Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 1999-10-14 Minutes o,~·."<_____'~_~'~,__.~__._..,...,~"~.___~ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS OCTOBER 14,1999 -7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Don Bowen at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Don Bowen James Laubacher Doug Blue Tim Welch Joe Tolbert Ron Lueck Ted Nehring CITY STAFF Planning Director PW Director Asst PW Director Staff Engineer Planner Recording Sec'y Marcy Ratcliff Greg Dickens Kevin Miller Julia Skare Mark Johnson Valerie Taylor 3. RECONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23,1999 APPROVED Mr. Laubacher, seconded by Mr. Lueck, moved to approve the minutes of September 23, 1999. The motion carried unanimously. Page 1 10/14/99 p & Z Minutes 4. PS 99-15 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REQUEST OF DAVID CARTER FOR A REPLA T TO BE KNOWN AS LOTS B3R1 & B3R2, BLOCK B, HEWITT ESTATES. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE 7600 BLOCK OF HIGHTOWER DRIVE. APPROVED Ms. Ratcliff explained the applicant is proposing to replat 2.4181 acres, which is a portion of Block B into two lots. The property was rezoned (PZ99-13) from Agricultural and R2 Single Family to R1 Single Family and R-1-S Special Single Family District on June 14, 1999. Lot B3R1, fronting on Hightower Drive, is zoned R1 Single Family. This lot contains 32,670 square feet. The minimum lot size is in R 1 is 13,000 square feet and the minimum dwelling size is 2,300 square feet. Lot B3R2, fronting on Hewitt Street, is zoned R-1-S Special Single Family. This lot contains 1.6681 acres. The minimum lot size in R-1-S is one acre and the minimum dwelling size is 2,300 square feet. Ms. Ratcliff stated that the proposed plat is in conformance with the Subdivision Regulations and that Staff recommends approval of PS 99-15, a Replat to be known as Lots B3R1 & B3R2, Block B, Hewitt Estates Addition. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing. Seeing no proponents and no opponents the hearing was closed. Mr. Miller stated that lot B3R2, including a portion of the existing house, is not contained within the 500 feet radial distance of a fire hydrant. Mr. Lueck, seconded by Mr. Nehring, moved to approve PS 99-15. The motion carried unanimously. Page2 10/14/99 P & Z Minutes 5. PS 99-27 CONSIDER REQUEST FOR A FINAL PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS LOT 2, BLOCK 5, HEWITT ESTATES ADDITION. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE 6800 BLOCK OF MEADOW ROAD. APPROVED Mr. Greg Dickens, Director of Public Works, presented this request explaining that staff was bringing this plat forward for consideration with the approval of the property owners. This property is located at the northeast corner of Meadow Road and Buck Street, with a 2551 square foot home already existing on the property. The original plat request was made by Jean Cloke. After realizing the cost of required offsite drainage improvements, she withdrew from the process. Mr. Dickens stated that staff does request the front building line be changed to 25' from 21', as shown on the plat, since the house already encroaches it. Staff recommends approval of PS 99-27. Mr. Nehring, seconded by Mr. Welch, moved to approve PS 99-27, allowing a 25' building line. The motion carried unanimously. Page 3 10/14/99 P & Z Minutes 6. PS 99-30 CONSIDER REQUEST OF BURY PITTMAN FOR AN AMENDED PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS LOTS 5R1 & 7R1, BLOCK 4, BRENTWOOD ESTATES ADDITION. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 8451 DAVIS BLVD & 8850 NORTH TARRANT PARKWAY. Ms. Ratcliff explained that the applicant has submitted an amendment to the amended Replat of Lots 5R and 7R, Block 4, Brentwood Estates that was approved by City Council on May 10,1999 (PS 99-10). The purpose of the amendment is to change the size of the two lots and to move property lines. The old lot lines are shown on the plat as dashed lines. The property is zoned C-1 Commercial and is in compliance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Lot 5R1 fronting on Davis Boulevard is proposed to contain 37,009 square feet. Currently, the approved lot contains 32,986 square feet. Lot 7R1 fronting on North Tarrant Parkway is proposed to contain 41,499 square feet. The current approved lot contains 45,523 square feet. The proposed plat is in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations with the exception of a need to revise the title block to call it an amended final plat and not a replat. The remaining comments noted by Public Works concern engineering and construction plans and are not associated with the plat. Staff recommends approval of PS 99-30, an Amended Final Plat of Lots 5R 1 and 7R1, Block 4, Brentwood Estates. Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. Welch, moved to approve PS 99-30, provided the title block is revised as stated. The motion carried unanimously. Page 4 10/14/99 P & Z Minutes 7. PZ 99-28 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF KRR VILLAS OF BEAR CREEK, LP, FOR AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 2345, A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR SENIOR INDEPENDENT LIVING, THAT WOULD ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 55 DETACHED GARAGES ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, VILLAS ON BEAR CREEK ADDITION. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 8009 DAVIS BOULEVARD. APPROVED Marcy Ratcliff explained that Rick Simmons requests to amend Planned Development Number 31, Ordinance 2345 that allowed a 240 unit deed restricted independent living facility for elderly persons 55 years of age and over. Several conditions of approval include: ~ A 6 foot masonry screening wall along the common property line of the Ember Oaks Addition extending to the boundary of the Little Bear Creek Corridor. ~ Minimum unit size shall be no less than 880 square feet for one bedroomlone bath and 984 square feet for two-bedroom/two bath. ~ There shall be 380 parking spaces and 156 of those shall be covered. ~ Landscaping in accordance with the Landscaping Regulations. The applicant requested to amend the number of covered parking spaces from 156 to 136 with 85 covered by carports and 51 covered by garages. The total number of 380 spaces would not change, with the number of uncovered spaces rising from the approved 224 to 244. The site plan indicates the location of the proposed garages by graphic squares. The garage spaces are mostly in front of Buildings 1 and 2 and at the rear of Building 1. The proposed carports are just outside the front door of buildings 2,3, 4, and 5. See the attached exterior building elevation of the proposed garages and the side view at how they will appear from Davis Boulevard. Staff expressed concerns about having garages back up to Davis Boulevard, a major thoroughfare (See the attached cross sections.). The applicant has kept the structures as close to the building entrances as possible and as far away from Ember Oaks as possible. Staff recommended approval of the revised number of covered parking to be reduced from 156 to 136 as shown on the site plan, explaining that the Commission may want to require additional landscaping in the front to better shield the rear of the proposed garages. Page 5 10/14/99 P & Z Minutes Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. Mr. Rick Simmons presented his request, explaining that today's market actually dictates garages for this type facility. He stated he is more than willing to add additional landscaping between the proposed garages and Davis Blvd. He stated that currently trees are proposed every 30' along Davis Blvd; he is willing to go every 15' in front of the proposed garages. Seeing no additional proponents and no opponents, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lueck, seconded by Mr. Nehring, moved to Approve PZ 99-28, provi~ed trees are placed every 15' to directly screen the rear of the prqposed garages backing up to Davis Boulevard. These trees aJt to be planted in front of the 6-foot wrought iron fence, with the exception of the locations where existing post oak trees are located as shown on the site plan. The motion carried unanimotJsly. P;¡¡ge 6 10114199 P & ZMinutes 8. DISCUSSION OF CRITERIA FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS STUDIES Ms. Ratcliff explained that early in 1999 City Administration had expressed interest in developing minimum criteria under which a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) would be required with applications for platting or zoning. Ms. Ratcliff stated that a letter from Greg Dickens, Public Works Director, was included in their packets and Mr. Dickens would answer any questions the Commission might have. Mr. Dickens stated that several area cities had been surveyed and it was determined that most of the cities require traffic studies be supplied by the developer if the expected trip generation from the site exceeds a certain threshold. He stated that staff recommends the City require a TIA when the development will be generating 1,000 vehicle trips or more per day, or an additional 100 vehicle trips or more in the peak direction; however, Mr. Dickens suggested an option be left requiring a TIA on development with less than this requirement, should staff deem it necessary due to unusual circumstances. Mr. Lueck, seconded by Mr. Laubacher asked that staff draft an ordinance requiring a Traffic Impact Analysis using 1,000 trips or greater as a threshold. The