Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2011-01-20 MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS JANUARY 20, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Randall Shiflet at 7:00p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Vice - Chairman Randall Shiflet Bill Schopper Don Bowen Steven Cooper Mike Benton Dianna Madar Mark Haynes ABSENT CITY STAFF Managing Director Of Dev. Svcs. Director of Planning & Dev. City Manager Asst. Planner Civil Engineer Sn. Mnmt. Asst. Dev. Svcs. Recording Secretary Kathy Luppy Mike Curtis John Pitstick Mark Hindman Chad VanSteenberg Caroline Waggoner Kristin Weegar Teresa Koontz 3. Pledge of Allegiance Mark Haynes led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. Consideration of Minutes from the December 16, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting. APPROVED Steven Cooper, seconded by Mike Benton, motioned to approve the minutes of the December 16, 2010 meeting with corrections regarding case SDP 2010 -01 "motion carried unanimously" to reflect the 3 -1 vote and opposed. The motion carried unanimously (7 -0). Page 1 01/20/11 P & Z Minutes 5. ZC 2010 -09 Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request from Darrell Johnson and Robert Cruey for a zoning change from C -2 Commercial to U Institutional on Tract 9V, Abstract 1606 located at 4247 Road to the Mall. Darrell Johnson, 1901 Industrial Blvd. Colleyville, with North Gate Church came forward requesting a zoning change from C -2 to U to construct a church on the property. John Pitstick said that churches are typically allowed in any zoning district but they have chosen to change to "U" to allow them a 25 ft. rear setback rather than a 35 ft. set back and would allow church related signage. They also have made a request for Preliminary and Final Plat that will be coming forth soon. Chairman Shiflet opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak for or against? Seeing none he closed the Public Hearing. APPROVED Mike Benton motioned to approve ZC 2010 -09, seconded by Mark Haynes. The motion carried unanimously (7 -0). 6. ZC 2010 -10 Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request from Ben Johnson to revise an existing Residential Planned Development (PD 61) for West Hightower Place Addition located in the 6800 Block of Hightower Drive. Ben Johnson, 1712 Oak Knoll, Colleyville, came forward with a request to change the Planned Development to change some set back lines and garage orientation for front entry garages on 59 existing lots. Chairman Shiflet asked if this was due to economics driving the change? Mr. Johnson said he would rather use the word viability. He said the last time he was in front of P &Z was in June 2007 on this same project. He said in the last 42 months he has had to make changes due to the economy and housing industry. There was a whole different set of circumstances when this project was first presented in 2006 and recommended for approval in 2007. He said he has found after having this project and trying to market it for this period of time that the lots by the alley is not viable in it's current state. The prices have been reset and the opportunities in the market demand have been reset. Today he is building homes out there at about a 2004 level what the market will accept and how it's functioning. The subdivision was envisioned and presented with a rear entry detached garage and it is not viable in today's market, there is no market standard or comparable product in close proximity that you can go and compare. He has learned this by trying to go out and market the property. When it was Page 2 01/20/11 P & Z Minutes not marketable it became obvious this was one of the reasons. He said he believes it is for everyone's best interest to build the property out. Today there are three finished houses on the ground, one occupied and five other properties under some phase of construction. This proves that the property at this location is marketable and accepted. In 2007 when he presented these properties he thought they would sell for a quarter million dollars or more. Today the average sales price on the six sold are over a quarter million dollars. In trying to sell this product and market to other companies the only way they will make an offer if it is traditional front entry five foot set backs. To summarize, Mr. Johnson said the reason for the request to increase the viability and bring the opportunities back into that subdivision and City. He said he wishes to move the lot lines from one to nine which allow a traditional front entry garage on those lots that were previously planned to have a detached rear garage. There has been an additional packet presented with new additions with set backs and fagade enhancements. These efforts would mitigate the front entry garage. He said Staff has some recommendations and once they are made he would like to address those. John Pitstick said this 22.4 acre Residential Planned Development off the southeast intersection of Rufe Snow and Hightower. It was approved in 2007 and Mr. Johnson is building under the name American Life Homes and builds a very nice product. Most of the homes build today have been off the alley. The primary change is going from a detached garage to an attached garage product with the majority to be front entry. The current platted subdivision has a one foot side yard and a nine foot side yard which would allow for the rear detached product. There are a lot of nice amenities with it that include 96 total lots. The minimum house size is 2000 sq. ft., enhanced concrete pavers, and landscape open areas. He is proposing to eliminate some of the short open spaces but basically stay the same ninety six single family lots. There are pavilion and landscape planning's in the area, decorative group mailboxes and street light fixtures and decorative wood garage doors. The basic change would be to move fifty nine lots to