Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2002-10-24 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS OCTOBER 24, 2002 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Don Bowen at 7:01 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Don Bowen Bill Schopper George Tucker James Laubacher Brenda Cole John Lewis Alternate Place 5 Commission Member Tim Welch resigned effective October 24, 2002, as he is running uncontested for election to City Council, Place 7. ABSENT Ted Nehring CITY STAFF Director of Development Zoning Administrator Asst. Director of Public Works Engineer Associate Recording Secretary John Pitstick Dave Green Lance Barton Jon Lovell Eliza Margenau 3. CONSIDERATION OF THE REVISED MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 26, 2002 MEETING, AND CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 10, 2002 MEETING. APPROVED Mr. Tucker, seconded by Ms. Cole, motioned to approve the revised minutes of September 26, 2002 and the minutes of October 10, 2002. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). Page 1 10/24/02 P & Z Minutes Chairman Bowen moved agenda item 6 to the top of the agenda order. 6. PZ 2002-40 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY THE HOOVER/KLEIN GROUP, INC. FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF EMBER OAKS ADDITION PHASE III LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF BURSEY ROAD AND DAVIS BOULEVARD (17.14 ACRES). APPROVED Zoning Administrator Dave Green summarized the case. This is a final plat. It is a combination of residential and commercial and is located primarily at the intersection of Bursey Road and Davis Blvd. A portion of the development is on the north side of Bursey Road and another portion is on the south side. The applicants approached staff earlier this year with a rezoning of the site from commercial to residential for these two portions of the site, reducing the size of the original commercial tracts fronting Davis. The use was approved as a PD. The applicants recently obtained preliminary plat approval from the Commission and are now requesting finalization of the platting process. There are no outstanding issues with the final plat. Staff recommends approval. Chairman Bowen called for questions. There were none and the Chairman called for a motion. Mr. Lewis, seconded by Mr. Laubacher, motioned to approve PZ 2002-40. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). John Pitstick informed the Commission that the applicants of agenda item #8 (PZ 2002-32) would be asking for a postponement this evening. The Chairman agreed to hear item #8 next. 8. PZ 2002-32 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM MIKE CLARK REPRESENTING MARGARET CHASE CHAMBLESS AND CARDINAL LANE INVESTORS LLC FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM "I-L" LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND "AG" AGRICULTURAL TO "0-1" OFFICE AT 8901 CARDINAL LANE (18.278 ACRES). POSTPONED Page 2 1 0/24/02 P & Z Minutes Zoning Administrator Dave Green summarized this rezoning case, which involves two tracts of land. The property is currently zoned AG and Industrial and the applicant would like to rezone to 0-1 (Office). There are three things being reviewed: the zoning request, the plat request, and a thoroughfare plan change. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request. Chairman Bowen opened the Public Hearing. Michael Clark, Winkelman & Associates, 6750 Hillcrest Plaza #100, Dallas, Texas, 75230, representing the applicants, stated that he would like to request a continuance to the next P&Z meeting on November 14, 2002. He stated that there was an issue which was not resolved in a timely enough fashion to come before the Commission. The Chairman closed the public hearing and called for a motion. Mr. Schopper, seconded by Ms. Cole, motioned to postpone PZ 2002-32 to November 14, 2002. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). 4. PS 2001-33 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY B.H. & L. JOINT VENTURE FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF FOREST GLENN EAST ADDITION PHASE II LOCATED IN THE 8000 BLOCK OF DAVIS BOULEVARD. (37.29 ACRES) NO RECOMMENDATION Zoning Administrator Dave Green summarized the case. This is a final plat for phase II of the Forest Glenn East Subdivision. It consists of 115 residential lots and two commercial lots. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for low- density residential type development. A few technical items have not been resolved. A letter from Public Works addresses additional issues. A preliminary plat has a shelf life of about three years and then it becomes null or void. The original preliminary plat for this subdivision was approved in 1998. Because so much time has passed, the plat needs to be revised. There are a number of traffic circulation issues. A traffic impact analysis should be done to determine if there is a need for a collector type street through this particular area. It appears that there is significant encroachment to the Little Bear Creek area, and that there has been unauthorized grading and drainage fill work in that area. It appears that the City's tree preservation ordinance has not been followed. Staff does not recommend approval of this plat until further discussion occurs to resolve these issues. Mr. Green explained that the reason this item is on the agenda is that the applicant requested that it be placed there so he could obtain Page 3 10/24/02 P & Z Minutes an answer on this plat. Staff honored his request and put it on the agenda, but staff still has issues on this particular plat. Mr. Tucker wanted to know if staff responded in a timely manner to the engineer and developer. Mr. Green responded that this case was an extremely complicated situation. He explained that the staff is relatively new, most having been here less than two years, so staff had to go back and piece together the history of the site, and then draft comments to the applicant. That took more than the normal timeframe. Staff would not yet have brought this case forward on an agenda, but did so at the request of the applicant. Mr. Tucker commented that he thought that there are certain limitations of how long a process should or should not take. Mr. Green responded that it might require an opinion from the legal department but staff contends that this is no longer a valid plat. Mr. Tucker responded, "That also is a legal matter." Mr. Schopper asked why it takes three years to get a plat through. He stated that some of the neighboring cities are at nine months. He commented, "and we have been dealing with this for three years?" Mr. Green clarified that staff has not been looking at this for three years. He explained that it has been three years since the preliminary was submitted. The first phase was finalled. This is the second phase that has come through in the past three years. The applicant chose to take three years to get to this point. A three-year timeframe in the subdivision rules says the preliminary plat is no longer valid. Mr. Schopper stated that he is okay with some of the comments that the engineers made about the flood plain and roads, but he thinks it is silly that the predecessors' work is null and void. Mr. Green explained that when staff looks at something, there are new things that have to be dealt with which staff did not know existed, since no staff members have been here long enough who can put all the pieces together. It is a conflict that staff deals with every day. Mr. Schopper stated that his point is that he wonders if there could be a little bit of trust that the previous guys knew what was going on and that they got it to preliminary. Page 4 10/24/02 P & Z Minutes Dave Green responded that it is possible, if the records exist, to find what it is that they did, but staff does not have a systematic way to go back and know who said what about when or where. He explained that with this plat the answers are not easily apparent and staff has had to hunt for them. Mr. Schopper responded that he is more comfortable working with this as a preliminary plat and making changes to it as opposed to saying it is void as a preliminary plat. Mr. Green agreed that staff could support that position and would like to see this resubmitted as a preliminary plat. Chairman Bowen pointed out, though, that this is a final plat and the City would not get another shot at it. Mr. Tucker stated that he is concerned that the developer is being penalized for turnover in staff. Mr. Schopper asked for an explanation of what, specifically, has changed in the rules and regulations between 1998 and today? Dave Green responded that a traffic impact analysis is now required. He stated that the Little Bear Creek Ordinance had been in place before the submittal of this preliminary plat and the encroachment into that area must be resolved. A drainage study is needed to help resolve that matter. The developer, Owen D. Long, came forward. (He is the "L" of B. H. & L. Joint Venture.) He stated that he would like to apologize a little bit for why, and the way, that they are before the Commission this evening. He stated that he submitted the final plat to the City on June 6, 2002 and received a first response on September 12, 2002. At that point, he was told that he needed to have the preliminary plat re-approved because it had expired. He stated that the ordinance says that when a preliminary plat is approved, there is one year from date of approval to file the final plat unless filed in phases and then there are three years from date of approval. He stated that the final plat of Phase I was approved in 2001. He was already working on the preliminary plat of Phase II, which took a long time because of requirements such as a CLOMR for Little Bear Creek Corridor, and core approval to take out a concrete ditch. He sought permission to do dirt in-fill because he was trying to get the dirt from the Target and Wal-Mart sites