Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2002-08-22 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS AUGUST 22, 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 Tim Welch James Laubacher Brenda Cole John Lewis Alternate CITY STAFF Director of Public Works Asst Director of Public Works Zoning Administrator Recording Secretary Mike Curtis Lance Barton Dave Green Kellie Smith 3. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 8, 2002 APPROVED Ms. Cole, seconded by Mr. Nehring, motioned to approve the minutes of August 8, 2002. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 4. PS 2002-32 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM WESTERN RIM INVESTORS FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 1-49, BLOCK A, LOTS 1-50, BLOCK B, Page 1 08/22/02 P & Z Minutes LOTS 1-13, BLOCK C & LOTS 1-2, BLOCK D OF THE ESTATES AT NORTH RICHLAND HILLS ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 6800-6900 BLOCK OF MID-CITIES BOULEVARD (43.906 ACRES). APPROVED Zoning Administrator Dave Green summarized the case. This request is for an approval of the final plat of the Estates of North Richland Hills. This subdivision has two components: an area for 112 single family lots and an area for multi-family housing. This property is zoned PD for both uses. This plat matches the PD plan and the preliminary plat that were previously approved. The Public Works Department has stated that all comments have been addressed and staff recommends approval. Chairman Bowen asked if there were any questions or comments of staff. There were none. Chairman Bowen called for a motion. Mr. Welch, seconded by Mr. Schopper, motioned to approve PS 2002-32. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 5. PS 2002-35 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM THE HOOVER/KLEIN GROUP FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOTS 1-17, BLOCK 1, LOT 1, BLOCK 2, LOTS 1-11, BLOCK 3, LOTS 1-10, BLOCK 4 AND LOT 1, BLOCK 5 OF THE EMBER OAKS PHASE III ADDITION LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF BURSEY ROAD AND DAVIS BOULEVARD (17.14 ACRES). APPROVED Zoning Administrator Dave Green summarized the case. This is a preliminary plat request based on a previously approved PD (Planned Development). This plat has two components: a single family residential development (north and south of Bursey Road) and commercial uses at the intersection of Bursey Road and Davis Boulevard. Staff recommends approval of this plat subject to the applicant complying with comments from the Public Works Department prior to final plat being considered. There were no comments or questions of staff and the Chairman called for a motion. Mr. Tucker, seconded by Mr. Laubacher, motioned to approve PS 2002-35 subject to engineer comments. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Page 2 08/22/02 P & Z Minutes 6. PZ 2002-17 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM FRANK M. PLEASANT FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP) FOR A SECONDARY LIVING UNIT AT 7213 TURNER TERRACE. DENIED Dave Green, Zoning Administrator, summarized the case. This is the first request of its type since Council passed a revision to the Zoning Ordinance permitting secondary living units with a Special Use Permit (SUP). The proposed unit will be approximately 27' X 16' (432 square feet). All four sides will be brick and the roof will have a 4/12 pitch with asphalt shingles. Mr. Green also noted that a petition of opposition has been submitted on this case. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing. Frank M. Pleasant, applicant, 7213 Turner Terrace, asked for this request for his father- in-law who is ill, yet independent, and wants his privacy. He stated that he has abided by all the requirements that City staff requested. Mr. Tucker asked why the applicant didn't attach this unit to the house, rather than keeping it separate. Mr. Pleasant repeated that his father-in-law wants privacy. Mr. Nehring commented that he likes the idea of the separate unit but has problems with it should that family member not live in the unit any longer. He asked Mr. Pleasant if he would then rent it out. Mr. Pleasant assured Mr. Nehring that would not happen as long as he owned the home, and he further stated that he plans to live at that address for a long time. Mr. Welch commented that he has the same concerns as Mr. Nehring. He stated that if the applicant retires in a few years and decides to move elsewhere, there is no control over who is going to rent or sublease that area behind the house. He stated that as far as marketability, it makes more sense to attach it to the existing structure. Mr. Tucker commented that the Homeowners Association rules take precedence over the City regulations. He commented that depending on how the subdivision deed restrictions are written the issue of having a second living area could become a civil matter. Chairman Bowen