AGENDA CITY OF BENBROOK PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2014

Transcription

1 AGENDA CITY OF BENBROOK PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, MARCH 13, WINSCOTT ROAD WORK SESSION, 7:00 P.M. PRE-COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM, OPEN TO PUBLIC A quorum of the Benbrook City Council may be in attendance at this meeting. 1. Discuss Items on Agenda 2. Staff Briefing on Development Activities within City (time permitting) a. Update on Benbrook Boulevard (US 377) project b. Update on Benbrook Parkway/Winbrook Drive project c. Status of Updates to the Comprehensive Plan REGULAR MEETING, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ITEMS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE SUBJECT TO FINAL ACTION I. II. CALL TO ORDER CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Regular Meeting, February 13, 2014 Documents: MINUTES PZ 02_13_14.PDF III. REPORTS OF CITY STAFF A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN None B. ZONING Z Consider rezoning of a acre tract of land in Edward Taylor Survey Abstract Number 1560 from BR-PD One-Family Reduced Planned Development District to BR-PD One-Family Reduced Planned Development District with zoning regulations established from Ordinance Number and proposed reduced rear yards. (Northwest side of Rolling Hills Drive, north of Rolling Hills Park and Oncor Electric transmission line property). PUBLIC HEARING Documents: Z WHITESTONE CREST.PDF

2 C. SUBDIVISION None D. SITE PLAN SP Consider Site Plan For A Proposed Private Driveway On Lot 2, Block 8, Country Day Meadows, Addition To The City Of Benbrook (5750 Bellaire Drive) Connecting Bellaire Drive In The City Of Benbrook To A Private Street Network In Proposed Waterside, A Acre Development In The City Of Fort Worth On The Lockheed Martin Recreation Association Site, 3400 Bryant Irvin Road. PUBLIC HEARING Documents: WATERSIDE.PDF E. GENERAL None IV. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Pursuant To Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, Section Consultation With City Attorney 1. Receive advice from the City Attorney regarding implementation of zoning regulations V. REPORTS OF CITY STAFF - CONTINUED B. ZONING Z Consider rezoning of acres in the C.A. Kuykendall Survey Abstract Number 890 from BR-PD One Family Reduced Planned Development District to BR-PD One Family Reduced Planned Development District with new zoning regulations (proposed Brookside Addition, Phase II; west of Vista Way, north of Westpark Addition, and south of Brookside Addition, Phase I). PUBLIC HEARING Documents: Z BROOKSIDE 2.PDF VI. PRESENTATION BY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS None VII. CITIZEN PRESENTATION 1. Cornelius Ferguson Covenant Classical School - Invite Commissioners to a presentation on city planning. VIII. ADJOURNMENT WORK SESSION FOLLOWING REGULAR MEETING None

3 THIS FACILITY IS WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE. FOR ACCOMMODATIONS OR TO INFORM US OF INACCESSIBILITY TO THIS MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT ANDY WAYMAN, CITY MANAGER, AT FOR SIGN INTERPRETATIVE SERVICES, PLEASE CALL 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE.

4 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY OF BENBROOK PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2014 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Benbrook was held on Thursday, February 14, 2014, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 911 Winscott Road with the following members present: Tom Casey Brandon O Donald John Dawson Jess Jordan Alfredo Valverde David Ramsey Sanjiv Shah Jon Craver, Jr. Matthew Wallis Also present: Ed Gallagher, Planning Director Jenifer Reiner, City Planner Sue Clark, Recording Secretary Barry Hudson David Hafer Cherie LeFluer Don Pilliod and approximately 4 others I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Valverde called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. II. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Regular Meeting, January 9, 2014 Motion by Mr. Casey to approve the minutes of the January 9, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as written. Second by Mr. O Donald. The Chair called the question. Vote on the motion: Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Mr. Craver, Mr. Casey, Mr. O Donald, Mr. Dawson, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Valverde, Mr. Ramsey, and Mr. Shah None Mr. Wallis Motion carried: 8 0 1

5 III. REPORTS OF CITY STAFF A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN None B. ZONING Z Consider rezoning of acres in the C.A. Kuykendall Survey Abstract Number 890 from BR-PD One Family Reduced Planned Development District to BR-PD One Family Reduced Planned Development District with zoning regulations re-established from Ordinance Number 1239 (proposed Brookside Addition, Phase II; west of Vista Way, north of Westpark Addition, and south of Brookside Addition, Phase I). PUBLIC HEARING (Zoning consideration continued at the December 12, 2013 and January 9, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission.) The Chair introduced the item and asked for a presentation from the applicant. Barry Hudson, of Dunaway Associates, 550 Bailey, Fort Worth, said he is representing the developer, BoPeek, Ltd. He said the item was continued from the December Planning and Zoning Commission meeting by the Commission to allow the developer to meet with homeowners in the Brookside Addition, Phase I. Because of the holidays and inclement weather, that meeting was postponed. Mr. Hudson said the applicants then asked for the rezoning consideration be continued to the February meeting. Mr. Hudson said he had a neighborhood meeting with 18 of the homeowners of Brookside Phase I. He said he gave an overview of the plat of Brookside Phase II and the Planned Development (PD) zoning that had been previously approved seven years before. He said they talked about deed restrictions and the architectural styles the homeowners of Phase I would like to be included in Phase II. Mr. Hudson said the applicants agreed to include the architectural standards of Phase I into Phase II deed restrictions as part of the required Homeowner s Association (HOA). They also agreed to items such as the same style mailboxes, paint colors, roof colors, single garage doors, along with the same architectural guidelines. Mr. Hudson said he agrees that they all want a quality neighborhood; Brookside Phase II is an extension of Brookside Phase I. He said the neighbors also expressed concern about construction equipment on their existing streets. The developer will meet with the construction company and builders to voice their concerns. Mr. Hudson said that they are asking that the development standards that were previously approved be reinstated and he thinks they have the support of the adjacent homeowners in Phase I. The Chair asked for any comments or questions for Mr. Hudson. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 13, 2014 Page 2 of 10

