1996-02-08 P&Z Meeting City of Southlake, Texas
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 8,1996
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 18, 1996.
3. Administrative Comments.
4. Consider: ZA95 -129, SITE PLAN FOR MCI, PHASE II, being 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 approximately a 1.079 acre tract of land situated in the W.M.
Mills Survey, Abstract No. 877. Location: on the west side of N. White Chapel Blvd.,
approximately 5750' north of E. Dove St. Current Zoning: "CS" Community Service
District. Owner: MCI Telecommunications Corporation; Applicant: Unisite, Inc. SPIN
Neighborhood #1.
Public Hearing
5. Consider: ZA95 -130, SITE PLAN FOR ANDERSON PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, being legally
described as Lot 1R1, Block A, Commerce Business Park, as recorded in Cabinet A, Slide
2552, P.R.T.C.T., being approximately a 1.5619 acre tract of land situated in the Thomas
Easter Survey, Abstract No. 474. Location: on the southeast corner of Commerce St. and
E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709). Current Zoning: "I -1" Light Industrial District.
Owner /Applicant: Stephen P. Anderson, D.D.S. SPIN Neighborhood #7.
Public Hearing
6. Consider: ZA95 -127, REZONING AND CONCEPT PLAN FOR SOUTHLAKE COMMONS, being
approximately a 29.516 acre tract of land situated in the John A. Freeman Survey, Abstract
No. 529, Tract 7A. Location: on the southeast corner of S. Carroll Ave. and E. 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.
7. Consider: ZA96 -01, CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE PLAZA, being legally described as Lots 5 and 6,
Block 6, Diamond Circle Estates Second Installment as shown on the Plat recorded in
Volume 388 -181, Page 69, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, situated in the W. W. Hall
Survey, Abstract No. 687, and being approximately a 1.70 acre tract of land. Location: on
the northeast corner at the intersection of N. White Chapel Blvd. and E. Southlake Blvd.
City of Southlake, Texas
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA
FEBRUARY 8, 1996
PAGE 2
(F.M. 1709). Current Zoning: "C -2" Local Retail Commercial District. Owner: Frank
Putt; Applicant: Crossroad Square, Ltd. SPIN Neighborhood #10.
Public Hearing
8. Consider: ZA96 -02, SPECIFIC USE PERMIT (FOR THE SALE OF PACKAGED BEER FOR
OFF - PREMISE CONSUMPTION) FOR MAGIC MIKE'S TEXACO, per Zoning
Ordinance No. 480, Section 45.1 (1) and 45.6 (a and b), being legally described as Lot 5,
Block 6, Diamond Circle Estates Second Installment as shown on the Plat recorded in
Volume 388 -181, Page 69, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, situated in the W. W.
Hall Survey, Abstract No. 687, and being approximately a 0.94 acre tract of land.
Location: at the northeast corner at the intersection of N. White Chapel Blvd. and E.
Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709). Current Zoning: "C -2" Local Retail Commercial District.
Owner: Frank Putt; Applicant: Crossroad Square, Ltd. SPIN Neighborhood #10.
Public Hearing
9. Consider: ZA96 -03, REZONING, being legally described as Tract 5 -R -1, The Glory Place Addition
shown on the Plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 1626 , situated in the Hirman Granberry
Survey, Abstract No. 581, and being approximately a 11.17 acre tract of land. Location:
1111 S. White Chapel Blvd., and beingon the east side of S. White Chapel Blvd. and
approximately 900' north of the intersection of S. White Chapel Blvd. and E. Continental
Blvd. Current Zoning: "SF -1A" Single Family Residential District; Requested Zoning:
"RE" Residential Estate. Owner /Applicant: Gary Hargett. SPIN Neighborhood #10.
Public Hearing
10. Consider: ZA96 -04, REVISED SITE PLAN FOR SCHLOTZSKY'S, on property being proposed
as Lot 1, W. R. Eaves No. 500 Addition, and being legally described as a portion of Tract
2B in the W.R. Eaves Survey, Abstract No. 500, and being approximately a 0.83 acre tract
of land. Location: north of W. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709) approximately 800' east of
Randol Mill Ave. Current Zoning: "C -2" Local Retail Commercial District. Owner:
Schlotzsky's N.E., Inc.; Applicant: N. S. Associates. SPIN Neighborhood #13.
Public Hearing
11. Consider: ZA96 -05, REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR VILLAGE CENTER, PHASE II
(WEST), Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, being approximately a 21.352 acre tract of land situated
in the T. Mahan Survey, Abstract No. 1049, and being legally described as a portion of
Tract 6, and being a revision of Lot 3, Block 2 of the previously approved Preliminary Plat.
Location: south and adjacent to E. Northwest Parkway (S.H. 114) and north and adjacent
to E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709), approximately 2000' west of Kimball Ave. Current
Zoning: "C -3" General Commercial District. Owner: James Farrar, et. al.; Applicant:
Midland Development Group. SPIN Neighborhood #4. This development proposes
commercial uses.
Public Hearing
City of Southlake, Texas
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA
FEBRUARY 8, 1996
PAGE 3
12. Consider: ZA96 -06, SITE PLAN FOR VILLAGE CENTER, PHASE I (EAST), Lot 3, Block 1,
being approximately a 13.07 acre tract of land situated in the T. Mahan Survey, Abstract
No. 1049, and being legally described as a portion of Tract 6, and being Lot 3, Block 1 of
the previously approved Preliminary Plat. Location: south and adjacent to E. Northwest
Parkway (S.H. 114) and north and adjacent to E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709).,
approximately 1000' west of Kimball Ave. Current Zoning: "C -3" General Commercial
District. Owner: James Farrar, et. al.; Applicant: Midland Development Group. SPIN
Neighborhood #4.
Public Hearing
13. Consider: ZA96 -08, FINAL PLAT FOR KIRKWOOD HOLLOW, PHASE I, being approximately
a 54.894 acre tract of land situated in the R.D. Price Survey, Abstract No. 1207, being all
of Tracts 3A2, 3A3A, 3C, and portions of Tracts 3A3, 3A3A1, 3A4A, and 3A4B and the
James B. Martin Survey, Abstract No. 1134, being a portion of Tract 1. Location:
northeast of W. Northwest Parkway (S.H. 114), east of E. T.W. King Rd., north of W.
Dove St., and west of N. White Chapel Blvd. Current Zoning: "R- P.U.D.," Residential
Planned Unit Development. Owner: MTP -IBM Phase II & III Joint Venture; Applicant:
Maguire Thomas Partners. This plat proposes 73 residential lots. SPIN Neighborhood #2.
14. Consider: ZA95 -116, REZONING AND CONCEPT PLAN FOR COMMERCE SQUARE, being
approximately a 7.22 acre tract of land situated in the Thomas Easter Survey, Abstract No.
474, Tract 3A. Location: south of E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709) and immediately east
of Crooked Lane. Current Zoning: "AG" Agricultural District; Requested Zoning: "S -P -2"
Generalized Site Plan District with "0-1" (Office), "I -1" (Light Industrial), and "B -1"
(Business Service Park) uses. Owners: Steve and Sue Pritchett; Applicant: Pima
Properties, Inc. SPIN Neighborhood #7.
Public Hearing.
