Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2002-07-25 Minutes - -- --- - ..---- . -~-·-··"·-<--··"·-·___'··"__"___~___.__"~___N._"_''','_~~_,.~~~__._..,_,_"_,_.."'M'_'~~"_~'~."__"_~.~~"_~"_~___«___"_____ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS JULY 25, 2002 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Don Bowen at 7:05 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Don Bowen George Tucker Bill Schopper Ted Nehring James Laubacher Brenda Cole John Lewis Alternate Absent Tim Welch CITY STAFF Director of Development Director of Public Works Zoning Administrator Recording Secretary John Pitstick Mike Curtis Dave Green Kellie Smith 3. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2002 APPROVED Mr. Tucker, seconded by Mr. Lewis, motioned to approve the minutes of July 11, 2002. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 4. PZ 2002-14 CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST FOR IMMANUEL EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH LOCATED AT 7321 LOLA DRIVE. Page 1 0725/02 P & Z Minutes APPROVED Zoning Administrator Dave Green summarized the case. This is a site plan approval request for the Emmanuel Lutheran Church. They are proposing an expansion of their current site. They are adding an office area to the main sanctuary. The expansion is about 2300-sq. ft. but it is over 30% of the existing structure. Typically, staff has always considered churches to be nonresidential uses. Whenever they are expanded more than 30%, they are required to have site plan approval. This expansion is over 30%. It is taking place on the western boundary of the existing sanctuary site. There is an ingress point off of Lola Drive, parking site in the rear, and exit point along the western area. An additional ten parking spaces will be added along the western boundary of the site. The current building is masonry construction. The expanded area is similar construction to match the existing building. The biggest improvement involves landscaping. They will have the typical street trees, which are required along the Lola Street frontage. Also, they will have screening shrubs along Lola Street. They are proposing a number of Junipers along the new expanded parking area along the west boundary of the site. Public Works Department provided comments. There are about a half dozen minor things that need to be revised on the site plan. Moline Construction Company, the general contractor of this project, acknowledged that they have received the Public Works comments and they are willing to revise the site plan accordingly before it is submitted to the City Council for consideration. At this time, Staff recommends approval of this site plan. Chairman Bowen called for questions of staff or the applicant. Mr. Lewis responded that he had a question for the applicant. Merrell Wagenknecht, the applicant, came forward. Mr. Lewis commented that he drove by the site and he thinks the plans are wonderful. The landscaping will look good. However, he is concerned about the new parking in the southwest corner. The adjacent residential lots seem to be a little deeper and the new parking spaces will be close to these residential lots. There are chain link fences separating the church from the residences. As a friendly gesture, would the church be willing to put up better fencing to avoid the lighting nuisance? Mr. Wagenknecht responded that the new parking spaces would not be closer to the residential lots. He stated that they currently have existing parking spaces that have open spaces to the neighbors. As you follow the site to the southwest corner, the plan allows for more open spaces. Mr. Lewis asked if the lot line came down and then out towards the church property? Page 2 0725/02 P & Z Minutes "" "-"<..,--"-",-,,,,,...~~--,~,,~,,,~--~~~,~._.._~~.._-~,_.----------_. Mr. Wagenknecht replied that it did not. He stated that they would not go all the way to the property line down by the road. Those will be shorter parking spaces. He also stated that they have good relationships with their neighbors so he didn't think there would be any problems. Mr. Wagenknecht then stated that he had a question regarding the egress driveway. He said it is difficult to see traffic because of the curve on Lola. He is concerned that trees close to the egress will block the vision of those trying to leave the church property. He wanted staff to understand if they needed to put in miniature trees or something of that nature. Chairman Bowen explained that visibility triangles are taken into consideration and the applicant would not