Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 1999-02-11 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS FEBRUARY 11,1999 -7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Don Bowen at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Vice Chairman ABSENT CITY STAFF Deputy City Mgr. Planner Recording Sec'y Asst. Director PW Staff Engineer Don Bowen Ted Nehring Doug Blue James Laubacher Mark Wood David Barfield Richard Davis Ron Lueck Randy Shiflet Christopher Baker Valerie Taylor Kevin Miller Julia Skare 3. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 1999 APPROVED Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Barfield, moved to approve the minutes of January 28, 1999. The motion carried unanimously. Page 1 2/11/99 P & Z Minutes 4. PS 98-33 CONSIDER REQUEST OF BRAD THOMPSON FOR A FINAL PLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, THOMPSON ADDITION. (LOCATED IN THE 7000 BLOCK OF SMITHFIELD ROAD) APPROVED Mr. Baker explained 1.5-acre tract, which is zoned R2-Residential and the developer is proposing to build a single family home. Public Works is requiring an engineered grading plan at the time building permits are applied for. Offsite Sewer Easements need to be obtained prior to Council consideration. Mr. Baker stated that at the time of preliminary platting, the P&Z waived the streetlight requirement but required the installation of the sidewalks. Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Blue moved to approve PS 98-33 subject to engineer's comments, and provided that all offsite easement information is provided to Public Works prior to City Council consideration. And, also the information in the February 11, 1999 letter to the engineer is provided. The motion carried unanimously. Page 2 2/11/99 P & Z Minutes 5. PZ 98-42 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE REGULATIONS FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. APPROVED Vice Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing and asked Mr. Baker for an introduction. Mr. Baker gave a brief overview of the proposed ordinance stating that the Council has expressed concern regarding the height and impact of large accessory buildings in residentially zoned districts. Staff has developed an ordinance that has four revisions to the current regulations. A maximum height of 12' has been proposed for temporary accessory buildings. Permanent accessory buildings can not exceed 15' and a maximum square footage of 500'. Additionally, a roof pitch on permanent accessory buildings shall have a roof pitch shall be the same as the primary structure. Carport regulations proposed changes would require that the exterior of all posts supporting the roof structure would be constructed of brick, rock or stone with a maximum area of 360 square feet and a 15' height maximum. These same changes are proposed for detached garages. Seeing no proponents and no opponents, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Barfield believes this issue has arisen from people trying to cover their motor homes. He believes if motor homes are to be parked at residences, the structure should compliment the primary structure and this ordinance should allow some design that would allow that. He doesn't believe that 15' height is tall enough for motor homes. Mr. Wood stated that he does not believe that anyone would want to see anything taller than 15' in front of a house. Mr. Wood stated the ordinance does not state that carports must be enclosed, stating that if you make four posts and a cover high enough to put an RV in it, it will be tall, unsightly and exactly what the City is trying to eliminate. Mr. Nehring concurred. Page 3 2/11/99 P & Z Minutes Mr. Baker stated that by definition in the current ordinance, a carport is not enclosed. If it is enclosed, it becomes a detached garage. Mr. Barfield asked about a permanent accessory building that becomes a garage. Mr. Baker stated in that case, it would be considered a permanent accessory building, which is specified as such. Mr. Bowen believes that regulations, as written, with a maximum height of 15', with a pitch is effectively eliminating carports that can cover RV's. Mr. Bowen stated that a higher limit on detached garages would cover the RV issue, stating that 24' would be ample. Responding to a question, Mr. Baker stated that if an accessory structure is more than 200 s.f., it is required to meet the masonry requirements of the district, but there is no requirement that the brick shall match the primary structure. Mr. Blue asked if the verbiage in Item 3 should be amended to state approved masonry materials. Mr. Bowen reiterated the maximum height of detached garages should be increased to 24' and single story only. Mr. Barfield stated that in Item 5, where it states asphalt is allowed, would prefer only concrete. He would like asphalt deleted. Additionally, he would like to see the maximum area of detached garages increased to 1,000 square feet. The general consensus of the Commissioners was that was too large and that size should be an exception. Mr. Wood moved to approve PZ 98-42 subject to Item 3 wording regarding brick, rock or stone is changed to "shall meet the masonry requirements of the zoning district"; Item 4 regarding detached garages shall reflect the maximum height with an increase to 24' and one-story. Under Item 