as they excavated. He stated that staff gave him a permit to do that. He stated that he would like to give the Commission information and a history as to why this took so long. He stated that they started out with a thoroughfare plan, but, instead, they came in with the master zoning of all of the area on Davis Boulevard and North Tarrant. He stated that they were looking at a road tying Page 5 10/24/02 P & Z Minutes into old Davis Lane. They found out that Davis Lane was a private lane and they could not use it. Then, Brandonwood Subdivision came in and the collector was taken out. Additional changes occurred as Phase I progressed and was completed. Mr. Long said that there were discussions with Greg Dickens, the Director of Public Works at the time, as to the proper width and right-of-way of the streets. Mr. Long stated that if staff wants a collector figure, he would volunteer to make the street 41-ft. He stated that he has his engineer, a former City employee, working on a drainage study of the Little Bear Creek area. He stated that his engineer has found quite a few errors in the existing Little Bear Creek Corridor Ordinance. He stated that he set aside 15-acres of wetland for the City in order to get Phase I approved and he is willing to sell another 7 -acres to the City, but both of those items are on hold pending future plans. There is an additional 10-11 acres set aside for the Little Bear Creek Corridor. He stated that the City passed the Little Bear Creek Corridor Ordinance without input from the owners of the land up and down the corridor. He stated that he is willing to work with that and give a certain amount of ground. He gave about 35-acres to the Corridor for Thornbridge. He stated that they are not trying to "up and walk away" from the Corridor ordinance but they want to massage it. He then restated that he could not get an answer from staff and he had a need for the lots in Phase II since all of the lots in Phase I had sold. He had people wanting to buy and he wanted to keep the bandwagon going. He stated that he would like to see this approved. He stated that if the Commission wished to approve subject to a 41-ft. street and a traffic analysis, he would agree to that. He stated that if P&Z turns him down, he would appeal to Council anyway and try to make his case to them because he has too much money involved already and is committed to this plan. Chairman Bowen asked Assistant Director of Public Works, Lance Barton, if a wider collector street is needed. Mr. Barton responded that the only way that question could be answered is by having a traffic impact analysis performed. Mr. Barton also pointed out, in defense of his department, that a letter dated July 17,2002, from Knolton- English-Flowers, Inc. (consulting engineers) to Mike Curtis contains a full review of the plan set. A review was performed in a timely fashion and comments made, in addition to other comments made since this letter. Chairman Bowen asked if the letter was forwarded to Doug. Mr. Barton responded that he could only assume it had been. Mr. Lewis asked if there is a possibility of challenging the 3-year expiration of the original plat. Mr. Tucker responded that he believes there is a challenge to the 3-year expiration. Mr. Schopper stated that he also believes there should be a Page 6 10/24/02 P & Z Minutes challenge since "there has been way too much time, money, and effort that has gone into it for it to just arbitrarily expire". Mr. Lewis stated that apparently there are ordinances stating there is a timeframe, and that timeframe has expired. He commented that the applicant might have a justified grievance since he feels that the department did not react in a timely manner once his request came forward, but Mr. Lewis thinks that the Commission would be in error if the department is not allowed to do their diligent work, study the traffic, study the Bear Creek corridor issues and so on. He stated that he supports denial and would ask the applicant to redo it. Mr. Schopper stated that he partly agrees. He would support the traffic study since a collector would make sense. However, the applicant is saying that he is willing to put in a collector. Mr. Lewis asked if the Little Bear Creek Corridor is being properly managed. Mr. Tucker commented that it would be answered when the courts get involved with the City in that one. Mr. Pitstick asked the Chairman for the floor. He stated that staff would like to work with the developer. The area is zoned for single family development. The lots are the right size. Staff wants to work with the developer but there is some information that staff does not have. This has not held up the developer. He has been developing it without a plat. Mr. Pitstick stated that he has been with the City two and a half years and he has been told by Planning and Zoning and City Council that they do not want development to occur without Planning and Zoning and City Council seeing a plat. Yet, even without a plat, the