added that even without a Homeowners Association, but with deed restrictions, the neighbors could take action. Mr. Pleasant responded that there is a secondary living unit at 4224 Ken Michael that is bigger than the one he wants to build. He stated that there are several such structures around the City. Page 3 08/22/02 P & Z Minutes Chairman Bowen responded that those were probably not permitted since up until the time of this ordinance, structures of this type were not legal. Mr. Pleasant replied that the City has not taken action against any of those homeowners who built secondary living units without obtaining a permit. He stated that he is being burdened by trying to do this by the book. He stated that he feels it is unfair and he wishes the City Council wouldn't put ideas in people's heads and then take it away from them. Chairman Bowen explained that part of the reason for this being a special use permit request and not a use permitted by right is to allow the City to look at each request and decide if it is appropriate in that single instance. The purpose of this hearing is to determine if it is appropriate in this instance to allow this facility. Mr. Welch explained that if the applicant attached this structure to his main structure he would only need a building permit, not an SUP. Mr. Pleasant asked if it would be allowed without an SUP if he put a covered breezeway between the two buildings. Chairman Bowen advised him that he would have to discuss that with staff. Chairman Bowen called for others in favor of this request to come forward to speak. Nicki Bullard, 7217 Turner Terrace, spoke in favor of the request. She lives next door to Frank and Brenda Pleasant and she feels she will be impacted the most in the neighborhood by this structure. She stated that they have the nicest house on the block. The yard is beautiful. They maintain the house and yard to perfection. She does not feel this will adversely impact the neighborhood. Mr. Welch asked if she had an outdoor storage shed on her property. Ms. Bullard responded that she did. Shannon Jones, 7211 Turner Terrace, is in favor of the request. Ann Butler, 7211 Turner Terrace, is in favor of the request. Chairman Bowen asked for those opposed to this request to come forward to speak. Dorothy Hill, 7309 Turner Terrace, lives four doors down from the Pleasant's. She agreed with Ms. Bullard that the Pleasant's house is kept very nice. She does not know the Pleasant's but she is sure they are very nice people. She and her late husband bought their home on a half-acre at 7309 Turner Terrace 45 years ago. She likes the Page 4 08/22/02 P & Z Minutes restrictions. She is against the ordinance that was passed in 2001. She stated that although she lives just four doors down from the Pleasant's, she did not receive notice of the SUP. She understands that the City, by State law, only has to notify within 200 feet, but she feels that's unfair since this request does impact her because she lives close by on the same block. She would be upset to see secondary living units springing up throughout the City and she is concerned that it will lower property values. Mr. Welch asked if she had any type of outside storage facility on her property. She responded that she has a 10 x 12 red metal barn, which she uses to store tools. It sits toward the back of her property and is partially hidden by shrubs. Mr. Welch stated that he is asking because some of the resident's concerns are that they do not want Mr. Pleasant to put this structure in his backyard and yet quite a few of the neighbors have structures in their own backyards. E. Austin Wright, 7200 Turner Terrace, lives down the street from the Pleasant's. She stated that they have a very, very nice yard. They appear to already have one large outbuilding in their backyard. She stated that she also has an outbuilding in her backyard. In 10 years, when her children are teenagers, she is concerned about who will be living in this structure. Lisa Barnes, 7212 Briley Dr., lives directly behind Mr. Pleasant. She stated that he keeps his yard well kept and she doesn't have a problem with that, but her concern is that he already has a trailer, metal shed and large workshop on one side of his yard. If he places this structure in the other corner, he will not have any yard left. She does not want to police who lives in the structure. How will she know whether or not it's family? The deed restrictions state that these are not acceptable guidelines for these types of premises to be built. She stated that the two neighbors who live on either side of her also object to this request. She has spoken to some appraisers by telephone and they told her that if her neighbor builds onto the house it would increase property values, but a separate structure would decrease property values. She also stated that she has a 4- year old daughter and a dog who run and play in the backyard and could disturb her neighbor's