5, Vehicle Parking Space Surface should have asphalt deleted and only allow concrete. Mr. Barfield seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Page 4 2/11/99 P & Z Minutes 6. PZ 99-02 PUBIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF BILL DAHLSTROM FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM C2-COMMERCIAL TO PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON LOT 3R1, BLOCK 50, NOR'EAST ADDITION. (LOCATED IN THE 5200 BLOCK OF DAVIS BOULEVARD) TABLED Vice Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing and asked Mr. Baker for an introduction. Mr. Baker stated that he needed to respond to a question posed to him in the work session regarding the requirement of landscaping and signage. He stated that a conditions set forth in the Zoning Ordinance regarding Planned Developments was that landscaping and signage could be a condition of approval. He stated that this is an existing facility that is zoned C2-Commercial and it directly abuts existing residential neighborhoods on the north and west sides of the property. He stated the owner is selling this property and the proposed buyer is concerned about some of the uses that are allowed now and may not be allowed in the future. In order to lock in the uses that will be allowed there, until the project redevelops, he has applied for a Planned Development (PD). Mr. Barfield asked for specific uses that are non-conforming. Mr. Baker stated several of the uses that have been operational for many years would not be allowed by right today. They would have to obtain a Special Use Permit. An example of one of these is a contractor shop with office and garage. He stated several of these uses are in the facility now. Mr. Bill Dahlstrom, applicant, stated that they are asking for approval of a PD for the uses to make them conforming. The property is under contract and many times a lender won't finance deals unless the uses are conforming. He stated they had done a detailed study of the existing uses and what uses are actually permitted in this district. He stated there are some questions as to whether some of the uses would actually be permitted or not today. Rather than trying to put a square peg in a round hole, they decided to identify specifically what uses are and seek a PD to avoid questions down the road. He stated no additional development is being proposed, they just want to keep the tenancy that they currently have. He showed a site plan of the existing facility and gave an overview of what businesses office where. He pointed out the building that Ater Plumbing occupies, which directly abuts residentially zoned Page 5 2/11/99 P & Z Minutes .. ·".._~._.._,..,~_...".O'_'~'~_'_"'_""""u..,_,__,_._~._'>..._~._,____._~ property. He stated that because of the gradient of uses they felt their best option was a PD. He stated the one exception they are requesting is the ability to have a warehouse in Buildings C & E, not to exceed 10,000 square feet per warehouse. He stated Building C is 17,000 square feet and the nature of the two uses that occupy them have a primary function that is permitted by right today; however, as an accessory warehousing is part of the main use. In order to prevent any confusion in the future, they propose the right to have a warehouse in both buildings and the warehouse use not to exceed 10,000 square feet per use. In closing, Mr. Dahlstrom requested the P&Z approve this request. He stated a sale is pending on this property and want the uses to become conforming. He believes the only use that staff has recommended remain non-conforming is the auto repair shop. Vice Chairman Bowen called for additional proponents. Seeing none, he called for opponents. Ms. Wynonna Renz, 7625 Sybil complained of the noise and excessive parking on the streets currently and wanted to know if this would intensify with this zoning change. Mr. Bowen explained that none of the uses will be changing, they are only trying to get the legally non-conforming uses to be conforming so the building can be sold. There are no plans for additional uses being added. Mr. Terry Mitchell, 7624 Sybil, complained of current truck traffic and doesn't want to see any more. He would also like to see a screening fence required to help keep blowing trash off his property. Mr. Baker stated that there are demands that can be placed on this PD, such as screening/buffer zones and public street access. Mr. Dahlstrom stated that they could prohibit truck traffic, citing that he would not want trucks in his yard either. He showed pictures of the facility and stated that no room exists for a screening fence since the concrete goes all the way to the property line. Mr. Dahlstrom stated they would like the uses in Building D to remain as conforming uses and the uses in Building E would remain a non-conforming use. Ms. Daria Mitchell, 7624 Sybil voiced concerns about Ater Plumbing that currently exists. She stated that they are a warehouse and distribution center. She complained of beer drinking by the employees in the parking lot, and it's Page 6 2/11/99 P & Z Minutes only a block from an elementary school. Additionally, she complained of the employee's lewd, obnoxious behavior and does not believe this use is conducive to a neighborhood environment. She asked the Commissioners to drive down Roberta and see for themselves how this facility operates. Seeing