HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2014-04-21 Agendas
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
CITY COUNCILAND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JOINT WORK SESSION AGENDA
NORTH RICHLAND HILLSCITY COUNCIL WORKROOM
7301 NORTHEAST LOOP 820
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
Monday, April 21, 2014
6:00 P.M.
A.0Call to Order -Mayor
A.1Approval of Minutes of April 2, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council
Joint Meeting
A.2Presentation and discussion of Iron Horse Transit Oriented Development District
A.3Presentation and discussion of Rural Estate Lots
A.4Review and discussion of proposed Comprehensive Plan
A.5Consider topics for future joint work sessions.
A.6Adjournment
Certification
I do hereby certify that the above notice of meeting of the North Richland Hills City Council was
posted at City Hall, City of North Richland Hills, Texas in compliance with Chapter 551, Texas
Government Code on 04-18-2014
______________________________
This facility is wheelchair accessible and accessible parking spaces are available.
Requests for accommodations or interpretive services must be made 48 hours prior to
this meeting. Please contact the City Secretary’s office at 817-427-6060 for further
information.
The City Council may confer privately with its attorney to seek legal advice on any
matter listed on the agenda or on any matter in which the duty of the attorney to the
governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the
State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with Chapter 551, Texas Government Code.
City of North Richland Hills
City Council And Planning & Zoning Commission
Joint Work Session Meeting Agenda
North Richland Hills City Hall City Council Workroom
7301 Northeast Loop 820
North Richland Hills, TX 76180
Monday, April 21, 2014
6:00 P.M.
A.0Call to Order -Mayor
A.1Approval of Minutes of April 2, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission and City
Council Joint Meeting
A.2Presentation and discussion of Iron Horse Transit Oriented Development District
A.3Presentation and discussion of Rural Estate Lots
A.4Review and discussion of proposed Comprehensive Plan
A.5Consider topics for future joint work sessions.
A.6Adjournment
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM
From: The Office of the City ManagerDate: 4-21-2014
Subject:Agenda Item No. A.0
Call to Order -Mayor
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM
From: The Office of the City ManagerDate: 4-21-2014
Subject:Agenda Item No. A.1
Approval of Minutes of April 2, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission
and City Council Joint Meeting
Presenter: Monica Solko, Assistant City Secretary
Recommendation
To approve the minutes of the April 2, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission and City
Council Joint meeting.
TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) CODE WORKSHOP
MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
APRIL 2, 2009
1.
CALL TO ORDER-CITY COUNCIL
The City Council meeting was called to order by Mayor Oscar Trevino at 6:05 p.m.
Chairman Randy Shiflet called the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order
as well.
PRESENTOscar TrevinoMayor
John LewisCouncil, Place 1 (present 6:10 p.m.)
Ken SappCouncil, Place 2
Suzy ComptonCouncil, Place 3 (present 6:15 p.m.)
Dr. Tim BarthCouncil, Place 4 (present 6:35 p.m.)
David WhitsonCouncil, Place 5
Tim WelchCouncil, Place 7
Tom LombardCouncil Elect, Place 3
Randy ShiftletChairman, P&Z, Place 4
Bill SchopperVice-Chairman, P&Z, Place 6
Don BowenSecretary, P&Z, Place 3
Mark HaynesP&Z, Place 1
ABSENTScott TurnageCouncil, Place 6
Kelly GentP&Z, Place 5
Mike BentonP&Z, Place 2
Steven CooperP&Z, Place 7
Dianna MadarP&Z, Ex-officio
CITY STAFFLarry CunninghamCity Manager
Karen BosticAssistant City Manager
Jimmy PurdueAssistant City Manager
Elizabeth ReiningAssistant to City Manager
Mike CurtisManaging Director
John PitstickDirector Planning and Development
Eric WilhiteChief Planner
Chad VansteenbergAssistant Planner
Greg VanNieuwenhuizeAssistant Dir. of Public Works
Craig HulseDirector of Economic Development
Mary PetersPublic Information Officer
Caroline WaggonerCivil Engineer
Teresa KoontzRecording Secretary
Mayor Trevino commended the Planning and Zoning Commission for the work they are
doing. He commented that the widening of Loop 820 and the future rail stations will not
only change the outside or drive through the city, but also the sustainable living that we
are addressing in the Transit Oriented Development. There are a lot of good things
going on and it takes these types of meetings and thinking in the future to see where we
will be in 20 or 25 years. He said there will be a commuter railin 2012 or 2013 running
from Grapevine to downtown Fort Worth. At this time, our citizens cannot get on the
train; they have to go to Grapevine because surrounding cities are not members of the
“T”. There is current legislation in Austin and we are making progress, along with
discussions with our State Representative, Kelly Hancock, how important this is for our
community. If we don’t plan for this today, the train will be driving by and our citizens
will be wondering why they cannot get on it here. We don’t have the funding as of yet
but are working with Vickie Truitt, State Legislator and she is doing a fantastic job
helping us.
