Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2004-10-07 Minutes MINUTES OF THE WORKSESSION MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS OCTOBER 7,2004 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Davis at 6:02 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Vice Chair Secretary Ex Officio Richard Davis Bill Schopper Ken Sapp Don Bowen (arrived 6:35 p.m.) Randy Shiflet Scott Wood Suzy Compton ABSENT Brenda Cole CITY STAFF Director of Planning Development Director Asst. Dir. of Public Works Planner Recording Secretary Planning Intern Dave Green John Pitstick Lance Barton Donna Jackson Carolyn Huggins Jonathan Thatcher 3. UPDATE ON LOOP 820 CORRIDOR PLAN BY KURT SCHULTE FROM KIMLEY- HORN & ASSOCIATES. Dave Green, Director of Planning, explained that the City Council budgeted monies in last year's and this year's budget for a consulting firm to take a look at the expansion of the 820 Loop as it will have a huge impact on the future of this community (what this community looks like, how it functions, access, etc.). There are many issues that are going to be related to the widening of this artery. Council hired Kimley-Horn & Associates, a consulting firm that works with our Public Works department on reviewing traffic impact analysis. Kurt Schulte from Kimley-Horn is going to give the P&Z Commission the status of the plan. Page 1 of 7; 10/7/04 P & Z Minutes - Worksession Kurt Schulte stated that they became involved in this project a few months ago and are in the process of developing background information and data. TXDOT will be widening Loop 820 and the City wants to be in a position to understand what the widening will mean to the City and how best the City can fit the existing uses into the widening and take advantage of that to come up with the highest and best uses for the corridor. They also plan to talk to TXDOT about the access and circulation and possibly even influence design of the corridor. Mr. Schulte used a PowerPoint presentation [copy in file] to review the scope, outreach, schedule, boundary area, and TXDOT status of the Loop 820 Corridor plan. The scope of the project involves collecting information on and in the corridor, including TXDOT plans. Land use and properties in the corridor are considered so that this plan becomes a master plan and economic development plan for the City. Within the land use plan, image will be a large consideration. Mr. Schulte showed a map of the Loop 820 area that designated the existing land uses. Kimley-Horn has investigated each use and they have property values and percentage breakdowns of the different land uses in the corridor. Stakeholder interviews were held on August 18, 2004. Major landowners (churches, car dealers, big box retailers) in the corridor were invited to these interviews to find out if they had any plans for development or redevelopment in the corridor. A Council briefing was given on September 27, 2004. An outreach meeting will be scheduled in October [a few days later it was decided to hold the outreach meeting on October 26 at Richland Hills Church of Christ "24/7 Youth Center" from 6 to 8 p.m.] The goal of that meeting will be to obtain as much information as possible from the public about specific issues facing the corridor. The new ramping configurations and right-of-way lines that TXDOT is planning will be available for viewing. This meeting will be facilitated by the City of North Richland Hills. This is not a meeting by TXDOT. Chairman Davis noted that he appreciates that the City is trying to be proactive as to what is down the pipe for the 820 corridor rather than waiting until the work is done and then reacting. Mr. Shulte explained that after additional work on the study is completed by Kimley-Horn another public meeting will be held to bounce those ideas off the public. Mr. Schulte laid out the study area boundary for the Commission. The boundary is somewhat arbitrary. It isn't bound only by the TXDOT widening, but is extended east through the interchange to include all of the property along freeway frontage. Traffic and access plans are part of the scope of services provided by Kimley-Horn so they will be looking at the 820 improvements, but will also be coming up with additional improvements that the City could look at in terms of circulation -- such as how the widening and ramp locations might affect the circulation of the City. There is a meeting with TXDOT planned for next week to discuss in detail the current design of Loop 820, as well as future plans for HOV lanes versus managed lanes. The new concept that will possibly be used is managed lanes, which are tolled lanes that are Page 2 of 7; 10m04 P & Z Minutes - Worksession occupancy priced (more people in the car, less toll) and congestion priced (higher toll during peak periods). A regional rail plan is planned, with two rail stations in the City. One location will be at Loop 820 and Industrial. Kimley-Horn will be investigating the potential for mass transit at that location and what that will mean to the land uses in that area. The study will end around April 2005. A final report will be produced by Kimley-Horn. Chairman Davis thanked staff and Mr. Shulte for the update. 