Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2004-07-01 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICH LAND HILLS, TEXAS JULY 1, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Don Bowen at 7:11 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Don Bowen Richard Davis Bill Schopper Randy Shiflet James Laubacher Ken Sapp Suzy Compton Ex Officio ABSENT Brenda Cole CITY STAFF City Planner Recording Secretary Donna Jackson Carolyn Huggins 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. ADMINISTERING OF OATH OF OFFICE The oath of office was administered to Suzy Compton, Ex Officio, reappointed to a two year term, and Randy Shiflet, Place 4, newly appointed to a two year term. 5. TR 2004-02 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM ARCADIA LAND PARTNERS 16 TO AMEND EXHIBIT B URBAN STANDARDS OF "TC" TOWN CENTER ORDINANCE NO. 2350. Page 1 of 16; 07/01/04 P&Z Minutes APPROVED Ms. Jackson summarized the case. Arcadia Land Partners 16, developers of the NRH Home Town Development are requesting a revision to Exhibit B, Urban Standards of Ordinance No. 2350, establishing "TC" Town Center Zoning. The Ordinance currently permits town homes in both the "General" and "Center" Subzones. However, the area and lot requirements for town home development in these subzones are different. The Center Subzone requires smaller lots and allows a greater variation in setback, lot coverage, and lot widths than the General Subzone. The applicant has submitted a Final Plat for this area of Home Town West Phase 3 that includes town home lots that do not meet the requirements of the Town Center ordinance because the lots are too small in size. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Dan Quinto, representing Arcadia Land Partners 16 came to the podium with a site plan and PowerPoint presentation. Richard Davis noted that the lots were 40x80 on the original site plan approved for Town Center and now those lots are 25-ft. Mr. Quinto responded that the North Richland Hills Town Center setting allows for greater density because it calls for greater open space, which creates a better quality of life. Mr. Sapp stated that Mr. Quinto had stated that there is an inconsistency in the regulations, but Mr. Sapp's understanding of the definition of a town home is that it has to be two or more units connected by a common wall. He stated that it doesn't appear to be an inconsistency because town homes could still be built; just not the number of units that Arcadia is requesting, thus, the basis of this request is to increase the density not to correct an inconsistency in the zoning. Mr. Quinto stated that they can't build town homes that are 40-ft. wide. Mr. Sapp responded that they have two adjoining 40-ft lots, which could have a zero lot line and there could be one home per lot, which would make it a town home. Mr. Quinto stated that there isn't any definition in the ordinance, but their understanding of town homes is that it is a series of buildings rather than a duplex. Mr. Gietema with Arcadia pointed out that the amount of density could be considerably higher than what they are requesting since they have zero multi-family. All of their development is single family - some attached, some detached - and they have included multiple parks. They have home sites considerable bigger than the minimum. He then stated three reasons they are requesting this redesign [which is a repeat of the information given by Mr. Gietema at the June 3, 2004, P&Z Meeting - see minutes from that meeting, "pzmin060304" page 2]. Mr. Gietema stated that the minimum square footage of the town homes affected by this request would be 1200 sq. ft., with a maximum of about 1750 sq. ft. He stated that these "row homes" will be more expensive than some of the single family detached in the subdivision next to Town Center. He stated that this will allow them to maintain their high quality and also maintain the number of units sold per year. It will also allow them Page 2 of 16; 07/01/04 P&Z Minutes to serve a market that they have not been able, so far, to serve, namely, single people. He stated that they are below the density they are allowed in their base zoning, which would allow them to do multi-family buildings with units as small as 400 sq. ft. Mr. Davis asked how many units per acre would be allowed in the multi-family. Mr. Gietema responded about 50 to 60. Mr. Davis asked if the ordinance allowed that. Mr. Gietema responded that it did in Town Center, but he stated that it isn't an attempt on their part to be greedy, but instead to create a pretty place. Mr. Quinto then completed his PowerPoint presentation, showing images of town homes they would be using as their template. He summarized that the Phase III density is lower than what is allowed in the ordinance. There are nine open spaces and the quality of the architecture is part of the whole equation in terms of creating value. Mr. Schopper stated that the Commission has seen this presentation before because it was just talked about for a site plan approval. He stated that the site plan doesn't truly represent Town Center because some buildings have five or six units in them and then there is a space between the units. Whatever is concluded here, a 25-ft. width or whatever, it should be made a 25-ft. width and then the lot in between could be wider or make it so there are only 6-unit buildings or something like that. Mr. Schopper stated that we don't want to see rows and rows of stuff. Mr. Gietema stated that there are 4-plexes, 5-plexes and 