Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 1991-03-14 Minutes ~ ., . MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS MARCH 14, 1991 - 7:30 P. M. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Vice Chairman James Brock. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Vice Chairman Secretary Members Alt. Member Dir. Community Dev. Building Official P & Z Coordinator James Brock David Barfield Don Bowen Ron Lueck Don Collins Pat Marin Paul Miller Barry LeBaron Steve Pence . Wanda Calvert ABSENT: Mark Wood . Vice Chairman Brock recognized the Mayor, City Council Members and City Staff in the audience. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 28, 1991 Ms. Marin made the motion to approve the minutes as written. This motion was seconded by Mr. Barfield and the motion carried 7-0. 1 . PS 91-03 Public Hearing for consideration of a revision to the Thoroughfare Plan regarding Bursey Road. . Mr. LeBaron explained that on February 11th, a group of citizens asked the council to change Bursey Road from a C4U, 4 lane collector, to a C2U, 2 lane collector. He said the council asked the Planning and Zoning Commission to look into this. Mr. LeBaron said much study has been put into this; he asked some professionals, Planning Resource Group who has been hired to update the city's Comprehensive Master Plan, Barton-Aschman Associates, Transportation Planning Consultants, and Richard Albin, engineer with Knowlton, English, Flowers, to give us their suggestions. ~ ~ Page 2 P & Z Minutes March 14, 1991 . Mr. LeBaron said when we summarized the reports, the staff now feels we should stay with a 48 foot pavement width, but stripe it for a 2-lane or a 2-lane with a middle left turning lane. He said they made a comparison with Chapman, Hightower, Watauga, and Starnes because the land use in these areas are very similar. Vice Chairman Brock stated he had some letters in favor of leaving it a C4U; they are from Lynn Warren, 7408 Bursey Road and Gene Riddle, 7832 Waterford Lane. Vice Chairman Brock opened the Public Hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak in favor to please come forward. . Dan Echols, 5016 Nevada Trail, came forward to speak against the change from C4U to C2U. He stated this road is needed to be able to handle the traffic that will be there in the future. Mr. Echols stated he talked with the Watauga folks and they are planning a 4 lane, but it is not build yet. He said it is estimated that there will be 90,000 people in North Richland Hills in the future and the traffic is going to be there whether there is a 2 lane or a 4 lane. Mr. Echols recommended they go ahead and build the 4 lane and build it as safe as possible or leave it alone and take the money and spend it on Bedford Euless Road or somewhere else. . Jay Luger, 7921 Kendra, came forward. He said if Watauga had wanted a 4 lane road, they would not have repaired their 2 lane road. He said he feels Bursey Road is the worst road in North Richland Hills, they are always out patching it. Mr. Luger suggested they go with a 2 lane now and in 10 or 15 years, if needed, go with a 4 lane. Page 3 P & Z Minutes March 14, 1991 . He said there is a curve at the entrance to his street on Bursey where he can hardly get out now, and the curve needs to be taken out. Mr. Bowen asked if he was against the 4 lanes or the pavement width. Mr. Luger said he is against the pavement width because they will lose several trees. He said just a half a mile north, they have put in a nice new road that goes from somewhere to nowhere, it does not do anything right now. He said he bought out in this area because of the cows and trees. Vice Chairman Brock said this C4U road has been on the Thoroughfare Plan since 1967. . Judith Leitner, 7332 Londonderry, a realtor in NE Tarrant County, came forward. She said most people move into this area for peace and quiet. She said when you increase traffic, you increase speed and noise level. Ms. Leitner said it effects the resale value of homes and increases crime. Al Corona, 8105 Fireside Drive, came forward. He stated he is against the C4 planning. He said if he had wanted to live in a city, he would have gone to Dallas or Fort Worth. He said he wants the peace and quiet. Mr. Corona said he lives in Ember Oaks and he does not want Bursey opened to the west, there are too many children in the area. . Konrad Roeder, 8016 Hunter Lane, came forward. He submitted 200 petitions from neighbors in the area wanting a 2 lane road. He also had pictures of the area. He said the primary arterial 6 lane road, North Tarrant Parkway, to the north of Bursey has been added to the city's Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Roeder said he is in favor Page 4 P & Z Minutes March 14, 1991 . of this road leading to Highway 35 and 360. He said Shady Grove Road was previously a C4U and was reduced to a C2U. He said Bursey Road will not need to carry the traffic they had thought it would