Commission recommends text changes to accessory‑structure rules, including higher floor‑area allowances and a second permanent accessory building

The North Richland Hills Planning and Zoning Commission on March 19 recommended that City Council adopt TR26‑01, a set of text amendments to accessory‑structure regulations. The commission passed the recommendation 4–0 and will forward the ordinance language to Council for action on April 13.

Corey (planning staff) presented a multi‑meeting draft that incorporated case history going back to 2021. Staff said most SUP requests for accessory structures sought relief from maximum floor area and wall‑height standards; approved cases had averaged about 2,136 to 2,751 square feet in recent years (roughly 3–4% of lot area for the examples reviewed). To reduce repeat SUP applications, the draft would adjust thresholds and standards to allow commonly approved configurations by right or lower the barriers to SUP review.

Key proposed changes included: treating lots under 40,000 square feet with the greater of 500 square feet or 3% of lot area (up from a narrower interpretation); allowing lots 40,000 square feet and larger to use up to 5% of lot area for accessory structures; lowering the SUP eligibility threshold from 40,000 to 20,000 square feet so more properties can seek discretionary review; removing the separate maximum wall‑height standard (while preserving overall building‑height limits); reducing the required roof pitch from 4:12 to 2:12; and changing the maximum number of permanent accessory buildings from one to two, while preserving cumulative square‑foot limitations so accessory structures could not exceed the primary residence in total.

Commissioners discussed the public purpose of the limits, whether a numerical cap of two buildings is preferable to a cumulative‑only approach, and the possibility of future adjustments if the changes lead to unintended outcomes. One commissioner said limiting the number of large accessory buildings reduces potential visual and neighborhood impacts and recommended keeping a two‑building cap rather than opening the code to an undefined number of large structures.

After discussion, the commission moved, seconded and recommended approval 4–0. The draft ordinance and staff analysis will go to City Council on April 13.