motion carried unanimously. Page 7 10/14/99 P & Z Minutes 10. PZ 99-29 REVIEW & DISCUSS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE 6, SUPLEMENT ARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND ARTICLE 11, DEFINITIONS RELATIVE TO MINIMUM MASONRY REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL, MINIMUM PITCH RATIO FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, TEMPORARY USES, OUTSIDE STORAGE AREAS, CARPORTS & DETACHED GARAGE REGULATIONS FOR R7-MUL TI-FAMIL Y, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN THE AGRICULTURAL AND R1S-SPECIAL SINGEL FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, SWIMMING POOLS AND RENUMBERING CUSTOMARY HOME OCCUPATIONS. Ms. Ratcliff explained that this presentation would consist of changes that both the Commission and staff had generated from the September 9, 1999 meeting. The proposed changes for Article 6 included Sections: 600, 605, 606, 615, 625 & 626, 630, 645 & 695 as well as Article 11, Definitions. Each section was covered and discussed. Ms. Ratcliff stated that staff recommends the P&Z authorize a public hearing for October 26, 1999 to consider the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 6, Supplementary District Regulations and Article 11, Definitions. Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Lueck, moved that staff schedule a public hearing on October 26, 1999 for proposed amendments to Article 6, Supplementary District Regulations and Article 11, Oermitions of the Zoning Ordinance, No. 1874. The motion carried unanimously. Page8 10/14199 P & Z Minutes 10. PZ 99-30 REVIEW & DISCUSS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE 8, PARKING & LOADING REGULATIONS AND APPENDIX F, SCHEDULE OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING AND MANEUVERING DIMENSIONS, APPENDIX H, SCHEDULE OF PASSENGER AND MERCHANDISE LOADING REGULATIONS RELATIVE TO COVERED AND ENCLOSED OFF-STREET PARKING FROM SINGLE FAM1L Y DWELLING AND INCORPORATING APPENDIX F, G & H INTO ARTICLE 8. Ms. Ratcliff explained each change that had been made to the draft ordinance and stated that staff recommends the P&Z authorize a public hearing be scheduled for 10/26/99 to consider the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance, Article 8, Parking & Loading Regulations, Appendix F, Schedule of Minimum Number of Parking Spaces, Appendix G, Schedule of Minimum Parking & Maneuvering Dimensions, and Appendix H, Schedule of Passenger and Merchandise Loading Regulations. Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Lueck, moved to approve a public hearing be scheduJed for October 26, 1999 to consider proposed amendments to Article 8.aOO Appendixes F,G & H. The motion carried unanimously: Page 9 10/14/99 P & Z Minutes PZ 99-31 REVIEW AND DISCUSS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE 10, FENCING REGULATIONS AND ARTICLE 11, DEFINITIONS, RELATIVE TO REQUIRED MASONRY SCREENING WALL REQUIREMENTS, NON-MASONRY SCREENING REQUIREMENTS, APPROVED SCREENING PLANT MATERIALS LIST, SCREENING OF OUTDOOR REFUSE CONTAINERS, SCREENING OF AREAS FOR VEHICULAR STORAGE, SPECIAL SCREENING REQUIRMENTS AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING. Ms. Ratcliff covered each change proposed for Articles 10 & 11, which consisted of the following: · Article 10 Fencing Regulations renamed to Screening and Fencing Regulations. · Section 1020 Masonry Screening Wall Required (pages 10-2 through 10-3) Masonry screening walls where possible to be consistent with the exterior finish of the main buildings in material and color. Outdoor storage of materials or commodities to be screened by minimum six-foot masonry wall. Service/loading areas must be screened from public roads and residential and office zoning districts. For properties requiring a site barring fence, deleted "site barring fence" and replace with "living screen." Added a description of "living screen." Included an approved screening plant list. · Section 1026 Screening of Outdoor Refuse Containers (page 10-5) Dumpsters, recycling containers, etc. shall be located behind the building line and not within any side or rear yard setback. Shall be screened on three sides with materials consistent with main building and shall be equipped with gates. · Section 1028 Screening of Areas for Vehicle Storage (pages 10-5 through 10-6) Require masonry walls and living screens for vehicle storage facilities. · Section 1040 Mechanical Equipment Screening (pages 10-7 through 10-8) · Article 11 Added a Definition of Screening. Below is a summary of the additional draft amendments to the Screening and Fencing Regulations as proposed by Staff: · Section 1026 Screening of Outdoor Refuse Containers Page 10 10/14/99 P & Z Minutes Added minimum screening of 3 sides. . Section 1030 Special