front attached garages and eight lots with rear detached garages. This would be moving from a clear majority of rear or side entry garages to majority front entry garages. There is a stipulation that all front entry garages be set back a minimum of five feet behind the main building and all front entry garages have two single garage doors with a column which breaks up the elevations. There is an elevation that includes a side entry garage for three car garage. Staff has recommended that all the garage doors be made of wood or simulated wood with raised decorative accent panels to mitigate the front entry product. Staff recommends approval of his request but only twenty five lots be allowed to be converted to front entry garages. Mr. Johnson would be allowed to pick which lots he preferred and Staff recommends they be at the back of the subdivision. All the front entry lots would be required to have a staggered front main building setbacks. This would allow for a slight variation of building fronts and eliminate the regimented front garage elevation look. Once the initial twenty five front entry lots were constructed, Staff would not have a problem with the Developer coming back and reviewing things at that time. Don Bowen asked if Staff was suggesting that only twenty five lots be converted and he would still have thirty one left? Page 3 01/20/11 P & Z Minutes John Pitstick said yes he would keep the setbacks as is and if the market came back for that then he could build a detached garage or rear attached. He could come back in eighteen to twenty four months and see what the market determines. It would also give Staff a chance to look at what the buildings would look like and made recommendations for architectural features. Don Bowen said if we only allow twenty five, then will the remainder going to stay as they are now? John Pitstick said that is what we are recommending. Chairman Shiflet asked what does that do with the one and nine and five and five? John Pitstick said the City Attorney recommends if twenty five lots are approved, Mr. Johnson could pick which ones and it would be a plat revision to allow for the lots to have the five and five. The other lots remaining would stay as is. At the time he built the twenty fifth structures or before if he felt there was market for it he could come back. Don Bowen asked if he has to decide his twenty five lots now? John Pitstick said it is a plat revision so if he only did it one at time he would have to file on each lot and would be a hassle for him. We recommend he would pick a row or segment of areas that would be twenty five lots so he could revise at one time. Don Bowen asked if it could be done at the administrative level? John Pitstick said we have talked to the City Attorney and just changing the side yard setbacks could be a plat revision. Dianna Madar asked if there were currently eleven lots approved for front entry? So would twenty five be a total? John Pitstick said that is correct. He said twenty five total new lots to the front entry. The current one calls for eleven lots of detached swing garages. He is saying he does not want to build a detached product so the front entry attached would be a total of twenty five. Ben Johnson came back to address Staffs position and since this is a significant change that was once presented. He said when they opened the model home in mid October and by Christmas had sold six homes and in today's market feels that is a great celebration. The problem he has with the twenty five is with the viability. With two homes a month and ninety six lots that is a four year build out. If there is a limit on only twenty five it would be a problem with other builders it would increase the build out. Also it hard to make a sale in today's market and if a customer likes a certain lot that is not available it would be an impediment and challenge to the sale. If we plat twenty five of the lots then they would all have to be in a block because if you do five next to a one, then the one can't be built on because of the ten foot requirements to get to either side. Page 4 01/20/11 P & Z Minutes In lieu of that plus the fact of the other limitations I see, I recommend that we change the lots to have the customer pick the lots and at that time there would be a review process at twenty five. So if we do the whole process one plat, one lot change, one plat mechanism and do the whole plat when a customer comes and wants to buy twenty five lots from me, then I come back to the City and by that time I will have some houses up where you can see the product. He stated he is not asking for changes to the architectural standards, but to enhance the standards. This would be more workable and a win -win situation for all parties involved. I would like to see the City still have control after the twenty five lots are complete and I come back for review. These are planned development lots that are fifty by one hundred ten, some are as little as one hundred three. The City wants to keep the monotony away and set the houses back and stagger them. The original presentation back in 2007 had curve -a- linear streets and in this new presentation this was done to accomplish the same thing anywhere where there is more than three lots. Only on Swallow Lane in the back where this is not done. Chairman Shiftet asked if the house under construction now is a rear entry? Ben Johnson said yes it is and was designed to fit in the alleys, but instead of going in the back they turned it to the side because it was a pie shaped lot and there was enough room to do that. It is in our best interest to do that for most lots. Chairman Shiflet opened the Pubic Hearing and asked if anyone wished to come forward. Sherry Conway, 6104 Pebble Creek, NRH came forward and said she doesn't know anything about Mr. Johnson or his development except what she has seen and heard tonight, but encouraged Staff to help approve this plan and