1996-01-18 P&Z Meeting City of Southlake, Texas
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 18. 1996
LOCATION: 667 North Carroll Avenue, Southlake, Texas
City Council Chambers of City Hall
TIME: 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA:
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of
January 4, 1996.
3. Administrative Comments.
4. Consider: ZA95 -105, PLAT SHOWING FOR LOTS 1 AND 2, G.W. MAIN NO. 1098 ADDITION,
(previously advertised as the Perry /Allen Addition), being 1.8401 acre tract of land situated
in the S. Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 525, Tracts 6, 6B and 6C and the G.W. Main
WITHDRAWN Survey No. 1098, Tracts 2B, 2C and 2C1. Location: on the southeast corner of South
BY Kimball Ave. and East Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709). Current Zoning: "C -3" General
APPLICANT Commercial District. Owner /Applicant: Southlake Kimball Venture, Ltd. SPIN
1/8/96
Neighborhood #7.
Public Hearing
5. Consider: ZA95 -120, FINAL PLAT FOR MEADOW RIDGE ESTATES, being 37.416 acre tract of
land situated in the John A. Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 529, Tracts 1, 1A, 1C, 1D, and
3A. Location: on the west side of S. Kimball Ave., adjacent to and east of Woodland
Heights Addition, and approximately 900 feet south of East Southlake Blvd. Current
Zoning: "SF -20A" Single Family Residential District. Owners: Mike & Ginger Jacobs,
Dwaine Petty, and E.R.O. Development Company; Applicant: Briscoe Clark Company.
SPIN Neighborhood #7. The plat indicates 58 residential lots.
6. Consider: ZA95 -121, REVISED SITE PLAN FOR SOUTHLAKE TERMINAL, per Zoning
Ordinance No. 480, Section 45.1 (26), legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Brumlow
Industrial District, being a portion of a 27.81 acre tract of land situated in the John N.
Gibson Survey Abstract No. 591, Tract 1, as recorded in Volume 388 -127, page 89
P.R.T.C.T. Location: on the northeast corner of State Highway No. 26 and Brumlow
Avenue. Current Zoning: "I -2" Heavy Industrial District with a specific use permit for
petroleum operations. Owner /Applicant: Diamond Shamrock Refining and Marketing Co.
SPIN Neighborhood #7.
Public Hearing
7. Consider: ZA95 -126, REZONING AND CONCEPT PLAN FOR WHITE CHAPEL PLAZA, being
24.776 acre tract of land situated in the Little Berry G. Hall Survey, Abstract No. 686,
Tract 1A the H. Granberry Survey, Abstract No. 581, Tracts 3C, 3L, 3M, and Lot 4, H.
City of Southlake, Texas
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA
JANUARY 18, 1996
PAGE 2
Granberry Addition No. 581. Location: on the southwest corner of North White Chapel
Blvd. and West Southlake Boulevard (F.M. 1709). Current Zoning: "AG" Agricultural
District, "0-1" Office District, and "CS" Community Service District; Requested Zoning:
"S -P -2" Generalized Site Plan District with "C -3" uses. Owners: Niley M. Church,
Southlake Baptist Church, Inc., and Michael D. Vouklitas; Applicant: Ewing Properties.
SPIN Neighborhood #14.
Public Hearing
8. Consider: ZA95 -131, PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WHITE CHAPEL PLAZA, Lots 1 -4, Block 1,
being 24.776 acre tract of land situated in the Littleberry G. Hall Survey, Abstract No. 686,
Tract 1A; the H. Granberry Survey, Abstract No. 581, Tracts 3C, 3L, 3M; and Lot 4, H.
Granberry Addition No. 581. Location: on the southwest corner of North White Chapel
Boulevard and West Southlake Boulevard (F.M. 1709). Current Zoning: "AG"
Agricultural District, "0-1" Office District, and "CS" Community Service District;
Requested Zoning: "S -P -2" Generalized Site Plan District with C -3 uses. Owners: Niley
M. Church, Southlake Baptist Church, Inc., and Michael D. Vouklitas; Applicant: Ewing
Properties. SPIN Neighborhood # 10.
Public Hearing
9. Consider: ZA95 -127, REZONING AND CONCEPT PLAN FOR SOUTHLAKE COMMONS, being
29.516 acre tract of land situated in the John A. Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 529, Tract
7A. Location: on the southeast corner of South Carroll Ave. and East Southlake Blvd.
(F.M. 1709). Current Zoning: "C -2" Local Retail Commercial District; Requested Zoning:
"S -P -2" Generalized Site Plan District with "C -3" General Commercial District uses.
Owners: W. E. and Dorothy H. Dalton; Applicant: First Gulf Group Development, Ltd.
SPIN Neighborhood #8.
Public Hearing
10. Consider: ZA95 -128, FINAL PLAT FOR HUSE HOMEPLACE, being 16.63 acre tract of land
situated in the R.D. Price Survey, Abstract No. 1207, Tract 2C. Location: adjacent and
north of Quail Creek Estates Addition and adjacent and west of Harbor Oaks Addition.
Current Zoning: "SF -1A" Single Family Residential District. Owner: Peggy Denton;
Applicant: Tom Matthews. SPIN Neighborhood #3. The plat proposes 6 residential lots.
11. Consider: ZA95 -129, SITE PLAN FOR MCI, PHASE II, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Oien
Addition, as recorded in the Plat Records of Denton County, Texas, Dec. 7, 1988, Cabinet
H, Page 9, being 1.079 acre tract of land situated in the W.M. Mills Survey, Abstract No.
877. Location: on the west side of North White Chapel Blvd., approximately 5750' north
of East Dove Road. Current Zoning: "CS" Community Service District. Owner: MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; Applicant: Unisite, Inc. SPIN Neighborhood #1.
Public Hearing
12. Consider: ZA95 -130, SITE PLAN FOR ANDERSON PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, legally
described as Lot 1R1, Block A, Commerce Business Park, as recorded in Cabinet A, Slide
City of Southlake, Texas
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA
JANUARY 18, 1996
PAGE 3
2552, P.R.T.C.T., being 1.5619 acre tract of land situated in the Thomas Easter Survey,
Abstract No. 474. Location: on the southeast corner of Commerce Street and East
Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709). Current Zoning: "I -1" Light Industrial District.
Owner /Applicant: Stephen P. Anderson. SPIN Neighborhood #7.
Public Hearing
13. Consider: ZA95 -132, FINAL PLAT FOR NAPA VALLEY, PHASE II, being 8.992 acre tract of land
situated in the J.W. Hale Survey, Abstract No. 803, Tract 2A. Location: on the northeast
corner of East Continental Boulevard and Carlisle Lane. Current Zoning: "SF -20A"
Single Family Residential. Owner: Norman J. Brown; Applicant: Napa Valley Estates II.
SPIN Neighborhood #8. The plat proposes 12 residential lots.
14. Consider: Meeting Adjourned.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the above agenda was posted on the official bulletin boards at City Hall, 667 North
Carroll Avenue, Southlake, Texas, on Friday, January 12, 1996 at 5:00 p.m., pursuant to the Texas
Government Code, Chapter 551.
