Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2010-09-16 MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Randy Shiflet at 6:30p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Randy Shiflet Vice - Chairman Bill Schopper Don Bowen Steven Cooper Mike Benton Dianna Madar ABSENT Mark Haynes Ex- Officio Kathy Luppy CITY STAFF Director of Planning & Dev. John Pitstick Chief Planner Eric Wilhite Asst. Planner Chad VanSteenberg Civil Engineer Caroline Waggoner Recording Secretary Gina Pastre 3. Approval of Minutes from the August 19, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission APPROVED Steven Cooper, seconded by Don Bowen, motioned to approve the minutes of the August 19, 2010 meeting. The motion carried unanimously (6 -0) 4. General Discussion regarding Amendments to the Town Center Zoning Ordinance and proposed schedule of upcoming meetings. John Pitstick came forward and said that we are still working with the school. There were some issues brought up regarding the impact on the elementary school and we have had one meeting with them. We are going to get some statistics together and bring that back. We are also working on clarifying the final thoroughfares. We wanted to update on where we are today and give you the schedules for moving forward from Page 1 09/16/10 P & Z Minutes here. Hopefully you have gotten all of the updates from the citizens. Once we have the public hearings we will have all of the stakeholder input. We have a pretty lengthy input process and we are still welcoming input from any of the citizens. Tonight we just plan to give a presentation. We have not invited the developers or the homeowners to talk tonight. We would like to plan for one more work session meeting to pull everything together in the text, the thoroughfare plan and everything that we have and then move forward with the public meetings and hearings. The Council directed staff on May 24, 2010 to move forward with updates and P & Z for Town Center standards. This is the 7 th meeting that we have had with P & Z. June V we met for the initial highlight of the process. June 17 we discussed the draft text revisions. July 15 was the first time we saw the actual developers proposed plan with the actual densities with the regulating plan. We had a stakeholder meeting on July 27 and August 5 th we met to review the stakeholder and developer comments and had presentations from both parties at that point. There was a work session regarding the thoroughfare plans on August 19 Tonight we are here to discuss proposed signs. One thing that we would like to do is to encourage a lively town center. There are some different types of signs that would be allowed in that type of urban area. We would like to clarify the live /works and what is allowed. There is a new proposal for the east side of the lakes for the 45 acres in the middle section. The proposal is to allow about 80% townhomes and 20% single family homes. Our discussions most recently with the developers have been and they would like to at least consider some cottages. These would be single family detached units but a little bit smaller lots and we have some examples. What we are proposing is that if we come up with the right standards that if these could be allowed in lieu of the townhomes. Whatever the single family that is allowed they would have to build to those standards but in the townhome allowed areas whatever densities they could be allowed to have either townhomes or these cottage products. We would like to get your input and direction for these products. We are close to coming back with the entire text with the final thoroughfares and to discuss the school issues on October 7, 2010. In our minds from a staff perspective we are prepared to give that to P & Z and see where you would want to go from this point. After the October 7 th meeting we could potentially set formal public hearings before the Planning & Zoning commission. The revision goals were that we wanted to establish maximum caps on the number of apartment units and townhomes which currently does not exist in the ordinance. Staff has done our best to try to create new quality building standards and architectural features in required open spaces. Sometimes we can't dictate some of the architecture but we would really like to increase the architectural features and the quality building standards. Whatever is built we would like to be a high quality product. We want to allow less urban to more urban uses within the subzones from west to east side of the lakes. We are still committed to single family along the lakes and this is represented on the plan. The mixed uses with higher densities closer to the town center core and Boulevard 26 and Mid Cities. We wanted to keep the core of the area in the lower density and allow more of the heavier uses in the core area or on the periphery of Page 2 09/16/10 P & Z Minutes the area. We have reduced the building heights. Currently the core allows up to 6 story buildings and we have reduced that to 4 story. In the center it currently allows 4 story buildings and we are reducing that to 3 stories. In tracts 2, 3 -A, 3 -B and 5 there will be no apartments allowed. We are moving the SUP from