Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2002-09-26 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS SEPTEMBER 26, 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 Tim Welch James Laubacher Brenda Cole John Lewis Alternate ABSENT Ted Nehring CITY STAFF Director of Development Building Official Zoning Administrator Recording Secretary John Pitstick Dave Pendley Dave Green Holly Blake 3. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 APPROVED Mr. Schopper, seconded by Mr. Welch, motioned to approve the minutes of September 12, 2002. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 4. PZ 2002-23 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM JEFF MCKINNEY FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM C-1 COMMERCIAL TO R-6-TOWNHOME RESIDENTIAL AT 8023 STARNES ROAD (3.92 ACRES). Page 1 09/26/02 P & Z Minutes WITHDRAWN Zoning Administrator Dave Green explained that this is a rezoning request from C-1 Commercial to R-6-Townhome district. This tract is just under 4 acres in size. It is platted as Lot 11A of Block 6 of the Crestwood Estates Addition. The Comprehensive Plan notes the property is to be utilized in a public, semi-public type of mode. This property was owned by a church and there had been plans to base a church on this site, but the church has since moved to a different location. The applicant's request is to build town homes and/or duplexes. This particular district only permits the town homes. It does not permit the duplexes. The applicant would like to request from the Commission a different zoning category for this property. Chairman Don Bowen opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward and explain his request. Applicant Jeff McKinney, 7428 Hightower, stated that after further review with Dave Green, he realized that the best zoning is not R-6-T, but R-4-D. He stated that the site is currently zoned Commercial, but he believes it is not a good location for a commercial development. He stated that he would like to build duplexes on this site if that is agreeable to the P&Z Commission and the City Council. Mr. McKinney stated that he knows there are a lot of people here this evening who are concerned about placing duplexes on the site and he is interested in hearing what they have to say. Mr. McKinney stated that he has lived in North Richland Hills since 1987 and his intent is to better the community. He has built other duplexes, 100% brick, no vinyl, with ceramic tile, 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 2 car garage. Mr. McKinney wants to build the duplexes to be handicap accessible because he sells real-estate and recently has experienced about a 200% increase in inquires from people requesting a location for their parents; perhaps where the buyer could live in one side and the parents live in the other. Tim Welch asked if Mr. McKinney intends to sell all the duplexes or lease all or some of them? Mr. McKinney stated that he intends to sell them. He was confused about the needed zoning. On this application he requested townhouse zoning because he thought townhouse zoning was necessary in order to sell both sides. He stated that the sale price will range from $105,000 to $130,000. Mr. Welch asked for the minimum size of the units. Jeff McKinney stated that he is planning to build 1300-sq. ft. to approximately 1500-1600 sq. ft. duplexes. Mr. Welch asked if they would be two story? Page 2 09/26/02 P & Z Minutes Jeff McKinney stated that they would not. He would prefer to build one story duplexes to make them handicap accessible. Mr. Tucker asked if the applicant is withdrawing this request? Mr. McKinney stated that he is officially withdrawing this request. He would like to come back with a request for R-4-D. Chairman Don Bowen mentioned that the minimum per side on a duplex is 1200 sq. ft. He then asked if there was anyone who wished to speak for or against this request. Allan Fitzwater, 7409 Forrest Lane, stated that he is confused. He asked if the applicant's request is now for duplexes? The Chairman explained that the applicant's request for R-6-T zoning is being withdrawn and he will return at a later date with a request for R-4 zoning. Mr. Fitzwater asked if that meant this case would come before this Board again. Chairman Bowen explained that the applicant would have to come before P&Z again and that there would be another hearing. Mr. Fitzwater stated that the duplexes on Holiday Lane, Connie Lane and April are nice looking places, but the fences are always in disarray. The property owners in that area do not take care of those places. Everyone has a fence. That makes or breaks your place when you have a fence. These fences are never updated or kept up. Also, is he going to sell these houses? Chairman Bowen stated each site can be sold separately in a duplex. Mr. Fitzwater asked if they are privately owned can they be leased