6 Mr. Shah said that when the consideration was presented in December 2013, the HOA was required by the city to maintain a required retaining wall. He asked Mr. Hudson if the HOA would now be written to include bylaws and deed restrictions. Mr. Hudson said yes, the main reason the HOA is required is to maintain the required wall but it gives them the organization in place to include deed restrictions. Mr. Shah asked that if the city has not reviewed the HOA, how will the Planning and Zoning Commission know that the deed restrictions are part of the HOA requirements. He said the applicant could turn in HOA requirements just for the wall because that is all the city requires and it is an administrative process. The Planning and Zoning Commission will not have an opportunity to review the HOA restrictions. Mr. Hudson said that when they met with the neighbors in Phase I, he told them they will be allowed to look at the deed restrictions for Phase II before they are recorded with the final plat. He said he felt it was a win-win situation for the city, citizens and the developer to work together. Mr. Shah asked Mr. Hudson why the deed restrictions would be written in the HOA documents instead of in the Planned Development zoning request. He said the city has no authority of enforcing deed restrictions so why not have the restrictions as part of the PD, so the city can actually enforce the requirements of the PD. Mr. Hudson said deed restrictions were not part of the original approved PD standards and that s what they are asking for, the reinstatement of the expired PD. He said it is very unusual for the city to be involved in the architectural style of homes in a subdivision. Normally that is handled through deed restrictions. Mr. Shah said the builders were the applicants in the rezoning of Phase I and its architectural standards. He said it was the builder s preference at that time and it was the same developer as Phase II. Mr. Shah asked why the developer s preference is to incorporate deed restrictions in Phase II instead of part of the PD zoning. He said why not do it in a more meaningful way instead of a less meaningful way. Mr. Hudson said he disagrees; that deed restrictions are a very good way of handling restrictions. He said it was the builders, not the developer that came back and asked for the PD to include restrictions on the architectural style of the homes in Phase I. He said he thinks that at least two of those builders will be building in Phase II. Mr. Valverde said that if the deed restrictions can be included as part of an HOA or a PD zoning, then why not use the PD so that it may be more regulated. Mr. Hudson said the developer would prefer to do it through deed restrictions and that most cities, including Benbrook, do not regulate architectural style throughout the city. He said this is an anomaly for Brookside Phase I. The appropriate place for architectural style is part of deed restrictions, as in 99 percent of developments throughout Texas. The homeowner s would be responsible for adhering to the deed restrictions. Mr. Valverde asked if there is no difference in using deed restrictions or including it in the PD, why not use the PD for the protection of the homeowner s in Phase I. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 13, 2014 Page 3 of 10

7 Mr. Shah said he did want to note that at least the developers are making an attempt to add restrictions and not just go straight to the PD zoning. He said the neighborhood they are working with, has their interest best served by going through a PD. Mr. Shah said that the developer agreed to work with the Phase I homeowners; otherwise they would have just requested the expired PD zoning or gone back to BR Single-Family zoning. He said why only go so far and not have something that has some meaning to it. Mr. Shah said Phase I does not even have a HOA and the city is not going to get involved in deed restrictions. The city only cares about the Zoning and Subdivision regulations and standards. Mr. Hudson said it is his understanding that they would have to refile their zoning case because it has been advertised that they are asking to reinstate the previously approved PD standards. He said he felt they had an understanding with the Phase I neighborhood association and that they were coming before the Commission as a united front. Mr. Valverde said the Commission works for the city and they want to make sure that what they do is good enough for the neighbors as well as the city. That is the reason they have these concerns. Mr. Jordan asked what would be the difference in recording the deed restrictions or using the PD. Mr. Hudson said it is the difference in who regulates the restrictions, whether it is self-regulated or city regulated. Mr. Casey asked if the developers had made plans to regulate deed restrictions. Mr. Hudson said he felt there was a need to tighten up the paint colors and garage doors. Mr. Jordan asked if something changes in the deed restrictions, instead of going through a PD, would the developers contact the neighborhood association if there is going to be any deviations. Mr. Hudson said he did not think that would be a problem at all. Mr. Dawson asked if there will be an architectural control committee as part of the HOA and would it be their responsibility to enforce the deed restrictions. Mr. Hudson said yes. Mr. Casey asked when the architectural review committee would be established and who would be on that committee. Mr. Hudson said it would be established at the filing of the final plat. Initially the developer would be the one to control the deed restrictions. The residents of Phase I have asked for inclusion of one, possibly two, of their residents to be on the committee. Mr. Hudson said that has not yet been decided. Mr. Valverde said they appreciate when a developer meets with the neighbors of a new subdivision and works with them to come to an amicable decision. The Chair asked for a report from staff. Mr. Gallagher said the Z zoning case first appeared on the December 12, 2013 Commission agenda to restore the expired PD standards on the 25-plus acre tract in the C.A. Kuykendall Survey and presented as Brookside Addition Phase II located south of Brookside Phase I. He said the expired PD standards were established by Ordinance Number 1239, approved August 16 of 2007, and included a side yard combination reduction from 15-feet to 10-feet, and a floor space area increase from 1,200 square feet to 1,650 square feet. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 13, 2014 Page 4 of 10

8 During the December 2013 public hearing on the Z request, the Commission heard concerns from owners in Brookside Phase I that the expired PD standards proposed to be restored did not include architectural standards cited in Ordinance Number 1233 that was approved April 19 of 2007 and applied to the 106 lots in Phase I. Mr. Gallagher said that after the close of the December 12, 2013 public hearing the Commission voted to continue the zoning request until the January 9, 2014 meeting to provide an opportunity for the applicant and the Phase I owners to meet and discuss the zoning consideration. At the January meeting the applicant reported that with holidays and other considerations the anticipated meeting had not occurred and requested that the zoning consideration be continued until the February meeting to allow more time for a meeting. In January owners in Phase I expressed support for the requested continuance of the case until this meeting. Mr. Gallagher said that at the December meeting, the Commission approved the 84-lot Brookside Addition Phase II preliminary plat that accompanied the request to restore the expired PD standards. The staff continues the recommendation that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Z rezoning application of the acres in the C. A. Kuykendall Survey Abstract Number 890 from BR-PD One Family Reduced Planned Development District with expired PD regulations to BR-PD One Family Reduced Planned Development District with the restoration of the PD regulations in Ordinance Number 1239 and with the first residential permit issued within five (5) years that the Planned Development regulations not expire. Mr. Gallagher said the staff notes that the public hearing on the request was opened and closed at the December 12, 2013 meeting; however, it would not be out of order if the Commission accepts public comment at this meeting. Mr. Gallagher said the developer, current or past, did not establish the Phase I architectural standards. He said the mandatory HOA that is required with Phase II is to maintain the screening wall and the landscape outside the wall. The Chair asked for any comments or questions from the Commission. Mr. Shah asked how he would know that deed restrictions are part of the HOA and filed with the final plat. He said he knows that the filing is an administrative action, not subject to Commission review and all he has is Mr. Hudson s word. Mr. Shah said that staff will only be subjective to the required maintenance of the retaining wall and landscaping in the HOA so how can he be assured that deed restrictions are part of the HOA. He asked if the staff will look for deed restrictions as part of the HOA. Mr. Gallagher said he thinks that Mr. Shah wants to start over and have the deed restrictions as part of the PD ordinance. Mr. Shah asked staff if the developers can submit the HOA with nothing but the required maintenance of the wall and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Mr. Gallagher said staff would follow the ordinances of the city that were recommended by the Commission and approved by City Council. He said the Commission has an option to approve the PD as requested, a second option is to deny the request, at which time the zoning would revert back to 1,200-square-foot houses and the third option is for Commission to Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 13, 2014 Page 5 of 10

