HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2004-06-17 Minutes
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NORTH RICH LAND HILLS, TEXAS
JUNE 17,2004
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Don Bowen at 7:03 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT
Chairman
Don Bowen
Richard Davis
Bill Schopper
Ted Nehring
James Laubacher
Ken Sapp
Ex Officio
Brenda Cole
Suzy Compton
ABSENT
CITY STAFF
Director of Planning
City Planner
Assistant Dir. of Public Works
Recording Secretary
Dave Green
Donna Jackson
Lance Barton
Holly Blake
3.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 20,2004 AND JUNE 3, 2004.
APPROVED
Ted Nehring, seconded by Bill Schopper, motioned to approve the minutes of
May 20, 2004. The motion was approved by unanimous vote (5-0) with James
Laubacher abstaining due to his absence on May 20, 2004.
Bill Schopper, seconded by Richard Davis, motioned to approve the minutes of
June 3, 2004. The motion was approved by unanimous vote (6-0).
Page 1 of 14; 06/17/04
P & Z Minutes
5.
PZ 2004-08
PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM GREATER NRH
REALTY PARTNERS, LTD. FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM "AG" AGRICULTURE
TO "R-2" RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LOCATED IN THE 7400 BLOCK OF
HIGHTOWER DRIVE (TRACT 4 AND A PORTION OF TRACT 4B9A - 5.792 ACRES).
APPROVED
Mr. Green summarized the case which is a rezoning request from "AG" Agriculture to
"R-2" Residential Zone. Holiday Lane is located north and south with Hightower Drive
running east and west. This is an interior tract, approximately 5.7 acres, bounded on the
west side by a drainage channel. Northridge Meadows Phase 1 is currently under
construction. It has a "T" intersection coming off of Holiday Lane and goes into a two
cul-de-sac design. The rezoning property is located immediately to the west of
Northridge Meadows Phase 1 between the current boundaries of Phase 1 and the
drainage channel. The property will be known as Northridge Meadows Phase 2. The
current zoning is Agricultural. The applicant is requesting a rezoning for "R-2"
Residential with the purpose of extending Phase 1 into Phase 2 residential
development. "R-2" Residential is the basic residential low density single-family
residential zoning district, requiring 9,000 sq. ft. lots and a minimum 2,000 sq. ft. home.
According to the Comprehensive Plan, the entire area is identified as low density single-
family type uses, therefore, this request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff recommends approval.
Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing.
David Gregory, GSWW, came forward. Mr. Gregory stated that he was available to
answer any questions from staff. This is a preliminary plat for the continuation of
Northridge Meadows Phase 1 into Phase 2. It is a single cul-de-sac with 19 residential
lots proposed.
Chairman Bowen asked Mr. Gregory about the preliminary plat in regards to the long
cul-de-sac. Has the fire department approved the plat and is the fire department okay
with fire engines turning around in the cul-de-sac? Mr. Gregory responded yes.
Mr. and Mrs. Davis, 7108 Douglas Lane, came forward. Mrs. Davis stated that she
resides on the other side of the proposed cul-de-sac and is also the owner of 7110
Douglas Lane. How does the developer propose access to this interior property? Bill
Schopper responded that the developer is proposing access through the subdivision to
the east off of Holiday Lane. Chairman Bowen asked Mr. Green to show the proposed
access. Mr. Green explained that Item #8 on this evening's agenda is a request to
change a residential lot into a street, therefore, Douglas will not be used as access.
Page 2 of 14; 06/17/04
P & Z Minutes
Mrs. Davis stated concern for the creek or drainage ditch and the density level that will
be placed behind her. She stated that all of the houses that face Douglas on both sides
immediately across are large acreage houses and that everyone enjoys their rural
community atmosphere.
Richard Davis stated that there is a channel that will be separating the communities.
Mr. Schopper added that there will be a fence along the back as well.
Mr. Barton, Asst. Dir. Of Public Works, came forward to explain the drainage. Currently,
the FEMA flood insurance rate map for the channel on the west side of the proposed
subdivision shows the 100 year flood plain covering about half the lots. Due to a flood
plain being officially shown on the plat, a flood study is required. About five years ago a
significant amount of work was done on this channel to alleviate flooding problems that
were occurring on the east side of Holiday Lane. A letter of map revision or LOMR was
never filed for those drainage improvements. The study that was done for Northridge
Meadows Phase 2 analyzed the results of the drainage improvements. The 100 year
flood plain is now inside the channel. The property on the west side and all the property
in Northridge Meadows will officially come out of the flood plain, once the LOMR is
approved by FEMA. The applicant will send the LOMR into FEMA for review and
approval. Once the LOMR is approved there will be an official map revision.