generate. Mr. Roeder said wider roads promote speed. He said you need 200 feet of sight, but at Kandy and Hunter, you only have 150 feet of sight distance. Mr. Roeder said wider roads means more lanes to cross. He said neighbors walk their dogs, jog, ride bicycles, and there are a lot of children playing in the area. He said two large dogs have been killed because of a sight problem. . Mr. Roeder said if you widen Bursey for a 68 foot right of way, beautiful 50 year old oak trees will have to be cut down; you can not move and transplant a 50 year old tree. He said he talked with Precinct 3 and was assured that North Tarrant Parkway is going through. Mr. Roeder requested they down grade Bursey from a C4U to a C2U. He said he has not had a chance to discuss with the neighbors a 2 lane with a turning lane and he does not know their feelings on this. David Wells, 7508 Bursey Road, came forward. He said he will be the one losing most of the trees. He said he has a problem backing out of his driveway onto Bursey now. He said he travels Smithfield Road at Starnes every day and it is vary dangerous, people on Starnes have excess speed of 50 miles per hour. Mr. Wells said he has lived here for 21 years and this will destroy the value of his home. He said you don't need Bursey widened because you have North Tarrant Parkway. He said to change Bursey from C4 to C2. . Vice Chairman Brock asked if anyone had anything different to add to please come forward. Page 5 P & Z Minutes March 14, 1991 . Mike McGee, 7900 Whispering Woods, came forward. He said he is concerned about property values. He said as property values are lowered, the city loses valuable tax dollars. Mr. McGee said he is concerned about safety, kids are important. Ken Martin, 7416 Bursey Road, came forward. He said he had lived here for a long time. He said at the previous meeting, two Councilmen said they were in favor of the C2. Mr. Martin said he had heard that Bursey might swing into North Tarrant Parkway. Mr. LeBaron said you might could swing it down, but he has not heard about it. . Mr. Martin said we don't need to build Bursey for Keller's benefit. Lans Rothfusz, 7916 Kendra Lane, came forward. He said he was here to help them make a decision. He said he is a scientist, a manager and also works for the Government. Mr. Rothfusz said these studies did not mention anything about safety. He said the list of advantages of C4U falls apart. He went over each one and discredited them. Coy B. Moon, 7301 Wexford Court, came forward. He spoke in regard to the Senior Citizens Center on Bursey. He said he is surprised that someone has not been killed there. Mr. Moon said if you make Bursey larger and have more speed and traffic, it would be more dangerous. . Vice Chairman Brock called for a show of hands in favor of down grading Bursey Road from a C4 to a C2. The Chamber was almost full and most of them raised their hands. Page 6 P & Z Minutes March 14, 1991 . Vice Chairman Brock closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Barfield said he used to live in this area and at that time, there was no east-west roads. He said he feels we should work toward getting North Tarrant Parkway to go through and he believes Bursey should be down graded or just left alone and take the money and use it somewhere else. Mr. Lueck said it is a shame we didn't have these people present to push to get North Tarrant Parkway. He said North Richland Hills has tried, but it is now out of our hands. . Mr. Barfield said these people need to call the State, go to other cities like Keller and push for North Tarrant Parkway. He said Keller says if we put Bursey in, there will be no need for North Tarrant Parkway. Mr. Barfield said we need your help to put pressure on the surrounding cities to put North Tarrant Parkway through. Mr. Bowen said he agrees with Mr. Barfield and Mr. Lueck that we do need North Tarrant Parkway, but without it, we need Bursey to be 4 lanes. He said we need all the support we can get for North Tarrant Parkway. Mr. Barfield said he recommends that Bursey Road at this point, be down graded from a C4U to a C2U on the Master Thoroughfare Plan. This motion was seconded by Mr. Lueck. . Mr. Bowen said he thinks it is a little premature to down grade to a C2U since we don't know the status of North Tarrant Parkway. He said since funds have been allocated for Bursey, he would hate to see them spent elsewhere until we know what is going to happen to North Tarrant Parkway. Page 7 P & Z Minutes March 14, 1991 . Mr. Barfield said he could amend his motion to add that no action or construction be done on this road until North Tarrant Parkway becomes a reality. Mr. Barfield amended his motion to say: he makes a motion to down grade Bursey Road from a C4U to a C2U, but at this point, the construction of the C2U not be done until further studies are done on North Tarrant Parkway so we don't spend money foolishly. This motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and