be allowed to block those angles. Dave Green stated that in talking with Mike Curtis, Director of Public Works, site visibility triangles are generally 20 x 20, or 15 x 20. As construction plans are brought forward, site visibility triangles will be examined and if there is a problem, staff will recommend changes to the plan that wouldn't reduce the requirements for the landscaping, but would rearrange it to the point where safety would not be an issue. There were no other questions or comments and Chairman Bowen called for a motion on PZ 2002-14. Mr. Tucker, seconded by Mr. Nehring, motioned to approve PZ 2002-14. Motion carried unanimously (7-0). Mr. Wagenknecht returned to the podium to make a comment. He stated that they voted last November to get the loan and proceed with building. They hired Moline Construction Management, Inc. and wanted to do the building this summer while school was out. However, there were delays in getting this site plan to this point. It is Mr. Wagenknecht's understanding that the case will go to City Council on August 12. There are 3 weeks before school starts. He wondered if it would be possible to allow on-site work before City Council approval in order to get going before school begins. Mr. Pitstick came to the podium and stated that staff could not issue a building permit until City Council approved this case, but there could be some early grading and preparation work allowed prior to City Council approval. Chairman Bowen suggested that Mr. Wagenknecht meet with staff to work out this issue. 5. PZ 2002-16 Page 3 0725/02 P & Z Minutes CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE R-3 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT LOT AND AREA REQUIREMENTS. ALSO CONSIDERATION OF A REVISION TO THE MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN A SIDE OR REAR PROPERTY LINE AND A GARAGE ENTRY IN ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. APPROVED Mr. Pitstick addressed the Commission presenting the following recommended changes as a result of previous input from City Council and the Planning & Zoning Commission: Increasing the minimum requirement for side and rear entry garages from property lines from 20.5 feet to 22 feet in all residential districts. Specific R3 changes include: increasing the minimum lot area from 7,500 to 7,700 square feet; increasing the minimum lot width from 65 feet to 70 feet; increasing the minimum lot depth from 100 feet to 110 feet. Requiring side and rear entry garages with the side garage no greater than 10 feet in front of the main house structure. Front entry drives will be allowed if they are a minimum of 30 ft. behind the front building line. Mr. Pitstick stated that these features will help improve the aesthetics of the area. He stated that another concern is increasing the dwelling unit size from 1600 sq. ft. to 1800 sq. ft. In addition, there are other issues regarding R-1, R-2 and R-3, but they are not included on this agenda. This evening, the proposed changes apply to R-3 only with the exception of the distance from garage entries. Several P&Z members have mentioned the desire to make some architectural feature changes as well as some residential masonry requirements that have to do with R-1, R-2 and R-3. Staff can take suggestions this evening from the members, but staff recommends that the commissioners vote on the R-3 standards tonight so we can move forward with that. Chairman Bowen stated that he would like to take a second look at the 1600 sq. ft. minimum. He stated that if we are going to increase the lot size, he'd like to see the minimum footage size increase also. Bill Schopper disagreed. He stated that he thinks the market is the best decider of that sort of thing. He stated that on a bigger lot you have to build a bigger house in order to come out, but then you can build a small percentage of the homes at 1600 sq. ft. and use those to advertise for the rest of the development. It's easier to market that way. There are a lot of empty nesters that don't need the big house. You're not just talking about start-up homes. You're talking about single schoolteachers and a whole group of folks that don't need the huge house. Chairman Bowen agreed, but he stated that we need to be honest that we really want to up the R-3. If we are going to do that, we need to upgrade the minimum square footage of the house. Page 4 0725/02 P & Z Minutes Ted Nehring agreed with Mr. Schopper. He believes 1600 square feet is where those need to be. He's in agreement regarding folks looking for a smaller, but nice, house, and he'd prefer to leave