HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1999-02-02 Agendas CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Office of the City Secretary
January 29, 1999
PUBLIC NOTICE
The City Council of the City of North Richland Hills will hold a work session in the
Pre - Council Room, 7301 Northeast Loop 820, on Tuesday, February 2, 1999 at
6:00 p.m. The below listed items are placed on the Agenda for discussion.
ITEM(S) FOR DISCUSSION:
1. Discussion of Recommendations for Sign and Landscape Regulations
City Secretary
POSTED
Date
City Secretary
P.O. Box 820609 North Richland Hills, Texas *76182 -0609 USA
7301 Northeast Loop 820 * 817- 581 -5502 * FAX 817- 581 -5516
POSSIBLE WORKING AGENDA
Council Work Session
Tuesday, February 2, 1999
1. Discuss process of reviewing Land Use Ad Hoc Committee recommendations
2. Review recommendations of three boards (Parks and Recreation, Beautification
Committee and Planning and Zoning Board)
3. Existing Ordinance problem areas
4. Discuss priorities of recommendations
A. Sign
B. Landscape
C. Tree Preservation
INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL No. IR 98 -14
Date: January 29, 1999
Subject: Council Work Session — Tuesday, February 2, 1999
The Tuesday, February 2 City Council Work Session is scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m. to
discuss the recommendations of the Land Use Ad Hoc Committee with respect to signs,
landscaping and tree preservation. We would appreciate your bringing your three written
materials that you were given at the January 12 work session that include: 1) Sign Policies
and Standards, 2) Landscape Policies and Standards, 3) the draft Tree Preservation
Ordinance. These three documents will be used extensively in discussing the
recommendations.
Enclosed is a video of the January 12 work session. Some Council Members have
requested a copy of this, therefore we thought it would be helpful for all of you to have a copy
to review at your leisure.
We are also enclosing a copy of the comments, observations and any recommendations
from the three Boards and Commissions that you requested information from: Parks and
Recreation Board, Beautification Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
A working agenda is also enclosed for your review.
Mayor Pro -Tem Phifer requested last week that staff identify some of the "holes" or problem
areas in our existing Sign and Landscaping Ordinance. We will be prepared at the Council
Meeting to discuss that should Council want to do so. A comparison of the proposed
recommendations on sign and landscaping compared to our existing ordinance requirements
is attached for your information. A summary of some of these areas is attached.
Respectfully submitted,
Larry J. nningham
City Manager
LJC /Id
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
MEMO
TO: Randy Shiflet
Deputy City Manager
FROM: Jim Browne
Director of Parks & Recreation
SUBJECT: Park & Recreation Board Review of Land Use Committee
Sign and Landscape Ordinances
DATE: January 29, 1999
RE: AM 1199
The Parks & Recreation Board reviewed a draft of the Land Use Ad Hoc Committee's
Landscape Ordinance recommendations at their January 4, 1999 meeting. The board
was also invited to attend the January 12,1999 presentation by the Land Use Ad Hoc
Committee. Several board members were in attendance.
Since there was not a regularly scheduled Park & Recreation Board meeting between
the January 12,1999 workshop and the deadline for turning in comments regarding
these recommendations, board members were asked to turn their comments in to staff
independently prior to January 25, 1999. Reminder phone calls were made to the
board the preceding week and three board members submitted independent
comments, which were consolidated into the previously sent memorandum. These
comments do not necessarily represent a consensus opinion of the board. While there
was some discussion of these recommendations at the January 4, 1999 meeting, the
board felt that attending the workshop and independently providing input was adequate
in lieu of scheduling supplemental meetings for additional discussion.
Jim Browne
Director of Parks and Recreation
JB /cal
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Charles Scoma and City Council
Larry J. Cunningham, City Manager
Randy Shiflet, Deputy City Manager
Ron Ragland, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Jim Browne, Director of Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Landscape and Signage Policies and Standards Comments
DATE: January 25, 1999
RE: AM0799
The Park and Recreation Board reviewed the Landscape and Signage Policies
and Standards prepared by the Land Use Ad /Hoc Committee and below is a
consolidated list of their comments:
John Pena
Sign Policies and Standards
1. Section 4.
If a sign is forced to be removed, will a new sign be forced to replace?
Include a Grandfather clause regarding the current requirements.
2. Section 5. paragraph c
Change "30 days" to "120 days ".
3. Section 5. paragraph e
Change "5 degrees" to "12 degrees ".
4. Section 7. paragraph c
Regarding the last sentence, Mr. Pena asks, "should this be a function of the
Board of Variances ?"
5. Section 8. paragraph b
Regarding the last sentence, Mr. Pena asks, "should this be a function of the
Board of Variances ?"
