Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 1981-04-30 Minutes . . . MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, APRIL 30, 1981, 7:30 P. M. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Carl Greenfield, at 7:35 P. M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chairman Members Carl Greenfield George Tucker Don Bowen Marjorie Nash City Staff Present: Councilman Director Public Works/ Utilities City Planner Planning & Zoning Coordinator Clerk Jim Ramsey Cecil Forester Mike Monroe Wanda Calvert Patricia Hutson NEW BUSINESS PS 81-13 Request of A. T. Adcock for preliminary plat of Briarwood Est., 4th Filing (Klondike Manor Addn.). Jack Angel came forward to represent A. T. Adcock in his request. Mr. Bowen stated he had a letter from Mr. Adcock concerning the engineer's request for a cross street. He said Mr. Adcock would like the Commission to waive the cross street. Mr. Bowen said that according to the Fire Code a cross street is required for a street of this length. Mr. Angel said when they requested the zoning previously an outlet was shown. He asked if they could just stub out on one side. He said they were closer to Hightower. Mr. Tucker said the Commission is not in a position to change or modify the Engineer's comments. He recommended that Mr. Angel take this matter up with the . . . " Page 2 P & Z Minutes April 30, 1981 Fire Department and the City Engineer prior to filing the final plat. PS 81-13 APPROVED Mrs. Nash moved to approve PS 81-13 subject to the Engineer's comments and the letter from the Public Works Director and the additional utility right of way easements. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tucker. The motion carried 4-0. PS 81-14 Request of MM Dallas Dev. Corp. for replat of Lot 2, Block 3, Industrial Park Addition. Dick Perkins came forward to represent Mr. Mar Bennett with MM Dallas Dev. Corp. He said they have received a copy of the Engineer "s comments dated April 13 and 20. He said they have submitted their plans to the South Central Railroad and they have no problem with their reply. He said in regard to Item 3, the 54" pipe has been placed underground. He said they have no problem with the first portion of Item 1, but there is a misunderstanding of what was done previously when Ohio Sealy was platted. He said Ohio Sealy was Lot 1, Block 3 and the rest was left until new industry came in. He said his client owns only this piece of property. He said there is no conflict in regards to adding more property with the plat. Mr. Perkins said in the letter dated April 20, Items 2 and 3 have been accommodated on the plans. He said they are in agreement with all items. Mr. Bowen asked if it was appropriate to delete Item 1. Mr. Perkins said he had a letter explaining this. Mr. Tucker said it really wasn ~'t an engineer's problem. He said the purpose was so the city could keep up with the land. He asked Mr. Forester what he thought. Mr. Forester said he had no problem with it. PS 81-14 APPROVED Mr. Bowen moved to approve PS 81-14 subject to the Engineer's letters of April 13, 1981 . . . Page 3 p & Z Minutes April 30, 1981 and April 20, 1981 with deletion of Item 1 in the letter dated April 13. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0. PS 81-15 Request of Stephen-Owen Co. for preliminary plat of Lot 1, Block 4, Industrial Park Addn. Dick Perkins came forward to represent Stephen~Owen. He said this was a six-acre tract of land that fronts Rufe Snow and includes the extension of Browning Drive and the intersection of Browning Drive and Rufe Snow. He said in regards to the comments of the Engineer's letter dated April 13, Item 1, 2, and 4 they have no problem with. He said Item 5 was taken care of in the final plans submitted to the City Engineer. Mr. Perkins said in regards to Item 3, he came before the City Staff and a 10 inch line was agreed to be adequate. He said he has found out since then that the Fire Chief requests a 12 inch line. He said that since a 10 inch line would be adequate for their service he requested that the city participate in the over- sizing of the line. Mr~ Greenfield said if the Commission approves this request, they would approve it subj ect to the Engineer t·s comments on the preliminary plat and negotiations could be made before the final plat is presented. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Forester if this would be a looped system. Mr. Forester said the system will be looped in several places. He said it is the city's policy to participate in the oversizing of the line. PS 81-15 APPROVED Mrs. Nash moved to approve PS 81-15 subject to the Engineer "s comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen. The motion carried 4-0. . . . Page 4 P & Z Minutes April 30, 1981 PS 81-18 Request of Cross Roads Dev. Corp. for final plat of Blocks 7, 8, & 9, Snow Heights North Addition. Delbert Stembridge came forward. He said he was a Consulting Engineer representing Cross Roads Development Corp. He said their request consists of approximately 28 multi-family lots on the west side of Holiday West with entrance on Lewis Drive. He said they take no exceptions to any of the Engineer's comments. Mr. Stembridge said concerning the additional manhole construction request in Items 2 and 3, they were going to add a field drain. He said they will have two accesses within 300 ft. and he doesn~t feel an additional manhole will be necessary. He requested this item be deleted. Mr. Tucker asked the Public Works Director if he had any comments. Mr. Forester said he would like to see a manhole but it might be sufficient. Mr. Stembridge said there is an extra 42" with field line. He said he would extend 300 ft. and install another one. Mr. Forester said he would discuss this with Richard Albin and find out. Mr. Greenfield asked if there was any problem with the sidewalks. Mr. Stembridge said there was not. PS 8l-l8 APPROVED Mr. Bowen moved to approve PS 81-18 subject to the Engineer's comments and the letter from the Director of Public Works. Mrs. Nash seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0. PS 81-19 Request of M~ J. Nicholson for rep1at of Lot lOR, Block 10, Smithfield Acres Addition.. Delbert Stembridge came forward to represent M. J. Nicholson. He said this was a simple . . . ~ Page 5 P & Z Minutes April 30, 1~81 replat so Mr. Nicholson could obtain a building permit to build a garage on an adjacent lot he presently owns. PS 81-19 APPROVED Mr. Bowen moved to approve PS 81-19 subject to the Engineer's comments. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0. DEDICATION OF LEWIS DRIVE PS 81-31 Delbert Stembridge came forward. He said Cross Roads Development Corp. would like to dedicate a 60 ft. right of way in which Lewis Drive will be constructed to city's standards. He said the city is planning to construct storm drains to help drainage on Rufe Snow and they agree that as tracts along there develop it will be constructed to city's standards. He said they have prepared field notes to TESCO as requested by Richard Albin but they haven't received a letter back yet. Mr. Tucker asked Mrs. Calvert if a covenant had been submitted. Mrs. Calvert said there had not been. Mr. Stembridge said they would submit a covenant before going to City Council. PS 81-31 APPROVED Mr. Tucker moved to accept dedication of Lewis Drive subject to the EngineerJs comments and a covenant to be executed before going to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen. The motion carried 4-0. The Chair recognized Councilman Jim Kenna. RECESS The Chairman called a recess at 8:15 P.M. BACK TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting back to order at 8:25 P. M. with the same members present. PZ 81-8 Request of Rich1and Enterprises to rezone Lots C, D, & E, Block 14, Richland Terrace Addition, 6th Filing, from the present classification of Commercial to a proposed classification of Industrial. This property is located on the east side of Page 6 P & Z Minutes April 30, 1981 . Commercial Drive and bounded on the south by Maplewood Ave. and approximately 150 ft. west of Davis Blvd. Alan Hamm came forward. He said across the street from this property was the North East Paint & Body Shop, behind is an Exxon Service Station and to the west is a plumbing supply business. He said they were interested in the industrial zoning so they could get the light manufacturing portion of the industrial zoning. Mr. Hamm said the only uses which are different in Commercial and Industrial zoning are on page 18 in the Zoning book which are: Light manufacturing, Asphalt Paving Batching Plant, and any manufacturing, industrial, or storage process not prohibited by law except those specifically mentioned in Article 6 (36). . Mr. Hamm said they were only interested in the "Light Manufacturing." He said there would be from 3,000 to 10,000 ft. of small business, manufacturing, and assembly operations. Mr. Tucker asked why this change of zoning would be more beneficial and more needed than the Commercial zoning that is there now. Mr. Hamm said it was the best use for this property. He said cabinet shops are not permitted under the present zoning. He said there would be office space in front and light assembly businesses in the back. The Chairman called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of this request to please come forward. There being no one, the Chairman called for those wishing to speak in opposition to this request to please come forward. . Mr. Henry Winkler of 5108 Roberta Drive came forward. He said he lived in the third house from the corner of Maplewood. He said he was against this request because there is a business right now behind his house that is quite noisy. He said there is pipe stacked 12 to 14 ft. high. Page 7 p & Z Minutes Apri'l 3D? ¡981 . Mr. Winkler said if this request is approved then there could be factories that work all hours of the night. He said the noise and traffic are just a few of the reasons he doesn "t want a factory in his back door. Mr. Winkler asked why some of the property owners down the street didn't receive a notice about this zoning. Mrs. Calvert said she measured carefully the property within 200 ft. of the zoning request and sent all property owners a letter. . Gladys M. Stepp, 5104 Roberta Drive, came forward. She said she bought her property because it was most desirable with the best school arrangements and it was a good residential area at that time. She said it has deteriorated since these businesses have come in. She said the plumbing business was behind her. She said the fence didn't cover their operations or stop the noise. Mrs. Stepp said she could see the desirability of increasing the tax rate but considerable consideration should be given to the deteriorating effect the Commercial and Industrial zoning is having on this residential area. The Chairman asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak. There being no one else wishing to speak, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Mr. Tucker said the area is now zoned Commercial and allows much of what Industrial zoning does except for some light manufacturing. He said there wouldn't be that much change. He said that the people who live around there have protection through the city ordinances. He said any manufacturing business that is placed there must keep its noise and dirt within its boundary and beyond that it is up to the city staff to enforce it. . MrR Tucker asked Mr. Forester what his opinion was. . . . Page 8 p & Z Minutes April 30, 1981 Mr. Forester said the city would enforce this. Mr. Tucker asked if the city looked at the plans before any construction begins. Mr. Forester said yes they do. He said an occupancy permit would be required to list the type of activity that is going in. Mr. Greenfield said the change is so small and he questions putting industrial against single family residences. Mr. Hamm said there was Commercial zoning next to the single family homes. He said the Industrial zoning was approximately 150 ft. away. Mr. Bowen said there was a buffer between the residences and the requested Industrial zoning. Mr, Greenfield asked who enforces the noise, etc. Mr. Forester said it is done through the Code Enforcement Officer who accepts and takes complaints and is on the road quite a lot to observe. Mr. Tucker said they really aren "t making a change since property behind the single family residences is already zoned commercial. He said he thought it was Mr. Hamm's intentions to make this zoning change so that the development of this piece of property would be quicker than if it stayed commercial. Mr. Bowen said if some manufacturing is put in this area, he believes it would have an effect on these people even if it is kept within the city's ordinances. There was a discussion among the Board Members as to the feasibility of the land. PZ 81-18 DENIED Mrs. Nash made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bowen~ to deny PZ 81~18. . . . Page 9 P & Z Minutes April 30, 1981 The motion carried 3-1 with Mr. Tucker voting against the denial. PZ 81-13 Request of Key Branch Industries to rezone Tract 3U, Abstract 1055, T. K. Martin Survey, from the present classification of Agriculture to a proposed classification of Planned Development. This property is located on the west side of Precinct Line Road and approximately 1,150 ft. south of Amundson Drive. David Barfield came forward to represent Mr. Pat Murphy, owner of Key Branch Industries. The Chairman said the Commission has studied this request and find that it does not fulfill Article 8, Section 1 of the Zoning Ordinance dealing with Planned Development districts. He said another problem is that the materials that were pertinent to this request were not submitted at the same time and the City Staff, City Engineer, City Planner or Commission did not get to study them. The Chairman said the Commission would