%OKE, T4 4d,
A tlfz,„.,
Sandra L. LeGrand u-
o
City Secretary Z 37
If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disability that requires special needs, please advise the City Secretary 48
hours in advance at 481 -5581 extension 704, and reasonable accommodations will be made to assist you.
G:\ W PF \MTG\AGN\ 1996 \01- 18 -96. W PD
COMMISSION MEETING
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING
JANUARY 18, 1996
COMMISSION PRESENT: Chairman Joe Wright, Vice - Chairman Ernest Johnson; Members:
Randy Arnold, Jim Murphy, Rex Potter, and Dona Schroetke
COMMISSION ABSENT: Arthur Hobbs
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Director Greg Last, Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy, Planner Tom
Elgin, City Engineer Ron Harper, City Civil Engineer Shawn Poe, and Administrative Secretary
Laurie Sheets
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Wright at 7:10 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #2, APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion was made to approve the minutes of the January 4, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting, amended as follows:
1) page 1, replace the vote "5 -1" to "5 -0 -1" under the approval of the minutes;
2) page 2, delete the words "per the Applicant's request" to table under the motion (procedural
error);
3) page 8, second paragraph, first sentence, add the word "he" between the words "if' and "had ";
4) page 11, first paragraph, item 3.b replaced the word "affect" to "effect ";
5) page 11, add the point that there was discussion of the re- advertisement due to the Applicant's
amended request on his zoning change; and
6) page 11, third paragraph, item 3, change the word "asked" to "agreed ".
Motion: Johnson
Second: Potter
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Potter, and Schroetke
Nays: none
Abstained: Murphy
Approved: 5 -0 -1
Motion carried.
Abstaining Commissioner Murphy was not present at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
on January 4, 1996.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 01- 18 -96, tape 1, section #0 -66)
AGENDA ITEM #3, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS
Director Last commented on the following items:
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
JANUARY 18, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 2
1) a matrix was included in the Commission's Planning and Zoning Packets to evaluate the need
for certain items that are included in each meeting's packet of information and he requested to
discuss this at the latter part of the meeting
2) the Commission was provided with a revised City Base Map that was updated to July 1995
which had recently been delivered from the printer.
Vice - Chairman Johnson presented the Commission and Staff with a memorandum dated January 18,
1996, regarding his comments on the near -term commercial development in 1709 Corridor.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 01- 18 -96, tape 1, section #66 -99)
AGENDA ITEM #4, ZA95 -105, PLAT SHOWING FOR LOTS 1 AND 2, G.W. MAIN NO. 1098
ADDITION
Chairman Wright informed the Commission and the audience that ZA96 -105 had been withdrawn
by the request of the Applicant.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 01- 18 -96, tape 1, section #99 -107)
Commissioner Schroetke stepped down on the next agenda item.
AGENDA ITEM #5, ZA95 -120, FINAL PLAT FOR MEADOW RIDGE ESTATES
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that the Applicant's request is for the
Final Plat for Meadow Ridge Estates, being 37.416 acre tract of land situated in the John A. Freeman
Survey, Abstract No. 529, Tracts 1, 1A, 1C, 1D, and 3A. The property is located on the west side
of S. Kimball Ave., adjacent to and east of Woodland Heights Addition, and approximately 900 feet
south of East Southlake Blvd (F.M. 1709). The current zoning is "SF -20A" Single Family
Residential District. The Land Use Category is Low Density Residential /65 Ldn Contour. The
property owners are Mike & Ginger Jacobs, Dwaine Petty, and E.R.O. Development Company; the
request is being submitted by the Applicant, Briscoe Clark Company. The property is located in
SPIN Neighborhood #7. No written notices were required to be sent out to property owners due to
this item being a Final Plat. The plat indicates 58 residential lots. On December 21, 1995, the
Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Applicant's request to table this item until tonight's
meeting.
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Staff about the numerous items listed on the staff review letter that
should have been listed on the Preliminary Plat. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that
some of the items were listed on the Preliminary Plat; however, there are additional requirements
that need to be addressed on the Final Plat. Chairman Wright commented that there is more
engineering information that needs to provided on the Final Plat.
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
JANUARY 18, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 3
Jackey Fluitt (Washington & Associates, Inc.), 500 Grapevine Hwy., Suite 375, Hurst, Texas 76054,
represented this item. He commented on the following items in response to the staff review letter:
1) having no problems with it;
2) investigating the right -of -way issue:
a. completing the surveying;
b. purchasing a detailed "right -of -way map" (Thoroughfare Map) from the City; and
c. establishing the correct right -of -way measurement specified by the City for the right -of -way
to be dedicated.
Motion was made to approve ZA95 -120, Final Plat for Meadow Ridge Estates, subject to Plat
Review Summary No. 1 dated January 12, 1996.
Motion: Potter
Second: Arnold
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, and Potter
Nays: none
Abstained: Schroetke
Approved: 5 -0 -1
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 01- 18 -96, tape 1, section #107 -256)
Chairman Wright stepped down on the next agenda item. Vice - Chairman Johnson presided.
AGENDA ITEM #6, ZA95 -121, REVISED SITE PLAN FOR SOUTHLAKE TERMINAL
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that the Applicant's request is for the
Revised Site Plan for Southlake Terminal, per Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 45.1 (26), legally
described as Lot 1, Block 1, Brumlow Industrial District, being a portion of a 27.81 acre tract of land
situated in the John N. Gibson Survey Abstract No. 591, Tract 1, as recorded in Volume 388 -127,
page 89 P.R.T.C.T. The property is located on the northeast corner of State Highway No. 26 and
Brumlow Avenue. The current zoning is "I -2" Heavy Industrial District with a specific use permit
for petroleum operations. The Land Use Category is Industrial. The request is being submitted by
the property Owner and Applicant, Diamond Shamrock Refining and Marketing Co. The property
is located in SPIN Neighborhood #7. Seven (7) written notices were sent to property owners within
the 200 feet notification area, and the Staff has received two (2) responses in favor of the plan. On
December 21, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Applicant's request to table
this item until tonight's meeting and continue the public hearing. Staff provided the Commission
with Plan Review Summary Revised No. 1 dated January 18, 1996. The updated staff review letter
adds item #11 (show the location of the utility easement intended for the sanitary sewer service to
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
JANUARY 18, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 4
the 'S -7' sewer basin).
John Levitt (J. E. Levitt Engineers, Inc.) 726 Commerce, Suite 104, Southlake, Texas 76092,
represented this item. He commented on the following items in response to the staff review letter:
1) adding an additional fuel storage facility to their existing facilities;
2) locating the facility on the southwest corner of the property;
3) amending the Site Plan to provide the easement;
4) is not locating any driveway entrance onto Brumlow Ave. except to accommodate maintenance
and fire services;
5) locating the main driveway entrance is located on S.H. 26; and
6) addressing the concern of saving the existing trees at the northwest corner, he relocated the
location of the storage facility.
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Levitt if the "dike" around the storage facility could be of a
different shape other than the rectangular with the same square footage. Mr. Levitt commented on
the following in response:
1) stated that the proposal will blend in with the existing slope on the west side of the property;
2) a berm will be constructed on half of it and the other half will blend in with the natural ground
because of the height;
3) the berm will have a larger shape than what is shown and will contain 110% of the proposed tank
volume; and
4) the berm and tank will be in alignment with each other to facilitate the piping in between them.