6-packs, no longer than 6 along. The end home has a porch on the side and they are deeper, but narrower, which provides a 10-ft. courtyard in between the buildings. It also allows them to vary the architecture. Mr. Davis responded that he wouldn't consider 10-ft. a courtyard. He'd barely consider it an alley. Mr. Gietema responded that the advantage to these homes is that there is zero maintenance. He stated that one of the other aspects of these homes is that they are planned with backyards. There is a place for a barbeque, a place to sit, and a place to let the dog out that is private and contained. A typical town home would be front or rear loaded, but would not include any private open space. He stated they have several types of open space which includes the front public piece, the courtyards between the buildings, and every home having its own private backyard spot. Mr. Davis asked if the site plan they brought with them and used as an example is for Phase III. Mr. Quinto stated that there is another part to Phase III that includes all single family plus the road that connects the school, bridge and existing Walker Blvd. Mr. Davis asked if this requested change would affect the town home zoning to the east. Are there other town home districts shown on the master plan that will now be 22-ft. wide rather than 40-ft. wide? Mr. Quinto stated that the only part in the original plan that was not either center or core was the school site plus 40 lots on the east side of the lake. He pointed out different places on the map that would and would not have town homes. Mr. Davis pointed out Page 3 of 16; 07/01/04 P&Z Minutes different areas of the site plan, asking for clarification as to whether those were shown as town homes on the original site plan. Several other commission members also asked questions regarding Phase III, center zone and town home designations on this plan versus the original site plan. Mr. Davis stated that if this action were approved it should apply to the Phase III plan only. Further, the applicant should agree that the remaining town home districts, as shown in the original plan, will retain the 40-ft. wide lots. The applicants nodded in agreement. Mr. Sapp stated that one of the suggestions he would have regarding density is that the applicant provide density impact numbers rather than broad generalizations that parkland is being traded for something. Mr. Quinto stated that they could provide those. Mr. Davis asked if they were sure this isn't the "flavor of the month" just to compete with the guys south of them? Mr. Gietema stated that it's one of those things where the pie gets bigger. Over the last few months, 14 homes were sold that directly compete against Home Town. He stated that the town homes will not compete against them but compliment them. Mr. Davis stated that it's a totally different market. Mr. Gietema agreed and stated that it's the same price per square foot but a different household type. Mr. Davis said that if there is another site plan revision, he, like Ken, would like to see the impact on the infrastructure, the schools, the traffic -- which would make it easier to digest. The Chairman then asked if there were any others present who wished to speak for or against this request. There were none and the Chairman closed the public hearing. Mr. Schopper stated that this is a follow up of needing more units after a couple of years ago when they down-zoned some town home lots to single family lots, so its just a reflection of the market and what is selling and trying to compete and that sort of thing. He believes the Commission has been given enough assurance that it will be a good quality project. Mr. Schopper motioned to approve TR 2004-02 with the stipulation that it is for Phase III only. Mr. Davis seconded the motion. Mr. Laubacher commented, for the benefit of the developer, that what is being seen here, from an individual who was involved in the original plan a number of years ago, the P&Z Commission was sold on a whole concept and plan and it was explained to the Commission in such a way that we liked it and thought it would be a big benefit to the City. Just as an analogy, it was an apple pie. Naturally, we expect some changes as the market changes, maybe we need to add some more cinnamon to give it a different flavor, but we still want it to be an apple pie. With all of these changes that have been occurring in the last year, since we are not seeing the whole package and it's not Page 4 of 16; 07/01/04 P&Z Minutes coming in the whole ultimate presentation like it originally did we're just trying to make sure that its still that apple pie that it originally was and that's what we're just going to make sure of. Mr. Laubacher believes this does meet all of that criteria. Mr. Davis added that he thinks it does now. The Chairman called for the vote and the motion was approved unanimously (6- 0). 6. PRESENTATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES DIRECTOR, JOANN STOUT, CONCERNING RECREATIONAL VEHICLE SURVEY AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE RV ORDINANCE. Joann Stout, Director of Neighborhood Services gave recommendations to the Commission. A copy of her PowerPoint presentation is on file. Ordinance 2753 is the controlling ordinance. Ordinance 2522 is still in effect, but Code Enforcement has slowed down on the enforcement of it until there is clarification on whether or not there will be amendments. Mr. Davis asked if a driveway is considered a paved surface. Ms. Stout responded yes. Mr. Davis then stated: "So this ordinance allows someone to park a vehicle in their driveway." Ms. Stout responded "that's correct, but if they park it anywhere else other than a driveway and it's viewable from the public right-of-way..." Mr. Davis said "paved and screened" - [both Mr. Davis and Ms. Stout speaking at the same time] - followed by Ms. Stout stating... "if they park it on the side or in the rear and they have a minimum 6-ft. screening fence that conceals it, it's ok, the problem that Code Enforcement finds is when people leave their gate open and then people drive by and see a car parked on the side or in the rear not on a hard paved surface and we have to enforce it." Mr. Schopper asked why these ordinances are a part of the zoning ordinance rather than the Code of Ordinances. Ms. Jackson explained that at the current time it is not a part of the Zoning Ordinance, but rather a stand alone ordinance like the Landscape and Sign Regulations. Mr. Schopper asked if they would have authority to amend 2522. Ms. Jackson stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission could create their own exceptions and allowances. Mr. Schopper stated that he would like to put 2753 out of its misery and work on modifying 2522. Mr. Sapp stated that Mr. Schopper's suggestion can be part of the P&Z recommendation. 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE CITIZEN INPUT REGARDING THE PARKING AND STORAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND TRAILERS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. Page 5 of 16; 07/01/04 P&Z Minutes The Chairman reopened the Public Hearing to receive citizen input regarding the parking and storage of recreational vehicles and trailers in residential areas. Nancy Bielik, 8009 Standley Street: I agree with what he said [Bill Schopper and/or Richard Davis], let's drop the RV ordinance, let's go back to the nuisance ordinance, but when you are thinking about what to do, I want you to think about the 9-1/2 ft. easement that you want to create out there. I have a conversion van. I have a 21-ft. setback on my house. By the time you take 9-1/2 ft. out of my front yard, I am parked illegal every time I take that in my driveway. Mr. Davis: A conversion van? Ms. Bielik: A conversion van. But if I was to outfit it for camping, it becomes a recreational vehicle. Mr. Davis: It's over 12-ft. long? Ms. Bielik: The wheel base is 132 inch and then you've got to add the bumpers, plus the hitch. Mr. Schopper: But you drive it all the time. So that's... I mean just like we saw... Ms. Bielik: I do now, but if hubby retires... you know... I can convert it into a camper... it would be illegal sitting in my driveway. I've got flower plants within 9-1/2 ft. of my curb. Should I dig them up? Chairman Bowen: You don't have a sidewalk? Ms. Bielik: I bought that house specifically because it did not have all that. Chairman Bowen: I think that's one of the main things, definitely, it has to be behind the sidewalk... we all agree on that. Ms. Bielik: Right. [several people talking at once] Mr. Schopper: A lot of the testimony we heard, people don't have sidewalks, and it comes almost to the curb... Ms. Bielik: And to put a sidewalk in, the homeowners on the block have to pay for that sidewalk. So, if we're not going to pay for a sidewalk why should we be penalized on our use of space? Mr. Davis: Can I respond? Ms. Bielik: Sure. Mr. Davis: Why should you be allowed to park in public right-of-way? Ms. Bielik: Ok. My water lines are 2-ft. behind the curb. My gas line is 3-ft. behind the curb. My sewer line is in the street. So where is the public right-of-way beyond that gas line? Mr. Davis: Usually it is 9-1/2 ft. from the back of the curb. There usually is a 50-ft. right- of-way; some areas there are 60's, but the majority of the City streets are 50-ft. right-of- ways. All of those streets are 30-ft. face-to-face of curb or 31-ft. back-to-back. Ms. Bielik: So is my neighbor going to have to dig up his hedge on his corner lot? Mr. Davis: Only if it's within a sight line, yes. We are talking about vehicles, not hedges. Not mailboxes. My mailbox is in the City right-of-way. See what I'm saying? My mailbox is right next to the curb. It's a brick mailbox. All of my neighborhood, the brick mailbox is at the curb so the guy can drive by, boom boom... Ms. Bielik: Right, but it makes it sound like the City owns the first 9-1/2 ft. of... Several Commission members: They do. You never have owned it. Page 6 of 16; 07/01/04 P&Z Minutes Ms. Bielik: But I maintain it. I'd like to be able to continue parking my vehicle in my driveway. Mr. Sapp: It's just like the utility easement that you may have in your yard. You can grow grass, bushes on it but if Oncor wants to come in and tear up your bushes it's their.. .. Ms. Bielik: Oncor would have that right, but Oncor doesn't come in and tell me I can't park within 10-ft. of their power lines. Mr. Davis: They do tell you you can't build a building on it. There are restrictions for those easements and right-of-ways. My question was why should anyone, not just you, be able to park on public right-of-way. Ms. Bielik: My car can. Why can't my camper. You already looked at the pictures and you said, well, the pickup truck would be legal because it's not a camper. It's within 9-ft. but there's no sidewalk. Mr. Davis: But it's being used everyday where an RV, or trailer, or boat is not being moved everyday. Ms. Bielik: Well I know that but now we're getting into if I drive my RV around the block once every two days would that make it legal. Mr. Davis: I'm