Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 1992-02-27 Minutes 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICIILAND HILLS, TEXAS FEBRUARY 27, 1992 - 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman, James Brock at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chairman Vice Chairman Members James Brock David Barfield Ron Lueck Don Collins Paul Miller Barry LeBaron steve Pence Don Bowen Pat Marin Wayne Moody Dir. Community Dev. Building Official ABSENT CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13, 1992 Mr. David Barfield made the motion to approve the minutes as written. This motion was seconded by Mr. Ron Lueck and the motion carried 4-0 with Brock abstaining, since he was not present at the February 13th meeting. 1. PS 92-06 Public hearing to consider an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations regarding Park Land Dedication requirements. The public hearing was opened by Mr. Brock who asked that anyone wishing to speak in favor of the proposed amendment to come forward. Mr. David Allen, 7133 Meadowpark Dr. North, asked to come forward to speak as a member of the Parks Board. He stated that the Parks Board had been studying park land dedication ordinances for some time. He encouraged the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the amendment rather than putting it off. Mr. Brock stated that this was the first time that this issue had been before the P & Z. Mr. Allen stated that it had been discussed at ever Parks Board meeting for the past six months and 2 that it would be very difficult to anticipate every problem ahead of time. Mr. Jim Browne, Parks and Recreation Director for North Richland Hills came forward to speak in favor of the proposed amendment. Mr. Browne stated that the Parks Board had been studying the issue since 1986 and that College station had been one of the first cities to develop a park land dedication ordinance. A park land dedication ordinance was a priority item in the Parks Master Plan completed during 1991. Mr. Browne indicated that few cities had experienced detrimental effects on their residential development as a result of a parks dedication requirement. In fact, Mr. Browne stated that many cities really market the park facilities obtained as a result of park dedication requirements. Homes, Mr. Browne stated, seemed to have sold faster and commanded a higher price than did homes located farther away from park facilities. Mr. Lueck asked Mr. Browne to explain the rationale for using fifty percent credit on private parks as apposed to full credit. Mr. Browne stated that the public has no way to control the types of facilities in private parks or to assure public access to private facilities. Mr. Barfield asked questions regarding the minimum width of a proposed park dedication. He felt that a better definition of the term "access" should be included. He also felt that the proposed ordinance should clarify when the park dedication fees were to be paid, i.e. either at the time of platting or at the time of obtaining a building permit. Mr. Barfield also wanted to know if detention/retention ponds were to be considered as park lands. 3 Mr. Browne indicated that some of the language in the ordinance could be revised to address Mr. Barfield's questions. Mr. Ron Lueck stated that he felt that more time was needed to review this item. Mr. Brock asked if there was anyone else wanting to speak in favor of the proposed amendment. Ms. Sharon Curry, 7949 Kendra Lane, came forward to speak in favor of the amendment. Ms. Curry favored the fifty percent credit for private parks. She liked the parks dedication ordinance because it supported the concept of neighborhood parks. Mr. Brock then asked if anyone wanted to speak against the proposal. There being none, Mr. Brock closed the public hearing and opened the floor for discussion. Mr. David Barfield stated that he was in favor of the proposal to encourage more parks in the city. He felt that more study of the proposal was needed. Mr. Lueck stated that he was in favor of a work session with the Mayor's Ad Hoc Committee. Mr. Brock asked the staff to try and set up a meeting during the latter part March. Mr. David Barfield made the motion to table PS 92-06 until a workshop with the Mayor's Ad Hoc Committee could be held later in March. The motion was seconded by Mr. Paul Miller. The motion carried 5-0. 2. PS 92-01 Consider Short Form Plat of Lot 1, Block 1, Armstrong/Barber Addition This property is located at 6609 Crane Road. Mr. David Barfield stepped down from the Planning and Zoning in order to speak in favor of the request and represented the owners of the property. He stated that 4. 4 all engineering comments had been addressed. Motion was made by Mr. Paul Miller to approve PS 92-01 as presented. Motion was seconded by Mr. Ron Lueck. The motion carried 4-0 with David Barfield abstaining from the vote. 3. PS 92-05 Consider Preliminary Plat of Spring Oaks Estates. This property is located east of Davis Blvd. and south of Sunny Meadows Addition. Mr. Terry Mitchell with the engineering firm of Carter and Burgess came forward to speak in favor of the proposal. Mr. Mitchell stated that all staff and engineering comments had been addressed. Mr. Barfield expressed concern about the need for fencing along the proposed thoroughfares in a consistent construction manner and that it be constructed to last for a long period of time. Mr. Brock reminded all in attendance that all agenda items would not be heard by the City Council until March 23rd because the March 9th council meeting was cancelled. Motion was made by Mr. David Barfield to approve PS 92-05 subject to a fence design which could meet acceptable to the P & Z as a part of the Final Plat submittal. Motion was seconded by Mr. Ron Lueck. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF REPORT Mr. LeBaron stated that the firm Planning Resources Group had just completed a draft copy of the comprehensive master land use plan. Each member of the Planning and Zoning Commission was given a copy of the document and encouraged to review it and be prepared to offer comments at the March 12th meeting. A public hearing has been scheduled for March 12th and everyone will be 5 given the opportunity to review the comprehensive land use plan prior to it being sent to the City Council for adoption. 5. CITIZEN COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. CHAI [) æ -'/ '" / '¡ .,- .;.# - _I""; , I ~ lLJ ~~ · !:;JLlJtbv0 I SECRETARY DON BOWEN