Vice - Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing.
No discussion from the audience.
Vice - Chairman Johnson closed the public hearing.
Motion was made to approve ZA95 -121, Revised Site Plan for Southlake Terminal, subject to Plan
Review Summary Revised No. 1 dated January 18, 1996.
Motion: Potter
Second: Murphy
Ayes: Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, Potter, and Schroetke
Nays: none
Abstained: Wright
Approved: 5 -0 -1
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 01- 18 -96, tape 1, section #256 -472)
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
JANUARY 18, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 5
AGENDA ITEM #7. ZA95 -126, REZONING AND CONCEPT PLAN FOR WHITE CHAPEL
PLAZA
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that the Applicant's request is for the
Rezoning and Concept Plan for White Chapel Plaza, being 24.776 acre tract of land situated in the
Little Berry G. Hall Survey, Abstract No. 686, Tract lA the H. Granberry Survey, Abstract No. 581,
Tracts 3C, 3L, 3M, and Lot 4, H. Granberry Addition No. 581. The property is located on the
southwest corner of North White Chapel Blvd. and West Southlake Boulevard (F.M. 1709). The
current zoning is "AG" Agricultural District, "0-1" Office District, and "CS" Community Service
District; the requested zoning is "S -P -2" Generalized Site Plan District with "C -3" uses. The Land
Use Category is Mixed Use /65 Ldn Contour. The Corridor Designation is Retail Commercial and
Office Commercial. The property Owners are Niley M. Church, Southlake Baptist Church, Inc., and
Michael D. Vouklizas; and the request is being submitted by the Applicant, Ewing Properties. The
property is located in SPIN Neighborhood #14. Eighteen (18) written notices were sent to property
owners within the 200 feet notification area, and the Staff has received two (2) responses within the
area that are opposed to the plan and four (4) responses (three opposed and one undecided) outside
the area. On January 4, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Applicant's
request to table this item until tonight's meeting and continue the public hearing. There are some
pad sites along W. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709) and S. White Chapel Blvd. The site proposes to
accommodate: a 70,000 s.f. grocery store, smaller retail space will be available on both sides of the
grocery store, and office space on the west side of the project. A detention/retention area is
proposed to accommodate the drainage.
Taking consideration of a written response Staff received that listed tall buildings as a concern, Vice -
Chairman Johnson asked Staff if the 4 to 1 height ratio applied since this plan is under the Corridor
Overlay Zone. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that the height restrictions for commercial
buildings adjacent to property that are zoned single family residential or designated as residential
on the Land Use Map are as follows:
1) 20' in height or less may be located within 40' of the property line
a. this wold probably apply to the single -story buildings
2) if the structure exceeds 20' then it cannot encroach into the 4 to 1 ratio setback slope
a. this would probably apply to the multi -story buildings.
Vice - Chairman Johnson commented that there is some adjacent property at the southwest corner of
the proposed site that is categorized as medium density residential on the Land Use Map. Chairman
Wright pointed out that the adjacent properties to the west are currently zoned in a "C -2" Local
Retail Commercial District. Planner Tom Elgin commented that the proposed pad sites to the west
are intended for single -story office buildings. Director Greg Last commented that no non - residential
building may encroach an area above a line having a slope of 4 to 1 ratio from any property line of
a residential zoned property or property with a land use designation of low density or medium
density residential in the Comprehension Land Use Plan. He added that the portion of the property
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
JANUARY 18, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 6
zoned "C -2" Local Retail Commercial District designated with the land use category of medium
density will be applicable to the Corridor Overlay Zone; depending upon the height of the building,
the building may meet the requirement because it is 40' away.
Commissioner Schroetke asked Staff to point out which portion of the property that is currently
zoned "0-1" Office District. Director Greg Last commented that it would be all of the north property
that fronts W. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709), legally described as being in the Little Berry G. Hall
Survey, Abstract No. 686, Tract lA and the H. Granberry Survey, Abstract No. 581, Tract 3C.
Commissioner Potter asked Staff if the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) had been completed for the
project. Director Greg Last stated the following in reference to the question:
1) Staff is in the process of reviewing the TIA and providing the Applicant with the Staff
comments;
2) in general, the Applicant has meet the Staffs initial request for deceleration lanes;
3) TIA provides a broad perspective of the traffic impact on the property;
4) in general, the Applicant has meet all the Driveway Ordinance No. 634 requirements; and
5) after reviewing the TIA, the proposal does not appear to have anything upfront that would impact
the site.
Commissioner Potter asked Staff what type of road has White Chapel Blvd. been approved for on
the Thoroughfare Plan. Director Greg Last stated that the Thoroughfare Plan proposes White Chapel
Blvd. to be developed as an Arterial Five -Lane Undivided (A5U) road which will have 84' right -of-
way.
Kevin Caldwell (Ewing Properties), 16660 Dallas Parkway, Suite 2200, Dallas, Texas 74248,
represented this item. He commented on the following items (in representation of the proposal and
in discussion with the Commission):
1) proposal is comprised of 25 acres;
2) roughly 1,400' of linear frontage on W. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709);
3) roughly 1,000' of linear frontage on S. White Chapel Blvd.;
4) comprised of three tracts with three different property owners;
5) 70,000 s.f. grocery store will be planned for a pad site:
a. tenant for the grocery store is Tom Thumb;
b. tenant is proposing a "top of the line" store with a coffee shop, gourmet deli, etc.;
c. elevation will be all brick with the columns consisting of a cast stone or a brick look;
d. roofing materials have not been decided at this time; however, they are looking into using
composition, slate, tile, etc.;
e. height of the building will be 30' tall;
Commissioner Potter asked Mr. Caldwell if he could look into relocating the "compound
building" more to the west. Mr. Caldwell stated that the building's location was placed between
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
JANUARY 18, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 7
the detention pond which will have to be located in the course of the creek and S. White Chapel
Blvd.;
6) an exhibit of the rear elevation of the shopping center was displayed;
7) there are "out- parcel" buildings which could accommodate one to multiple tenants;
a. possibly a bank on the southwest corner with a pad site behind it that will accommodate a
sit -down restaurant;
8) there will be 60,000 s.f. for office use:
a. office building to the south will be one - story;
b. office building to the north will be two - story;
9) the proposal exceeds the bufferyard requirements:
a. at the rear property line, there is approximately 70' between the 10' screening wall; however,
instead of putting the screening wall on the south property line, he would like to locate it
back 70' and have a 4' berm and then a 6' wall to soften the impact with additional
landscaping trees;
b. the closest building that is to the rear property line is approximately 100' including the 70'
landscaped buffer with the screening wall;
c. the corner of the retail building is 50 -60' x 60 -70' which will be landscaped;
d. scattered trees throughout the 70' area with the berm rising up and down 35' from the grocery
store;
e. type and size of trees will determine the height of the trees:
1. type of trees has not been determined at this time;
f. berm will be adjacent to the masonry wall which will be located on the property line;
10) the driveway entrances and the traffic circle will be brick pavers which will provide a good
look to the site;
a. the driveway throat depths are roughly 150';
11) the drainage study is the driving force for providing the detention pond;
a. the creek under W. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709) will be channeled underground, flow to the
detention pond, and then eventually be channeled to its natural course (the creek to the
south);
b. they are required to detain everything upstream in addition to their property and prevent it
from flooding or adding to downstream water, and that is the reason for the detention pond;
c. the project would have no detrimental effect on the drainage;
d. the pond is positioned to where it will add to the distance to the rear property line which will
soften the impact for the property to the south;
12) they met with the SPIN groups on November 29, 1995:
a. during that time, a "C -3" General Commercial District was proposed for zoning and the
residents were concerned with this request; thus, the request was amended to the "S -P -2"
Generalized Site Plan to address the residents' concerns;
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Caldwell if he objected to the deletion of the following "C -3"
General Commercial District uses (including embedded uses):
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
JANUARY 18, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 8
a. amusement centers
b. large dry cleaners (plants)
c. frozen food lockers
d. tires/batteries /accessories operations
e. department stores
f. electric /gas appliance stores
g. hardware stores
h. gyms
i. nurseries (plant)
j. plumbing stores
k. large print shops;
Mr. Caldwell stated that there is a 26,000 s.f. retail pad site proposed that possibly could have
the use for a department store. He added that he did not anticipate any plumbing or nurseries
uses, and that he was open to looking at deleting more uses to address this concern (intensity of
uses requested);
13) They met with several homeowner groups on numerous occasions. As a result of those
meetings:
a. they agreed to restrict fast food and gas station uses from the front pad sites (the entire
development):
b. presented a letter from the Lakecrest Homeowner's Association Board to the Commission
that states that they do not oppose the plan with the deletion of the above uses;
14) they are concerned with item #6b (150' driveway throat depth for all commercial driveway
entrances) on the staff review letter, and asked for a variance on the driveway entrance on
Lot 1 into the office site (approximately 40' depth), the north driveway entrance intersecting
S. White Chapel Blvd. between the pad site (approximately 20' depth), and the south
driveway entrance of Lot 2 intersecting S. White Chapel Blvd. (approximately 20' depth);
15) due to the fact that the cemetery is located 250' -300', they will dedicate the appropriate right -
of -way to meet the 84' requirement at that location and dedicate the necessary right -of -way
to the south.
