Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 1982-12-09 Minutes · MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS DECEMBER 9, 1982 - 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, George Tucker, at 6:05 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chairman Secretary Members Alternate Member Councilman Director of Public Works/ Utilities Secretary George Tucker Marjorie Nash Don Bowen Mark Hannon Mark Wood John Schwinger Richard Davis Gene Riddle Patricia Hutson CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE #179 The Chairman opened the Public Hearing and called for those wishing to speak in favor of this request to please come forward. There being no one wishing to speak, the Chairman called for those wishing to speak in opposition to this request to please come forward. · Mr. Daryl Barrett, representing BWBM Partnership, came forward. He said they were currently developing two parcels of land close to the corner of Rufe Snow & G1enview. He stated they had sent a letter to the Planning & Zoning Commission which states their situation. He said they have submitted a preliminary plat and are prepared to use that land under the Local Retail zoning or multi-family. He said they will incur some damages if they are not allowed to develop this as a multi-family project. The Chairman stated he had the letter and it would become part of the permanent file and would be passed on to the Council. · Mr. Don Ferguson, 203 Bedford-Eu1ess Rd., came forward. He said he had no vested interest in whether the amendment to the ordinance was approved or disapproved. He said his concern was for those who had bought property with the intention of developing it into multi-family under local Page 2 p & Z Minutes December 9, 1982 . retail zoning. He said he thought the ordinance should be denied in fairness to those who have bought land with that intention. Mr. Theron Bonham, President of TLBGSC, came forward. He said he had a residential sub- division and some multi-family land. He said the proposed amendment did not affect any of his land at this time, but would affect those people who presently own land to a greater degree. He said he agreed that there should be a separation between local retail, multi- family and commercial but that it should be done from this day forward rather than on past zoning. Mark Hannon asked how he would propose that this separation be done. Mr. Bonham said it should be done from this point forward. He said it should be when property is zoned rather than that which has already been zoned and people have a planned use for it. . Mr. Mike Carrancejie came forward. He said he had a vested interest in the City of North Rich1and Hills. He said at this point and time he had a 95-acre development, is working on a contract for some land to be developed multi-family and is interested in relocating in the City. He said he would like to see the City Council and the City look at this with an objective view. He said that in digging through the City records he found where it stated that this property was zoned local retail with the intent for a multi- family development with some retail. He said he had some developers looking at it as multi-family property. He said he felt that there had to be a better way to do it. He said he thought this was an important issue and it was an issue that should be addressed when the Commission addresses a complete review of the Zoning Ordinance. He said he thought the City was rushing into this and he would like to see the interest of all parties represented fairly. He said he thought most people have gone far enough into their projects and are at the point of asking for a building permit. . Page 3 p & Z Minutes December 9, 1982 . Mr. Hannon asked him how many acres he had and the location. Mr. Carranceji said there were 30 acres located directly across from Rich1and High School. Chairman Tucker asked if he was saying it was a burden for these people to have to come in and request multi-family zoning. Mr. Carranceji said that based on recent past events he thought it would be impossible for them to obtain multi-family zoning through the City Council at this time. . Mr. Bill Dunn came forward. He said he was a partner in a company called Mintex. He said he owned six acres of land on Rufe Snow and Browning Drive which he was in the process of building a shopping center on. He said his company did not have any more land zoned local retail in North Rich1and Hills but that he had been working in North Rich1and Hills for the last 2~ years and had been fortunate enough to add eight million dollars worth of tax base to the City. He said that during that period of time he has become accustomed to the concept of the zoning the City has. He said he could appreciate the Commission's desire to do whatever is best for the citizens of North Richland Hills and he would expect them to do that. He said he had served on the City Council in Eu1ess and understands their desire to do what is best for the City as a whole. He said he has been working extensively in the past six months with national retailers around the country trying to get them to locate in his shopping center. He said they tell him there is not quite enough