not trying to debate it. The question is - in everyone we've talked to in however many meetings, we've had, he [Bill Schopper] asked every time, what do you think about parking over the sidewalk. Almost 100% of the people said no, couldn't do that. Ms. Bielik: But if you purposely bought a house with no sidewalk why are you being penalized. In answer to another question you had, I believe Mr. Davis had about asphalt, asphalt does put out more pollutants than concrete so that's one of the reasons why they prefer concrete over asphalt. Mr. Davis: how does it put out pollutants? Ms. Bielik: because it's made from petroleum products - the material it's made from. Bob Barrett, 5517 Susan Lee, stated that he paid to put up a 14-ft. RV cover, which comes up higher than pictures that Joann showed. Mr. Barrett stated that he poured a 12x40 ft. cement slab to park his RVon. The front of the motor home does not come beyond his garage, but it is not a solid wooden fence. It is a 6-ft. cyclone fence that is slatted and he thinks that ought to be legal. Chairman Bowen responded that under Joann's proposal it would be legal because on an approved surface screening would not be required. Mr. Barrett understood that it would have to be a solid wooden fence. Mr. Davis stated "only if you are not on a surface". Mr. Barrett stated that his electricity stays plugged in all the time to keep the refrigerator going. He stated that they don't live in it, but he maintains his refrigerator that way and he thinks that should be included. Mr. Schopper asked if Mr. Barrett got a permit for his cover. Mr. Barrett stated that he did. Chairman Bowen commented that one of the options Joann gave calls for no height limitations and the Chairman isn't sure that he sees a reason for height limitations since it isn't a sight problem, other than possibly being unsightly. Mr. Barrett said that from ground up his RV is 12 feet, 6 inches. He believes that is about average. He stated that when his son-in-law, daughter and two kids come to visit, he likes to go get in the RV himself. He believes that ought to be permitted. Page 7 of 16; 07/01/04 P&Z Minutes Mr. Schopper stated that he believes North Richland Hills should be known for its toys - the bigger the better. Herb Parsons, 7701 Turner Dr., stated that he believes Mr. Schopper's suggestion is a good one. He believes the City should enforce the ordinances they have rather than making new ones. He has an issue with a 9-1/2 ft. abatement. He understands the sidewalk issue, but "Joann answered it and you guys answered it yourself on enforcement of that. I say, let the people that don't have sidewalks park their vehicles and not extrude into the street and if they a sidewalk there, you yourselves said, these RV's don't move. So it would make it easier for Code Enforcement to write them a ticket if they extend into the sidewalk. We have an ordinance that already covers that. We don't need another one. You yourselves said, and Joann said, RV vehicles don't move very often. They park there, they stay there 3 or 4 days, Code Enforcement comes by, they see it in the sidewalk, they either cite them or they put a warning, they see it the next day and then they cite them. To me that is a slam dunk. That is an easy one. We have an ordinance that covers that, we don't need a new one. I am glad to see that you are considering defining RV's. As I was checking into all of this, nowhere in any of our ordinances is RV defined. It would be good to see it actually defined." Mr. Davis asked if she [Joann] left anything out. Mr. Parsons responded that he thought she might have left out his grandkids tricycle. He stated that he was troubled by the arbitrary nature of the numbers. He feels that opens up the City to legal problems if the defense of a 9-ft. height requirement is "because I picked that number." Mr. Schopper and Mr. Davis explained that was done to give the P&Z Commission some choices, a baseline. The 9-1/2 ft. behind the curb is not arbitrary. Mr. Parsons said that no one's vehicles, including cars, should be blocking sidewalks, but if there isn't a sidewalk, there isn't a safety issue, but the current ordinance covers that. Mr. Davis: "Are we better off to truly clarify it in the nuisance ordinance section though?" Mr. Parsons responded that he believes so. He further stated that he was troubled by defining covers as custom fit for that make and model. He understands what the City is trying to get at - if a guy is using a tarp as a cover, it's ugly. Mr. Parsons stated that, unfortunately, the City will never be able to bring taste through ordinances. Mr. Parsons stated that he agrees completely that people should not live in their RV's. He thought perhaps a solution might be to define how long they can have electrical and plumbing hooked up. Mr. Davis asked why that would matter. Mr. Parsons responded "you can't live in those things without electricity." Mr. Davis stated that Mr. Barrett said he keeps his refrigerator going all the time. Does it really matter to the City that he keeps it plugged in all the time? Mr. Parsons said that he doesn't own an RV but he was venturing into suggestions that he doesn't really know much about. Mr. Davis responded that the Commission didn't either. Mr. Parsons also stated that he doesn't understand how one RV is somehow safer than three. He has an issue with limiting Page 8 of 16; 07/01/04 P&Z Minutes them to one RV. Further discussion between Mr. Parsons and the Commission revolved around parking in the street if RV's are taking up space in the