and she would consider it a good neighbor, she doesn't want the property rezoned for fear the wedding chapel wouldn't go through and a Taco Bell would. She doesn't want the commercial precedent set in this area. She believes the people in Woodland Oaks purchased their homes with the security of the Master Plan for the City showing this area as low density residential and believes it would be unfair to change that plan now. Responding to a question, Ms. Sidmyer stated that she is not opposed to a wedding chapel, she is opposed to the C1-Commercial classification. Charles Denton, 7609 Precinct Line Road, stated he believes the Lett's proposal has been well thought out and they are planning to invest a lot of money into the property. He asked the Commission to strongly consider this request. Mr. Vern Jackson, 9125 Rumfield Road, stated that a chapel would enhance any neighborhood and believes the Lett's intentions are true, providing it stayed that way. However, he has concerns similar to Ms. Sidmyer for the commercial precedent being set. He explained that several years ago he built a brand new home on Rufe Snow, which was surrounded by 3 cow pastures. Needless to say, 4 years later, commercial development had run him outof his.home., He bought .the. current property because it allowed him to get back to the kind of neighborhood he wanted to raise his children in - strictly country. He stated that he has already lost a 3 1/2-acre bath pond that was rezoned to C1-Commercial. Seeing no additional opponents, the public hearing was closed. The general consensus of the Commissioners was they liked the wedding chapel, but didn't like setting the precedent of commercial zoning. They agreed that may be the way it ends up going, but would prefer to see the Master Plan amended accordingly before they set a precedent for that area. Chairman Davis stated that no one is opposed to the chapel. He likes the natural barriers she proposes and would like to find a way to allow her to do what Page 6 5/13/99 P & Z Minutes she wants while limiting what else could be put there. He asked, if at the concurrence of the applicant, could all the C1 uses be deleted except wedding chapels. Ms. Ratcliff stated that excluding uses is a nightmare for enforcement staff and also feels there may be legal problems with it. She believes a planned development for the area would be more appropriate, however, renotification would be required because the amount of acreage would be different. Chairman Davis asked if they were too include all the property they planned to purchase but not rezone, would they have four acres. He suggested looking at a Planned Development if they did. Responding to a question, Ms. Ratcliff stated she would recommend the Commission deny this request without prejudice, and allow the applicant to reapply for a PD with the new acreage. Chairman Davis stated he would like staff to waive fees for the Lett's resubmittal. Ms. Ratcliff stated that additional newspaper notification would be required, as would additional property owner notifications. She did not agree with waiving the fee. Mr. Bowen asked if the Lett's agreed with the idea of a planned development. The Lett's stated they would need several days to rethink it. Mr. Laubacher, seconded by Mr. Nehring moved to table PZ 99-12 for two weeks, allowing the applicant time to consider other options. This case will be continued at the May 27, 1999 meeting and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bowen believes aElanned Development.wQuld.beworkable and ,everyone would benefit. He strongly urged the applicant to pursue it. Page 7 5/13/99 P & Z Minutes 8. PZ 99-14 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1874 TO ALLOW ACCESSORY OFF-STREET PARKING LOTS AS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN THE C1 AND C2 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS AND THE 11 AND 12 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS. APPROVED Ms. Ratcliff explained that staff had received a request from Gene Huggins to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow accessory off-street parking. He has a vacant lot, which is zoned Local Retail, that he would like to utilize as an employee parking lot. Ms. Ratcliff stated that approving this would open the entire city up for accessory parking lots. She stated that an accessory use is defined as a use that is subordinate to and incidental to a primary use of the main building or the primary use of the premises. Staff recommends the Commission not consider allowing accessory off-street parking lots as a special use permit in any district. She stated that Mr. Huggins son was present to support the requested amendments to the ordinance. Responding to a question, Ms. Ratcliff stated that site plan approval would be required for each case, if these amendments are approved. Mr. Nehring stated that while he understands Mr. Huggins unique situation, he feels very uncomfortable with the amendments overall. Chairman Davis opened the public hearing and asked for proponents. Ron Huggins stated that they have been in business for 16 years at this location. The piece of property they would like to use as parking is just east of the existing business. It currently is an eyesore and they propose cleaning it up and utilizing it for employee parking. Stating they lost a great deal of property with the Loop .,820 expar:lsion. Seeing no additional proponents, and no opponents, the hearing was closed. The Commissioners, after much deliberation, stated that while they agreed that Mr. Huggins request was valid, they hesitate giving that blanket to the entire City. Ms. Ratcliff suggested that the verbiage be changed to non-required off-street parking. This would keep applicants from obtaining required parking off site. The Commission agreed changing the wording would make the difference. Page 8 5/13/99 P & Z Minutes Mr. Nehring, seconded by Mr. Bowen moved to approve PZ 99-14 with the wording being changed to "non-required accessory off-street parking". The motion carried unanimously. Page 9 5/13/99 P & Z Minutes 9. PZ 99-15 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING SECTION 320 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NO. 1874, TO ADD COMMUNITY HOMES FOR DISABLED PERSONS AND TO AMEND THE TABLE OF PERMITTED USES FOR THIS ADDITION. APPROVED Ms. Ratcliff explained that this amendment is being brought forward after the Department of Housing and Urban Development noted Zoning Ordinance No. 1874 was in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Rex McEntire, City Attorney drafted the proposed language for Section 320.(16) Personal Care Home and Section 310.A. Table of Permitted Uses. The proposed language adds Community Homes for Disabled Persons in the Table of Permitted Uses and in the explanatory notes of Section 320. The explanatory note supplement defines a community home for disabled person, lists general criteria, special use permit requirements, certificate of occupancy requirements annual building inspection requirements, non-compliance terms and limitations. A Special Use Permit would be required in the residential districts and the use is allowed by right in the institutional district. Chairman Davis opened the public hearing and called for proponents. Seeing none, he called for opponents. Seeing none, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowen, seconded by Mr. Blue, moved to approve PZ 99-15. The motion carried unanimously. Page 10 5/13/99 P & Z Minutes 10. 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. RiC~~:~=~~~ '74#~!ß. Ted Nehring, Jr., Secretãry Page 11 5/13/99 P & Z Minutes