15. Consider: ZA95 -117, SPECIFIC USE PERMIT (OUTSIDE STORAGE FOR MINI - WAREHOUSE
STORAGE, OFFICE /SHOWROOM AND OUTSIDE STORAGE) FOR COMMERCE
SQUARE, per Ordinance No. 480, Section 45.1 (27), being approximately a 2.53 acre tract
of land situated in the Thomas Easter Survey, Abstract No. 474, Tract 3A (Southern one-
third). Location: south of F.M. 1709 (Southlake Boulevard) and immediately East of
Crooked Lane. Current Zoning: "AG" Agricultural District; Requested Zoning: "S -P -2"
Generalized Site Plan District with "0-1" (Office), "I -1" (Light Industrial), and "B -1"
(Business Service Park) uses. Owners: Steve and Sue Pritchett; Applicant: Pima
Properties, Inc. SPIN Neighborhood #7.
Public Hearing.
16. Consider: ZA96 -15, REVISED 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.
City of Southlake, Texas
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA
FEBRUARY 8, 1996
PAGE 4
17. 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, February 2, 1996 at 5:00 p.m., pursuant to the Texas
Government Code, Chapter 551.
O � g OUTy, i �
P4
Kim ra ush
Acti g City Secretary co I,
3
a
I btatimutittO
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 \02- 08 -96. W PD
COMMISSION MEETING
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING
FEBRUARY 8, 1996
COMMISSION PRESENT: Chairman Joe Wright, Vice - Chairman Ernest Johnson; Members:
Randy Arnold, Jim Murphy, Arthur Hobbs, Rex Potter, and Dona Schroetke
COMMISSION ABSENT: none
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Director Greg Last, Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy, Planner Tom
Elgin, City Civil Engineer Shawn Poe, and Administrative Secretary Laurie Sheets
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Wright at 7:02 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion was made to approve the minutes of the January 18, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting, amended as follows:
1) page 8, first paragraph, only list the embedded uses that were stated rather than using all the
items from the generic lists provided by Vice - Chairman Johnson
2) page 10, last paragraph, item #2, replace the word "ethically" wrong to "aesthetically"
3) page 13, third paragraph, item #2, replace the word "too" to "that"
4) page 17, third paragraph, first sentence, replace the word "clarity" to "background"
5) page 17, third paragraph, last sentence, add the word "not" between the words "will" and "be"
6) page 18, first paragraph, item #2.a, delete the words "3 acre ".
Motion: Murphy
Second: Johnson
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, Potter, and Schroetke
Nays: none
Abstained: Hobbs
Approved: 6 -0 -1
Motion carried.
Abstaining Commissioner Hobbs was not present at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
on January 18, 1996.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 02- 08 -96, tape 1, section #0 -80)
AGENDA ITEM #3, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS
Director Last commented on the following items:
1) provided the Commission with the updated Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances
a. informed them there is a historical record provided in the front of the ordinances that reflects
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 8, 1996
PAGE 2
the amendments as of to date
b. asked them if they would like a different format than the ordinances binded on binding
combs to inform the Staff
2) provided the Commission with the Master Thoroughfare Plan Agenda on March 6, 1996, for
public input
3) discussed the upcoming zoning training session that will be held at North Central Texas Council
of Governments and asked that if they would like to attend, to please contact the Staff for
registration
4) informed the Commission that the certain offices at City Hall will be relocating:
a. Administrative Offices and portions of the Finance Department will be moving to a building
in the Woodland Heights Subdivision at Westwood Dr. on Friday and Monday
b. Community Development Department will be relocating to the previous area that the
Administrative Department is at this present time
c. portions of the Public Works Department will be relocating to inside the City Hall Building
d. the Staffs telephone extension numbers will remain the same
5) discussed the summary completed by the Feasibility of Splitting Planning and Zoning
Committee and stated that the final conclusion was unanimous in not to recommend splitting
planning and zoning.
Jim Murphy (Feasibility of Splitting Planning and Zoning Committee Member) commented on
the following items regarding the committee study:
a. started reviewing the issues in the Fall of 1995
b. had direction from City Council to review establishing two separate bodies (one that
addressed planning issues and the second one addressed zoning issues), length of meetings
(a concern from citizens), and planning was getting short changed.
b. reviewed pros and cons
c. received survey responses from inside and outside communities of Texas that addressed
questions as to how their community handled these issues
d. recommended unanimously to retain the present format and to review certain processing
issues, for example, ordinances and meeting packet information, etc.; however, the issues
that were recommended for review were not items that the committee was asked to address,
and recommended for the Staff and City Council to address the processing improvement
issues
e. formal recommendation was presented to City Council on February 6, 1996.
Vice - Chairman Johnson recommended that the Commission and Staff might address the processing
improvement issues.
Chairman Wright asked Staff if the City Council had taken any action on February 6, 1996. Director
Greg Last stated that they did not take any formal action on it and will consider the
recommendations at the upcoming meeting.
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA
FEBRUARY 8, 1996
PAGE 3
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 02- 08 -96, tape 1, section #80 -258)
AGENDA ITEM #5, ZA95 -129. SITE PLAN FOR MCI, PHASE II
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that the Applicant's request is for the
Site Plan for MCI, Phase II, being 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 approximately
a 1.079 acre tract of land situated in the W.M. Mills Survey, Abstract No. 877. The property is
located on the west side of N. White Chapel Blvd., approximately 5750' north of E. Dove St. The
Current Zoning is "CS" Community Service District. The Land Use Category is Medium Density
Residential /65 Ldn Contour in the Airport Overlay Zone. The property Owner is MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; and the request is being submitted by the Applicant, Unisite, Inc.
The property is located in SPIN Neighborhood #1. Four (4) written notices were sent to property
owners within the 200 feet notification area, and the Staff has received one (1) response that is in
favor of the plan. Unisite is managing the site for MCI. The site will provide separate
communication hook -ups for multiple users in effort to prevent multiple tower locations in this area
that the cellular and latest communication technics are needing to provide service for this area. On
January 18, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved to table this item until tonight's
meeting due to resolution No. 95 -24 (case limitations); the Commission was unable to take action
on this item. The first project will be the small pad /user site at the western portion of the existing
facility. Then they will propose additional sites for multiple users on the southern portion of the
existing facility.
Commissioner Murphy asked Staff for clarification on the fact that there is presently a tower
established on an existing building. Zoning administration Karen Gandy stated that this is correct
and added that there is an existing tower location with vault for the equipment and a fence that
encloses the site. She added that the Applicant intends to add an indention in the existing fence for
an equipment vault.
Bill Roberge ( Unisite, Inc.), 1601 N. Glenville, Richardson, Texas 75081, represented this item. He
commented on the following items:
1) currently managing the existing facility as well as other MCI nationwide locations
2) the proposal is to market for co- /use for multiple users at the existing facility
3) MCI would like to use existing facilities for co -use to accommodate the foreseen future demands
for communications sites rather than building new constructions site
4) currently has application from MobileCom Nationwide Paging to install antennas and equipment
at this present existing facility
5) would like to amend the existing Site Plan for MCI
6) construction will be done in phases
7) stated the following items regarding Phase I:
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA
FEBRUARY 8, 1996
PAGE 4
a. location is in the back corner of the existing facility
b. build a fence with a gate in a separate area with a gate
c. build a 9' x 7' equipment shelter that will house the equipment for the Applicant that will be
located in the back corner of the existing facility
d. as per the requirement from the Fire Marshall, the existing 12' wide driveway off of N. White
Chapel Blvd. will be widened to 24' wide and the existing culvert under the road will be
extended
e. will be running power troughs into the site to accommodate the need for electrical power to
the new shelter
f. Applicant will have an antenna placed on the top of the tower as well as an antenna around
the edge of the fenced area
8) worked with Staff on the Concept Plan that addresses the overall master layout of the site which
will help alleviate the timing processing of going before a public hearing to establish an antennas
and facilities for new Applicants
9) stated the following items on the master plan layout:
a. build an additional fenced compound on the south side of the existing MCI fenced compound
b. pour a pad which will have equipment shelters built as needed for additional users
c. build a 24' wide driveway off of the existing driveway for access to the site
d. build a wave guide bridge over to the tower and across the fenced area to along hanging of
the cables
10) access will be controlled and all areas fences, if there is a need for an Applicant to have
access to the tower it will be to be coordinated with MCI operations
11) this is an unmanned facility
12) there will be no water or sewer for the site
13) requested a variance on the parking area and driveway area to be paved with an all weather
surface material:
a. Fire Marshall stated that if they had engineering certification stating that the existing area
will hold the weight of the fire truck(s), they would probably agree not to pave the existing
road considering the status of the unmanned facility
14) a letter of certification has been completed by a professional engineer stating that the surface
will sustain the required weight loads under the code requirement
Vice - Chairman Johnson commented that on the submittal dated January 22, 1996 designated the
existing 12' wide gravel road was going to be asphalted and asked Mr. Roberge if this is or is not
their intention. Mr. Roberge commented that it is not and that when they filed the first set of plans,
the Staffs comments stated that the plans designate what the code requires until they have an
exception to that. He added that plans were revised to comply with the code and asked for this
requirement to be waived.