driveway. Don Lewis, 7708 Turner, stated that he has been coming to all of these meetings and that it appears to him from everything that has been said in all of them that basically this is not really a safety issue but a visual issue. He built his house more than 25 years ago and he built it where he built it for the freedom he has. He stated that it appears that the City is now imposing neighborhood association rules upon him - telling him what he can and cannot park in his driveway. He believes the City is taking some rights away from him. He stated that he has no problem at all with any of the safety issues, but he has a problem with the City telling him that they don't like what he owns in his driveway. He'd like an explanation of a sight triangle. Mr. Davis explained that on a corner lot, from the property corner going both directions on each street there is a triangle there, 1 Ox1 0, which cannot contain permanent structures so at the stop sign someone can see around without looking through a structure. It's required on all lots in all subdivisions today. Someone would not be allowed to build a fence or anything else in that triangle. Mr. Lewis stated that there are many houses in the City that block the view at stop signs. Suzette Christopher, 4800 Holiday Lane: "I want to thank all of you for your diligence concerning this - not only you, but your staff, Ms. Stout, putting up with all the questions and everything - I think a lot of good has come from it. Like you said, we've probably learned more about RV's this year than any of us ever knew. I am speaking to you tonight as a representative of the NRH Citizens Group. Again, we wanted to thank everybody for your hard work. During these meetings we have stated the facts about the lack of Offsite storage, the expense of offsite storage. We have stated facts about security. We have stated the facts about the trouble some would have fitting their RV's on their property according to that ordinance. We have stated facts that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and this is supported through a Supreme Court decision. We have addressed safety issues, health issues and property evaluations to name a few. The amount of facts and information provided to your committee has been vast and thorough and likewise that's what you'all have given back to us. The facts continue to support the NRH Citizens Group to do away with Ordinance 2753 completely and take that back to Council as a suggestion. We would also like for you to revise Ordinance 2522. We also want to request a copy of the letter you will be furnishing back to Council and we would like to get that at the same time it is given to Council so that we have time to notify citizens about what some of the things might be presented to Council and give them notification so that we have an opportunity not to be surprised when we go to the Council meeting." Mr. Sapp: Mr. Chairman, wasn't it our intent to provide an exposure of our final recommendation to this public group before we send it to Council. Chairman Bowen: When we have an ordinance in place, we will have another public hearing. Page 9 of 16; 07/01/04 P&Z Minutes Mr. Davis: We don't write letters to the Council. It just goes as a recommendation from our minutes with the proposed ordinance. Ms. Christopher: I think the concern of the group was being able to view the ordinance before being surprised with it. Mr. Sapp: The Council will have to hold a public hearing themselves so you are going to get several shots at this. Ms. Christopher asked for clarification of the procedure. Mr. Sapp: We are going to prepare a recommendation which they can accept or reject, modify, change, disregard.... Ms. Christopher: Instead of saying "I would like to have a copy of the ordinance" maybe we would like to have a copy of the recommendations that you'all are going to be submitting. Mr. Davis: That's public record. Ms. Christopher: Will it have to be requested through a public records request? Mr. Davis: I'll give you my copy. Ms. Christopher: I know this sounds trivial to you, but it's not to the group. Mr. Davis: It is public record. You can get a copy of our recommendation to Council. You have a Councilperson back there who will have a copy of it 5 days prior to the Council meeting, so you'll have a copy. Mr. Schopper: We'll make sure you get a copy of it. Ms. Christopher asked about an action at the last Council meeting. The Chairman explained that this is a totally separate issue. Ms. Christopher stated: "that's about it other than listening to all the options that Ms. Stout had to come up with and trying to decipher them as she was presenting them, I've decided that you almost have to be a rocket scientist to muddle through all of these ordinances. Mahrkay Byers, 5521 Topper Court: "I think the Council shoved this all on you guys. I think they had their priorities in the wrong spot because there were only seven people that made this decision. I thought that was very unfair to the rest of the City and the community. I think the rules and the City ordinances that we have now need to be enforced, for example, lawns, trash, etc., and they are overlooking some of these things so they need to enforce the rules we have now instead of picking on one thing that really is going to affect the life of the people in North Richland Hills. We haven't been Page 10 of 16; 07/01/04 P&Z Minutes focusing on the people. We've been focusing on stuff. I think North Richland Hills would like to focus on the livelihood of the people, the happiness of the