elderly father's resting and nap times. She opposes this request. She also stated that she does not have any buildings in her backyard. As there were no further requests to speak, Chairman Bowen closed the public hearing and asked for questions or comments from Commission members. Mr. Nehring stated that he is opposed to the request because it will decrease property values in the area and because the City has no way to control who lives in the unit in the future. Page 5 08/22/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Welch stated that his concern is to preserve the quality of the neighborhood, which consists of large half-acre lots that are 100' wide x 175'. He noted that most of the residents have some kind of shed in the backyard, but they also have a lot of open space. Mr. Pleasant is requesting to build a 432 sq. ft. structure which Mr. Welch feels should be added onto the existing 1200-1300 sq. ft. home which would enhance the value of the home. He believes it could be built in such a way as to give the father-in- law his own private entrance. Mr. Welch stated that he will vote against this request. Ms. Cole stated that she is basing her decision in part on the fact that in November the SUP was granted by City Council and this case seems to fit the purpose of the SUP. She stated that the lot size will accommodate the separate unit as evidenced by the 22- ft. that will exist behind the building after it is built. There is no driveway or sidewalk access from the front of the property to the secondary living unit, so it will not have the appearance of a garage apartment. She stated that, with confidence, she knows that it will not detract from the resale value of the house or the neighboring houses although Mr. Pleasant may not recoup the money that he is putting into the property. She believes this case fits the SUP and that Mr. Pleasant shouldn't be penalized for following procedures. Mr. Laubacher agreed with Ms. Cole. He believes a revision to the current ordinance is needed which will allow the City to have some control over policing the future use of these structures. Mr. Laubacher stated that as it stands right now, Mr. Pleasant has done everything that the City has asked him to, therefore, Mr. Laubacher doesn't see any reason to say no to this request. Mr. John Lewis, P&Z Commission Member Alternate, is not a voting member at this meeting. However, he offered the comment that several other neighboring homes had large outbuildings, a few of which were in need of repair or replacement. He believes Mr. Pleasant's structure is an attractive building and will not detract from the neig hborhood. Mr. Schopper stated that he spent 12 years on the Zoning Board of Adjustment granting variances and he always had a problem with penalizing the people who were trying to apply all of the laws to get something built when there were plenty of other structures in neighborhoods in the City that seemed to show up overnight without proper permitting. For no other reason than that, he supports this request. Chairman Bowen stated that Mr. Pleasant has a very nice plan, and if it were attached to the house, it would be a nice addition. However, the Chairman opposes the concept of a second living unit, and will vote against this request. Ms. Cole commented that the SUP states that the secondary living unit just has to be attached by a walkway. She wondered if P&Z had adequate reason to deny the Page 6 08/22/02 P & Z Minutes applicant's request. If denied, P&Z should make it clear to the applicant why he is being denied. Mr. Tucker responded that the purpose of an SUP is to decide on a case-by-case basis, which allows P&Z the right to say yes or no. Mr. Welch further commented that an SUP is a discretionary action. Mr. Schopper pointed out that this is the first SUP case involving a secondary living unit that P&Z has heard. He stated that the great deliberation that the Council made in coming up with this ordinance is lost when it comes to real people trying to get things built. He believes Mr. Pleasant has done diligent work to try to get this thing pulled together and he isn't sure that P&Z could give him a reason why it's not approved other than that P&Z isn't in agreement with what the Council decided to do. He reminded Mr. Pleasant that he can appeal to the City Council if he is denied by P&Z. Mr. Nehring commented that even though Council has put their blessing, in a sense, on this, P&Z still has a right to vote as a recommending body. Therefore, he is going to vote his conviction. There were no other comments and the Chairman called for a motion. Ms. Cole, seconded by Mr. Laubacher, motioned to approve PZ 2002-17. The motion failed (3-4) with Chairman Bowen, George Tucker, Ted Nehring and Tim Welch voting against the motion to approve. Mr. Nehring, seconded by Mr. Welch, motioned to deny PZ 2002-17. The motion carried (4-3) with Mr. schopper, Mr. Laubacher, and Ms. Cole voting against the motion to deny. Chairman Bowen explained to the applicant that, within 10 days, he has the right to appeal to City Council. He explained that if the petition of opposition is valid then the Council's vote in the appeal process must be a super majority vote. Zoning Administrator Dave Green advised the applicant that if he wishes to appeal he should submit a letter of appeal to the Planning Department. 