Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PZ 2014-08-07 Agendas
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING WORK SESSION AGENDA CITY HALL CITY COUNCIL WORKROOM 7301 NORTHEAST LOOP 820 NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS Thursday, August 7, 2014 6:30 PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A.0 Call to Order - Chairman A.1 Recent City Council Action, Development Activity Report, and General Announcements. A.2 Discuss the nomination of a Planning & Zoning Commissioner for the Planning Commissioner Award presented by the Texas Chapter of the American Planning Association. A.3 Briefing of Items on the August 7, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Session Agenda. B.0 Adjournment All items on the agenda are for discussion and/or action. Certification I do hereby certify that the above notice of meeting of the North Richland Hills Planning & Zoning Commission was posted at City Hall, City of North Richland Hills, Texas in compliance with Chapter 551, Texas Government Code on 08-01-2014 at p.m. By: 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 Planning office at 817-427-6300 for further information. CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING REGULAR SESSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7301 NORTHEAST LOOP 820 NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS Thursday, August 7, 2014 7:00 PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A.0 Call to Order - Chairman A.1 Roll Call - Recording Secretary A.2 Pledge of Allegiance A.3 Reappointment of Planning and Zoning Commission Members to Place 2, Place 4, Place 6, and Ex Officio. A.4 Election of Officers B.0 Consideration of Minutes B.1 Consideration of Minutes from the July 17, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting. C.0 Consideration of Planning & Zoning Requests C.1 RP 2014-04 Consideration of a request from Metropolitan Infrastructure for a Replat of Lots 1R and 2R, Block 17, Snow Heights North; being two commercial lots on 4.886 acres located at 6851 NE Loop 820. C.2 PP 2014-06 Consideration of a request from Pulte Homes of Texas, L.P. for a Preliminary Plat for The Reserve at Little Bear Creek; being 74 "R-2" Single Family Residential lots on 28.94 acres located at the northeast corner of Smithfield Road and Bursey Road. C.3 TR 2014-03 Public Hearing and Consideration of amendments to Article V, Division 4 of Chapter 118 of the North Richland Hills Code of Ordinances regarding commercial architecture standards. D.0 Adjournment All items on the agenda are for discussion and/or action. Certification I do hereby certify that the above notice of meeting of the North Richland Hills Planning & Zoning Commission was posted at City Hall, City of North Richland Hills, Texas in compliance with Chapter 551, Texas Government Code on 08-04-2014 at p.m. By: 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 Planning office at 817-427-6300 for further information. City of North Richland Hills Planning & Zoning Commission Work Session Meeting Work Session Agenda North Richland Hills City Hall City Council Workroom 7301 Northeast Loop 820 North Richland Hills, TX 76180 Thursday, August 7, 2014 6:30 PM A.0 Call to Order - Chairman A.1 Recent City Council Action, Development Activity Report, and General Announcements A.2 Discuss the nomination of a Planning & Zoning Commissioner for the Planning Commissioner Award presented by the Texas Chapter of the American Planning Association A.3 Briefing of Items on the August 7, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Session Agenda B.0 Adjournment City of North Richland Hills Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Regular Session Agenda North Richland Hills City Hall Council Chambers 7301 Northeast Loop 820 North Richland Hills, TX 76180 Thursday, August 7, 2014 7:00 PM A.0 Call to Order - Chairman A.1 Roll Call - Recording Secretary A.2 Pledge of Allegiance A.3 Reappointment of Planning and Zoning Commission Members to Place 2, Place 4, Place 6, and Ex Officio A.4 Election of Officers B.0 Consideration of Minutes B.1 Consideration of Minutes from the July 17, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission satin C.0 Consideration of Planning & Zoning Requests C.1 RP 2014-04 Consideration of a request from etropolitan Infrastructure for a eplat of Lots 1 and 2 lock 17, Snow eights orth; being two commercial lots on 4.886 acres located at 6851 NE Loop 820. C.2 PP 2014-06 Consideration of a request from Pulte Homes of Texas, L.P. for a Preliminary Plat for The Reserve at Little Bear Creek; being 74 " -2" Single amily Residential lots on 28.94 acres located at the northeast corner of Smithfield Road and Bu rsey oad. C.3 TR 2014-03 Public HeLn and Consideration of amendments to Article V, Division 4 of Chapter 118 of the North Richland Hills Code of Ordinances regarding commercial architecture standards. D.0 Adjournment !r � e NNHNirHLr PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION � r � � MEMORANDUM From Office of Planning and Development Date: 8-7-2014 Subject: Agenda Item No. B.1 Consideration of Minutes from the July 17, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE WORK SESSION PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS July 17, 2014 6:30 PM A.0 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Randall Shiflet at 06:19 p.m. PRESENT WERE: PRESENT Chairman Randall Shiflet Vice Chairman Bill Schopper Don Bowen Steven Cooper Mark Haynes Kathy Luppy Ex-Officio Jerry Tyner ABSENT Mike Benton CITY STAFF Director of Planning & Development John Pitstick Senior Planner Clayton Comstock Assistant Planner Chad VanSteenberg Assistant Director-Public Works Greg Van Nieuwenhuise Assistant Director-Engineering Caroline Waggoner Recording Secretary Cheryl Booth Recording Secretary Cindy Garvin A.1 Recent City Council Action, Development Activity Report, and General Announcements A.2 Briefing of Items on the July 17, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Session Agenda Clayton Comstock presented staff overview on each of the applications scheduled for this evening's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Chairman, Randall Shiflet stated that the Board approves the three (3) minute time limit for speakers during the Public Hearing. He reiterated that the Board has been requested to draw more information out of each applicant. There needs to be less reliance on the staff presentation, which is designed as a presentation of the facts and more of the applicant's mission, vision and plan of action for their submission. B.0 Adjournment There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 06:57 pm. Chairman Secretary Randall Shiflet Don Bowen MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS J U LY 17, 2014 7:00 PM A.0 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Randall Shiflet at 07:01 p.m. A.1 ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Randall Shiflet Vice Chairman Bill Schopper Don Bowen Steven Cooper Mark Haynes Kathy Luppy Ex-Officio Jerry Tyner ABSENT Mike Benton CITY STAFF Director of Planning & Development John Pitstick Senior Planner Clayton Comstock Assistant Planner Chad VanSteenberg Assistant Director-Public Works Greg Van Nieuwenhuise Assistant Director-Engineering Caroline Waggoner Recording Secretary Cheryl Booth Recording Secretary Cindy Garvin A.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Jerry Tyner led the Pledge of Allegiance at 07:02 PM. B.0 Consideration of Minutes B.1 Consideration of Minutes from the June 19, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting APPROVED Bill Schopper motioned to approve the minutes of the June 19, 2014 Meeting. The motion was seconded by Don Bowen. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). C.0 Consideration of Planning & Zoning Requests C.8 RP 2014-03 Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for Smith Farm Addition; being 21 "R-2" Single Family Residential lots on 8.00 acres located at 7601 Douglas Lane. Clayton Comstock, came forward to present the staff overview. This zoning change was approved at City Council on July 14, 2014. This is located at the northern most portion of Douglas Lane, just south of Cross Timbers Park. This does include a new street. The applicant will include open space for drainage or for tree preservation. Final engineering will determine if a drainage pond is required. Applicant, Marvin Smith, 7600 Douglas, came forward to present his application. This land has been in my family for 70 years. We wish to make this an exceptionally nice subdivision for the city. From Starnes to the first entrance we will work with the Orange Valley Home Owners Association to streetscape, replacing trees and replacing fencing. Minimum footage would be 2,500 for one story and 3,300 for two story homes. We are not required to build a masonry fence, so it would be wrought iron, similar to the botanical gardens. APPROVAL Kathy Luppy motioned to approve RP 2014-03. The motion was seconded by Don Bowen. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Chairman, Randall Shiflet made an announcement regarding application and public hearing procedures. The staff will present first. City staff is here to advise the committee. Staff is not here to sell the project. The applicant needs to thoroughly explain what their request is and why the committee should approve it. Those speaking in the public comments should state their name and address for the record. They are limited to three (3) minutes, relevant to what we are considering this evening so that all can be heard with a group this size. C.1 SUP 2014-03 Public Hearing and Consideration of a request from R. Lynn Motheral for a Special Use Permit for an accessory building greater than 500 square feet located at 7113 Douglas Lane. THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 19, 2014 MEETING. Clayton Comstock came forward to present the staff overview. This accessory building is 1,000 square foot. This property is located on the west side of Douglas, between Starnes on the north and Hightower on the south. This is a 25' X 40' building with a roll- top door facing Douglas. This is a 100% metal building. For reference, there have been seven (7) requests for accessory buildings greater than 500 square feet in North Richland Hills. The only one approved as 100% metal, in 2008, replaced an existing dilapidated metal building. Since 2008, of the next six (6) requests, all but one (1) approved have been 100% masonry. The last one approved was four (4) foot wainscot masonry on a metal building. The masonry on that size of three thousand (3,000) square foot building was cumbersome. Applicant met us halfway with the wainscoting. Applicant, R. Lynn Motheral, 7109 Douglas Lane, came forward to present his application. He wishes to request a metal building. What he doesn't want to do is the wainscoting. He wants to match the six (6) buildings around him in this immediate neighborhood. He is locked in where you can't see the building from anywhere except the next door neighbor and his property that is next door to this house. Another reason for the metal request is the plasticity of the ground in the area. This foundation will move. With building movement, there becomes a water issue where the metal terminates at the wainscoting. This is the primary reason for the request for full metal, which is more of a maintenance issue than anything else. He also has a list of twenty two (22) of the neighbors supporting his full metal building. Chairman, Randall Shiflet asked the applicant to provide the list to the Recording Secretary so this list can go into the record. Don Bowen wished to reiterate what staff said, in that Mr. Motheral is a contractor. Mr. Bowen asked to be reassured that this building is for his personal use and would not be utilized for his contractor business. It would not be customary for use of this building for a business. Mr. Motheral stated that his son and he work on cars. The purpose of this building is to contain these cars and four-wheeler vehicle into one area. He has a tractor as well. This will clean up his property and driveway. These issues being one of the reasons so many neighbors support the building. The city has been gracious enough to permit him to have a storage building at the front of the property. As soon as this building is completed, that storage building is gone. This building would not be used for his contractor equipment. The majority of the tools that are used are infrared cameras, drain snakes and paperwork in his business as a consultant. Chairman Randall Shiftlet addressed his concern of the trend. The commission has met with the Mayor and City Council regarding this application. Applicant, Motheral has met with them as well. Chairman Shiflet is a resident of the city as well. The area is changing. This property is R1-S. He would like to see the larger buildings to be allowed on these one (1) acre plus tract rural properties. But if he were permitted to have a 100% metal building, he could have the last one in the city. Chairman Shiflet is requesting some compromise on something that is not 100% metal. Applicant pointed out on the map where a foundation remains from a metal building that has previously been removed as it was no longer safe, as deemed by the city. He stated that this new building is replacing that former metal building. This being similar to the neighbor on the end who was permitted to replace a metal building. Chairman Randall Shiflet opened Public Hearing of C.1 Special Use Permit at 07:12 PM. Mack Garvin; 6908 Little Ranch Road, spoke in favor. There are about ten (10) buildings on that stretch of street that are wood or metal buildings. The complexion of that area is not going to change any time soon. He understands that the city has a different direction. He totally disagrees with that. There is a place for metal buildings in R1-S zoning. Requesting someone like Mr. Motheral to put up a brick building is ridiculous. Getting all of those vehicles away from the front of the property will enhance that neighborhood. Peggy Smith; 7121 Douglas Lane, spoke in opposition. I live two properties north of Mr. Motheral's property. At first, I thought this was like a built-on garage. It is better that it is further back. The driveway is blocked by a tree. Somehow vehicles need to get in and out of that building, but there is no driveway. It would make sense to add some sort of driveway. There are a lot of vehicles on that property. A building this size is not large enough to house all of the junk. My concern is that this proposal allow them to bring more junk onto the two (2) acre property. That mess is currently located between two properties, both owned by Mr. Motheral. Relocation of the junk will bring it in direct visibility of the neighbor just to the north. Greater concern is the intended use of the building regarding noise and activities going on in that driveway. There are plenty of complaints. If we had a responsible neighbor, we probably wouldn't be complaining. Applicant, Lynn Motheral spoke in response to the concerns. He displayed pictures of the neighbor's property directly to the north of his property. He showed huge trailers, and three (3) to six (6) vehicles parked at that property. He stated that he, as a contractor, doesn't have trailers that large. This neighbor is between Lynn Motheral and Peggy Smith homes. Don Bowen explained that these pictures are not relevant to this application. Bill Schopper brought up that others have built brick accessory buildings, against their preference. He was asking the question of the applicant why the committee should approve this application for a full metal building when these previous individuals were required to build with brick. Applicant, Lynn Motheral brought up the 2008 replacement 100% metal shed that was approved. And he brought the design of previously approved masonry buildings that are placed next to a residential building and is inconsistent color with brick on the existing residence. This new building would match other existing buildings in the neighborhood. This building is in a hidden area. As a contractor, my recommendation to customers is to install property that is "in sprit" with the rest of the area. Zero energy homes may be a better product, but can look hideous in context with the rest of the neighborhood. The 22 other neighbors approve this to improve the neighborhood. Steve Cooper wished to set the record straight. Mr. Cooper heard Mr. Motheral indicate that he was being slammed as a general contractor. He has not heard anyone from this committee slamming him as a general contractor. Mr. Cooper addressed that we never get a change if we continue to build back to the same thing that we previously had. Mark Haynes asked for clarification if this building was directly behind his rental property or the property where he lives. Applicant, Lynn Motheral responded that this accessory building is behind his rental property. Mr. Motheral lives next door. Chairman, Randall Shiflet closed Public Hearing of C.1 Special Use Permit at 07:36 PM. Don Bowen discussed that there are two options. It could be denied as presented. Or it could be approved subject to application of elements of masonry. The applicant is not proposing doing any masonry. Bill Schopper discussed that wainscoting is ugly. He was confused about the "code compliance" of wainscoting. Clayton Comstock responded that wainscoting is not code. None of these options above 500 square feet are code. The expectation from the city is that the building be at least 85% masonry. This has been discussed with Mr. Motheral, but he still wished to present the 100% metal building to the commission. FAILURE TO PASS MOTION Don Bowen motioned to approve SUP 2014-03 subject to the wainscoting masonry option. The motion was not seconded by any Commission Member. Don Bowen withdrew his motion. Don Bowen summarized that Mr. Motheral is proposing a 100% metal building. This is what has been proposed to the council. Council has clearly stipulated the expectation of 85% masonry. Mr. Motheral is not showing any indication of making concessions, which is why the committee is not in favor of this application. DENIAL Steve Cooper motioned to deny SUP 2014-03 as presented. The motion was seconded by Bill Schopper. The motion passed (5-1). Kathy Luppy was not in favor of denial. Chairman Randall Shiflet informed the applicant that he has the right to appeal this decision to City Council. C.2 SUP 2014-07 Public Hearing and Consideration of a request from J & J NRH 100, FLP for a Special Use Permit for a Detention/Retention Pond on 1.817 at the southern terminus of Bentley Drive. THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 19, 2014 MEETING. C.3 FP 2014-03 Public Hearing and Consideration of a request from J & J NRH 100 FLP for a Final Plat of Thorn bridge East Phase V; being 43 single family residential lots on 15.407 acres located at 7817 and 7909 Precinct Line Road. Clayton