it to the builder to do what he wants to do on the lots he has in his development. He stated that it seems that at 1800 it would be so close to R-2 price- wise that you really wouldn't have a distinction between the two. He stated, "we're in a City, and maybe I shouldn't say this, where we'd like to be like Colleyville or Southlake, but we're not going to get there because we're older than some of those and we have a variety of people who live here - low-end, high-end, and a lot of middle. I think that variety is what our City is at. As long as we can control what we build and have enough input to get things done in a nice form and fashion, that's a good size for R-3." Mr. Tucker recommended that we compromise at 1700. It will still meet the needs. 1800 is too close to R-2. Ms. Cole supports 1700 square feet. She stated that going with the rear entry, going with the larger lot, you start to put the size of the house that has to be. She stated, "I think we are shirking our responsibility if they can't financially build a 1600 sq. ft. house on it, making it look like they can when in actuality, they can't. I think we'd be better serving our Commission as P&Z to go with the 1700 sq. ft." Mr. Schopper disagreed. This is not a centrally managed economy that we have here. This is a market, which we're trying to put together a framework for the different builders and developers to try to maximize their return by doing something that we actually want them to do from our framework. They'll figure out a way to do it and make it marketable to the public and if 1600 sq. ft. homes go on it, so be it. If they find that they come out better by putting 1700 or 1800 sq. foot homes on it, that's great, but that needs to be their choice, not our choice -- to eliminate a whole strata of their potential customers from being able to buy a home in our City. Even where we're at now, you're talking about lots that are in the 30,000 a lot category. Multiple it times 5 and that's going to be a $150,000 house. Average home sold in MLS in this part of the world is about $120,000. That's still way about average for our low-end house. What you are going to do if you diddle with this and get it to 1700 sq. ft. instead of 1600 sq. ft., you're going to have everything come through here as a planned development because they still aren't going to own the property. They are still going to try to redevelop certain portions of town. Everything is going to have to be micro-managed to a planned development. You have no place for them to go with that kind of house. If that's what you want to do, micro-manage every development that comes through, let's just drop the R-3 category. Chairman Bowen stated that if we go to planned development, we'd have better control. He does not consider a planned development micro-management. It's an area where we make allowances, but we also get extras. He stated that if we are going to go to the smaller residences, he believes we need to be able to control that better through a planned development. Page 5 0725/02 P & Z Minutes - ---- _____'"~_"__'_"M...._~'__.'____,,~__~, '~'_~"'''_'''~_._~'''''O.<'__''''~_''_~'_____~~,_~_.~,_~__ Mr. Nehring stated that I think, like Bill is saying, we have to let the builders decide some of the things that they need to do. We've increased the lot sizes. There are no front end garages anymore. That pretty well identified an R-3 house. You've taken that away. A smaller house may be appropriate for some of their lots, but I believe they are going to make it work for a variety of customers. I think that's what they have to do to make money today. I think you have to look at it from all sides - City, P&Z, and Builder. Do we want them to build here or do we want them to go somewhere else? Maybe we don't want them here. Mr. Laubacher brought up the proposed table and looking at the lot and area requirements, it states that there were some changes made on 1/1/98 to both R-1 and R-2. The impression I'm getting, and I want to verify if this is correct or not, at that time, or prior, there was a move away from R-3 in this City. Because of that, there weren't any changes made to R-3 at all at that point in time since there really wasn't an intention to use it anymore? If that's correct, then we have gone through this whole process in this City of trying to upgrade certain developments and R-3 was left trailing behind. Mr. Tucker stated that he was on the Board at that time and Mr. Laubacher's thoughts are exactly correct. Mr. Laubacher stated that we've made this tremendous stride as a community over the last 7 to 8 years