Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 1991-09-26 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 - 7:30 P. M. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman James Brock at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chairman Vice Chairman Secretary Members Alt. Member Dir. Community Dev. Building Official P & Z Coordinator James Brock David Barfield Don Bowen Ron Lueck Pat Marin Wayne Moody Barry LeBaron Steve Pence Wanda Calvert ABSENT: Don Collins Paul Miller CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1991 Mr. Lueck made the motion to approve the minutes as written. This motion was seconded by Ms. Marin and the motion carried 5-0 with Mr. Moody abstaining since he was not present at the meeting. 1 . PS 90-11 Request of Richmond Bay Development Company for Preliminary Plat of Lots 58 & 59, Block 1, Meadow Lakes Addition. This property is located on the north side of Meadow Lakes Drive at the intersection of Skylark Circle and next to the TU Electric Easement. Mr. Bob Frank came forward to represent Richmond Bay. He said he was there to answer any questions they might have, but said they had complied with all the engineer's comments. PS 90-11 APPROVED Ms. Marin made the motion to approve PS 90-11 subject to the engineer's comments. This motion was seconded by Mr. Barfield and the motion carried 6-0. -Page 2 P & Z Minutes September 26, 1991 2. PZ 91-09 Consideration of an amendment to Zoning Ordinance #1080 regarding carnivals and other special events. Chairman Brock stated that P & Z has reviewed this; requested the City Staff draw up an ordinance; sent that ordinance to the City Council and the City Council has sent it back to P & Z for additional study and review. Chairman Brock read the proposed amendment: "That Section 24.4 TEMPORARY USES AND BUILDINGS be hereby amended to insert the following paragraph: (b) Carnivals, circuses and special fund raising events sponsored by a public entity, civic or non-profit organization located within the City may be held for a period not exceeding seven consecutive days on an open site containing at least six acres in any non-residential zoning district, provided that adequate parking and sanitary facilities are made available to the satisfaction of the Building Official. No carnival or special event shall begin operation before 8:00 A.M. and operation shall cease before 11:00 P.M. on all nights except on Saturdays when the event shall cease operation at mid-night. There shall be at least 180 days between subsequent events at the same location or by the same sponsor. No reduction in any minimum zoning requirement shall be affected by such activity and the Building Official shall establish the terms and conditions for the temporary use at the time of approval." Mr. Barfield said he feels they need to look at some of the items in the ordinance. He said in the first sentence, "non-residential" should be removed because some schools are in residential zoning. Mr. Barfield said to delete "There shall be at least 180 days between subsequent events at the same location or by the same sponsor. Page 3 P & Z Minutes September 26, 1991 No reduction in any mlnlmum zoning requirement shall be affected by such activity and". He said to start a new sentence with "The Building Official shall establish the terms and conditions for the temporary use at the time of approval." Mr. Barfield said we need to make some provision for special exceptions to this ordinance. He said he would like to send it back to the City Staff to re-write this with these changes and an Appeal Process and bring it back to us at the next P & Z meeting. Mr. Lueck said the Appeal Process could be worded like this: "In the event a sponsor is dissatisfied with the Building Official's decision, the said sponsor may appeal the requested use to the Planning and Zoning Commission". Mr. LeBaron asked if the 11:00 o'clock closing time was okay. Several of the Commission members said they had no problem with the time. Mr. Lueck asked if they should in the first sentence add "bonified" public entity. He said it might need to be checked for legality. Mr. Barfield asked, under "special fund raising events", should they add "rummage sales". Chairman Brock stated that rummage sales would fall under that. He said there are so many things that could be listed under special fund raising events. He said we could not list them all. Page 4 P & Z Minutes September 26, 1991 PZ 91-09 TABLED Mr. Barfield made the motion to send PZ 91-09 back to the City Staff with our suggestions and re-write it and bring back and present it at the next scheduled P & Z meeting. This motion was seconded by Mr. Lueck and the motion carried 6-0. 