14) requested a variance on item #1 (18' s.f. interior landscaping in Phase II) of the staff review
letter due to the nature and location of the site and the fact it is minimum landscape that will
not have water on the site
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA
FEBRUARY 8, 1996
PAGE 5
15) requested a variance on the bufferyard landscaping; however, if it is required, they requested
to delay this requirement until the Phase II outside of the existing fence is established
16) requested for item #2 (masonry construction requirement) be addressed in Phase II and
waived in Phase I, so they could construct the building within the existing compound be an
aluminum siding type shelter to coincide with the exterior on the existing MCI facility
17) requested for the knox -box requirement, set forth by the Fire Marshall, be addressed in Phase
II in which there will be additional shelters
Commissioner Potter asked Staff to explain what are knox boxes. Director Greg Last stated that they
are boxes that contain a key for access and that the Fire Department would be the only one to have
the key for the knox boxes. He added that this issue should be addressed in the fire code with the
Fire Marshall and it is inappropriate for the Planning and Zoning Commission to act upon this.
Commissioner Potter asked Staff if there was information from the Fire Department on some of
these issues regarding the pavement of the road and the knox boxes. Director Greg Last stated again
that the Planning and Zoning Commission does not have the authority to waive any fire code
requirements.
Vice - Chairman Johnson commented that the code does not require bufferyard or any screening
device for this equipment, buildings, etc. from the road. He asked Mr. Roberge if any screening
device from the north to the south property line adjacent to N. White Chapel Blvd. been considered.
Mr. Roberge stated that he is only marketing MCI sites to users for co- location use. He agreed if
plantings are required, it would be most suitable along the property line adjacent to N. White Chapel
Blvd. Chairman Wright asked Mr. Roberge if he would like to provide the bufferyard along the
property line adjacent to N. White Chapel Blvd. instead of at the north property line. Mr. Roberge
stated he did not mind relocating the bufferyard in Phase II. He added that the only problem is that
there is a cost involved in locating water service to the bufferyard. Commissioner Potter asked Staff
if water was required on this property. Director Greg Last stated that there are no plumbing facilities
on the site.
Commissioner Potter asked Staff if it was typical for a chained -link fence to have barbed wire on
top of it. Mr. Roberge stated that the existing MCI site has barbed wire on top. He added that the
reason for this type of fencing is to prevent people scaling over the fence to climb the tower;
therefore, it is a safety issue.
Chairman Wright opened the public hearing.
No discussion from the audience.
Chairman Wright closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Potter and Commissioner Arnold commented that they did not want to waive the
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
FEBRUARY 8, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 6
masonry requirement. Commissioner Murphy recommended for this requirement to be implemented
at on Phase II; fore, Phase I is such a small addition. Commissioner Hobbs commented that he could
not support the other five (5) proposed buildings to be constructed without meeting the masonry
requirement. Commissioner Murphy and Commissioner Hobbs commented that Phase I is in the
back of the existing building. Mr. Roberge noted that it was agreed that the requirement be meet at
Phase II.
Commissioner Potter commented on his concern with the Applicant not meeting the paved road
requirement. Commissioner Murphy reminded Commissioner Potter that if the all weather surface
material (pavement) is waived that the road would still have to meet the codes set forth by the Fire
Marshall.
Commissioner Potter recommended for the Applicant to provide a sufficient amount of bufferyard
along N. White Chapel Blvd. to screen the barbed wire.
Motion was made to approve ZA95 -129, Site Plan for MCI, Phase II, subject to Plan Review
Summary No. 2 dated February 2, 1996, amended as follows:
1) delete item #1 (interior landscape)
2) address item #2 (masonry construction for all facades) to be met beginning with Phase II
3) allowing type B bufferyard to the north, at the Applicant's volunteering, be relocated to the N.
White Chapel Blvd. frontage
4) allowing the all weather surface material (pavement) road to be forgiven.
Commissioner Potter asked the other Commission Members if type B bufferyard would be
appropriate to cover that area. Vice - Chairman Johnson and Commissioner Murphy noted that the
Applicant volunteered to provide the bufferyard. Commissioner Schroetke recommended for the
Applicant to incorporate interior landscaping in the bufferyard along N. White Chapel Blvd. Vice -
Chairman Johnson commented that the motion stands.
Motion: Johnson
Second: Murphy
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Murphy, and Hobbs
Nays: Arnold, Potter, and Schroetke
Approved: 4 -3
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 02- 08 -96, tape 1, section #259 -1288)
AGENDA ITEM #5, ZA95 -130, SITE PLAN FOR ANDERSON PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that the Applicant's request is for the
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
FEBRUARY 8, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 7
Site Plan for Anderson Professional Building, being legally described as Lot 1R1, Block A,
Commerce Business Park, as recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 2552, P.R.T.C.T., being approximately
a 1.5619 acre tract of land situated in the Thomas Easter Survey, Abstract No. 474. The property
is located on the southeast corner of Commerce St. and E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709). The
Current Zoning is "I -1" Light Industrial District. The Land Use Category is Mixed Use /65 Ldn
Contour in the Airport Overlay Zone. The Corridor Designation is Retail Commercial. The request
is being submitted by the property Owner and Applicant, Stephen P. Anderson, D.D.S. The property
is located in SPIN Neighborhood #7. Six (6) written notices were sent to property owners within
the 200 feet notification area, and the Staff has received one (1) response outside the area in favor
of the plan. On January 18, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved to table this item
until tonight's meeting due to Resolution No. 95 -24 (case limitations); the Commission was unable
to take action on this item.
Vice - Chairman Johnson commented that Current Zoning is "I -1" Light Industrial District and
looking at the "master plan ", industrial use is no longer an appropriate use for that area. He added
that the "0-1" Office District is a cumulated use which is subordinated to "I -1" Light Industrial
District. He asked Staff if the Commission would like to see this area to be "0-1" Office District,
would this take a separate action or could it be in conjunction with this case proposal. Zoning
Administrator Karen Gandy stated that it would take a separate action and hearing, but that the City
could initiate that action.
Phil Morley (Morley Architects), 210 Park Blvd., Suite 100, Grapevine, Texas 76051, represented
this item. He commented on the following items:
1) he is representing Dr. Stephen P. Anderson who is a dentist in the area
2) the development is proposing a professional office building with the primary tenant being a
dentist to be located at the corner
3) provided a visual display of the articulated structure with horizontal and vertical variations and
numerous amount of off -sets.