developer has proceeded. He built streets and water lines in the flood plain. Staff is asking for more information, and better information, to get this resolved. The development is in violation of the Little Bear Creek Ordinance. While there were some early grading permits issued, the developer has clearly gone beyond that. He is developing without a final plat and does not have final engineering plans. The developer has built many homes in this community and staff wants to support that, but there is not a final plat of record and shouldn't be until these issues are resolved. Staff has asked for a traffic study, and an upgraded grading study, and a resolution of the Little Bear Creek Corridor. The developer stated that he hasn't gotten those requests, but staff has asked for them. Staff certainly supports residential development on this. It may not be that much different than what is being presented to the Commission tonight; the developer may not lose any lots, but staff needs better information to support it. Chairman Bowen commented that if staff does not think they have sufficient information then this project should be stopped and staff allowed to obtain the information. He agreed with Bill (Schopper) on the need for a collector and traffic Page 7 10/24/02 P & Z Minutes light. He stated that, overall, staff does not have enough information to say that this plat is acceptable for a final plat. There were no other comments and the Chairman called for a motion. Mr. Schopper, seconded by Mr. Tucker, motioned to approve PS 2001-33 with the stipulation that the property owner increase the Forest Glenn Drive roadway to the same width as a collector street, and, additionally, pay for a traffic study for a traffic light on Davis Boulevard. Ms. Cole asked for discussion prior to the vote. She is concerned that it is being approved minus the encroachment into Little Bear Creek and the other issues mentioned by staff. Mr. Schopper responded that this has been fooled with long enough and he believes it will go above P&Z anyway. He stated that he thinks it is a staff thing and that previous staffs have approved things. Ms. Cole stated that there are 17 issues on Jon Lovell's October 18, 2002 letter. She asked if Mr. Schopper's motion is approving this request without any consideration for any of the items in Mr. Lovell's letter. Mr. Tucker stated that the developer should be allowed to go forward to a certain extent. He suggested making the motion subject to the developer working with staff to eliminate most of these problems. He stated that if it is denied here it will go to Council and from there it could go to legal and he doesn't think it needs to be carried that far. The Chairman responded that although it could go to a legal proceeding he can't be concerned with that. He knows the applicants, John and Doug, and they do good work, but the current staff says that there are still some problems. Mr. Schopper stated that he also looks at all of the stuff that the developers have done in this community and he has looked at the relationship they have with staff. In this case, he sees staff saying that previous staff didn't leave good notes so the developer is going to be made to start over. Everything on the punch list, for the most part, has been taken care of. Ms. Cole stated that P&Z doesn't typically approve a final plat without the changes that staff has recommended, even if it is minor changes in verbiage to add a screening wall for a dumpster, for instance. Yet, she added, we are asking for approval on this without any consideration for staff changes. Mr. Tucker stated that she could vote how she wished. Page 8 10/24/02 P & Z Minutes Ms. Cole responded that she is trying to understand the motion. She wants to be sure that she understands that the motion does not include any of staffs recommendations except for the 41-ft. and for the traffic study on the light. She stated that she just wants to be clear on that before she votes. She stated that perhaps with an amendment she wouldn't have a problem with it, but that she does have a problem with eliminating all of staffs other recommendations. Mr. Schopper stated that studies set him off. Rather than doing a study to determine if a collector road is needed, he'd rather that the road just be built. He stated that he would stipulate to the other minor stuff that staff is requesting. Chairman Bowen suggested making the motion subject to the engineer's comments. Mr. Schopper, seconded by Mr. Tucker, amended his motion subject to engineer's comments. The applicant, Doug Long, came forward. He stated that he has not seen the engineer's comments. Mr. Schopper handed him the list and Mr. Long stated that he has worked with staff before and they have not been overbearing. He stated that he has no objection if P&Z approves subject to the engineer's comments. Mr. Schopper reiterated "those comments in that letter." Mr. Long stated that he couldn't read them all right now. Mr. Schopper stated he