Screening Requirements For uses listed in the Table of Uses requiring special screening requirements have added similar language proposed in the Subdivision Ordinance for screening along thoroughfares. In addition, staff would like to point out that Section 1020.C on page 10-2 and Section 1030 on page 10-6 still need refining. The Commission should consider what effects these regulations will have on properties and what is the intent. Article 10 overall, needs some careful review. Ms. Ratcliff stated that if the Commission feels comfortable with the proposed amendments staff recommends the P&Z schedule a public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 10, Fencing Regulations. She stated that staff believes that Section 1020.C and Section 1030 still need refining and that the Commission shOuld consider what effects these regulations will have on properties and what the intent is. Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Lueck, moved to schedule a public hearing for 10/26/99. The motion carried unanimously. Page 11 10/14/99 P & Z Minutes 10. PZ 99-32 REVIEW & DISCUSS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE 4, PRIMARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS Ms. Ratcliff explained that the changes proposed to Article 4 are a result of the amendments to other articles that changed titles and numbers. These changes are reflected in Article 4 where the Primary District Regulations reference other Articles. The only substantive changes are the deletion of Section 440 E, "Outdoor Activities or Other Uses", which is addressed in the amendments to Article 6 and requiring the side and rear yards of all commercial districts to have a minimum 25 foot setback when adjacent to a residential district. She stated that staff recommends the P&Z authorize a public hearing for 10/26/99 to consider the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 4, Primary District Regulations. Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Lueck, moved to approve the scheduling of a public hearing for 10/26/99. The motion carried unanimously. Page 12 10/14199 P & Z Minutes 11. PS 99-33 REVIEW & DISCUSS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 3, REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC AND SEMI PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, SECTION 355, MASONRY SCREENING WALL REQUIREMENTS (SEMI-PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT) AND ARTICLE 13, DEFINITIONS Ms. Ratcliff explained the proposed changes, which consisted of: · To apply screening wall requirements to every residential subdivision that is adjacent to a thoroughfare of any size. Current regulations apply only to C4U thoroughfares or larger. C4U - collector street with four lanes undivided (68' wide - next to the smallest thoroughfare) C2U - collector street with two lanes undivided (60' wide - smallest thoroug hfa re) · Noted that screening walls shall be constructed on private property and within a five-foot wide "Screening and Landscaping Maintenance Easement". · Gives four screening alternatives with criteria. · Wood and other high-maintenance, weather sensitive material are not permitted as screening materials. · Provides a definition of Screening and Masonry in Article 3, Definitions. Remainino items staff needs feedback on from the Commission and Public Works: 1. What about one single family lot that is platting not just replatting? (Example Meadow Road - Cope Addition) P&Z has been waiving that requirement. Is additional language needed to exempt a single lot fronting a thoroughfare? 2. What if there is an existing or proposed utility easement, drainage and utility easement or a tap meter easement located where the proposed Screening and Landscaping Maintenance Easement is required? 3. Who maintains the landscaping and irrigation system? Ms. Ratcliff stated that staff recommends the P&Z authorize a public hearing for 10/26/99 to consider the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations, Page 13 10/14/99 p & Z Minutes Article 3, Requirements for Public & Semi-Public Improvements, Section 355, Masonry Screening Wall Requirements and Article13, Definitions. Mr. Tolbert, seconded bY)Ulr. Lueck, moved to øpprove a public hearing for 10/26/99. The motion carried unanimously. Page 14 10/14199 P & Z Minutes 12. MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS There was nothing to report. 13. ADJOURNMENT Ha~, v in, g t,ofurt he r bðSin~ ìto con, d" uct, the mee~~~~,dj,O , ~rned , ~, t, l' ~",: 50, ",P, M, . (~ ~ ), / 11 I' ,Ii' I/) ~ þ ~l,¿:(/! .! / ,,- /:"'" P' \. t. / , ~ A / '....... '-. .Æ:-.Y' .4/' â ~"" ,:·;t{."~":"',- i,' -7rl, 1 ,/ ~ -.- «1"{ # v ~ 'II." "j ." .,l,....."'.., Ch~irm:~ D~n Bowen Ted Nehring, secret~ ~/' ", Page 15 10/14199 P & Z Minutes