Chairman Wright opened the public hearing.
Coila Edson (boardmember of the Lakecrest Addition), 214 Canyon Lake, Southlake, Texas 76092,
commented on the following items:
1) the letter presented to them is from the subdivision board;
2) presented two petitions (one in favor and the second in opposition) to the Commission;
3) the petition in favor contains [34 in favor plus 15 votes from Pulte Homes in favor (builder -
owned lots) and 9 in opposition;
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
JANUARY 18, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 9
a. the petition had some signatures from two members of a household;
b. there are 51 residential lots in the subdivision.
Arnold Wieder (Timarron Resident), 130 Highland Oaks Court, Southlake, Texas 76092, stated that
he was a new resident and is viewing the rapid changes that are taking place in the City. He
commented on the following items:
1) the proposal is not compatible with the prominent landmarks (cemetery and church) across S.
White Chapel Blvd.;
2) the proposal does not meet the goals to preserve the rural environment and scenic character of
the City, maintain and enhance the quality of life, and promote capability and orderly
development set forth by the City in the Land Use Plan;
3) S. White Chapel Blvd. will become a boulevard which will create traffic problems with the uses
of the church and cemetery;
4) it will affect the visual impact;
5) the proposal will be in operation on a 24 hour basis;
6) recommended the property to be developed for office use which would be more compatible;
7) requested native trees since they have a better chance of survival than pine trees;
8) the proposal will be to pronounced for the area.
Donald A. Vouklizas, 2114 Wilson Dr., Arlington, Texas 76011, commented that he has family that
resides in Southlake and he is looking into buying a residence here. He commented that he would
like for reputable grocery store like Tom Thumb to be located in Southlake, so he would not have
to travel to a nearby town for groceries.
Tom Jaeger (Lakecrest Resident), 224 Canyon Lake Dr. Southlake, Texas 76092, commented that
he has recently moved from southern California. He commented on the following concerns:
1) one of the reasons he relocated to Southlake was not what the city had but what the city did not
have;
2) initially signed the petition which opposed the proposal and still is questioning the proposal;
however, after meeting with Ewing Properties he is less in opposition;
3) requested for more information which addresses lighting, other drainage issues, security, and
land values;
4) would not like Southlake to be "wall to wall" as for example, development in the City of Plano.
David Boone (Lakecrest Resident), 306 Canyon Lake Dr., Southlake, Texas 76092, commented that
one of the reasons he moved to Southlake was due to an article published in the Grapevine paper that
stated the City was restricting the expansion of commercial development to Northwest Parkway
(S.H. 114). He added that he moved here for the school system and the quality of life that the City
has to offer. He commented on the following concerns:
1) grocery store is not desirable for the location;
2) recommended the Commission to take heed of the rapid development and slow the process down
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
JANUARY 18, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 10
for a more thorough review;
3) concerned with property values.
Angela Boone (Lakecrest Resident), 306 Canyon Lake Dr., Southlake, Texas 76092, attended the
homeowners' association meeting and the response of several residents was that they were afraid that
in the near future the City would approve a development like "K- Mart". She stated that she would
like Southlake to keep its lifestyle. She recommended the City focus commercial development
around the outside skirts of the City; the City would still be able to generate the revenue and the
citizens could still enjoy the lifestyle the City has to offer.
Juergen Strunck, 200 N. Carroll Ave., Southlake, Texas 76092, commented that the Corridor Overlay
Zone specified Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709) for "neighborhood retail use ". He added that a 70,000
s.f. grocery store would be to large and to dense which would not meet the specification set forth in
the Corridor Overlay Zone.
John Connor (Princeton Park Resident), 117 Yale Dr., Southlake, Texas 76092, commended Ewing
Properties on a "creative presentation ". He commented on the following items:
1) that his major concern is with the traffic flow on S. White Chapel Blvd. which will not improve
with an Arterial Five -Lane Undivided (A5U) boulevard;
2) the proposal goes against his reasons why he purchased land here;
3) recommended down- sizing considerably or relocating it to another area of the City since it is not
compatible with the surroundings.
Mike Thompson, 250 Pine Dr., Southlake, Texas 76092, commented that he grew up in Southlake.
He commented on the following concerns:
1) Pine Dr. is too close to the intersection of S. White Chapel Blvd. and Southlake Blvd. (F.M.
1709) and the road will be greatly affected by the increased traffic flow;
2) the 70,000 s.f. proposed building is right out the "back door" to the residents who live on Pine
Dr.;
3) does not meet the quality of development along Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709);
4) does not want the center to be in competition with the surrounding centers;
5) questioned if there is enough population for this proposal; does not wish to see vacant strip
malls;
Larry Mast (Lakecrest Resident), 307 Canyon Lake, Southlake, Texas 76092, moved here from
Austin. He commented on the following items:
1) has mixed feelings on the proposal;
2) having an architectural background, he does not see anything aesthetically wrong with the
architectural design and site development;
3) would like for all development in Southlake to meet the same criteria that they provided which
entails a green buffer between the streets and provided buffer and protection;
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
JANUARY 18, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 11
4) recommended low level lighting in the parking below the tops of the fences and berms;
5) in anticipation of the growth of the City, he recommended the buffer along S. White Chapel
Blvd. be restricted to accommodate the five -lane proposed road;
6) if the development is not approved, the developers will have to cover their cost and sell to
another prospective buyer which will lead to more money in the land and less money in the
development and the quality will be less;
7) will work with SPIN groups, etc., to try to get the back portion of the development, which is in
the 100 Year Flood Plain, be purchased by the City as perennial green space, buffer, and
drainage area:
a. will provide a buffer and protection to the subdivision;
b. will allow the development of the front portion of the property to maintain the property
value;
8) requested for strict enforcement on lighting and noise pollution and have delivery times
established in the loading zones;
9) requested the Commission drive down main street in Lewisville and recommended Southlake
not to move in this direction for Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709).