Ty Bailey, 7008 Douglas Lane, came forward. Mr. Bailey stated his concerns regarding
the developer piling on a great deal of dirt, creating a possible flood issue for him. How
will this change until the flood plain issue is resolved?
Chairman Bowen explained that the property is already out of the flood plain. The only
change is a revision of the flood map. It will be official once the LOMR is accepted by
FEMA. The property will be officially out of the flood plain without any dirt movement.
Mr. Bailey asked the Chairman if that means the developer won't move any dirt around.
He is concerned that the developer could pile the dirt up and should a rain event come
that causes an overflow of the channel, the water has nowhere else to go but on his
property due to the elevation of the dirt. Chairman Bowen explained that adding dirt
there doesn't make any difference. The channel can handle the capacity according to
the study performed.
Mr. Bailey stated that he is still concerned about the extra run off that will be caused by
the development. Chairman Bowen explained that the channel was built to handle the
capacity even with the new development. The analysis has to be done with any new
development occurring within a flood plain.
Mr. Barton stated that the analysis is based on the type of land use that drains into the
channel. The analysis is based on this development being in place as a residential
development. The increased run off is accounted for in the analysis. The channel is
there and already exists. The analysis shows that today, the channel that is there, will
Page 3 of 14; 06/17/04
P & Z Minutes
handle the run off. Mr. Schopper asked if Mr. Barton would share a copy of this with Mr.
Bailey.
Mr. Barton responded yes. This document was prepared by a licensed engineer and
this document will be sent to FEMA. FEMA will look at it and if FEMA agrees with the
analysis then FEMA will issue an official map amendment. Technically Mr. Bailey's
property is not in the flood plain. Officially, Mr. Bailey's property is in the flood plain until
the revision is made.
Richard Davis stated that in all practicality the property is out of the flood plain, but
officially with the government, flood insurance is necessary. However, if the developer
develops this piece of property and goes forward with the map revision, flood insurance
will no long be necessary. Bill Schopper stated that the developer paid for the study in
order to build in a flood plain. Mr. Bailey indicated that he is satisfied with the study.
Chairman Bowen asked if there were any more comments from staff or from the
audience. There were none. Chairman Bowen closed the public hearing and asked for
a motion.
Bill Schopper, seconded by Richard Davis, motioned to approve PZ 2004-08 as
proposed. The motion was approved unanimously (6-0).
6.
PS 2004-13
CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM GREATER NRH REALITY, LTD. TO
APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF NORTHRIDGE MEADOWS ADDITION
PHASE II LOCATED NORTH OF 7415 HIGHTOWER DRIVE AND WEST OF
NORTHRIDGE MEADOWS PHASE I (5.792 ACRES).
APPROVED
Mr. Green summarized the case which is a preliminary plat for Northridge Meadows
Phase 2 with a total of 19 lots around a cul-de-sac. The entrance way will come off of
Holiday Lane. "R-2" Residential District requires minimum 9,000 sq. ft. lots along with
minimum lot width and lot depth. In some cases where cul-de-sacs are involved, due to
the overall dimensions between the drainage channel and the existing western
boundaries of Phase 1, a certain dimension needs to be worked in and a certain street
dimension needs to be dealt with to allow fire apparatus to circle within the cul-de-sac.
That means that sometimes these lots cannot meet the minimum standards of the
district that the property is zoned. The applicant has provided a letter showing that the
lots in the cul-de-sac have sufficient lot size and lot width, but are short on the lot depth.
The Planning & Zoning Commission has the authority to grant waivers in certain
situations such as this for minimum lot dimension. The applicant has also provided
documentation showing the minimum 2,000 sq. ft. lot can be safely built on these lots.
Public Works has provided a memo stating that this plat has been reviewed and all plat
Page 4 of 14; 06/17/04
P & Z Minutes
issues have been resolved. Staff recommends approval of this preliminary plat with
approval of the waivers as requested by the applicant.
Bill Schopper stated that "R-2" lots are fairly good size homes and nice neighborhoods.