people living here. They have recreational vehicles so they can go recreate, if that's a word, go have fun, get out of the city, or go back to grandma's, whatever they want to do. This is the reason they have the recreational vehicles. They are going to get out of the city. If you restrict some of these things, they are going to move out of the city. We don't want to live in a boring box. We want to live in someplace fun so we need to focus on the people however we need to be comfortable with where we are living and not with the stuff. People need to get back to families and not stuff. On the safety issue, I noticed reading in the little blurb that was in the paper; I don't get the paper because I just used to line my birdcage with it and I don't have a bird anymore so I don't get the newspaper; the safety issue with the children that I read was about around the recreational vehicles, I don't think it is the children or the recreational vehicles, I think it's the parents. I lived across the street from a house that was doing drugs for five years. When I called the police department I found out there were four teenagers living there and a gentleman parent and when I called them he says we can't do anything about it because of blankity blank blank blank the police department. I thought whatever. When the new people moved in there, there was heaps of trash that would fill half this room and I'm not exaggerating, that came out of that house along with drug paraphernalia and plants. Focusing on what children and the community is doing right now is probably the most important thing that we need to do. We are people living in the community, not things and stuff that don't have any feelings. Thank you for your time." B. R. (Bill) Jackson, 5317 Scott Dr., is an RV and boat owner. "I believe Bill or Richard asked a question, what are we doing with this thing, we're the planning and zoning commission. Well, I'm going to tell you. The City Council put together this ordinance with no input from the citizens that were affected by it and also they raised so much stink about it that they decided they couldn't fix it so they dumped it on you guys. So that's how come its in the planning and zoning commission. Talking about living in the vehicles, first thing, I want to speak to this 9-1/2 ft. deal. On the east side of Scott Dr., if this 9-1/2 ft. goes into affect, those people on the east side of Scott Dr. from where it hits Lola there on around, 90% of them can't even park in their drive because their car is going to extend over this 9-1/2 ft. restriction so they are parking on public property or City property. My RV is parked on City property, but I don't have a sidewalk. I've been parking there since 1989 and never had an accident, never had a child run over so I don't think safety is an issue. I will admit that I went to Discount Tire the other day and ran over a car with the damn trailer and had an accident that tore the left front fender off the car, but I've never had an accident there in my drive. Another thing, if you remember this outage that we had on the electricity, well, me and my wife moved out to the trailer parked in the drive. We put the slide-outs out and they stay out about half the time because we can't load without the big slide-out out or our pantry is covered by the slide-out when it is in and we can't get to the clothes closet because the bedroom slide- out is in, so when this electricity was out, I fired up my generator in the back of my truck, pulled it up beside the trailer, hooked it up to it and we moved all of our perishables out of the refrigerator into the trailer and we sat out there and watched the weather report and I had two neighbors who were so envious they went and bought generators. There Page 11 of 16; 07/01/04 P&Z Minutes comes a time when these things really come in handy and they are really appreciated to be parked in that drive. It kept us from losing a lot of perishable stuff and we were comfortable, sleep good, and watched the news. The Chairman stated that 2753 originated with the Planning & Zoning Commission. The Commission was not bypassed in this. There were public hearings about it. Even though people think it was done in secret, it was not done in secret, there were many public hearings and public discussions, but sometimes people tend not to be interested in City dealings unless they have a personal issue. I'm glad that you are taking issue and paying attention to what is going on in the City. It does us all a lot of good. We'd like to have more public input at every public hearing we have so that we know what people are thinking. Ken Sapp stated that most of the time people do not speak for or against the issues heard before this Commission. Floyd Tindall, 6801 Richfield Dr., his RV is in compliance except regarding height. He stayed that most RV's, travel trailers and motor homes are way over 9-ft. He stated they range from 10-1/2 to 13-1/2 ft. high. An open height amendment would be beneficial to most RVers. He lived in Hurst for 38 years. He has lived in North Richland Hills for 3-1/2 years. His wife died in 1998; he met someone else in 1999, got married and they looked for a house for almost the entire year during 2000 and found one in North Richland Hills that was ideal for his motor home. That's the reason he bought the house; because it had room for his motor home. They like it very well and they hate to move, but if he is going to get tickets for his motor home being in violation, he will have to move. They belong to three camping organization