6. Section 9. paragraph a
Insert the phrase "where permissible" to the end of the first sentence. Mr.
Pena asks "what if land area does not allow ?"
7. Section 10. paragraph a
Regarding the last sentence of the second sentence, Mr. Pena asks, "should
this be a function of the Board of Adjustment and Variances ?"
8. Section 10. a�ragraph k
Regarding the reference to having names of the product or sponsor affixed to
the message, Mr. Pena asks, 'what will happen to the Star telegram sign at
the High School ?"
9. Section 10. paragraph I. sub-paragraph 3
Mr. Pena states that low ground vegetation sometimes does not allow the
ground light source to be made not visible from the public right -of -way.
Landscape Policies and Standards
1. Section 7.
Mr. Pena states that electric transformers require a minimum of 10' clearance
per the National Electric Safety Code (NESE Code), and that this may restrict
land use.
2. Section 10. paragraph b
Mr, Pena asks, "what about property owners who do not have trees or do not
want trees ?"
Tree Preservation
1. As a general comment, Mr. Pena states, "I do not agree with these
requirements. A land owner should have the right to do with his personal
property what he feels is right."
2. Section 4.3. paragraph F
"Limits where drives and access can be placed, and may conflict with building
codes."
3. Section 4.4. paragraph A
Regarding the cost of boring vs. trenching, Mr. Pena asks, "who pays the
cost ?"
4. Section 4.4. paragraph C
Mr. Pena comments that this is easier said than done.
r
5. Section 5.2.
Mr. Pena states that "clearing the right -of -way by franchise utility is done as
maintenance to that line. It's not easy to stop, run down, and make an
application to see if it can be pruned to restore service."
6. Section 5.4.
Insert the phrase "and franchise utility" between the word "public" and the
word "R.O.W. ", in the first sentence. Trees should be pruned to 12' from all
power lines.
7. Section 6.1.
Insert the phrase "and underground" between the word "overhead" and the
word "utility ". Mr. Pena comments that trees should not be in the easements
or rights -of -way.
Sherry Milano
Signage and Landscaping Restrictions
1. Streetscapee
Include a streetscape plan in addition to the Signage and Landscaping plans,
to include sidewalk restrictions. Existing commercial should add sidewalks as
a part of their landscaping and would have the same 7 year "grand- fathering"
period to comply. Any new commercial and residential should be landscaped
to include sidewalks, not only throughout their development, but also on the
exterior of the development along main streets. All sidewalks should
eventually connect with adjacent properties. This allows for SAFE pedestrian
and recreational traffic throughout out community.
Dwayne Leslie
Signage
1. Signage Ordinance
Existing businesses should be "grand- fathered" regarding the sign ordinance.
Respectfully Submitted
Jim Browne
Director of Parks and Recreation
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Charles Scoma and City Council
Larry J. Cunningham, City Manager
Randy Shiflet, Deputy City Manager
Ron Ragland, Assistant City Manager
FROM: North Richland Hills Beautification Commission
SUBJECT: Landscape Policies and Standards Recommendations
DATE: January 19, 1999
RE: PRM1699
The Beautification Commission has reviewed the recommendations of the Land Use Ad /Hoc
Committee and supports the draft proposal and guidelines as presented at the January 12, 1999
Joint Work Session with the following exceptions:
1. Recommend expansion of the plant list to be incorporated into the future ordinance.
2. Evaluate the incentive requirements to establish usage of the plant list.
The Beautification Commission recommends that the following organizations and their
representative's work together to develop the plant list and proposed incentives that would be
included in the ordinance.