Larry Cunningham, City Manager, said this was a great opportunity for us to get
together and plan for the future rail. He commended the Planning and Zoning
Commission for their hard work in the planning and development.
Randy Shiflet, Chairman Planning and Zoning, commended Gateway Planning and City
Staff for their hard work. They have made the plans understandable for the
Commission to make recommendations accordingly.
2.
DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
ISSUES AND PLANS AROUND THE IRON HORSE AND
SMITHFIELD RAIL STATION SITES.
STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK
John Pitstick reported on the previously held Stakeholder meetings. There were Open
thththth
House meetings on September 29and 30, 2008, October 14and 15, 2008 and
thth
March 25and 26, 2009 for the Smithfield and Iron Horse areas. He explained that
there was a general good consensus from the stakeholders although Iron Horse had
concerns with the traffic on Browning Drive.
Mayor Trevino addressed the traffic concerns on Browning stating that there will be a
reduction once the 820 widening occurs.
Mike Curtis confirmed that Public Works fully anticipates the congestion on Browning
and Glenview Drive to decrease once the improvements are complete.
John Pitstick stated the main concerns with Smithfield were the reservations of the
surrounding neighborhoods, the right of way on Smithfield Road and quiet zones.
Mayor Trevino asked about the quiet zones since the rail tracks cross Rufe Snow, Mid
Cities, Davis, Holiday, Smithfield, Precinct Line and Eden Road.
Mike Curtis answered that they could put the quad gates at the median and it would
allowthe horns at the intersections instead of on the trains themselves. The “T” is
proposing to do these improvements on their plans.
John Pitstick stated that some businesses in Smithfield had concerns with future
parking expansions and use expansions.
There was a general discussion about the residents on Arthur Court and the property
owned by Jim Makens.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS TOD DISCUSSIONS
John Pitstick discussed the comments made by Council and P&Z at the last joint work
session of February 2, 2009 to address their concerns.
Ken Sapp asked about Bates Container and how their proposed expansion plan would
be affected?
John Pitstick said they could come forward with a special development plan but overall
the heavy manufacturing in the TOD core would ultimately be a non-conforming use.
We have talked to the Bates and Sanders Families’ regarding the plan.
Other comments discussed were intensity of uses on Loop 820, street types, concerns
over a sea of parking lots, equal treatment for both sides of Davis Blvd, creating a true
Mixed Use District, non-conforming uses and buildings, and the Historic Smithfield
Architectural Review Board.
Mr. Pitstick said other recent staff recommendations were to expand the Permitted Use
Tables, clarifying required mixed uses in general mixed use zones, and add language
stating that non-conforming buildings not conforming to TOD standards may be
approved with Special Development Plan.
SPECIAL FRONTAGE STANDARDS
John Pitstick said that commercial will be required on the first floor of Main Street and
Iron Horse at the rail stations. On the arterial frontage, we will begin to unify the
development along Davis and Mid Cities with a 15 feet landscape buffer with surface
parking no deeper than 70 feet along the frontage.
On Boulevard frontage in the Iron Horse area, there will be a build-to zone and no more
than 50% of the lot frontage canbe covered in parking areas which forces that building
to be on the frontage.
John Pitstick asked if there was a consensus with the Special Frontage Standards?
Bill Schopper asked about Smithfield Road?
John Pitstick answered the Character Zones will stipulate the build-to-zones and the
core area will define even stricter guidelines.
Jay Narayana of Gateway Planning answered that essentially the Special Frontage
Standards set up a different set of standards other than the Character Zones. For
example,if the TOD Core is quite urban, but next to Davis, which is quite suburban, you
try to adjust for some unique adjacency. This is to create some nuances within the
development standards to address specific conditions.
There was a consensus to accept theSpecial Frontage Standards as presented.