the vote was 2-5, Barfield and Bowen for the motion and Lueck, Marin, Collins, Brock, and Miller against the motion. The motion failed. . Ms. Marin asked for a clarification of the motion, did he mean to down grade now or pending the outcome of North Tarrant Parkway. Mr. Barfield said he meant to down grade it right now. He said we can always go back 3 years, 5 years and up grade it if it needs changing. Mr. Barfield said maybe we just need to make some repairs now and not go ahead and put in the curbs and gutters. Mr. Collins asked about the right of way. Mr. LeBaron said we will have to purchase right of way for a C2U or a C4U. Mr. Lueck said he recommends we do not do any construction until we know the outcome of North Tarrant Parkway. Vice Chairman Brock said the Council wants a recommendation from P & Z. He said we need some kind of a motion. . Mr. Barfield said his recommendation was to down grade to a C2U, just make some repairs, and not build the road at this time. Page 8 P & Z Minutes March 14, 1991 . Ms. Marin made a motion to down grade Bursey Road from a C4 to a C2 and that construction begin after more consideration. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Lueck said we can see what the neighborhood wants, but we will be tying the City's hands if North Tarrant Parkway does not go through. He said if North Tarrant Parkway does not go through, there would be an enormous amount of cars on Bursey. PS 91-03 APPROVED-CHANGE Mr. Barfield made the motion to down grade Bursey Road from a C4U to a C2U and we send it to the Council stating that no construction be done on it for 2 years. . This motion was seconded by Mr. Lueck and the motion carried 4-3 with Barfield, Lueck, Brock, and Collins for and Miller, Marin, and Bowen against the motion. 2. PZ 91-03 Public Hearing for request of Arthur E. Gordon to rezone a portion of Tracts 2A1 & 2A4, S. Richardson Survey, Abstract 1266, from their present classification of AG Agriculture to LR Local Retail. This property is located on the north side of Green Valley Drive, adjacent to 7901 Green Valley Drive. Vice Chairman Brock opened the Public Hearing and called for those wishing to speak in favor of this request to please come forward. . Arthur Gordon, 7901 Green Valley Drive, came forward. He said he moved here in 1981 and he was in residential construction and his wife was in the daycare business. Mr. Gordon said in 1984 he started construction of the building for a daycare, but the city discouraged him because it did not go with the area. Page 9 p & Z Minutes March 14, 1991 . He said the building has set dormant, used for a horse barn or for storage. Mr. Gordon said about a year and a half ago, he spoke with Mrs. Calvert and she suggested he talk with Mr. Bob Miller who came out and looked his place over and thought it was a great idea, but said at this time, it would be spot zoning. He said Mr. Miller suggested he wait until the elementary school was built. Mr. Gordon said he has kept up with the school plans and they have submitted plans to build. Vice Chairman Brock called for anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this request to please come forward. There being no one wishing to speak, he called for those wishing to speak in opposition to please come forward. . There being no one wishing to speak, Vice Chairman Brock closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Lueck asked how soon he plans to start. Mr. Gordon said he had made arrangements through Liberty Bank for a loan and if he gets the zoning, he could start right away. Ms. Marin asked had they obtained a license from the State and have they approved his plans. Mr. Gordon said yes, they have already been through the orientation. Mr. Lueck asked how many children will this take care of. Mr. Gordon said it has square footage for 38 children, but Local Retail zoning will allow for 75 kids. He said he will add on when needed. . Page 10 P & Z Minutes March 14, 1991 . Mr. LeBaron said they had one telephone call from an individual who could not be present tonight who was in opposition to this request. Mr. Barfield said the Commission needs to look at the Zoning Map in this area. He said there is commercial and retail on Davis, but you have to go north of North Tarrant Parkway to find any commercial and south of Starnes Road to find any commercial. He said this area is all residential. Mr. Lueck asked why you would want residential next to a school. Mr. Gordon said he owns 8 acres there. PZ 91-03 APPROVED Mr. Lueck made the motion to approve PZ 91-03. This motion was seconded by Ms. Marin and the motion carried 4-3 with Lueck, Marin, Collins, and Miller for and Brock, Bowen, and Barfield against. . 3. PZ 91-04 Public Hearing for consideration of an amendment to Zoning Ordinance #1080 regarding the screening of outside storage in C-2 zoning. Vice Chairman Brock opened the Public Hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of this amendment to please come forward. There being no one, the Vice Chairman called for those wishing to speak in opposition to this amendment to please come forward. There being no one, Vice Chairman Brock closed the Public Hearing. PZ 91-04 TABLED Mr. Bowen recommended this item be tabled for further study and language change. This motion was seconded by Mr. Barfield and the motion to table carried 7-0. . Page 11 p & Z Minutes March 14, 1991 . 4. PZ 91-05 Public Hearing for consideration of an amendment to Zoning Ordinance #1080 regarding Accessory Buildings. Vice Chairman Brock opened the Public Hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of this amendment to please come forward. There being no one, the Vice Chairman called for those wishing to speak in opposition to this amendment to please come forward. There being no one wishing to speak, Vice Chairman Brock closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Barfield said he thinks item "E", Section 24.7.1, of the Ordinance should be deleted. . Vice Chairman Brock stated this would allow temporary buildings to be located within an easement. PZ 91-05 APPROVED Mr. Barfield recommended approval of PZ 91-05 with the exception of item "E" of Section 24.7.1. This motion was seconded by Mr. Miller and the motion carried 7-0. 5. PZ 91-06 Public Hearing for consideration of an amendment to Zoning Ordinance #1080 regarding TV Satellite Disc Receivers. . Vice Chairman Brock read the proposed ordinance change: "Section 20.10.2-TV satellite disc receivers shall be allowed in any residential district or in the AG-Agricultural District and shall comply with the following regulations: A. No TV satellite disc receiver shall have a diameter greater than ten (10) feet. B. TV satellite disc receivers shall only be located in a rear yard and no portion of the receiver shall be less than six (6) feet from any side or rear property line. C. No TV satellite disc Page 12 P & Z Minutes March 14, 1991 . . receiver shall be located within or encroach upon any drainage or utility easement. D. No portion of a ground-base mounted TV satellite disc receiver shall extend beyond fifteen (15) feet above the existing grade and the base shall be screened from view with a six foot sight barring fence. However, a ground-pole mounted TV satellite disc receiver located adjacent to and within three (3) feet of the rear of the main structure shall be allowed provided that the bottom of the disc does not exceed eighteen inches above the eaves of the roof. Furthermore, a roof mounted TV satellite disc receiver may be located on the rear portion of a roof of a main structure, provided that it not be visible between ground level and five (5) feet above ground level when viewed from the front of the structure at a point nearest the curb line or edge of the street. E. No lettering, logo, or any form of advertising shall appear on the face or back of the disc receiver, except the name of the manufacturer or seller of the reception disc. F. Only one TV satellite disc receiver shall be allowed per lot. G. TV satellite disc receivers with a diameter of one (1) meter, or less, can be installed in a manner consistent with typical television antennas." . Mr. LeBaron passed out some drawings to better explain the ordinance. He said he divided them into 3 categories: ground mount, pole mount, and roof mount. Mr. LeBaron said a ground mount and a pole mount is basically the same except, if it is a traditional ground mount, the maximum height is 15 feet, but if on a pole, it could go up to a point that allows the bottom of the disc to be 18 inches above the eave of the house provided the pole is within 3 feet of the house. He said we are still staying with the 10 foot maximum diameter, and ~ ~ Page 13 P & Z Minutes March 14, 1991 . for a roof mount, it has to be on the rear of the roof and no roof mount can be seen above a line of sight starting at 5 feet above the street viewed from the front of the house. Vice Chairman Brock opened the Public Hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak to please come forward. Mr. Bob Wright, 4836 Wedgeview Drive, came forward. He said this ordinance would not help him, He said his disc is on the roof and you can see it from the front of the house. He said it is mounted about midway up the roof, about two-third's of the way up the roof. Mr. Wright said he did this because of trees. He said he would have to cut down some oak trees. . Vice Chairman Brock said the Commission is trying to keep it from being seen from the street. Mr. Wright said he has tons of literature on the subject. He read about a court case where an individual won against city restrictions. Mr. Lueck asked if this was State Court. Mr. Wright said it was District Court in New Jersey in 1988. He said he thinks the ordinance should be flexible enough to allow them to be mounted where necessary without having to cut down 50 oak trees. . Charles McCaslin, 5017 Ridgeview Court, came