Bill Baird, 380 S. White Chapel Blvd., Southlake, Texas 76092, stated that he has been a resident
since 1963. He expressed his total opposition to the proposal for the following reasons:
1) the plan indicates a 4' berm with a 6' fence to screen a 30' building;
2) the drainage study completed by the Lakecrest Addition probably stated that it would not have
any effect on the drainage; however, the drainage has been affected;
3) has property to the south property line for sale which might be affected by being located in back
of the grocery store;
4) there are plenty of grocery stores nearby.
Mr. Baird asked the Commission if Ewing Properties had bought the property. The Commission
reminded Mr. Baird that this issue was not something that could be addressed by the Commission.
Scott Martin (SPIN Representative #4), 591 E. Dove St., Southlake, Texas 76092, commented on the
following concerns:
1) traffic is an issue;
a. too many curb -cuts along W. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709);
b. how will it affect the intersection of S. White Chapel Blvd. and Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709)
and the S. White Chapel Blvd.:
1. cemetery being across the proposal, and a gas pipeline and easement on the other side
of the intersection;
2. does not see the widening or straightening of S. White Chapel Blvd. in the near future
to aid in the safety of the citizens;
4. unless the City feels confident to improve S. White Chapel Blvd. immediately prior to
the development of this property, he does not see it will be in the best interest of the
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
JANUARY 18, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 12
citizens.
Chairman Wright closed the public hearing.
Chairman Wright called for a 5 minute recess at 9:00 p.m.
Chairman Wright reconvened the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
Commissioner Potter commented on the following:
1) thanked Mr. Caldwell for speaking with SPIN and area communities;
2) located in the wrong area; however, it is a quality proposal;
3) felt the property is correctly zoned for "0-1" Office District;
4) concerned that traffic impacts on Pine Drive were addressed on case submittal ZA95 -107,
Concept Plan for White's Chapel United Methodist Church, but a new development across from
the church was not ever taken into consideration:
a. this proposal would only exaggerate the problem;
5) did not comply with Driveway Ordinance No 634 in meeting the driveway throat depth
requirements;
6) concerned with having a two -story office building next to residential property.
Commissioner Arnold commented on the following:
1) stated that he is a quality developer and has invested a lot of time in the proposal;
2) concerned with the inadequate roadway infrastructure that would accommodate the increased
traffic flow from the proposal;
3) concerned with the drainage flow to the south;
4) concerned with the proposal being to dense for that area;
5) preferred to see this property zoned "0-1" Office District.
Commissioner Murphy asked Staff for clarification on the ability to widen S. White Chapel Blvd.
Director Greg Last stated that there are limitations to the property to the east due to the cemetery,
and, when the property is developed, property will need to be acquired for the right -of -way on the
west side to accommodate the 84' right -of -way intersection. He added that the right -of -way would
shift toward the centerline of the existing pavement as it continued south. Furthermore, he believed
that there was a way to acquire property for right -of -way dedication in the future.
Vice - Chairman Johnson commented on the following:
1) concerned with the intensity of the development at this major intersection;
2) identified that the City proclaimed a village center from Carroll Ave. bounded by Southlake
Blvd. (F.M. 1709) and Northwest Parkway (S.H. 114) going to the east as an appropriate place
for more intense development:
a. would like this area to be given an opportunity to work for intended uses;
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
JANUARY 18, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 13
b. would not like property to be rezoned along Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709) for a more intense
use when the village center has not yet been exploited and stated that there is available
property zoned for commercial use.
Commissioner Schroetke commented on the following:
1) concerned with the property to the south being designated as medium density residential on the
Land Use Map which usually applies to 20,000 s.f. lots.;
2) the land for the proposed grocery store pad site is currently zoned an "AG" Agricultural District
and has a Land Use Plan for medium density residential;
3) the transition from residential to office zoning is a more orderly type of transition;
4) would like the proposal at a different location that is already zoned "C -3" General Commercial
District.
Chairman Wright commented on the following:
1) the proposal is for a quality development;
2) recommended the Applicant address the concerns that he would like addressed:
a. describing the landscaping (trees) in more detail;
b. addressing the situation on the southern -most portion of the property;
c. looking into the curb -cut issues;
d. addressing the buffer along S. White Chapel Blvd. and showing it in a developed stage.
Chairman Wright asked Mr. Caldwell if he would propose to table this item to address the issues
presented. Mr. Caldwell stated that he would look into the issues and would take some serious
thought in regards to the density of the proposal. He requested the proposal be tabled to the Planning
and Zoning Commission on February 22, 1996.
Motion was made to table ZA95 -126, Rezoning and Concept Plan for White Chapel Plaza, to
February 22, 1996, per the Applicant's request.
Commissioner Potter commented on his concern with granting the request to table after having all
the input from the audience. He added that there are major issues ( "C -3" General Commercial
District uses and traffic) that need to be addressed and recommended to move forward and have the
City Council recommend the changes they would like to propose.
Commissioner Schroetke commented, for the record, that she "would be opposed to any zone change
to commercial uses ".
Chairman Wright and Commissioner Arnold would like to give the Applicant an opportunity to
reconfigure the plan and address the issues.
Motion: Murphy
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
JANUARY 18, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 14
Second: Johnson
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, and Murphy
Nays: Potter and Schroetke
Approved: 4 -2
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 01- 18 -96, tape 1, section #473 -4225)
AGENDA ITEM #8, ZA95 -131, PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WHITE CHAPEL PLAZA
Kevin Caldwell (Ewing Properties), 16660 Dallas Parkway, Suite 2200, Dallas, Texas 74248,
represented this item. He asked for this item to be tabled to the same date as the ZA95 -126,
Rezoning and Concept Plan.
Motion was made to table ZA95 -131, Preliminary Plat for White Chapel Plaza, to February 22,
1996, and continue the public hearing per the Applicant's request.
