Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 1984-07-26 Minutes ~ . MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS JULY 26, 1984 - 7:30 P. M. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Acting Chairman, Don Bowen, at 7:35 P. M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Acting Chairman Secretary Members Don Bowen Marjorie Nash Mark Hannon Mark Wood Mayor Pro Tem Engineer Tech. p & Z Coordinator Richard Davis Greg Wheeler Wanda Calvert ABSENT: Chairman Alt. Member George Tucker John Schwinger CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF JULY 12, 1984 Ms. Nash made the motion to approve the minutes as written. This motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and the motion carried 4-0. . 1. Request for Variance Request of Hubert Hawkins for a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance which requires the installation of a drainage channel. He wishes to plat without this requirement. Delbert Stembridge, Consulting Engineer, came forward to represent Mr. Hawkins who was in the audience. . Mr. Stembridge said it was not that Mr. Hawkins did not wish to take care of the 10 year flood, but he does not wish to put in a concrete lined channel. Mr. Stembridge said Mr. Hawkins has a small piece of land he wishes to plat into two lots and build a home on one lot. He said they submitted plats and engineering for the lots, but the City Staff sent them back stating they would have to install a concrete channel. Mr. Stembridge said Mr. Hawkins felt the ~ Page 2 P & Z Minutes July 26, 1984 . $35,000 it would cost would be a hardship on him since he only has two lots. Mr. Stembridge said they had planned to construct an earthen channel. . Mr. Hannon read from the Subdivision Ordinance regarding variances: "The Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend and the City Council may authorize a variance from these subdivision regulations when, in its opinion, undue hardship will result from requiring strict compliance. In granting a variance, the Council shall prescribe only conditions that it deems necessary to or desirable in the public interest. In making the findings herein below required, the Council shall take into account the nature of the proposed use of the land involved, existing uses of land in the vicinity, the number of persons who will reside or work in the proposed subdivision, and the probable effect of such variance upon traffic conditions and upon the public health, safety, convenience and welfare in the vicinity. No variance shall be granted unless the Council finds: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; and 2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; and 3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area; and 4. That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance. Such finds of the Council, together with . ~ Page 3 p & Z Minutes July 26, 1984 . the specific facts upon which such findings are based, shall be incorporated into the official minutes of the Council meeting at which such variance is granted. Variances may be granted only when in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance so that the public health, safety and welfare may be secured and substantial justice done. Pecuniary hardship to the subdivider, standing alone, shall not be deemed to constitute undue hardship." . Mr. Stembridge said substantial work is being done by the City to construct a drainage channel in this area. He said his client felt it would cause undue hardship to have to bear this expense for such a small area. Mr. Stembridge said until the entire channel is done, they do not feel they should be required to install this small area of the channel. Mr. Hannon asked if Mr. Hawkins would be willing to escrow money or sign a covenant to pay for this channel when it is built. Mr. Stembridge said his client would agree to sign a covenant if the adjacent property owners would also be assessed. Mr. Hannon stated the Commission's responsibility is to see that the subdivision requirements are met; if funding is required or how it is paid is up to the City Staff. Mr. Stembridge said they did not feel it would be fair if only one property owner, Mr. Hawkins, were assessed. Mr. Wood asked Mr. Hannon if he felt the Commission should act on this request. . . . . ~ Page 4 P & Z Minutes July 26, 1984 Mr. Hannon said the Commission has the authority to grant variances, but he felt they should not grant this one. He said Mr. Hawkins should submit the plat and plans for review. Mr. Stembridge said they prepared the plans, but they were rejected by the City Staff; they were not sent to the City Engineer. Mr. Wood asked if an earthen channel would be the same as the concrete