Comstock, came forward to present the staff overview. Applications SUP 2014- 07 and FP 2014-03 prefer to be discussed together, as both apply to the same project. The retention pond would be for a continuous hold of water. Surrounding the pond would be a retaining wall plus landscaping. Agreement has been made to install perpetual tree irrigation. Open space would be for utility easement and park area. Caroline Waggoner came forward to speak to the Little Bear Creek corridor. Much of this area is in the flood plain. Development of Thornbridge diverted flow to Little Bear Creek. Evaluation of the diversion channel prior to Thornbridge phases 11 and III is why we would allow a detention pond to mitigate storm water run-off. The pond would also provide an aesthetic appeal. The fifty (50) foot minimum distance between pond and the nearest property line provided a buffer to mitigate run off. Little Bear Creek is the only natural tributary. It has had increased debris and water flow from the development. City will maintain where they have public right of way. Chairman Randall Shiflet reiterated that the city does not have the ability to go onto private property to maintain even though it is a natural tributary by ordinance. Applicant, Jason Weaver; 2405 Mustang Drive; Grapevine, TX; Civil Engineer with Goodwin and Marshall, representing Mr. Barfield and Our County Homes, came forward to present his application. He appreciates Ms. Waggoner's and Mr. Comstock's overview of the project. Slide presentations show the existing twenty two (22) acres of watershed that discharges into two (2) different drainage ditches. Twenty.six (20.6) acres will flow into the proposed detention point. The result is improved drainage and discharge rate of nearly all of the development. J & J NRH 100 has obtained land from Mr. Barfield to increase the development size. Chairman Randall Shiflet opened Public Hearing of C.2 Special Use Permit and C.3 Final Plat at 07:59 PM . Angela Stevens; 7132 Stoney brook; wished not to speak, but to express opposition. Austin Stevens; no address; wished not to speak, but to express opposition. Rick Stevens; 7132 Stoney brook Drive came forward in opposition. This is his Mom's property. Prior to this evening's presentation, nothing was presented to us in writing of what Mr. Barfield was offered. Our problem is the water drainage into ditch A. It has always been a minor ditch. Ditch B was always the main drainage for this area. The ditch is three (3) feet deep. It already blocks access to the opposite side of our own property. It is his belief that there will be more flooding and greater erosion with higher population density. We request that this proposal be denied and sent back to engineering. Chairman Randall Shiflet reiterated that all of the information presented by Mr. Stevens was received and presented to staff and has been reviewed with engineering. There is a definite downstream problem south of Kirk Lane. Rick Stevens stated that the city does have the family's permission to come onto our private property to make repairs on Little Bear Creek. The property has been in the family for 70 years. There has been thousands of acres of development flowing into that creek with no improvements. No-one comes to clean it up. And the area is still operating with the same bridge from the 1930's. Chairman, Randall Shiflet asked if someone could have a look at the culvert and bridge at Little Bear Creek on the Smith property. Dianna Smith, 9012 Glendara Drive; acting HOA President of Thornbridge East,. Phases II, III and IV; came forward in favor. Her property backs up to where that detention pond would be located. She has been in favor of prior excellent developments with Our Country Homes. Chairman, Randall Shiflet closed Public Hearing of C.2 Special Use Permit and C.3 Final Plat at 08:05 PM. APPROVAL Bill Schopper motioned to approve SUP 2014-07 as proposed. The motion was seconded by Mark Haynes. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Don Bowen expressed faith in city staff that if engineering says the flooding will get better, it will do so, despite Mr. Steven's skepticism. APPROVAL Don Bowman motioned to approve FP 2014-03. The motion was seconded by Bill Schopper. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). CA ZC 2014-10 Public Hearing and Consideration of a request from Waguih Guirguis for a Zoning Change from "AG" Agricultural and "R-1-S" Special Single Family to "R-2" Single Family Residential located at 8900 Martin Drive and a portion of 8820 Martin Drive. Clayton Comstock, came forward to present the staff overview. Today's request is ONLY to change the zoning. It is NOT to present this reference development plan. Mid- Cities Blvd is to the south. Commercially zoned property is in the middle. Martin drive is to the north. Brynwyck development is to the west. This is slightly over four (4) acres of property. Original plan was changed after initial notification. Staff sent out new notice letters to homeowners within two hundred (200) feet of the new boundary. Staff presented an Opposition Map of those in opposition of this proposal. Commercial property to the south submitted a letter in favor of the proposal. As did Brynwyck Home Owner's Association (HOA) submit an approval letter. Individual residents in Brynwick did not. This does not have any weight on tonight's Planning and Zoning vote. Should this development proposal be presented to Planning and Zoning Commission requires a simple majority recommendation. Should this development move to August City Council, to pass would require a super majority vote which is six (6) out of seven (7) voting in favor; as more than (twenty) 20% of landowners within two hundred (200) foot buffer around the development expressed opposition to the proposal. Applicant, Lucien Maneshe, 5000 Thompson Tourist, Colleyville, TX; 76034; Civil Engineer for ANA Consultants, representing owner, Waguih Guirguis and the developer, came forward to present application. We are asking for zoning change approval. Owner has developed high end homes in this area since 2000. Mr. Guirguis has partnered with Deley Properties, LLC; custom home builders for about fifteen (15) years. Proposed use will conform to current and future land use. We are intending to build some very nice homes. Lot sizes meet or exceed zoning requirements. All would be custom homes from 3,000 to 4,000 square feet in the $400,000 to $500,000 range. Mr Guirguis met with some property owners who requested taller fencing. He included change to eight (8) foot fence. Pavement improvements would include brick pavers and stamped concrete on the roads as well as decorative light fixtures and professional landscaping. If approved, construction would start late September, 2014, completing January, 2015. Chairman Randall Shiflet opened Public Hearing of CA Zoning Change at 08:16 PM. Gordon Summers; 8912 Martin Drive; came forward as opposed, along with his neighbors. He lives next door to this property. Mr. Summers worked at the bank in the 1970's when Charles & Joanne Cain borrowed money to purchase the subject acreage to raise their kids. Likewise, fifteen (15) years ago, my wife and I purchased our property to enjoy the privacy and peacefulness of a country setting in the city. We believe this development would change everything about the neighborhood. It is my discussion with the city, I understand that properties have been preserved along Bursey and Little Ranch Road for small estate homes. We would like to preserve ours as well. I am aware of a couple at my church who would be very interested in this property, were it available as a small acreage home site. Adding ten (10) to fourteen (14) new homes to this area will increase traffic by ten (10) to twenty (20) cars per day. We have provided a petition list of home owners who feel like we do. Bill Weaver; 7241 Vivian Lane; Richland Hills, TX; Today's response is from a humanitarian standpoint. I have been Gordon and Kay's pastor for several years. Gordon takes care of his neighbors. To put fourteen (14) homes next door to Gordon would kill him, working him to death trying to keep everyone happy. Yang Cho; 1308 Summerset Ct; Colleyville, TX 76034; wished not to speak, but to express approval. Tracy Swayden; 8820 Martin Drive; came forward in opposition. Initially when re- zoning was proposed, I met with Doug and Waguih Having already endured the development of Brynwick, I had road noise concerns and the maintenance of my property value. After that meeting, they came to me to acquire 54 feet of the east part of my land if this proposal was passed. I have signed a contingency contract. I have been told that the re-zoning of that lot is probably inevitable. David Branach; 8801 Martin Drive came forward in opposition. I am a 22 year owner of an adjacent four (4) acre lot. My family sees the impending squeeze of sandwiching of fourteen (14) homes between one (1) and larger acreage lots. The planning and zoning engineers have done their checklists quite well. But some of their checklists are more mathematical and missing common sense criteria and aesthetics. Resident citizens are voicing concerns as values, which are present and future, that don't belong to the given public officials, are being given to commercial developers. These opportunists are not here for the long run to see the impact to the residents who intend to stay and raise families and retire here. Jonathan Roll; 9004 Martin Drive came forward in opposition. He purchased his home twenty (20) years ago because everything on the south side was one (1) acre or more size. This proposal does not directly impact me at this time, but it could down the road. My intent is to retire at that home because of where it is. Doug Terry; 1001 Edgewater Court; Colleyville, TX 76034 wished not to speak, but to express approval. Osama Nashed; 5412 Caribou Ridge Drive; Watauga, TX 76137; chose not to speak, but to express approval. Waguih Guirguis; 75 Main Street; Colleyville; came forward in approval. My intent was not to speak. But this was not intended to be a commercial subdivision. Every single home will be custom homes. I plan to live in this subdivision. I tried to approach the immediate neighbors so I can be a good neighbor. I myself, am an artist, having had my two (2)jewelry stores in Colleyville and Bedford for more than twenty five (25) years. I like and appreciate beautiful things. Linda Branach; 8801 Martin; came forward in opposition. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Right now I'm looking at the most beautiful sixty (60) foot oak trees. I see these trees being taken down all around the city. I am very much opposed. Chairman, Randall Shiflet closed Public Hearing of CA Zoning Change at 08:28 PM. Don Bowen spoke in response to the public hearing comments. He is greatly influenced by the neighborhood that is opposed. Everybody around this is opposed. This is right in the middle of the neighborhood. It is Mr. Bowen's intention to vote against the proposal. Kathy Luppy spoke in response to the public hearing comments. She, likewise lives in a neighborhood, close to Little Ranch Road, that grew up around her neighborhood. We fought against that development's traffic congestion, now almost thirty (30) years ago. We, as a commission, owe it to the neighbors that have been there for years to listen to what they have to say. These are large lots, purchased for the aesthetic value. If we, as a commission, need to look at some of these other areas of the city as estate lots, then that is something we need to do. It is Ms. Luppy's plan to vote against the proposal. Chairman, Randall Shiflet brought up that he requested a work session with the mayor and city council earlier this year. We discussed the estate lot program. It was narrowed down as two areas that would be coming back for further discussion. That would involve stakeholder meetings, of which this area is not one of. We want to be very careful to designate as an estate-type designation. Such a designation would obligate the home owners to zoning restrictions that would carry over to your children, your grandchildren and your estate. We cannot prohibit a property owner because of someone else. There was a commercial property owner on Boulevard 26 that was receiving neighborhood opposition. My views on that were if one is opposed enough to the changes, then purchase the land. I also respect the changing dynamics of the city and am supportive of the applicant. Steve Cooper expressed that he, too listened to the homeowners. We are a changing city. He grew up in a rural area outside of Texas and respect the property owner's sentiments. He respects the comments, but does plan to support the application. APPROVAL Bill Schopper motioned to approve ZC 2014-10, as proposed. The motion was seconded by Mark Haynes. The motion passed (4-2). Don Bowen and Kathy Luppy were opposed. C.5 SUP 2013-03 Public Hearing and Consideration of a request from Zone Systems, Inc. for a Special Use Permit for a telecommunications tower on the campus of Fort Worth Christian School at 6200 Holiday Lane. Clayton Comstock, came forward to present the staff overview. This is the first of two (2) Applications on the agenda for Fort Worth Christian. Zone Systems is requesting on behalf of Verizon Wireless and Fort Worth Christian for one hundred and four (104) foot telecommunications cell tower on campus. The tower would be on the light standard by the baseball field. Light standards would be at the same level as existing. Steven Cooper asked if this application is requesting a variance to the metal building materials as well as request for installation of a cell tower. Clayton Comstock agreed that this application was both for variance of the masonry requirement as well as construction of the cell tower. Applicant, Pater Kavanaugh, 1620 Handley Drive; Dallas, TX; 75208; representing Zone Systems, came forward to present his application. Asa society, we all depend upon cell phones. Antennas must be up high enough to get the phones to work. We do our best to hide these towers within the community. They can generally be placed on TXU transmission towers. There will be a sixteen (16) foot fence to protect the equipment from high flying baseballs. This tower will have room available to service another carrier, should the need exist. We are taking advantage of the long term planning of Fort Worth Christian. Jerry Tyner asked the size of the equipment shed where their equipment would be stored. Applicant, Kavanaugh stated that their lease space is twenty (20) feet deep by thirty (30) feet wide. Chairman Randall Shiflet asked if this tower is tall enough to require FAA lighting. Applicant, Kavanaugh stated that they generally receive FAA approval anyway, but that requirement is generally established at two hundred (200) feet minimum. If air ambulance lighting is required, FAA would acknowledge Zone Systems. Chairman Randall Shiflet opened Public Hearing of C.5 Special Use Permit at 08:48 PM. Being no discussion, Chairman, Randall Shiflet closed Public Hearing of C.5 Special Use Permit at 08:48 PM. APPROVAL Steven Cooper motioned to approve SUP 2013-03. The motion was seconded by Don Bowen. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). C.6 SUP 2014-08 Public Hearing and Consideration of a request from Fort Worth Christian School at 6200 Holiday Lane for a Special Use Permit to allow for the construction of a Chapel/Auditorium with less than the required 85 percent masonry coverage. Clayton Comstock, came forward to present the staff overview. Building to be located centrally on the campus. Site plan is under review by the development review committee . The administrative building was previously built with the intent to attach this chapel and auditorium to the blank slate south side. Building is forty four (44) feet tall. Applicant, Russ Garrison; 2726 Edgebrook Court; Keller, TX; representing Fort Worth Christian, came forward to present his application. Fort Worth Christian has presented this as forth (4t") project since 2011 in a master development plan to improve the campus. Students currently meet for daily chapel in the hallway. The student campus has growth in their band, choir and drama programs. Please see proposal of masonry- alternate architectural materials of this application. Applicant, Michael Hoffer; 6466 Woodstock Road; Fort Worth, TX 76116; representing the Honfeld, Hoffer, Stanford architectural firm showed various metal or glass materials proposed in lieu of masonry. Brick would be the primary base structure with these first class alternate architectural treatments. Chairman Randall Shiflet asked what brick samples would be primary. Steven Cooper asked what portion of the building actually drops below the eighty five (85) % masonry code requirement. He asked how the equation calculates glass as part of the materials. Clayton Comstock clarified that glass surface is actually removed from the surface calculations, which would result in higher masonry content after analyzing the architectural plans with that adjustment than is presented in the figures presented today including all of the glass surfaces. Similar to new City Hall, there are a number of metal applications w/ architectural structure and save money. Chairman Randall Shiflet opened Public Hearing of C.6 Special Use Permit at 08:48 PM. Being no discussion, Chairman, Randall Shiflet closed Public Hearing of C.6 Special Use Permit at 08:48 PM. APPROVAL Steven Cooper motioned to approve SUP 2014-08. The motion was seconded by Mark Haynes. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). C.7 SDP 2014-01 Public Hearing and Consideration of a request from Rick Figueroa for a Special Development Plan for a Custom Metal Fabrication business with Screened Outdoor Storage located at 6428 Davis Boulevard. Clayton Comstock, came forward to present the staff overview. Our applicant has purchased a currently closed building, formerly Precision Packaging. He is a custom metal fabricator. His intent is to build out to sub divide and lease to tenants. There are eight (8) stipulations requested by the applicant as part of this SUP. 1. Light manufacturing in an eighteen thousand (18,000) square foot building. 2. Maximum allowable storage area as fifty (50) % of total square footage. 3. Parking Ratio as one to three sixty (1:360) ratio. 4. Outside storage area on the east with an eight (8) foot perimeter masonry wall screen. 5. Architectural product display pads along Davis Boulevard. 6. Attached building elevations as one hundred (100) % metal panel. 7. Deferral of landscape plan requirement until building permit stage. 