Commissioner Murphy recognized that the primary tenant will be a dentist and asked Mr. Morley
about the other potential uses for other multiple tenants. Mr. Morley stated that the dentist office
will be approximately 3,000 s.f. of the upper portion of the building and the remaining office space
will be for available as a leasable space. He added that there might another dentist in the building.
Commissioner Arnold asked Mr. Morley if any "I -1" Light Industrial District uses were proposed
for the development. Mr. Morley stated that there was not and added that it was strictly a
professional building.
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Morley if the only driveway entrance would be on Commerce
Street. Mr. Morley stated that this was correct.
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
FEBRUARY 8, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 8
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Morley is there a common access easement to the adjacent east
property. Mr. Morley stated that there is a dedicated easement and there will be an extension of the
paved area.
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Morley if he had read the staff review letter dated January 12,
1996 and asked him to address item #6 (provide horizontal and vertical articulation of the north, east,
south, and west facades of the building according to the requirements in Ordinance 480 -S, Section
43.c.1.c.) in that letter. Mr. Morley stated that he had reviewed letter and added the following
comments:
1) when the proposal was developed, the off -sets were in question in meeting the requirements
2) asked for a variance on item #6 regarding the north facade facing E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709)
and added the following comments about the facade:
a. will having aligned operatories
b. being a dentist office, it will be very important that all the operatories line up and do not have
off -sets in them
c. the windows have articulation provided where the windows are deeply set
d. the facade has protrusions of approximately 11" to 12" at multiple times and asked to be
allowed less depth but having multiple times with windows
e.. has insets for light sconces
3). same "thinking" is considered for the other elevations
4). will be happy to work with Staff to further comply with the off -sets on the east and west
elevations
Chairman Wright opened the public hearing.
No discussion from the audience.
Chairman Wright closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Arnold and Commissioner Murphy commented it was a nice looking building.
Commissioner Murphy asked Mr. Morley if he had any other comments to the staff review letter
especially about the bufferyard issues. Mr. Morley commented on the following items:
1) item #2a (correct the bufferyard type required along the north property line adjacent to E.
Southlake Blvd. to a 20' Type 'P' Bufferyard) will be corrected
2) in reference to item #2c (Pavement and parking areas are not allowed within bufferyards. The
parking turn around at the north end of the parking area extends approximately 5' into the 20'
Type 'P' Bufferyard.), he stated that there was a substantial right -of -way setback and requested
a deeper turn around which will intrude 5' into the bufferyard, however, they will provide
additional landscaping to cover this.
CLIRTTC F 14A-W .
FEBRUARY 14 —+996 a ...:;�.
PAGE 9
Commissioner Potter asked Staff what the additional right -of -way was being proposed for.
Director Greg Last stated that this would be maintained as parkway or grass for quite awhile.
He added that it might have been used for a slope easement or slope embankment to help get the
grade the street in.
Commissioner Potter commented that the Applicant has tried to meet the intent of the ordinance on
item #6 of the staff review letter and recommended for the Commission to forgive this requirement.
Motion was made to approve ZA95 -130, Site Plan for Anderson Professional Building, subject to
Plan Review Summary No. 1 dated February 2, 1996, amended as follows:
1) deleting item #2 (allowing pavement for parking turnaround in the bufferyard)
2) on item #6, allowing the north building facade articulation as shown and working with staff on
the east and west building facade's articulation to meet the intent of ordinance requirements.
Motion: Murphy
Second: Potter
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, Hobbs, Potter, and Schroetke
Nays: none
Approved: 7 -0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 02- 08 -96, tape 1, section #1289 -1779)
Chairman Wright called for a recess at 8:00 p.m.
Chairman Wright reconvened the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Chairman Wright informed the audience that at the last meeting the public hearing was closed;
however, since the Applicant is going to represent a portion of what was addressed at the last
meeting that the Commission will allow discussion from the audience but will not reopen the public
hearing.
AGENDA ITEM #6, 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; and the Requested Zoning is "S -P -2" Generalized Site Plan
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
FEBRUARY 8, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 10
District with "C -3" General Commercial District uses. The Applicant has deleted some of the
requested "C -3" General Commercial District uses on the plan. 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 thirteen written responses (three (3) within the area
and ten (10) outside the area). On January 18, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved
to table this item. The Applicant has provided additional detailed information that addressed
concerns of the surrounding property owners. For example, provided an exhibit that addressed
concerns (the appearance from the residential site to the commercial site, lighting in the south
parking area, buffering, and provided trees that would facilitate good screening in their landscape
concept) from the adjacent property owners to the south
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Staff to clarify which lots to the south were owned by the two
responses received within the notification area that are in opposition. Zoning Administrator Karen
Gandy stated that Murchison Properties, Inc. and Avery Custom Builders are one of the same and
Huntington Homes and Sanders & Associates Custom Builders are subsidiaries, and are all opposed.
She added that all of the properties to the south are opposed and the lot to the east is in favor.
Commissioner Schroetke asked Staff if the south lots comprise 20% of the surrounding property
owners. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that it appears to be the 20% which will have
an impact the vote at City Council that will require a super majority vote.
Commission Potter asked Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy about his request for her to research
the qualifications of a shopping center versus a mall, and asked for her conclusions in reference to
this case being considered a shopping center or mall. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated the
following comments:
1) the Zoning Ordinance is silent as to providing descriptions for an arterial mall or shopping center
2) in her research looked extensively in the purpose and intent section in the "C -3" and "C -4"
Arterial Mall Section
3) this particular site would be considered a shopping center which the "C -3" General Commercial
District uses would be appropriate that the Applicant is proposing
4) added the following distinctions:
a. the major distinction of a mall and a shopping center is the relationship of how the public
accessing the stores: arterial malls have stores that front the pedestrian way in which the
public has direct store access and the malls could be covered or uncovered, etc. and shopping
centers have the public park in front of individual stores and having limited access
b. another distinction of a mall and a shopping center is a regional supplier of services; the mall
will pull from a larger area and a shopping center will be more localized
c. arterial malls should be adjacent to thoroughfares; F.M. 1709 is considered as a thoroughfare
and S. Carroll Avenue is proposed as an arterial.
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
FEBRUARY 8, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 11
David Gibson (President, First Gulf Developments, Ltd), 268 Douglas Ave., Toronto, Canada,
represented this item. He commented on the following items:
1) the current zoning is "C -2" Local Retail Commercial District which allows shopping centers
2) presented a visual comparison of a strip center that had 330,000 s.f. with all of the uses that
Southlake Commons is requesting and the proposed Southlake Commons proposal which is
proposing 320,000 s.f., and pointed out that the strip center had all the parking centers in the
front of the mall; requested for the Commission to take the comparison into consideration when
addressing the issues that will be raised
3) wanted to address all the issues
4) the proposal has residential character
5) provided a letter to the Commission from Jacobsens Stores dated February 8, 1996 on their
intentions to build in Southlake
6) it might be difficult to save all the existing trees to the east, however, they would try to save all
the trees that they could
7) met with Mr. Avery and the Murchinson Group to address the issues that were raised
8) will provide an 8' masonry wall to help alleviate the noise issue
9) will provide 3" to 3.5" caliper trees (20' to 22' in height) in the landscaping
10) a professional landscaper will be hired
11) met with their lighting consultants and engineers and came up with a lighting plan that will
have 6 to 8 lighting standards 30' high with lenses to shield lighting from going into the
adjacent residential development and he pointed out that security for patrons in the parking
area was an issue
12) they have done they could do conceivably do to accommodate the issues raised by the
adjacent residents to the south
13) the speciality centers cannot meet the standards today without passive entertainment to
ensure the traffic in the shopping center
14) stated the following in response to issues raised about the movie theater:
a. could not relocate the movie theater, due to meeting the needs of the fashion anchors to
be located in the front of the center
b. did not know the number of movie screens for the 44,000 s.f. movie theater at this time;
however, estimated it to have 10 screens with 2300 seats
c. tried to find out the peak periods for the movie theater and after talking with the AMC
Move Theaters has come up with Saturdays having the largest operating volume of 26%
and Fridays following with 21%
d. the entrances and exits of the movie theater will be to the north onto the walkway
e. an estimated a couple of hundred people exiting the theater at a given time
f. there is no major noise levels
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked if his research show many cars would be represented by the
number of people in the movie theater. Mr. Gibson stated he could provide this information
if given the appropriate time.