channel. Mr. Stembridge said it would not, it would take care of the 10 year flood. Mr. Wood said to have to spend $35,000 on a lot that would be worth $20,000 to $25,000 would be a hardship. Hubert Hawkins came forward. He said the channel was already there when he bought the property, but he cannot afford to spend that kind of money to concrete line the channel. Mr. Hannon said he could not agree to grant a variance, but he would agree to review the plat and allow him to sign a covenant. Mr. Wood asked if the covenant could state he would pay when and if the channel is ever done. He said the City Staff has sent Mr. Hawkins here for a variance. Mr. Hannon said the Commission could request the plat be put on the agenda. Mr. Wood said if the Commission could initiate it to be put on the next agenda, he would agree. Mr. Hannon made the motion to deny the request for a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance, but not a denial of the plat. This motion was seconded by Ms. Nash and the motion carried 4-0. . . . ~ Page 5 P & Z Minutes July 26, 1984 2. PS 84-4 Request of James R. Phillips for reconsideration of a request for Short Form Plat of Lot 2, Block 32, College Hill Addition. Delbert Stembridge came forward to represent Mr. Phillips. Mr. Hannon said that in the letter of January 10th, they objected to providing fire coverage. He asked if they still do not plan to provide fire coverage. Mr. Stembridge said an adjacent property owner was supposed to install a fire hydrant, but they never did so Mr. Phillips does not feel he should have to either. Mr. Hannon said it was up to the City Staff to see that therequirements are met. Mr. Stembridge said since it had been so long in getting the plat approved, they would agree to install the fire hydrant. Mr. Hannon said since the Commission denied the plat in January because of no street frontage, the Zoning Board of Adjustment granted a variance from the 50 foot road frontage requirement. PS 84-4 APPROVED Mr. Hannon made the motion to approve PS 84-4 subject to the Engineer's comments with the exception of items 2 and 5; #2 requiring they show existing structures on plat and #5 requiring street frontage. This motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and the motion carried 3-1 with Ms. Nash voting against. 3. PS 84-66 Request of Wayne Wall Builder, Inc. for preliminary plat of Blocks 13-16, Briarwood Estates, 5th Filing. ~ Page 6 P &. Z Minutes July 26, 1984 . Acting Chairman Bowen asked the Engineer of this plat to come forward. Jim Martin, Martin Consulting Engineers, came forward. Mr. Hannon said when this property was zoned, the survey showed the property came to the corner, but had no street frontage on Meadow Road or Hightower. Mr. Martin said, by virtue of use, there is a 25 by 25 foot used right of way. He said it is utilized by the public and no one has layed claim to it for 10 years. Mr. Hannon asked about Hightower Drive. Mr. Martin said they would comply with the City's requirement. He said they would have 30 foot of pavement. . Mr. Hannon stated the new master plan requires a 68 foot right of way and the Commission needs to see that there is sufficient right of way. Mr. Martin said the existing right of way for Hightower is 60 feet. Mr. Hannon stated in excess of 36 feet in residential, if there is need for a wider street, the City would participate in over 36 feet. Mr. Martin said they are planning to build 30 feet which is more than half and the other would need to be taken from the south property owners. Mr. Hannon said there needs to be a spiral curve on Hightower and asked that they do some study on that. Mr. Hannon asked about the drainage. . Mr. Martin said the property drains to the west and he had been in contact with the adjacent downstream owner to drain it on his property. ~ Page 7 p & Z Minutes July 26, 1984 . Mr. Hannon said when the zoning was granted for this property, the Commission stated they would not approve the platting unless they were satisfied with the drainage. He said the Commission could not tell if the drainage is adequate. Mr. Martin stated there were only four people who were not cooperating in giving easements for the drainage channel. He said he was not sure when the construction on the channel would begin. Mr. Hannon said the Commission is interested in how you plan to take care of the drainage for this property. Mr. Martin said they plan to take care of the 10 year flood. . Mr. Hannon said that might be sufficient on undeveloped property, but the adjacent properties are fully developed. Mr. Hannon said he did not feel they had a good layout with Willow Lane tieing into a curve on Hightower and having the houses with driveways backing into Hightower which is a proposed thoroughfare in the master plan. He said Holiday Lane is also a collector street and should not have driveways backing into it. Mr. Hannon said there are 31 lots which front on these streets. He said he would like to see them run Holiday Lane up the west side of this property with half of the street taken off the other property owner to the west. Mr. Hannon said they could reduce the size of the lots 5 to 7 feet and not lose any lots. Mr. Wood asked Mr. Martin if this would be feasible. . ~ Page 8 p & Z Minutes July 26, 1984 . Mr. Martin said if they put the street along the west side of the property, they would have to reduce the size of the lots and would have to build a portion of the street on another person's property. He said he did not feel this would be good. Ms. Nash asked why they show three Willow Lanes. Mrs. Calvert stated they would have to have a different name for each street. Mr. Martin said they could change that. Mr. Bowen said there are several lots which show off-set building lines which the Subdivision Ordinance does not allow; the building lines must be the same. . Mr. Martin said they would correct that. Mr. Wood said if they moved Holiday Lane to the west, he felt they would not lose any lots. Mr. Martin said to alige Holiday Lane with Meadow Road, the street would come to the window sill of an existing house. Mr. Wood said there should be some way to change it. He said he has problems with houses opening onto a collector street. PS 84-66 DENIED Mr. Hannon made the motion to deny PS 84-66 without prejudice. This motion was seconded by Ms. Nash and the motion to deny carried 4-0. 4. PS 84-67 Request of Southland Financial Service for replat of Blocks 46R, 48R, Lots lR-5R, Block 20, and Lots lR-5R, Block 49, Foster Village Addition, Section 11. . ~ Page 9 P & Z Minutes July 26, 1984 . Acting Chairman Bowen said since this is a replat in single family zoning, he would open the Public Hearing and call for those wishing to speak in favor of this request to please come forward. There being no one wishing to speak in favor of this request, the Acting Chairman called for those wishing to speak in opposition to this request to please come forward. There being no one wishing to speak, the Acting Chairman closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Wood stated all the Engineer's comments have been met. PS 84-67 APPROVED Ms. Nash made the motion to approve PS 84-67. This motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and the motion carried 4-0. . 5 PZ 84-52 Request of Doyne S. Byrd to rezone Lot 3R, Block 23, Clearview Addition, from its present classification of C-l (Commercial) to C-2-Specific Use-Sale of Used Autos. This property is located on the south side of Maplewood Drive at Grapevine Highway. Acting Chairman Bowen opened the Public Hearing and called for those wishing to speak in favor of this request to please come forward. Myrtis Byrd, 8320 Dude Court, came forward. She showed pictures of the area in question and the area which surrounds this area. Mrs. Byrd said they would like to put an iron fence around the property to make it look nice. She said she had spoken with two adjacent property owners who stated they did not object to this request. . Mrs. Byrd said they had owned the property for several years and had paid taxes on it and now they would like to receive some income from it. ~ Page 10 P & Z Minutes July 26, 1984 . Mrs. Byrd said they will not have any abandoned vehicles and they will keep the place clean. She said they feel this zoning would upgrade and beautify our city. Mrs. Byrd said since it is adjacent to Byrd Automotive, they feel the best use for it would be for a car lot. Doyne Byrd, 8320 Dude Court, came forward. He said he would like to ask the Commission's consideration of this request. Mr. Byrd said he did not feel there could be a better use of this property and it would not be an eyesore to the highway. Acting Chairman Bowen called for those wishing to speak in opposition to this request to please come forward. . There being no one wishing to speak, the Acting Chairman closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Wood said this is the same request that was denied previously. Mrs. Byrd said the Planning and Zoning Commission approved it the other time, but the City Council denied it. Mr. Hannon said there are other problems with this property. PZ 84-52 DENIED Mr. Wood made the motion to deny PZ 84-52. This motion was seconded by Ms. Nash and the motion to deny carried 4-0. Acting Chairman Bowen said they have the right to appeal to the City Council. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:25,P. M. . ð~c. ~r Chairman George Tucker ~ ~/~7.~~ Gj? L;?¡ ~ Secretary, ~jOrie Nash