It is not the same kind of spread that is already there, but those times are passing us by
and they don't front any streets. It is not fair to the property owner to have minimum two
to three acre tracts that the property owner cannot access. This is the most appropriate
use of this particular land. Mr. Schopper stated that he was not in favor of the property
being cut up into a lot of different lots, such as for "R-3", but "R-2" seems to be an
appropriate use for the land.
Chairman Bowen added that 2,000 sq. ft. homes are the minimum for "R-2". Generally,
what the Commission has witnessed over the last couple of years however is that many
of the homes built in "R-2" are considerably larger than the minimum sq. ft.
Richard Davis, seconded by Ted Nehring, motioned to approve PS 2004-13 with
the allowance of the waiver of the two lot depths. The motion was approved
unanimously (6-0).
7.
F 2004-01
CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM GREATER NRH REALTY PARTNERS,
LTD. TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF NORTHRIDGE MEADOWS ADDITION
PHASE II. LOCATED NORTH OF 7415 HIGHTOWER DRIVE AND WEST OF
NORTHRIDGE MEADOWS PHASE I (5.792 ACRES).
APPROVED
Mr. Green summarized the case which is the final plat of Northridge Meadows Phase 2.
This is the actual document that will be filed with Tarrant County. Staff has reviewed
the subdivision as proposed by the applicant. Staff recommends approval of the final
plat.
Richard Davis, seconded by James Laubacher, motioned to approve F 2004-01.
The motion was approved unanimously (6-0).
8.
R 2004-02
CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM ALAMO CUSTOM BUILDERS, INC. TO
APPROVE THE FINAL OF LOTS 18R AND 20R-1, BLOCK 1 NORTHRIDGE
MEADOWS, PHASE I BEING A RE-PLAT OF LOTS 18, 19R AND 20R, BLOCK 1
NORTHRIDGE MEADOWS PHASE I LOCATED ON RIDGE PEAK DRIVE
(.667 ACRES).
Page 5 of 14; 06/17/04
P & Z Minutes
APPROVED
Mr. Green summarized the case. This is Northridge Meadows Phase 1. As it was
approved, there are a series of lots along the west side. There was no access being
provided for the area that was just considered by the Commission (Item #5 on this
evening's agenda). The lots that have not been built need to be reconsidered in order
to provide access for Northridge Meadows Phase 2. The applicant has revised Lot 19
to show the street connection from Phase 1 into Phase 2. It causes Lot 18 and Lot 20
to have revised boundaries in order to accommodate that. Public Works has provided a
letter, stating that this re-plat has been reviewed. Staff recommends approval of the
residential re-plat of this property.
Ken Sapp, seconded by Ted Nehring, motioned to approve R 2004-02. The
motion was approved unanimously (6-0).
9.
PZ 2004-10
PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM ANGEL FREEZE
FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM "AG" AGRICULTURE TO "R-2" RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT LOCATED IN THE 7700 BLOCK OF CHAPMAN ROAD (1.505 ACRES).
APPROVED
Mr. Green summarized the case which is a rezoning request from "AG" Agriculture to
"R-2" Residential. This property is located in the 7700 block of Chapman Road.
Chapman Road runs east and west. Central Avenue comes up to Chapman Road and
a drainage channel runs north and south. This property is 1.5 acres which is currently
vacant. The applicant is proposing to develop four single-family lots on this tract. "R-2"
requires a minimum of 9,000 sq. ft. lots and a minimum of 2,000 sq. ft. homes. Each lot
meets the minimum. The Comprehensive Plan depicts low density residential uses for
the area. The proposed use of the land is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff recommends approval.
Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing.
Angel Freeze, the applicant, came forward. Ms. Freeze stated that these four homes
will be luxury homes and that she is available to answer questions.
Nathan Gallimore, 7707 Jamie Renee Lane, came forward. Mr. Gallimore stated that
he resides just on the other side of the proposed site and that he owns the duplex at
7507 Jamie Renee Lane. Mr. Gallimore stated that he is not against the project, but
that he does have some concerns. In the past there have been some flooding issues
here and he wonders what will happen to the existing trees that are up against his
property.
