Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 1999-01-28 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS JANUARY 28, 1999 - 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Davis at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Richard Davis Don Bowen Doug Blue James Laubacher Mark Wood David Barfield Ron Lueck ABSENT Ted Nehring CITY STAFF Deputy City Mgr. Acting Director Recording Sec'y Director PW Asst. Director PW Staff Engineer Randy Shiflet Steve Norwood Valerie Taylor Greg Dickens Kevin Miller Julia Skare 3. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 1999 APPROVED Mr. Barfield, seconded by Mr. Laubacher, moved to approve the minutes of January 14, 1999 with the removal of the word "not" in the third paragraph on Page 11. The motion carried unanimously. Page 1 1 /28/99 P & Z Minutes 4. PS 98-61 CONSIDER REQUEST OF GLEN JONES FOR A FINAL PLAT OF LOT 3, BLOCK A, RUFE SNOW VILLAGE ADDITION. (LOCATED AT 6889 HIGHTOWER DRIVE) APPROVED Mr. Norwood explained that this project had recently received site plan approval for multi-family construction. All engineering issues have been agreed to. Mr. David Hughes, PE, was present and stated he would answer any questions the Commission might have. Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. Bowen, moved to approve PS 98-61 subject to engineer's comments. The motion carried unanimously. Page 2 1 /28/99 P & Z Minutes 5. PZ 99-01 PUBLIC HEARING TO GAIN INPUT REGARDING THE PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE STAND-ALONE SIGN AND LANDSCAPING ORDINANCES. APPROVED Chairman Davis explained that the City Council had appointed a Land Use Ad- Hoc Committee to research and build opinions and recommendations regarding development to the City. Two of these items were landscape policies and signage policies. On January 12, 1999, the Committee made a presentation to the City Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Beautification Committee and Parks Board. The City Council could vote on these recommendations as early as February 8, 1999. He explained that when these two items were removed from the Zoning Ordinance, the Council stated that any amendments to these two issues would be sent back to the P&Z for their review and forwarded to Council with the P&Z's comments. The P&Z felt it was appropriate as a Commission to have a formal public meeting to gain citizen input. The Commission will listen to discussion on the sign recommendations as proposed by the LUAH. Chairman Davis opened the public hearing and read each issue of the Draft Sign Policies and Standards prepared by the LUAH. He then stated that the floor was open to anyone wishing to comment on the proposed recommendations. Mr. Bob Kohsmann, President of Classic Concept Homes, stated that he personally has built over 40 homes in the City of NRH and now is constructing an office building for his business at Amundson Road and Precinct Line Road. He stated that he is representing the Home Builders Association (HBA) of Fort Worth, who represent about 90% of the home builders that are in the City of NRH. The HBA had several questions after reviewing the draft signage policies. Mr. Kohsmann had several questions regarding the proposed policy; one specifically being if the proposed ordinance eliminated "for sale" signs in front of homes. The way the HBA read the ordinance, they would be prohibited. Mr. Kohsmann stated that without going into every little detail they had highlighted, he felt the way the ordinance was written that there was no one on the Committee that owned a sign or was in any kind of business that advertised Page 3 1 /28/99 P & Z Minutes at all. While they are not opposed to sign ordinances, they have worked closely with cities in the past. He stated that the HBA has expertise in the sign business as far as residential signage goes and they are not afraid to share that with the cities. Combined, the HBA has built about 180 homes in the City this past year, which generated approximately 160,000,000 in the capital budget for taxing purposes. He stated he would answer any questions the Commission may have. Chairman Davis stated that this is not in ordinance form, only a recommendation. He stated that it is not all inclusive of the sign ordinance, only the portions that are to be changed have been addressed. Real estate signs and temporary signs are not addressed in this proposal, so no changes are proposed to this category of sign. Mr. Wood stated that there was a section of the ordinance that specifically states "signs not specifically allowed by this ordinance are prohibited." Mr. Kohsmann stated that is an example of the clarification needed in the present draft form. The business community has to take, literally what is written; Interpretation shouldn't be a question. Mr. Norwood stated for clarification that these are only the recommended changes proposed by the LUAH. This draft, once approved by the Council will be combined with the existing ordinance. So anything not specifically addressed will remain the same, i.e., real estate signs. Mr. Doug Long asked about dual pole for sale signs. His interpretation of the ordinance prohibits these outside of the freeway overlay zone. He stated he has property on Mid-Cities Boulevard and North Tarrant Parkway that currently has these kind of signs on them. Mr. Wood stated that these temporary signs are not proposed to be changed. Sandra Durbin, 5709 Acapulco, stated she is a realtor and a member of the LUAH. She wanted the record to reflect that it was never the intention of