groups: FMCA (family motor coach association), Lone Star Chapter, Good Sam Chapter, DFW Sams. They are gone one or two weekends just about every month. The reason they go is to visit, play games, eat, jaw, and tell lies to each other at these campouts. They have a tremendously good time. "Any of you guys, gentlemen, any of you, if you have never been out in an RV to a campground and listened to the birds, the wind whistling in the tree leaves, you need to get out and enjoy the nature. It really, I think, is about the best thing that a person could do. I think you'all are headed in the right direction." Chairman Bowen, speaking for himself, stated that he doesn't believe there is an RV in the City that would meet a requirement of being under 9-1/2 ft. in height. He stated that he doesn't believe that height is reasonable. He's not sure there is a height that is reasonable. That is something that the Commission will have to discuss. Kathy Meadows, 7113 Winchester Rd., applauds the Commission's consideration of getting rid of the 2753 ordinance. Her concern of the 9-1/2 ft. easement, which she understands is right-of-way, but on her property she doesn't think from the edge of the sidewalk on the house side to the curb is 9-1/2 ft. Her RV's are parked behind the sidewalk, but that space may not be 9-1/2 ft. from the curb to the edge of the sidewalk. Page 12 of 16; 07/01/04 P&Z Minutes Chairman Bowen stated that he can't speak for Code Enforcement, but if the RV doesn't block the sidewalk, there shouldn't be a problem with how far back it is. Ms. Meadows said that if the ordinance went into effect and there was verbiage that it had to be 9-1/2 ft. back from the curb, her property doesn't have 9-1/2 ft. from her side of the sidewalk to the curb. Mr. Davis said that the verbiage could be "9-1/2 ft. or the back of the sidewalk, whichever is less". Most sidewalks are going to be 9-ft. from the back of the curb. There is usually a half of a foot between the property line, then the 4-ft. sidewalk, and from the edge of the sidewalk to the curb is the remaining 5-ft. Usually. But there could be some sidewalks that are 2-ft. inside the property. Whichever is less would be reasonable. There were no others wishing to speak and the Chairman closed the public hearing. 8. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL REVISIONS FOR THE PARKING AND STORAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND TRAILERS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. Mr. Schopper proposed: 1) getting rid of 2753; 2) develop a draft of changes to 2522, Section 3, Specific Nuisances, letters N, 0, and P. Make it so that 7 days parking would be allowed instead of the 48 hours shown there. No permits required. Add behind the sidewalk, although that is redundant and already covered in the parking ordinance, but it could be restated in this section for consistency so that anybody who wanted to know anything about parking could go to that one section. Come up with a draft between now and the next meeting for comment. Mr. Sapp commented that Commissioners take an oath to abide by public concerns, state laws, etc. He believes the initial discussion ought to be if the Commission should do anything and why. Why should there be any restrictions, the purpose behind them and how to rationalize these with the existing ordinances in place. Mr. Sapp went through the Code of Ordinances and reviewed everything pertaining to parking and he found a number of conflicts, for example, that a car can only be parked on the street for 24 hours. That is an ordinance in existence today. He stated that there are a hodge- podge of ordinances that seem to effect similar things and his thought process is to discuss a rational reason to limit parking or storage of RV's, define what those are, and try to come up with something that is understandable, simply, and eliminates discretion. Take it out of judgment. Then determine what ordinance it affects and clean it up. There are about 5 or 6 separate ordinances that are affected by what "we do here". He thought there might need to be legal or staff input as to where it goes and how enforcement happens. Ambiguity makes it difficult not only for the citizens to understand what they are, but for Code Enforcement Officers to do a decent, consistent job of providing enforcement. Page 13 of 16; 07/01/04 P&Z Minutes Mr. Davis stated that P&Z is doing this because a directive was given to P&Z to look into this. He stated that he is ready to make a decision and move forward because these people [citizens in the audience] deserve it. Mr. Davis stated that he has known Mr. Barrett since little league baseball, and Mr. Barrett has been here every meeting. Mr. Davis believes that he deserves to tell Mr. Barrett what his recommendation will be. Council can change it, amend it, throw it out or do anything else, but based on the public testimony, researching other ordinances from other cities, emails, newspaper articles, a phenomenal presentation from staff, here is a recommendation: 1) throw out 2753; 2) amend or clarify the nuisance ordinance; 3) most of the Commission believes that a height limitation is not needed; 4) do not allow parking across the sidewalk; 5) permitting process is not necessary; 6) there may be language needed to stop someone from living in it, even the audience members said that shouldn't happen, it's a nuisance if someone is living in it. Mr. Davis and Mr. Schopper thought it would be feasible to notify Code Enforcement if a person is going to have visitors for more