forward. He said he sees no problem with the amendment. He said his disc would fall into this category, except where it has to be 18 inches above the eave, his is a 5 inch post set in concrete and it is 21~ inches above the eave. Mr. McCaslin said it has got to be 21~ inches above in order to turn. ~ ~ ~ ~ Page 14 P & Z Minutes March 14, 1991 . Mr. Lueck asked how high his was. Mr. McCaslin said his disc was right at 15 feet high and goes above the roof 21 inches. Mr. Lueck asked what size the disc was. Mr. McCaslin said it is 10 feet. Vice Chairman Brock called for anyone else wishing to speak to please come forward. There being no one wishing to speak, the Vice Chairman closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Barfield asked if they could re-word it to say the clearance would be no greater than necessary. . Mr. LeBaron said we need some number. He said it could go to 24 inches with a 15 foot maximum height. Mr. Wright said you can't hide them; you can see Mr. McCaslin's disc from the street. Mr. McCaslin said he lives on a corner lot, but you can not see it from the front of the street. Mr. Barfield said what the Commission is trying to do is to keep them from the front yard, keep them in the back yard or on the back of the roof. He said, because of science, probably in 5 years, the antennas will be only 3 feet and the ordinance will not be needed. . Mr. Wright said he does not mind paying for a permit, he just wants his antenna. He said he thinks the ordinance should be simplified. ~ ~ ~ ~ Page 15 P & Z Minutes March 14, 1991 . Mr. Lueck asked Mr. Wright if his could be seen from the street. Mr. Wright said he does not think you can put it on the roof without seeing it. Mr. LeBaron said this sight is measured from directly in front of the house. Mr. Lueck said he doesn't think it is so bad to see one, but he would not want one in the front yard. Mr. Lueck said he would like to change the size of the disc to 12 feet in diameter and to not require a screening fence. He said the screening fence sometimes looks worse than the disc. . Vice Chairman Brock said if you have a fence around the back yard, it takes care of that. Mr. LeBaron said the staff would like to suggest the following changes: paragraph d, second sentence, change the word "and" to "or" and change the "18 inches" to "24 inches". He said the second sentence would read as follows: "However, a ground-pole mounted TV satellite disc receiver located adjacent to or within 3 feet of the rear of the main structure shall be allowed provided that the bottom of the disc does not exceed 24 inches above the eaves of the roof." Ms. Marin said we also need to change it from a "disc receiver" to "receiver Disc". PZ 91-06 APPROVED Mr. Lueck made the motion to approve PZ 91-06 with the following changes: Section 20.10.2 A. No TV satellite disc receiver shall have a diameter greater than 12 feet. D. Remove screening fence requirement; on the 5th line, change "and" to "or" and on the 7th line of . ~ ~ ~ " Page 16 P & Z Minutes March 14, 1991 . paragraph "D", change "18" inches to "24" inches. This motion was seconded by Mr. Barfield and the motion carried 6-1 with Vice Chairman Brock voting against. 6. PS 90-39 Discussion regarding the Neighborhood Preservation Plan for the area adjacent to Bedford-Euless Road. Mr. LeBaron said we have several different options. He said several have called and said they were unable to attend the two meetings we had. He said we may want to survey all the property owners by sending out a questionnaire. . Mr. Barfield said he would hope that would give us a consensus. He said at the last meeting, approximately 30% did not want to do anything and 60% wanted to do something; what if there were 50-50. Mr. Barfield said he felt we need to do some test cases; try some barricades; close some streets temporarily; see if the through traffic and vandalism gets better. Mr. Lueck said most of the people think that something must be done on Bedford-Euless and Grapevine Highway. Dan Echols came forward. He said we need to make sure they know the need for turn lanes and a signal light; ask the council to make an effort on Grapevine Highway also. Vice Chairman Brock said he feels we need to study it more. . Mr. Barfield said to have a representative from the fire and police departments at our next workshop. ~ ~ Page 17 p & Z Minutes March 14, 1991 . ADJOURNMENT . ~~ Mr. Echols said we need to also include the people on Pearl and Jennings which is a very dangerous area. Mr. LeBaron said since there are no zoning cases to be heard at the next meeting, we could schedule a workshop during the week of the 25th, maybe on Tuesday night. He said we have some other items to discuss also. Mr. LeBaron said they could decide after he talks to the planning consultant who needs to be there. Vice Chairman Brock said he has no conflict with that. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Secretary Planning & Zoning Commission .