County Agricultural Agent — Dottie Woodson
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department — Urban Biologist, John Davis
Native Plant society of Texas — Jim Leavy
Master Gardeners Association — Evelyn Woodrey
The Botanic Research Institute — Bob Okennon
NRH Beautification Commission — Glenn Nerwin
North Texas Council of Governments
Environmental Services — Pam Burney
Texas Department of Transportation — Ron Perry
US Army Corp of Engineers, Aquatic Eco- system Research Facility - Michael
Smart
International Society for Ecological Restoration — Steve Windhager
Landscaper - Rosa Finsly
atsy Tu er
Chairperson, Beautification Commission
Cc: Jim Browne, Director of Parks and Recreation
O FFICE
DEVE LO P MENT
M e o
To: Larry Cunningham, City Manager
From: Steve Norwood, Managing Director of Development Services
Date: 01/29/99
Re: P&Z Motions on Proposed Signage & Landscaping
RECOMMENDATION ON PROPOSED SIGNAGE:
Mr. Barfield, seconded by Mr. Laubacher, moved to recommend that effective July 1,
no permits will be issued for pole signs on Mid - Cities Boulevard, Precinct Line Road
and Davis Boulevard, from the north of Mid - Cities. Additional time be allowed based
upon the input received this evening, to fine tune some of the details of these
recommendations. The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Lueck made a motion that before any final ordinance is adopted by the City, that
the Council ask for a reasonable estimate for the enforcement costs of what ever
ordinance is passed. Mr. Bowen seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
RECOMMENDATION ON PROPOSED LANDSCAPING:
Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Laubacher moved to recommend the Council move
forward with items 1,4,5, 6,9,10, 11 & 12 and be granted additional time for fine
tuning on the remaining four items. The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Lueck, seconded by Mr. Bowen moved to recommend that before any final
ordinance is adopted by the City, the council ask for a reasonable estimate of the
enforcement costs of the ordinance. The motion carried unanimously
f 5'0� wr Z m �' �c u.�es cv e��e s f �'!� l� r'�t de ve/d
-Th ot-fiapt o ftile k14IhU -Tif S dea W,7',(, S Ars
P lie , 11 Q Ve �owfp f f}a�Gl��, 7 lam sca e a' w,l/
b e co e)kq • Page�1
y
G�GGprG�ivt �y/.
�J
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
JANUARY 28, 1999 — 7:00 p.m.
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Davis at 7:00 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT Chairman Richard Davis
Don Bowen
Doug Blue
James Laubacher
Mark Wood
David Barfield
Ron Lueck
ABSENT Ted Nehring
CITY STAFF Deputy City Mgr. Randy Shiflet
Acting Director Steve Norwood
Recording Sec'y Valerie Taylor
Director PW Greg Dickens
Asst. Director PW Kevin Miller
Staff Engineer Julia Skare
3.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 1999
APPROVED
Mr. Barfield, seconded by Mr. Laubacher, moved to approve the minutes of
January 14, 1999 with the removal of the word "not" in the third paragraph on
Page 11. The motion carried unanimously.
Page 1 1 /15/99
P & Z Minutes
4.
PS 98 -61
CONSIDER REQUEST OF GLEN JONES FOR A FINAL PLAT OF LOT
3, BLOCK A, RUFE SNOW VILLAGE ADDITION. (LOCATED AT 6889
HIGHTOWER DRIVE)
APPROVED
Mr. Norwood explained that this project had recently received site plan approval
for multi - family construction. All engineering issues have been agreed to.
Mr. David Hughes, PE, was present and stated he would answer any questions
the Commission might have.
Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. Bowen, moved to approve PS 98 -61 subject to
engineer's comments. The motion carried unanimously.
Page 2 1 /15/99
P & Z Minutes
5.
PZ 99 -01
PUBLIC HEARING TO GAIN INPUT REGARDING THE PROPOSED
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE STAND -ALONE SIGN AND LANDSCAPING
ORDINANCES.
APPROVED
Chairman Davis explained that the City Council had appointed a Land Use Ad-
Hoc Committee to research and build opinions and recommendations regarding
development to the City. Two of these items were landscape policies and
signage policies. On January 12, 1999, the Committee made a presentation to
the City Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Beautification Committee and
Parks Board. The City Council could vote on these recommendations as early
as February 8, 1999. He explained that when these two items were removed
from the Zoning Ordinance, the Council stated that any amendments to these
two issues would be sent back to the P &Z for their review and forwarded to
Council with the P &Z's comments.
The P &Z felt it was appropriate as a Commission to have a formal public meeting
to gain citizen input. The Commission will listen to discussion on the sign
recommendations as proposed by the LUAH.
Chairman Davis opened the public hearing and read each issue of the Draft Sign
Policies and Standards prepared by the LUAH. He then stated that the floor was
open to anyone wishing to comment on the proposed recommendations.
Mr. Bob Kohsmann, President of Classic Concept Homes, stated that he
personally has built over 40 homes in the City of NRH and now is constructing an
office building for his business at Amundson Road and Precinct Line Road.
He stated that he is representing the Home Builders Association (HBA) of Fort
Worth, who represent about 90% of the home builders that are in the City of
NRH. The HBA had several questions after reviewing the draft signage policies.
Mr. Kohsmann had several questions regarding the proposed policy; one
specifically being if the proposed ordinance eliminated "for sale" signs in front of
homes. The way the HBA read the ordinance, they would be prohibited.
Mr. Kohsmann stated that without going into every little detail they had
highlighted, he felt the way the ordinance was written that there was no one on
the Committee that owned a sign or was in any kind of business that advertised
Page 3 1/15/99
P & Z Minutes
at all. While they are not opposed to sign ordinances, they have worked closely
with cities in the past. He stated that the HBA has expertise in the sign business
as far as residential signage goes and they are not afraid to share that with the
cities. Combined, the HBA has built about 180 homes in the City this past year,
which generated approximately 160,000,000 in the capital budget for taxing
purposes. He stated he would answer any questions the Commission may have.