8. No open space or street dedication at this time. Steven Cooper discussed, regarding landscape deferral, if all the trees are coming out. Clayton Comstock responded that staff is still waiting for the tree survey. That survey will address tree removal and replanting. Nearly all of the trees are classified as scrub trees (ie., four (4) inch mulberry). These existing trees are scheduled to come out, which he would have the ability to do. The survey will evaluate true quality trees. Chairman Randall Shiflet does not have a problem with landscape deferral, but sees nothing on Davis Boulevard. He doesn't want to have a sign blocked, but other businesses have at least shrubs at the street. Clayton Comstock responded that installation of landscaping may not be prudent when we don't really know what the context of this building will be in the future. Therefore, that question is addressed as part of this SUP. Steven Cooper responded that he assumed the street treatment would be part of the landscape plan. Applicant, Rick Figueroa, 8800 Kirk Lane; came forward to present his application. Basically, this is the renovation of the old ratty looking building on Davis Boulevard. Exterior of the building would be new. The model is the Starbucks on Highway 121 for a vintage industrial look facing Davis Boulevard. Plans include all new electrical, new fire sprinkler system, new offices and partitions. Wrap-around on east and west sides would do away with that metal look. Current landscaping majority are "non- preservation" small dense trees. We are looking to thin these up; leaving some with only the tops; eliminating most in the rear. Tree survey will identify the plan. Dust collector, cone shaped silos would be relocated to the front of the building as an architectural feature. An idea is to create architectural steel elements as part of the landscape to advertise what we do for businesses, back yards and parks. Chairman Randall Shiflet inquired about native plants to be included in the landscaping around the sculptures. He requested staff to work with the applicant for low maintenance options. Applicant, Figueroa expressed cost concerns of the plants and more importantly the irrigation requirements to keep landscaping alive. A concern is the amount of money this build out will cost which far exceeds the price paid for the entire property. There could be creative options to display steel planters, the work that they do for their customers. Clayton Comstock brought up zeroscape ornamental trees or native grasses that could be removed when the full plan is developed. Staff can work with the applicant as has occurred with other businesses in the area. Chairman Randall Shiflet inquired about the viability of twenty two (22) to twenty six (26) gauge of steel used for the exterior of the building. There is existing damage to the rear of the building. With the improved steel gauge and wheel stop installation, the building would be better protected. Staff asked for twenty two (22). Applicant asked for twenty six (26) Applicant, Figueroa asked what the primary concern is with wall dents. Is it protection from people? Is it protection from vehicles? Is it protection from materials stored on the sidewalk? The costs just keep adding up. The current design has no wheel stops. the sidewalk is narrow. The plan is to increase the width and add wheel stops that are about seven (7) feet from the building . It appears that the issue will be corrected. Chairman Randall Shiflet stated that the wheel stops would do much to alleviate the dent problem. He inquired if staff could approve twenty six (26) gauge. John Pitstick addressed the vehicle access to the building to protect the metal building. Reviewing the property yesterday, they looked at wheel stops and moving the vehicles six (6) feet from the building. He discussed twenty six (26) gauge steel and the maintenance of the building long term. Primary concern was vehicles against the wall. Applicant, Figueroa commented that you could hit a twenty six (26) gauge steel with a hammer and not cause any damage. The main damage in the past was primarily due to materials being shoved up against the building. The wheel stops should prevent that. Chairman Randall Shiflet opened Public Hearing of C.7 Special Development Plan at 09:35 PM. Being no discussion, Chairman, Randall Shiflet closed Public Hearing of C.7 Special Development Plan at 09:35 PM. APPROVAL Mark Haynes motioned to approve SDP 2014-07, subject to minimum twenty six (26) gauge metal panel, six (6) foot sidewalk with wheel stops and recommendation that the applicant work with staff on some sort of low irrigation deferred (to building-permit-stage) landscaping. The motion was seconded by Steven Cooper. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). C.9 TR 2014-03 Public Hearing and Consideration of amendments to Article V, Division 4 of Chapter 118 of the North Richland Hills Code of Ordinances regarding commercial architecture standards. Clayton Comstock came forward to present the staff overview. This is for proposed revisions to architectural standards. These are concepts for consideration. Comments will be forwarded to you for the August 7t" meeting, then subsequent City Council meeting. Primary objectives are; 1. Reduce the ten thousand (10,000) square foot applicability threshold; 2. Allow greater flexibility in the masonry percentages by reintroducing stucco and reinforced EIFS; 3. Restructure the "menu" of options for architects. 4. Introduce a new menu option based on the basic LEED Core Concepts. In December 2012, staff held an architect focus group. "There is more than one way to achieve successful architecture." Staff goal is to find an appropriate balance between architectural flexibility and qualitative community standards. Mark Haynes inquired about building size for minimum square size criteria requiring architectural modifications. Clayton Comstock clarified that these proposed revisions would apply modification requirements for buildings of less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet within ranges. John Pitstick came forward to ask if the consensus heard was that 75% was a favorable figure for masonry requirements to be addressed further at next meeting. Chairman Randall Shiflet opened Public Hearing of TR C.9 at 09:56 PM. Being no discussion, Chairman, Randall Shiflet closed TR C.9 at 09:56 PM. APPROVAL Steven Cooper motioned to Continue TR 2014-03 to the August 7'2014 meeting. The motion was seconded by Mark Haynes. The motion passed unanimously (6- 0). ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 09:57 pm. Chairman Secretary Randal Shiflet Don Bowen `CH PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM From Office of Planning and Development Date: 8-7-2014 Subject: Agenda Item No. C.1 RP 2014-04 Consideration of a request from Metropolitan Infrastructure for a Replat of Lots 1 R and 2R, Block 17, Snow Heights North; being two commercial lots on 4.886 acres located at 6851 NE Loop 820. Presenter: Clayton Comstock, Senior Planner CASE SUMMARY: On behalf of Cocanougher Asset #1, Ltd. and Cocanougher Feed Company, Ltd., Metropolitan Infrastructure is requesting approval of a replat for two nonresidential lots on 4.886 acres for the purpose of constructing a parking lot expansion for the existing office building at 6851 NE Loop 820. CASE DESCRIPTION: The Northeast Tarrant Express (NTE) project required right-of- way from the property at 6851 NE Loop 820 that effectively eliminated the entire front row of parking (about 18 spaces). Building occupancy and existing parking demand is driving the need for a parking lot addition; but the existing northern limit of Lot 1 must be moved further north to accommodate the parking lot addition. The Development Review Committee is currently reviewing the Site Plan for the parking lot addition to the north of the existing parking lot. Ili!� / N�I 1 r, l Aerial photographs from 2011 (left) and 2013 (right) showing how the NTE project's right-of-way effectively eliminated the front row of parking spaces. CURRENT PLATTING: The properties are currently described as Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 17 of Snow Heights North. CURRENT ZONING: "C-1" Commercial. THOROUGHFARE PLAN: The subject property has frontage along Northeast Loop 820 and Thaxton Parkway. Northeast Loop 820 is nearing completion of a major reconstruction project and right-of-way has already been acquired from the property through separate instrument that is reflected on the plat graphic. Thaxton Parkway is classified as a local street with 60-feet of existing right-of-way. No additional right-of- way is required by this plat. ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY: The public improvements necessary for the subdivision (identified as RP 2014-04) to develop in accordance with the City's minimum standards include additional drainage facilities, relocation of water infrastructure and the construction of concrete sidewalks along both the westbound Loop 820 Frontage Road and Thaxton Parkway. The construction of these improvements is the responsibility of the applicant/developer. The above determination of proportionality is made pursuant to Section 212.904, Texas Local Government Code by the undersigned professional engineer in the employ of the City of North Richland Hills, licensed by the State of Texas. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of RP 2014-04. VICINITY MAP Ll 1-1 0 c NE L . AERIAL MAP Io PI u �� „� � � L�J✓;��if Jr(,' � , MAP © oz z o o > H > S A 5, A! ilW IS 7 L LU LU ———— ———— --------— — ——— ------—--------—--o------ — — 4------ —— ———— —— ——————————— ——————— 12 b"t- 0,1 -4 �-,lj-- - - - - - - AV#MVd NO]"kL L V tof ———------ —— /A/ I 6a 1:0 is 19 4, 66WbA.§� 96l REPLAT ENLARGMENT f LOT G,BLOCK 74 VOL a-TeH .NORTH VOL 3BB-fe3,P0.35 J= t5 +.x.s ✓.