let him have front entry garages because of the issues she has living in Hometown with rear entry garages due to traffic issues and be allowed visitors to come and park. There was no one else wishing to speak for or against so Chairman Shiflet closed the Public Hearing and entertained a motion. Bill Schopper asked John Pitstick was there a way to make it enforceable or workable where we would approve changing all the lots and then have another look -see at twenty five. John Pitstick said the problem with platting all of it causes an inconsistency with the current zoning regulation. If you plat all of them with the five and five feet then you are basically saying all of them can be front entry garages. So this becomes a legal issue with the zoning. If Mr. Johnson has to come back with a plat revision on every lot it would be a hassle and costly. But he can pick either platting them single, ten or whatever he wants to do. Bill Schopper said he agrees with Mr. Johnson and it makes sense that customers want what they want and doesn't want to stop any sales. Page 5 01/20/11 P & Z Minutes Steven Cooper asked if the recommendation from Staff of the garage doors either wood or veneer type already in the plans or does it need to be added? John Pitstick said no, it is in his request that he would have single garage doors with wood or simulated wood. The only time he would have a two garage door is on a side entry on three garages. Steven Cooper asked about the setback he mentioned? John Pitstick said Staff is suggesting that no more than two identical setbacks on adjacent lots. Don Bowen asked since he is doing this in blocks and he builds a house that is the middle of say Swallow Lane that is five and five does that restrict the entire block to five and five? John Pitstick said he would have to continue to the end of the block unless there is an open space. We are requesting that the twenty five be towards the rear of the subdivision unless the economy comes back and he could come back and build towards the front. Mike Benton asked if we approved the twenty five do we stipulate in six months or a year that he can come back and apply for another twenty five? John Pitstick said he can always come back. If he builds ten lots and feels like he can come back and show the rest can be built like that, it is certainly available to him. In many cases we would say no. But we don't know what the economy is going to do and certainly we would be open to him coming back. We think Mr. Johnson has a great product and certainly trust him. We are not sure who might own it eighteen or twenty four months from now and that is the concern now. Staff recommends approval of his request but only the twenty five lots. Dianna Madar asked if on the south side of Shallow Lane since there is no street behind them would they all be front entry? John Pitstick said yes. Don Bowen motioned to approve ZC 2010 -10 with the stipulations that Staff have applied that only twenty five lots be allowed to be converted to front entry garages at this time and all front entry lots be required to have staggered front main building setbacks of fifteen and twenty feet with no more than two identical set backs on adjacent lots. Mike Benton seconded the motion. Bill Schopper said he is torn because he does not like between the front entry garages but the Developer is awesome and has done everything he said he would do and we are putting a requirement that will make it really tough to sell it down. Conversely, he said he knows the Developer and the City has a great working relationship and if he has a deal the City will work with him. He would support the motion or support one that causes to develop all fifty one of them. Page 6 01/20/11 P & Z Minutes Mike Benton answered that is he comes back in six months or a year we would not have a problem approving another twenty five or the rest of the lots. Steven Cooper agreed with Bill Schopper and is torn with the stipulation too but wants him to have the opportunity to build out. Don Bowen suggested that since there are fifty nine lots if we approve thirty instead of twenty five he would be half way there and only have to come back one more time if he needs to do so. Chairman Shiflet said his concern is the lot development expense and agrees that by approving thirty Mr. Johnson would only have to come back and pay the expense only one more time. APPROVED ZC 2010 -10 Don Bowen amended his motion to thirty lots instead of twenty five with the stipulations that Staff recommended that they be converted to front entry garages at this time and all front entry lots be required to have staggered front main building setbacks of fifteen and twenty feet with no more than two identical set backs on adjacent lots. Mike Benton seconded the motion, it carried unanimously (7 -0). 7. TR 2011 -01 Public Hearing and Consideration of amendments to Sections 118 -631 "Table of Permitted Uses" and 118 -001 "Definitions" of the North Richland Hills Zoning Ordinance. Proposed amendments include the addition of the following two previously unlisted uses to the table: Drive - Through Retail Buildings (less than 1,400 square feet) and Alternative Financial Establishments (check cashing, payday advance or loan business, money transfer business or car title loan business) as well as the definitions of these uses. John Pitstick said this is recommended as a new and unlisted use due to the request on both fronts with the drive through buildings and alternative financial establishments. We are recommending they be under a Special Use Permit not to necessarily eliminate the uses but to be able to look at them as they come forward on a Special Use Permit. It is intended to provide some flexibility by allowing certain types of uses in areas where special conditions may need to be considered to reduce the adverse affects on adjacent or surrounding properties. We felt the 1400 square feet are the smaller