9 recommend that the City Council initiate rezoning for the architectural standards in Phase I be applied to Phase II. Mr. Shah said PD is whatever it wants to be. Why can the Commission not insert those architectural standards into the PD? Mr. Gallagher said the Commission could approve the reinstatement of the approved PD standards, requested by the builders, recommended by the Commission and previously approved by the City Council. Mr. Shah said the Commission has changed or added items to a proposed PD at a Commission meeting. Mr. Gallagher said he does not recall any PDs that were changed by the Commission that did not include City Council approval. Mr. Shah asked if the Commission has to say either yes or no to a proposed PD. Mr. Gallagher said that what is before the Commission is to re-establish what had expired; no more, no less. Mr. Gallagher said if they wanted to require the architectural standards, the Commission would have to recommend that the City Council initiate rezoning that would include the architectural standards because that was never a part of the Phase II zoning. Mr. Shah said the Commission could deny the PD zoning and it would go back to B Single-Family zoning. Mr. Gallagher said that was correct and there would be no PD standards. The Chair opened the meeting to public comment and asked if anyone wished to speak. Dave Hafer, 569 Sterling Drive in Brookside Phase I said that in reducing the side yard in Phase I, it would be reasonable and fair to continue it in to Phase II and the same architectural style in Phase II as in Phase I. Mr. Hafer said that at the meeting in December he came away thinking that having the architectural zoning in the PD was not possible so they talked about having it in the deed restrictions. He said his preference would be to have it in the zoning so that the city could have some enforcement power in maintaining the architectural style in Phase II. Mr. Hafer said the builders were self-regulating in Phase I and they were promised an architectural style committee and that never happened, so when the two original builders left, the architectural style committee essentially ceased to exist. Mr. Hafer said that at the December Commission meeting, he asked that the PD request be sent to the City Council to rezone Phase II. He said they had a very amicable meeting with Mr. Hudson and he appreciated his willingness to try to reach something that would be comfortable with the Phase I owners and the developer. Mr. Hafer said they do not have a problem with the developer. He said the problem is with the builders. One of the builders the developers are in discussion with built three homes in Phase I and didn t do very well in following the architectural style guidelines. He said that is one of the things they are trying to prevent. Mr. Hafer said he thought the final plat and deed restrictions would come back to the Commission for approval and make sure the architectural standards were in place. He said he did not realize it would be an administrative decision and he appreciated the questions Mr. Shah brought up because they were his very questions. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 13, 2014 Page 6 of 10

10 Mr. Hafer said he does not want the developers or Mr. Hudson to think they do not trust them because they do. He said he does not trust the builders because if there is not someone regulating what they are doing, they can do what they wish. Mr. Hudson said Mr. Peek has assured the owners in Phase I that the architectural style will be included in the deed restrictions but now he is wondering who will really enforce those specifications. Mr. Hafer said he appreciated that Mr. Shah asked his questions and at this point he would like to request the Commission send the zoning request to the City Council to initiate rezoning. Sheri LeFluer, 509 Magnolia Parkway, Brookside Phase I, said Phase I does not have an HOA, but in the deed restrictions there is a section on the architecture features. There was an Architectural Control Committee (ACC) that ceased to exist after the first two builders left the neighborhood. She said the owners were in the process of forming an ACC when the builders left and that is where the draft architectural style guidelines came from. Mr. LeFluer said she shared the guidelines with Mr. Hudson. Ms. LeFluer said the deed restrictions they discussed with Mr. Hudson at their meeting actually have more information in them than the Phase I restrictions. She said that is because of what they experienced with the builders in Phase I. Ms. LeFluer said she does have some concern with the builders in Phase II adhering to what they are trying to achieve in Brookside. Ms. LeFluer said she talked to Mr. Hudson about having at least two residences from Phase I on the ACC so that they could review and comment on the builder s elevation ahead of time before he actually built the house. She said that as Phase II builds out, they could transfer their seats on the ACC to the residents in Phase II. Ms. LeFluer said they talked to Mr. Hudson about letting the Phase I group have a chance to review the Phase II deed restriction as they are being written. She said they did have an amicable meeting but they are all concerned about the builders. Other than Phase I owners having seats on an ACC for Phase II with veto power, she doesn t see what other means they have as protection. Ms. LeFluer said some of the specifics that were discussed at the joint meeting were: 1. Architectural guidelines that she presented a draft to Mr. Hudson 2. Single garage doors 3. Same mailbox design 4. The same roof shingle colors 5. Different brick paint colors or painted brick to conform with the different styles, for example cottage styles are typically painted 6. Finish details such as mixing different themes and think that you are meeting the historical intent She said if they continue to move forward with the items discussed, she looks forward to working with Mr. Hudson so that they can be comfortable with the deed restrictions. Mr. Shah said that in order to be on an ACC, you have to be a member of the HOA and Ms. LeFluer will never be a member of the HOA because she does not own property in Phase II. He said she could only be on the ACC as a consultant and she would definitely have no veto power. Until the neighborhood is 90-percent built, the developer will maintain the majority control of the HOA and its funds. After Phase II is 90-percent built out, the developer will turn control over to the homeowners. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 13, 2014 Page 7 of 10