4. DISCUSSION OF PERMITTED USES IN THE "AG" AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. An issue arose when an individual approached the planning staff with a plan to build a 5,000 square foot greenhouse. The individual wanted to put the greenhouse on two unplatted tracts of land on Continental Trail. This tract had an existing single family home as well as some outbuildings. Staff explored the possibility of whether or not this would be a permitted use and evidence was found to both support and not support the greenhouse. That prompted this discussion before P&Z. There are quite a few large lot residential tracts in this area of North Richland Hills that are zoned agricultural. Some of the neighbors addressed Council at a recent City Council Meeting expressing concern about what is allowed in the agricultural district. Council requested that this issue be sent back to the P&Z Commission for review. Mr. Green provided the Commission with handouts of what the "AG" zoning designation is, what it is intended for, the permitted uses, and definitions for accessory buildings or anything else tied to agricultural uses or zoning, as well as potential problem items provided by people who live in the neighborhood around 7308 Continental Trail. A decision is not needed tonight, but Staff is looking for direction as a report is expected back to the City Council by the end of the year. To begin the discussion, Chairman Davis commented that with property zoned "AG," if the use changes, then it must be zoned. The zoning regulations designate "AG" as a holding zone. Property can't go "back" to agricultural once it is zoned to something other than "AG". With this case, the property had a livable house on the site and the remaining land was being used for horses. The individual wished to change the use from a house and horses. The individual wished to build a very large greenhouse on the site for commercial use. That should require platting and rezoning. Mr. Sapp stated that he didn't believe the zoning regulations called for platting and rezoning if a "change of use" occurs in "AG". He didn't see that spelled out in the zoning regulations. Chairman Davis stated that perhaps the City Attorney, George Staples, needs to emphasis "any change of use for AG" in the ordinance. He also wondered if there should be a limit on the size of accessory buildings on agricultural Page 3 of 7; 10/7/04 P & Z Minutes - Worksession property. Mr. Green stated that with agricultural and R-1-S districts there are exceptions to the traditional size limits, pitch of roof and buildings materials. Mr. Green explained that one of the problems encountered with this case is that staff rarely deals with "AG" zoning issues. When staff does go to the zoning book for an "AG" concern, the district is spread throughout the zoning ordinance. Staff would like to "reel it in" and put it in one place in the zoning ordinance so that it is clear to anyone who reads it what the intent is to be. Chairman Davis asked for some testimony from the neighbors in attendance. Ken Jendel, 8017 Valley Dr., backs up to the "greenhouse" property on Continental Trail. He stated that they became aware of this problem two months ago and they held meetings and met with the buyer. It became evident that he would not be a resident of the property. Mr. Jendel felt that it was not in the best interest of the property owners in that area. He has owned his property for 30 years and it is still one of the most rustic areas of North Richland Hills. They would like to keep their neighborhood the way it is. They would like the loopholes closed so that commercial ventures can't come into agricultural zoning and invade their neighborhoods. He stated that they have a problem on one piece of property located at 7417 Continental Trail where a surveying company is using the area to stage vehicles. This morning, Mr. Jendel counted four pickups in the back, one pickup in the front, and a van and car. Discussion followed regarding the regulations for home based businesses. Chairman Davis asked Mr. Jendel if he felt that the P&Z Commission is on the right track for what the homeowners want the City to do to protect them in that area. Mr. Jendel responded that he feels the City is on the right track. Mr. Jendel stated that he appreciates Bo, Dave and Oscar's concern that they have shown for this neighborhood's way of life. Mr. Sapp stated that the goal here is to clarify the zoning laws so that everyone will know what the predictable uses of that property will be down the road. Chairman Davis added "by the normal zoning process". Janet Grubish, 8025 Valley Drive, stated that she just wants to reemphasize that there needs to be some changes in the "AG" zoning so they don't have to go through this again and so that they are not surprised in the future. She asked if the potential buyer was going to be allowed to build the greenhouse. Mr. Green stated that initially when staff looked at this project, red flags went up. They spoke to the City Attorney about it. It was determined that he could put in the greenhouse. That didn't change for a few days until further issues arose. Chairman Davis asked if the language should be changed so that size does trigger something. Ms. Grubish said that the problem with putting a size limit is that some neighbors board horses and need large barns. Chairman Davis said that perhaps the size should be 1,000 sq. ft. Mr. Green stated that the size limit right now is 5% of the land. Chairman Davis stated that perhaps the language should be changed from 5% to 1,000 sq. ft. limit. Ms. Grubish stated that the Page 4 of 7; 10/7/04 P & Z Minutes - Worksession largest parcel in the neighborhood is about 8 acres. Five percent of 8 acres would be 15,000 sq. ft. Mr. Green offered the alternative of doing away with "AG" zoning, taking everyone to R- 1-S. He stated that most of these properties that are zoned "AG" have a house on the property and that goes against the current zoning ordinance. Those houses got there through previous ordinances. Mr. Green stated that having "AG" zoning makes North Richland Hills unique. Surrounding cities (like Hurst and Bedford) no longer have any agricultural areas. Chairman Davis summarized that the key consideration is to close the loophole and make it very clear. Mr. Green stated that staff will work toward doing that and bringing back language in a draft form. The objective will be: 1) if the property has "AG" use as a holding zone - as your home with a horse; as your home with