7. PZ 2002-20 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REVISING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CITY. DENIED Page 7 08/22/02 P & Z Minutes Zoning Administrator Dave Green stated that this is the first of three items on the agenda that are revisions to the Zoning Ordinance. This particular revision involves the planned development provisions. The purpose is to try to get more clarification on PD's. There is some concern that many of the PD's that have been submitted simply are vehicles to get around some of the rules and regulations in City ordinances. The purpose of doing the proposed revisions is to add clarification for specific situations. The three different proposed categories of PD's are: 1) RD or Redevelopment PD which involves existing properties (more than likely commercial properties) that do not meet the City's current criteria. The applicant would be allowed to ask for any number of variances to the zoning ordinance. 2) The second category of PD involves new single family developments that are a minimum of 10 acres in size. There would be some restrictions on types of variances allowed. Every residential PD will have a base district attached to it and the density of the housing in that base district requirement could not be varied. 3) The third category of PD is a two-fold situation for new commercial structures or situations that involve a combination of mixed use development of both commercial and residential uses. This is the most restrictive PD. There are limitations that are placed on the types of variances allowed. The density of the base district, the sign regulations and the masonry requirements could not be varied. Staff would like a motion from P&Z to approve these changes to the PD ordinance. This item will be on the City Council agenda next Monday night. At that time, staff would like to be able to tell the Council the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision and recommendation. Chairman Bowen called for questions. Mr. Laubacher asked for an explanation of the 40% limit of residential uses on the new non-residential and combined PD's. Mr. Green responded that he was not present for the discussions on this requirement, but to the best of his knowledge, it is an effort to ensure that non-residential and combined PDs do not end up with more of a residential sense. Chairman Bowen added that the original concept of planned development when it was put in the ordinance was that it was suppose to be a planned mixed use, not a majority of one or the other type of use, but a good mix. Mr. Welch commented that the true meaning of planned development has gotten out of context and that there seems to be a conflict of what is trying to be achieved. He stated that the new single family PD has four items that make up the definition of the PD, one of which is a requirement of a minimum of 10 acres. Deviation is allowed from lot size and access but no deviations are allowed from general conditions such as fences, parking, garage entries, and maximum density of the base district. Mr. Welch is concerned that in-fill tracts of fewer than 10 acres will be excluded and unable to be developed under this criteria. He stated that there is a conflict between trying to save large trees and not allowing change to the size of the lots. He suggested that there Page 8 08/22/02 P & Z Minutes should be consideration of smaller lots in order to get some open space. He stated that another problem is that in-fill tracts will have to have detention ponds, yet there isn't adequate storm sewage on these areas; there isn't adequate downstream capacity. Creativity in driveways and masonry criteria help develop in-fill tracts. He stated that three out of the four items that make up the definition of the new single family PD aren't sensible because they don't allow deviation. Mr. Green replied that this is definitely a mixed bag. PD's are designed for flexibility, creativity and design -- provided those items follow the direction that Council wants to go in terms of variations that would or would not be approved. Staff is trying to be tough in those situations. The outcome remains to be seen based on these recommendations. There is always the possibility in the future that these will need to be modified after staff is able to evaluate what the true impact has been. Mr. Welch commented why have a PD? Why not stay with straight zoning? Ms. Cole asked for an explanation of the word "access" as in "can only deviate lot size and access." Mr. Green stated