out after they are bought? Chairman Bowen answered yes -- any place can be leased out. The Chairman also explained that when a fence is residential against residential there are no special requirements regarding fencing. Mr. Fitzwater asked if a brick fence would be put up? Chairman Bowen and other Commissioners responded "no." Chairman Bowen explained that a masonry wall would not be required. Jeff Holden, 8312 Juniper Drive, lives down the street from the property that will be developed into duplexes. Mr. Holden stated that the taxable value of his street has dropped below $90,000. He doesn't understand how the applicant is Page 3 09/26/02 P & Z Minutes going to get $103,000 for half a house. Mr. Holden stated that there are duplexes behind his house that have grass higher than a 6' fence. He stated that there are duplexes all along Starnes and Davis and it looks like a shantytown. He is concerned that his neighborhood is going to turn into a shantytown. He is also concerned about cars racing up and down the street and tractor-trailer parking in the area. He would prefer to see single family homes rather than duplexes. Aaron Reale, 8204 Starnes, lives directly across the street from where the duplexes would be built. He stated that he bought his house about 4 years ago and prior to that he rented in Hurst across the street from duplexes. He stated that those duplexes turned over often which is a concern of his for this proposed development. He stated that he moved to North Richland Hills because it is a good town. At time of purchase, his home's tax appraisal was $102,000. He stated that his tax appraisal last year was $134,000. Mr. Reale said that, based on the prior gentleman's statements, he does not wish to lose the equity in his home because of what is built across the street. He stated that duplexes are always rental property and that he has never known anybody who owned a duplex and lived there, unless they lived in one side and leased out the other. He stated that traffic is another issue. Between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m., he may sit in his driveway for 5 or 6 minutes trying to back into the street. His five children cannot play in the front yard because people drive 50 mph down Starnes. Property value and traffic are his biggest concerns. Jack Vise, 7420 Forrest Lane, stated that his backyard is on the property line with this particular lot. His concerns are the same as everyone else -- property value, traffic, and access. He is also concerned about placement of the buildings and landscaping, especially fencing barriers. He stated that there is a water shed and several times last year his backyard became a river. How is this development going to affect the water shed? Chairman Bowen explained that water is not a zoning issue, but would be addressed at the platting stage when the applicant's engineer would have to satisfy the Public Works city engineer that he is not going to cause a water problem. Orville Crow, 7432 Forrest, stated that he lives near the dead end of Jack and he would like to see that area cleared. He stated that he contends with wild varmints coming into his yard and, other than beautiful trees back there, it is an eye sore. He was excited that there might possibly be an owners purchase. He feels town homes coming in might clean it up and hold the trees. His concern is the rental property. He stated that if the duplexes are built and can't be sold, then the alternative would be leasing. Mr. Crow would hate to have a lot of transient traffic. Susan Fitzwater, 7409 Forrest, asked for clarification of R-4-D. Page 4 09/26/02 P & Z Minutes Chairman Bowen stated that R-4-D allows two dwellings with zero lot line. Mrs. Fitzwater asked if the zoning allows only duplexes and nothing else and would they be strictly single story? Chairman Bowen stated that they would have to be duplexes but they would not have to be single story, although that is what the applicant is proposing. Mrs. Fitzwater asked if the applicant could build two-story if he receives the zoning change. Chairman Bowen responded affirmatively. Mr. Tucker added that's true with any residential. Mrs. Fitzwater stated that the current zoning is C-1 and she would like to see a dentist office or something quiet like that with minimal day time activity. Chairman Bowen explained that C-1 is equivalent to retail zoning, which is light commercial, but this site may not be viable for commercial since it is so far off of Davis Blvd. The Chairman then read, for the record, those who do not wish to speak but are opposed to this request. Clayton Sherley, 7404 Forrest Lane, who is opposed, and the Bertrums, 7400 Forrest Lane, who are not opposed but have a lot of concerns. George Tucker stated that since the applicant has withdrawn his zoning request, the Commission cannot take into consideration the citizens comments. Chairman