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
FEBRUARY 8, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 12
15) this type of shopping center because of its average sales transactions being higher will
generate less traffic than a discount center.
Vice - Chairman Johnson commented that the Applicant excluded more uses and asked the Applicant
if he objected to a few more uses such as dry cleaning plants, gyms, nurseries, printing plants, and
large grocery stores. He added that if he does need to request the uses, would he mind limiting the
size of the uses to a certain square footage, for example, limiting the size as proposed in a "C -2"
Local Retail Commercial District as opposed to a size that would be allowed in a "C -3" General
Commercial District. Mr. Gibson commented on the following items:
1) taverns have been overlooked in the deletion of requested uses in which they agreed to exclude
2) had not intention to have major printing presses
3) initially, left the requested nursery use in to accommodate a florist in which he did not know if
this fell into this category and it is not his intention to have a major nursery on the site
4) requested to leave the dry cleaning use in to provide a quality cleaner
5) did not mind limiting the size of the uses mentioned by Vice - Chairman Johnson
6) will limit the size of the grocery store due to the center specializing in speciality stores.
Commissioner Potter asked Mr. Gibson if the proposal will provide service and expect a lot of traffic
from outside the city area. Mr. Gibson stated that predominately it will service the Southlake area;
however, if someone from Colleyville comes to their favorite store, it would be hard to stop.
Commissioner Arnold asked Mr. Gibson if he had specifically talked with anyone on restaurants that
would be coming in. Mr. Gibson stated that they would like to have restaurants of a high quality to
accommodate the demographics of the community.
Commissioner Potter asked Mr. Gibson if patrons could access the buildings from the parking lots.
Mr. Gibson stated that 75 to 80% of the merchants will be focused to the interior courtyard area.
There are some retailers, such as Talborts, they do work both sides of the store, however, most of
the merchants will only want one egress and ingress for security reasons. He added that the
treatment of the building will have a front all around the shopping center; there will be no rear of the
building that will aid to its appeal.
Commissioner Potter asked Mr. Gibson if the northwest loading dock was going to be screened. Mr.
Gibson confirmed that this was correct and it will probably composed of a combination of brick and
landscaping.
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Gibson if the northeast corner would be cut and filled or the slope
maintained. Mr. Gibson stated that he could not give an appropriate answer at this time, however,
he thought that the engineers stated that this area will have to be cut and filled to provide the proper
drainage for the area. Vice - Chairman Johnson commented that he did not think the citizens of
Southlake would like to see massive cuts with a large retaining wall, especially the property to the
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
FEBRUARY 8, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 13
east. Mr. Gibson stated that this was not the intent.
Chairman Wright asked the proximity of the building to the east property line. Director Greg Last
stated that it was 87'.
Commissioner Potter asked Mr. Gibson about item #1 on the staff review letter that dealt with
driveway throat depth requirements in Ordinance No. 634. Mr. Gibson stated that the length on S.
Carroll Ave. was discussed at the last meeting and thought is was a minor issue and Staff thought
it was something they could live with. Vice - Chairman asked if the plan, as presented, complied with
the requirement. Director Greg Last stated that it did not comply; the requirement is 150' and the
Applicant has provided 140'. Mr. Gibson stated that if this is a major issue that he would comply
with the 150' requirement. Chairman Wright inquired about the driveway entrance at the
northeastern most portion of the property having on 67' which does not meet the requirement.
Director Greg Last commented that this driveway is similar and utilized to a service drive, however,
there will be people parking in the vicinity. Commissioner Murphy asked Staff if this drive could
be designated as a right turn only at this phase or is it addressed on the Site Plan. Director Greg Last
stated that it typically is addressed on the Site Plan, however, it is being discussed on the Concept
Plan. He added that the Applicant meets all the driveway requirements except for the driveway
entrance throat depth and if the Commission would like, this issue could be deferred to the Site Plan.
Commissioner Schroetke asked Mr. Gibson the location of the docks for buildings D and E fronting
E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709). Mr. Gibson stated that the buildings are for smaller stores with
delivery parcels coming in through the front door or rear loaded. He added that there will be no
"major truck docks ". He added that the 4' back doors will be of an attractive quality nature and it
would not be a roll -up type door.
Vice - Chairman Johnson recommended for the Applicant to restrict the hours of operation on retail
stores to 9:00 p.m. and restaurants and movie theater to 12:00 midnight, and asked Mr. Gibson if he
had any concerns with this recommendation. Mr. Gibson stated that certain retail shops have
different hours of operation around the country. Vice - Chairman Johnson pointed out that Highland
Park in north Dallas, Texas, that is being used as a upscale comparison model closed at either 6:00
p.m. or 9:00 p.m., and asked Mr. Gibson if he was comfortable with this request since the
comparison model has the same closing time as the request. Mr. Gibson recommended closing the
retail stores at 9:30 p.m. during the weekdays.
Commissioner Schroetke asked about light section 2 on the plan in reference to the line of sight from
the center to the residents to the south, and asked Mr. Gibson if the numbers provided were the
actual figures of the wall to the residents. Mr. Gibson stated that numbers were derived from a house
that is being built. Commissioner Schroetke asked if the houses were at the same level as the
shopping center. Mr. Gibson stated the residents to the south might have their ground level rising
a little bit. Vice - Chairman Johnson commented that the numbers of the ground level are indicated
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
FEBRUARY 8, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 14
on the plan which indicates 630' to 635'.
Chairman Wright opened the meeting for discussion from the audience.
Jeff Avery (Vice- President, Murchinson Properties, Inc.), 901 Hardage Lane, Colleyville, Texas, is
opposed and commented on the following:
1) spent several hours meeting with the Applicant on the noise and landscaped buffers to less the
impact on the development
2) concerned with the intensity use, lighting, drainage, noise, buffering, etc.
3) the opposition is due to the request of the zoning change being inappropriate to the adjacent
residential lots which will create a burden on their subdivision in selling the lots adjacent to the
tract of land; when the lots were purchased for the subdivision the tract of land to the north was
zoned "C -2" "Neighborhood Commercial
4) the zoning change will bring a significant amount of traffic into the area
5) recommended for the proposal to be relocated at a different location
6) recommended for the proposal to be denied
7) S. Carroll Avenue is to under sized to handle the traffic flow from the movie theater
8) asked the Commission to protect value of his lots and surrounding properties.
Vice - Chairman Johnson pointed out to Mr. Avery that a "C -2" is a Local Retail Commercial and
with that zoning an Applicant could develop 50% of the lot with buildings without presenting the
case to the Commission.