the LUAH to eliminate "for sale" signs in the City. Jim Makens, 2300 Airport Freeway, Bedford, stated that 80% of the proposed changes seems acceptable, but should be for an overlay zone only. He also believes that this proposed ordinance will conflict with the proposed Town Center. Additional concerns of Mr. Makens were the elimination of pole. He believes this will be very detrimental to the business community. He also has a problem with Page 4 1 /28/99 P & Z Minutes the wording in the section referring to obsolete signage and believes the banner regulations are unfair. Additionally, Mr. Makens believes that too much discretionary allowance is put on the Building Official. As a building official comes and goes, the ordinance, the way it's written, will be a matter of each individual interpretation. Mr. Makens continued to offer suggestions such as the landscaping required in the rear of signs is excessive, window signage is extremely prohibitive, the size of wall signs should be doubled if the commercial market is expected to continue to compete nationally. He also believes the size of the logo lettering be increased. Mr. Terry Willy, General Manager of North Hills Mall stated that if this ordinance is adopted the only signs that will be legal at the mall are the handicapped parking signs. He stated that the pylon sign at the entrance cost about $60,000 last year and would have to be removed within seven years. If North Hills Mall were to sell, the signs would have to be removed sooner. He stated that with the expansion of Northeast Mall, the lack of advertising would be devastating and the adoption of this ordinance could detrimentally affect the sale of this property. He stated that the mall has been for sale since last June, and any prospective buyer would walk away upon learning he had lost all of his signage. He asked if a feasibility study had been conducted. Mr. Willy stated that he too would volunteer his time and knowledge, from the business standpoint, to the Committee. Mr. John Brenner, owner of Arctic Auto Air on Maplewood was opposed to the strict requirements, explaining that the small business owners will be devastated as well. He is trying to purchase the old Jiffy Lube building at Davis and Maplewood. The only sign he would be allowed would be a monument sign and the only location for a monument sign on that particular piece of property would be behind a traffic signal box, virtually hidden. He expressed additional concerns about the size of lettering allowed as well as the required landscaping that would hide what little sign they are allowed. Mr. John Barfield asked if Sam's would be happy with a 50 square foot sign, stating he didn't think so. He stated restricting businesses to that degree wouldn't be received well, in his opinion. He too believes more thought should be given and the ordinance rewritten. Mr. Davis stated that Sam's and Wal-Mart are both within the Freeway Overlay Zone, so are unaffected by the more restrictive ordinance. Page 5 1 /28/99 P & Z Minutes Having no one remaining to speak, the public hearing was closed and discussion opened between the Commissioners. Mr. Barfield stated that signs out side of the Freeway Overlay Zone should be directly proportioned to the speed of the street. You need to be able to see the signs at a reasonable distance. Additional concerns with the ordinance as presented were lack of visibility for some businesses and the flying mobile horse on top of a building but stating roof signs are prohibited in another section of the ordinance. Lastly, he believes that each street, but especially the older streets of the city, should be addressed individually as their own overlay zone. The signage in each area should be taken into consideration. Mr. Lueck stated that looking at each street is quite ambitious and wondered who would do it. Mr. Lueck stated that no ordinance when first written is flawless. The Ad-Hoc Committee has had a lot of guide and insight from consultants paid for by the city. He suggested the minutes of this public meeting be used as the P&Z's recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Blue stated that he see's the need to have a grandfather clause established and is also concerned about the seven-year clause; he would like additional time to study this ordinance. The issue with the mall revealed a tremendous burden for prospective investors in the city. Mr. Bowen believes that a lot of this has been triggered from Rufe Snow and Grapevine Highway. He believes that those two streets would be a good example of an overlay district. With some clean up of these two streets, everyone's perception of the city would be much better. Mr. Laubacher stated that overall this is good work that can be built upon very easily. However, tonight he has realized that some of the restrictions on size should be dealt with. He likes the idea of establishing overlay zones, but doesn't think the City Council would be receptive to it, since they rejected the overlay zone proposed for the North Davis Boulevard Corridor. Mr. Wood stated he see's some very good material in these recommendations and some of them could be pushed forward quickly. But he stated as evidenced by the confusion brought forward from the citizens, some things need additional time. He stated when these two items were removed from the Zoning Ordinance, it was done with the goal of being able to expedite changes more quickly. The standards were raised at that time and it was a step in the right direction. He stated that the issue of implementing it city