Chairman Davis stated that this is not in ordinance form, only a recommendation.
He stated that it is not all inclusive of the sign ordinance, only the portions that
are to be changed have been addressed. Real estate signs and temporary signs
are not addressed in this proposal, so no changes are proposed to this category
of sign.
Mr. Wood stated that there was a section of the ordinance that specifically states
"signs not specifically allowed by this ordinance are prohibited."
Mr. Kohsmann stated that is an example of the clarification needed in the
present draft form. The business community has to take, literally what is written;
Interpretation shouldn't be a question.
Mr. Norwood stated for clarification that these are only the recommended
changes proposed by the LUAH. This draft, once approved by the Council will
be combined with the existing ordinance. So anything not specifically addressed
will remain the same, i.e., real estate signs.
Mr. Doug Long asked about dual pole for sale signs. His interpretation of the
ordinance prohibits these outside of the freeway overlay zone. He stated he has
property on Mid - Cities Boulevard and North Tarrant Parkway that currently has
these kind of signs on them.
Mr. Wood stated that these temporary signs are not proposed to be changed.
Sandra Durbin, 5709 Acapulco, stated she is a realtor and a member of the
LUAH. She wanted the record to reflect that it was never the intention of the
LUAH to eliminate "for sale" signs in the City.
Jim Makens, 2300 Airport Freeway, Bedford, stated that 80% of the proposed
changes seems acceptable, but should be for an overlay zone only. He also
believes that this proposed ordinance will conflict with the proposed Town
Center.
Additional concerns of Mr. Makens were the elimination of pole. He believes this
will be very detrimental to the business community. He also has a problem with
Page 4 1 /15/99
P & Z Minutes
the wording in the section referring to obsolete signage and believes the banner
regulations are unfair.
Additionally, Mr. Makens believes that too much discretionary allowance is put
on the Building Official. As a building official comes and goes, the ordinance, the
way it's written, will be a matter of each individual interpretation.
Mr. Makens continued to offer suggestions such as the landscaping required in
the rear of signs is excessive, window signage is extremely prohibitive, the size
of wall signs should be doubled if the commercial market is expected to continue
to compete nationally. He also believes the size of the logo lettering be
increased.
Mr. Terry Willy, General Manager of North Hills Mall stated that if this ordinance
is adopted the only signs that will be legal at the mall are the handicapped
parking signs. He stated that the pylon sign at the entrance cost about $60,000
last year and would have to be removed within seven years. If North Hills Mall
were to sell, the signs would have to be removed sooner. He stated that with the
expansion of Northeast Mall, the lack of advertising would be devastating and
the adoption of this ordinance could detrimentally affect the sale of this property.
He stated that the mall has been for sale since last June, and any prospective
buyer would walk away upon learning he had lost all of his signage. He asked if
a feasibility study had been conducted. Mr. Willy stated that he too would
volunteer his time and knowledge, from the business standpoint, to the
Committee.
Mr. John Brenner, owner of Arctic Auto Air on Maplewood was opposed to the
strict requirements, explaining that the small business owners will be devastated
as well. He is trying to purchase the old Jiffy Lube building at Davis and
Maplewood. The only sign he would be allowed would be a monument sign and
the only location for a monument sign on that particular piece of property would
be behind a traffic signal box, virtually hidden. He expressed additional concerns
about the size of lettering allowed as well as the required landscaping that would
hide what little sign they are allowed.
Mr. John Barfield asked if Sam's would be happy with a 50 square foot sign,
stating he didn't think so. He stated restricting businesses to that degree
wouldn't be received well, in his opinion. He too believes more thought should
be given and the ordinance rewritten.
Mr. Davis stated that Sam's and Wal -Mart are both within the Freeway Overlay
Zone, so are unaffected by the more restrictive ordinance.
Page 5 1/15/99
P & Z Minutes
Having no one remaining to speak, the public hearing was closed and discussion
opened between the Commissioners.
Mr. Barfield stated that signs out side of the Freeway Overlay Zone should be
directly proportioned to the speed of the street. You need to be able to see the
signs at a reasonable distance.
Additional concerns with the ordinance as presented were lack of visibility for
some businesses and the flying mobile horse on top of a building but stating roof
signs are prohibited in another section of the ordinance. Lastly, he believes that
each street, but especially the older streets of the city, should be addressed
individually as their own overlay zone. The signage in each area should be
taken into consideration.