Page 6 of 14; 06/17/04
P & Z Minutes
Chairman Bowen stated that in regards to the trees, the developer will try to keep as
many trees as possible because trees add value. If the trees are in the back of the
property, this makes it easier for the developer to keep the trees. In regards to the
flooding, the Commission is only considering the zoning request this evening. During
the platting stage, which is coming up next, the developer's engineer will have to satisfy
the City that the development will not cause any more water to run into the recognized
drainage channel that can be handled by the channel.
Mr. Barton stated that Staff requires the developer to provide flood studies that show the
development will not adversely affect the flood plain. A portion of this property appears
to have some flood plain on it. The developer may require a flood study, but the plat is
not at that stage yet.
Mr. Gallimore asked if the houses will be single level or multi-level homes. Chairman
Bowen responded that there is no restriction. Richard Davis added that there is a
maximum. A two-story home is the maximum level allowed. Bill Schopper added that
Mr. Gallimore should take this opportunity to visit with Ms. Freeze and find out exactly
what her plans are. He stated some concerns regarding the traffic on Chapman. He
thought it was not bad within this section, but a little further west there are driveways
abutting out onto Chapman. Due to this property being zoned "R-2" all the homes will
be required to have side entry and rear entry garages. At least the resident will have
the turn around and not be backing out onto Chapman.
Chairman Bowen stated an idea regarding the property. There are four lots with the
possibility of common driveways, reducing the amount of turn offs or curb cuts by two.
Mr. Schopper added that it would be a good idea for one of the drives to be directly
across from Lucas Lane in order to not be offset. Ken Sapp added that a wrought iron
fence would create a very attractive entrance.
Bill Schopper, seconded by Richard Davis, motioned to approve PZ 2004-10. The
motion carried unanimously (6-0).
10.
PS 2004-18
CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM ANGEL FREEZE TO APPROVE THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ALLEN ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 7700 BLOCK OF
CHAPMAN ROAD (1.505 ACRES).
APPROVED
Mr. Green summarized the case. This is a preliminary plat for the Allen Addition
proposing four lots, all facing Chapman Road. Public Works has provided a letter
stating that all of the City's concerns have been addressed. Staff recommends approval
of the preliminary plat.
Page 7 of 14; 06/17/04
P & Z Minutes
Ken Sapp asked Mr. Green if a notation was needed in the motion to address Chapman
Road as a "C-4" Collector Street, and if notation was needed about the screening wall.
Mr. Green responded that there is a requirement in the subdivision code for a 6-ft.
masonry screening wall when a subdivision fronts onto a future four lane collector
street. The requirement doesn't state whether a lot is backing to the collector street or
fronting the collector street, but staff believes the real intent of the masonry screening is
to screen a rear lot location. The reasoning being that over time a wooden fence facing
a collector street begins to sag and is no longer aesthetic to the community. The homes
proposed are fronting onto Chapman Road and receiving their access from Chapman
Road, the screening wall provides no benefit to the property. That is not to say that the
applicant couldn't provide a masonry screening wall or wrought iron fencing with brick
columns along the front.
Mr. Davis stated that the interpretation is that a masonry screening wall is intended for
rear and side yard facing collector streets. Mr. Davis agrees with the interpretation.
Mr. Schopper asked the developer where the drives are going to go. He is concerned
about the resident pulling out onto Chapman Road with about 180-ft. of depth.
Jerry Allen, the developer, stated that the main objective is cost. A side entry garage is
preferred and it would solve the problem of backing out onto Chapman Road. Mr. Allen
stated that he likes the common curb cut.
Mr. Schopper stated that years down the road, the City tries to line up the roads and the
concern is with Lucas Lane. Either directly line up with Lucas Lane or have a common
curb cut to alleviate future problems.
Mr. Allen stated that he likes the idea because it saves money and it alleviates future
problems.
Ken Sapp added that it would also help with the marketing of the home due to safety on
a busy street.
Mr. Davis asked the developer if he could give the Commission a stronger commitment
by final plat on what will be done.
Mr. Shopper added that he could see the final plat having a public access easement
platted where the common driveway would go and then branching off individually. That
would be a cost savings.
Mr. Allen stated that would not be a problem and that he would meet with staff to work
out the issues.
Mr. Green stated that on the final plat common access easements should be validated
on the paving and grading plans.
Page 8 of 14; 06/17/04
P & Z Minutes
Ken Sapp, seconded by Richard Davis, motioned to approve PS 2004-18 with the
stipulation that the requirement for a masonry screening wall on the frontage of
the property not be required and the encouragement of common drive and/or
curb cuts. The motion was approved unanimously (6-0).