Bowen stated that he is allowing those present to speak because the applicant is interested in what they want to say which could help the applicant develop a request for duplexes that is responsive to the neighbors concerns. The Chairman stated that he, too, is interested in what the neighbors have to say. Mr. Reale, 8204 Starnes, returned to the podium to state that he would like to see $200,000 single family homes built on the 16 or so lots. Chairman Bowen explained that the site could be rezoned residential. Jeff McKinney, the applicant, stated that he would be glad to discuss this further on the telephone with any of the audience members. He stated that, financially, regular residential lots are not feasible. The development would have to be commercial, which is not the best use, or duplexes. He stated that he is pro- trees and if he has to remove any of the trees, he hopes to transplant them into his own yard. Page 5 09/26/02 P & Z Minutes The Chairman asked if the applicant would like to formally request that this be tabled? The applicant responded yes, however, Mr. Schopper suggested that the applicant withdraw the request rather than table it. Mr. Schopper stated that he is hostile to a request for duplexes. He stated that the minimum house size was recently raised to 1800 sq. ft., yet now there is a request for 1200 sq. ft. duplexes. Mr. Schopper owns two homes on Timberhill, the next street over from this development. He stated that it is a neat neighborhood and this development is not going to help property values. He agrees with the assessment that down below the grade is an eye sore. Chairman Bowen stated that he also would be opposed to duplexes. The Chairman closed the public hearing and called for a motion. Mr. Tucker, seconded by Mr. Schopper, motioned to withdraw PZ 2002-23. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 5. PZ 2002-24 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM DARCY BOATMAN AND BRADLEY THOMPSON FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM R-2 RESIDENTIAL TO R-1-S SPECIAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AT 7003 AND 7005 SMITHFIELD ROAD (3.26 ACRES). APPROVED Dave Green, Zoning Administrator, explained the background of this case. The two applicants have property adjacent to one another. Mr. Thompson's property is at 7003 Smithfield and Mr. Boatman's property is at 7005 Smithfield. Their request is to change from R-2 Residential to R-1-S Special Single Family Residential. The R-1-S district permits the keeping of livestock in a residential setting with the minimum of 1-acre size. Mr. Thompson's property is about 1.5 acres. Mr. Boatman's property is 1.8 acres. With regard to accessory buildings, there is a tremendous amount of difference between R-2 and R-1-S. R-1-S allows barns and pens for livestock and therefore allows a larger square footage for accessory buildings, while R-2 limits accessory buildings to 500 square feet. There are no masonry requirements for accessory buildings in an R-1-S and there does not have to be a concrete drive from an existing street to a barn. The Comprehensive Plan calls for single-family detached type uses for these properties. R-1-S fulfills the Comprehensive Plan requirements. Mr. Green further explained that Mr. Thompson has just completed building a large house at 7003 Smithfield. Last month, Mr. Thompson received a variance from the Board of Adjustment, which allowed him to exceed the 500 square foot minimum for an accessory building, therefore he is in the process of building a 900-sq. ft. Page 6 09/26/02 P & Z Minutes accessory garage. Mr. Boatman also requested a variance from the Board of Adjustment to build a large single family residential structure to a greater height than permitted under R-2 ordinance. (R-2 permits 38-ft height and Mr. Boatman requested 43-ft height.) Mr. Boatman was granted a variance. They are now coming forward with a zoning change request. Darcy Boatman, 7113 Barbados, stated that he is planning to build a home for himself at 7005 Smithfield. He stated that he does not plan to raise animals, but is requesting the zoning change so that in addition to the house he can build a pool, pool house, detached garage, and racquetball court. Mr. Boatman stated that he is planning on using brick so the facilities won't be an eye sore. Tim Welch asked why the ZBA request only addressed the height of the home rather than also requesting a variance for the other structures. Also, why are the applicants now requesting a zoning change? Mr. Boatman responded that he was following the direction of the City staff. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing and stated, for the record, that the P&Z Commission had received a letter from Lori & David Horak, 7816 Noneman Street, expressing concerns regarding livestock. The Chairman stated that the ordinance effectively takes care of their immediate concerns. The Chairman closed the public hearing. Bill Schopper stated that he believes the bigger lots are what makes part of North Richland Hills "really cooL" He stated that on Little Ranch there are horses and barns, and on the south side of Hightower there is a new brick home and a "cool" metal building. He stated that he moved to that part of North Richland Hills for this type of variety. He stated that this "is what makes this town cool and I like encouraging some of the spreads with the big buildings and stuff." He stated that R-1-S is the only way to do that. Mr. Schopper, seconded by Mr. Welch, motioned to approve PZ 2002-24. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 6. PZ 2002-26 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS AND COVENANT PLACE OF RICHLAND HILLS FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO U SCHOOL, CHURCH, AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT IN THE 7800 BLOCK OF NORTH RICHLAND BOULEVARD (1.64 ACRES). APPROVED Page 7 09/26/02 P & Z Minutes Dave Green, Zoning Administrator, summarized the case. In 1995 there was a Planned Development approved for The Covenant Group for an assisted living facility and, next door, an Alzheimer's facility. The assisted living unit was built on the property east of the site, but the balance of the property is still undeveloped and vacant. The Covenant Group has no desire to construct the Alzheimer's facility and the City Parks Department approached The Covenant Group and purchased the property with the intention of developing it into a neighborhood park. There will not be a parking area involved. This is strictly neighborhood access by sidewalk and street. There could be a small pavilion, small playground area, and perhaps a meandering trail. The intended use is very low key in terms of activity. Since it is currently zoned PD for an Alzheimer's Clinic, the owner, The Covenant Group and the City are all coming forward and asking that the property be rezoned to U, which is the district for institutional-type uses. Both the use of it as a park and the zoning are not in conflict but rather complement each other. A member of The Covenant Group is present if you have any questions. Mr. Welch asked for the Board of Adjustments comment on September 19, 2002. Mr. Green explained that when the PD was approved in 1995, there was a requirement of a minimum of 4 acres for a PD. At the time, the site was slightly over 4 acres. Taking away the area for the park leaves the existing assisted living facility less than 4 acres in size. The Legal Staff from The Covenant Group came forward and stated that they wanted to make absolutely sure that in the future this existing property would not get tagged as nonconforming because it no longer meets the 4-acre regulation. The Board of Adjustments approved the request. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing. No one wished to speak and the Chairman closed the Public Hearing and called for a motion. Mr. Schopper, seconded by Mr. Tucker, motioned to approve PZ 2002-26. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 7. DISCUSSION OF REVISIONS TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND MASONRY REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. APPROVED Mr. Pitstick stated that a work session with the City Council and the Planning & Zoning Commission is scheduled for Thursday, October 3 from 4-6 p.m. at the Fire Training Center. Issues to be discussed are masonry and planned development categories. Staff would like to take this time to gain understanding of the direction P&Z wants to go with masonry and the PD categories. Page 8 09/26/02 P & Z Minutes Currently, under residential, new masonry construction consists of any combination of brick or stone, or if approved by City Council, other equivalent in appearance, masonry materials. The exterior wall surface shall be defined as the area between the exposed exterior wall surface between the top of the foundation and the plate of the first floor. The way it is enforced is that 75% of the residential unit of the first floor must be either brick or stone. On the second floor, around town you'll see siding, hardy plank, you may even see stucco because there is no requirement for masonry in those areas. Alternative materials are only allowed under an SUP or PD. Dave Pendley, Building Official, came forward to explain non-residential masonry materials, precast or reinforced concrete, EIFS products and other concrete materials. He started with brick and continued with precast light-weight synthetic stone. He stated that the synthetic stone does not have the longer warranty as brick, but it does last about 30 years. It is put on like stucco. The back is rough edge. A steel screening is attached to building and that screening is then coated with a scratch resistant, basically, stucco. After drying for 24 to 48 