Tommy Andrews (Southridge Lakes Resident), 1201 Sabine Ct., Southlake, Texas 76092, is in favor
of the plan and commented on the following items:
1) the City is fortunate to have a developer come in with this type of project that has a specific use
plan
2) it bothered him that it will take super majority vote from City Council to get this approved
because of the fact that the eleven residential lots to the south are controlled by the developer of
the subdivision as opposed to the individual homeowners
3) the high school just received the Blue Ribbon Status Award which will make the City more
desirable place to live
4) believed this was a blue ribbon project and one the City could be proud of.
Greg Moe (Myers Meadow, Phase I, Resident), 207 Meadowlark Lane, Southlake, Texas 76092, is
in favor of the plan and commented on the following items:
1) it would bring in the uses he would like to see
2) commended the architect and developer on mitigating any impacts to adjacent properties
3) project is beautifully designed
4) if the zoning is not changed it bring a development that has a wall that will have dumpster and
loading docks adjacent to the residential property.
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
FEBRUARY 8, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 15
Errett Bozarth (Oak Tree Estates, Phase 1, Resident), 1300 Kings Brook Court, Southlake, Texas
76092, is opposed due to living so close to the development and recommended it being in a different
location.
Keith Cedras, 711 S. White Chapel Blvd, Southlake, Texas 76092, is supportive of the development
for the reasons mentioned previously. He recommended to decreasing the number of movie screens
that the movie theater will offer.
C. A. Prade, 400 S. Carroll Ave., Southlake, Texas 76092, commented on the following items:
1) has lived at the present location for 42 years
2) is in opposition because of the drainage coming onto this property from the north to the south
and to the east to the west
3) there are currently two box culverts on S. Carroll Ave. that are inadequate and will not carry the
drainage that will be impounded on this project
4) there are two tanks are on his property and one was washed out due to the current drainage
problem and had to be rebuilt
5) afraid he will not be able to get across his bridge
6) is opposed because of the other items stated at the last meeting and the drainage being a major
concern.
Betty Springer (Mission Estates Resident), 1024 Mission Dr., Southlake, Texas 76092, commented
on the following items:
1) has lived in Southlake f o r 11 1 /2 years
2) gave a brief presentation on the history of the City's population in relation to the concern that
was brought up on the fact that people would like Southlake to keep its rural setting; in the past,
people thought that decreasing the lot size for a residential down to 1/2 acre would ruin the City,
however, she feels that this item did not ruin the City as well as the proposal before them tonight
3) does not think the shopping center will ruin Southlake
4) likes the "S -P -2" Generalized Site Plan District requested zoning because it is more restrictive
5) encouraged people to look at the positive aspects:
a. provide employment and service opportunities in an upscale environment
b. open village complex
c. provide service to the youth of Southlake
d. commercial impact will enhance the sales tax, etc.; thus, relieving the tax burden
homeowners
e. it is a first class project with highly respectable Applicant, First Gulf; she had spoken with
people that they have been involved with the had given positive responses, such as, the
Greater Chicago Area Chamber of Commerce, Illinois Builder's and Developer's Association,
Lakeland Florida Development Corporation Incorporated, and Tampa Bay Builder's
Association.
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
FEBRUARY 8, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 16
David McDonald (Oak Tree Estates, Phase I, Resident), 1305 Forest Hills Cr, Southlake, Texas
76092, is opposed and commented on the following reasons:
1) did not like the location and recommended relocating it where it will not affect people's property
values
2) requested zoning will affect his property value in a negative way
3) requested zoning will increase the traffic.
David Harris (Southview, Phase II, Resident), 920 Ownby Lane, Southlake, Texas 76092, is in favor
and commented on the following items:
1) would like for the Commission to approve this development
2) the drainage issue will need to be addressed by the Applicant and City for the street and
surrounding properties will be impacted by this
3) the expansion of Carroll Ave. will need to be addressed by both the City and the developer,
because it would be in the best interest of the development to have good ingress and egress
4) has a friend that lives near the development in Tampa, Florida, and it has not affected his project
5) believes that store operating hours will be hard to mandate
6) would like for this type of development to be embarrassed by the City.
Cathy Andrews (Southridge Lakes, Phase I, Resident), 1201 Sabine Ct., Southlake, Texas 76092,
is in favor of the development and commented on the following items:
1) this will be a nice view coming into Southlake from Grapevine
2) it will benefit the City
3) would like not for a hand -full of people and one builder should be in the position of controlling
and removing this development from our City.
David Watson, is opposed and commented on the following reasons:
1) buying a house in Oak Tree Estates and will be moving in next month
2) agreed that it is a desirable development, however, would like to relocate the development
3) requested to keep the current zoning on the property
4) he has retail background; the retail business tries to increase traffic; therefore, the traffic will
increase on S. Carroll Ave. which is unable to handle the large traffic flow.
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Watson if the development was relocated on the other side
of E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709), would this improve the traffic issue on Carroll Ave. Carroll
in accommodating traffic. Mr. Watson stated that it would probably not.
Richard McMichael (Southview, Phase II, Resident), 305 Binkley Ct., Southlake Texas 76092, is in
favor and commented on the following items:
1) it is quality that Southlake is looking for, however, he would like to see this type of development
in the Village Center
2) would like S. Carroll Ave. to be developed as a boulevard with this development taking into
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
FEBRUARY 8, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 17
consideration of the traffic issue
3) would like the drainage issue to be looked at to address surrounding property owners' concerns.
Daphne Shipowitz (Stone Lakes Resident), 1300 Lakeway Dr., Southlake, Texas 76092, is in favor
and commented that it would be a wonderful addition to the City even with the zoning change.
Sandy Johnson is planning to buy a house in Oak Tree Estates at 1210 Kings Brook Dr., Southlake,
Texas 76092, is opposed and commented on the following items:
1) moved Laurel Maryland on the Washington D.C. area
2) believed that an upscale development does not need to an entertainment attraction to draw in
people
3) the adjacent neighborhood will be affected by traffic and people taking a short-cut from HWY
26
4) would like it in another location.
Carolyn Morris (The Dominion Addition Resident), 403 St. Charles, Ct., Southlake, Texas 76092,
is in favor and commented on the following items:
1) it will an asset to the City
2) had lived in Colleyville, Texas for 23 years and would like for people to look at the strips malls
which are adjacent to expensive homes that currently located all along HWY 26 and would not
like Southlake to move in this direction
3) requested for the City to look at the overall community and not one tiny section that is opposed.
Lucille Gaither (Oak Tree Estates, Phase I, Resident), 1315 Forest Hill Ct., Southlake, Texas
76092, is opposed with the traffic flow increase, however, does like the concept and that it would
be good for Southlake.
Kim Evans (Stone Lakes, Phase I, Addition Resident), 1402 Richmond Ct., Southlake, Texas 76092,
is in favor and would like the City take the opportunity, because the City may not get this
opportunity again.
John Van Son (Southview Resident), 675 Southview Trail, Southlake, Texas 76092, asked what
would the current zoning allow. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated a few of the "C -2" Local
Retail Commercial District uses: professional offices, bakeries, cleaning and pressing works, day
nurseries, dancing schools, veterinarian clinics, drug stores, dry good stores, gas service stations and
convenient stations, florists, grocery stores without size limitations. Mr. Van Son asked the audience
if this is what Southlake residents wanted to go in this vicinity.
Commissioner Potter asked Staff the size limitation on a "C -2" Local Retail Commercial District.
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that it is 40,000 s.f.
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
FEBRUARY 8, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 18
Beth Erdy (Stone Lakes Resident), 302 Waterford Ct., Southlake, Texas 76092, is in favor and would
like to this instead of the previous mentions mentioned by the Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy
in the "C -2" District.