still wants a collector street and a traffic study at Davis Blvd. Mr. Long replied that he would not mind doing that and that he will add a 5-ft. easement on both sides of the street, which will give a 9-1/2-ft. parkway. He stated that the difference between a normal collector and what he is offering is that he will have lots facing that wider residential street. Mr. Schopper, again seconded by Mr. Tucker, restated his motion to approve PS 2001-33 subject to engineer's comments and with the stipulations that the property owner provide a collector street, and provide a traffic study for a traffic light on Davis Boulevard. Ms. Cole asked for another question of staff. She apologized and stated that she finds this very confusing. She stated that in trying to look at staff's synopsis and various things, if the October 18 [memo from Jon Lovell, Engineer] is taken care of, and the traffic study, and the 41, what does staff still need? She asked if P&Z is oversimplifying the motion for this case. Mr. Pitstick stated that he does have a CLOMR, but it does not contain information on how it affects the Little Bear Creek Corridor. Staff does not have enough information to determine if the developer is inside or outside the Little Bear Creek Corridor. Page 9 10/24/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Long stated that he does not have the information yet either. He stated they are working on that right now. Mr. Pitstick said that staff would support the plat if this issue were resolved. Mr. Lewis asked what timeframe is involved to obtain the information to resolve this issue. Mr. Long stated that most of the work is done now but that he does not have a report yet. Chairman Bowen wondered if it would be more appropriate to wait until everyone had the needed information. He would hate for this problem to go to Council since it is P&Z's responsibility to resolve these problems. Ms. Cole stated that it is difficult to approve this case if we still have this issue outstanding. Mr. Tucker, citing his second of Mr. Schopper's motion, asked for a vote under Robert's Rules of Order. Chairman Bowen repeated the motion made by Mr. Schopper and seconded by Mr. Tucker and called for a vote. The motion was denied on a 3-3 tie vote, with Mr. Tucker, Mr. Schopper, and Mr. Laubacher voting for the motion and Mr. Lewis, Ms. Cole and Chairman Bowen voting against the motion. Ms. Cole, seconded by Mr. Lewis, motioned to deny PS 2001-33. Mr. Lewis, Ms. Cole and Chairman Bowen voted for the denial and Mr. Tucker, Mr. Schopper and Mr. Laubacher voted against the denial. Mr. Pitstick asked the developer if it would be possible to have clarification of the encroachment into the Little Bear Creek Corridor prior to the next P&Z meeting. Mr. Long stated that he did not know how long it would take to obtain that information. Chairman Bowen asked John Pitstick if there is any assurance that the plat will not go to City Council until this information is obtained and the issue resolved. Mr. Pitstick explained that a 3-3 vote will go as a denial vote to City Council. He stated that staff will touch base with the City Attorney to verify the denial. Mr. Long came to the podium to state that he believes the City can win in this situation because the City would end up with ten or twelve acres of ground. He stated that he intends to argue over the four to five lots that are encroaching into Page 1 0 10/24/02 P & Z Minutes Little Bear Creek Corridor because he needs those to have lots on both sides of the street. He stated that he is willing to give three access locations plus ten to eleven acres of ground. Chairman Bowen stated that the case is denied and applicant has ten days to talk to staff about an appeal to City Council. 5. PZ 2002-38 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY RUSSELL BRUCE FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF LlL WYO ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 6900 BLOCK OF SMITHFIELD ROAD (2.024 ACRES). APPROVED Zoning Administrator Dave Green summarized the case. This is a two-acre tract of land on Smithfield Road. It is being platted for the purpose of building a single family residence on the site. P&Z approved the preliminary plat. The final plat is in conjunction with the approved preliminary plat. Public Works Department attached a letter making two comments, and staff has responses from the engineer and surveyor. Public Works wants to delete comment #1 on their letter dated October 17, 2002. A response is needed for Public Works Comment #2. Staff recommends approval of this plat with the stipulation that Comment #2 was be met. There were no questions and the Chairman called for a motion. Mr. Laubacher, seconded by Ms. Cole, motioned to approve PS 2002-38 subject to staff comments with the understanding that staff comments includes Item #2 only. The motion was approved unanimously (6-0). Mr. Tucker asked for a five minutes recess. The Chairman granted the recess and then resumed the meeting at 