CHARACTER ZONES
John Pitstick explained the Permitted Uses encourage Mixed Use zones, retail,
restaurant, office, residential, light industrial and institutional. Auto related uses only
allowed in Mixed Use, Arterial and High Intensity zones with Loop 820, Mid-Cities or
Davis Boulevard frontages. The Non Permitted Uses are only auto related uses in the
TOD core area, outdoor storage uses, storage warehouse (mini-warehouse) and major
manufacturing.
Referring to the Historic TOD Core, Jay Narayana said the character zone development
standards as to where the building should be on the lot, building height, parking location
and continues by summarizing standards that apply to development in that specific
characterzone.
John Pitstick said in the Mixed Use conformance, if you have 10,000 square feet of
building or 5 acres, you have to conform to the Mixed Use standards. There are parking
requirements with on-street parking, for instance if you have a building thatis under
3,000 square feet, we do not require parking onsite. There are allowances and
incentives for shared parking within 1,200 feet with other churches and parking lots.
The TOD Core has potential for new, higher intensity mixed use development,
maximum 4 stories, with mixed use conformance 10,000 square feet or 4 acres, parking
less than 3,000 square feet shared within 1,200 feet.
Jay Narayana stated that in the Historic Core, TOD Core, and High Intensity Mixed Use
there is no residential density maximum. It is controlled by the height, the form of the
building and parking.
John Pitstick stated that the High Intensity Mixed Use guidelines are 10 stories
maximum witha 250 feet transitional area. The building heights would be transitional to
create character in the core area.
Ken Sapp asked about the fire protection issues when you get above 6 stories?
John Pitstick answered it would have to sprinkled, but the Fire Department is limited due
to ladder trucks and other equipment. There would be special requirements for
buildings taller than 6 or 8 stories.
Jay Narayana added that anything above 10 stories there is criteria built in for plazas or
open spaces. This is being reviewed by P&Z and Council to determine the public
benefit of a building that is taller than 10 stories that is the point of negotiation between
the City and the applicant at that point. Structured and shared parking will have to be
considered from the standpoint of not wanting the parking demand to all be surface
parking.
The General Mixed Use for Iron Horse will have 3 stories maximum, generally 1 to 2
stories with potential for a wide variety of mixed use development that could include
office, live-work, light industrial and retail. There would be conformance standards of
10,000 square feet or 5 acres with 25% ground floor non-residential. Parking for non-
residential less than 3000 square feet with shared parking within 1200 feet.
Chairman Randy Shiflet asked once this TOD Code was in place, would property
owners like Jim Makens, be able to come back and change facades and make minor
changes in order to raise the value of his property in the future?
John Pitstick answered yes, absolutely. Mixed Use would allow them to do retail,
residential or a number of other uses. It would give more flexibility to the current
property owners with predictability for the future.
The Smithfield General Mixed Use has the same standard as Iron Horse with nuances
in the percentages of ranges preferred.
The Arterial Mixed Use is similar to C-1 or C-2 as it is currently zoned allowing the
existing uses to occur.
Jay Narayana said essentially the goal is to protect the existing residential
neighborhoods and not inadvertently cause issues, so the Transition Standards would
help the area transition down properly. There is a 2 story height maximum within 25 feet
and 6 feet masonry wall with setbacks. This would allow preservation in the existing
neighborhoods.
John Pitstick explained that the High Intensity Mixed Use has no adjacent residential,
commercial adjacency within 250 feet of any other zone limits no more than 2 stories
above the adjoining district. There are bonus provisions for Iron Horse and Smithfield
for 10% increase in commercial over 15%. In the High Intensity with building heights
over 10 stories, we want to see introduction of plaza, squares or open civic spaces,
structured parking with 10% minimum residential uses.
There was a consensus to approve the Character Zone Standards as presented.
STREET TYPES
Eric Wilhite explained the Commercial Main Street will have 60 feet of right of way with
narrow travel lanes of 10 feet, sidewalks at 11 feet and tree well of 5 feet with tree type
requirements on each street.
The Avenue section, which includes Smithfield Road, Boulder and Combs Drive, has 2
travel lanes and parallel parking and is similar to the Commercial Main Street
requirements. This could change if we did angled parking and depends on the
development and the type of uses that are next to it.