Motion: Murphy
Second: Johnson
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, and Murphy
Nays: Potter and Schroetke
Approved: 4 -2
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 01- 18 -96, tape 1, section #4227 -4296)
AGENDA ITEM #9, ZA95-127. REZONING AND CONCEPT PLAN FOR SOUTHLAKE
COMMONS
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that the Applicant's request is for the
Rezoning and Concept Plan for Southlake Commons, being 29.516 acre tract of land situated in the
John A. Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 529, Tract 7A. The property is located on the southeast
corner of South Carroll Ave. and East Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709). The current zoning is "C -2"
Local Retail Commercial District; the requested zoning is "S -P -2" Generalized Site Plan District
with "C -3" General Commercial District uses. The Land Use Category is Mixed Use. The Corridor
Designation is Retail Commercial and Office Commercial. The property Owners are W. E. and
Dorothy H. Dalton; and the request is being submitted by the Applicant, First Gulf Group
Development, Ltd. The property is located in SPIN Neighborhood #8. Seven (7) written notices
were sent to property owners within the 200 feet notification area, and the Staff has one (1) response
that is undecided about the plan. Two department stores are proposed with one being the anchor and
having a 70,000 s.f. There is internal circulation within the site with two driveway entrances along
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
JANUARY 18, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 15
S. Carroll Ave. and one major driveway entrance along E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709) towards the
eastern -most portion of the site and one service drive adjacent to the eastern boundary line.
David Gibson (President, First Gulf Developments, Ltd), 10 Kingsbridge Garden Circle, Suite 704,
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada LSR #K6, represented this item. He commented on the following
items:
1) he has been in the retail business for the last twenty -five with concentration on upscale fashion
centers;
2) First Gulf Group was the developer of Timberlake Addition in Southlake;
3) Jacobsens Department Store is looking for quality cities to build in;
4) he has had two meetings with the SPIN groups and will try in incorporate all of the suggestions
from those meetings, if the proposal is approved;
5) he developed a similar project, Old Hyde Park Village, in Tampa, Florida, in an upscale
neighborhood;
6) he is not asking for an increase in density; however, he requested an increase in the size of the
buildings which will change the configuration of the buildings;
Joseph Bogdon (Joseph Bogdon Associates, Inc.), 306 Sherbourne St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
M5A 2S1, the architect for the proposal also represented this item. He commented on the following
items in representation of the proposal and in discussion with the Commission:
1) the project will be developed in the same fashion as Old Hype Park Village in Tampa, FL which
opened in 1986:
a. Old Hyde Park Village is now one of the favorite spots for shopping as well as community
uses;
b. presented slides of Old Hyde Park Village:
1. has small court yards for outdoor dining;
2. located three blocks from the bay;
3. it has apartments on the second floor; however, the proposal for Southlake is not
proposing apartments;
Commissioner Arnold asked if they were proposing fountains in the central square just like Old
Hyde Park Village had. Mr. Bogdon stated that they are proposing this for Southlake.
2) this project creates a pedestrian environment and community center on the site utilizing
sidewalks and landscape;
3) there will be a "roadway" coming in from S. Carroll Ave. with all of the shops facing it and wide
enough for sidewalk cafes, retail, etc.;
4) there will be an arcade along the sidewalk for weather protection;
5) the application meets all of the landscaping requirements set forth by the City in terms of total
area including:
a. a full acre of landscape area in two common areas adjacent to the pavilion that will be
useable by people;
b. the parking lot will be treed;
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
JANUARY 18, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 16
c. the driveway entrances will be "boulevard -ed" and treed;
6) the character of the project will emphasize the arcading, urban street form to create a sense of
a town center with commons /village green on one side and shops all around the perimeter;
10) access to shops and street will be at several places through the development
11) the ideal is create a mix of uses, an active environment, that will enhance security;
12) attempted to meet all the requirements on the driveway entrances, etc.
13) asking for some uses in "C -3" General Commercial District plus the increase in the anchor
stores;
14) there will be mansard roofs to screen mechanical equipment;
15) stated the following parking specifications:
a. parking is located around the perimeter of the buildings;
b. parallel parking along the roadway to the commons for accessible parking with 60° parking
around the commons to create a small town feeling.
Commissioner Potter asked about the number of parking spaces that will accommodate the
movie theater. Director Greg Last commented that the number of parking spaces for the theater
is specified in the Zoning Ordinance which states that there can be up to 50% reduction in the
required parking spaces based upon complimentary uses and peak times. He added that when
the Applicant defines the use for that building, then the Commission would then decide the ratio
and the given time that it will be utilized.
Commissioner Schroetke asked Mr. Bogdon if Old Hyde Park Village allowed internal parking.
Mr. Bogdon stated that it does not because the City will not allow it; however, it does have a
small road around the central green that services as a fire route and a drop -off point for the shops.
He added that the development in Tampa does have parallel parking throughout.
16) shielded lighting will be provided for the south parking lot;
17) building C will accommodate a movie theater and have the following features:
a. single story;
b. pitched mansard roof with a flat roof behind it so that it will shield all the mechanical
equipment;
c. roughly 20' in height;
d. exterior of the building is not yet designed;
e. 6 to 10 movie screens with the intent to not compete with the larger movie theaters;
f. integral part in the overall concept for the project.
Chairman Wright asked Staff the proposed width and number of lanes of S. Carroll Ave. Director
Greg Last stated that it is proposed to be an Arterial Four -Lane Undivided (A4U) with a 70' right -of-
way and 12' lanes. He added that he anticipated the intersection to be expanded for additional
turning movements.
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
JANUARY 18, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 17
Commissioner Potter asked Staff if they have been exposed to a proposal that had an internal drive.
Director Greg Last stated that he had not similar to this one. He added that at one time the Applicant
proposed parallel parking in the internal loop and Staff recommended 60 °parking for safety reasons.
Commissioner Schroetke asked about the lighting specifications for the south parking lot. Mr.
Bogdon stated that he would address this in detail at the Site Plan approval to meet requirements for
security and create a light pattern that shields and "cut- offs" lighting so that it is provided for the
parking lot area and not spill onto adjoining properties.
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked for background on the zoning requested and asked to see a list of
exclusions. Director Greg Last commented that the Applicant was informed that their requested uses
could not be accommodated in the "C -2" Local Retail Commercial District, and recommended the
Applicant to request a "S -P -2" Generalized Site Plan to evaluate their requested uses to see if any
of those uses could be deleted. He added that the upgrading in zoning does include uses not in the
"C -2" Local Retail Commercial District as well as allowing for increase in the anchor building sizes.
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Bogdon if a deletion of uses could be discussed. Mr. Bogdon
stated that the uses are of a retail nature, and he has excluded the uses that would not be appropriate
for their upscale high fashion center. Vice - Chairman Johnson commented that the "S -P -2"
Generalized Site Plan District embeds uses from "C -3" General Commercial, "C -2" Local Retail
Commercial, "C -1" Neighborhood Commercial, and "O -1" Office Districts, and asked Mr. Bogdon
if he could look into deleting more uses such as tires, batteries, and automobile accessories, frozen
food locker, hardware stores, plumbing shops, etc. Mr. Gibson stated that the uses will not be
compatible with the center, and he is willing to look at deleting some uses.
Commissioner Potter asked if the south bufferyard was in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Director Greg Last stated that the proposal exceeds the requirement. He added that the requirement
is for a 10' bufferyard with a wood fence, and the proposal is for a 15' bufferyard with a 6' masonry
wall. Commissioner Potter recommended a bigger bufferyard taking into consideration the adjacent
property owners to the south. Mr. Gibson stated that they were more than willing to work with the
builder in the subdivision to the south to come up with a compatible design.
Commissioner Potter asked Mr. Gibson if he was strong on their proposal for a movie theater. Mr.
Gibson stated that he would like to keep this request to provide a better mix with the adjacent uses.
Chairman Wright opened the public hearing.