multi family uses with new architectural and development standards. Tonight we have a presentation with 5 issues and we are not going to take a lot of time but we wanted to answer any questions that you might have. We would like to bring back more issues regarding the entire text next time but we would like to discuss the proposed signs and to discuss what would be allowed primarily in the core areas or the mixed use areas. We wanted to clarify the live /works one more time to see where that is allowed and we wanted to review the proposed cottages on the east side of the lakes again. These would be what we are looking at that would be allowed only where townhouses are allowed. This would not be where the single family is allowed only in the densities where townhomes are allowed they could substitute the cottages if there is a market for them. Again we will go over the review of the density caps and then discuss our proposed schedule. We are still committed to a vibrant commercial town center. We are very excited about the ground breaking on the new Recreation center within the next month. We are talking about a $25 million dollar Recreation Center, state of the art facility. We are also excited a civic and commercial core and we know that the market is not right for a major commercial development right now but we would like to make it for when it does come back the architectural features and buildings are there to allow that. One important part is to create a lively and inviting street scene in the commercial core area. Part of that would involve wall signs which is already allowed throughout the city. They would be allowed walls with neon are allowed in the center core areas. Currently monument signs we would allow in the town center area on the major thoroughfares on Davis Blvd, Mid Cities and Blvd 26. When you are walking in order to become more pedestrian friendly environment we would like to see inviting window scenes and encourage store front displays. We have open our door to allow for 25% of the windows to be used for window signs and also behind window displays. Blade signs would be a new sign that would be allowed in that area. It would be allowed for the live /works and the mixed use buildings. Sandwich board signs would be another sign that would be allowed. In the front area as long we have enough area that you can walk through and tell you what that would entail. Light pole banners are common in the community advertising NRH2O and we are opening that door a little to allow the light poles have banners on them. They could advertise community events or Home Town events. Directory signs like what is seen typically on office buildings we are allowing 2 directory signs per building. It would be attached to the building in kind of a window format since there could be a mixture of uses in one building. You could enter from the staircase or elevators. The electronic signs currently are not allowed but the city is currently looking at allowing some of the reader boards on the monument signs. Currently we allow churches for example the Legacy Church of Christ on Mid Cities with the reader board sign. There are several cities that are allowing them as you drive down Precinct Line or Blvd 26 into Page 3 09/16/10 P & Z Minutes Colleyville the reader boards that are allowed are part of the monument sign. If we do allow those on a citywide basis we would allow those electronic signs as part of the monument sign only. Currently we only allow these types of signs for churches but as long as it is done in a tasteful manner where it has aesthetics on the side and they could put changeable messages. We don't allow the scrolling or the movement. It has to come on for 8 seconds and then transfer to a new message. Eric Wilhite said the changeable message board is only a max of 2/3 portion of the sign. John Pitstick said they wouldn't be able to just put a large message board on top of a foundation. They would have to have the stone surrounding the outside of the sign and it would only be allowed to take up 2/3 of the entire sign. Window signs in the Armed Forces window has the Aircraft Carrier window covering. These are a few of things that the developer has spoken to us about and that is what creates the lively street scene. We are trying to encourage the Neiman Marcus or the Macy's window signs that you would typically see and the mannequins. Blade Signs under the awnings would be allowed. Sandwich board signs as long as there is 6 feet of walkable areas around the sign. It is a lot more signs then we typically allow but then again it brings up a more vibrant town center area feel. These would only be allowed in the core areas. Steven Cooper asked if there was a size limit on the Light Pole Banner signs? John Pitstick said that there is a typical size that matches the mount that is already there. I think it is like 2 ft x 4 ft. Eric Wilhite said that the light pole signs would be controlled by the city and they belong to the city or basically leased to the Brahmas to use since they are on the city facilities. John Pitsick said that these are in the right of ways and they would have to go through a city committee to clarify that and they would have to be