wide versus in various overlay zones now is a question that will need to be addressed. Page 6 1 /28/99 P & Z Minutes Mr. Wood suggested that immediately no pole signs would be allowed on Davis Boulevard from Mid-Cities north. Any specific, quick changes like that would be one step in a long journey. There are issues, about 4 of them, that he feels need further study. He likes having the business and users involved, and getting their feedback. Responding to a question, Mr. Wood stated that it could just as easily prohibit pole signs on Mid-Cities and Precinct Line. These areas's are relatively new and would not be an inequity to a user not be able to because the guy next door has one. Mr. Davis stated that he liked Mr. Wood's idea and agrees there are some areas requiring fine-tuning. He sees a couple of options. Recommend that Council adopt immediately an overlay zone prohibiting pole signs on all of Davis north of Mid-Cities, Mid-cities from Davis to Precinct Line Road and all of Precinct Line Road. The Commissioners continued to discuss alternatives for implementing some of the issues and having additional time to fine tune maximum square footages and logo lettering maximums. Mr. Barfield, seconded by Mr. Laubacher, moved to recommend that effective July 1, no permits will be issued for pole signs on Mid-Cities Boulevard, Precinct Line Road and Davis Boulevard, from the north of Mid-Cities. Additional time be allowed based upon the input received this evening, to fine tune some of the details of these recommendations. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Lueck made a motion that before any final ordinance is adopted by the City, that the Council ask for a reasonable estimate for the enforcement costs of whatever ordinance is passed. Mr. Bowen seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Page 7 1 /28/99 P & Z Minutes Landscaping Discussion: Chairman Davis opened the floor for discussion and asked for the first speaker. Mr. Doug Long stated his first concern is Exhibit 6 on Page 14 of the proposed ordinance. This diagram states that there shall be large diameter trees in street parkways. While the diagram looks good, there are no sidewalks included. However, the City of NRH requires a 4' sidewalk. Additionally, water and sewer lines must be accommodated in this space. His concern is this large of tree will be brushing cars as they come by adjacent to the curb. He feels this should be reconsidered. He is not opposed to this proposal, but believes more thought should be given to it. Additionally, he is concerned about Item 8 on Page 7 regarding the tree preservation. He has compared this proposed ordinance to Keller's ordinance and believes that Keller's is more user friendly. This proposed ordinance does not grant any credits. Mr. Long stated that Keller's ordinance is more workable than this proposed one. Mr. Bob Kohsmann, stated that he totally supports #1 regarding streetscapes. He thinks the city burying overhead utilities is wonderful. In his opinion, in any city, overhead utilities are the ugliest things you can see. In Item 4, Page 5, he is concerned with the City requiring licensed landscape architects. He believes this is overkill and doesn't agree with it. He is not opposed to landscape maintenance, only the requirement of a landscape architect. Number 9 on Page 7 basically force's the subdivision to have a Homeowners Association to care for the property outside masonry fences at development entrances. He believes this is unrealistic for a lot of area's and there tends to be a lot of resistance from homeowners as well. Mr. Kohsmann is also concerned with the parking-islands indicated on Page 13. He believes it is excessive. The tree survey that is required 30' around a tree will at times require the surveying of someone else's property. Restrictions are already tight for slabs. Homeowner's Warranty requires slabs are 10' away from the closet tree or they won't guarantee them. This ordinance requires that tree be replaced with 20 smaller, 3 caliper trees; he feels it is too restrictive. Set an amount of trees the builder should end up with; that's not a problem, but don't tell them where they need to be. Ms. Cindy Seale, member of the LUAH stated that Item 3 on Page 4, which discusses the buffer standards for commercial uses that abut residential districts Page 8 1 /28/99 P & Z Minutes believes that the living buffer in addition to masonry walls will be a tremendous asset to the City and encourages the P&Z's support in it. Mr. Jim Makens expressed concerns, which included the distance of parking lot islands being too restrictive. He believes the tree preservation will be an extreme hardship on commercial development. Mr. Lueck stated that an illustration of the Wal-Mart was used showing the parking lot as is and what it would look like with this ordinance. He stated it was obviously prettier and keeps the green visible, not all behind the building. Mr. Makens stated that with this ordinance, developers would have to buy more land to build the same thing they would have to today - to accommodate landscaping. Additionally, he stated that the wording for parking lot landscaping needs to be clarified; stating that Item 2-d seems like excessive overkill. Mr. Makens agreed that requiring a licensed landscape architect was overkill. Mr. Makens stated that this ordinance would prohibit him from building out the shopping center at Starnes and Davis. He has been working on its expansion for about two years. There are trees that need to be removed; the reason they