Jeff Avery (one of the officers for Murchison Properties, Inc.), 1445 Ross Ave., Suite 5300, Dallas,
Texas 75202, Southlake, Texas 76092, stated that they were the principle neighbor to the proposal.
He commented on the following items:
1) concerned with the drainage and would like to see more information on how this matter will be
addressed;
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
JANUARY 18, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 18
2) concerned with the buffering between the two properties:
a. he recently provided a bufferyard between the property to the east with 1 acre home sites and
their home sites which required them to increase the '/2 acre lots to home sites (30,000 s.f.)
as a buffer;
b. asked the Commission if they could maintain the same type of protection for their 1 /2 acre
lots;
3) would like more information on the outside elevations;
4) concerned with the lots of Oak Tree Estates being at a higher elevation resulting in the residents
looking upon the shielded mansard roof;
5) he is concerned with the traffic impact;
6) he requested more time to address their concerns with the developer.
Juergen Strunck, 200 N Carroll Ave., Southlake, Texas 76092, commented on the following items:
1) it was a nice center;
2) concerned with the proposed location and recommended the proposal be relocated to the property
across E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709) in the village center area;
3) concerned with the density being too great for that lot with too many large buildings;
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 01- 18 -96, tape 1, section #4296 -6974)
4) concerned with the numerous amount of proposed parking spaces;
5) referred to the Corridor Overlay Zone which addressed buildings not oriented towards the main
Thoroughfares:
a. this proposal has parking on both sides;
b. if this case is approved, the proposal should request openings of the buildings towards the
parking lots adjacent to S. Carroll Ave. and E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709);
6) concerned with the substantial surrounding residential areas;
7) proposal does not provide enough landscaping;
8) concerned with the numerous amount of retail space;
9) concerned with the existing trees on the northeastern -most portion of the property and the
proposal not taking into consideration the present terrain of the property.
Chansey Prade, 400 S. Carroll Ave., Southlake, Texas 76092, commented that he owns property due
west of the property. He commented on the following items:
1) he concurred with the last two gentlemen on their concerns;
2) deeply concerned with the drainage and has not see any information on how this issue will be
addressed and asked for property owners to be shown the engineering analysis;
3) concerned with the density and the traffic that will generated;
a. S. Carroll Ave. will not be able to handle the traffic flow.
Scott Martin (SPIN Representative #4), 591 E. Dove Road, Southlake, Texas 76092, commented on
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
JANUARY 18, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 19
items:
1) concerned with the existing trees being disregarded;
a. the parking islands can not support the mature native trees that grow in north Texas;
2) concerned with overall amount of site coverage which does not reflect the rural area that the
citizens of the Southlake would like to preserve, and would like to see it scaled down;
3) concept is admirable because it creates a "people place ".
June Haney, 400 Brock Dr., Southlake, Texas 76092, commented on the following items:
1) believes the concept is wonderful and will have a positive impact on the City; however, she
recommended it be relocated on the other side of E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709) because of the
elevations of the adjacent properties to the south and east;
2) concerned with trash, lighting, and drainage;
3) concerned with the realignment of Carroll Ave.
Mr. Bogdon commented on the following in response to their concerns:
1) a drainage study has been submitted to Staff for review:
a. drainage is being accommodated;
b. drainage will be picked up on all perimeters of the property and will be diverted to the mains
to the north;
City Engineer Ron Harper commented that the property drains to the southwest and the Nelson
Corporation recommends it be detained in parking detention areas (6 to 8 inches) and roof top
detention areas in accordance with the City requirements.
2) a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been submitted, and the levels will be acceptable with the
development in place;
3) the exterior design will reflect the interior design.
Chairman Wright closed the public hearing.
Vice - Chairman Johnson commented on the following items:
1) likes the concept, however, shared his concern that it should be relocated across the street in
village center;
2) recommended looking into the issue of saving some of the existing trees;
3) the Applicant has done a satisfactory job with the interior landscaping that is generally noted on
the Concept Plan.
Commissioner Potter commented on the following items:
1) concerned with the adjacent homeowner to the south;
2) did not think that the drainage would be a big issue;
3) stated that there were already a numerous amount of existing movie theaters in nearby cities and
stated his concern of a vacant building in the future;
4) concerned with discarding a large portion of existing trees in the "northern region ";
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
JANUARY 18, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 20
5) concerned with the parking.
Commissioner Potter asked Staff if the parking issue needs to addressed. Director Greg Last
commented that the parking spaces are determined by the uses and it is not evaluated at this time but
at the Site Plan stage.
Commissioner Schroetke commented on the following items:
1) concerned with the internal parking which will have pollution concentrated in that area where
the sidewalks, etc. will be located;
2) concerned with the intensity of uses;
3) concerned with the buffering of the property along the south line adjacent to residential area;
4) concerned with lighting protruding into any residential area and recommended Applicant meet
with Mr. Avery on this issue;
5) concerned with it affecting property values in the residential area to the south;
6) concerned with the impact it will have on S. Carroll Ave.;
7) requested to see the drainage plan for this project;
8) recommended the Applicant to come back with a different Concept Plan and suggested
relocating the movie theater (building C) to the northeast corner taking into consideration the
residents to the south of property.
City Engineer Ron Harper commented on the following:
1) a Preliminary Drainage Study has been submitted from the Consultant and reviewed;
2) the study meets all the ordinance requirements as well as the 100% detention of the additional
run -off;
3) the locations of the parking and roof detention areas can not be completed until everything is
done;
3) a detention pond is not required.
Chairman Wright commented on the following items:
1) this case has similar issues (70,000 s.f. buildings, S. White Chapel Blvd. and S. Carroll Ave.
being inadequate, etc.) with ZA96 -126, Rezoning and Concept for White Chapel Plaza;
2) the mansard roofs will not be sufficient due to the residents to the south looking down on the
proposal due to their higher elevation;
3) would like to look into the issue of the number of parking spaces in relation to the movie theater
use.
Commissioner Arnold commented on the following items:
1) this item could be tabled for additional review and give the Applicant time to address the issues;
2) recommended a bigger bufferyard between Oak Tree Estates and the proposal.
Chairman Wright called for a 5 minute recess at 10:55 p.m.
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
JANUARY 18, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 21
Chairman Wright reconvened the meeting at 11:00 p.m.
Mr. Gibson commented on the following items:
1) they did look at locating the proposal across the E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709), however, they
contacted the owners about purchasing the property in that area and received no response;
a. realized the importance of the concern of the adjacency;
2) they are accustomed to addressing the exterior design and lighting on the Site Plan, and some
of the items could be raised during the Site Plan phase;
3) requested the Commission to look at the timing of the process;
4) is surprised that the drainage study and TIA issues were raised since these were submitted to
Staff;
a. has been working diligently to provide Staff with the necessary items for review.
Commissioner Murphy commented on the following issues:
1) wished it was located across the street;
2) overall density;
3) elimination of "C -3" General Commercial District uses;
4) buffering on the south property line adjacent to residential:
a. increase the bufferyard
b. more restrictions on lighting
c. would like more details on this
d. citizens would like to hear that the two developers met and worked out some resolution on
this.
Vice - Chairman Johnson recommended the Applicant to respond to the items of concern and table
this item to address them. Chairman Wright asked Mr. Gibson the next meeting date that he would
like to address this. Mr. Gibson stated that he would prefer the shortest time.
