Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2010-03-18 Minutes MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS MARCH 18, 2010 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Randy Shiflet at 6.15 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Randy Shiflet Vice-Chairman Bill Schopper Secretary Don Bowen Mark Haynes Mike Benton Steven Cooper Dianna Madar ABSENT Ex-Officio Kathy Luppy CITY STAFF Chief Planner Eric Wilhite Assistant Planner Chad VanSteenberg Assist. Dir. Public Works Greg VanNeiuwenhuize Recording Secretary Gina Pastre 3. Approval of Minutes from the February 18, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting. Bill Schopper, seconded by Steven Cooper, motioned to approve the minutes of the February 18, 2010 meeting. The motion was carried unanimously (7-0). 4. Update on City Council action from the March 8, 2010 City Council Meeting Eric Wilhite said that the first case that went before the city council was the zoning change that was recommended for denial for the tract on Harmonson from R-3 to R-1-S. City Council heard that case and upheld your recommendation for denial. If you get a chance you might want to watch the city council meeting. Page 1 of 3 03/18/10 P&Z Minutes Mike Benton asked if there was much discussion on it? Eric Wilhite said that there was a little bit of discussion. The mayor, while not voting, voiced an opinion on the case. Don Bowen said that he saw it. Just because the property fits the zoning ordinance doesn't mean we have to approve the request. It may still not be appropriate. In this case in my opinion it was not appropriate. His argument was if it fits the zoning ordinance that it should be approved. I disagree with him on that. Eric Wilhite said that there are different thoughts on it. The district development standards for lot width size are set up based upon whether you meet that. It was a unique situation that had to be taken into consideration. They could potentially come back and request a Planned Development based on R-1-S so that you could tie them down to doing the fence. I don't know that we would want to do that necessarily. If a situation like this happened more frequently I think staff would come to you in order to consider widening the minimum lot width. I think if we took the lot widths of the R-1-S that we have seen in a 10 year time frame, we could probably come up with a good guess of what the lot width should be. But you would still end up with the same circumstance whether they were 100 feet or 200 feet wide, that is, if the R-3 residential adjacent lots backing up to them is a concern. Their lot was 90 feet wide and the minimum lot requirement for the R-1-S is 85 feet. Their request was denied and they haven't come back in to pursue further. There are other scenarios where they could subdivide and sell property to those 3 owners. They just didn't want to subdivide at the time. I don't know how marketable building a new house on that north portion that has access to the cul de sac would be. It is their property and they could come back in 6 months and try again or they can do a PD request tomorrow. That is a substantial enough change in the zoning request. Staff hasn't suggested to them to pursue a PD route because we don't really believe that this is the purpose of a Planned Development. The next case was the zoning case for Life Church. They are currently zoned R-2 and were changing to U-Institutional for church and school in order to do an electronic changeable message sign. That was approved with little to no discussion. The third case was a final plat for the Thorne Addition that finalizes out a little two lot subdivision on Crane Rd and there wasn't any discussion on that. The property was recently rezoned from AG to R-1-S. Otherwise it was pretty straight forward. Greg Van Neiuwenhuize took the CIAC recommendations to city council and is going to give you an update on that. Greg Van Neiuwenhuize said since there was a lot of discussion at the last meeting I thought it would be appropriate to discuss what was determined. Before going to city council we looked at a bunch of different things that we could do especially in light of the fact that CIAC was really concerned with development and not doing anything that would hinder development. So we wanted to look into phasing in the new fees. We took into consideration the concerns of CIAC. Because we get water from Fort Worth we have to assess their impact fees but is not fair because we also get water from the TRA. We look at how much water we purchase from Fort Worth and TRA and figure out Page 2 of 3 03/18/10 P&Z Minutes what that percentage would be. We recommended that for the next 2 years we will keep the rates the same. The third year will increase to $1209 and then in the 4t" year we will go up to $1330. We aren't even increasing to the maximum we could use. We are using the maximum fee that was calculated if we don't include the cost of borrowing money into the impact fee rate. Working with the finance department that is basically how they are doing things now so it isn't much of a change. Essentially what we have done is help the development community, I feel confident that we met the intentions of the CIAC. This is what was approved at city council and I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. My next CIAC report won't be until May 2010. Randy Shiflet asked if Fort Worth's fees will stay constant for the next 5 years. Greg Van Neiuwenhuize said they are just like us unless they redo their plan they have to stay at their current rates. 5. Adjournment There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 6.26 p.m. Chairman Secretary Randy Shiflet Don Bowen Page 3 of 3 03/18/10 P&Z Minutes