Mr. Lueck stated that looking at each street is quite ambitious and wondered
who would do it. Mr. Lueck stated that no ordinance when first written is
flawless. The Ad -Hoc Committee has had a lot of guide and insight from
consultants paid for by the city. He suggested the minutes of this public
meeting be used as the P &Z's recommendation to the City Council.
Mr. Blue stated that he see's the need to have a grandfather clause established
and is also concerned about the seven -year clause; he would like additional time
to study this ordinance. The issue with the mall revealed a tremendous burden
for prospective investors in the city.
Mr. Bowen believes that a lot of this has been triggered from Rufe Snow and
Grapevine Highway. He believes that those two streets would be a good
example of an overlay district. With some clean up of these two streets,
everyone's perception of the city would be much better.
Mr. Laubacher stated that overall this is good work that can be built upon very
easily. However, tonight he has realized that some of the restrictions on size
should be dealt with. He likes the idea of establishing overlay zones, but doesn't
think the City Council would be receptive to it, since they rejected the overlay
zone proposed for the North Davis Boulevard Corridor.
Mr. Wood stated he see's some very good material in these recommendations
and some of them could be pushed forward quickly. But he stated as evidenced
by the confusion brought forward from the citizens, some things need additional
time. He stated when these two items were removed from the Zoning
Ordinance, it was done with the goal of being able to expedite changes more
quickly. The standards were raised at that time and it was a step in the right
direction. He stated that the issue of implementing it city wide versus in various
overlay zones now is a question that will need to be addressed.
Page 6 1/15/99
P & Z Minutes
Mr. Wood suggested that immediately no pole signs would be allowed on Davis
_ Boulevard from Mid - Cities north. Any specific, quick changes like that would be
one step in a long journey. There are issues, about 4 of them, that he feels need
further study. He likes having the business and users involved, and getting their
feedback.
Responding to a question, Mr. Wood stated that it could just as easily prohibit
pole signs on Mid - Cities and Precinct Line. These area's are relatively new and
would not be an inequity to a user not be able to because the guy next door has
one.
Mr. Davis stated that he liked Mr. Wood's idea and agrees there are some areas
requiring fine tuning. He sees a couple of options. Recommend that Council
adopt immediately an overlay zone prohibiting pole signs on all of Davis north of
Mid - Cities, Mid - cities from Davis to Precinct Line Road and all of Precinct Line
Road.
The Commissioners continued to discuss alternatives for implementing some of
the issues and having additional time to fine tune maximum square footages and
logo lettering maximums.
Mr. Barfield, seconded by Mr. Laubacher, moved to recommend that effective
July 1, no permits will be issued for pole signs on Mid - Cities Boulevard, Precinct
Line Road and Davis Boulevard, from the north of Mid - Cities. Additional time be
allowed based upon the input received this evening, to fine tune some of the
details of these recommendations. The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Lueck made a motion that before any final ordinance is adopted by the City,
that the Council ask for a reasonable estimate for the enforcement costs of what
ever ordinance is passed. Mr. Bowen seconded the motion and it carried
unanimously.
Page 7 1/15/99
P & Z Minutes
Landscaping Discussion.•
Chairman Davis opened the floor for discussion and asked for the first speaker.
Mr. Doug Long stated his first concern is Exhibit 6 on Page 14 of the proposed
ordinance. This diagram states that there shall be large diameter trees in street
parkways. While the diagram looks good, there are no sidewalks included.
However, the City of NRH requires a 4' sidewalk. Additionally, water and sewer
lines must be accommodated in this space. His concern is this large of tree will
be brushing cars as they come by adjacent to the curb. He feels this should be
reconsidered. He is not opposed to this proposal, but believes more thought
should be given to it.
Additionally, he is concerned about Item 8 on Page 7 regarding the tree
preservation. He has compared this proposed ordinance to Keller's ordinance
and believes that Keller's is more user friendly. This proposed ordinance does
not grant any credits. Mr. Long stated that Keller's ordinance is more workable
than this proposed one.
Mr. Bob Kohsmann, stated that he totally supports #1 regarding streetscapes.
He thinks the city burying overhead utilities is wonderful. In his opinion, in any
city, overhead utilities are the ugliest things you can see.
In Item 4, Page 5, he is concerned with the City requiring licensed landscape
architects. He believes this is overkill and doesn't agree with it. He is not
opposed to landscape maintenance, only the requirement of a landscape
architect. Number 9 on Page 7 basically force's the subdivision to have a
Homeowners Association to care for the property outside masonry fences at
development entrances. He believes this is unrealistic for a lot of area's and
there tends to be a lot of resistance from homeowners as well.
Mr. Kohsmann is also concerned with the parking - islands indicated on Page 13.