11.
SP 2004-01
CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY DON D. PHIFER ON BEHALF OF
PHIFER/HOGAN REALTY LLC FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED
OFFICE BUILDING ON LOT 2, BLOCK 1, COUNTRY PLACE ESTATES, LOCATED
IN THE 7900 BLOCK OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (.5191 ACRES).
APPROVED
Mr. Green summarized the request. This property is located on the east side of Davis
Boulevard and was rezoned for "NS" Neighborhood Services. The property to the east
is currently zoned "R-3" Residential. The Commission has seen a subdivision plat for
the residential development behind this property. This is the site plan for the "NS"
development. The City's zoning ordinance states that anytime new commercial
development occurs within 200-ft. of residential, site plan approval is required from both
Planning & Zoning and City Council. This is not a public hearing. No one has been
notified and no signs were posted. The site plan is supposed to meet all City standards
and requirements. Proposed is a 3,700 sq. ft. office building located off of the frontage
area on North Davis. The elevation shows two offices with masonry brick and stone
with a composition roof. The property will have direct access from Davis Boulevard. As
seen on the drawing, there is a common access easement. This commercial property
has a common access easement that parallels Davis Boulevard, which allows other
commercial developments north and south of this property to adjoin the common access
easement in order for traffic to have one access point. The property is required to have
15 parking spaces; they are providing 16 parking spaces. This site was heavily wooded
but has been thinned out to allow for grading the lot, and for positioning the building and
allowing for paved areas. There are a number of existing Oak trees that are being
retained into the design of the development. There are new trees being proposed along
the same area to fill in the gaps between the existing trees. Because of the residential
development to the east, there is a requirement of a 15-ft. landscape buffer around the
rear of this property. Within that buffer, a minimum amount of trees are required.
According to the site plan, that minimum is more than met. Alofl9 the frontage area on
Davis Boulevard, a 15-ft. front landscape setback requires a certain amount of street
trees. The trees are being provided as well as retaining some of the existing trees on
site. The dumpster location will be screened with some of the same materials that will
be used for the construction of the building. The applicant also wants to use an antique
style exterior lighting for the site. The site plan is consistent with current standards in
terms of building setbacks, area coverage, landscaping, and screening. Staff
recommends approval of this site plan.
Page 9 of 14; 06/17/04
P & Z Minutes
Mr. Sapp asked if there will be a curb cut onto Country Place. Mr. Sapp is concerned
about the intersection and the possibility of future signal lights.
Mr. Green responded that there will not be a curb cut. The common access easement
touches all four lots. Currently, the intersection mentioned is further to the north and
there is no access to Country Place Lane.
Chairman Bowen stated there was a clerical error on the site plan. Both east and west
elevations are labeled west elevations.
Mr. Green stated that the corrections will be made before going any further.
Richard Davis, seconded by James Laubacher, motioned to approve SP 2004-01.
The motion was approved unanimously (6-0).
12.
R 2004-01
CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM FOUNTAIN RIDGE, LTD. TO APPROVE
THE FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 10R -17R, BLOCK 5 FOUNTAIN RIDGE BEING A
RE-PLAT OF LOTS 10-17, BLOCK 5 FOUNTAIN RIDGE LOCATED IN THE 5900
BLOCK OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (1.421 ACRES).
APPROVED
Mr. Green summarized the case. Originally this was an oversight on the original
Fountain Ridge Plat. As the plat was designed, there were two builders, Drees Custom
Homes, with smaller lots on the west side of the development, and Goodman Homes
with larger lots. Each of the lots have a different front building setback as associated
with their particular type of residential development. A mistake occurred on this plat.
On the block in question, one of the larger lots should have a 25-ft. building setback
instead of a 10-ft. building setback as shown on the filed plat. This was not discovered
until after the plat was filed at the Tarrant County Courthouse. The purpose of this
request is to correct that mistake and file the plat with the correction showing a 25-ft.
building setback, rather than the 10-ft. building setback.
Ted Nehring, seconded by Richard Davis, motioned to approve R 2004-01. The
motion carried unanimously (6-0).
13.
