Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2009-03-05 MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING 8 ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS MARCH 5, 2009 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Randy Shiflet at 6:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Randy Shiflet Secretary Don Bowen Mike Benton Steven Cooper Mark Haynes Kelly Gent Ex-Officio Dianna Madar ABSENT Vice-Chairman Bill Schopper CITY STAFF Managing Dir. Dev. Services Mike Curtis Director of Planning 8 Dev. John Pitstick Chief Planner Eric Wilhite Asst. Planner Chad VanSteenberg Civil Engineer Caroline Waggoner Recording Secretary Teresa Koontz 3. Discussion of proposed amendments to Chapter 118, Zoning in the City of North Richland Hills Code of Ordinances including Section 118-394 Lot and area requirements in the O-1 Office zone and Section 118-879 proposed new section addressing prohibited fencing materials. Eric Wilhite stated that recently a zoning change request was brought forward for consideration that was located on property behind the Ross on North Tarrant Parkway. The request was heard and approved by P & Z as it met all the district development standards for lot width and office district standards. When the zoning case was heard by City Council a council member questioned the applicant and staff on the linear, plane nature of the office development. Based on previous direction when office zoning district standards were briefly discussed P&Z requested staff to survey comparing other cities regulations to NRH. Eric Wilhite presented a power point indicating the minimum Page 1 of 6 03/05/09 P & Z Minutes lot size and minimum lot width of four other cities around NRH (Hurst, Colleyville, Grapevine, Coppell). After a general roundtable discussion was done after stating that DRC discussed the proposed amendment and staff believed 80 foot lot width and minimum 8,500 square foot lot size minimum was appropriate. Eric Wilhite asked for a consensus from the Commission to agree on a minimum lot and width size to amend Section 118-394 of the current ordinance. Mike Benton suggested that there be visual examples of platted subdivisions of offices from Hurst and Grapevine comparing to platted spaces in NRH to compare to each other. We want to make the spaces appealing to future developers. Chairman Shiflet suggested we get an advantage on area cities by creating developments that are competitive and appealing without taking away additional space from the developers. The commission agreed and asked for staff to investigate example of platted subdivisions of offices in Hurst and Grapevine along with existing space in North Richland Hills before making a final decision on lot size. Eric Wilhite additionally discussed that staff was going to be proposing adding a section to 118-879 which explains about screening and fencing requirements. Neighborhood Services and Inspection Services has been challenged with the "type" of material to be required for replacement purposes. There have been issues in the past where people would be required to replace portions of their fences and they end up not matching or put together with materials that are not aesthetically appealing. He suggested that the ordinance change to read certain products are prohibited such as corrugated sheet metal or plywood for fence replacement. Also CMU, or common masonry unit block is not permitted. Commercial projects are easily taken care of because if they are required to do that for screening then a certain texture would have to be on it or other masonry finish. Residential is not that clearly defined and needs to be changed to be more specific to types prohibited. Steven Cooper asked if Staff felt comfortable with only the four items listed or should there be more specific products. Eric Wilhite said that he is working with the City Attorney to come to a conclusion with us to maybe extend it to read "materials similar such as this" and leave it open to some interpretation. Chairman Shiflet asked about certain houses on Holiday Lane that have big blocks for fences, if they would continue to be allowed. Eric Wilhite said no, not if we add the smooth face units. They would be required to add a layer of texture on it. He stated that there are always thoughts and scenarios of what if's, but it goes back to we are the zoning administrators and know the spirit and intent of the ordinance and through that list help guide people to what that is. Page 2 of 6 03/05/09 P 8 Z Minutes Mike Benton stated he thinks there is a problem enforcing fencing regulations and asked what was being done about it. There was a discussion about enforcing fencing regulations. He is in favor of whatever helps Code Enforcement do their job easier. Steve Cooper suggested the ordinance to read "these plus other materials not intended for fencing materials". Diana Madar asked if at the permit level was there a provision for the types of materials used? Eric Wilhite said yes, the types, height and location of the fence are required for permitting. John Pitstick added that most of the complaints come when people put fences up over the weekend without permits, therefore are never inspected and do no meet requirements. Chairman Shiflet asked if this falls before or after in the code what is permitted? Eric Wilhite said in sequence of numbering of sections it comes after actually. After a general discussion regarding prohibited fencing materials, there was a consensus to change the ordinance to add more specific information on types of fencing materials allowed and prohibited after consulting the City Attorney with proper verbiage for the change. 