He believes it is excessive. The tree survey that is required 30' around a tree will
at times require the surveying of someone else's property. Restrictions are
already tight for slabs. Homeowner's Warranty requires slabs are 10' away from
the closet tree or they won't guarantee them. This ordinance requires that tree
be replaced with 20 smaller, 3 caliper trees; he feels it is too restrictive. Set an
amount of trees the builder should end up with; that's not a problem, but don't tell
them where they need to be.
Ms. Cindy Seale, member of the LUAH stated that Item 3 on Page 4, which
discusses the buffer standards for commercial uses that abut residential districts
Page 8 1/28/99
P & Z Minutes
believes that the living buffer in addition to masonry walls will be a tremendous
asset to the City and encourages the P &Z's support in it.
Mr. Jim Makens expressed concerns, which included the distance of parking lot
islands being too restrictive. He believes the tree preservation will be an
extreme hardship on commercial development.
Mr. Lueck stated that an illustration of the Wal -Mart was used showing the
parking lot as is and what it would look like with this ordinance. He stated it was
obviously prettier and keeps the green visible, not all behind the building.
Mr. Makens stated that with this ordinance, developers would have to buy more
land to build the same thing they would have to today - to accommodate
landscaping. Additionally, he stated that the wording for parking lot landscaping
needs to be clarified; stating that Item 2 -d seems like excessive overkill. Mr.
Makens agreed that requiring a licensed landscape architect was overkill.
Mr. Makens stated that this ordinance would prohibit him from building out the
shopping center at Starnes and Davis. He has been working on its expansion
for about two years. There are trees that need to be removed; the reason they
need to be removed is because the City is requiring the creek channel be
improved. Now, he will have to remove the trees to improve the creek channel
and replace the trees he had to remove. He has already lost 4 acres of this 16
to create a living berm between his property and the residential property it abuts.
This tree ordinance seems like an additional penalty and will prohibit commercial
development in the City.
Mr. Wood stated that some of these ordinances might conflict with ordinances
the city currently has in place; i.e., the creation of a drainage channel that must
be concrete lined.
Mr. Makens stated yes, the City is requiring one thing and because of that
requirement, he is penalized for it because it takes out trees in the process.
Mr. Terry Willy voiced concerns to the restrictions of the ordinance, stating that
the City could potentially loose tax money by driving commercial development to
other cities.
Mr. Dale Whisenant, an LUAH member stated that he wanted to try and clarify
some of the items addressed. He stated the committee is not trying to impose
hardship on the business community, stating that they looked and saw
businesses that already exceed the current ordinance and actually already align
with some of the proposals already. He stated they also compared other cities
ordinances and used them as guidelines.
Page 9 1/28/99
P & Z Minutes
Mr. Whisenant stated that all they are really asking a developer to do regarding
tree preservation is to identify those on the survey that he submits and develop a
plan for preserving the required trees.
The parking lot requirements for landscaping currently in place are basically
similar to what's being proposed. He believes this ordinance is more specific,
not more restrictive.
Having no additional speakers, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Davis thanked everyone from the LUAH Committee for being present and for
their many hours of hard work. He stated that some of the issues need
reworking, but for the most part he would feel reasonably comfortable forwarding
some of the items ahead. He likes the streetscaping program. Numbers 2 & 3,
regarding parking lots, need to be reworked. He likes items 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 & 12.
He would like to see the required landscape architect removed from item 4.
Mr. Bowen stated that he would like to see Mesquite Tree's added to the list of
protected trees.
Mr. Lueck also thanked the committee for their many hours. He agrees that the
landscape architect and licensed nurseryman should not be a requirement of
Number 4. He believes Item 7 needs a lot of work. He also believes there
should be increased emphasis on Item 10, the citywide tree planting program.
Generally, it is a very good document and is very close on about 8 items to being
ready to go into ordinance language.
Mr. Laubacher agrees with everyone thus far, stating that the same second
motion as previously stated should apply as far as the staff that will be required
to enforce these new regulations.
Mr. Lueck stated that the City Council should know going into this the reasonable
estimated cost of enforcement.
Mr. Barfield stated there are certain unique situations on some commercial lots
that the 15% requirement should have the ability to vary.
Mr. Wood agrees with everything already stated. He believes Item 8 is a "double
whammy" and believes that a tree preservation ordinance is a penalty. A good
landscaping ordinance will encourage tree preservation without penalizing
developers.
Page 10 1/28/99
P & Z Minutes
Mr. Davis stated that site grading of residential lots takes a lot of trees. Finding
other options would help preserve trees.
Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Laubacher moved to forward items 1, 4,5, 6, 9, 10,
11 & 12 ahead to Council immediately provided Item 4 is amended to delete
requiring a licensed landscape architect and asking for additional time to work on
the remaining four items. The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Lueck, seconded by Mr. Bowen moved to recommend that before the City
adopts any final ordinance, the Council ask for a reasonable estimate of the
enforcement costs of the ordinance. The motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Davis thanked everyone for their input, advised them that the Council
would be having a worksession on February 2 with possible consideration on
February 8, 1999.
Page 11 1 /28/99
P & Z Minutes
10.
STAFF REPORT
There were none.
11.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Ms. Vivian Moyers, 7933 Kendra Lane, stated that she is a 3 -year resident and
has paid over $6,000 in taxes. She stated that she has been on a lobby for the
past 2 -Y2 years, trying to get attention drawn to Rufe Snow Drive, from the
bowling alley, north to Bursey Road. She stated that at 6:30 this evening, there
were 16 cars in the rain, lined up waiting to cross the intersection, explaining that
it has become a thoroughfare between NE Loop 820 and FM 1709.
Ms. Moyers says that she has taken it all the way to a state level, who have
informed her that several million dollars has been appropriated for Rufe Snow
improvements.
Ms. Moyers was given the name of the Director of Public Works, as well as the
City Manager and advised to start with Greg Dickens. She was also invited to
speak with the City Council at their regularly scheduled meetings regarding this
issue.
12.
ADJORUNMENT
Having no additional business to conduct, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Richard Davis, Chairman Ted Nehring, Secretary
Page 12 1 /28/99
P & Z Minutes
COMMENTS ON CURRENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE
Landscaping ROW: Landscaping should occur in the ROW. However, the
landscaping in the ROW should not count toward overall landscape requirement.
This prevents the situation that will occur along Rufe Snow when the road is
improved. It keeps all the landscaping from being wiped out with street
improvements.
Parking Lot Screening: The portion of the Ordinance described a continuous
concrete mow edge. What this is or means is unclear.
Parking Lot Landscaping: Currently we require just 5% of the parking lot to be
landscaped.
1.B.1 &2 Requirement provides no relief for existing development except to
appeal to "Board." In most cases, strict application of Ordinance will
mandate appeal.
1.B.4 SUP and PD seem to have possibly been used as vehicle to vary from
requirements. However, Ordinance says "regulations shall apply."
1_E The location "street yard" is a problem. There are no definitions
contained in the Ordinance. When this was in Zoning — street yard was
defined. Using that definition sometimes creates impossible conditions
to comply — depending on the dimensions and layout of lot.
1_1-1 "H" is not clear on how to determine if parking lots and maneuvering
areas are "screened from view of public streets."
1.1 Any tree, shrub or grass can be used to satisfy minimum landscape
requirements. Trees and shrubs used for credits must come from the
approved list.
1_J Maintenance — should be responsibility of owner, management
company and tenant jointly and severally.
1.J.5 Additional notification and abatement procedures.
No definitions.
No illustrations.
COMMENTS ON EXISTING SIGN ORDINANCE
Section:
2_C Construction Standards: " design of ... supports & structures shall be
compatible with and in harmony with the surrounding buildings & structures."
Vague- subjective -hard to implement & enforce
2 Driveway Visibility:...
Requirements in conflict with different section
2.M Vehicle Advertising: I'm not sure we can regulate signs that are
permanent on commercial vehicles. We can prohibit banners or portable signs in
pickups for example. Requiring vehicles to be in working order ... with all vehicle
safety laws is not a sign issue. This needs rework.
2_N Lighting: Bad code language. "when determined necessary by the
Building Official..." should be avoided whenever possible. Requirements should
be clear, concise and objective.
5_P Sign Height: The phrase "...average surrounding ground area ..." is
vague.
9_A This section needs review and rewrite. I do not think we have legal right
to remove or alter a sign after only a 10 day notice. If we do, I do not know how
we can make an owner pay. I do not think we can legally refuse permits if all
other requirements are satisfied.
11.13 Non - Conforming Signs: Ordinance does not give direction on sign
destroyed or damaged to less than 50 %.
12. Sign Maintenance: This could use some work to be more objective and
specific and include abatement procedures.
14.F Reference to "illustrations in appendix" — there is no appendix.
20. New Development Signs: this has been liberally applied. Each builder in a
particular subdivision has been permitted a sign. In one location for one
subdivision we had 5/6 signs. Creates clutter. I don't think that is what
the ordinance says, but ...
31. Political Signs: Not prohibited on public property or ROW. Parks
historically complains about signs on city park property and Code
Enforcement removes them.
32. Banner Signs: There are regulations on banner signs, but no permit
requirements — hard to enforce unless tracked with a permit.