ORD 2787
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED TEXT REVISIONS TO ORDINANCE
NO. 1847 ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE FOLLOWING: THE AMOUNT
OF TIME TO APPEAL DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF
Page 10 of 14; 06/17/04
P & Z Minutes
ADJUSTMENT, CLARIFYING THE AMOUNT OF FINES FOR CONVICTION OF
PERSONS FOUND IN VIOLATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND;
ELIMINATING THE 10 DAY NOTIFICATION REQUIRED FOR CONSIDERATION OF
TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
APPROVED
Dave Green summarized the case. These are amendments proposed by the City
Attorney, Mr. Staples. Mr. Staples reviews City ordinances for conflicts with State law.
The following conflicts were found:
Amendment #1: This amendment revises the amount of time that is written within the
Zoning Ordinance for an individual to appeal a Board of Adjustment decision to District
Court. The Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) functions within the Zoning Ordinance by
granting variances such as height and area requirements. The Zoning Board of
Adjustment is the only board within the City that has the authority to grant variances or
waivers to those requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. They are not a recommending
board such as the Planning & Zoning Commission. Once a ZBA decision is made, it is
final with regard to the City's consideration. A final determination does not go to the
City Council. However, an individual can appeal a decision of the Zoning Board of
Adjustment, but it has to be appealed to the District Court. A lawsuit has to be filed
against the City and the Zoning Board of Adjustment in order to appeal a decision. Mr.
Staples found that the language in the ordinance states that any individual has 30 days
to appeal a decision by the Zoning Board of Adjustment to District Court but State Law
states that an individual only has 10 days. The purpose of Amendment #1 is to change
the text of the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with the 10 days as designated by
State Law.
Amendment #2: The current State Law provides for a maximum of $2,000 a day for
individuals who violate the Zoning Ordinance. This would be addressed by Code
Enforcement in Neighborhood Services, or by the Building Official. If there is a
situation where someone is violating the Zoning Ordinance and a citation is written to
that individual for the violation, staff Uudge) could write a citation for a maximum of
$2,000 a day. The current ordinance states $200 a day. The purpose of Amendment
#2 is to change the text of the Zoning Ordinance to read and be consistent with what is
State Law in terms of penalties per day for zoning violations.
Amendment #3: This amendment is specific to North Richland Hills. The amendment
states that if a change is made to the Zoning Ordinance in a text amendment a notice
must be placed in the newspaper 10 days prior to the consideration at a public hearing
before the Planning & Zoning Commission. Such as Amendment #1 and #2, Staff
advertised the changes in the newspaper 10 days prior to tonight's meeting as
prescribed by the current City Ordinance for those that may be concerned or those that
may see the change in the newspaper. As it stands, State Law doesn't require an
advertisement for a text change prior to the change being considered by the Planning &
Zoning Commission. Amendment #3 removes the requirement of the Zoning Ordinance
Page 11 of 14; 06/17/04
P & Z Minutes
for any text amendment to appear, be discussed, or advertised in the newspaper 10
days prior to a meeting such as this evening.
Bill Schopper stated that it is his understanding that the Commission can make it
tougher than State Law, but the Commission cannot make it more relaxed. Regarding
the 10 day amendment, if an individual wants their appeal bad enough, that individual
will move quickly anyway. However, Mr. Schopper does have a problem with
Amendment #2. This change makes it look like the Commission is increasing the fines.
If Staff was to issue a citation based on $200 a day, would it stick? Mr. Green
responded that this is something of a maximum, not a specific.
Mr. Schopper asked if the RV issues are considered a zoning citation.
Mr. Green responded that it depends on what the City does with it. If the RV regulations
that the City is working on are placed in the Zoning Ordinance, then yes. If the City
doesn't place the RV regulation in the Zoning Ordinance and an ordinance is drafted
that covers the parking requirements in the code of ordinances then that is a different
location.
Mr. Schopper asked Mr. Green where the RV section was now.
Mr. Green responded that currently the ordinance that everyone is talking about, the
ordinance that was adopted by City Council in October but has not been enforced yet, is
in the code of ordinances.
Mr. Sapp stated that there could be some zoning violations that could be detrimental
enough that $200 a day would not be enough incentive.
Mr. Schopper stated that he agrees. That was the biggest problem that the Zoning
Board of Adjustment had was enforcing the ordinances against citizens that were nice
enough to come and get permits, but the citizen that blows by the permit stage and
erects anyway, there was nothing the Board could do about it. That has been a
miserable problem.