3. PS 90-30 Consideration of an amendment to Subdivision Ordinance #1579 requiring masonry screening walls along major thoroughfares. Chairman Brock said there have been several meetings on this item. He asked Mr. LeBaron to explain the history of this item. Mr. LeBaron said this issue started about a year ago. He said the Commission asked City Staff to look into what other cities were doing regarding masonry screening walls. Mr. LeBaron said he found that some cities were requiring them, some did not require them, and some had construction standards for developers if they put in screening walls. Mr. LeBaron said he had a slide show for the Commission where we looked at different types of construction of these fences. He said he took Planning and Zoning's suggestions and prepared this ordinance. He said this ordinance was then submitted to the City Council for their review and on July 22nd they asked questions regarding the way you were going to apply the requirement for masonry screening walls. Mr. LeBaron said the ordinance stated that when a subdivision is developed adjacent to a thoroughfare as shown on the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan, the development would be required to construct a masonry screening wall according to these standards. He said there was concern from the City Page 5 P & Z Minutes September 26, 1991 Council that it was too liberal, to be more conservative in that approach, so they sent it back to P & Z for further study. Chairman Brock said there is concern that this amendment could create more problems than it would be eliminating and that was not P & Z's intention to do that. He said economics sometimes takes care of problems like this. He said we had concerns about fences that were built, that they would meet certain requirements and standards so they would not fall down after a few years. Mr. Barfield said he felt that requiring these on a C2U might be a little restrictive. He suggested changing it to require them on C4U or greater. Also in the design criteria, he suggested eliminating the column spacing. He said in the last paragraph it talks about it being designed by a professional engineer and the engineer should be able to tell if the columns need to be on 10 feet or 25 feet or what. Mr. Barfield said the requirement for a 4 inch opening along the bottom of the fence to allow storm water to pass could be arbitrary, if a fence is at the top of a grade and you have water shed both directions, you would not need water passing under the fence. He said he thinks they should put more burden on the structural engineer. Mr. Lueck said he also feels the 4 inch requirement should be left up to the engineer. Chairman Brock said paragraph 7 of the ordinance needs to be changed from a C2U to C4U or greater, but how should we deal with the sentence that deals with a distance of 400 feet. Page 6 P & Z Minutes September 26, 1991 Mr. Barfield said it should state if it is a distance of more than 400 feet. Mr. LeBaron said if we are going to change the requirement to C4U, we might want to change that criteria also. He said when P & Z first started talking about this, you said that any subdivision or replat that would be adjacent to a C2U or greater would have to put a masonry screening wall along the C2U or greater. He said then they felt it might become a hardship for a small subdivision with maybe 2 lots that adjoins a thoroughfare. Mr. LeBaron said they decided that if you have one street intersection or if you extend 400 feet or more, it would be required and you would be excluding the small subdivisions. Chairman Brock said he felt if they change it to a C4U, you would need the masonry screening fence. Mr. Barfield said if it backs up to a C4U, but the entrance is off a C2U and if there is no intersection, they would not have to put up a masonry fence. He said you would probably need one or the other. Mr. LeBaron said if you are on a 4 lane or larger, whether the subdivision is one lot or 50 lots, you want it masonry. Chairman Brock said it is our intent that if a subdivision backs up to a C4U, we want it masonry if it is 100 lots or if it is 4 lots or 2 lots. Mr. Barfield said if a man owns property on a C4U and he wishes to subdivide it into one or 2 lots, he doesn't feel he should have to put up a masonry fence, but if he owns Page 7 P & Z Minutes September 26, 1991 acreage like Peachtree Estates where they actually have only 2 lots on the thoroughfare, but they have a street going back. Mr. Bowen asked if Section 107 in the Design Manual, could these be changed without a change in the ordinance. Mr. LeBaron said they could. He said those are technical engineering requirements. Mr. Barfield made the motion to send this back to City Staff to change the wording from C2U to C4U or larger; anything that has to do with column spacing and restricting the design should be deleted and put it more on the back of the structural engineer. Chairman Brock said he needs a clarification on Mr. Barfield's motion. He asked if we could approve it with these changes. Mr. Barfield said he would change his motion to approve it on C4U streets or larger. This motion was seconded by Mr. Moody. Mr. Lueck asked what the changes would be. Mr. LeBaron said paragraph 7 would read as follows: "Every newly platted subdivision or re-subdivision of existing residential lots adjacent to a C4U thoroughfare or larger as shown on the prevailing Master Thoroughfare Plan shall comply with a screening wall requirement as provided in this section". Mr. Lueck asked that Mr. LeBaron read Paragraph 7 again. Mr. LeBaron read it again. Page 8 P & Z Minutes September 26, 1991 Mr. Barfield said if a person comes in with 2 or 3 acres on a C4U or greater and he wants to subdivide his lot into 2 lots, we need to make an exception to those people. He said it would not be fair for him to have to put up a masonry screening fence. Mr. LeBaron said the way you are designing this ordinance, if