trying to increase the presence of the community in this area. Whether we like it or not, we live in a market driven area that has competition. What people think of Southlake versus what people think of North Richland Hills is obviously different. We're not trying to be South lake. I don't think we'd want to be South lake. But we have to remain somewhat competitive with South lake and while we do have to provide a variety of housing, we do need to try and keep the City as architecturally-nice and community-nice as possible. I think a lot of changes were made a number of years ago, increasing square footage, increasing lot sizes, and yet nothing was done to R-3 because it wasn't going to be used. With the recognition that there might still be a need for an R-3 out there in one or two locals, maybe now is the time to bring R-3 up to slighter greater standards like we did everything else a number of years ago. Mr. Schopper replied to Mr. Laubacher that he thinks that is what we are trying to do with this. He stated that he thinks by increasing the lot size, especially the depth, we are going to fix a lot of the problems that he heard while on the ZBA board, such as all of the broke lots that were allowed that were so tiny you couldn't get a lot of those houses on. So we had to give them variances as the setbacks and everything. The market is what is pulling up the size of the houses that are going to get built. The lot size is going to make the house size more in proportion to the lots. I'm against the tiny lots. Let the houses fall where they may and have a minimum of 1600 sq. ft. Page 6 0725/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Laubacher replied that although what Mr. Schopper says makes sense, he wonders whether the changes that were made in R-1 and R-2 in 1998 have had a negative impact on the community and the homes being built? Mr. Schopper replied that he didn't think so because you see in the northern parts of the City there are a lot of homes that are on R-2 and R-3 lots that are way bigger than 2000 and 2200 sq. ft. Go up to Thornbridge. There's 3500 and 3800 sq. ft. homes all through that. That's what the market wants. There's been a while since there's been an R-3 development that's been anywhere less than $140,000. That's what they're building at Richland Parks off of Chapman. I just can't see what is wrong with a $150,000 home. If we were talking about some of the areas in far north Ft. Worth that had $60,000 to $70,000 homes, I'd agree with you that we need to do something to raise the bar, but I don't think the bar needs to be raised from a $150,000 home. Mr. Nehring said that you have to look at the economy today too. What can people really afford? How many people are getting laid off? What can they buy? He spoke to a gentleman who was talking about teachers and people in similar situations like that who don't need a large house, but they want a nice home that they can afford to buy. The upgrade that we've made here will reestablish that zoning that will allow the builders to do what they can do. John, you're talking about maybe one area that's left that probably will go a variety of sizes? John Pitstick responded yes. He stated that we're 85% now, approaching 90% development. The unique thing that we are probably going to see is more requests for down-zoning from an office district with a deep tract, maybe 500 ft. deep, that would never go that deep for office, where they would say, let's take a couple of streets and do R-3. We need a basic R-3. If it's on the books, then we need to promote it and offer it. If we're not, then we need to remove it. I could take either side on the 1600 or 1800 sq. ft. The big picture, though, is fixing the lot depth, lot width and requiring side and rear entry garages. That's going to make a big difference. Mr. Schopper has been on the ZBA for a long time and it seems like every case is in a cul-de-sac where you get these tiny, short lots. The bigger picture is that we are reducing the density, and a majority of the homes built are going to be much larger than 1600, 1800 or 2000 sq. ft. I think the majority would be that way. Not allowing front entry driveways is going to make a significant difference in the aesthetics and Don brought up the point where we are looking at the 2nd and 3rd homeowner. What is that home going to look like 18 to 20 years down the line? We don't have tract builders in our community. They are semi- custom builders. We don't have large tracts of 100 to 200 acres of land to build tract homes. The big picture from Staff standpoint is fix the lot