Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1982-11-08 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, HELD IN THE CITY HALL, 7301 NORTHEAST LOOP 820, NOVEMBER 8, 1982, 7:30 P.M. 1. Mayor Faram called the meeting to order November 8, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. 2. Dick Faram Jim Ramsey Jim Kenna J. C. Hubbard Richard Davis Dick Fisher Harold Newman Marie Hinkle Councilwoman Present: Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilmen Staff: Rodger N. Line Jeanette Moore Rex McEntire Richard Albin Dennis Horvath Gene Riddle City Manager City Secretary City Attorney City Engineer Assistant City Manager Director Public Works/ Utility Planning & Zoning Members: Margie Nash Don Bowen Press: Les Harper Jeff Yates Fort Worth Star-Telegram Mid Cities Daily News 3. The invocation was given by Councilwoman Marie Hinkle. 4. Councilman Davis moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to approve the minutes of October 25, 1982. Motion carried 7-0. 5. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey moved, seconded by Councilwoman Hinkle, to approve the minutes of the special meeting October 28, 1982. Motion carried 6-0; Councilman Hubbard abstaining due to absence from the meeting. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL INVOCATION CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 25, 1982 APPROVED CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 28, 1982 APPROVED 5. Mayor Faram presented Dorothy McKnight of the Library with a ten year certificate and service pin. Mayor Faram presented Marilyn Ellis with a ten year certificate and service pin for ten years of service in the Library. 7. Mayor Faram opened the public hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of this request to please come forward. Mr. Claude Byrd, 7924 Maplewood, appeared before the Council. Mr. Byrd stated he would like to request that the Council approve his request for commercial zoning. Mr. Byrd stated he had been in business in North Richland Hills since 1959. Mr. Byrd stated the reason he was requesting for a change in the zoning was because the lot in question was zoned speci- fically for commercial parking with the exception of a 20 x 25 foot section close to the existing building. Mr. Byrd stated the primary reason for the request was so they could use a lift that had been installed to do retail type service work, oil change, lube and steam clean cars. Mr. Byrd stated the lift would be moved but it would be an economic hardship at this time. Mr. Byrd stated the lift was not being used at the present time because of the zoning requirements. Mr. Byrd stated he did not know he would need a building permit before installing the lift. Mr. Byrd asked for rebuttal time if necessary. Councilman Newman asked Mr. Byrd if the lift was embedded in concrete or setting on top of the concrete. Mr. Byrd stated the lift was setting on top of concrete. Councilman Newman asked if the lift was electric or hydraulic. Mr. Byrd stated the lift was electric and had its own hydraulic power. Councilman Newman asked if the lift could be moved. Mr. Byrd stated the lift could be moved, there was about ten feet behind the building that was zoned commercial, but it would be inconvenient plus expensive to move it. November 8, 1982 Page Two PRESENTATION OF TEN YEAR CERTIFI- CATE AND SERVICE PIN TO DOROTHY MCKNIGHT AND MARILYN ELLIS - LIBRARY PLANNING & ZONING PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL HEARING PZ 82-44, REQUEST OF CLAUDE BYRD TO REZONE LOT 6, BLOCK 23, CLEAR- VIEW ADDITION FROM COMMERCIAL- SPECIFIC USE-PARK- ING LOT TO COM- MERCIAL (LOCATED ON MAPLEWOOD DRIVE BOUNDED ON THE SOUTHEAST BY BYRD AUTOMOTIVE Councilman Newman stated he realized to move the lift would be inconvenient but it was also inconvenient before the City granted a specific use permit for parking cars. Mr. Byrd stated the property had been improved considerably since he had purchased it. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey asked Mr. Byrd why he did not think about getting a building permit before installing the lift. Mr. Byrd stated he did not realize he needed a permit. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey asked Mr. Byrd at what point he realized he needed a permit. Mr. Byrd stated when he received a call from the City. Councilman Fisher asked if an automobile was placed on the lift could it be seen from the street and the neighbors. Mr. Byrd stated yes. Councilman Fisher asked if the lift were to be removed, would it still be visible from the street and would it be on com- mercial property. Mr. Byrd stated it would still be visible from the street but would be on commercial property. Councilman Davis stated that in the Planning and Zoning minutes of september 23, 1982, Mr. Byrd stated it would cost $10,000 to move the lift. Councilman Davis asked Mr. Byrd if this was a correct statement. Mr. Byrd stated yes, the estimate he had on the concrete and moving the drain was $10,000. Councilman Davis stated the minutes also stated that Mr. Byrd had to flush radiators out into the street. Mr. Byrd stated that was correct, they had flushed the radiators in the street for the last thirteen years before the lift was installed. Councilman Davis stated that the minutes reflected that one of the Planning and Zoning Commissioners had asked Mr. Byrd if he would be interested in only zoning the 19 x 25 foot section. November 8, 1982 Page Three Mr. Byrd stated he would have no objection to only zoning the 19 x 25 foot area. ·councilman Davis stated the minutes indicated that Mr. Byrd wanted the whole lot zoned commercial because it would be less confusing. Mr. Byrd stated that was a correct statement, he felt it would be less confusing if the whole lot was zoned commercial, but would have no objections to just the 19 x 25 area being zoned. Councilman Davis asked if the 19 x 25 foot area were zoned commercial would that allow Mr. Byrd to keep the lift where it was presently located. Mr. Byrd stated yes. Councilman Davis stated that Mr. Byrd had also told the Plan- ning and zoning Commission he did not realize he needed a building permit. Mr. Byrd stated that was correct, he did not realize the lift was considered a permanent structure. Councilwoman Hinkle stated she was not too concerned with what was already on the lot, but was concerned that some- thing else might be built there. Councilwoman Hinkle asked if Mr. Byrd would have to obtain a building permit if he wanted to build on the lot. Mayor Faram stated yes. Councilwoman Hinkle asked if the 19 x 25 foot section was zoned commercial would it only be large enough to accom- modate the lift. Mr. Byrd stated he had no plans to build a building on the 19 x 25 foot section. Councilman Newman asked how far from the present site would the lift have to be moved to be legal and would it still be visible from the street. Mr. Byrd stated the lift would have to be moved approximately ten feet from the present site and it would still be visible from the street. Councilman Newman asked if there was existing concrete where the lift would be moved. Mr. Byrd replied yes, but more concrete would have to be poured. November 8, 1982 Page Four Mayor Faram asked Mr. Byrd if there were ten feet behind the existing building that was commercial. Mr. Byrd stated yes. Mayor Faram asked where the 19 x 25 feet came in. Mr. Byrd stated that was the section he would need to use for the lift. Mayor Faram asked if the lift was nineteen feet, how could it fit into ten feet. Mr. Byrd stated the lift was only ten feet wide. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey asked the staff if they agreed it would be legal if the lift were moved. Mr. Line stated that if the existing zoning was com- mercial and what Mr. Byrd was asking for was com- mercial, if it was permissible in what was being requested on one piece of ground then it would be permissible for what he was requesting. Councilman Kenna asked if there would be require- ments in setbacks and if there were easements there. Mr. Line stated he was speaking only on the zoning, the property line would have to be examined to see if all the other requirements would be met. Councilman Davis asked Mr. Byrd to show him on the map exactly where the lift would set. Councilman Davis stated the lift would still be on Lot 6. Mayor Faram called for anyone wishing to speak in opposi- tion to this request to please come forward. Mr. Kenneth Fickle, 7908 Maplewood, appeared before the CounciL Mr. Fickle stated this was the third time this request had been heard, once in a Planning and Zoning meeting in 1981 and was denied. Mr. Fickle stated the Planning and zoning Commission heard the request again last month and it was denied again. Mr. Fickle stated he would November 8, 1982 Page Five continue to do what was necessary to keep the lot from being zoned commercial. Mr. Fickle stated he felt that it would devalue his property and property in the area if the lot were zoned commercial. Mr. Fickle stated the main issue before was the parking lot and the City was told there would be no more building on the lot, if the entire lot was zoned commercial there would be more building. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey stated that if Mr. Byrd moved the lift and the property met all the requirements there would be nothing the City could do about the lift. Mr. Fickle stated he realized nothing could be done but he did not want the lot zoned commercial. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey asked Mr. Fickle what his main objection was. Mr. Fickle stated his main objection was the lot being zoned commercial. There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Faram granted Mr. Byrd rebuttal time. Mr. Byrd stated he neglected to mention previously that his business hours were 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Faram closed the public hearing. :3. Mayor Faram advised the Council it would take a three- fourth's vote for passage because it was an appeal hearing. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Councilman Hubbard, to deny PZ 82-44, Ordinance No. 987. Councilman Kenna stated the Council had reviewed this potential zoning before as requested, straight com- mercial, and came up with the same answers as this time. Councilman Kenna stated he felt this was a neighborhood, with a neighborhood street and not Highway 121. Councilman Kenna stated he was particu- larly offended by the section where the lift was although the last time it was going to be a parking lot and now there is a lift, if it is zoned com- mercial next time no one knows what would be built. Councilman Kenna stated he did not feel the lot should be zoned commercial because there would be no control over what was placed on it. November 8, 1982 Page Six CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE FOR PZ 82- 44 DENIED ORDINANCE NO. 987 November 8, 1982 Page Seven Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey moved, seconded by Councilman Fisher, to make a substitute motion to grant the com- mercial zoning to the 19 x 25 foot section. Councilman Hubbard asked how the ordinance would read if it applied only to the 19 x 25 foot section. Mayor Faram advised the ordinance, as written, would have to be changed to grant only the 19 x 25 foot space. Mr. McEntire stated this was a request to change the zoning on the whole tract and it could be considered arbitrary and capricious if only a portion of the tract were zoned. Mayor Faram asked if the motion was out of order. Mr. McEntire stated the motion was not out of order, but he wanted to tell the Council of the impact of the motion. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey asked what the impact would be. Mr. McEntire stated the Council might be zoning the entire tract. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey stated the motion was for Specific Use for a lift; Councilman Fisher agreed with the motion. Councilman Kenna asked Mr. McEntire how you could zone a parcel of land specific Use and not the entire tract. Mr. McEntire stated the Council would be giving a specific Use and not zoning the tract. Councilman Kenna asked that the motion be restated. Mayor Faram stated the substitute motion was to grant specific Use for the 19 x 25 foot space for the lift, where it presently sat and turn down the rest of the application. Mayor Faram asked Mr. McEntire if since the request was for commercial zoning and that was what was con- sidered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and they had denied the request, how would the three- fourth's rule apply to the substitute motion. Mr. McEntire stated the substitute motion would require a three-fourth's vote. Councilman Davis stated that for further clarification, and on the assumption that the 19 x 25 foot for Specific Use supposedly encompassed the whole lift, and the Council had no documentation showing that the 19 x 25 feet would cover the lift. Councilman Davis stated he was concerned that the Council might need to have the documentation before the substitute motion be granted. Mr. McEntire stated there was no ordinance at the present time covering the 19 x 25 feet, an entire new ordinance would have to be written before the next Council meeting. Councjlman Newman asked if the substitute motion were approved could a building be built on the 19 x 25 space. Mr. McEntire stated he understood the Specific Use would be for a lift only. Councilman Hubbard stated the way he understood the sub- stitute motion was to grant Specific Use for the 19 x 25 existing lift space and reject the commercial on Ordi- nance 987. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey stated that was correct. Councilman Davis called for the question. Councilman Kenna stated this request must pass by a three- fourth's vote and possibly Mr. Byrd would like to go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission with a new request. Councilman Kenna stated he would suggest the Chair ask Mr. Byrd his preference. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey stated he would recommend Councilman Kenna's suggestion. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Byrd if he would prefer to go back to Planning and Zoning with an amended request. Mr. Byrd asked if the request was voted on now and denied, would he have the opportunity to go back to Planning and Zoning. Mr. McEntire stated yes. Mr. Byrd stated he preferred the Council to go ahead and vote. November 8, 1982 Page Eight Substitute motion failed by a vote of 3-4; Councilman Kenna, Davis, Newman voting against; Councilmen Ramsey, Fisher and Hubbard and Councilwoman Hinkle voting for. Original motion to deny carried 5-2; Councilmen Hubbard, Kenna, Davis and Newman and Councilwoman Hinkle voting fori Councilmen Fisher and Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey voting against. 9. Mayor Faram advised the Council the Planning and Zoning Com- mission had recommended approval subject to the Engineer's comments and all comments had been met. Councilman Hubbard moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to approve PS 82-44, subject to the Engineer's comments. Motion carried 7-0. 10. Mayor Faram advised the Council the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval subject to the Engineer's comments and all had been met. Councilman Hubbard moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey, to approve PS 82-45, subject to the Engineer's comments. Motion carried 7-0. 11. Councilman Hubbard moved, seconded by Councilman Davis, to approve the contract with Haltom City for sanitary sewer service to the Trails Addition. Motion carried 7-0. November 8, 1982 Page Nine PLANNING & ZONING PS 82-24, REQUEST OF CROSS ROADS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 1-5, BLOCK 10, SNOW HEIGHTS NORTH ADDITION (LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF RUFE SNOW DRIVE AND NORTH OF PROPOSED MEADOW CREST DRIVE) APPROVED PLANNING & ZONING PS 82-45, REQUEST OF DYNA-CO DEVELOP- MENT COMPANY FOR FINAL PLAT OF LOT 2, BLOCK 6, SNOW HEIGHTS NORTH ADDITION (LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LEWIS DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF RUFE SNOW DRIVE APPROVED CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACT WITH HALTOM CITY FOR SANITARY SEWER SERVICE TO TRAILS ADDITION APPROVED 12. Councilman Hubbard moved, seconded by Councilman Newman, to postpone action on this item. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey stated that this proposed resolution was not a unique resolution. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey stated he had talked with other cities in the area and they all had guidelines for use of city facilities. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey stated that the guidelines would be studied further and another resolution brought back to the Council. Mayor Faram appointed Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey and Councilman Richard Davis as a committee to study the guidelines. Motion to postpone carried 7-0. 12a. Councilman Davis moved, seconded by Councilman Hubbard, to approve PS 82-40, subject to the Engineer's comments. Mayor Faram advised the Council that Mr. Gary Teague had requested to speak on this item and with the Council's approval he would depart from the rules and let Mr. Teague speak. Mr. Gary Teague, Teague, Nall and Perkins Engineering, 210 West sixth street, appeared before the Council representing the owner, Mr. Bogart. Mr. Teague stated he would like to bring an item in the Engineer's comments to the Council's attention and that being Item #2 pertaining to construction of a portion of Holiday Lane and utilities. Mr. Teague stated his replat proposed to produce four lots located on Bogart and one of the lots is a side lot to a future extension of Holiday Lane. Mr. Teague stated the right-of-way was existing on Holiday Lane, but had not been con- structed. Mr. Teague stated the applicant would like to sign a covenant to run with the land for future street improvements and the utilities. Mr. Riddle stated the covenant needed to include the land to the west of Lot lR. Councilman Davis moved, seconded by Councilman Hubbard, to amend the motion to state "approve PS 82-40 subject to the Engineer's comments and the signing of a covenant to run with the land on both sides of Holiday Lane that Mr. Bogart owned." Motion carried 7-0. Original motion as amended carried 7-0. November 8, 1982 Page Ten CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION REGARD- ING THE USE OF CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND OTHER CITY FACILI- TIES POSTPONED PLANNING & ZONING PS 82-40, REQUEST OF TLB-GSC ENTER- PRISES, INC. FOR REPLAT OF LOTS 2R-6, REVISED