roof tops, especially not enough multi-family. He said he was glad to hear from developers that multi-family was under- way. He said in real estate sales and development it takes years to bring something to the point where you are able to obtain a building permit. He said he has worked with other cities who also went from pyramid zoning to specific use zoning. He said he knew Planning & Zoning was looking at a whole new concept of zoning but this . Page 4 P & Z Minutes December 9, 1982 . amendment looks a little bit hasty and impulsive and it scares him. He said he would appreciate it if the people could have a little input into it and that he would like to see them move wisely. Mr. Jack Roseberry, 8912 Martin Drive, came forward. He said he was here as a citizen, was Chairman of the Zoning Board of Adjustments but was not speaking for the Board, and is a realator. He said that these things scare him when they come up this quickly. He said it appears to be an effort to thwart the development of two or three particular projects. He said he thought that if there is a need for change it needs to be studied. He said he agreed with Mr. Bonham. He said that change in zoning shouldn't be retroactive and that the people should know what is going on now and not after they have bought and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars. . Mr. John Marin, 6521 Briley, came forward. He said he and his wife own a real estate company in North Richland Hills. He said their position was one of responsibility in that there is no argument against planned development. He said he thought the planned transition should be more thought out prior to investing; that parties need to know what they are getting into. He said he felt this came up very quickly. He said he was for planned development but thought it should be given more thought. , Mr. John Cook, representing Cross Roads Development, came forward. He said they were the owner of one of the tracts of land that would be affected by this zoning change. He said they have spent a considerable amount of money to improve their land. He said that as a citizen and a property owner he feels the need for planning. He said he thought that some of the land that is affected is probably not suitable for anything but multi- family. He said that as a property owner he suggests the Commission put this back with the material being considered with the new Zoning Ordinance and give it more time and give the people as landowners the opportunity to participate. . Page 5 p & Z Minutes December 9, 1982 . Mr. Wood asked how long it would take for the apartment projects to get to the point where a building permit could be issued. Mr. Cook said from 90 to 120 days for them to go through the platting process with the City. Mr. Wood asked how long after they had done the engineering, etc. Mr. Cook said six months to one year. . Mrs. Sam Hudgins came forward. She said she and her husband own land on the corner of Hightower & Rufe Snow. She said they bought it twenty-eight years ago and due to the advice of an ex-city manager had it zoned local retail because of the broad category. She said it was zoned local retail unanimously by the P & Z and the City Council at which time Dick Faram was Mayor. She said they had a buyer, the economy cut back and he backed out. She said they were then reappraised and they went before the Board of Equalization and asked them to lower their taxes but they said they couldn't because it was zoned local retail. She said in 1979 they were told there was no water so no permits could be issued, but that when TRA was in they could build multi-family. She said interest was then so high nobody was interested. She said they now have a contract for their land to be developed into apartments. She said the City is now wanting to take the apartments away from them. She said they had their land zoned 13 years ago with the understanding of what they could do with it. She said a month ago they were again told they could build apartments on it and a contract was signed. She said she was asking the Commission not to go retroactive. She said she could understand things have to change; that Fort Worth had the same problem, but they gave their present landowners seven years to develop their land and get it approved but no future zoning could go local retail. . Mr. Delbert Stembridge, 5213 Cloyce Ct., came forward. He said that as a citizen of North Richland Hills he thought it was unfair to remove usage from land already zoned. He said they were not doing anything . . . Page 6 p & Z }1J.,nutes December 9, 1982 about the other things that come under local retail. He said it appears that this has been singled out in an effort to stop a potential apartment project up close to Richland High School. He said he was asking the Board to put it back and evaluate it at the same time the new zoning ordinance was taken care of. Mr. Charles Holbrook came forward. He said he was an apartment builder, developer, and owner. He said he might be the one that is responsible for this amendment. He said he had under contract ten acres from Cross Road Development. He said they signed the contract for this land in July of this year and have been working with the City since then. He said over the last week they have seen the proposed ordinance being some- what thrust in their face without any previous knowledge. He said he felt it was unfair for them to have spent a great deal of time and effort in developing what they believe is a quality project. He said they recognize the Commission~5 responsibility to improve the City as part of their job, but that there has to be a sense of fairness about it. He said he was not opposed to the ordinance, but was opposed to the way it was brought about, the timing of it, and tying it to the building permit. He asked the Commission to consider the timing of the event. He said they want to build a good project and hope that the Commission will delay, table or provide some mechanism for those who have made financial commitments. Mr. Wood asked how long they had been working on the contract and the time period involved. Mr. Holbrook said the contract was signed in July. He said they have had Board of Adjustment meetings and yesterday tried to submit an application for a plat but was refused. He said without being able to file for a plat it was hard to say. Mr. Wood asked what the time period would be in normal circumstances. Mr. Holbrook said they should be able to permit around 90 to 120 days. Page 7 P & Z Minutes December 9, 1982 . Mark Wood asked why they were refused. Mr. Holbrook said their engineer submitted an application yesterday for platting and was told no plats were being taken until December 31. He said the City told him they would take it but they would have to date the check and application December 31 because of state law. Mr. Gene Riddle explained that an application cannot be filed unless it is 30 days or less before the next Planning and Zoning hearing date. He explained that there is a law that states if an application is not acted upon within 30 days it is automatically considered approved for lack of action. . Mr. Larry Schuelman came forward and said he was a real estate broker in Dallas and was representing the Hudgins on their property. He said he concurred with the comments made here. He said that due to the size of their tract it would be infeasible to develop the tract other than multi-family use in its entirety. He said the local retail zoning was a strong motivation toward the purchase and contract of this property. He said if this is changed it would probably cancel the contract. . Mr. Bob Brady, 7600 Mary Drive, came forward. He said he was a citizen, a landowner and a real estate broker in North Richland Hills. He said the people he dealt with are investors and land developers. He said there must be continuity in government of law and ordinances. He said if this amendment is passed continuity would be destroyed. He said that several months ago a comprehensive plan was prepared by Snyder & Associates. He said he didn't have any problem in getting away from the pyramid zoning, but he didn't agree with the way it was being gone about. He said contracts will be lost and development money that has been committed can't be recovered. He said the City has the responsibility to conduct itself in such a manmer that it doesn't cost the citizens. He said this appears to be a class action type of thing. He said he felt that denial of right of one is a denial of the rights of all of us. He said he was urging the Commission to de~y this amendment. Page 8 P & Z Minutes December 9, 1982 . Mr. Terry Sisk, 5133 Davis Blvd., came forward. He said he was representing Northeast Construction Company. He said they own 125 acres. He said it would be difficult to expand or add to anything that had already been said. He said the first time he heard about this amendment was yesterday. He said that prior to that he had no knowledge of any of the changes. He said he had been in business in North Richland Hills for eighteen years and would like to stay here but it will be difficult to do if the City doesn't work with them. He said he was definitely against this change. Mr. Wood asked if the property was one tract of land. . Mr. Sisk said they have property that was purchased several years ago that they felt would be a good investment one day. He said they have 35 acres on Rufe Snow that is local retail. He said he was requesting that the people have more information from the City when a change is planned. Mark Wood asked Councilman Davis to address the issue on behalf of the City Council. Councilman Davis said he didn't mind glvlng his views but he couldn't speak for the City Council. Mark Wood said what he meant was what his personal feelings were. Chairman Tucker said he could probably address the issue for Councilman Davis. Mark Wood asked what was the purpose, in light of the fact that the Zoning Ordinance was being changed, to single out this one issue. . Chairman Tucker said it might appear to a lot of people that it was singling out. The Chairman said the P & Z Commission did have quite a few sessions with the citizens especially when Wayne Snyder & Associates were working and planning with the City. Page 9 p & Z Minutes December 9, 1982 . He said they had a lot of complaints from the citizens concerning local retail zoning and that the primary reason for local retail was