chickens; as your home with 1 0 horses you are stabling - you can still continue to do that. When you change that use, whatever the right language would be, then it requires that it be zoned accordingly to North Richland Hills zoning ordinance. Mr. Schopper stated that the key is to put it all under one section and have the first sentence under agriculture state that "Agricultural is nothing but a holding zoning until the use changes." Chairman Davis further stated that once zoned to something other than agricultural, it can't go back. 2) Start with 1,000 sq. ft. limit (as a base). Discussion followed concerning that limit. Several Commission members (Mr. Schopper, Mr. Wood, Mr. Shiflet) felt that the limit should remain as it is at 5%. Mr. Schopper and Mr. Wood indicated that they are "tired of taking away rights". Chairman Davis stated that it is not to take away rights but to protect rights. Chairman Davis asked if a public hearing is possible in two weeks. Mr. Green responded that two weeks is too tight of a timeframe but a month would be more feasible. Chairman Davis stated that the ordinance would be brought back to P&Z as a discussion item on November 4, 2004 followed by a public hearing on November 18, 2004. Mr. Shiflet asked if the 5% was per building or total. Mr. Green responded that it is total. Mr. Shiflet then asked for a clarification of temporary versus permanent. The potential buyer who was going to put up a greenhouse planned to make that a temporary structure that could be disassembled. Mr. Shiflet stated that in the residential zoning there is a distinction between temporary and permanent, in size and foundation. He asked Mr. Green to clean up that language. Susan Thornton, 8033 Valley Dr., asked about lighting restrictions. Mr. Green responded to that subject as well as environmental issues, pointing out Section 675, Environmental Regulations, "C". Steve Pfeifer, 7313 Continental Trail, commented that if a property changes uses and it's required that the person go before P&Z and City Council, the City will be required to notify adjacent property owners within 200-ft. Mr. Pfeifer's concern is that in that Page 5 of 7; 10/7/04 P & Z Minutes - Worksession neighborhood, 200-ft. may impact only two people. Chairman Davis stated that it's a state stature rule. Mr. Green further explained that there are three ways the City notifies people: 1) within 200-ft. according to State law; 2) signs on the property per our Zoning Ordinance regulations; and 3) notices in the newspaper (if the case is going to Council). 5. DISCUSSION OF RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS SMALLER THAN 10 ACRES. Chairman Davis explained that there are some small leftover pieces of property under 10 acres that no one has incentive to do anything with because if the City uses the existing zoning of R1, R2 or retail type use, it does not allow flexibility for these out- parcels. Tonight's discussion is to try to find something "outside of the box" to encourage these pieces of property to be developed. Mr. Sapp asked if these pieces will be R-3 zoning. Mr. Green responded that R-3 can be the basis for lot size and density. Mr. Sapp wondered if the R-3 1800 sq. ft. was appropriate or if the minimum square footage should be 2,000. Chairman Davis stated that the Commission members need to think outside the normal R1, R2 and R3 zoning. He asked the members to not get hung up on the square footage of the house. With the unique sizes of these leftover pieces, it might be possible to place only a 1,750 sq. ft. house. The Commission should be open to that if it works to develop that property. Chairman Davis stated that this in-fill district will see smaller lots and irregularly shaped lots and he thinks it is too early in the game to place square footage requirements on it. During the public hearing, the Commission will have a chance to talk about street layout, square footages, amenities, elevations, roof pitch, landscape, common area, common parking areas, etc. Mr. Sapp commented that there might be 10 different builders in the same development and there could be problems if there aren't deed restrictions that control the quality of what these individual builders build on those lots. Chairman Davis stated that the City can't enforce deed restrictions, but a lot of these issues can be addressed when reviewing the site plan from the developer. Mr. Green interrupted the discussion to advise the Commission that staff had originally planned to give a presentation on this subject, but Bo Bass, Assistant City Manager, and Mike Curtis, Director of Public Works, both of whom want to be involved in this discussion, were not available for this meeting this evening, so the presentation was put on hold. But since the agenda had already been posted, the item couldn't be taken off the agenda. Mr. Green asked if the discussion could be continued to the October 21, 2004, meeting. Chairman Davis asked if the Commission members could come at 5:30 p.m. on the 21st in order to cover the agenda topics. He asked that this discussion be placed first on the pre-meeting agenda with an allowance of 45 minutes for discussion. He stated that at that time the Commission will give staff direction on what should be amended and when the public hearing should be held. He stated that R3 should be considered as "R-I" (residential infill). [not to be confused with R-1 zoning] He asked the Commission to be willing to keep their minds open and "let somebody come in and Page 6 of 7; 10/7/04 P & Z Minutes - Worksession dazzle us". He stated that he believes the most critical development that they are going to do for the next years to come will be the first one. 6. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the worksession at 8:07 p.m. Chairman ," C~\-cR~J:)W;,V Richard Davis Ken Sapp Page 7 of?; 10/7/04 P & Z Minutes - Worksession