hours, another coat of stucco-like material is applied. When it is done it looks like regular stone, but it is lighter The Chairman asked how this compares in cost to a regular stone. Mr. Pendley replied that it is cheaper than brick. Mr. Tucker stated that this material is already allowed. Mr. Pendley responded that the City does not encourage it, but it is allowed. Mr. Pendley then showed another material, made of fiberglass that falls under the precast concrete material. It can be 8-1/2 or 8' x 4' sheets and is attached to the building and gives the feel and look of concrete block Mr. Laubacher asked whether or not it is allowed. Mr. Pendley replied that the interpretation is that it is not allowed because it is more like plastic and it does look like plastic on the ends. It would have to be trimmed. Mr. Pendley then showed a sample of hardi plank. It is durable material, but it is not indestructible. It is reinforced fiber cement board. It is better than hard board siding. Mr. Schopper asked if the gables would need to be painted if hardi plank was used. Page 9 09/26/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Pendley replied that the color stays, however, they should be painted because the product is basically wood and can deteriorate in the winter time. The fibers soak up water and expand and contract. That is what makes the hardi plank deteriorate. Mr. Schopper stated that he was under the impression that hardi plank was a permanent color. Mr. Pendley stated that he doesn't agree. He speaks from experience having done experiments with hardi plank. Mr. Lewis asked if hardi plank is the material that was used in Home Town? Mr. Pendley stated that it is the primary siding material in Home Town. Mr. Lewis asked if the hardi plank retains paint better than wood. Mr. Pendley stated that if the wood has a rougher surface, it would retain paint. Mr. Lewis wondered if hardi plank would be better than wood because it seems that the paint that contractors use deteriorates in 3 to 4 years, and homeowners don't repaint as frequently as we might wish. Mr. Pendley stated that his house is two years old and has hardi siding on the second floor that is wearing off. He stated that it depends not just on the hardi plank, but also on the type and quality of paint that is used. He then introduced EIFS. A sample of EFIS was recently brought before P&Z and some members pounded on the product with a sledge hammer. Regular EFIS will only have one layer, possible zero layers and a pencil can be pushed through it. The type of EFIS proposed for use in the City is pretty hard and not easily destroyed. Chairman Bowen asked if Mr. Pendley thought EFIS should be approved. Mr. Pendley stated that it could be applied to the smaller commercial buildings with the same limitations as the larger commercial buildings, above 8-ft. Then, there is some guarantee that kids are not going to kick it or poke their pocket knives through it. Mr. Pitstick stated that staff is leaning towards being consistent. A definition of "reinforced concrete materials" is needed. The EIFS product is allowed under the building code, in fact, all of these materials are allowed under the building code, but this is a zoning issue. Mr. Schopper stated that he isn't sure that hardi plank or siding is appropriate on commercial buildings. He would prefer brick, masonry, and stone, and staying away from metal buildings. Page 10 09/26/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Tucker stated that he would allow EIFS. Mr. Schopper stated that in 10 to 15 years, EFIS will not look as good as traditional quality, solid looking buildings. He asked if stucco is EFIS? Mr. Pitstick stated that stucco is layered on site, whereas EIFS is manufactured offs ite. Mr. Pendley added that EIFS is lighter and can be applied faster. EFIS allows ornate shapes because Styrofoam can be cut to whatever shape is desired. A long arch can be constructed without worrying about the weight involved. Mr. Laubacher asked Mr. Pendley what kind of definition should be given that makes sense? Mr. Pitstick replied that the Building Official has a lot of discretion in what he does. He makes interpretations on a daily basis, but what is needed from P&Z is a general direction. The precast or reinforced concrete materials could be used and something else added of a decorative nature. Chairman Bowen asked if it is cheaper and thus more attractive to developers. Mr. Pendley responded that contractors fight to keep it. Mr. Schopper asked if it can be classified based on % of masonry. Mr. Pendley responded that he would classify it - for instance, 45% based on cement content. Chairman Bowen stated that other products were more than 45%. Mr. Pendley responded that the pumas and the perlite are volcanic, like stone. Mr. Pitstick stated that reinforced concrete material could be used and define that the concrete