Commercial Avenue includes Iron Horse Blvd. at the rail station and has wider streets
with taller buildings. There are 10 foot sidewalks, 6 foot tree well and 8 feet of parking
along with pedestrian elements like park benches and ornamental lighting.
The TOD Boulevard will have a 14 foot median between travel lanes with a total of 80
feet of right of way with 2 separate drive lanes of 11 feet each. There will be no street
parking in this area.
The TOD General Street has 60 feet of right of way with 8 feet of parking and 11 foot
drive lanes with varying building typologies. There is a 20 foot build-to zone to create
the street wall effect.
The TOD Alley has 16 feet of pavement with 20 feet of right of way and shared parking
with adjacent buildings.
Ken Sapp asked how the timing would work with the modifications of these boulevards
and avenues in relation to the development.
Eric Wilhite answered if one of the streets would qualify for the sustainable development
grants then the city and developer could work together to accomplish further
development. He stated that in some cases the infrastructure would have to be in place
to help develop the character zones for future development and functionality.
Tim Welch asked about the TOD Alley with the screen for surface parking and if we
could put a 5 foot retaining or screening wall in lieu of the shrubs?
Eric Wilhite answered that the landscape portion of the provisions and codedo allow a 4
foot non-living screen similar to Sundance Square. We are working on still finalizing the
plant selection for street trees in the Parks Department.
Tom Lombard asked if we were anticipating a lot of congestion in the TOD area.
Eric Wilhite said The “T” has done an additional concept layout to show a park and ride
and trolley or van type services to get people to the stations.
There was a consensus to agree on the Street Types as presented.
ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS
Eric Wilhite said the main point of the architectural standard is to create sustainability
and a pedestrian oriented public realm through using the architectural elements and the
form, not a particular style. The key design principals are created by the location on the
street, pedestrian friendly building massing and scale, feature buildings, elements and
storefronts, building materials and types. The code has these building type illustrations
that show the shop front building, 3 and 4 story mixed use loft, 2 story live-work,
apartment, multi-unit house, townhouse, detached house and commercial high rise
buildings. One of the key things is the historic Smithfield architectural standards, which
are already in place, with more style control in this area by doing the building form or
creating a horizontal rhythm. The doors, windows, roof forms, awnings and canopies
and building materials are in the code. The masonry standards are similar to the
present ordinance which requires 80% masonry which is brick, stone, granite and tile
with 20% other material. The TOD residential is different because it allows for 100%
cementitious fiberboard and masonry brick, with 25 % other material for accents.
Tim Welch asked if the code allowed masonry tilt walls if they come back with some
kind of facade?
Eric Wilhite said yes, as long as it is textured.
There was a consensus to accept the TOD Architectural Standards as presented.
CIVIC SPACES
John Pitstick said there is an illustrative plan that encourages location,scale and design
of civic spaces with squares, parks and greens appropriate in any zone. All
development shall provide a minimum of 10% of gross area in usable open space with
no more than 50% for private open space. New development less than 10 acres may
pay park fee in lieu of open space requirement. Plazas and squares should link station
platform to commercial areas, with plazas ¼ to 1 acre and squares ½ to 2 acres. Open
spaces with pocket parks, children’s play areas, greens, squares, linear greens are
encouraged. Active parks limited to 10% of parks in station areas are not encouraged
in the station areas.
Don Bowen asked if the private parks and play areas remain privately owned or deeded
to the City?
John Pitstick said there would be some stipulations if they are deeded to the City, but
they could be maintained by the homeowner or business associations depending on the
situation.
Bill Schopper asked if this was more expensive than the current park dedication
requirements and fees?
John Pitstick said it was the same fee.
There was a consensus to accept the TOD Civic Spaces as presented.
APPROVALS AND APPEALS
John Pitstick said the process for approvals and appeals would have to meet the
requirements of the City and approved by City Staff. If the applications meet the
guidelines, then they will go through DRC and move forward. If the applicant is
requesting flexibility, modifications or incentives, they will have to be reviewed under a
Special Development Plans through Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
We are currently trying to seek a master developer to work with the City to initiate the
development.
Mayor Trevino said keep in mind since we cannot join The “T” at this time, the TOD will
not develop if the legislature does not see we need an additional way of offering mobility
to our citizens. Even with the widening of 820, there will still be a level of congestion
and this will give people who work in downtown Fort Worth or at the airport another
option. It is likely that the developers and investors will not be here until they see a
more sure thing.