General Note:
Pennants are only allowed in conjunction with a "Grand Opening Sign ".
However, some time ago, the Council agreed to let auto dealerships impacted
by 820 modifications to have pennants until the work is completed. This needs to
be added to the sign ordinance to 1. Let other business owners understand why
the car dealers can and 2. To reaffirm their removal at a specific time.
TABLE OF COMPARISON BETWEEN
EXISTING AND PROPOSED LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS
ITEM EXISTING PROPOSED
Street scape (inside ROW) N Y
Stated purpose Y N
Scope (applicability) Y N
General criteria
Landscaping tied to zoning district Y N
Landscaping tied to CofO Y N
Minimum landscaping area regm't Y N
Trees/shrubs req'd in above N N
Landscape setback/edge req'd Y N
Trees/shrubs req'd in above Y N
Specific info req'd on plans Y N
Plans req'd to be prepared by recognized experts Y Y
Landscaping req'd to be installed by recognized experts N N
Materials used for landscaping must be on approved list N N
Materials used for credits must be on approved list Y N
Irrigation required Y Y
Automatic N Y
Rain/freeze sensors N Y
Special considerations N Y
(drip/leaky pipe systems or temporary or above ground for wildflower areas)
Plans req'd to be prepared by recognized experts N Y
Landscaping req'd to be installed by recognized experts Y Y
ITEM EXISTING PROPOSED
Landscaping of Parking and Maneuvering Areas Required Y Y
Minimum area specified Y Y
Requirements for small and large parking areas N Y
Specific dimension regm't for lot elements (islands) N Y
Specific reqm't for trees /shrubs wr parking areas N Y
Islands req'd for driveways N Y
Screening of parking areas req'd Y Y
From public streets Y Y
From adjacent open spaces N Y
Several methods of screening available Y Y
Buffering Required Y Y
Land only buffer between non - residential and SF, 2F & Ag Y N
Land /trees/shrubs between non - residential and SF & MF N Y
Land / trees/shrubs between SF & MF N Y
Land / trees/shrubs between residential subdivisions and ROW N Y
Land / trees/shrubs between non - residential and ROW N Y
NOTE: Current zoning language requires masonry screening wall when non-
residential develops adjacent to SF or MF and when MF develops adjacent to SF.
Therefore, the current buffering requirements never kick in. Subdivision ordinance
requires masonry screening wall for SF development adjacent to CU 4 or larger
thoroughfare.
Maintenance Y Y
Responsible party is property owner Y Y
Area must be free from weeds, litter and trash Y Y
Weeding, mowing, irrigation, fertilizer, pruning and other Y Y
Replacement of dead plant materials in 6 month Y Y
Replacement of partially dead plants or plants that have lost symmetrical form N Y
TABLE OF COMPARISON
SIGNS
ITEM EXISTING PROPOSED
Prohibit pole signs except freeway zone N Y
All freestanding signs compatible with building or constructed of N Y
Brick/stone
Only pole signs to be constructed of brick Y N
Wood signs prohibited N Y
Required painting or anodizing to match architecture N Y
Required permits for banner signs N Y
Master /common sign plan w /alt N Y
Required location of detached signs in landscape setting N Y
Require permit for some window signs N Y
Maximum area for wall sign Y Y
NOTE: Proposed registrations reduce amount of signage for lease spaces.
Maximum letter/logo for wall signs N Y
Permit memo boards Y Y
Maximum number 1 2
Maximum area 30 ft. 24 ft.
Maximum height N 6 ft.
ITEM EXISTING PROPOSED
Prohibit wall signs w/I 100 ft of residential zoned property N Y
Strictly prohibit roof signs N Y
Canopy signs permitted Y Y
Maximum 50% of wall surface Y Y
May extend below canopy N N
May extend above canopy N N
Requirements for maximum size letters/logos N Y
Electronic message board permitted Y Y
Moratorium
Restrictions on commercial messages in freeway zone N Y
Area restrictions N Y
Monument signs permitted Y Y
Maximum area Y Y
Residential 50 sq. ft
Multi- family 100 sq. ft.
Commercial 150 sq. ft.
Building area of < 20,000 sq. ft. 25 sq. ft.
> 25,000 to 125.000 sq. ft. 35 sq. ft.
> 125.000 sq. ft. 50 sq. ft.
Maximum height Y Y
Single family (development) 4' 7'
Multi- family 6' 7'
Commercial 6' 7'
Maintenance requirements Y Y
Subjective requirements Y N
Objective requirements N Y
ITEM EXISTING PROPOSED
Require removal of non - conformance signs N Y
Require compliance of non - conformance signs N Y
Require removal of "obsolete sign" N Y