Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
NRH planning commission debates larger accessory structures, wall height and roof‑pitch rules
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed case data showing an increase in large accessory‑structure requests and debated raising allowable floor area for large lots, increasing wall height limits for larger buildings and lowering the Special Use Permit threshold so more lots can seek exceptions.
The North Richland Hills Planning and Zoning Commission spent the Feb. 5 work session examining a trend of larger accessory structures and discussing possible code changes that would allow bigger outbuildings on larger lots.
Staff presented a matrix of 13 Special Use Permit (SUP) cases since 2021 and said 11 requested increases to maximum floor area, seven sought higher wall height and four asked for roof‑pitch changes. Staff reported historical average accessory‑structure sizes of about 2,136 square feet and said the last two years’ average exceeded 2,700 square feet, often surpassing the current lot‑percentage cap.
“We’re seeing a trend here over the last several years where that requested size is continuing to go up,” a staff member said, recommending incremental adjustments rather than wholesale changes. One staff proposal would keep the 2.5% lot‑area rule for lots up to 40,000 square feet but allow accessory structures equal to 5% of lot area for lots 40,000 square feet or larger.
Commissioners discussed related limits: current rules cap wall height at 12 feet for buildings over 500 square feet and building height at 25 feet. Staff noted most wall‑height requests were for 16 feet to accommodate RVs; the staff recommendation was to consider a 16‑foot wall height for structures over 1,000 square feet while retaining the 25‑foot building‑height cap.
Exchange — initiating commissioner: Commissioner (unnamed, S3); respondent: staff (S2); subject: SUP threshold and floor‑area tiers A commissioner asked whether the SUP threshold could be lowered so lots between 20,000 and 40,000 square feet could apply. Staff said lowering the SUP threshold would allow property‑specific review but warned the city lacks complete case history for those smaller lots because many owners never apply.
Several commissioners favored simplifying categories by combining mid‑range lots with the larger category to permit RV storage inside accessory buildings, while other commissioners raised concerns about large metal buildings inside subdivisions and impacts on neighborhood character. One commissioner suggested a two‑step middle tier (20k–30k; 30k–40k) so a 30,000‑square‑foot lot could, by right, allow a larger structure (staff noted a 30,000‑square‑foot lot at 3% would permit roughly a 900‑square‑foot accessory building).
Commissioners asked staff for visual examples and maps showing the distribution of 20k, 30k and 40k lots and representative site plans to assess real‑world impacts. Staff committed to returning with examples and asked the commission whether to advertise public hearings after refining options.
The work session produced no formal recommendation on accessory‑structure code changes; staff will provide site plans, maps and tiered options for a future meeting before any public hearing is advertised.