sanctioned by the city or the property owner association. Not just anyone would be allowed to do that type of signage. Eric Wilhite said that like most signs we can control the content on the sign as well. John Pitstick said that the Real Estate signs in the windows would be allowed and we currently allow that as well. The other thing that we are changing is that we are allowing the traffic directional signs. These would be lower signs about 40" high. Those types of signs would be allowed to direct people to major facilities or even to the Recreation center or the Library. This would have to go through city committees because they are in the right of way. Everything that we have talked about is what creates our vibrant commercial core area. John Pitstick said that the live /works are in the general zone. It is going to be on Bridge Street past Parker. In that area you could put up to 3 story single family homes, cottages or townhomes. It would be a requirement for a 12 foot first floor height that is measured from floor to floor. We would only allow professional offices such as architects, engineers, accountants, lawyers, insurance, musicians, consultants. You could only have members of the family or up to 2 employees in those areas. We would Page 4 09/16/10 P & Z Minutes not allow for retail or restaurants, services, chiropractic, dental, government, optometrist, physician, real estate or title company in this area. In that area we are allowing a 5 sq ft shingle or blade sign. It is going to be a type of home occupation. They could occupy the first floor as office and the 2 nd or 3` floor for housing. It would have to be owned and there would only be one residence per lot allowed. Basically someone could buy a condo or townhouse and occupy the first floor for an office. It would only be allowed on Bridge Street east of Parker. There other signage would not be allowed in this area just a simple shingle or blade sign. Don Bowen asked if the 2 nd floor could be used for professional use or does it have to residential? John Pitstick said that as long as there is only one residence it could be used and would be considered an in home occupation and would not be able to advertise for it. As you walk down the street they are going to look like townhomes or other uses and all they have is the small sign. There is no additional parking other than just parking for 2 employees. Normally it would be members of their family would be the employees most likely. The live /works in the center core zone. In tracts 2, 3 -A, 3 -B and 5 apartments are not allowed. The second or 3` stories could not be leased out for apartments it has to be one resident per lot. In tracts 1 and 4 apartments would be allowed on the 2 nd and 3` story. Those could be rented out with ground floor retail office and restaurant. It is a 15 foot first floor height from floor to floor. The reason that we have a larger height there they could do other uses such as retail and restaurants. There is a full range of signs that would be allowed in that area including the wall, window, the blade, sandwich board or directory signs. Parking would have to provided 1 space for 250 sq ft of office or retail and 1 space for 150 sq ft of restaurant. They would have to provide additional parking on the back of the lot to accommodate for the demand. Dianna Madar asked if the parking was supposed to be in the back of the building instead of on the street? John Pitstick said that it could be both. The shared parking would be allowed if they could count some of the on street parking if it is right in front of the building or they would have to provide enough parking in the rear. In some cases if the commercial really takes off we would probably have structured parking. If it doesn't than there probably won't be a need for that. Eric Wilhite said that the residential would probably have covered parking in the rear but the work part and business part would have to accommodate. John Pitstick said that if you had employees you have to be able to accommodate for a couple parking spaces in the back for them. John Pitstick said that the cottages are a new concept that we are looking at. We are talking about the area at 2, 3 -A, 3 -13 where they would be allowed to put townhomes. They have discussed being allowed to build the cottages as an option from the townhomes. The current single family detached minimum size required is 3200 sq ft lot. It is a minimum of 40 feet wide and there is generally a 10 to 20 foot setback. Their porch can come up to 10 feet and the minimum dwelling unit size is 1450 sq ft. Some of Page 5 09/16/10 P & Z Minutes them are more than that but these are the minimums that are required in that single family detached homes in the general zone. The townhomes east of the lakes the minimum requirement is a 2000 sq ft lot, 25 ft width with a 0 -10 foot setback and 1000 sq. ft minimum. What is being proposed is that the cottages would be 2400 sq ft lot minimum, 30 ft wide lots and 0 -10 foot setbacks and minimum of 1000 sq ft. They are taking some of the same standards as the townhomes but they are separating them into separate detached dwelling units. The reason that we are open to this idea is that we think