Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2010-10-07 MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS October 7, 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 Mark Haynes Don Bowen Dianna Madar Mike Benton ABSENT Steven Cooper Ex- Officio Kathy Luppy CITY STAFF Managing Director Of Dev. Svcs Mike Curtis 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 5, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting. APPROVED Bill Schopper, seconded by Mike Benton, motioned to approve the minutes of the August 5, 2010 meeting. The motion carried unanimously (6 -0) 4. Approval of Minutes from the September 16, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings. APPROVED Bill Schopper, seconded by Mark Haynes, motioned to approve the minutes of the September 16, 2010 meeting. The motion carried unanimously (6 -0). Page 1 10/07/10 P & Z Minutes 5. General Discussion regarding Amendments to the Town Center Zoning Ordinance. John Pitstick came forward and stated that we have a few items to cover tonight and also have a brief presentation by the developer's representative. You will probably want to open the door also for any other input that you may want to receive from the citizens like we have in the past. Basically our adoption process began on May 24 when the Council directed staff and planning and zoning to update the Town Center standards. We had the initial meeting on June 3, 2010 to highlight the process and on June 17, 2010 to discuss draft text revisions. We have incorporated changing some of the Transit Oriented Development Code into the new standards. We have taken some of the existing private development codes and moved them into the public document. On July 15, 2010 the developers proposed plan and density caps were introduced and those were placed online. There was a separate stakeholder meeting on July 27, 2010 and had about 120 citizens attend and got a lot of input that we have forwarded to the commission members. We continue to take emails and information to update you. Before we set the public hearings we would make sure you have all of the public input that we have received. On August 5, 2010 there was a work session to review the stakeholder and developer comments and there were presentations made by the stakeholders and the developers. August 19, 2010 we had a work session regarding thoroughfare plans and Mike Curtis presented some of those plans and the layout. We do have the existing regulating plan and the proposed regulating plan if you should have any questions on that. On September 16, 2010 we brought back some proposed changes to the text revisions in terms of proposed signage. We want to make a vibrant town center so we have introduced several different signs in the core areas. We talked about the live- works, the developers feel that there is some demand for the live- works. Those would be along those major roadway entry ways and this would allow for a mixed use building. It could be a townhome or another work opportunity where the work space would be on the first floor and the home would be upstairs. We discussed the potential use of some new cottages. I would characterize those as kind of urban cottages. This would be in lieu of townhomes only. Where single family homes are proposed cottages could not be built. One of the issues that has been brought up early on is the impact to the school district and Walker Creek Elementary and we hope to bring that to a conclusion. The city is still supportive of a viable town center and we would like to talk about quality development standards. We think that some of the major issues, while there is still some distance between what the final densities would be, it has been staffs effort to bring forward as much quality standards as we can to keep the property values up. Previously on the website it showed that we could potentially go to a public hearing on October 21, 2010 but I don't think that we are ready for that at this time. Tonight we will still take input and staff is here to answer any questions then there will be a brief presentation by the developers and we would like to take input from the stakeholders or property owners. Potentially we would be able to bring back the final thoroughfare and text revisions next Page 2 10/07/10 P & Z Minutes time. Tonight we are going to talk about the impacts on the elementary school, encouraging a viable town center and quality development standards. The Walker Creek Elementary was built as an urban school. It has a capacity of over 650 students. The current enrollment is 652 students and this comes from the BISD. In Hometown and Fountain Ridge subdivisions there are 173 students who attend Walker Creek. Everything outside of Hometown is 479 students so currently about 26% of the student population comes from the Hometown, Fountain Ridge areas. If you take the current demand for every 100 units of single family that produces about 26.8 students. For every 100 units of multifamily that produces about 5.2 students and currently, as we understand it, there are no students that come out of the townhomes at this time. We wanted to be fair and not just look at what the existing demand was so the Economic Development Dept. helped us pull a National Association of Homebuilders report. This was done in 2001 and it gives a nationwide average. Based upon this report there is about 27 students per 100 single family units about 15 students per 100 townhomes and 11 students for every 100 multifamily units. You can see how the nationwide standards are a little bit higher on the multifamily but pretty close on the single family. We wanted to look at both of those to see what the demand is on the elementary school. The existing Hometown demand was 127 students and out of that 117 students come from single family homes on the west side and 10 students come from multifamily. If we took the proposed maximum density that the developers are requesting and took the current projected would increase by an additional 151 new students. If we use the National Association of Homebuilders statistics it added about 165 new students. The ultimate demand, with the current Hometown demand, and add the projected numbers would be less than 50% of the student population of Walker Creek Elementary school. It was built as a large urban school so at this point we don't see any real issue with the demand on the elementary school for this. We are not proposing the densities but we are taking the maximum densities that were proposed by the developer in terms of what the demand would be for students. Don Bowen asked if the school district had said that Walker Creek could easily handle all of these students or what they would have to do? John Pitstick said that it would depend on their boundaries but the current school capacity would handle the total number of kids that are projected for Hometown. We have talked with the school district and we believe that they understand the demand. Mike Curtis said that the current enrollment is 652 students. Based on the numbers that we have received from BISD these are their projections based on the maximum densities. BISD is projecting that you will have an increase of 151 new students. You add that to the 127 students that are currently enrolled and that puts you at 43 %. Bill Schopper stated that of those 151 students that are currently going to the school from outside of Hometown, they won't be able to attend Walker Creek. They will swap them around. Mike Benton said that they are there on open enrollment. Page 3 10/07/10 P & Z Minutes Mike Curtis said that this is the way the school was set up because as the development grows it would accommodate growth. John Pitstick said that it was built as a large school for capacity and I don't know if they knew the capacity and certainly we are not proposing the densities and we are just presenting the facts that based upon the maximum densities that were proposed by the developer this is what the impact would be on the school district. Mark Haynes asked if there was capacity in the surrounding elementary schools where kids from outside the area could attend? Mike Curtis said yes, In fact what is happening now is that they have 200 students that are coming from outside the district because there is that much excess capacity right now in Walker Creek and the surrounding schools. Those would be the first students that wouldn't be able to attend since they are from outside the district. John Pitstick said that we will publish the presentation and all of the information on the website. That has been an issue and we did touch base with the school district and wanted to cover it since it had come up. Don Bowen said that his initial question was would the school district easily be able to absorb the additional students and it sounds like the answer is yes. John Pitstick said that he is trying to summarize what we have talked about in previous sessions. The City of North Richland Hills is committed to a commercial and civic town center and a lot of the questions that we receive from outside can be summarized by are we going to have a viable town center? We realize that the market may not be for a lot of growth and commercial development immediately but we certainly are committed to that town center. There will be wider sidewalks sometimes 11 -15 feet wide with outdoor seating projected. You could have sidewalk cafes and things like that. Wider sidewalks would enhance that public feel and encourage the pedestrian walkways and vibrant town center feel. The commercial ceiling heights are going to be much higher, they are not going to be residential, at 14 -15 feet ceiling heights. We will promote the commercial ceiling heights on the mixed use buildings. For instance in the core areas all the buildings are required to have a 15 foot floor area measured from floor to floor on the entire first floor. We are encouraging commercial on all of the first floor of the core areas. There is a required commercial space with space for retail anchor. There is space that the city could certainly promote to gain another retail anchor in the area. This may not happen within the next few years but ultimately there could be a retail anchor in there in the future as well a space for a parking garage out there. If the commercial really takes off then parking could be an issue so there could be the potential of construction of a multideck parking garage. Similar to what you see in Southlake, not that this will be like Southlake but the parking garages that they have. We introduced last time the new regulations to allow a variety of signage. Any number of signs are being allowed. For example the sandwich board and blade signs under the canopies. We are allowing some wayfinding directional signs and light pole banners. Page 4 10/07/10 P & Z Minutes We hope with those regulations that this will encourage the vibrant town center feel. I think that a very important part of this is that the Taxing Increment Financing District (TIF) is financing a 25 million recreation center including a senior center and indoor aquatics center as well as a jogging trail along with the Library which is already open. These things will be a major draw to the area not only from Hometown but from the entire community and region. People will be coming into the recreation center and ultimately the performing arts and conference center. We believe the civic center concept is going to be a major part of that to draw people in. While there may not be the demand immediately for the commercial side we still want to leave that door open. The civic portion of that will be very important in drawing people into a festive environment to the area. These are one of the concerns that were brought up when we went through the changes and if we were committed to a viable town center. On the quality of design we have taken some of the private design guidelines that were not in our current regulations and we incorporated those into the public document. This would allow the city to have control over enforcing those requirements. One of those things is site design criteria which is a whole new section. This not only describes the building but it describes the sidewalks, the trees, the lights, street furniture, sidewalk dining and open spaces. There are requirements as you build that block of the amenities that will have to be placed in that site design area between the building and the public space. We will also have a seat at the private table for the private architectural review. There will be a requirement on the public document that will require minimum requirements. There will also be a new section for regarding commercial mixed use buildings in terms of architectural standards. We have incorporated those and they are much deeper and much more intricate in terms of building facades, store fronts, sign bands, upper facades, roofs, visible interiors and building materials. There are many of these that were taken from our TOD that we just incorporated at Smithfield and Iron Horse but also taken from the private deed restrictions and put into the public document. This gives the city a little more control to make sure that the quality is going to be there in the architectural features. There are standards for the mixed use buildings as well as the apartments, townhomes and the potential cottages in terms of their location on the street and the building form and massing. There are certain architectural elements that would be required. This would be enforced by staff as they come in with their building plans that they would have to meet minimum requirements in all of these areas. Finally there is a whole new section on quality development standards that is currently not required but we would require elevators for all 3 story buildings on apartments and mixed use buildings. Closed stairways and corridors would be required, fire alarm and sprinkler systems. On the larger buildings, roof top HVAC units would be required rather than ground units in the public areas. The latest 2009 energy code requirements would be required which will be in the proposed text