like to deny this request and request that Mr. Barfield meet with the City Staff to seek reapplication to try to work the problem out. Mr. Barfield said he would like to state what he is trying to do. He said Mr. Murphy has given him permission to do something with his property. He said he was going to build his home next to this property. He said he asked for Planned Development so he could control what goes on this property. He said he would be the builder and part owner of this property. He said he didn't want Commercial zoning but wanted a specific building with a specific use. Mr. Greenfield said Mr. Barfield's designation was wrong for what he was asking for. He said he should meet with the City Staff and see what can be worked out. He said they have to work within the Zoning Ordinance. . . . Page 10 P & Z Minutes April 30, 1981 Mr. Forester said it could be zoned Commercial with Specific Use. Mr. Tucker said there were several ways to do it and if Mr. Barfield owned the property he would have control even if he got a Commercial zoning. Mr. Tucker said the intent of Planned Development is mixed occupancy. He said more specific use is needed. Mr. Barfield said that was his main concern; what would happen several years from now to the property. He said he wanted to tie it to a specific definite use so it will be that way from now on. Mr. Monroe said the problem the Planning and Zoning Commission is having is trying to relate what Mr. Barfield is asking to the ordinances. He said Mr. Barfield could detail what he wants done with this property through Deed Restrictions. He said he could obtain a Commercial Zoning and then obtain legal council to do a deed restriction. He said the difficulty was in allowing less than a two acre tract to be put into a Planned Development District. Mr. Barfield said he would withdraw and would make the proper application. Mr. Oscar Oggier, 6821 Precinct Line, came forward. He said the property was sold by David Barfield in October, 1980. He said he respects the wisdom of the Staff and Board. He said Mr. Barfield wants to protect the neighborhood but he sold the property in 1980 without any consideration to it. C1eta Oggier, 6821 Precinct Line, came forward. She said she had a petition signed by most of the people within 200 ft. She asked if another petition would need to be signed if Mr. Barfield comes in again. Mrs. Calvert said Mrs. Oggier would need another petition. Page 11 P & Z Minutes April 30, 1981 . PZ 81-13 PS 81-17 WITHDRAWN David Barfield said he would like to withdraw PZ 8l-l3 and PS 81-17. The Commission accepted Mr. Barfield's withdrawal request. PZ 81-15 Request of Curtis Moore & B. R. Flories to rezone Tract 2, Abstract 1625, F. Wood Survey and Tract 3, Abstract 273, J. M. Crockett Survey, from the present classi- fication of Agriculture to a proposed classification of Industrial. This property is located on the east side of Davis Blvd. and is approximately 260 ft. south of Odell Street. . Dick Perkins representing Curtis Moore and B. R. Flories came forward. He said his clients now own a tract of land of approximately 12 acres presently zoned Industrial which is to the south of this property. He said he was working out a development plan for them for industrial use on the property. He said the topography is so rugged that they then pursued acquisition of property to the north to rework their plan. Mr. Perkins said their basic intent on the 26 acre development would be to develop warehouse type construction with the possibility of some retail type stores on the Davis Blvd. frontage. He said the intent for the heavier industrial would be on the part that is already zoned industrial and the retail shops would be to the north. Mr. Monroe asked if they had considered Planned Development since they were talking about mixed use.: Mr. Perkins said no. He said most of this falls into the Commercial category. He said they are trying to see how this will come out before they start work on another development plan. He said their plans can't be accomplished without more land. Mr. Tucker asked why the Commission should rezone it. . Mr~ Perkins said the intent is to develop a type of industry which is on the line of . . . Page 12 P & Z Minutes April 30, 1981 commercial and with the industrial to the south which would give them more flexibility to do something with the property. Mr. Perkins said he realizes the property backs up to residential property and they will need to put in a buffer. He said there would not be anything like Ohio Sealy as in the Industrial Park Addition. He said small warehouses is about all the property can be used