buildings that could be on some of those lots and have issues with parking and would look at those as they would be appropriate in those districts, Community Service (CS), Heavy Commercial (HC), Light Industrial (11) and 12 Medium Industrial. Mr. Pitstick said the alternative financial establishments are clearly different than banks and we have added definitions to all the uses and recommend they be required by Special Use Permit in the Medium Industrial District for the categories car title loan business, check cashing, money transfer and payday advance or loan businesses. We do have a few of those businesses in the community now and they can stay in operation Page 7 01/20/11 P & Z Minutes as is under their current zoning. If they went out of business they would have to conform and come back in with a Special Use Permit. Chairman Shiflet opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak for or against this matter? Seeing none he closed the Public Hearing and entertained a motion. APPROVED Steven Cooper motioned to approve TR 2011 -01, seconded by Dianna Madar. The motion carried unanimously (7 -0). 8. ZC 2010 -05 Continue Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request from The City of North Richland Hills for changes to the Town Center Regulating Plan and the Town Center Zoning Ordinance for the eastern portion of Home Town generally located in between Boulevard 26 and Mid Cities Boulevard. John Pitstick said we are summarizing the concerns we have continued to get from emails and requests from the Public. We have met several times and continue to study every issue and certainly want to listen to the public. Our plans are to come back on February 3, 2011 with a formal Staff recommendation on all the text revisions and final densities so hopefully will give Planning and Zoning Commission an opportunity to vote on it at that meeting or the next meeting and continue the Public Hearings to the City Council. There has not been a meeting scheduled with the City Council at this time. Mr. Pitstick said one issue that continues to be brought up about the cottages. At this point Staff would recommend that they only be allowed by Special Use Permit. We think there could be some opportunity in the future to look at those under SUP. Chairman Shiflet asked if he would give a description of what the SUP requirement involves. John Pitstick said what the City is proposing is under the density tables under several of the districts east of the lakes. Since some of the town homes could be rental products and owner occupied. The current standard for single family is a minimum of forty feet width and a fourteen hundred and fifty square feet home. The majority of the lots on the west side are clearly higher than that. We felt there could be an opportunity if there is a market to build a thirty feet wide product with twelve hundred square foot single family owner occupied home. Since we don't have a lot of standards and there is no product at this time, we would recommend that would be under Special Use Permit and would only be allowed in lieu of townhomes. We don't think there is an immediate market for this and it may not ever happen, but we would recommend this on a Special Use Permit only. Page 8 01/20/11 P & Z Minutes Chairman Shiflet opened the Public Hearing and called those forward wishing to speak. John Osborne, 8528 Bridge Street, NRH, came forward and read a letter that was also submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the density of Home Town. In the letter he read he quoted something that City Manager, Mark Hindman had made in a comment from a recent letter "The lakes and trails in Hometown are examples of features included in the development to provide residents with a place to play, exercise and socialize." Chairman Shiflet asked Mr. Osborne to clarify in the closing paragraph where Mr. Hindman's statement ended and where his series of questions began. Gail Ammons, 8128 Bridge Street, NRH came forward with concerns of safety in regards to recent mischief and crime reporting in the neighborhood. Dale Jenkins, 8001 Limerick Lane, NRH came forward against apartments moving into Hometown. Steve Kettering, 8605 Hudson St, NRH came forward with concerns of density, apartments with the west side. Chairman Shiflet read the remaining names of the cards submitted apposed to the development. Sam Akins, 8600 Beetlenut, NRH came forward with concerns of apartments that will de -value single existing single family homes. Matt Sheffstell, 8524 Olmstead Terrace, NRH came forward with concerns of density, does not think the plan has changed since the residents have been coming forth over the past meetings, does not think the Developer is involved in the process any longer, and that this is not what the residents were originally sold. Chairman Shiflet responded saying that City Staff and the Developer have been continually working together, but there has not been a recommendation at this point. Just because one of the Developers has not chosen to speak does not mean that they have not been working with City Staff. Jennifer Mathews, 5813 Lakeway, NRH and asked if any significant changes are proposed between now and February 3, 2011 will the residents be able to see it or introduced to it then? Will they to hear it that night and come up with quick comments and arguments that night only? Chairman Shiflet said the packet is typically ready for Planning and Zoning on the Friday before the meeting and available to the Public on that date. Gerald Luke, 6121 Winter Park Drive, NRH came forward regarding concerns of density and home values. Page 9 01/20/11 P & Z Minutes APPROVED ZC 2010 -05 Don Bowen moved to continue the Public Hearing until February 3, 2011, seconded by Mike Benton. The motion carried unanimously (7 -0). ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 8:41 p.m. Chairman Secretary Randy Shiflet DQ.11.n 016 Page 10 01/20/11 P & Z Minutes