revisions. The Development Review Committee would be approving the concept plans and all final site plans would have to be approved by the city. In addition to that there will be architectural committees for the single family and the town homes and mixed use buildings. We won't enforce those but the city would have a seat at the table. For instance if there is a new commercial building being built the developer would determine the town center architect and we would be able to assist with the final design. We would also be able to assist for Page 5 10/07/10 P & Z Minutes the private side for the single family and multifamily in addition to the changes that we are proposing and incorporating in the public documents. Again while we cannot control what the developers total densities will be, I think that staff has done everything that we can to try to keep the quality and property values up. While some of these are smaller lots and smaller square footage we still want to keep the quality up as high as we can. There is still some distance in terms of agreement on what the final densities will be but I think that you will find that we have done everything that we can to try to control and get those minimum standards and keep them as high as we can. Randy Shiflet asked about the concept of the final site plan approved by the city, is that done by the DRC? John Pitstick said yes. There would not be a public hearing. The current regulation requires an SUP for that. It has been proposed to remove the SUP requirement and then allow the staff to approve. Randy Shiflet asked that if there were any issues then they would be worked out at the staff level? John Pitstick said that they would have to meet the minimum requirements and we also would be able to be a part of the private side of things. I think that we are going to be able to have a much more active play privately and publicly in terms of how things are built and controlled. We can't throw things in that aren't in the ordinance but they would have to meet all requirements of the ordinance. That is all that I had and Dan Quinto is here tonight with a copy of the proposed concept drawing that he is prepared to go over. Tonight we are going to take input from the developer and the citizens and see where we stand and come back in a couple weeks and see if we can move forward to get closer to a public hearing. Randy Shiflet said that this is not a public hearing. We have encouraged input from all parties involved. We would like to do this again this evening. I know that we have one presentation tonight that we will be looking at and if the other side would like to have equal time we will allow that as well. Dan Quinto, 602 Northwood Trail, Southliake, TX came forward representing the Arcadia and Realty Capital. The property is owned by two developers Realty Capital owns the southern 30 acres and Arcadia owns the remaining 60 -70 acres. The concept plan is a joint effort and represents one possible interpretation of the regulating plan. The regulating plan would be law and this site rendering is an example of how that law could be interpreted as it develops forward over the coming years. Dan Quinto gave a presentation over the proposed concept drawing. Jennifer Mathews, 5813 Lakeway, North Richland Hills, TX came forward representing the stakeholders. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address you and would like to thank you for all of your hard work for the city. Planning and Zoning is one of the Page 6 10/07/10 P & Z Minutes most demanding committees that a city can have. I am a lifetime resident of North Richland Hills. I attended Smithfield Elementary, Smithfield Middle and Richland High School. I am also a very proud Home Town homeowner. Tonight I am speaking to you on behalf of all of the Home Town residents. We really seek to partner with you and our elected officials to preserve our quality of life and create the possibility that our children and friends will have the same opportunity to raise their families in a safe and supportive community. To make this partnership possible we ask that in your capacity you make your business on behalf of the citizens transparent and fully inform our community. We have only had access to limited information with no advance notice in which to base our comments and concerns. We have been faced with efforts to discredit our sincere efforts to work with all interested parties. As residents we ask for an open forum for all citizens of North Richland Hills to be able to review the final proposal and offer comments and suggestions before the final vote. Jennifer Mathews read a letter in representation of the Home Town stakeholders from Wendy Davis. Copies of the letter were provided to all Planning & Zoning members and city staff. Randy Shiflet said that we appreciate your input and as we have said before we are still in the process of trying to get to the point to get the information together to allow us to have the public hearings and formulate a proper recommendation to the mayor and city council. From the city staff perspective there is litigation fortunately we are not privy to what is going on there except for what we read in the newspaper. I can assure you as far as this body that any negotiation you have been a part of and everything that we are presented is done in a public meeting. Transparency is certainly here from our perspective. I know that with the city staff there are certain matters if there is litigation that obviously they will be handling an Executive session and no one will know about this. City staff has to wear multiple hats in dealing with me and to me it is a blessing that we are not a part of that. We are able to move forward and make our recommendation based on what we feel is in the best interest of the city. Any other thoughts or comments? John Pitstick said that our website is open and we will publish all of our presentations. You are certainly welcome to email us and all of these will be forward to the Planning & Zoning Commission. You are welcome to call us with any questions that you may have. We are trying to get this all together and we want your input and again while we don't have total control over what the developer wants to do I think that we are doing our best to get the best quality product possible. We are trying to keep Planning & Zoning informed and we want to make sure they have all the information before we set the public hearing. I don't believe that we are ready for a public hearing at this time due to some new issues that have been brought up. We will try to work with all sides and try to get a little closer to reach a resolution on the school and traffic issues. Hopefully density will be the only issue. Randy Shiflet said that based on the information that you just provided that you will have some additional information that will be submitted to the staff? Jennifer Mathews said yes. Page 7 10/07/10 P & Z Minutes 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 7:10p.m. Chairman Randy Shiflet Secretary Page 8 10/07/10 P & Z Minutes