Motion was made to table ZA95 -127, Rezoning and Concept Plan for Southlake Commons, to the
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting on February 8, 1996, granting the Applicant a couple of
extra days for resubmittal.
Motion: Johnson
Second: Murphy
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, Potter, and Schroetke
Nays: none
Approved: 6 -0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 01- 18 -96, tape 2, section #0 -1628)
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA
JANUARY 18, 1996
PAGE 22
The next two agenda items were moved up on the agenda due to length and to be in compliance with
Resolution 95 -24 (case limitations).
AGENDA ITEM #11, ZA95 -129, SITE PLAN FOR MCI, PHASE II
Motion was made to table ZA95 -129, Site Plan for MCI, Phase II, to the Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting on February 8, 1996, and continue the public hearing due to Resolution 95 -24
(case limitations).
Motion: Murphy
Second: Arnold
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, Potter and Schroetke
Nays: none
Approved: 6 -0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 01- 18 -96, tape 2, section #1628 -1702)
AGENDA ITEM #12, ZA95 -130, SITE PLAN FOR ANDERSON PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
Motion was made to table ZA95 -130, Site Plan for Anderson Professional Building, to the Planning
and Zoning Commission Meeting on February 8, 1996, continue the public hearing due to
Resolution 95 -24 (case limitations).
Motion: Murphy
Second: Johnson
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, Potter and Schroetke
Nays: none
Approved: 6 -0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 01- 18 -96, tape 2, section #1702 -1715)
AGENDA ITEM #10. ZA95 -128, FINAL PLAT FOR HUSE HOMEPLACE
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that the Applicant's request is for the
Final Plat for Huse Homeplace, being 16.63 acre tract of land situated in the R.D. Price Survey,
Abstract No. 1207, Tract 2C. The property is located adjacent and north of Quail Creek Estates
Addition and adjacent and west of Harbor Oaks Addition. The current zoning is "SF -1A" Single
Family Residential District. The Land Use Category is Low Density Residential. The property
Owner is Peggy Denton; the request is being submitted by the Applicant, Tom Matthews. The
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA
JANUARY 18, 1996
PAGE 23
property is located in SPIN Neighborhood #3. No written notices were required to be sent out to
property owners due to this being a Final Plat. The plat proposes 6 residential lots. Staff finds that
the Final Plat substantially conforms to the previously approved Revised Preliminary Plat. A copy
of the Owner's Acknowledgement & Dedication was given to the Commission that adds an
additional comment (10' pedestrian equestrian easement that runs along the eastern boundary of Lot
5 and the southern portion of Lot 6) that will be filed with the Final Plat. This language was
approved on the developer's agreement at the City Council Meeting on January 16, 1996.
Director Greg Last commented on the following items:
1) when the Preliminary Plat was approved by City Council , it was required to have a pedestrian -
equestrian easement;
2) there is no pedestrian equestrian easement stated in the Subdivision Ordinance, so Staff had a
concern of a requirement of an easement that the City did not have a definition for;
3) Staff looked at what the pedestrian access easement included;
4) since that time, City Council has acted upon a developer's agreement addressing amenities that
included language that restricted the uses for that easement;
5) Staff would recommend that the documentation be specified on the Final Plat, the limitations that
City Council agreed upon for that easement;
6) he recommended the motion be stated as the follows:
a. allow wording on the plat to limit the pedestrian - equestrian easement in accordance with the
developer's agreement that was approved by City Council.
Chairman Wright asked Staff if this could be handled on a separate instrument. Director Greg Last
stated that this could be done; however, it would have to go forward to City Council again for
approval of the dedication, and the dilemma is the timing.
Motion was made to approve ZA95 -128, Final Plat for Huse Homeplace, subject to Plat Review
Summary No. 1 dated January 12, 1996, amended as follows:
1) stipulating that the Final Plat shall have language per the developer's agreement regarding the
pedestrian- equestrian easement.
Motion: Johnson
Second: Potter
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, Potter, and Schroetke
Nays: none
Approved: 6 -0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 01- 18 -96, tape 2, section #1716-1951)
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA
JANUARY 18, 1996
PAGE 24
AGENDA ITEM #13, ZA95 -132, FINAL PLAT FOR NAPA VALLEY, PHASE II
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that the Applicant's request is for the
Final Plat for Napa Valley, Phase II, being 8.992 acre tract of land situated in the J.W. Hale Survey,
Abstract No. 803, Tract 2A. The property is located on the northeast corner of East Continental
Boulevard and Carlisle Lane. The current zoning is "SF -20A" Single Family Residential. The Land
Use Category is Medium Density Residential. The property Owner is Norman J. Brown; the request
is being submitted by the Applicant, Napa Valley Estates II. The property is located in SPIN
Neighborhood #8. No written notices were required to be sent out to property owners due to being
a Final Plat. The plat proposes 11 residential lots instead of the 12 lots that were reviewed at the
Preliminary Plat stage will be platted. Staff finds that the Final Plat substantially conforms to the
previously approved Revised Preliminary Plat.
No Commission discussion.
Motion was made to approve ZA95 -132, Final Plat for Napa Valley, Phase II, subject to Plat
Review Summary No. 1 dated January 12, 1996.
Motion: Potter
Second: Murphy
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, Potter and Schroetke
Nays: none
Approved: 6 -0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 01- 18 -96, tape 2, section #1951 -2018)
AGENDA ITEM #3, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS (CONT.)
Director Greg Last asked the Commission if they had received a copy of the matrix and if they had
an opportunity to complete it .
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Staff what the connection was between the committee to study the
split of Planning and Zoning and the request for a critique of Planning and Zoning Packets. Director
Greg Last stated that the discussion to see if the Planning and Zoning Commission could be split has
taken many directions after looking at a various amount of information. He added that one of the
discussion items that the committee had was the packet information. The committee was looking
into a solution of decreasing the Staff preparation time in preparing the packets and reducing the
workload created by the packets. Commissioner Potter commented that one of the issues was getting
things through Staff and giving recommendations. Vice - Chairman Johnson said that he thought that
making procedural recommendations exceeded the charter of the split committee, and that he
objected to the Commission being dictated to by an outside group. He indicated, however, that it
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA
JANUARY 18, 1996
PAGE 25
would be beneficial for the Commission and the Staff to work on smoothing out problems.
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked what was the concern with the Tree Preservation Ordinance and item
#15 about proactive rezoning in conformance to the Land Use Plan (this should be a high priority)
that was mentioned on the administrative calendar. He recommended that all ordinances be
reviewed over a 24 month period.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 01- 18 -96, tape 2, section #2018 -2200)
AGENDA ITEM #14, ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made to approve the adjournment of the meeting at 11:45 p.m. on Thursday, January
18, 1996.
Motion: Johnson
Second: Murphy
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, Potter, and Schroetke
Nays: none
Approved: 6 -0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 01- 18 -96, tape 1, section #2200 -2208)
Joe Wri t
Chairman
ATTEST:
Z re 411/1-62/ e Sheet
Secretary
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA
JANUARY 18, 1996
PAGE 26
G:\wpF\mTG\miN\1996\01-18-96.WPD