TO LOTS lR-4R, BLOCK B, COLLEGE HILLS ADDITION (LOCATED ON THE NORTHSIDE OF BOGART AT HOLIDAY LANE) APPROVED 13. Mrs. Clevinger, 7824 Maplewood, appeared before the Council. Mrs. Clevinger stated she would like to know if anything had been decided on the nursery school on Maplewood. Mayor Faram asked Mrs. Clevinger what her understanding of the zoning of the property was. Mrs. Clevinger stated she understood the school was temporary and only for Mrs. Haley and no more than ten children. Mrs. Clevinger stated no one in the neighborhood was aware that Mrs. Haley was going to take in the garage and make the whole house into a nursery. Mayor Faram asked if it was the original owner that re- modeled the house. Mrs. Clevinger stated yes. Mayor Faram asked that if the sale of the property did go through and it was used as a nursery school, would it be considered a nuisance as far as she was concerned and the neighbors were concerned. Mrs. Clevinger stated yes, because of the traffic. Mayor Faram asked Mrs. Clevinger if at anytime had she or the persons in the vicinity had signed a petition to abate the nuisance. Mrs. Clevinger stated yes. Mayor Faram asked if the City was in possession of the petition. Mrs. Clevinger stated the City should be, it was presented in 1980. Mr. McEntire stated he thought Mrs. Clevinger was re- ferring to a complaint filed in Municipal Court. Mayor Faram asked Mr. McEntire if there was a petition on file. Mr. McEntire stated that if a petition was signed it was never received by the City. Mayor Faram asked if a petition was filed, what avenues were left open for the City. November 8, 1982 Page Eleven CITIZEN PRESENTATION Mr. McEntire stated it was his suggestion that if the citizens felt there was a nuisance, then the Council could take whatever action they wanted to abate the nuisance. Mayor Faram stated a petition would have to be filed before the City could take any action. Mrs. Clevinger asked if another petition would have to be signed. Mr. McEntire stated yes. Mrs. JoAnn Williams, 7900 Maplewood, appeared before the Council. Mrs. Williams stated that when this case recently went before the Planning and Zoning Commission one of the questions she asked was when this was first zoned to Mrs. Haley if it was a Specific Use permit. Mrs. Williams stated that when a Specific Use permit was issued it was issued to the person and not just the property. Mrs. Williams stated that if the specific Use permit was issued to Mrs. Haley then the business was illegal because it had changed owners once and was in the process of changing owners again. Mrs. Williams stated she asked the Planning and Zoning Commission if they could find out if the Specific Use permit was issued to Mrs. Haley or the property. Mrs. Williams stated that she thought Mr. McEntire was directed two or three years ago by the Council to check into the legality of the nursery school. Mayor Faram stated that the recent Planning and Zoning meet- ing Mrs. Williams was referring to that Councilman Davis indicated he would get a legal opinion. Mayor Faram asked Councilman Davis to address the subject. Councilman Davis stated the Specific Use was discussed at the Planning and Zoning meeting and there was a question from the applicant, the Planning and Zoning Commission and some of the residents in the area as to whether or not the variance was a Specific Use permit, did it go with the land or the owner. Councilman Davis stated the City Attorney felt that it could possibly go with the land because of the broadness of the minutes on the meet- ing where it was granted. Councilman Davis stated the City Attorney also felt it would be very hard to defend in Court. Councilman Davis stated the recourse the people in the area could take would be to get a new petition and petition the City Council to abate the nuisance. November 8, 1982 Page Twelve November 8, 1982 Page Thirteen Mayor Faram stated he thought the original request from Mrs. Haley went before the Board of Adjustment. Councilman Davis stated it went before the Board of Adjustment in 1965. Mayor Faram stated the Council had no appellate jurisdic- tion over the Board of Adjustment and if the problem was to be resolved, Mr. McEntire had outlined the method. Councilman Fisher asked Mrs. Williams if she knew if the neighbors were disturbed by the traffic or because of what was going on in the structure. Mrs. Williams stated mainly because of the traffic. Mrs. Williams stated that even when the garage was taken in the house could not be over 1,700 square feet and the people were licensed to keep 50 to 100 children. 14. Mayor Faram adjourned the meeting of November 8, 1982. ADJOURNMENT ~~kJ D~ck Faram - Mayor ATTEST: