Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2008-01-03 MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS JANUARY 3, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Randy Shiflet at 6:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Vice Chairman Secretary Ex-Officio CITY STAFF Chief Planner Assistant Planner Recording Secretary Randy Shiflet Bill Schopper Don Bowen Steven Cooper Mike Benton Kelly Gent Mark Haynes Dianna Madar Eric Wilhite Chad VanSteenberg Gina Harper 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Steven Cooper led the pledge of allegiance. Page 1 of 5; 01/03/08 P & Z Minutes 4. TR 2007-05 A Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the North Richland Hills zoning ordinance. Sec. 118-23, property zoned "LR" (Local Retail), "C-1" (Commercial), and "C-2" (Heavy Commercial), shall conform to the development standards of new commercial zoning district designations in the code. Chairman Shiflet opened the public hearing at 6:36 p.m. Eric Wilhite said that this is a request that is being brought forward to clarify issues with the public and development community as it relates to the nomenclature for the commercial zoning district. Back in the 90's when the Comprehensive land use plan was developed there was an amendment made to the zoning ordinance that changed all the property designations in chapter 118 for the district development standards from "LR", "C-1 ", "C-2" to "NS", "CS" and "HC". The zoning designations are the same although there are still properties on the zoning map there are still under the old classifications for "C-1"and "C-2". When the permitted land use table and Sign ordinances and matrixes were developed they have combined the "NS" and "LR" together so that people can see that they are related. The proposed changes simply add a small paragraph in section 118-23 to give clarification for commercial zoning to refer to the new nomenclature for the commercial designations. This will allow them to determine which section they need to look at for the development standards. Chairman Shiflet asked if the "whereas" sections are to be revised? Eric Wilhite said yes. The first whereas will be more direct stating that the City Council has reviewed the recommendations and will be holding a public hearing before said commission which is the Planning & Zoning Commission. The second paragraph won't have any changes. The third paragraph will be omitted and there will be a slight change in verbage in the fourth paragraph. Everything in the main preamble and the body of the text is correct and will remain the same. Chairman Shiflet asked if on the recommendation from staff to approve if they need to state for the whereas sections to be edited by the City Attorney? Eric Wilhite said yes. With no requests to speak Chairman Shiflet closed public hearing at 6:39 p.m. APPROVED Mike Benton, seconded by Mark Haynes, motioned to approve TR 2007-05. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Page 2 of 5; 01!03/08 P & Z Minutes 5. TR 2007-06 A Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the North Richland Hills zoning ordinance. Sec 118-152, Nonconforming uses, has been revised for clarification and to include expanded provisions for the termination of nonconforming uses. Chairman Shiflet opened the public hearing at 6:40 p.m. Eric Wilhite said that this particular amendment deals with nonconforming uses in the zoning ordinance. Primarily what it will change will be to add verbiage and text to the appeal process for how legal existing non conforming uses cease. At this particular time most of the verbiage talks about the time frame. For example, if a particular piece of property goes vacant for 6 months then the non-conforming use should cease. Although the larger issue is proving the actual intent of the owner to abandon or cease that particular use. There were a few paragraphs in the ordinance that the city attorney found redundant and would be combining those sections into one. The notice of appeal has been added which will explain the process of how someone can appeal if the city tells them that their non conformance should cease. There is also a section that goes through the process of the burden of proof or power of the board. It will establish a process that the owner will have to follow in order to prove that the use was not discontinued and if it was it would result in a taking of the property. With that it will give the city more ability to go through a due process with property owners if that legal existing non conforming use is determined to cease. Kelly Gent asked if this is a complete rewrite of this ordinance or if we are just adding certain sections to the ordinance? Eric Wilhite said that for the most part it becomes a complete repeal and then adding new as well. They have dropped one section out and the city attorney has added other sections. It will basically be repealed although the ordinance doesn't necessarily clarify that. Staff will be working with the city attorney to get the finalized ordinance completed. Kelly Gent asked how the owner's intent will play in the new section "K"? Is it taken out completely or will it still be a factor to consider? Eric Wilhite said that this is a factor to consider. Our particular mechanism is that if a nonconforming use is replaced with a conforming use they cannot go back to the non conforming use. The non conforming use has to cease. If for example a small auto dealership goes out and they change the use to an auto tint facility then if the auto tint business were to go out they could not return to the previous non conforming use as a car dealership. One of the best mechanisms for us to get a non conforming use to cease is to get a conforming use in that space. Once they have received their Certificate of Occupancy they've transferred it into a conforming use. More verbiage has been added stating that if the property has been vacant for 6 months and all the equipment Page 3 of 5; 01/03/08 P & Z Minutes for that type of business has been removed than it is assumed that the intent is for the non-conforming use to cease. The city would also be able to determine the time a business has been closed by when the water service was discontinued. Staff is working with the water department to determine a way to flag the accounts on the properties that are currently operating as non-conforming. This would allow the Planning & Inspections Department to be notified if new water service is requested at that property. Bill Schopper asked if what we were trying to do is prove the intent which would be the legal principle that would be used in court to make a case with the water service? Eric Wilhite said yes. By adding the appeal process to the determination of the zoning administrator or the building official and going through the Zoning Board of Adjustment. That will take it through the hands of the city to determine it further before it would go to court if a case would go that far. Bill Schopper said that nothing could be done with it as an ordinance because it would still end up in court if the property owner chooses to fight it. Eric Wilhite said yes. This still won't preclude that from happening but will show that we've done more of a process than just saying that the business was gone for 6 months and that non-conforming use should cease. It would be hard to actually prove intent without a determination in court. Don Bowen said that it seemed to him that just the business being closed for 6 months would be considered a discontinuation of the use. Eric Wilhite said that he agrees but it doesn't prove the intent. Just because the landowner doesn't have a tenant for 6 months doesn't mean that in the 7th month he didn't have the intent of signing another lease. Bill Schopper said that they probably would if they had found a tenant during the period of time that it was vacant. Eric Wilhite said that it could be 6 months, 8 months, a year. This basically comes down to proving the property owners intent to discontinue the non-conforming use. Bill Schopper asked if the intent principal was determined by case law of other cases? Eric Wilhite said that he would have to discuss that with the city attorney. He said that some case law and court opinions had been reviewed. It is pretty typical to have this included in zoning ordinances. Steven Cooper asked if there would be some changes to the "whereas" section on this ordinance as well? Page 4 of 5; 01/03/08 P & Z Minutes Eric Wilhite said yes. From a technical standpoint the commission is just making a recommendation. There will be edits made to the "whereas" sections but the main body of the text is correct as written. With no requests to speak Chairman Shiflet closed public hearing at 6:48 p.m. APPROVED Bill Schopper, seconded by Steven Cooper, motioned to approve TR 2007-06. The motion was carried unanimously (7-0). ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 6:49 p.m. Chairman /~ G ~~~ Randy Shiflet Secretary ~~'` Don Bowen ~ °,;,~ Page 5 of 5; 01/03/08 P & Z Minutes