that it could create more owner occupied facilities where you don't have the tendency to rent out. Don Bowen asked if they would be able to build a single story 1000 sq ft. cottage on a 2400 sq ft lot? Eric Wilhite said yes, with the reduced setbacks. Don Bowen said that not everyone would want a two story structure. Eric Wilhite said that most of them would just have the bedroom upstairs. The living and dining would be downstairs. Bill Schopper said that a lot of folks don't want the second story when they are getting older. Eric Wilhite said that with the builder he is used I think that they will get creative where some of them would have a living or activity space upstairs and the master downstairs. With it being so small you don't have to worry about the bonus room being over the master. On something like this where it is just a single person or a couple there wouldn't be a lot of activity above the master bedroom. I think that they can fit one story and still get the sq. ft since the setbacks are so reduced. John Pitstick said that it allows you to create a more of a single family detached and owner occupied neighborhood. I'm not sure that there is a market for it but I think if there is that this would be a good alternative to all of the townhomes that are currently allowed. This will not be in lieu of the single family if the single family is allowed they have to meet that 40 ft and 1450 sq ft. If they have an area that is zoned for the townhomes then they could choose to do townhomes or the cottages. Mike Benton asked if these would meet the masonry requirements? John Pitstick said that in the single family there is a masonry requirement but the Hardie Board would be required. In the commercial areas we require masonry on the first floor but as a single family product they could be brick too. Staff has discussed this and what looks good is the detailing the gingerbread look that creates the character to the house to keep from being plain. Bill Schopper asked if we would be looking to make a subdivision of the cottages or could they just put townhomes here and the cottages over here. In Houston they have subdivisions of homes like this and that looks really good. Page 6 09/16/10 P & Z Minutes Eric Wilhite said that it would be a massing of the cottages together in a neighborhood setting. Bill Schopper said that he thought that if they kind of just mixed them in together with the townhomes it would look quite as appealing. John Pitstick said that we will be placing this on the website. We don't have any formal regulations and these are just some examples that could fit on that building style. There is only about 5 feet and on one side you would have windows and one side would not because of the building codes. This would be along the lines of a zero lot line. Currently on those tracts 2, 3 -A, 3 -B, 5 the density caps for the proposed townhomes would be about 313 townhomes and 79 single family homes. In lieu of all of the townhomes the cottages would help bring that number down and intermix another product. This would be market driven but I think that it would cut down the townhomes by 80 %. Randy Shiflet asked if the developer is requesting for the cottages? John Pitstick said that the developer is saying that in lieu of the townhomes since 313 could be a lot in that 45 acres. They were suggesting that all they would be required to build 79 single family homes. Cottages would allow to lower the density than it might be then the townhomes. Don Bowen said that it looks like for every 5 cottages you build you lose one townhomes because of the difference. Bill Schopper said that one of the things that we did over the years is that we tried to increase the minimum square footage of the homes that are built in town because it makes for a more expensive house and changes the demographics. I remember in the past in ZBA and variances because there was a school teacher couldn't afford to live out here and wanted a smaller house and so we are appealing to that. What quality standards do we have to ensure that these are not going to be price starter homes. If they are the same quality I have no problem with the 1000 sq ft homes but if we are talking about building Summerfield, that is when I have problem with that. John Pitstick said that he brings up a good point. It is the city, developer, the builder. There are some things that we have to do to require a nicer product. It is the fine details that have to be put into these homes to maintain quality. This is probably something that we will try to be back to you in a couple weeks in order to see what other quality controls we can place on those units. Bill Schopper said that it is being done with the apartments. You have really lifted the bar on the apartments and that ensures that a good product is going to be built. I am just concerned with a bunch of 1000 sq ft cottages. John Pitstick said that we could probably put the townhomes and cottages in a different realm than the single family. Currently the single family on the west side hasn't had any complaints. Page 7 09/16/10 P & Z Minutes Bill Schopper said that he wasn't aware that was only a 1450 sq ft minimum. The ones that I have looked at have