for. The Chairman said the Commission has to look at what can fall into an Industrial zoning. Mr. Tucker said the City and Commission must ask if this is the best use of the land. Mr. Perkins said he felt his client would be willing to accept a Commercial zoning for that tract of land to use as a buffer. He said he didn't feel any other zoning would be sufficient. He said because of the topography the land will never develop as an industrial piece of property without adding something to it. Mr. Monroe asked if Mr. Perkins thought the owner would come in for a rep1at of the entire lot and then come in with a Planned Development. Mr. Greenfield asked about the property to the south. Mr. Perkins said it wouldn't help them. He said it is a low area and they need property on the hill. Mr. Monroe said the Commission needs to see how the whole piece of property would be eventually developed. Mr. Perkins said he doesn't disagree with the Commission but his client doesnlt own that land. He said his client wouldn't buy the land unless he has some assurance about the zoning. He said his client does not want to pursue this further unless he Page 13 p & Z Minutes· April 30? 1981 . has some type of assurance. Mr. Forester asked if this property is zoned industrial or commercial, would the Da1worth plat that was previously submitted be withdrawn. Mr. Perkins said it would. He said it looked good on paper but not on site. Mr. Greenfield asked if they would consider Commercial zoning for all of the land. Mr. Perkins said he felt they should keep the Industrial zoning since it abuts the railroad. Mr. Greenfield called for those wishing to speak for this request to please come forward. . John Barrett came forward representing the owner of the property. He said the owner was a lady who was 92 years old who was in poor health. He said he was a Realtor and listing agent for the land. Mr. Barrett said this land has been on the market for 9 to 10 months. He said it was the ownerls homestead from 1945 to 1971. He said this has been the only offer made on the land. He said the land to the south is already zoned Industrial. He said it was not like asking for spot zoning; they are asking that the zoning be extended 573 ft. to the north. He said the residential lots to the north are 200 ft. deep. He said there is a contingency on the Industrial zoning in the contract for the property to sell. The owner would like to dispose of it in her lifetime. The Chairman called for those wishing to speak in opposition to this request to please come forward. . Mr. J. H. Baker, 8336 Odell, came foward. He said he was not necessarily against zoning this property. He said in the past the City Council allowed a chemical company to put in at the location where the lumber company used to be. He said the chemicals . . . Page 14 P & Z Minutes April 30, 1981 l were carcinogenic and at night his wife could hardly sleep for the fumes. He said he was against any type of industry that would emit any harmful dust or fumes. Mr. Baker said Mr. Dutton who is here tonight has tried to get his property zoned Commercial two or three times and has been turned down. He said he would like to have something in writing as a guarantee. Mr. Baker said there is a water run-off problem. He said they are on a ridge and if the ridge is taken down there would be flooding. Mr. Greenfield said this would be taken care of in the platting. Mr. Baker said he doesn't want anything put in that would be harmful. Mr. Forester said chemical plants are specifically excluding from being able to go in Industrial zoning. He said any- thing which creates smoke, dust, or fumes can be controlled through the Ordinances and a 6 ft. fence is also required. The Chairman closed the public hearing. Mr. Tucker said the Commission must consider the best use of the land. It is on a railroad, a major highway and it doesn't really lend itself to residential develop- ment because of the terrain. Mrs. Nash said she wasn't convinced it should be industrial but it should be commercial and the present industrial zoning should be changed to commercial. Mr. Greenfield said he couldn't agree with Mrs. Nash because it abuts the railroad. There was a discussion among the Commission as to the best use of the land. Mrs. Nash said the only reason she is ~gainst the zoning is because of the odors of industrial plants. . . . Page 15 p & Z Minutes April 30, 1981 PZ 81-15 APPROVED Mr. Bowen moved, seconded by Mr. Tucker, to approve PZ 81-15. The motion carried 3-1 with Mrs. Nash voting against. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:50 P. M. ~ CHAIRMAN PLANNING AND :~~~D~G~~