Mr. Sapp commented on Amendment #1. For the benefit of the citizens watching this
and thinking that suddenly the City has decided to be tougher on everyone here. This
revision is actually to the benefit of the citizens. If a citizen today were to follow our
instructions with 30 days notice, and utilize that 30 days they would go to court and find
they are without standing and would not be able to pursue their appeal. By clarifying
this, it keeps them from losing their right of appeal should that occur.
Mr. Green stated that he agrees with Mr. Sapp. There is perhaps a false sense of
security to an individual who wants to appeal.
Page 12 of 14; 06/17/04
P & Z Minutes
Mr. Schopper asked Mr. Green if this is the appropriate time to change the fines. Mr.
Sapp added that the only reason for this seems to be to parallel State Law. There
doesn't seem to be an issue of being unable to enforce the City's zoning code.
Mr. Green stated that part of Mr. Staples' responsibilities is to make sure that the City is
in line with State Law.
Mr. Schopper stated that he is trying to make sure that the City is in line, but also to stop
upsetting our citizens.
Mr. Green commented that he is not sure that there is ever a good time to talk to
someone about raising a fine.
Mr. Sapp stated that the Commission doesn't have a great deal of input of how
frequently the City fines anyone.
Mr. Green stated that many times when the City writes a letter to an individual who is
violating the ordinance and a $2,000 a day fine is mentioned, some action is taken in
resolving the violation. Code Enforcement is flooded with citizens calling in asking why
certain violations haven't been taken care of. Part of that is possibly a big stick. Mr.
Schopper stated that he wants to get away from the big stick and he doesn't believe this
action is appropriate at this juncture.
Mr. Davis asked Mr. Schopper why he feels this is not appropriate at this juncture. He
stated that it is State Law and the City needs to conform to the State Law. The
Commission needs to trust the judicial system to make a fair decision and enforce the
City's codes.
Mr. Schopper asked staff how many zoning citations are issued a year?
Mr. Green responded that there are not that many. Most citations that end up in court
are code violations. That can be zoning, nuisance codes, or health codes. Anything
that is in the Code of Ordinance Book is carrying a $2,000 a day fine.
Mr. Schopper asked for an explanation of a zoning code violation.
Mr. Green responded that, for example, if an individual purchased a piece of property
and started conducting business there without checking the zoning, and/or didn't get
any permits, and/or didn't get a Certificate of Occupancy. Once staff is notified of that
situation, staff begins checking into it. At this time, Staff is dealing with a case just like
this.
Mr. Sapp asked Mr. Green if improper commercial activity is the biggest risk. Mr. Green
responded yes. Once one individual is able to go by, others will follow.
Page 13 of 14; 06/17/04
P & Z Minutes
Mr. Schopper asked Mr. Green about the current situation. Mr. Green responded that
staff is resolving it. Mr. Schopper asked if a cease and desist order was given. Mr.
Green responded yes.
Mr. Schopper believes that any individual will resolve the situation based on the fine,
whether it is $200 or $2,000. He doesn't agree with the big brother, big stick.
Mr. Sapp commented that a citation is a last resort.
Chairman Bowen reminded the Commission members that these amendments are
separate issues from the RV Ordinances.
Mr. Davis stated that he has no problem with Amendments #1 and #2. He doesn't see
any reason to have #3 since the City has text changes only a couple of times a year and
those should be put in the paper in the spirit of openness.
Chairman Bowen stated that if the Commission wants to deal with the ordinance tonight,
the Commission can change or delete part of it. Chairman Bowen opened the public
hearing. No one wished to speak and Chairman Bowen closed the public hearing.
Richard Davis, seconded by James Laubacher, motioned to recommend approval
of ORD 2787 but to include that the requirement for the newspaper notification of
10 days still be a requirement for any future zoning ordinance text amendments.
The motion was approved with Bill Schopper opposing (5-1).
James Laubacher commented after the motion that leaving the newspaper notice in is
appropriate especially in today's times. As far as the State Law is concerned, this is to
bring it into accordance with State Law. Generally, State Law always takes
precedence.
14.
ADJOURNMENT
As there was no other business, the Chairman adjourned the regular meeting at 8:23
p.m.
Chairman
1df~
fP.. O~
Don Bowen
Ted Nehring
Page 14 of 14; 06/17/04
P & Z Minutes