8:08 p.m. 7. PZ 2002-31 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM REBEL PROPERTIES II FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM "1-2" MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL TO "R2" RESIDENTIAL IN THE 6300 BLOCK OF BROWNING DRIVE (30.941 ACRES). APPROVED Zoning Administrator Dave Green summarized the case. This site is a 30-acre tract located on the west end of the City. The property immediately to the Page 11 10/24/02 P & Z Minutes southwest is in Haltom City. The City of Watauga shares a property line to the north. The property is vacant and shows a pronounced slope from the east side down to the west side of the property. Big Fossil Creek parallels to the western boundary of the site and a small tributary provides drainage for this area. In the past year, a preliminary plat, Browning Industrial, was approved, as well as a final plat, but the final plat has never been filed. Therefore, the property still exists as a metes & bounds description tract. The Comprehensive Plan shows the area as industrial use property. The applicant is requesting R-2 zoning, which calls for 9,000 square foot lots with minimum 2,000 square foot houses. Approval will change the Comprehensive Plan. If approved as a residential property, there will then be a large industrial development to the east, Doskocil, a food preparation plant. If this residential rezoning request is approved, it will impact Doskocil's property. The current ordinance requires a screening wall and a 15-ft. landscape setback or buffer when industrial is adjacent to residential. The residential is following the industrial and will create a nonconforming situation on the industrial areas. This may not be a factor now or in the near future, but it's possible that at some point in time expansion of the industrial areas will come up. If Doskocil wanted to expand, they would need to meet these standards before expansion would be allowed. Mr. Schopper stated that it would be a benefit to the property owners to erect a fence to separate the subdivision from the industrial site. Mr. Green replied that the burden is usually placed on the industrial property. The intent of the regulations was to provide a physical buffer or break when industrial is built close to residential. Usually the residential is there first, followed by industrial. The reverse has occurred in this case. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing. Mark Wood, 6317 Riviera Dr., North Richland Hills, came forward and stated that he and his partner, Mark Howe, are the owners of this 30-acre tract located on the north side of Browning Drive, west of the railroad tracks, and across from the north end of Iron Horse Golf course and the new apartments (The Bluffs of Iron Horse) on the south side of Browning Drive. He stated that they are requesting a change from 1-2 to R-2. He stated that this is not a speculative zoning request. They have the lots under contract and 100% of the lots are to be sold pending being able to develop and deliver them. He stated that their contract does include putting up an 8-ft. wood fence on metal poles down the eastern property line. Mr. Wood stated that he and his partner have owned the property for nine years. There was no street access to the site at that time and they have been trying to sell or develop it for industrial uses since purchase. He explained that they entered into an agreement with the City and surrounding property owners to put in Browning Drive, with the City paying for the bridge just west of the site. He Page 12 1 0/24/02 P & Z Minutes stated that the City benefited by gaining new access to retail areas in North Richland Hills. It also improved traffic on 820 and Watauga Road, as well as providing a secondary point of access to North Richland Hills from Denton Highway via Browning Boulevard that previously did not exist. Unfortunately, as soon as Browning Drive was completed, Haltom City banned through truck traffic on Browning, which did not help to promote commercial or industrial use in that area. Mr. Wood went on to explain that he and his partner have worked with the industrial developer who created the final plat that was never filed. They worked on the project for two years, trying to create a 10,000-15,000 sq. ft. industrial building. Unfortunately, the project failed due to market conditions and the developer eventually backed out. Mr. Wood stated that the market has softened significantly and there is virtually no demand for new industrial properties. He stated that there is quite a bit of vacant industrial on Wuliger Way. He said that with the exception of the expansion of H&M Foods (Doskocil), the only new construction of an industrial-type west of the railroad tracks occurred in 1994 on Browning Court. Nothing new has happened since that time. In summary, he stated that based on the inability to market this property as an industrial project, and based on the strong demand for it as a residential project, he