no additional opponents, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Nehring stated that if this is changed to a PD, a wall should be built. Mr. Barfield stated that he would like to go a step further and close the access to Roberta completely off from the development. He stated remembering when this was originally zoned; industrial uses were not intended. He believes it has evolved into an industrial nightmare and he would not want to live next door to it either. He stated their mission, as a Commission is to do what they can to clean the City up; he doesn't believe this is respectable. Mr. Wood stated that there is a difference in legal non-conforming uses and illegal uses. He stated that a vast number of the current uses are not non- conforming, they are illegal uses. He believes the actual case is not to approve a PD, but to approve uses not allowed in the C2-Commercial district on a carte- blanch basis. Additionally, he is opposed to the applicant request for a waiver regarding the more stringent sign regulations. Mr. Wood also believes that the residents should contact Code Enforcement on a regular basis until the City realizes the problem in the area. Mr. Laubacher believes this was not the intent PD's were designed for and agrees with Mr. Wood. Mr. Blue stated that he concurred with Mr. Wood & Laubacher as well. Mr. Bowen believes this is a run around the Zoning Ordinance and is opposed to this request. Mr. Dahlstrom stated he was surprised at the Commissions response and stated this was never intended to be a run around the zoning regulations. He asked that the Commission consider tabling this issue and give them some time to rework their plan. Mr. Rick Gartner, Bradford Companies and representative for the owners, stated that the John Hancock Life owns this property and they are getting out of the real estate business; stating they will go to whatever lengths necessary to sell this building. He stated the building was built with hydraulic lifts in 1984 and several of the automotive uses were original tenants and believes the uses changed under the C2 classification, which should grandfather them. Page 7 2/11/99 P & Z Minutes Mr. Dahlstrom stated they would prefer the item be postponed instead of a denial without prejudice. He stated they have certain contractual obligations that need to be met. Mr. Wood stated that denial without prejudice would not slow down their process. He stated that merely erecting a fence does not address the illegal uses that currently exist. While the neighbors would appreciate the fence, he also believes they want the area cleaned up. Mr. Barfield suggested they come back with a PD and the businesses that are there will comply with C2-Commercial requirements. Mr. Wood stated that while the Commission would like that, the applicant wouldn't, stating if they could live with that, they wouldn't be before the Commission at all. Mr. Dahlstrom stated they are willing to step back and do some things that aren't currently required, such as the possibility of a screening wall. Mr. Wood asked how the Commission could ensure that happens, i.e., escrowing money, building a fence before the sale of the property. After much discussion, Mr. Wood asked if the item could be postponed with requirements and specifications on when the item is brought back to P&Z. Mr. Baker stated yes. Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Barfield, moved to postpone PZ 99-02 subject to receiving from the applicant, a completed PD application and package that will include all drawings and specifications required by ordinance, and not limited to: perimeter fencing, masonry walls around the perimeter generally required, specifically on Roberta. The elimination of truck traffic at least, if not complete traffic coming out onto Roberta or out of this project other than Lola or Davis. Implementation of a landscape plan that meets the current regulations. Addressing the issue of trash and how it will be handled and kept out of the neighborhoods, noise abatement. Buildings E & C are limited to only uses currently allowed in C2. All other non-conforming uses in the existing buildings be eliminated at the time of tenancy change and not replaced with a like use. Signage meets current ordinances and will continue to, as the ordinances are changed, no truck traffic around off the Davis Boulevard entrance of this property onto the church property to the south. Page 8 2/11/99 P & Z Minutes , ~"""---._-'-----'.'-_.'~~~-'-"-.""'-'-''''''-''''-'"'-.-.~._,.~'~-----_._--- Mr. Dahlstrom asked what would happen if some of these requirements, such as landscaping were impossible to accomplish. Mr. Wood stated that from the standpoint of percentages required, he didn't know if it could be done, but nothing would stop them from removing paving to install landscaping. Mr. Barfield suggested the applicant attend the work session for the next meeting in two weeks and seek guidance if they so desired. The motion carried unanimously. Page 9 2/11/99 P & Z Minutes 7. STAFF REPORT There were none. 8. CITIZEN COMMENTS There were none 12. ADJORUNMENT Mr. Bowen thanked Mr. Baker for his dedication in the last two years and wished him great success with his new endeavor. Having no additional business to ~n~:.::;:~at8:30p.m.y JI~/ fk Richard Davis, Chairman Ted Nehring, Secretary Page 10 2/11/99 P & Z Minutes