need to be removed is because the City is requiring the creek channel be improved. Now, he will have to remove the trees to improve the creek channel and replace the trees he had to remove. He has already lost 4 acres of this 16 to create a living berm between his property and the residential property it abuts. This tree ordinance seems like an additional penalty and will prohibit commercial development in the City. Mr. Wood stated that some of these ordinances might conflict with ordinances the city currently has in place; i.e., the creation of a drainage channel that must be concrete lined. Mr. Makens stated yes, the City is requiring one thing and because of that requirement, he is penalized for it because it takes out trees in the process. Mr. Terry Willy voiced concerns to the restrictions of the ordinance, stating that the City could potentially loose tax money by driving commercial development to other cities. Mr. Dale Whisenant, an LUAH member stated that he wanted to try and clarify some of the items addressed. He stated the committee is not trying to impose hardship on the business community, stating that they looked and saw businesses that already exceed the current ordinance and actually already align with some of the proposals already. He stated they also compared other cities ordinances and used them as guidelines. Page 9 1 /28/99 P & Z Minutes Mr. Whisenant stated that all they are really asking a developer to do regarding tree preservation is to identify those on the survey that he submits and develop a plan for preserving the required trees. The parking lot requirements for landscaping currently in place are basically similar to what's being proposed. He believes this ordinance is more specific, not more restrictive. Having no additional speakers, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Davis thanked everyone from the LUAH Committee for being present and for their many hours of hard work. He stated that some of the issues need reworking, but for the most part he would feel reasonably comfortable forwarding some of the items ahead. He likes the streetscaping program. Numbers 2 & 3, regarding parking lots, need to be reworked. He likes items 5, 6,9, 10, 11 & 12. He would like to see the required landscape architect removed from item 4. Mr. Bowen stated that he would like to see Mesquite Tree's added to the list of protected trees. Mr. Lueck also thanked the committee for their many hours. He agrees that the landscape architect and licensed nurseryman should not be a requirement of Number 4. He believes Item 7 needs a lot of work. He also believes there should be increased emphasis on Item 10, the citywide tree planting program. Generally, it is a very good document and is very close on about 8 items to being ready to go into ordinance language. Mr. Laubacher agrees with everyone thus far, stating that the same second motion as previously stated should apply as far as the staff that will be required to enforce these new regulations. Mr. Lueck stated that the City Council should know going into this the reasonable estimated cost of enforcement. Mr. Barfield stated there are certain unique situations on some commercial lots that the 15% requirement should have the ability to vary. Mr. Wood agrees with everything already stated. He believes Item 8 is a "double whammy" and believes that a tree preservation ordinance is a penalty. A good landscaping ordinance will encourage tree preservation without penalizing developers. Page 10 1 /28/99 P & Z Minutes Mr. Davis stated that site grading of residential lots takes a lot of trees. Finding other options would help preserve trees. Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Laubacher moved to forward items 1, 4,5, 6, 9, 10, 11 & 12 ahead to Council immediately provided Item 4 is amended to delete requiring a licensed landscape architect and asking for additional time to work on the remaining four items. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Lueck, seconded by Mr. Bowen moved to recommend that before the City adopts any final ordinance, the Council ask for a reasonable estimate of the enforcement costs of the ordinance. The motion carried unanimously. Chairman Davis thanked everyone for their input, advised them that the Council would be having a worksession on February 2 with possible consideration on February 8, 1999. Page 11 1 /28/99 P & Z Minutes 10. STAFF REPORT There were none. 11. CITIZEN COMMENTS Ms. Vivian Moyers, 7933 Kendra Lane, stated that she is a 3-year resident and has paid over $6,000 in taxes. She stated that she has been on a lobby for the past 2-% years, trying to get attention drawn to Rufe Snow Drive, from the bowling alley, north to Bursey Road. She stated that at 6:30 this evening, there were 16 cars in the rain, lined up waiting to cross the intersection, explaining that it has become a thoroughfare between NE Loop 820 and FM 1709. Ms. Moyers says that she has taken it all the way to a state level, who have informed her that several million dollars has been appropriated for Rufe Snow improvements. Ms. Moyers was given the name of the Director of Public Works, as well as the City Manager and advised to start with Greg Dickens. She was also invited to speak with the City Council at their regularly scheduled meetings regarding this issue. 12. ADJORUNMENT Having no additional business to conduct, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. C qz . JÀ r--, r-...., r" '\ '\ \ .' . ,('. A""?,,r-, Richard Davis, Chairman Ted Nehring, Secretary Page 12 1 /28/99 P & Z Minutes