shopping centers. He said the Commission made a recommendation to Council then that they study the situation not even thinking about a new Zoning Ordinance. He said many people thought local retail was local retail and as a Commission they thought the zoning should be what it really is. He said since then the Commission was asked by the Council to change the Zoning Ordinance. He said this was a combination of that request that was made almost a year ago. He said he agreed with some of the speakers in that a large ordinance should take some time. He said in this specific case you are talking about six to eight months and where do you cut it off to make it fair. . Mr. Mike Carranceji stated he was concerned because it affects him directly today and it affects him directly and indirectly in the future. He said it concerned him that people who are directly affected received no notice. He said it concerned him that it was conducted in ten days time. He said it concerns him that Local Retail zoning has fifty plus uses and only one of the uses is pinpointed and eliminated at a time the use is before the City being considered. He said in checking back through the records for the last thirteen years, there were many tracts changed from agriculture to local retail in 1968. He said these tracts were changed on the advice of the City Staff. He said he would like to see the Commission table this amendment or put it back and consider it with the new Zoning Ordinance as a whole. Mr. Bob Brady asked if at the City Council hearing would the amendment be heard as it was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Chairman said whether the Commission recommends it or not, it will still be heard by the City Council. . Mr. Brady asked if the Commission denied the amendment, would the Council have to have a two-thirds majority or simple majority to approve it. . . . Page 10 P & Z Minutes December 9, 1982 The Chairman said he wasn't for sure. Mrs. Hudgins asked what about the purchasers that come to the City Hall and are told they can do something and they go ahead with their plans and are then told they can't. Mark Hannon said he would like to say for the City Staff that they don't make the policies they just enforce them. He said the City Staff doesn't necessarily have that information and cannot advise people on the basis of speculation. Terry Sisk asked how the people can present their opposition to Council if there is no public comment. Chairman Tucker said theDe would bea public hearing. Councilman Davis said that public hearings are heard in all zoning cases. Chairman Tucker said on an ordinance there has to be a public hearing by state statute. Councilman Davis said there was also a citizen presentation on every agenda. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition. There being no one wishing to speak, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Mr. Wood asked if the timing of this ordinance was specifically set to pinpoint certain projects to try and stop them or was the intent of the ordinance the accumulation of many months of work. The Chairman said he was assuming that it was a combination of the push that Planning and Zoning put on the Council some time ago. Mark Hannon said it was not the Commission's charge or obligation to be fair. He said the Planning & Zoning Commission is charged with the health, safety, moral and general welfare of the public ,and that is all that they need to be looking at when they make Page 11 P & Z Minutes December 9, 1982 · · · this decision. He said secondly, apartments are an emotional issue and citizens get upset. Thirdly, he said he has been thinking for some time that most local retail zoning applications are an intent to make a run on the Zoning Ordinance to obtain local retail zoning for multi-family use. He said he thought what they would like to do is to stop Local Retail zoning from this point forward from being used as multi- family purposes. He said he was not aware of any specific project they were trying to stop. He said his recommendation was that the Commission pass this ordinance subject to: (1) any property zoned mutli-family after today not be allowed in local retail zoning; (2) the stipulation that it be changed to one year from the date of its passage to give the people in the process of putting together a land plan time to finance it; (3) a one year time limit on the ordinance after that point: Chairman Tucker stated that the Commission was making a recommendation to the Council and a recommendation only. Mr. Bowen stated he agreed with Mr. Hannon's recommendation. Mr. Hannon moved that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend this ordinance to the City Council with the recommendation that they revise the wording to reflect that property not zoned local retail at the date of the passage of the ordinance be subject to the ordinance effective immediately, and property zoned local retail at the date of the passage of the ordinance be subject to the ordinance one year from the date of the passage. Mr. Wood seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 5-0. The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m. ~~c. ~r Chairman - Planning & Zoning Commission ·ng Commission