Mayor Trevino said this will make commuting more convenient for the citizens,
especially the senior citizens, in addition to improving air quality, quality of life and
sustainability.
John Pitstick said local businesses are getting excited about the TOD and are starting to
think about how they can market it. In addition, there is a lot of existing parking already
so we can utilize what is here.
Scott Polikov of Gateway Planning stated they are working with City Staff to help the
development incentive process by creating incentives for possible investors.
There was a consensus to approve the TOD administrative site plan approval and
special developmentas presented.
TIMING OF ADOPTION OF TOD CODE
John Pitstick discussed the timing and adoption of the TOD Code. We are
recommending creation of the Code after the zoning is in place and there is some
private interest from a developer. It would have to be an expressed written statement
from a developer that they will do a specific project. It is being proposed to adopt the
TOD Code and bring to Planning and Zoning to May 21, 2009, to City Council June 8,
2009. The re-zoning meeting dates will be Planning and Zoning on July 2, 2009 and to
City Council July 13, 2009. This will help the deadline for the Sustainable Development
Grant on October 2, 2009. There was a general discussion to change the proposed
dates of P&Z to June 25, 2009 due to vacations being scheduled.
Mayor Trevino commended City Staff for their hard work and dedication as they have
held public meetings to bring awareness and understanding to the citizens.
There was a consensus to move forward with the creation of a TOD Code and rezone
properties around the Iron Horse and Smithfield station sites.
4.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
By:___________________________
Randy Shiflet, Chairman
ATTEST:
______________________________
Don Bowen, Secretary
CITY COUNCIL
By:___________________________
Oscar Trevino, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Monica Solko, Assistant City Secretary
CITY COUNCIL/P&Z MEMORANDUM
From: The Office of the City ManagerDate: 4-21-2014
Subject:Agenda Item No. A.2
Presentation and discussion of Iron Horse Transit Oriented
Development District
Presenter: John Pitstick, Director of Planning & Development
Iron Horse TOD
The Iron Horse Transit Oriented Development(TOD)District was created in 2009. Also,
in 2009 the TOD Code was adopted and the Smithfield TOD area was rezoned. The
Iron Horse area has not been rezoned to the new TOD District primarily because of
concerns from the property owners directly adjacent to the proposed rail station area
(two property owners). In 2013 the TOD Code was updated and a joint study was
undertaken to develop a reasonable development plan and to resolve property owner
questions and concerns. The Iron Horse station area plan included direct input from
affected property owners at the proposed station area. Robin McCaffrey was the
consultant hired to complete the Iron Horse station area study.
City Staff will be reviewing the Iron Horse area background and seeks direction
on potential rezoning of the Iron Horse area. Please see below illustrations.
Existing Zoning of Iron Horse Area (180 acres)
\[
Iron Horse TOD Regulating Plan
Iron Horse Station Area Plan –Illustrative Transition
Iron Horse Station Area Plan –Illustrative Ultimate Build Out
CITY COUNCIL/P&Z MEMORANDUM
From: The Office of the City ManagerDate: 4-21-2014
Subject:Agenda Item No. A.3
Presentation and discussion of Rural Estate Lots
Presenter: John Pitstick, Director of Planning & Development
Rural Estate Lots
The R-1-S (Special Single Family Residential) zoning was created in the late 1990’s to
allow large lot estates (1 acre+) with limited livestock and non-masonry buildings. Most
of the zoning applications have been requested because of the demand for large
accessory buildings that can be built without full masonry requirements. R-1-S has
occurred throughout the city, sometimes sporadically.
Currently there is nodistinction between several single family zoning districts on the
Comprehensive Land Use Map. The single family zoning districts vary from less than 1
unit per acre up to 6 units per acre. Market demand is also creating competition
between rural lots andtraditional R2 zoning on the same land areas. There are some
perceived conflicts from R2 development adjacent to rural estates where there are
livestock and metal buildings. Also, the rural estate owners have concerns about
multiple 2-story homes overlooking rural estate areas.
Staff will be giving a presentation regarding these issues and will be seeking
direction and consensus on future rural lot development. Please see below
illustrations.
“Low Density Residential” on Comprehensive Land Use Map
DISTRICTMAX DENSITYMIN LOT SIZEMIN
HOUSE
R-1-S1.0 du/ac43,560 s.f.2,300 s.f.
R-12.9 du/ac13,000 s.f.2,300 s.f.