been a lot bigger. It is astounding how deep some of those homes are. John Pitstick said they are typically 80 foot deep lots. I'm sure that most of those are probably 1700 -1800 sq ft homes. Bill Schopper asked what the minimum square feet for R -2 zoning? Eric Wilhite said that it is 1800 -2000 sq ft? John Pitstick said that this is a new thing and would like to get your input on it. The only reason that we are bringing it forward and it is in an effort to try to take the townhome area down. Bill Schopper said that if they have too many than they may end up going to rentals if they can't sell them. John Pitstick said that we felt like the cottages was another product line that tends to be more owner occupied than the townhomes. Dianna Madar asked about a percentage range for townhome versus the cottages if we find there is a market for the cottages? John Pitstick said that we could certainly pursue that with the developers to see if we could take the townhome density down and break it up. Randy Shiflet said that would be difficult to enforce. Bill Schopper said he likes the way you are going at it with quality. I think that it will all take care of itself because there are a whole lot of empty nesters wanting to downsize. They don't need a big house anymore but they wanted something nice and well located. You wouldn't believe the prices they are getting for some of the condos downtown. John Pitstick said that we can work on it and if you don't like it we can always pull it out. We need to work on the quality controls and amenities. If there are ways that we can tackle that we can look into that. We just thought that this would be a way to get another product in there and move in our direction. Bill Schopper said that he appreciates everyone thinking outside the box could be something that could turn out really nice. Don Bowen said that he thinks that it would be a good idea in order to reduce the number of the townhomes. The cottage would probably be a better selling product than the townhome. Randy Shiflet said that if the quality is done right that the empty nesters wanting to downsize or people wanting to move in to get into the area before moving over to the other side of the lakes. I would definitely like to see if considered further. Page 8 09/16/10 P & Z Minutes Bill Schopper said that if you figure about $150 a square foot would be about $150,000 and a lot of North Richland Hills is already in that price range. Mike Benton asked if the garages would be in the back? John Pitstick said that everything would be rear loaded with alleys. John Pitstick said that we have gotten a lot of comments and we will forward all of those to you when we have the public hearings. This is the current developers plan and this is the current homeowners plan. We have talked about this and I want to summarize it. Tracts 1 & 4 they are requesting 880 apartment units, the homeowners plan calls for about 550 in that same area. Tracts 2, 3 -A, 3 -13, 5 about 44 acres and the developers they would be able to place 313 townhomes and 79 single family. The tracts 6 -A & 6 -13 we think they are likely to be developed as the performing arts and conference center. We are committed to that and it is part of the TIP funding. Tract 7 is the behind the Kroger by the Venue and it is likely to develop like the Venue. That is the best summary of where we are in about 90 acres of the property. We will continue to get input and see where we need to go from there. Here is the regulating plan there are a few streets that we are going to change and then we will be prepared to come back. The way it stands right now we are hopefully prepared to come back on October 7 th for the regular work session meeting and then have the final staff presentation regarding the text with all of the changes and final thoroughfares and any school issues and stakeholder input. Staff is hoping to have October 21 be the formal public hearing. We would notify everyone that is affected and move forward with the new zoning, regulating plan and text revisions. These would make it ready to go before the city council on November 22, 2010. Randy Shiflet said that he likes the schedule. It gives the commission to opportunity to look at the whole. We have looked at all of the pieces and as soon as we get the packets it will be also be available for everyone else to view as well. We appreciate all of the input that we have received and to the city staff. Because of the legal restrictions we haven't been able to interact and we have had to do a lot of listening. We will be able to have the interaction during the public hearings and we are all looking forward to that and hoping to make the best recommendation to the mayor and city council. I like that we would have the opportunity to have another public hearing after October 21 that we would still have time to do that before making the recommendation for city council. Bill Schopper said that he liked that we have loosened up the restrictions on the signage because that is what makes it vibrant. 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 7:21 p.m. Page 9 09/16/10 P & Z Minutes Chairman " Randy Shiflet Secretary ;� W,,vf7,, i. F. Pa ge 10 09/16/10 P & Z Minutes