11 The Chair asked if there were any other citizen comments and if Mr. Hudson would like to say anything to address any of the citizens concerns. Mr. Hudson said no and the Chair asked for any other comments from the Commission. Mr. Wallis asked staff if the Commission denies the request, what are the developer s options on building houses in Phase II. Mr. Gallagher said if it is denied, the developer could proceed on with the final plat and build 1,200 square-foot houses that meet the architectural standings in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Wallis asked staff, if it is approved, what is the builder giving up. Mr. Gallagher said they would have a minimum of 1,650 square-foot house and the reduced side yard as they had requested initially and is what they are asking to be restored. Mr. Shah said that is contradictory to what they had previously approved because zoning does not expire once it is rezoned. He said the developers are asking for the PD to not expire for five years if they don t begin building before five years after the approval. Mr. Shah said it is still zoned BR-PD, but it does not have development regulations to build upon. Mr. Shah said that Steve Hawkins had a property that the PD standards had expired and when the Commission approved to reinstate those standards, the Commission added further requirements. Mr. Shah said zoning does not expire without City Council approval for the rezoning. He said this PD has expired and new regulations have to be put in place. He asked if the same PD requirements have to be included or do they need new requirements. He does not know because he is not a lawyer but he does not agree with staff that if the Commission does not reinstate the PD zoning, it does not go straight back to BR zoning. Mr. Gallagher said the Commission can reinstate the PD Standards, as they were approved by the City Council, and if it was denied, it would revert back to the straight BR zoning. He said the other option is for the Commission to request that the City Council initiate rezoning to change the PD, which would come back to the Commission and then be approved by Council. Mr. Shah asked why PD standards are allowed to expire, which he was on the Commission when the five-year expiration was recommended and approved by Council. Not just take out some of the requirements because they had been superseded by new Zoning and Subdivision requirements but to add additional requirements. He said he wanted to go on record that he does not agree with Mr. Gallagher that if the Commission denies the request to reinstate the PD zoning, that the zoning goes back to straight BR zoning because Council is the only one that can rezone a property. Mr. O'Donald asked if it is the desire of the Commission to deny this request, and request that the City Council change the zoning, how long would that process takes. Mr. Gallagher said it would go to the City Council for them to hear and decide whether to pursue city-initiated rezoning, then it would come back to get on the Planning and Zoning cycle and from there it would be another eight or nine weeks. Mr. Shah said, if he is wrong that the PD goes away and it goes back to BR if the Commission denies this request, the developer can refile with revised PD regulations and it could be on the following Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 13, 2014 Page 8 of 10

12 Mr. Casey said the City Council could either take the Commission s request to initiate rezoning or they could deny Commission s request. He asked staff, it they deny it, what would then happen. Mr. Gallagher said that they would not approve or deny, they would ask staff to initiate rezoning in a certain fashion. At that point, the city is the applicant with a time frame to get on the agenda and the Commission makes a recommendation to Council whether to approve or disapprove the new PD zoning. Discussion followed between the Commission and staff on the PD standards and options before them. Motion by Mr. Shah that the application to restore the PD regulations, Z-13-09, of Brookside Phase II, be denied. Second by Mr. Ramsey. The Chair called the question. Vote on the motion: Ayes: Noes: Mr. Casey,, Mr. Dawson, Mr. Wallis, Mr. Valverde, Mr. Craver, and Mr. Shah Mr. Ramsey, Mr. O Donald, and Mr. Jordan Motion carried 6 3 Discussion followed on whether the Commission should recommend that the City Council direct staff to initiate new PD zoning regulations. Motion by Mr. Wallis that the Commission recommend that the City Council initiate rezoning of Brookside Phase II, so that all the architectural standards of Brookside Phase I PD ordinance, also apply to Brookside Phase II. Second by Mr. Craver. Discussion followed on the motion. The Chair called the question. Vote on the motion: Ayes: Noes: Mr. Casey, Mr. Ramsey, Mr. Dawson, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Valverde, Mr. Craver, Mr. O Donald, Mr. Wallis,and Mr. Shah None Motion carried unanimously C. SUBDIVISION None D. SITE PLANS None E. GENERAL None Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 13, 2014 Page 9 of 10

13 IV. PRESENTATIONS BY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS None V. CITIZEN PRESENTATION None VI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business on the agenda, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m. APPROVED,2014 Chair Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 13, 2014 Page 10 of 10

14 DATE: March 13, 2014 City of Benbrook Planning and Zoning Commission REFERENCE NUMBER: Z SUBJECT: Rezoning acre tract in E. Taylor Survey Abstract No PAGE: 1 of 2 SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOCATION: AREA: CURRENT ZONING: CURRENT USE: LAND USE PLAN REFERENCE: PROPOSED ZONING: acre tract of land in the Edward Taylor Survey, Abstract Number 1560 Planning Area E Northwest side of Rolling Hills Drive, north of Rolling Hills Park and Oncor Electric transmission line property acres BR-PD One Family Reduce Planned Development District (Ordinance Number , with expired side yard PD regulations) Vacant Residential, Low Density Single Family BR-PD One Family Reduced Planned Development District with restored side yard PD regulations and proposed rear yard and floor area PD regulations OWNER/APPLICANT: HISTORY In recent years, the acre site has been zoned for single family residential use. The June 3, 1999 approval of Ordinance Number applied BR-PD One Family Reduced Planned Development District zoning to the Z property, as well as three other neighboring sites totaling acres. The June 1999 PD Ordinance included modified side yard setback regulations on interior lots that allowed a minimum side yard of five feet (5 ) on each side and a minimum combination of side years of ten feet (10 ). Except for the reduction of the side yard requirements, no other BR District Height and Area Regulations were affected by the PD Zoning. The BR-PD zoning designation established in 1999 remains in effect, but the particular PD regulations have expired. Because the application differs from the previously-approved PD regulations, this is considered a zoning change. PLANNING REVIEW SJ Rolling Hills Development, LP Steve Hawkins Fort Worth, TX The City Planning Staff has reviewed the zoning application and offers the following comments: 1. The first portion of the Z application (refer to Exhibit B) is to re-establish the previous 10-foot minimum side yard combination regulation on interior lots established by Ordinance The first three phases of the Whitestone Ranch development along the south side of Jerry Dunn Parkway were developed under the 1999 Ordinance requiring the minimum 10- foot combination side yards on interior lots. The previous construction under the Ordinance DISPOSITION: APPROVED OTHER (DESCRIBE) DATE:

15 side yard PD requirements has not presented any particular problems and the staff has no objection to the re-established side yard regulations. 2. The second part of the Z application (refer to Exhibit B) is to allow a minimum rear yard requirement of ten feet (10 ), five feet less than the standard BR District minimum rear yard of 15 feet. The 10-foot rear yard PD standard has not been applied to the Z subject property previously, but in May 2001, Ordinance 1092 extended the same rear yard reduction of five feet (5 ) to the 197 lots in Whitestone Ranch, Phase 2 and Phase 3. More recently, in June 2013 with Ordinance Number 1349, the same rear yard reduction was approved for the Whitestone Ranch Phase 4 development site. The staff is not aware of any problems with the 10-foot rear yard PD standard in Whitestone Ranch and has no particular objection to the Z application. The Planned Development application for the reduced side yard and rear yard setbacks also proposes an increase in the minimum BR District floor area requirement from 1,200 square feet to 1,650 square feet. 3. Section of the Zoning Ordinance calls for a Development Schedule as part of the Planned Development District zoning application and Section cites a five-year period for the implementation of a project before the expiration of a PD Site Plan or development regulations. The last portion of the Z zoning application (refer to Exhibit A) references the five-year expiration. The application requests that the PD development regulations not expire after the completion and acceptance of the public infrastructure of the development to enable house construction on all of the lots in Whitestone Crest to occur under the same PD development regulations. The staff does not consider the proposed development schedule unreasonable. 4. Section of the Texas Local Government Code requires that Zoning regulations must be adopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan. The proposed rezoning is compatible with the Land Use Element in that the proposed zoning with restored and new PD regulations fits the Low Density Residential category. 5. In May 2005 a preliminary plat of Whitestone Crest submitted by Steve Hawkins for the same acre site was approved by the Commission. The 2005 preliminary plat included 169 single-family lots in a two-phase development. Final plats and engineering for both phases were submitted for review on April 27, 2006 and staff comments on the second submittal were sent July 19, With the economic down-turn and drop in the housing market at the time the developer suspended the pursuit of final plat approval. Subsequently, the 2005 preliminary plat approval has expired. Although a new preliminary plat to re-establish the expired plat and address recent changes to subdivision standards has not submitted in conjunction with the Z application, it is the staff s understanding that a revised preliminary plat submittal for Commission consideration is expected in the next several months. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Z Planned Development side yard and rear yard regulations and floor area regulations, as requested, for the acre site in the Edward Taylor Survey, Abstract Number 1560, and upon the completion and acceptance of the public infrastructure for development on the acre site that the Planned Development regulations not expire. Z March 13, 2014 Rezoning Whitestone Crest Page 2 of 2

16

17

18 Exhibit A Application and Development Schedule

19 Exhibit B PD Zoning Specifications

20 DATE: March 13, 2014 City of Benbrook Planning and Zoning Commission REFERENCE NUMBER: SP SUBJECT: Site Plan Lot 2, Block 8 Country Day Meadows PAGE: 1 of 3 SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOCATION: AREA: CURRENT ZONING: CURRENT USE: LAND USE PLAN REFERENCE: OWNER: DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Lot 2, Block 8 of Country Day Meadows addition Planning Area B, 5750 Bellaire Drive acres D Multiple Family District Vacant, except for bicycle/pedestrian access to the Trinity River trail system Residential, High Density Multi-Family Corporate Employees Recreation Association (CERA formerly known as LMRA, Lockheed Martin Recreation Association) Trademark Property, Inc. Fort Worth, TX Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Fort Worth, TX HISTORY Lot 2 is part of the acre Country Day Meadows Third Filing Subdivision Plat that was approved and recorded in December The Third Filing Plat included the part of Country Day Meadows development located west of the Oncor Electric s transmission line property. Infrastructure construction occurred in 1980, including Bellaire Drive to the centerline of the State Hwy 183 right-ofway. The existing hike and bike trail was installed in 1999 by the City of Fort Worth under a 1998 interlocal agreement approved by City of Fort Worth and Benbrook. The agreement provided for inclusion of the Benbrook segment in the Fort Worth project for the hike and bike trail from near downtown Fort Worth to Benbrook Lake. Under the agreement, the City of Fort Worth owns and maintains the segment of the trail in Benbrook and maintains the portion of the trail on Benbrook streets. PLANNING REVIEW The City Planning Staff has reviewed the Site Plan submittal and offers the following comments: DISPOSITION: APPROVED OTHER (DESCRIBE) DATE:

21 1. The site plan proposes a 36-foot-wide private driveway connection to the north side of Bellaire Drive on the subject property located approximately 500 feet east of the Southwest Boulevard/Highway 183 overpass over Bellaire Drive and the Trinity River. The site plan application also includes a sight distance exhibit and a signage exhibit. The proposed private driveway is to provide additional secondary access to the private street network in the proposed Waterside development, an approximately 52-acre mixed-use development in Fort Worth on the Lockheed Martin Recreation Association property fronting Bryant Irvin Road. Development of the Waterside project is proposed by Trademark Property, Inc. on land being sold by the former Lockheed Martin Recreation Association, now known as Corporate Employees Recreation Area (CERA). A conceptual site plan of the overall Waterside development is included with the submittal for reference. Primary access to the Waterside development is proposed from Bryant Irvin Road, a divided roadway in Fort Worth along the east frontage of the development. Six access points to Bryant Irvin Road are scheduled along the major frontage of the development with two signalized intersection and four right-in/right-out driveways where the median exists. City of Fort Worth standards require the secondary access for the southwestern portion of the property. 2. The site plan in Benbrook indicates a connection to Bellaire Drive, a 48-foot wide collector facility that functions as a two-way roadway and also includes two, six-footwide bicycle lanes west of the proposed new drive connection. The proposed drive from the north includes a 36-foot wide pavement with one entrance lane and two exit lanes, one for right turns and one for left turns. The plan includes pavement striping in Bellaire Drive on the eastbound approach to create an eastbound left-turn lane that can accommodate stack space for approximately seven standard automobiles and striping on the westbound approach to create protection for the eastbound left-turn lane. Also included on the plan are additional pavement markings and signage to direct and accommodate the vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian movements. The site plan includes segments of the Trinity Trails bicycle and pedestrian trail. The site plan indicates the addition of a new trail head area adjacent to the west side of the new drive and the north side of Bellaire Drive and continues the segment of the existing trail system with minimal alteration. 3. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was performed for the overall Waterside development. Although the overall TIA included the access connection to Bellaire Drive in Benbrook, the primary focus of the study involved the six access points to Bryant Irvin Road in Fort Worth. The overall TIA is consolidated into an Executive Summary and Recommendations document. A supplement to the overall TIA, in the form of a Technical Memorandum, Bellaire Drive Impact Memo (March 6, 2014), was issued with primary focus on the access connection to Bellaire Drive in Benbrook. The Technical Memorandum recommends the creation of the eastbound left-turn lane in Bellaire Drive and the two exit lanes on the proposed new drive. Both recommendations are include the site plan. The levels of service (LOS) findings in the Technical Memorandum are addressed in the Engineering Review of this report. ENGINEERING REVIEW The City Engineer has reviewed the Site Plan submittal and offers the following comments: SP March 13, 2014 Site Plan Lot 2, Block 8 Country Day Meadows Page 2 of 3