4. Discussion of the background and chronology of the Town Center Zoning District. Mike Curtis stated that since the Town Center Zoning was adopted over 10 years ago, we have had a lot of new Staff and Commission members join the city. There are various attachments to the ordinance that explain items from shared parking to standard typical zoning requirements. There are also attachments that show general master development for the entire Town Center area, commercial design guidelines and a regulating plan, shared developer agreements between the City and local developer listing the responsibilities of each party, master deed restrictions and declaration of easements and covenants that go into more detail on how the property can be used. Mr. Curtis explained the original Regulating Plan was adopted in 1999 and he would like to take the time to go through each of the subzones and explain what was planned in each subzone. Mr. Curtis explained that after he goes through each of the subzones, he will then explain how the Regulating Plan has changed over the past ten years. Mr. Curtis presented a power point presentation explaining each of the uses in the Regulating Plan. He explained the Regulating Plan is the basic overall plan for Hometown. The different colors represent subzones and the plan shows what types of uses were planned in the different subzones and what could go in the development. The Page 3 of 6 03/05/09 P & Z Minutes Open Space .mostly represents the lakes and trails around the perimeter of the lake. The Civic represents the 1999 proposed Recreation Center, Civic buildings (i.e. Library, Tarrant County Conference Center). Mr. Curtis explained that after he goes through each of the subzones, he will then explain how the Regulating Plan has changed over the past ten years. The next subzone is the Commercial Core. In 1999 the Commercial Core was defined to be around Mid Cities and the majority around Boulevard 26. As defined in the ordinance, this is the area to be the most dense in business, service and institutional uses. Anything that is allowed in Hometown is allowed in the Commercial Core, so residential is certainly allowed in the Commercial Core. The intent and the plan was that the Commercial Core was mainly business, service and institutional. If there was residential in the Commercial Core, you would have mandatory retail frontage at the street level. Even in one of the attachments, it gives you an idea of what the Commercial Core would look like. The intent of the Conceptual Plan was not to tie down the architectural features or tell you exactly what businesses would go in, but if you look at it you can see the businesses have different sizes of footprints, one or two story buildings, mixed use with residential on the top with retail on the street level. It also shows what the main entry would look like, no residential, substantial retail with the intent to provide these uses for the people who live there, within walking distance. Even though the ordinance was adopted in 1999, there was over a year of meetings with stakeholders and the public by the developer and consultants showing the Regulating Plan. The Center Zone or Neighborhood Center is defined as a true Mixed Use area. More densely residential than indicated in the Commercial Core, it could have a corner grocery store or office building with residential by it. The Regulating Plan does not give you limits or percentages, but by definition it provides the densities of majority residential or commercial. Townhomes would be very common in the Neighborhood Center. Neighborhood General was to function principally as residential. On the west side of the lake, most of Hometown already developed in the Neighborhood General, as single family residential. Whenever the developer presented his plan it was to mirror both sides of the lakes. We have not seen any development plans for this particular area, but we would assume it would be predominately single family residential in the Neighborhood General. It does not mean that multi family would not be allowed, even in the existing portions that are already developed on the west side of the lake, home offices and businesses are allowed. Based on the developer's plans and the adopted ordinances, is what we would say would be Master Plan for any of the Neighborhood General. Mr. Curtis explained the final area is the Neighborhood Edge. Basically it is purely residential and the least dense. This was to be adjacent to existing residential properties, to transition into higher density. Mark Haynes asked if the biggest difference with the Neighborhood Edge is just the size? Page 4 of 6 03/05/09 P 8 Z Minutes Mike Curtis said no, on the Special Use Permits they are not requesting any changes to the Regulating Plan. He stated that Arcadia is looking at the Canal District or Hometown Phase 4. So between what is coming in the very near future, March 19th and with the Canal District, plans are going to start coming in. In addition, the Recreation Center will be coming in but the location is undetermined. The developer has indicated to the City his preference is the Recreation Center not to be located where it is currently shown by the lake. City Staff assigned to review the request by the developer concurred that maybe there is a better location, but nothing has been decided at this point. John Pitstick