material must consist of 60% (for instance). To lean the contractors in the right direction, words like "decorative" or "craftsman," could be used. He asked the Commission members if they are interested in considering the reinforced EIFS, above 8'. The members responded yes. Mr. Schopper asked if national chains would be turned away from the City because City codes would not allow the chains to build their cookie-cutter buildings. Mr. Pitstick responded that CVS Pharmacy came in with their typical cookie cutter deal and wanted to use EIFS. The City said no. CVS built it to City specifications and then said that they liked it better with the masonry product. Page 11 09/26/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Pitstick then stated that to summarize, the Commission is open to stucco, hardi plank, and reinforced EIFS. A definition is needed for produce on all non- residential buildings. A better definition is needed for reinforced concrete materials. A percentage is needed and something about decorative or craftsman related. Moving to residential, it doesn't allow tilt wall, for concrete block, or the precast stuff per zoning ordinance. Mr. Schopper stated that he wishes to eliminate the second stories with fading paint. Mr. Pitstick asked for confirmation that the majority of P&Z wishes to consider more than the first floor. Mr. Tucker said that it would give the house more of a stately look. Mr. Schopper would like to leave it 75%, but consider both floors. That would bring it up to the eave. Mr. Pitstick summarized: 75% of all walls and consider the masonry for non- residential to be basically only allowing up to 15% for building trim and accent areas on non-residential. Allow stucco, hardi plank, or reinforced EIFS. Ms. Cole stated that almost all the relocation company's are no longer allowing any stucco or EIFS of any form. If any portion of the house has stucco or EIFS, the transferee can purchase the home, but if they are transferred back out, the company will not participate in the purchase of the home because the application of the EFIS product is poor. Door or windows are not properly sealed and moisture is getting in. The relocation companies have taken a stand on it. Mr. Laubacher wondered why there are so many problems with stucco. Mr. Pendley responded that oftentimes it is the installation. A lot of builders don't know the proper placement of vapor barriers. They will put insulation on both the inside of the house and the exterior walls, and the moisture cannot get out. Mr. Pitstick asked for a comment for stucco or EFIS on residential. Chairman Bowen responded that he does not want EIFS on residential. Mr. Pitstick responded: No EIFS then. 25% of the entire wall surface can be used for siding, hardi plank, or stucco. Mr. Schopper wondered if it should be 75% of the bottom, or 75% of the bottom of each elevation. He stated that he has seen some checkerboard pattern bricks and one with big pimples coming out of the side of the brick with black tips. He does not wish to see that. Page 12 09/26/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Pitstick mentioned that taste cannot be legislated. Mr. Welch suggested 100% elevation on the front and 75% on the rest. Mr. Pitstick wondered if that would allow for creativity. Mr. Schopper stated that there would not be any front gable things or any cool little circle things that have details on them. Ms. Cole stated that cool circles could be of brick. Mr. Schopper asked if the 100% should be on the front or just above 8'? He believes it needs to be the bottom 75 of each elevation. Decorative should be high, not low. Mr. Pitstick stated that the alternative materials should only be used above 8' so it is consistent. For residential, 75% of all walls must be masonry. Commercial buildings can be 100%, but allow 15% of accent materials above 8'. Allow EIFS in the commercial buildings. Mr. Pitstick then shifted to PD's. The purpose for the current PD regulations is to encourage opportunities for development innovation by mixed use developments. Under the ordinance, 4 acres are required for a PD. Staff has recommended looking at 3-acre PD regulations. Council is looking to close some loop holes yet leave some flexibility. In redevelopment of existing sites, there is not a limit on the minimum acres or deviations but there must be a base district for comparison. For instance, if the applicant wants to build a building in C-1 and asks for a PD because of deviations, Staff has the C-1 district to compare to. That's all were asking for. Staff is also asking for a base district designation and minimum size for PD's for new residential developments We had discussed allowing the deviation for area and lot requirements as long as the maximum density is not exceeded. On the last 3 PD's, Glenwyck Villas, The Estates at North Richland Hills, and Fountain Ridge, there were 