R-24.0 du/ac9,000 s.f.2,000 s.f.
R-34.8 du/ac7,500 s.f.1,800 s.f.
RI-PD4.5-6.0 du/ac5,500 s.f.2,000 s.f.
Agriculture and R-1-S areas in NRH
Residential Demand for Conventional Single Family Development
CITY COUNCIL/P&Z MEMORANDUM
From: The Office of the City ManagerDate: 4-21-2014
Subject:Agenda Item No. A.4
Review and discussion of proposed Comprehensive Plan
Presenter: Clayton Comstock, Senior Planner
At the 2013 City Council Retreat, City Council asked that staff explore a possible update
to the Comprehensive Plan. While minor updates and supplementary plans and studies
have been performed overthe years, our Comprehensive Plan is still based on 1990
Census data, market conditions, technology, and development patterns. When we think
about how much has changed in NRH over the past two decades, simply changing the
colors on a map may not truly reflect the underlying conditions and issues. A deeper
discussion about what those colors represent and what the community’s common vision
is for the next 20 years may be warranted through a more thorough Comprehensive
Plan update process.
During the work session, staff will present on the importance of a Comprehensive Plan,
how comprehensive plans of today differ from those of the past and how the scope and
timeline of updating the Comprehensive Plan for NRH might look.
One major clarifier that staffwould like to communicate is that a Comprehensive Plan is
indeed very comprehensive. It is comprehensive in subject matter, participation, and
implementation. Although the Land Use Plan and Master Thoroughfare Plans are the
primary communication tools of the Comprehensive Plan, the policies and vision for the
community goes well beyond those two maps.
As an analogous example, the Plan may be looked at as one book with various
chapters, each “written” by their own subject-matter experts (i.e. Parks Master Plan is
managed by the Parks Department) but “edited” by a Comprehensive Plan Advisory
Committee (CPAC) and City Council. Some of these chapters might include:
1.Economic Development Plan
What is our strategy for business attraction, retention and expansion? How can
we achieve the proper and viable housing/jobs/retail balance?
2.Community Facilities Plan
What are our current public facilities (including County and School District) and
what do we anticipate being our future needs?
3.Parks, Recreation& Open Space Master Plan
What are our current park facilities and what are the master plans on some of
them? What are our citizens’ park needs and how can we accommodate?
4.Area Plans
If 70% of the City’s area is what it is and will likely not change, canwe focus on
the future of more specific neighborhoods, corridors, or other small areas? What
are some site-specific recommendations for revitalization and future quality
development?
5.Land Use Plan
What is NRH’s desired land use mix? How can we both guide and anticipate the
market? With the internet, are retail storefront demands truly reduced? If so,
should our focus be shifted to residential and office in areas previously planned
for retail?
6.Mobility Plan
How can we go beyond the space between the curbs to include a more
comprehensive plan for sidewalks, trails, bikeways, commuter rail, and overall
connectivity? What roadway designs are sensitive to their context?
7.Water, Wastewater & Stormwater Master Plan
When will some of the older infrastructure need to be replaced? How has
development over the past two decades changed the stormwater drainage of our
community? How can we encourage low impact development?
8.Urban Design Plan
What’s our community’s plan for curb appeal? What things can we doto improve
our community’s charm and attraction to motorists, visitors, prospective residents
and businesses?
9.Sustainability Plan
What does “sustainability” mean to North Richland Hills? How can our
community be sustainable and a competitive, viable option for residents,
businesses, etc.?
10.Implementation Plan
How will each City department carry out the recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan? How much will it cost? When will the recommendations
be realized?
The Comprehensive Plan is truly comprehensive, consisting of numerous elements which are all
strategically aligned with City Council’s City Goals.
Staff proposes to complete the Comprehensive Plan over the course of two years,
beginning Fall 2014 and being substantially complete within a shorttimeframe of
moving into the new City Hall. Because of the scope of some of the discussions and
plan elements, comprehensive planning consultants may be necessary.
CITY COUNCIL/P&Z MEMORANDUM
From: The Office of the City ManagerDate: 4-21-2014
Subject:Agenda Item No. A.5
Consider topics for future joint work sessions.
This item is being included to ask members of the Planning & Zoning Commission and
City Council if they would like to consider any topics for future work sessions.
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM
From: The Office of the City ManagerDate: 4-21-2014
Subject:Agenda Item No. A.6
Adjournment