� y erf.4�+g I I I r I�a•?wt axo-� / � I I I I 00 IIII „,, �I I `ar (" ACRES I"I y � r LOT 2.]LOCK$7 I I I W sNfJ IIGV Irll Ri NORTH Ntl S21d+-1B3 me 55 I I fJ VOL 476iTS'1,RG,306 SQ6 I I I LOT IRI,MOCK 18 SNGW HIpGHTS A9AHION CAS.A,9JnE 9Tf3 c�u KarAi,u I,ry"em N90°00`00°tl2 590TJ0'00"E 239.20' I 0 o yL,y WST 23926' u I Im I l rwn I I Sy T 1CLOC OROMAL LOT UNE W , M m VOL.me-183.I o,hxKL I I I LOT 3R,BTCDK 16 2,2,827 SO.FT.OR 9,885 ACRES I SNOW HI:IOHrS A00ITION CAB.8,,.'SLIDE 570 I I IIII I I � IIII �' IM LOT,R.iBLOCK 17 eras 138,785 SQ.FT.CR 3.19 ACRES I$( I I w E SHf M GHTOS NORTH I "Ot.,&R-1'3'10 55 I I I I COOAIJOHG911 1111T AI,LTC, I VLVL.14]611,—M4 ICI I I I I I I IIII I I _ IIII POINT 1117� I I I BEGINNING aeI I IN'59'28'W •s s,m"x��„®".x':,cr. I I I xamo-e uxc - 301 i IIII x6T aW.— .Q— A fNTERS'fApr axe I I (A.(FA N.E,LOOP�g2Lt [aenz�rar 0.Q1°3B`24° ert'weua' asxasarx xsm 147AOE ROA") R-7790.56' L�xf2.sr L-22L58' cw.N80•44'ae1r C8-NB,9S59"W CO.—, CQ-221.57' M YAM PJO,R-0OT RO GEMCA71ON (0.4AYPNn�'TNOOT Rntx GSJ nPn6°°14-nn3. pm ,ny OAl a3(xaf1010, AS —'I'WOE�OR Roa0Ew5 REO�Ix I!N5T.W0. 5g{® n.RT.C.T.,T.G.T. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM From Office of Planning and Development Date: 8-7-2014 Subject: Agenda Item No. C.2 PP 2014-06 Consideration of a request from Pulte Homes of Texas, L.P. for a Preliminary Plat for The Reserve at Little Bear Creek; being 74 "R-2" Single Family Residential lots on 28.94 acres located at the northeast corner of Smithfield Road and Bursey Road. Presenter: Clayton Comstock, Senior Planner CASE SUMMARY: On behalf of Birdville ISD, Pulte Homes of Texas, L.P. is requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat for The Reserve at Little Bear Creek, a 74-lot "R-2" residential subdivision on 28.94 acres at the northeast corner of Smithfield Road and Bursey Road. CASE DETAILS: Twenty (20) of the 74 lots (27%) are planned to be between 9,000 and 9,100 square feet; 19 (25%) are planned to be greater than 13,000 square feet; and the remaining 35 lots (47%) will be between 9,100 and 13,000 square feet. 3.3 acres of open space is also provided with this development, or 11.4% of the gross area. Much of this open space is located within the open drainage channel. The developer is required to improve the drainage channel with a concrete pilot channel and retaining walls pursuant to the City Image Study. Cross sections of the proposed drainage channel improvements are located on the Preliminary Plat. Other open space areas include landscape and screening wall buffers along Bursey and Smithfield as well as a few entry-feature areas into the neighborhood. SUBDIVISION NAME: The Development Review Committee has encouraged Pulte Homes to consider adopting the Forest Glenn name into their subdivision. The Forest Glenn neighborhood exists to the north, south and west of the proposed development and the Development Review Committee believes that the "Forest Glenn" name is more of a geographical location—like a "district"—now than it is simply a subdivision name. "The Reserve at Forest Glenn" was proposed to the developer, since it still distinguishes the new addition but still pays homage to the area. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: The property is currently undeveloped; however some of the last remnants of the old Green Valley Raceway—specifically the middle of the raceway—are visible and will be developed over by this subdivision. An unimproved drainage channel that was created for the surrounding Forest Glenn subdivision in the early 2000s also cuts across this property. PLATTING STATUS: Unplatted and described as Tracts 1A1A1 and 1A2 of the Alexander Hood Survey, Abstract No. 683 and Tracts 2A3A3A and 2A7 of the S. Richardson Survey, Abstract No. 1266. EXISTING ZONING: "R-2" Single Family Residential. SURROUNDING ZONING / LAND USE: The property is surrounded on all sides by "R- 2" zoning and "Low Density Residential" land use designation. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan depicts "Low Density Residential" for this area. The Low Density Residential Land Use provides for traditional, low-density, single-family detached dwelling units. THOROUGHFARE PLAN: The subdivision will have access onto Smithfield Road and Bursey Road. Both roads in this area are fully developed and classified as "C4U" 4-lane undivided collectors with 68 feet of right-of-way and a design speed of 30-40 MPH. No additional right-of-way is required from this property for either Smithfield or Bursey Road. A sidewalk exists along Smithfield Road, but this development will also be installing a sidewalk along Bursey Road as well. ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY DETERMINATION: The developer will be responsible for 100% of all paving, water, sanitary sewer, and drainage infrastructure needed to support the development in accordance with the City's design criteria. This includes some minor drainage improvements within the existing outfall ditch which bisects the tract. The channel improvements will consist of installing a pilot channel and terracing the side slopes to comply with the City Image Study. The above determination of proportionality is made pursuant to Section 212.904, Texas Local Government Code by the undersigned professional engineer in the employ of the City of North Richland Hills, licensed by the State of Texas. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of PP 2014-06 with a recommendation that the applicant change the name of the subdivision upon Final Plat to reflect the Forest Glenn area. VICINITY MAP dDrse AERIAL MAP /� rr a �Jr� r r 1 � � w�& ;, MU s` II H� I Al yy R ya s Vol vroa�wuea3eow� ^� 4i F r ✓ a = . � d w w \ \ - owl a '`" la.S3Ntl2163J4J „�" t ,,,,. Am lit ry 5 rt W I K j I t CL s � e lit, all VW �y �p w w pig R; a 1 an mill 118 n3�,xw h d� ula�x� � �� c, S����� r9'3 @tll a a a =U"a"80uSNV M � � W� �ue° � f. Vi; fl, k G � Ri 14, �,�I�. �MtitA.'•• �i me q�.. u A�a"rwn mw;A u aw � r � w , &➢ W °'4' tiair �� nNr"pN' �'WT µ R d w W CD � *,;._._..5w J t i a agar Ism LU Jw ' t M ua"u �c rm ,� lya OD �w � r �J9k"w�DOW S<"r�3 C W J n Ai gym a r" N " a ... N a d " ,..u,� m° " zw o A a w � w 130 xaN f Z do- A PS � ; 3n(21G SWOa38VU uoz. w f� r -. Sl'll H 15323133 h A "•.,�• WW �'°a, 'fig �c W .I re `� ` ' N I (D w w § E W 4 '✓ , \ �°„ IMU'iJ 061 d 1S3230j gl I� Q 5 W _ of eYW�� � � W W � y, 9 1O aOOI'6 1S3NOA I O Q u I V a (Q -S wl rn a Yd-x Al a I 10 3EXIId 1532303 �JI�I a D8 i I O idip ..... ^, �Y i : 1 I .........,.. W I s � c 9s Q' w 1Y1 V, r Id I r J PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ✓ WS, MEMORANDUM M ; From Office of Planning and Development Date: 8-7-2014 Subject: Agenda Item No. C.3 TR 2014-03 Public Hearing and Consideration of amendments to Article V, Division 4 of Chapter 118 of the North Richland Hills Code of Ordinances regarding commercial architecture standards. Presenter: Clayton Comstock, Senior Planner ORDINANCE SUMMARY: In 2001, City Council approved the current "Dimensional Architectural Standards" for any new nonresidential buildings greater than 10,000 square feet. Some refer to it as the "Big Box Ordinance," which places building articulation and ornamentation requirements on larger buildings. What is not addressed by current commercial architecture standards are buildings less than 10,000 square feet in size, otherwise known as commercial "pad sites"—fast food restaurants, smaller retail buildings, etc. The purpose of this ordinance is to introduce the following changes: 1. Remove the 10,000 square foot threshold for commercial architecture standards so that all buildings are treated equally with some exceptions; 2. Allow greater flexibility in the masonry percentages and reintroduce stucco and reinforced EIFS into the approved mix of materials, but at tolerable percentages; 3. Keep the same successful format of allowing applicants to choose from a list of required architectural features, but add more options to choose from and increase the number of features required; 4. Provide a new "choose from" category based on the basic LEED Core Concepts of building shading, daylighting, cool roofs, solar orientation, etc. Staff's goal of this ordinance was to find an appropriate balance between architectural flexibility and qualitative community standards. TIMELINE: The following timeline summarizes some of the key meetings on this ordinance: December 2012 Architect's Focus Group Discussion December 2013 P&Z Work Session July 14, 2014 City Council Work Session July 17, 2014 P&Z Public Hearing & Commission Discussion August 7, 2014 P&Z Public Hearing # 2 and Consideration August 25, 2014 City Council Public Hearing and Consideration ORDINANCE SPECIFICS: In addition to the four major changes listed above, the following describes some of the other key changes or similarities to the current standards: (1) The City currently considers only the street-facing wall to be the "facade wall" that must be articulated and dressed up. The proposed ordinance expands that to any facade wall visible from a public street or internally from a major development (i.e. pad sites). See new definitions for "facade wall, primary" and "facade wall, secondary" in the attached ordinance. (2) Changes to the building material percentages that favor architectural flexibility. As we've discussed, we're relaxing the use of EIFS and stucco from 15% max. to 30% max. and removing the condition that it be higher than 8-feet in height. (3) All buildings must choose 9 of 23 options for articulation, ornamentation and "conservation." By today's standards, you have to choose between 9 or 10 of 14 options. The proposed ordinance, therefore, keeps the same "menu of options" format but increases the number of options and shuffles the existing options around into the 3 new categories. (4) A brief set of basic standards for I-1 & I-2 construction is proposed, which does not exist today. (5) We keep the SUP provision for building material percentages (e.g. recent Fort Worth Christian building), but also keep the lack of SUP for architecture standards. If an applicant cannot meet the standards, they would have to request a PD zoning change or go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Attached is the entire proposed Article V, Division 4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Although Subdivision II — Residential Construction is included in the ordinance, no substantive changes were made to the residential construction regulations. They are only included because staff renumbered section numbers and moved content from one section or subdivision to another. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of TR 2014-03, Ordinance No. 3316. NOMENEEMESEEM Secs. 118-651-118-670. Reserved. NONNEEMM Sec. 118-671. Required masonry percentage. (a) Generally. The minimum required percentage of masonry on the exterior wall surface of all residential primary structures, as viewed from each elevation, shall be in accordance with the schedule contained in Table 6-1. (b) Exemption. An exemption to the masonry requirement shall apply to existing residential structures, including all permanent structures, which do not meet the masonry requirement. Any enlargement of an existing residential structure, including all permanent structures, shall provide an amount of masonry which matches the adjacent surfaces of the existing structure. Zoning Districts Structure Type AG R-1-S R-1 R-2 R-3 i R-4-D R-6-T R-8 R-7-MF PD Primary 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 100% 75%1 Structures Accessory Bldgs. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Under 200 s.f. Accessory Bldgs. NA NA2 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 75%1 200 s.f. or more As established by the approved site plan. 2 Accessory buildings greater than 500 s.f. require Special Use Permit approval in AG and R-1-S districts and may be subject to masonry requirements. (c) Masonry calculation (residential). Minimum masonry percentage requirements shall include a combination of brick, ceramic block, stone, or other masonry materials installed in a craftsman like manner that are a minimum of one inch thick and imbedded in a cementitious reinforced substrate. (d) Alternative materials. Up to 15 percent of the wall surface no closer than eight feet from the adjacent grade level can use non-wood or alternative materials such as siding, reinforced cement board, stucco and other comparable masonry systems approved by the building official. Wood based products for siding materials including eaves, sofits, and chimneys are prohibited except as allowed by a special use permit for unusual construction. Residential masonry materials and alternate materials do not include concrete block, concrete tilt wall or El FS systems. (Old No 1874, ad 6, § 600(A), 3 22 19931, Old No 1906, § 1, 7 B-19931, Old No 2114, § 1, 4... -'199996; Old No 2174, § 1, 1.77.-19999?" Old No 2247, § 1, 17..x_19999?" Old No 2274, § 1, 3 23-19981' Old No 2284, § 1, 4 17-199997; Old No 2355, § 1, 1 I I `19991,Old No 2367, § 1, 7.77..1999991 Old No 2427, § 1, 11 77..1999991 Old No 2649, § I( x A), 17.9.-002 Old No 2933, § 1, -142007} Sec. 118-672. Exterior wall surface defined. For the purpose of this subdivision, the exterior wall surface shall be defined as the entire exposed exterior wall surface for each elevation. (Old No 1874, ad 6, § 600(99), 3 22-1 99997,; Old No 1906, § 1, 7 B-19931, Old No 2114, § 1, 4 B-19961, Old No 2174, § 1, 1.77.-19999?" Old No 2247, § 1, 17..x_19999?" Old No 2274, § 1, 3 23-19981' Old No 2284, § 1, 4 17-199997; Old No 2355, § 1, 1 I I `19991, Old No 2367, § 1, 7.77..1999991 Old No 2427, § 1, 11 77..19999919.11 No 2649, § I( x A), 12.9-7002) Cross reference-Definitions geneiallY, § 12 Sec. 118-673. Unusual construction. Other types of residential construction including but not limited to geodesic domes, log homes, A-frame construction, may be allowed only after issuance of a special use provision (refer to division 6, article 11 of this chapter). (Old No 1874, ad 6, § 600(C), 3 22-1 99997,; Old No 1906, § 1, 7 B-19931, Old No 2114, § 1, 4 B-19961, Old No 2174, § 1, 1.77.-19999?" Old No 2247, § 1, 17..x_19999?" Old No 2274, § 1, 3 23-19981' Old No 2284, § 1, 4 17-199997; Old No 2355, § 1, 1 I I `19991,Old No 2367, § 1, 0.07..1999991 Old No 2427, § 1, 11 00.1999991 011 No 2649, § I( x A), 12.9-2002) Sec. 118-674. Roof pitch ratio. Any structure constructed for the purpose of residential use must have a roof with a pitch ratio of at least four verticals to 12 horizontals (4:12). (See Ordinance No. 2427.) (Old No 1874, ad 6, §606(4;), 7-02 `19931,Old No 2427, § 1, 1102-1999991 Old No 2577, 10 22 200 1) Secs. 118-675-118-690. Reserved. MEMMEMMEMS Sec. 118-691. Purpose, intent and applicability. (a) Purpose and intent. The purpose of this section is to: (1) provide minimum standards and criteria for the exterior appearance and quality of nonresidential buildings while still providing flexibility in architectural creativity and innovation; (2) improve the physical appearance of the community, promote the value of property and protect public and private investment; and (3) encourage energy conservation through building design. (b) Applicability. The provisions of this Subdivision shall apply in the following situations: (1) When an existing building is proposed for remodeling, alteration, addition, or expansion, in which the value of the proposed construction exceeds 75 percent of the current appraised value of the existing structures, excluding the value of the land; (2) When an existing building is proposed for an addition that will increase the square footage of the existing building by 30 percent or greater, only new facade walls shall be subject to this Subdivision; (3) Upon all new construction; or (4) As a requirement of the approval of a special use permit or planned unit development. (c) Exemptions. The following shall be exempt from this Subdivision: (1) Temporary/portable classroom buildings situated on public school property; (2) Buildings located within the Town Center Zoning District; (3) Buildings located within the Transit Oriented Development District(s) (Oid No 1874, ad 6, §606(A), 3- `19931,Oid No 2427 1„ 1122-`1991 Oid No 2577, 10 22 200 1) Sec. 118-692. Definitions. The following terms and phrases shall apply to this Subdivision: Alternative masonry material. Masonry materials installed in a craftsman-like manner that are a minimum of one inch thick and imbedded in a cementitious reinforced substrate and approved by the building official to meet the same characteristics and design intent as conventional masonry techniques. Articulation, horizontal. A building facade wall which extends no greater than 3 times the wall's height without having a minimum off-set of 15 percent of the wall's height, and which offset continues for a minimum distance equal to at least 25 percent of the maximum length of either adjacent plane. Articulation, vertical. A building facade wall which extends for a distance no greater than 3 times the height of the wall without changing height by a minimum of 15 percent of the wall's height, and which height change continues for a minimum distance equal to at least 25 percent of the maximum length of either adjacent plane. Cementitious fiberboard. Smooth or wood-textured finish with integrated color in the form of lap siding or board and batten. Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU). Tinted and/or textured architectural block that includes split-face block with integral color and burnished block with a decorative finish. Cool roof. A building whose roofing has either: (1) a solar reflective index (SRI) of at least 75 for low-sloped roofs with a pitch equal to or less than 2:12 for at least 75 percent of the roof surface; (2) an SRI of at least 25 for steep-sloped roofs with a pitch greater than 2:12 for at least 75 percent of the roof surface; (3) a building that has installed a vegetated roof approved by the Development Review Committee for at least 50 percent of the roof surface; or (4) a combination thereof. Exterior insulation finish systems (EIFS), or synthetic stucco. An exterior finish system that provides exterior walls with an insulated, waterproof, wall surface by integrating foam plastic insulation, adhesives, reinforcing mesh, and a polymer finish. Such systems shall include two layers of reinforcement mesh or an equal approved by the building official. Facade wall, primary. An exterior wall clearly visible from a public street, along an active storefront, or the rear facade wall of a building which is situated in front of additional developed or developable nonresidential property (i.e. out-building or pad site). Facade wall, secondary. An exterior wall which is not clearly visible from a public street or along an active storefront, is not situated in front of additional developed or developable nonresidential property, or constructed on a property line as one of a series of in-line buildings where the wall will become part of a common wall. Living shade screen. Irrigated vegetation