the subdivision is adjacent to a C4U whether it be one lot, 2 lots or more, that property line would have to have a screening wall. Mr. Barfield said that is what he is trying to exempt. He said we need different verbiage on that. He said it would be like the man on Douglas Lane who came in to replat his property into 2 lots. Mr. Bowen asked if it would be possible for him to escrow funds for the fence. He said he did not think they would want to put up a masonry fence on one lot, but the intent is you would eventually want a masonry screening fence there. Mr. LeBaron said anytime you have a property that is different from the norm, as your roll as Planning and Zoning Commission you can evalua.te that and make a recommendation to the City Council based on those facts. Chairman Brock said then we could leave the ordinance the way it is written and take the one lot subdivision into consideration. Mr. LeBaron said if you want some guidelines for some exceptions, you can put something in there. Mr. Barfield said they could put that a replat of a one lot subdivision facing a collector street is exempt. Page 9 ~P & Z Minutes 'September 26, 1991 Mr. LeBaron said the Commission has dealt with waivers and hardship cases in the past. Ms. Marin asked Mr. Barfield if he plans to amend his motion. Mr. Barfield said he would make his motion over. PS 90-30 APPROVED WITH CHANGES Mr. Barfield recommended approval of PS 90-30, change the verbiage on paragraph 7 to what Mr. LeBaron read and add the section that a replat of an existing one lot subdivision on a collector street is exempt. Mr. Moody asked where do you draw the line, one lot or 2 lots. Mr. Barfield said if you have a street intersection in a subdivision. He said the intent is not to require this on every little homeowner that comes in and replats his lot. Mr. Moody seconded the motion and the motion carried 6-0. 4. PS 91-19 Consideration of an ordinance for Detention/Retention/Decorative Ponds. Chairman Brock said this is an ordinance that the City Council sent to us for review and consideration. He said we looked at it at our last meeting and we spent some time at our workshop on it. He said it is the intention of this Commission to promote Detention/Retention/Decorative Ponds in the City; they could be very attractive and a great asset to the City, but there are some concerns of the members. Ms. Marin said we all feel it necessary and it could work to the betterment of the City, but we need to give it more study before we make any decisions. Page 10 P & Z Minutes 'September 26, 1991 PS 91-19 TABLED Ms. Marin made the motion to table PS 91-19 for the time being. This motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and the motion carried 6-0. 5. STAFF REPORT Mr. LeBaron requested the Commission mark up their proposed ordinance on Detention/Retention/Decorative Ponds, put where your concerns are and give them back to him. Mr. LeBaron said he wanted to give them an idea where they are on the Zoning Ordinance update. He said Planning and Zoning had a joint workshop with the City Council the later part of March where we talked with Dan Boutwell who gave us an analysis of the Zoning Ordinance. He said at that time, we had reviewed all the amendments that had taken place since 1984. Mr. LeBaron said Mr. Boutwell gave a critique of changes in the formats of zoning ordinances as a result of court cases and he recommended some changes in our structure. For example, our zoning ordinance contains a provision for a Flood Plain District, but now we have adopted a Flood Plain Ordinance which superseeds what is contained in the zoning ordinance, and also it conflicts with the zoning ordinance. Mr. LeBaron said Mr. Boutwell also said that our list of uses in the ordinance are somewhat vague in areas and there have been some new uses that exist that are not contained in our zoning ordinance. He said some of the language is confusing. Mr LeBaron said Mr. Boutwell will have a new proposed list of zoning uses for us to look at and he would like to get with P & Z at our next meeting and go over it with us. Mr. LeBaron said there are several ways of updating the zoning ordinance; we could have several changes or one big change. He said we hope to have a zoning update for P & Z to look at the last of next month. 'Page 11 'p & Z Minutes 'September 26, 1991 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT Don Bowen, Secretary Planning & Zoning Commission Regarding the Master Plan, Mr. LeBaron said they are about half way through the process of completing the Master Plan update. He said we should have, by the end of October, a Master Plan which will show and reflect the future of North Richland Hills. He suggested we invite the City Council to join them to look over the proposed Master Plan. He said if it is the Master Plan that best reflects the future of NRH, then by the middle of November we should be able to advertise and have a community public hearing on our Comprehensive Master Plan. Mr. LeBaron said several months ago we had an area in Diamond Loch zoned for duplex but was built as single family. He said we have another area in NRH which has the same problem. He said he will get that information to P & Z at the next meeting to see what you want to do about it. None. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M.