40' and 50' wide lots. The base district for R-3 is 4.8 units per acre. There is only one of those that exceeded that units per acre. The Estates has 4.03 units per acre. Fountain Ridge had 3.76 unit per acre with 40' wide lots. Lesser width and depth is allowed as long as we get it back. What we got back on these developments was open space. The Estates have 13.8 % of open space and Fountain Ridge has 12.2 % of open space. Mr. Schopper asked for an explanation of a developer's motivation to do a PO if the density is the same as straight zoning? Mr. Pitstick explained that it is set up as a unique development situation, other than financial, such as an existing drainage feature that the developer can take advantage of. There may be an easement that goes through the development. Page 13 09/26/02 P & Z Minutes In the case of the Estates, we had gas and oil easements going through the development. He explained that the purpose of clarifying PD's is to give parameters to the developers and the staff instead of leaving it wide open. The developers want as much density as possible and currently there is no definitive direction to give him. More definition is needed to hold the developer to why he wants a PD; what is the unique situation. Mr. Schopper stated that he now has a better understanding of this matter. He stated that we are not giving anything away. Mr. Pitstick explained that in R-1 the maximum density is 2.9, in R-2 it's 4, in R-3 it's 4.8, in R-4 it's 9.9, in R-6-T it's 11.6, in R-8 it's 8.7, and in R-7-MF it's 16 units per acre. With a PD, staff can accept smaller lots or smaller houses, but the developer cannot exceed the overall density in each one of those districts. The developer must abide by those general parameters. Other than that, we'll work with the developer. If there is unusable property in one area, we'll make it work for the developer. If he has 100 acres, on that whole 100 acres he is not going to get more than 4.8 units per acre. He may have some 40' lots; he may have some 80' lots; he can vary those. Mr. Pitstick further stated that staff recommends designating a base district so there is something to compare to. He further suggested a 4-lot minimum without an acreage designation. He also reminded the Commission that they do not have to allow PD's. Mr. Welch stated that with a PD there is a lot more give and take -- landscaping, articulation -- there are a lot of things. Mr. Pitstick reminded the Commission that the states and foundries are a good example with 13.8% and 12.2%, respectively, of open space. He suggested that the Commission designate 10% as open space on PD's. Mr. Welch stated that the developments with an open space will have to have HOA's. Mr. Pitstick asked Ms. Cole for her opinion on open space. Ms. Cole replied that HOA's concern her. She feels they are out-of-hand. Chairman Bowen agreed that he is not in favor of HOA's either. Mr. Pitstick then moved onto mixed use developments. He stated that staff is, again, recommending a designation of a base district. Is there a minimum size now? He stated that Mr. Tucker has recommended limiting it to 40% of residential uses. Mr. Schopper stated that he would be for mixed use development if the developers change the percentage and bring more of a tax base. Page 14 09/26/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Pitstick asked if the Commission would prefer a minimum acreage on mixed use. Chairman Bowen stated that a PD is suppose to be a mixed use. All residential or all commercial is not a mixed use. Mr. Schopper asked for an example of mixed use. Mr. Pitstick replied that the case on the agenda this evening where the applicant had Davis on one side and he owned a deep tract and wanted retail space, but also a buffer for the residential neighborhood. He put in one row of residential and used that as a buffer against the retail up front. That could be a mixed use PD. Mr. Schopper stated that he does not want to run anyone off that might have an opportunity to pull something together. Ms. Cole stated that she prefers 40% residential. Mr. Schopper asked if there was a possibility that the applicant could rezone first to change the base zoning and then try to do a PD? Mr. Welch stated that they would then have to bring a site plan. Mr. Laubacher asked if a mixed use development could be commercial and residential? Couldn't it be commercial and office? Mr. Pitstick replied no - that is not considered mixed use. Mr. Welch stated that the mix is between residential and non-residential. Mr. Pitstick thanked the Commission for their input and direction. 8. DISCUSSION OF OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS. There were no other items for discussion. 9. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:00p.m. Page 15 09/26/02 P & Z Minutes Chairman ~Q~ on Bowen Page 16 09/26/02 P & Z Minutes Secretary 1dø~ Ted Nehring .