utilized on the south or west facade walls of a building to shade a building's walls and/or roof in one of two forms: deciduous large or ornamental trees planted within 15 feet of the facade wall whose mature canopy will cover at least 50 percent of the adjacent fagade wall; or architectural metal lattice and climbing vines applied to at least 30 percent of the fagade wall. Solar orientation. A building whose axis is at least 1.5 times longer than the other; and the longer axis is within 15 degrees of geographical east-west. Stucco. An exterior finish system containing a mixture of portland cement, sand, and lime, which is applied in a plastic state to form a hard, weatherproof exterior wall finish. Stucco systems may consist of a one-coat system that includes a base and finish layer; or a three coat system that contains a scratch coat, brown coat, and finish coat. Stucco shall be installed over approved metal lath mesh to a minimum thickness of 0.75 inches. Stucco systems do not include exterior insulation finish systems (EIFS). Tri-partite architecture. A building designed and constructed such that is has a distinct base, middle and top, separated by horizontal elements. Sec. 118-693. Exterior materials and colors. (a) Required masonry percentage. The minimum required percentage of masonry on the exterior wall surface of all structures located on property zoned for nonresidential uses, as viewed from each elevation, shall be 85 percent and in accordance with the schedule contained in the following Table 6-2. The area of door and window openings shall not be included in the calculation of this requirement. Category Materials Primary Facade Wall Secondary Facade Wall . Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Brick Masonry Natural Stone o 0 0 0 Group A Cultured Stone 70% 100/0 20/0 100/o Ceramic Block Alternative Masonry Material Masonry Stucco 0 0 0 0 Group B El FS 0% 30/0 0/0 50/o Concrete Masonry Unit Cementitious fiberboard Accent Metal 0% 15% 0% 15% Wood Tile Prohibited Concrete cinder block 0% 0% 0% 0% Vinyl / plastic See Sec. 118-692 for certain material definitions. (b) Glass. No minimum or maximum limit exists for the use of glass on any facade wall. No more than 50 percent of any facade may be reflective glass. For the purposes of this section, reflective glass shall be defined as glass having a reflectance of greater than 10 percent. (c) Material exceptions. (1) Concrete Masonry Unit may be considered as a Group A material for up to 20 percent of the primary facade on buildings 10,000 square feet or greater but may not be simultaneously considered in the Group A and Group B category. (2) Tilt-up concrete panels that are adorned or textured with reveal patterns and/or textural coatings may be used on buildings of 10,000 square feet or more as a Group A masonry material. (3) Concrete Masonry Unit may be considered as a Group A material for secondary facade walls. (d) Color. (1) Exterior colors shall be low reflectance, subtle, neutral, or earth tone colors. (2) Bright, pure tone primary or secondary colors, neon and LED tubing are permissible only in limited application as accent colors on door and window frames, moldings, cornices, canopies, awnings, etc. in proportions consistent with trim or accentuation only. Such building trim and accent areas shall not exceed 15 percent of any single exterior wall area excluding all windows, doors, and glass construction materials. Neon and LED tubing must meet the provisions of Sec. 118-728 (Outdoor Lighting). (3) The use of high intensity or fluorescent colors shall be prohibited. (4) The color of the secondary facade wall(s) shall match or complement the primary facade wall(s). (e) Roofs. (1) For buildings with a visible hip, gable or mansard roof, allowed materials include standing seam metal with a factory-treated, non-metallic matte finish, slate or tile (clay or cement, barrel or Roman-shaped). (2) No more than one color shall be used for visible roof surfaces; however, if more than one type of roofing material is used, the materials shall be varying hues of the same color. (f) Special use permit provision. Materials and percentages other than those defined herein may be used only after the issuance of a special use permit (refer to Division 6, Article 11 of this chapter). Exemption. Building renovations that do not expand the existing square footage of a nonresidential building may continue existing material proportions without a special use permit as long as they offer improved architectural features and do not decrease the percentage of masonry on the newly renovated building. (01 d No 1874 i t 6, 3 22-19931,01 d No 2492, § 1 7 4 0001 01 d No 2599, x B, 2..1 1120021, 12.9 20071, 011 No 2649, Ex B, '1 .9.20021"011 No 2704, § 1, 4 -20031, 011 No 324 7, 11, 6-`1 ... 201 3) Sec. 118-694. Architectural design standards. (a) Articulation standards. The following options are available to articulate the form of primary facade walls. All primary facade walls shall utilize a minimum of 3 of the below options. No articulation is required on secondary facade walls, however corner elements are required to wrap from the primary facade wall to the secondary facade wall. (1) Vertical articulation. This option shall be required for all buildings 10,000 square feet or greater. (2) Horizontal articulation. (3) Tri-partite architecture. (4) Pitched (hip or gable, 8:12 pitch or greater) or mansard roof. (5) Raised corniced parapets or gables over the building's entrance(s) projecting from the plane of the main exterior walls by a minimum of 25 percent of the adjoining wall height and raised a minimum of 15 percent of the adjoining wall height. (6) A prominent three-dimensional landmark feature such as a tower, turret, arches, etc. which doubles the defined minimum vertical and horizontal off-set (i.e. 30 percent vertical and horizontal off-set rather than 15 percent). (7) Integral irrigated landscape planter seats constructed within 15 feet of the face of the building and incorporating living landscaped areas of ornamental and/or shade trees and places for sitting near the building's primary entry. Planters shall be a minimum of 19 inches high and 5 feet wide and cover at least 30 percent of that facade. (b) Ornamentation standards. The following options are available to embellish primary facade walls. All primary facade walls shall utilize a minimum of 3 of the below options, at least one of which shall occur vertically at a separation no less than 3 times the wall's height. No ornamentation is required on secondary facade walls, however corner elements are required to wrap from the primary facade wall to the secondary facade wall. The term "decorative" is inferred in all options. (1) Enhanced exterior lighting such as wall sconces or light covers with concealed light source. (2) Changes in material selection, module size, color, texture and/or pattern. (3) Public art such as murals, paintings, sculptures, statues, etc. on or within 10 feet of a facade wall. Such public art shall not display or connote a commercial message, shall be appropriately scaled for the size of the facade and shall be approved by the Development Review Committee. (4) Non-signage accents such as corbels, medallions, niches, wrought iron and other metal, balconettes, dormers, faux windows or others as approved by the Development Review Committee. (5) Cornice. (6) Quoined corners. (7) String courses and stone banding. (8) Arched or pedimented windows. (9) Masonry treatment at window and/or door headers and sills. (c) Conservation standards. The following options are primarily intended to encourage energy conservation through such passive solar design methods as shading, daylighting, and building orientation, whereby adding to the articulation and ornamentation of the building as well. All buildings shall utilize a minimum of 3 of the following options per building. The Development Review Committee may review these options based on meeting the intent of passive solar design. (1) Cool roof. (2) Solar orientation. (3) Living shade screen. (4) Awnings, overhangs, arcades, canopies or porticos with colonnade. (5) Window area that covers at least 30 percent of one facade, or 50 percent of 2 facades. (6) Clerestories and window shelves/transoms. (7) Architecturally-integrated rainwater harvesting systems. (8) Other as approved by the Development Review Committee as in keeping with the intent of this section. (Oid No 1874, ad 6, §606(B), 3- `19931,Oid No 2427 1„ 11 -`1991 Oid No 2577, 10 22 200 1) Sec. 118-696. Industrial building design standards. The following apply to primary structures built in an industrial zoning district and proposing an industrial and/or manufacturing use, per the Table of Permitted Uses (Sec. 118-631): (a) The main entry or office area of the building shall be articulated both horizontally and vertically by at least six feet or 20 percent of the adjacent wall length, whichever is greater. Building corners shall also be articulated, as approved by the Development Review Committee. (b) Buildings shall also incorporate one ornamentation standard on each primary fagade wall and one conservation standard. (c) Tilt-up concrete panels that are adorned or textured with reveal patterns and/or textural coatings and varying earth-tone, neutral colors may be used on up to 90 percent of all primary fagade walls and 100 percent of all secondary fagade walls. Group A materials shall be applied to a minimum of 10 percent of primary fagade walls. Secs. 118-697-118-710. Reserved.