that in this context it doesn't refer to the access onto the individual lot, but access streetwise onto the property itself. Ms. Cole quoted "no deviations from general conditions" and asked if that is going to include masonry? Mr. Green responded yes, but reminded the Commission that staff is in the process of asking Council for revisions to the masonry requirement and if those revisions are approved, staff does not want to present variations to the masonry on the first project that comes before P&Z. Ms. Cole asked if the in-fill areas considered prior to her coming on the Planning and Zoning Commission were larger than 10 acres? She wondered if any in-fill area would meet the criteria of minimum of 10 acres as Mr. Welch noted earlier. Mr. Green stated that previous cases, such as Glenwyck Villas Phase I, were not larger than 10 acres. He stated that it is going to vary from site-to-site as to what can be assembled in terms of property ownership. Mr. Welch added that he believes most in-fill areas probably wouldn't fit the 10-acre minimum requirement. He would like to have further discussion on this issue. Mr. Schopper commented that although PD's are designed to give flexibility, they actually don't accomplish flexibility. He stated that developers will try to put the maximum number of lots on 10 acres and if they put them equidistant more area is not gained when they are all pushed to one end to add a big open space. He feels nothing is accomplished. He agrees with Mr. Welch's earlier comment to go to straight zoning. Mr. Green stated that he understands that position, but he would like to move forward because Council has asked staff to do so. Staff would prefer that P&Z make a decision, since it will come up for discussion at Council on Monday night. He Page 9 08/22/02 P & Z Minutes suggested that the members consider attending the Council meeting to be able to hear the discussion and ask questions. Mr. Welch stated that he feels unnecessarily pressured to make a decision. Ms. Cole asked if the only thing a new single family PD can vary is the lot size? Mr. Schopper replied that if one lot is made smaller, something else is made larger to have the same density overall. Ms. Cole asked if density refers to just the number of houses? Mr. Green explained that density is the number of housing units per acre. Chairman Bowen added that half of the density could be a park. He stated, as an example, that if R3 is 3-1/2 residents per acre and you have 35 and 10 acres, then 35 and 5 acres would be allowed if the remaining 5 acres are a park. Mr. Schopper stated that there isn't benefit to the developer because he would have to load all of the common area expenses into the lot cost. Chairman Bowen responded that it could benefit the developer if, for instance, his 5 acres given for a park were in a floodplain. He's maximizing the value of his property because that 5 acres is undevelopable. Mr. Welch said there are also tracts of land that are 10 acres outside the flood plain with 100-year-old 35-inch diameter Oak trees. The lots sizes could be downsized to save half the trees, but with the proposed PD's, depending on the conditions, every tree is cut down and every resident is up in arms. Mr. Laubacher gave his perspective on the history of PD's. He stated that years ago when there was some upgrading of the City, Council changed some of the square footage for residences, lot sizes, etc., and there was a movement away from R-3. There was discussion at the time that R-3 was not going to be used anymore. Just a year or two ago, P&Z started to see in-fill-type single family development in the 5-10 acres range with various problems - usually draining problems. The developer had to rearrange the houses, and the result was a development that leaned towards the R-3 standards. It is a catch-22 situation. Does it make sense to put this type of residential development on this lot? Should P&Z give concessions in order to meet standards or deny the request because it is R-3 standards? Mr. Laubacher concluded that this dilemma arose in an effort to avoid going back to R-3 yet at the same time provide flexibility. He stated that the intention of this family PD concept is to provide the flexibility for a developer to put single family homes on smaller lots if there are reasons like a flood problem or a drainage situation that needs to mandate a little flexibility. The City wants to provide that flexibility and at the same time make sure the homes are not becoming significantly smaller. He stated that he needs the experts to tell him how to do that, because he thinks that is the true intent. Page 10 08/22/02 P & Z Minutes - - - -- __"'___,___·_'___n...___..._.___,.,..~~..._._~_·__,,~_,."~"'''"_'n...._'_''__''__'_''''__'_''''_'~_''''~_'w_._.,.~.._'_._¥~_.~".."._~____.~^~._.___."