Gary Hargett, 1111 S. White Chapel Blvd., Southlake, Texas 76092, acknowledge the citizens
concerns and asked if the concerns could be brought to a minimal degree tolerance and allow the
approval of the development which will serve as a benchmark for other people looking into
Southlake.
Chairman Wright ended the audience discussion.
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Gibson about note 3 that is stated on the plan. Mr. Gibson stated
that he would get a clarification on the note.
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Gibson about item #2 (common access easement on the northeast
driveway entrance) on staff review letter. Mr. Gibson stated that at the last meeting they agreed to
provide this for future development to the east. Director Greg Last stated that the plan has the
common access easement labeled on it. Planner Tom Elgin commented that the comment is a clean
up item which pertains to the width of the opening needs to be determined. Commissioner Murphy
commented that this common access easement will be impacted by the required throat depth because
of the location. Director Greg Last stated that the Applicant is in agreement with providing an
easement to the northeast and the location will be determined after the driveway entrance throat
depth has been agreed upon. Commissioner Murphy asked Staff what action should the Commission
take on item #2. Director Greg Last stated it should be stated in the motion that the Applicant
provide clarification of the extension of that easement.
Commissioner Hobbs commented that the drainage study would be completed in the Site Plan Stage.
Director Greg Last stated that Staff has completed a review on a drainage study and the Engineering
Staff will be happy to meet with Mr. Prade regarding his concerns on the drainage study.
Chairman Wright stepped out of the room and Vice - Chairman Johnson presided.
Vice - Chairman Johnson called for a recess at 10:10 p.m.
Chairman Wright reconvened at 10:15 p.m.
Chairman Wright asked what use the Applicant is proposing that would not fit in the "C -2" Local
Retail Commercial District. Vice - Chairman Johnson stated that the use would be the 70,000 s.f.
department store and the movie theater.
Commissioner Murphy asked for clarification about note 3 on the plan from the Applicant. Mr.
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
FEBRUARY 8, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 19
Gibson stated that the intent is to take out gas service stations and community facility uses.
Commissioner Murphy stated that note 20.2 and the parking size needs to stricken. Mr. Gibson
stated that these two items will be removed.
Commissioner Murphy commented that he is at peace on the progress of addressing some of the
major issues (buffering to the neighborhood to the south and eliminating a lot of the "C -3" General
Commercial District uses). He added that the Applicant raised the wall and provided more large
caliper trees taking consideration of the south residents' issues.
Commissioner Arnold commented that she believed that this is a lovely worthwhile project.
Commissioner Potter commented that there is already over 600 acres of property zoned "C -3"
General Commercial District . Commissioner Schroetke commented that there are only 500 acres
that are zoned "C -3 ".
Commissioner Potter commented on the following concerns:
1) the proposal is asking for a high level of "C -3" General Commercial approaching "C -4" Arterial
Mall Commercial District
2) the intensity of use
3) this development could be relocated across the street which is already zoned the Applicant's
requested zoning
4) concerned with the traffic problem.
Commissioner Schroetke agreed with the issues raised by Commissioner Potter. She added that she
is uncomfortable with zoning change request.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 02- 08 -96, tape 1, section #1793 -7078)
Commissioner Schroetke requested to implement the Corridor Overlay Zone which specifically
states what use property along Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709) has been intended for. She
recommended for the Applicant to work with Mr. Fechtel in relocating across E. Southlake Blvd.
(F.M. 1709).
Vice - Chairman Johnson commented that he too wished it was across the street, however, the
Applicant tried to contact the Owner across the street and got no where. Commissioner Schroetke
commented that this was "not true ". Vice - Chairman Johnson stated that he would support this case
with additional restrictions in terms of uses and hours.
Chairman Wright asked Staff about requirements in the number of trees and the footage in the
bufferyard to the south. Director Greg Last stated that the requirement for the 1,317 s.f. bufferyard
to the south there is 40 canopy trees with 1 1/2" caliper, 79 accent trees, 10' width bufferyard, and
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
FEBRUARY 8, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 20
6' wooden fence. Chairman Wright asked Mr. Gibson what he proposed. Mr. Gibson stated that
they would provide on the south bufferyard the following:
1) an 8' high brick fence with stone or masonry capping on it instead of the required 6' wooden
fence
2) 129 canopy and accent trees which will be 10 trees over the requirement:
a. the Oak trees will have 3.5" caliper that will grow to 22'
b. the Southern Magnolia/Sweet Gun will have 3" caliper)
Chairman Wright asked how many trees would that be per 100'. Director Greg Last stated that one
for every 10' for the 1,317 s.f. He pointed that the Cleveland Cyprus and the Japanese Black Pine,
the accent components, can not be bought with a 3 1/2" caliper and pointed out that the canopy trees
will be 3 1/2" caliper. He added that the Applicant is providing accent trees of 12' to 14' instead of
the 6' requirement; accent trees are measured by height and not by caliper.
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Staff about the count on the canopy trees, accent trees, and shrubs.
Director Greg Last commented on the following items:
1) the Applicant is proposing 50 canopy trees (40 canopy trees are required)
2) 79 accent (79 accent trees are required)
3) 106 scrubs (106 shrubs are required)
4) the only difference in the requirement and the landscaping proposed is the 10 additional canopy
trees that have a larger caliper that the Applicant is proposing
5) recommended an evergreen tree type which will provide screening throughout the year
6) the canopy trees are 26' on center and between them are the accent trees
7) 10 trees on center are too close, but given that it is 26', you could more trees that could survive
8) if the canopy trees were 15' apart you could have 88 trees.
Chairman Wright asked Staff the width of the south bufferyard. Director Greg Last stated that it is
15'. He recommended planting the trees in the center of the bufferyard. He added that if you plant
the canopy trees too close, it will affect the life of the trees. Chairman Wright asked Staff if the
canopy trees were planted 15' apart would there be room to have accent trees between them.
Director Greg Last stated that there would not be enough room. Chairman Wright stated that his
intention is to provide the largest bufferyard if can to the south taking into consideration the
residents. Director Greg Last stated that the Applicant could provide 65 canopy trees 20' on center
with 3" caliper and stay with the same number 79 of accent trees 12 to 14' in height that they stated.
Chairman Wright asked Staff if there would still be enough room for the shrubs. Director Greg Last
stated that there would be.
Vice - Chairman Johnson recommended for the interior landscaping to the south of the building have
3" to 3 1/2" caliper trees as well.
Commissioner Hobbs commented on his support except for the items mentioned that needed to be
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
FEBRUARY 8, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 21
addressed.
Chairman Wright commented that if the property was not already zoned the "C -2" Local Retail
Commercial District that he would not personally consider it. He added the Applicant is offering
a quality development with light "C -3" General Commercial District uses; however, the main
concern is with the adjacent single family residential district. Commissioners, Potter and Schroetke,
are concerned with the intensity of uses. Vice - Chairman Johnson pointed out that the "C -2" District
allows 50% coverage and the Applicant is asking only for 26% coverage. Commissioner Murphy
stated that it is more intense use requested.
Commissioner Schroetke commented on her concern with the hours of operation. Commissioner
Hobbs reminded her of Vice - Chairman Johnson's earlier comments regarding this issue.
Commissioner Schroetke recommended for the Applicant to widen the south bufferyard to 25'.
Chairman Wright commented to the audience that the upcoming zoning related cases will not be
acted upon due the Resolution 95 -24 (case limitation) and that the only cases that could be acted
upon after 11:00 p.m. would be agenda items, 11, 13, and 16.