respectfully requested approval for his request. Mr. Lewis stated that he has a concern about the processing plant and the odor that emits from it. Should residential homes be put adjacent to that environment? Mr. Wood stated that it is a valid concern. There were grease issues clogging up the sewers. The city worked diligently to clean up the problems, which have been solved. As H&M continued to grow, they created more concrete, which created more drainage. Mr. Wood stated that he gave H&M a 20-ft. easement on the east property line from the north end to the south cross ditch. They put in a 22-ft. wide drop inlet to pick up a 100-year flood plain to alleviate some of the drainage issues. Chairman Bowen commented that if it were an existing problem there probably would have been complaints from the City of Watauga, which has many single- family residences in the area. The Chairman asked Mr. Woods if the property to the west owned by the City of Watauga is in the flood plain? Mr. Woods stated that most of it probably is. He stated that there is an area west of the creek at the southern end that fronts Browning, where they came in and did some fill. The existing houses were developed up to the (then) current conditions of the flood plain. Since Watauga bought it, they have filled in a good portion of that area. Everything north is in the flood plain. Mark Howe stated that there is a little bit of land along the east side of the creek that is not in the 1 OO-year flood. He stated that the City of Watauga doesn't have access to it and the applicants can't use it because they don't own it. He stated that they plan to back lots up to it. Page 13 10/24/02 P & Z Minutes Chairman Bowen called for anyone else wishing to speak for or against this case. There were none and the Chairman closed the public hearing. He called for comments from the Commission. Mr. Schopper commented that this is not just an island of residential surrounded by industrial. There is the Iron Horse Golf Course and apartments nearby. He stated that it is contiguous to other uses and that residential makes sense there. Chairman Bowen stated that he does not believe it will ever develop as an industrial use. Mr. Laubacher commented that although the Comprehensive Plan calls for industrial use, a very good argument was made for making it residential. Ms. Cole, seconded by Mr. Schopper, motioned to approve PZ 2002-31. The motion was approved unanimously (6-0). Mr. Laubacher asked if anything needed to be done to amend the land use plan. Mr. Pitstick explained that if the ordinance is passed by City Council, a stipulation is placed in the zoning ordinance to revise the comprehensive plan. 9. PZ 2002-35 CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISION TO THE DEFINITION AND REQUIREMENTS FOR A SECONDARY LIVING UNIT. APPROVED John Pitstick stated that the Commission has the option of voting on this or tabling it. There has been one case for a secondary living unit special use permit that went forward to City Council. The stipulations were that the secondary living unit be attached to the primary living unit by a breezeway, and tied together with the roofline. Staff compared area cities and found that there are a few cities that allow secondary living units. Keller and Watauga allow them by SUP. Hurst, Euless and Bedford allow them by right. Grapevine and Richland Hills do not allow secondary living units. Staff asked our Building Official to look at the definition of secondary living units and he advised that there are a lot of swimming pools and cabanas that have sleeping facilities and toilet facilities, but the critical item in terms of full time living is kitchen facilities. A discussion of that was given in a briefing to City Council and they asked for a formal recommendation from Planning and Zoning. Staff has a definition for secondary living units, and in the table of permitted uses it is allowed as a SUP in the R-1-S, R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts. Page 14 10/24/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Tucker asked if that's the way it is now and if just the definition is changing. Mr. Pitstick replied that's the way it is now. A Council member asked for clarification of the definition allowing it as a permitted use or SUP. Mr. Tucker stated that he doesn't like SUPs because it puts the burden on the family. They have to go through engineers and get drawings. He stated that it should be done by right. Staff still controls what is going in at the building permit level and certain standards can be required through the building permit. Mr. Schopper stated that we should do everything we can so it wouldn't be a separate economic unit and so it cannot be rented after the current need passes. Ms. Cole replied that it goes because it is separate. She suggested that the definition state that a connected breezeway is required and that the definition should specify how close it must be to the primary structure. She believes that "special use" puts a negative cast on it. Mr. Pitstick explained that the current definition states that a half-acre or less requires the secondary structure to be connected. If larger than a half-acre, connection is not required. Council would like the connection made. The secondary living could be constructed no more than 25-ft. from the primary living quarters and be connected by a breezeway that is a minimum of 6-ft. wide attached to the roof line. Mr. Schopper commented that if the secondary living unit is connected to the home, the homeowner might be reluctant to rent out the unit. If the unit were connected, a renter could be intrusive. It would be more restrictive, and makes more sense from that perspective, to require connection. Mr. Tucker stated that he does not disagree with the new, proposed definition. Mr. Pitstick summarized the comments: the unit must contain kitchen facilities, be connected, and must be within 25-ft. of the primary living quarters. Mr. Pitstick also mentioned that the definition would state that a variance from ZBA would be required if the homeowner did not want to connect the unit. Mr. Pitstick explained, however, that the homeowner would have to prove a hardship in order to get approval from ZBA. Ms. Cole asked if it would be allowed if the homeowner had a detached garage and wanted to attach a secondary living unit to the garage. Mr. Pitstick replied that the definition would not allow that. He stated that the current zoning in Hometown does allow garage apartments because that development is an urban approach. Page 15 10/24/02 P & Z Minutes Ms. Cole suggested a hypothetical where due to the lot size, perhaps the only place to put a secondary living unit would be connected to the detached garage, with a breezeway from the detached garage to the primary living unit. Mr. Schopper suggested allowing secondary living unit attachment to the garage with no breezeway? Mr. Tucker suggested that scenario would not fall under the "separate living" definition. He stated that it would simply be attached to a permanent structure, just as if the homeowner were building a bedroom onto the back of the garage. Mr. Schopper stated that he likes it by right. He suggested disallowing secondary living units in R-3, but allowing them in R-2 and R-1. He is concerned that in R-3 there would not be enough space to keep the required 20% setback in the backyard. Chairman Bowen stated that he is not sure he could support it by right unless a maximum size is defined. He stated that the secondary living unit is suppose to be a granny flat for one, maybe two, persons. If it gets too large, it is more likely to be rentable. He used a comparison of an 1100 sq. ft. duplex, and stated that a smaller unit is not likely to be rented. Mr. Pitstick suggested that a percentage, such as 10%, of the main house could be stipulated, but Mr. Tucker objected that on a 1600 sq. ft. home, 10% would not allow adequate square footage for a secondary living unit. Chairman Bowen mentioned that Bedford has a 500-sq. ft. maximum. Mr. Tucker agreed with that limit. Chairman Bowen suggested that 600-sq. ft. would also be acceptable. Mr. Schopper mentioned that "you want something that when Grandma moves out you store your junk out there as opposed to renting it out." Mr. Tucker suggesting leaving it by right and limiting the size to 550-sq. ft. Mr. Laubacher commented that he likes this direction, but with the stipulation that the unit could not be rented or leased. Mr. Schopper suggested that it would be impossible to enforce that requirement. Mr. Laubacher responded that if it can't be enforced then why even put it there. Mr. Pitstick replied that if it's in the ordinance there is some control. Chairman Bowen commented that it would allow the neighbor a way to complain if somebody noisy moved in. Mr. Laubacher stated that he understands that it is difficult, if not impossible to enforce. Mr. Pitstick stated that if there were a bunch of them it would be difficult to keep up with them. Mr. Schopper commented that "if nothing else it can be used to intimidate the property owner to say that it's against the law." Mr. Tucker stated that it doesn't hurt to leave it in. Chairman Bowen agreed that it needs to be left in. Page 16 10/24/02 P & Z Minutes Mr. Pitstick summarized the discussion and the Chairman called for a motion. Ms. Cole, seconded by Mr. Schopper, motioned to approve PZ 2002-35, allowing a secondary living unit in R-1-S, R-1, and R-2 as a permitted use, maximum size 600-sq. ft., the unit must be constructed no more than 25-ft. from the primary living quarters and it must be connected by a minimum 6- ft. width breezeway attached at the roof line, and the unit must contain kitchen facilities. 10. DISCUSSION OF OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS. There were no other items for discussion. 11. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:49 p.m. ¡;aQ~i3a~¡t/~ Don Bowen Ted Nehring Page 17 10/24/02 P & Z Minutes