____, Mr. Schopper stated that Council wants the bar raised. Lot sizes have been increased in R-3, which leaves a PD as the only outlet for relief. Yet, in trying for a PD, the developer runs around in circles and eventually drops the project because he can't get it done. Mr. Schopper would prefer that they are told up front that City Council does not want that kind of development. Mr. Welch stated that he also believes Council has made up their mind. He stated that P&Z didn't get to provide preliminary input to this issue, although P&Z has talked about all the other zoning cases that have come up over the last 18 months. He stated that in the three years that he has been on P&Z there have been workshops with Council, yet this issue hasn't come before P&Z prior to this agenda and Mr. Welch would prefer further discussion before a decision is made. Ms. Cole asked if Richfield at the Parks was a PD. Mr. Green couldn't recall but believed it was an R-3 with some variances. Mr. Welch stated that the only way to get smaller lots in the future is to come with Town Center zoning. Mr. Schopper and Chairman Bowen stated that they believe that is what Council is trying to do. Ms. Cole asked for an example of a recent in-fill PD. Mr. Green referred to Glenwyck Villas Phase I where there were 3 or 4 lots on Harmonson that were narrow and long which were combined with some other properties off of Glenview. The final total of residential lots was 38 or 39, with 2 lots available as open space. Also, the Ember Oaks Phase III was a PD. Ms. Cole asked for an explanation, using as an example Glenwyck Villas Phase I or Ember Oaks Phase III, of how they would not fit the new PD regulations. For instance, would the maximum density of base not fit? Mr. Green couldn't answer without going back and looking at the PD. Off the top of his head he couldn't compare it in that detail. Ms. Cole then asked if those two in-fill PD's satisfied these regulations? Mr. Schopper stated that it was the R-3 density that made those two work. He stated that the extra 10' of lot would make that deal not work now. Ms. Cole asked if the developer would have gotten fewer houses, but larger lots. The answer to her question was interrupted by Mr. Tucker's request to make a motion and send this matter to Council. Ms. Cole then asked if the PD has to be voted on in its entirety? Page 11 08/22/02 P & Z Minutes ,,'.'. "' '-~-~·~-'__'"_'_~'"'''__'_·_'''_~~·"'_'''_'''_~M''_'''_"''~_'~""__'-"~»~M~",~_____~_~.._____ Chairman Bowen replied yes, but that it requires a public hearing. Chairman Bowen then opened the public hearing. There was no one wishing to speak in favor or opposition and the Chairman closed the public hearing and called for a motion. Mr. Laubacher, seconded by Mr. Welch, motioned to deny PZ 2002-20 as it currently stands. The motion carried (6-1) with Chairman Bowen voting against the motion to deny. Mr. Welch asked to add a comment to Council that he feels P&Z did not have adequate time or detail from staff as to what Council desires in this matter. Chairman Bowen disagreed. He believes he understands what Council is looking at which is why he voted in opposition to the motion. Ms. Cole agreed with Tim Welch that P&Z has not had the opportunity to ask questions and to talk about the matter. She and Tim Welch mentioned that they would have liked to have a joint workshop with Council on this matter. 8. PZ 2002-21 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW CERTAIN EDUCATIONAL AND INSTIUTIONAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WITH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. APPROVED Mr. Green summarized that this situation involves community centers, fire stations, private schools and senior citizens centers in residential areas. These particular uses are not currently permitted in residential areas. This issue was discussed with P&Z a couple of weeks ago and based on those discussions, staff is moving in the direction of permitting these types of uses by right. There are other uses such as water towers and parks that can be put in by right. Requiring an SUP for a fire station is redundant because, currently, when considering the location of a fire station, the City already takes into consideration many of the factors that would be reviewed under an SUP. Mr. Nehring stated that it is his understanding that a fire station or school is allowed in any zoning district, but he asked if Council has the ultimate authority to decide the exact location within that zoning district. Mr. Green stated that under the current regulations the Council could consider a piece of property, for example, for a fire station, but before purchasing the property, Council would have to apply for an SUP and reevaluate the property. In other words, visit the issue twice. Page 12 08/22/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Schopper stated that he firmly believes in the system of checks and balances and he knows that the City Council works diligently. He believes this issue can be easily fixed by purchasing the property with a