22 1. Based upon the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) submitted by Kimley-Horn, the site plan and intersection improvements are acceptable. The TIA analyzes both the existing conditions and the Build Out (2018) conditions on Bellaire Drive as affected by the proposed Waterside development. It appears the projected Level of Service (LOS) on Bellaire Drive at build-out will be a marginal D ; however, with establishing the eastbound left turn lane and the proposed intersection markings and signage, the LOS will be improved to C. LOS C meets Benbrook s minimum criterion. 2. To determine whether a signal would be warranted, the peak hour warrant in the Signal Analysis portion of the TIA would be the most appropriate data to analyze. The projected numbers do not indicate a signal is appropriate for this intersection. PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW Fire Department: The Site Plan is satisfactory. Police Department: The Police department reviewed a preliminary site plan and expressed some concerns about signage for bicycles and pedestrians. The Site Plan was revised by Kimley-Horn and the current Site Plan is now satisfactory. BWA REVIEW The Benbrook Water Authority (BWA) has reviewed the Site Plan submittal and offers the following comment: 1. The site plan is satisfactory. There appears to be no conflicts or impacts to the existing water and sewer infrastructure in the area. 2. The review is only for the proposed private driveway and no utility plans to serve the development have been reviewed to date. UTILITIES REVIEW Other utility providers have reviewed the Site Plan submitted and offer the following comments: 1. Oncor - No comments received. 2. Atmos Gas The Site Plan satisfies requirements. 3. AT&T No comments received. 4. Charter Communications No comments received. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the SP site plan for a proposed private driveway on the acre site on Lot 2, Block 8, Country Day Meadows addition. SP March 13, 2014 Site Plan Lot 2, Block 8 Country Day Meadows Page 3 of 3

23

24

25

26

27

28

29 LEGEND A B C D E F G Hotel Office Pad Site Multifamily and Townhomes Restaurant Retail NOT A PA RT Parking Garage TRW DE ASE ME NT (10 0 ) ONC OR - LMRA D C F MARKET V I R F R E N O R R D T E E V I D D G C C F A F B/E C E G D VE D RIV ER F RO DRI T N D D D B D B C IT Y O F FT. W O R T H B C IT Y O F B EN B R O O K W ATERS IDE BEL L AIR E DR IVE BRYANT IRVIN AT ARBOR LAWN January 17 K E V I N S LOA N High Performance Landscapes S T U D I O w w w. k e v i n s l o a n s t u d i o. c o m

30 MEMORANDUM To: From: Mr. Chris Herman Trademark Property Company Jeff Whitacre, P.E., AICP Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Registered Firm #928 Date: October 10, 2013 Subject: Waterside Multi-Use Development Executive Summary and Recommendations Development Overview The proposed Waterside mixed-use development is located on the west side of Bryant Irvin Road, between Edwards Ranch Road / River Park Drive and Bellaire Drive / Country Day Lane in the City of Fort Worth, Texas. The development is anticipated to include 1,450 multi-family dwelling units, 95 residential townhomes, 500 hotel rooms, 165,000 square feet of general office, and 245,000 square feet of retail. The development is anticipated to have six (6) access points along Bryant Irvin Road and one (1) access point along Bellaire Drive. Traffic Study Process A traffic study was completed and submitted to the City of Fort Worth s Transportation and Public Works Department on August 13, The study was reviewed and comments were provided to Kimley-Horn on September 3, The comments were addressed and a TIA was resubmitted to the City of Fort Worth on September 12, The TIA was approved on 10/10/13 acknowledging recommendations and responses to City comments. Existing Conditions on Bryant Irvin Road Currently the section of Bryant Irvin Road from Vickery Boulevard to Arborlawn Drive operates at a lower than preferred level of service during the AM peak hour in the northbound direction and PM peak in the southbound direction. It is anticipated that when Chisholm Trail Parkway opens for traffic that the volumes on Bryant Irvin will be reduced and the facility will operate at an acceptable level of service. Developments Impact on Thoroughfare System The proposed Waterside mixed-use development is anticipated to generate 1,431 net new trips during the AM peak hour and 1,918 net new trips during the PM peak hour. These trips are divided among seven different access points the Waterside Multi-Use Development TIA Executive Summary Recommendations October 2013 Fort Worth, Texas Page 1

31 serve the development. The net new trips would represent on average an approximate 46% increase of traffic on Bryant Irvin during the AM peak period and an approximate 40% increase during the PM peak period. This increase is based on existing volumes and does not consider the anticipated shift of traffic that will occur when Chisholm Trail Parkway opens. Mitigation Recommendations The traffic study completed for the Waterside Multi-Use Development included the following recommendations for improvements: Signalize Bryant Irvin Road and Arborlawn Drive: A bridge is being constructed across the proposed Chisholm Trail to connect Arborlawn Drive from Bryant Irvin Road to Hulen Street. It is anticipated that 30% of the traffic to this development with come from Chisholm Trail Parkway to Arborlawn. Install Turn Lanes at Bryant Irvin Road and Arborlawn Drive: Provide an exclusive southbound right-turn lane and exclusive northbound left-turn lane. These additional turn lanes will help maximize the capacity on Bryant Irvin Road. Retime Signals along Bryant Irvin Road Restripe Bellaire Drive to include a dedicate eastbound left-turn lane at the intersection with the proposed street from the proposed development. Consider a potential signal at the north median opening along Bryant Irvin Road between Edwards Ranch Road and Arborlawn Drive: A traffic signal may not be warranted right away at the north median opening but this intersection should be monitored for a future signal need. The future signal will aid in dispersing the traffic within the commercial area od the Waterside Multi-Use Development. When a signal is warranted, the traffic signals between Edwards Ranch Road and SH 183 should be coordinated These mitigation improvements are illustrated on the attached Exhibit from the traffic study. Waterside Multi-Use Development TIA Executive Summary Recommendations October 2013 Fort Worth, Texas Page 2

32 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: From: Ed Gallagher, CFM Planning Director City of Benbrook Jeff Whitacre, P.E., AICP, PTP Hugo Morales, P.E. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Project ) TBPE Firm No. F-928 Date: March 6, 2014 Subject: Bellaire Drive Impact Memo - Waterside Development Benbrook, Texas Introduction The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the impacts of the proposed Waterside Development to Bellaire Drive in the City of Benbrook, Texas. This memorandum is supplemental to a full traffic impact analysis (TIA) previously submitted to the City by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. The proposed Waterside Development is located on the west side of Bryant Irvin Road, between Edwards Ranch Road / River Park Drive and Bellaire Drive / Country Day Lane in the City of Fort Worth, Texas. The development is anticipated to include 800 multi-family dwelling units (400 units south and 400 units north of the Oxbow), 95 residential townhomes, 150 hotel rooms, 150,000 square feet of general office, and 185,000 square feet of retail. The development is anticipated to have six (6) access points along Bryant Irvin Road and one (1) access point along Bellaire Drive. This memo focuses on the access point along Bellaire Drive The proposed access driveway along Bellaire Drive is located within the corporate limits of the City of Benbrook. Bellaire Drive is identified as a collector facility on the City of Benbrook Master Thoroughfare Plan and is constructed to its ultimate cross section. The location of this driveway is immediately east of the walking/biking trail shown in Figure 1. Waterside Development Bellaire Drive Impact Memo March 2014 Benbrook, Texas