than seven days. It also gives Code Enforcement an ability to let the complaining neighbor know the length of stay of the visitors. Mr. Sapp questioned the 9-1/2 ft. figure. Should the RV ordinance adhere to that? Mr. Davis stated that it's not arbitrary - it's the right-of-way. Mr. Schopper noted that it becomes a problem when there a sidewalk doesn't exist. Mr. Davis stated that 5-ft. back of the curb would then be reasonable without a sidewalk. They would still get to use part of the public right-of-way. Mr. Davis summarized: a height restriction is not necessary, permitting is not necessary, there are very few issues to resolve other than the RV should be on a paved surface. Mr. Sapp asked if there should be a limit on how many RV's are allowed per address. Mr. Davis responded that "how many" is debatable, but he is more concerned with defining the basic parameters, and defining what the nuisance is, specifically, what those things are, 4-wheelers, A TV vehicles, etc. Mr. Sapp stated that two basic issues have come up: safety and property values. He stated that there doesn't seem to be any real evidence that RV's affect property values. Mr. Davis stated that there isn't any real evidence that RV's don't affect property values either. Mr. Sapp stated that it is a factor that is going to affect some buyers. Mr. Sapp feels that one of the key issues is that there are a number of ordinances already in existence that are designed for safety and aesthetics. One of those is parking. There is an ordinance that says each residence must have four parking spaces, two which must be covered. The objective of this ordinance is to keep cars off the street. The streets that are lined with automobiles are not safe. He believes there is probably a great deal of documentation to support that. He believes the Fire Department would state that streets lined with cars on both sides do not allow fire trucks or ambulances to fit up and down those streets very well. Mr. Davis interrupted to ask what that has to do with this? Page 14 of 16; 07/01/04 P&Z Minutes Mr. Sapp responded that if a driveway is filled up with recreational vehicles and the access to the garage is blocked, where are the cars going to end up? Mr. Davis's response was "that goes back to the point we are debating; is it one, is it two, or is it unlimited"? Mr. Sapp stated that he thought people should be able to use up one spot in the driveway and that's it. Mr. Davis thought that was reasonable. Chairman Bowen stated that a vehicle could also be parked in an approved side yard or in the rear, but he agrees with Ken that one in the driveway is reasonable. Mr. Davis: "No more than one on the designated driveway." One on the driveway, a boat on the side on a paved surface and one in the backyard so long as it isn't visible from the street (for instance, an A TV on a trailer), or whatever, so long as it can't be seen from the street. Mr. Davis stated that he believes the Commission has enough parameters to work within and that a draft should be available by July 15 in order to vote in August. Further discussion revolved around those parameters with the Chairman stating that a main point will be how far back from the street the RV must be parked. He stated that may be the hardest thing to decide. Mr. Davis thought 5-ft. might be the right amount - halfway between zero and 9-1/2 ft. Or, from the back of the sidewalk, whichever is greater. Mr. Shiflet mentioned there is a sight triangle on a driveway as well, which is a big safety issue. Discussion revolved around what a reasonable length would be, back from the curb, with Mr. Sapp stating that it should not be arbitrary. Mr. Davis suggested that a 6-ft. number should be used to draft the ordinance, but staff should find measurements of RV's from the driver's seat to the back of the vehicle in order to find out the average. The Chairman pointed out that Mr. Shiflet had a good point that the number isn't arbitrary because of the sight triangle. Mr. Sapp stated that he strongly supports getting rid of having this an RV ordinance and instead calling it Special Purpose Vehicle Ordinance and put all of those things in there because a box truck, a box trailer, and all of those kinds of things are no different than an RV. If they are over a certain length and height, there is no difference. Mr. Schopper stated the legal term is chattel. Anything that is movable. Mr. Davis stated the conclusions of the Commission: Do away with 2753 and adopt the following amendments to 2522: · No height limitation. · No permitting required. · A person can stay up to 7 days, notify Code Enforcement if length of stay will be any longer. · Cannot live in it. · Paved surface (concrete, asphalt or pavers). Page 15 of 16; 07/01/04 P&Z Minutes . One allowed in the driveway; others to be on the side on a paved surface; it can be in the backyard if it's screened. . At least 6-ft. from the back of the curb, or behind the sidewalk, whichever is greater. Mr. Davis made a motion asking staff to draft a recommendation to Council that will abolish Ordinance 2753 and amend Ordinance 2522 to encourage the definitions, the parameters and scope outlined above for review on July 15. Mr. Schopper seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). If P&Z acts on this on August 5, Council will hear the recommendation on August 23, 2004. 9. ADJOURNMENT As there was no other business, the Chairman adjourned the regular meeting at 10:06 p.m. Chairman Vice Chair ffr.. () ~ œ,~ Don Bowen William Schopper Page 16 of 16; 07/01/04 P&Z Minutes