contingency that it is based on approval of the SUP. If citizens came forward who were against the SUP, a public hearing could be held so that Council would not be blindsided by the issue showing up on the front page of the newspaper. A special use permit allows notification and informs people so the neighborhood can buy into the location as opposed to feeling that it is being thrust upon the neighborhood. Mr. Schopper stated that he has seen neighborhoods who have had fire stations thrust on them which could have been avoided if the neighborhood had been given an opportunity to speak for or against it. Mr. Schopper concluded that the purpose of a lot of the organizations at the City is to give people the opportunity to speak their minds. He stated that is all he is after with the SUP. Chairman Bowen said that he has a problem with private schools unless the City has a very tight definition of a private school. He stated that day cares call themselves private schools. He does not want to see a private school by right. Mr. Green replied that the definition of a private school is a gray area. Mr. Tucker stated that he thinks it should all be municipal. Chairman Bowen agreed. Ms. Cole asked for an explanation of the current procedures for fire stations. Mr. Green stated that fire stations are not currently permitted in residential zoning. They would have to go to U or Institutional zoning. Mr. Schopper suggested that the City could save money by requiring a fire station as part of a development. The developer couldn't get the plat approved unless he provided a fire station - similar to the park requirements asked of developers - making it a mandatory dedication issue. Ms. Cole asked if the fire station went in under the current rules, the zoning changed and the fire station left the site, would the City end up with a commercially zoned lot? Mr. Green stated that it depends on the district. He explained that in U, which is institutional zoning, quasi-public type of use might be allowed. An SUP, however, is specifically for that use and the site would resort back to the underlying zoning. Mr. Schopper commented that there are a lot of commercial buildings and old post offices and old fire stations around. Mr. Nehring asked if he heard correctly that fire stations cannot go in residential areas because he is sure that there are fire stations currently existing in residential areas. Page 13 08/22/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Green responded that there probably are fire stations in existing residential areas just the same as there probably are secondary living units all over town as well as carports that violate front building setbacks. Mr. Green stated that a recurring problem that he has encountered in 25 years in City Planning is answering for the mistakes of planning ancestors. Mr. Tucker stated that if Council wants a fire station in x location spot, what P&Z says is not going to matter. Ms. Cole responded that she agrees with Mr. Schopper's statement that an SUP would open it up to the public too. Ms. Cole then asked Dave to clarify the need for Council to revisit the issue twice with an SUP. Dave repeated his prior explanation, concluding that before Council makes a final decision on the location of the fire station, they have to stop and file an SUP application and let it come all the way back to Council. Mr. Schopper stated it should just be made part of the contract. Mr. Green responded that certainly people do that everyday on zoning cases, but there is a strong direction that staff is taking that these uses need to be permitted by right. He repeated his request for a vote from P&Z on this matter. Mr. Laubacher commented that he is leaning toward leaving it as an SUP. He stated that he understands staff concerns and understands that Council may need to duplicate some effort, but he feels there's really nothing wrong with providing citizens the opportunity to have their say about a subject. Secondly, he stated that he is not a fan of multi-tasking. He tends to zone into one particular item at a time and as such if he were on Council and had to look at manpower issues and many other types of issues, the zoning and regulations would get lost in the background. He believes it would be beneficial to separate the issues so Council has a chance to look at the zoning/SUP type of issues on their own. Chairman Bowen agreed with Mr. Schopper that the citizens need at least an opportunity to understand what is going to happen in their neighborhood. He would like to see P&Z leave all of them SUP. Mr. Schopper asked to make that motion as written. Chairman Bowen reminded the Commission that a public hearing is needed. The Chairman opened the public hearing, but finding no one wishing to speak for or against this matter, he closed the public hearing and called for a motion. Mr. schopper, seconded by Mr. Laubacher, motioned to approve PZ 2002-21 as proposed and written. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Chairman Bowen asked Mr. Green to convey to the Council that if they decide to change this Page 14 08/22/02 P & Z Minutes ordinance, Chairman Bowen would like to see private schools removed from the ordinance. 9. PZ 2002-22 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE INCREASING THE MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL MASONRY REQUIREMENTS, AND CHANGING METHODOLOGY FOR MASONRY. APPROVED Mr. Green explained that at the present time masonry is calculated as 75% of each building side on the first floor, and recent discussion with P&Z revolved around raising that percentage. South lake and Colleyville do not have standards because their residential protective covenants are very strong and strongly enforced. Those cities do not concern themselves with this type of regulation. Bedford is 65% masonry on the first floor and Euless is looking at 90% of the structure on all four sides. In the last discussion with P&Z, staff considered a requirement of a minimum of 90% of the structure to be masonry and to include the second floor in that 90% calculation. To allow flexibility in architecture style and design, staff is now proposing to keep it at 75% but counting all floors. Mr. Tucker disagreed. He stated that 75% will not help to have architectural features and he believes that beautiful buildings are possible with 80%. He stated that Euless requires 90% on all four sides and allows hardy plank, which has not slowed building in the City of Euless. Mr. Schopper asked if only Town Center allows hardy plank? Mr. Green said yes due to the architectural style. Mr. Tucker asked what happens if the house is projected o"ver the roof. He stated that masonry cannot be put on top of a wooden structure because masonry won't hold it. Hardy plank would have to be used. Mr. Schopper suggested 90% masonry requirement with 20% of that allowed to be hardy plank which he suggested would free up some of the architecture and still be over the 75% masonry requirement. He stated that he hates to see the back side of the second story homes that are in need of paint. He suggests getting away from the maintenance of paint. Mr. Welch agreed that if 90% masonry and no hardy plank were used, the home would look like a four-sided box. He recommended allowing articulation for the architect. Page 15 08/22/02 P & Z Minutes Ms. Cole recommended that the masonry be 90% on a one story and 75% on a two story . Mr. Tucker stated that Euless's ordinance reads 100% masonry on the first floor and 90% on the second floor. Mr. Green explained that the wording staff is suggesting is 75% of each side. Mr. Green stated that P&Z can suggest different wording if they like. Mr. Welch suggested that hardy plank be allowed since it lasts longer than wood. Ms. Cole asked for an explanation of why the "R-1-S District exempts the masonry requirement for an accessory building." Dave Green explained that it is a continuation of existing regulations. Accessory buildings in the R-1-S District are already exempt from masonry requirements. The reasoning being that out-buildings for livestock, which is allowed in R-1-S zoning, typically are not constructed out of masonry materials. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing. As there was no one who wished to speak, the Chairman closed the public hearing and called for any further discussion. Mr. Schopper stated that he would like to keep the 90% but he doesn't like the masonry calculation. Could a percentage of the 90% be hardy plank? He'd like to stay away from paint. Chairman Bowen stated that he doesn't believe stucco and EFIS would be approved. Mr. Tucker, Mr. Schopper and Mr. Welch discussed back and forth the correct wording of masonry to define brick, stone, rock, and hardy plank. When Mr. Welch suggested tabling this matter for further discussion, Mr. Green pointed out that this item is on the Council agenda on August 26 and staff would prefer to have some sort of decision from Planning & Zoning. Mr. Tucker recommended 100% masonry on the first floor and 80% on the second floor and allow hardy plank to be used on the eves. The hardy plank would not be counted toward the masonry. Mr. Schopper disagreed. He stated that it would have to be counted on the masonry if it is 100% of the elevation. Mr. Tucker stated that 100% would be to the eves. If it were a one-story, above the eves would not count toward the 100% masonry. Mr. Tucker, seconded by Ms. Cole, motioned to approve PZ 2002-22 with 100% masonry on the first floor - all brick, all sides -- and 80% masonry on the second floor for brick, and allow the use of hardy plank on the remaining 20%. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Page 16 08/22/02 P & Z Minutes 10. ADJOURNMENT As there was no other business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Chairman Secretary Don~ Q~ 1;) ¡//~ Ted Nehring Page 17 08/22/02 P & Z Minutes