33 Figure 1. Bellaire Drive Proposed Access Location Thoroughfare Capacity Analysis Figure 2 illustrates the Build Out Background and Build Out volumes that are anticipated at the proposed driveway and Bellaire Drive. Figure 2. Volumes at Bellaire Drive and Waterside Driveway Build Out Background (2018) Build Out (2018) Waterside Development Bellaire Drive Impact Memo March 2014 Benbrook, Texas

34 A thoroughfare capacity analysis was performed to evaluate the impacts of the proposed Waterside Development on Bellaire Drive. The thoroughfare capacity analyzes segments immediately east and west of the proposed driveway. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 1. As shown in the results, Bellaire Drive is anticipated to operate at level of service (LOS) D or better during the AM and PM peak hours in Build Out (2018) conditions. Bellaire Drive is projected to operate on the border between LOS C and LOS D. Benbrook attempts to achieve a minimum LOS C wherever possible and costeffective. As a result, it is recommended to re-stripe Bellaire Drive to include an eastbound left-turn lane. The additional turn lane will increase the capacity along Bellaire Drive and will result in a better level of service. Table 1 - Bellaire Drive Thoroughfare Capacity Analysis Roadway Segment Direction Class (Section) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Vol V/C Ratio LOS Vol V/C Ratio LOS Bellaire Drive Bellaire Drive Bellaire Drive SH 183 to Bryant Irvin (near proposed drive) SH 183 to Proposed Drive Proposed Drive to Bryant Irvin Background (2018) Analysis EB A, B A, B Collector WB A, B A, B Build Out (2018) Analysis EB A, B A, B Collector WB A, B C EB D A, B Collector WB A, B D Intersection Capacity Analysis An intersection capacity analysis was performed for the intersection of Bellaire Drive and the Waterside Development access driveway in Build Out (2018) conditions. It is projected that the Waterside Development is projected to generate 265 turning movements in the AM peak hour and 305 turning movements in the PM peak hour at the intersection of Bellaire Drive and the proposed Waterside driveway. The intersection capacity results are presented in Table 2. As shown in the results, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS B or better. Note 1: Delay is reported in seconds / vehicle. Table 2 - Build Out (2018) Intersection Capacity Analysis INTERSECTION Bellaire Drive at Full Access Driveway APPROACH AM Peak Hour DELAY LOS (Sec/Veh) PM Peak Hour DELAY LOS (Sec/Veh) SB Approach 12.2 B 13.5 B EBL Approach 7.5 A 8.3 A Waterside Development Bellaire Drive Impact Memo March 2014 Benbrook, Texas

35 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis A peak hour signal warrant analysis was performed for the intersection of Bellaire Drive and Waterside Driveway during the AM and PM peak hours. The nearest signal to this proposed location is approximately 3,200 feet east at Bryant Irvin Road. The Texas Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Texas MUTCD) defines nine (9) warrants, or justifying set of conditions. At least one of these warrants should be satisfied before signalization is considered as an option for traffic control. Factors considered in the evaluation of these warrants include vehicle and pedestrian traffic volumes, the number of traffic lanes, the prevailing traffic speeds, and traffic crash experience. For this traffic impact analysis, only the peak hour warrant (Warrant 3) will be analyzed. Based on the signal warrant analysis, a signal is not warranted at the intersection of Bellaire Drive and the Waterside Driveway during the AM and PM peak hours. The signal warrant worksheet is included in the Appendix. Multi-Way Stop Analysis A peak hour multi-way stop analysis was performed for the intersection of Bellaire Drive and Waterside Driveway during the AM and PM peak hours. The Texas Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Texas MUTCD) decribes the following for guidance of when to install multi-way stops: 1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day; and 2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour; but 3. If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major-street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Items 1 and 2. Based on the projected volumes and projected intersection capacity analysis (Table 2), a multi-way stop is not projected to be needed at this intersection. As the Waterside Development begins to approach build out we recommend revaluating the Bellaire Drive and Waterside Driveway intersection based on actual volumes and delay to determine if a multi-way stop is an appropriate application. Waterside Development Bellaire Drive Impact Memo March 2014 Benbrook, Texas

36 Summary of Impacts The Waterside Development is projected to generate 265 turning movements in the AM peak hour and 305 turning movements in the PM peak hour at the intersection of Bellaire Drive and the proposed Waterside driveway. Upon performing a thoroughfare capacity analysis, it was found that Bellaire Drive will operate at or better than LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours in Build Out (2018) conditions. An intersection capacity analysis was also performed, projecting that the intersection of Bellaire Drive and the Waterside driveway will operate at LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Recommendations Based on the projected increase in traffic volumes, the following are recommended: Re-stripe Bellaire Drive to include an eastbound left-turn lane. Provide two exit lanes from the Waterside Development. Although a multi-way stop intersections is not projected to be needed, we recommended that as the Waterside Development begins to approach build to reevaluate the Bellaire Drive and Waterside Driveway intersection based on actual volumes and delay to determine if a multiway stop is an appropriate application These improvements are illustrated in the exhibit included in the Appendix. Waterside Development Bellaire Drive Impact Memo March 2014 Benbrook, Texas

37 APPENDIX CONTENTS 1. Driveway Site Plan 2. Signal Warrant Analysis 3. LOS Analysis Reports Waterside Development Bellaire Drive Impact Memo March 2014 Benbrook, Texas

38

39 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS City/County: Benbrook 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph? (Y or N) N State: Texas Isolated community with a population of less than 10,000? (Y or N) N Analyzed by: PCK Date: 11-Feb-14 Apply 56% warrant to Warrant 1, Combination Warrant? (Y or N) N Analyzed by: KHA Major Street: Bellaire Dr Approach Lanes - Major? (1 or 2) Minor Street: Waterside Driveway Approach Lanes - Minor? (1 or 2) 2 2 Major Street Minor Street Warrant 1, Condition A Warrant 1, Condition B Warrant 1, Combination Warrant 24-Hour Volume Summary 80% of 1A 80% of 1B Total of Both Higher Volume Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor Approaches Approach Street Street Street Street Street Street Street Street 07:00 AM TO 08:00 AM % 98% 41% 196% 77% 123% 51% 245% 04:00 PM TO 05:00 PM % 61% 64% 121% 121% 76% 80% 151% Warrant 2 Warrant 3, Condition B 5% 5% 30% 10% Threshold Threshold Threshold Threshold MUTCD Figure MUTCD Figure Source: MUTCD, 2009 Edition C-1 and 4C-2 4C-3 and 4C-4 Created By: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Summary Summary Summary Summary Summary Summary TOTAL 0 TOTAL 0 TOTAL 1 TOTAL 0 TOTAL 0 TOTAL 0 Met? NO Met? NO TOTAL 0 Met? NO Met? No Met? No COMMENTS/NOTES: COMMENTS/NOTES:

40 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis BUILD-OUT (2018) CONDITIONS 15: Bellaire Drive & Project Drive 6 AM PEAK HOUR Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume vc1, stage 1 conf vol vc2, stage 2 conf vol vcu, unblocked vol tc, single (s) tc, 2 stage (s) tf (s) p0 queue free % cm capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right csh Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS A B A Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 WATERSIDE DEVELOPMENT TIA FEBRUARY 2014

41 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis BUILD-OUT (2018) CONDITIONS 15: Bellaire Drive & Project Drive 6 PM PEAK HOUR Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume vc1, stage 1 conf vol vc2, stage 2 conf vol vcu, unblocked vol tc, single (s) tc, 2 stage (s) tf (s) p0 queue free % cm capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right csh Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS A B A Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 WATERSIDE DEVELOPMENT TIA FEBRUARY 2014

42 DATE: March 13, 2014 City of Benbrook Planning and Zoning Commission REFERENCE NUMBER: Z SUBJECT: Rezoning portions of Brookside Addition at Benbrook Field, Phase II PAGE: 1 of 3 SUBJECT PROPERTY: A acre tract in the C.A. Kuykendall Survey Abstract Number 890 LOCATION: AREA: CURRENT ZONING: CURRENT USE: LAND USE PLAN REFERENCE: PROPOSED ZONING: OWNER: APPLICANT: Planning Area D, west of Vista Way, north of Westpark Addition, and south of Brookside Addition Phase I (proposed Brookside Addition Phase II) acres BR-PD One-Family Reduced Planned Development District (Ordinance Number 1239 with expired PD regulations) Vacant Residential, Low Density, Single Family BR-PD One-Family Reduced Planned Development District with new PD regulations Bo Peek, LTD. Southlake, Texas City of Benbrook HISTORY In August 2007 the current BR-PD One-Family Reduced Planned Development District zoning with specific PD standards including reduced combination sideyard standards and increased floor space area requirements was approved. The BR-PD zoning designation established with Ordinance 1239 in August 2007 remains in effect, but the particular PD regulations have expired. Prior to the August 2007 BR-PD District zoning the property was rezoned to BR District in September Before the 2004 rezoning, the property had been zoned SD Suburban District since August Before the 1977 rezoning, the property was zoned A One-Family District. At the December 12, 2013 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the application from the property owner to re-establish the expired PD standards for the reduced combination side yards and increase floor areas. During the public hearing, several home owners in Brookside Addition Phase I expressed concern that the PD architectural standards established by home builders in Phase I were not part of the proposed application in Phase II. Barry Hudson of Dunaway Associates, the agent for the applicant, explained that Bo Peek Ltd. developed Phase I and is also the developer of Phase II. The specific architectural styles included in the Phase I PD standards were requested by the home builders that purchased the Phase I lots. After the public hearing, the applicant s agent, Dunaway Associates, agreed to meet with the Phase I owners to discuss possible deed restrictions. The Commission continued the Z consideration until the January 9 and February 13, 2014 regular meetings to allow the applicant and the Phase I property owners to meet and discuss the application. DISPOSITION: APPROVED OTHER (DESCRIBE) DATE:

43 The meeting between the developer s agent and the Phase I owners occurred on February 6th, At the February 13 Commission meeting, the developer s agent reported that the developer is willing to include architectural standards in the Phase II deed restrictions that will be compatible with the Phase I PD architectural standards and requested the Commission approve the request to restore the expired PD standards for Phase II as they were approved with Ordinance 1239 in After considerable discussion among the Commission, the developer s agent, the Phase I owners, the staff regarding the merits of using deed restrictions or PD zoning to address the architectural standards, the Commission denied the restoration of the expired PD standards for Brookside Phase II by a 6 to 3 vote. Following the denial, the Commission approved a motion by a unanimous vote to recommend that the City Council direct that a City initiated rezoning of the Phase II property be processed that will apply the Phase I PD standards in Ordinance 1233, with the period architectural style, to the Phase II site. At the March 6, 2014 meeting the City Council received the February 13 Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation that the City initiate rezoning of the Benbrook Phase II site to BR- PD One-Family Reduced Planned Development District with the same PD standards including the period architectural style (Ordinance 1233) that apply to Brookside Phase I. The City Council authorized the City-initiated rezoning of Phase II presented as zoning case Z PLANNING REVIEW The City Planning Staff has reviewed the City initiated zoning application and offers the following comments: 1. The City-initiated rezoning of the 25-plus acre Brookside Phase II site includes the same specifications contained in Ordinance 1233, attached, that regulates Brookside Phase I, including the period architectural provisions and would totally replace the Ordinance 1239 expired PD standards on the Phase II site. 2. At the December 12, 2013 meeting, the Commission approved the accompanying 84-lot preliminary plat of Brookside Addition Phase II. 3. The recent application (Z-13-09, December 12, 2013) to restore the expired PD standards on the 25-plus acre Brookside Phase II site included a Development Schedule in accordance with Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance and projected the Brookside Phase II infrastructure construction to occur in 2014 and 2015 with residential construction to start in The Z application also requested that the PD standards become permanent after the issuance of the first building permit for a house in the development. Although the PD standards of the Z application were denied, it is staff s opinion that the development schedule presented with the Z case, including the PD standards becoming permanent after the first house permit, continues to have merit with the current City-initiated application and should be a part of the Z consideration. 4. Section of the Texas Local Government Code requires that Zoning regulations must be adopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan. The proposed rezoning is compatible with the Land Use Element in that the proposed zoning with restored PD regulations fits the Low Density Residential category 5. The Comprehensive Plan also notes in Section 6.3.1, Protection of Existing Neighborhoods, that New Construction in infill areas and adjacent undeveloped areas should be compatible with the existing neighborhood. The proposed PD requirements, floor area, height, front yard, rear yard, side yard, and lot covereage requirements will be compatible with the singlefamily zoning in the area. Z March 13, 2014 Rezoning Brookside, Phase II Page 2 of 3

44 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend the City Council approve the Z rezoning application of acres in the C.A. Kuykendall Survey Abstract Number 890 from BR-PD One- Family Reduced Planned Development District with expired PD regulations to BR-PD One-Family Reduced Planned Development District with the same Planned Development standards specified in Ordinance Number 1233, and with the first residential permit issued within five (5) years that the Planned Development regulations not expire. Z March 13, 2014 Rezoning Brookside, Phase II Page 3 of 3

45

46