stated that the Recreation Center would be in the Hometown TIF. Dianna Madar asked if the Neighborhood General could be single or multifamily according to the current Regulating Plan? Mike Curtis answered yes, but based on the way we understand the developers plan, it would be mirrored across the lake. Mike Curtis stated that when you consider the number of meetings that the developer and his consultants had expressing this plan to the public and look at the definitions of each of these subzones; this is the Master Plan for Hometown. Chairman Shiflet asked Mike Curtis to briefly discuss Neighborhood Center and Neighborhood Core. Mike Curtis explained the two subzones. Chairman Shiflet stated that the way it stands now, it looks like the intent was gradual transitions. There was a general discussion about the Neighborhood Center and the intent of the uses. Kelly Gent asked if in general the regulating plans worked out well? Mike Curtis said yes, generally it has. 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 7:51 p.m. Chairman Randy Shiflet Secretary Don Bowen Page 6 of 6 03/05/09 P & Z Minutes Mr. Curtis said, yes, the size of the lots and density. Since just about any use is allowed in these subzones, it is possible for someone to come in and want to put 100 % of a certain use in that area. The use may be allowed but not the density. What was planned will control what goes into each of these subzones. Mr. Curtis said some of the changes in 2004 include Walker Creek Elementary School and the Thoroughfare Plan. It was originally planned to come off of Mid Cities and go into the existing phase, one of the requests from the developer in order to facilitate the development of the Commercial Core, was to extend Parker over to Boulevard 26 along with more access from Mid Cities over to Boulevard 26. So it was changed as shown. John Pitstick stated this was a cut through to access the commercial, but not intended for high speed traffic. Another change to the Regulating Plan was the name change from Commercial Core to Neighborhood Core. Some of the Neighborhood Center and a small part of Civic were basically all changed to Commercial Core. The area of Civic and Commercial Core changed. Across from Nytex, the Neighborhood Center changed. The ice complex was removed from the Regulating Plan. In 2004 the Neighborhood Core area that was Commercial Core was removed from the Mid Cities area. The key here is, when the developer saw that the use he was wanting for certain areas was a little different from the current Regulating Plan, the Regulating Plan was changed. That is the process; if you want to change a use, you must change the Regulating Plan. So by changing the Regulating Plan they removed the higher density of commercial and business use around the Mid Cities area. The original plan for Neighborhood Center was going to be a mixed use just as defined, but it was changed to townhomes. In addition, Franklin Park in the Neighborhood Center was added. Today the definitions are still the same for the subzones, Commercial Core changed to Neighborhood Core and some of the Commercial core was reduced and eliminated in some areas. Mark Haynes asked what was the process to make the changes to the Regulating Plan? John Pitstick answered they would have to go through Planning and Zoning and City Council by ordinance. Mike Curtis stated that it is not a coincidence that we are bringing this information forward tonight. On March 19, 2009 there will be 3 Special Use Permit cases that are going to be submitted for review and approval by the developer pertaining to Hometown. Don Bowen asked if they were requested Regulating Plan changes? Page 5 of 6 03/05/09 P & Z Minutes Mike Curtis said no, on the Special Use Permits they are not requesting any changes to the Regulating Plan. He stated that Arcadia is looking at the Canal District or Hometown Phase 4. So between what is coming in the very near future, March 19th and with the Canal District, plans are going to start coming in. In addition, the Recreation Center will be coming in but the location is undetermined. The developer has indicated to the City his preference is the Recreation Center not to be located where it is currently shown by the lake. City Staff assigned to review the request by the developer concurred that maybe there is a better location, but nothing has been decided at this point. John Pitstick stated that the Recreation Center would be in the Hometown TIF. Dianna Madar asked if the Neighborhood General could be single or multifamily according to the current Regulating Plan? Mike Curtis answered yes, but based on the way we understand the developers plan, it would be mirrored across the lake. Mike Curtis stated that when you consider the number of meetings that the developer and his consultants had expressing this plan to the public and look at the definitions of each of these subzones; this is the Master Plan for Hometown. Chairman Shiflet asked Mike Curtis to briefly discuss Neighborhood Center and Neighborhood Core. Mike Curtis explained the two subzones. Chairman Shiflet stated that the way it stands now, it looks like the intent was gradual transitions. There was a general discussion about the Neighborhood Center and the intent of the uses. Kelly Gent asked if in general the regulating plans worked out well? Mike Curtis said yes, generally it has. 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 7:51 p.m. Chairman Randy Shiflet Secretary ~ ~ ~ owen Page 6 of 6 03/05/08 P & Z Minutes