size and make aesthetic improvements with the side and rear entry and moving the front entry drive back is important for us to do. Looks like it's going to be a split vote, but we need to move forward with a specific recommendation to City Council Page 7 0725/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Nehring, seconded by Mr. Schopper, motioned to approve PZ 2002-16 with increasing the lot size, lot width, lot depth and requiring side and rear entry garages with a minimum dwelling unit size of 1600 square feet. The motion failed 3-4 with Mr. Nehring, Mr. Schopper and Mr. Lewis voting for the motion and Ms. Cole, Mr. Laubacher, Chairman Bowen, and Mr. Tucker voting against the motion. Ms. Cole, seconded by Mr. Tucker, motioned to approve PZ 2002-16, amending the minimum dwelling unit size for R-3 to 1700 sq. ft, and leaving all other provisions as previously discussed and identified in table 4-1. The motion was approved 4-3 with Ms. Cole, Mr. Laubacher, Chairman Bowen, and Mr. Tucker voting for the motion and Mr. Nehring, Mr. Schopper, and Mr. Lewis voting against the motion. Table 4-1 Lot and Area Reauirements R-1 R-2 R-3 Description Platted prior Platted after Platted prior Platted after Platted prior Platted after to 01/01/98 01/01/98 to 01/01/98 01/01/98 to 08/12/02 08/12/02 1. Min. Lot Area 13,000 S.F. 13,000 S.F. 9,000 S.F. 9,000 S.F. 7,500 S.F. 7,700 S.F. 2. Min. Lot Width 1 a. Interior Lots 85 ft. 85 ft. 70 ft. 72.5 ft. 65 ft. 70 ft. b. Corner Lot 85 ft. 85 ft. 80 ft. 80 ft. 75 ft. 75 ft. 3. Min. Lot Depth 120 ft 120 ft 110ft. 110ft. 1 00 ft. 110 ft. 4. Min. Dwelling Unit 2,000 S.F. 2,300 S.F. 1,800 S.F. 2,000 S.F. 1600 S.F. 1700 S.F. Size2 5. Min. Front Building Line 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 6. Min. Side Building Line 10 ft. & 6 ft.3 10 ft. & 6 ft.3 10ft. & 6 ft.3 10ft.&6ft.3 6 ft.4 6 ft.4 7. Min. Rear building Line 10 ft. 10ft. 10ft. 10ft. 10ft. 10 ft. 8. Max. Structure Height 38 ft. 38 ft. 38 ft. 38 ft. 38 ft. 38 ft. 9. Rear Yard 20% of Lot 20% of Lot 20% of Lot 20% of Lot 20% of Lot 20% of Lot Open Space Area Area Area Area Area Area Area 1. Garaqe Entry Requirements: a. R-1 and R-2 Districts: Within every Subdivision in which the subdivision plat is submitted for approval after January 1, 1990, only front entry garages, set back thirty (30) feet off the building line, side entry, and rear entry will be allowed. b. R-3 Districts: Within every Subdivision in which the subdivision plat is submitted for approval after August 12, 2002, only front entry garages, set back thirty (30) feet off the building line, side entry with no garages more than 10 feet in front of the occupied building front, and rear entry will be allowed. 6. Garaae Entry Distance: Minimum distance between a side or rear property line and a garage entry shall be 22 feet. Mr. Pitstick restated that Staff would like to bring back looking at the minimum masonry requirements in residential districts. Staff would also like to bring back discussion on the PD. Ms. Cole asked that roof pitch also be included in future discussion. Page 8 0725/02 P & Z Minutes Other Business Mr. Pitstick announced that the City has hired outside consultants to conduct a comprehensive economic development study. The consultants are recommending a work session with all members of the City Council, all members of the Planning & Zoning Commission and all members of the Economic Development Advisory Committee. A survey has been prepared that will be sent to the P&Z members tomorrow for their input. A tentative work session has been scheduled for Wednesday, August 21, 6-8 p.m. at the fire training center. The results of the survey will be discussed at the work session. Mr. Pitstick stated that these are exciting times because the City is 85% developed and the decisions made in the next two years are going to affect the City for the next 30 years. He stated that he is excited about involving the Planning & Zoning Commission with the City Council and Economic Development Advisory Committee in this study. The first work session will involve 3 major strategies for economic development and the next work session will involve devising specific goals and objectives and action plans for those strategies. The first work session is tentatively scheduled for August 21 and a follow-up session will occur in September. These work sessions will provide direction, and then a formal presentation on the plan will be given to Council in approximately early October. 6. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Chairman Secretary Ted@ ~ Do Page 9 0725/02 P & Z Minutes