Chairman Wright asked Vice - Chairman Johnson about the recommended restrictions and
requirements. Vice - Chairman Johnson recommended the following:
1) retail stores till 9:30 p.m.
2) restaurant and movie theaters to 12:30 a.m.
3) delivery hours from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
4) no outside public announcement system
5) bufferyard be extended to 20'
6) no gas stations, taverns, gyms, or nurseries
7) dry cleaning being limited to 1,000 s.f.
8) printing shops being limited to 2,000 s.f.
9) grocery stores being limited to 5,000 s.f.
Chairman Wright asked Mr. Gibson his comments on the recommendations (increase the width to
25', increase the accent trees to 80 that are 12' to 14' in height, and increase the canopy trees to 65
that have 3 1/2" caliper that are 25' on center) that were mentioned on the south bufferyard. Mr.
Gibson stated that he would comply.
Chairman Wright asked Mr. Gibson his comments on Vice - Chairman Johnson's recommendations
and restrictions. Mr. Gibson commented on the following concerns:
1) that they would comply with them except requested for the dry cleaning to be increased to a
2,500 s.f. limitation and the grocery store to be increased to 12,000 to 15,000 s.f.
2) the restricted delivery hours and operating hours might be difficult
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
FEBRUARY 8, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 22
3) requested bookstore with coffee shops, for example, Barnes and Noble Bookstore, to be open
as late as the restaurants and movie theater
4) stated that their trying to meet all the comments but that it might be difficult depending variety
of tenants
5) asked to have the retail stores open until 10:00 p.m.
Vice - Chairman Johnson commented that bookstores that have coffee shops could be opened till
12:30 a.m. and retail stores could remain open until 9:30 p.m.
Chairman Wright asked Mr. Gibson his comments on the recommended 25' bufferyard to the south
which is an additional 15' requirement. Mr. Gibson stated that he would comply with increasing the
bufferyard an additional 5' to make it a total of a 20' bufferyard for the south and could not comply
with the 10' increase due to the parking spaces being lost.
Motion was made to approve ZA95 -127, Rezoning and Concept Plan for Southlake Commons,
subject to Plan Review Summary No. 1 dated February 2, 1996, amended as follows:
1) allowing the driveway throat depths on S. Carroll Ave. as shown, forgiving approximately 10'
in item #1 (150' driveway entrance throat depth requirement);
2) working with Staff to reach a mutual agreement on the last part of item #1 (the driveway
entrance adjacent the northeast corner of the site has a throat depth of approximately 65') and all
of item #2 (common access easement encompassing the northeast driveway entrance, travel lane,
and "stub" to the adjoining property to the east);
3) noting the wall in the bufferyard to be 8' in height;
4) extending the southern bufferyard to 25' in width;
5) including in the southern bufferyard the following plantings: 65 canopy trees of 3 1/2" caliper,
80 accent trees of 12' to 14' height, shrubs will be designated as stated in the ordinance
requirement, and a strong recommendation that evergreen trees be considered;
6) schedule as presented for the interior landscaping on the south;
7) hours of operations are as follows: retail till 9:30 p.m.; restaurants, movie theaters, and
bookstores with coffee shops till 12:30 a.m.; delivery hours between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.;
8) no outside P.A. (public address) systems;
9) additional restricted uses are as follows: no gas stations, no taverns, no gyms, no nurseries, allow
dry cleaning plants but limited to 2,500 s.£, allow printing shops but limited to 2,000 s.f., allow
grocery stores but limited to 12,000 s.f.
Motion: Johnson
Second: Hobbs
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, and Hobbs
Nays: Potter and Schroetke
Approved: 5 -2
Motion carried.
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
FEBRUARY 8, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 23
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 02- 08 -96, tape 2, section #0 -2035)
Agenda items, 7 (ZA96 -01, Concept Plan for The Plaza), 8 (ZA96 -02, Specific Use Permit for
Packaged Beer for Off - Premise Consumption), 9 (ZA96 -03, Rezoning), 10 (ZA96 -04, Revised Site
Plan for Schlotzsky's), 12 (ZA96 -06, Site Plan for Village Center, Phase I), 14 (ZA95 -116, Rezoning
and Concept Plan for Commerce Square), and 15 (Specific Use Permit for Outside Storage) were
not acted upon due to Resolution 95 -24 and will be tabled to the Planning and Zoning Meeting on
February 22, 1996.
AGENDA ITEM #11, ZA96 -05, REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR VILLAGE CENTER,
PHASE II (WEST)
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that the Applicant's request is for the
Revised Preliminary Plat for Village Center, Phase II (West), Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, being
approximately a 21.352 acre tract of land situated in the T. Mahan Survey, Abstract No. 1049, and
being legally described as a portion of Tract 6, and being a revision of Lot 3, Block 2 of the
previously approved Preliminary Plat. The property is located south and adjacent to E. Northwest
Parkway (S.H. 114) and north and adjacent to E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709), approximately 2000'
west of Kimball Ave. The Current Zoning is "C -3" General Commercial District. The Land Use
Category is Mixed Use /65 Ldn Contour in the Airport Overlay Zone. The Corridor Designation is
Village Center. The property Owner is James Farrar, et. al.; and the request is being submitted by
the Applicant, Midland Development Group. The property is located in SPIN Neighborhood #4.
Four (4) written notices were sent to property owners within the 200 feet notification area, and the
Staff has not received any written response.
Don Silverman (The Midland Development Group), 12655 Olive Blvd., Westpark 1, Suite 200, St.
Louis, Missouri 63141, represented this item. He commented on the following items:
1) apologized for the mislabeling on the plat
2) requesting to divide Lot 3, Block 2, in half from east to west for a possible user
3) Lot 3 will consist of 4.463 acres
4) Lot 4 will consist of 12.246 acres
5) Lot 5, former Lot 4, will be part of the interstate system
6) are in agreement with the letter.
Chairman Wright opened the public hearing.
No discussion from the audience.
Chairman Wright closed the public hearing.
No Commission discussion.
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
FEBRUARY 8, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 24
Motion was made to approve ZA96 -05, Revised Preliminary Plat for Village Center, Phase II
(West), subject to Plan Review Summary No. 1 dated February 2, 1996.
Motion: Johnson
Second: Hobbs
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, Hobbs, Potter, and Schroetke
Nays: none
Approved: 7 -0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 02- 08 -96, tape 2, section #2081 -2242)
Vice - Chairman Johnson stepped down on the next agenda item.
AGENDA ITEM #13, ZA96 -08, FINAL PLAT FOR KIRKWOOD HOLLOW, PHASE I
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that the Applicant's request is for the
Final Plat for Kirkwood Hollow, Phase I, being approximately a 54.894 acre tract of land situated
in the R.D. Price Survey, Abstract No. 1207, being all of Tracts 3A2, 3A3A, 3C, and portions of
Tracts 3A3, 3A3A1, 3A4A, and 3A4B and the James B. Martin Survey, Abstract No. 1134, being
a portion of Tract 1. The property is located northeast of W. Northwest Parkway (S.H. 114), east
of E. T.W. King Rd., north of W. Dove St., and west of N. White Chapel Blvd. The Current Zoning
is "R- P.U.D.," Residential Planned Unit Development. The Land Use Category is Mixed Use /65
Ldn Contour in the Airport Overlay Zone. The property Owner is MTP -IBM Phase II & III Joint
Venture; and the requested is being submitted by the Applicant, Maguire Thomas Partners. The
property is located in SPIN Neighborhood #2. This plat proposes 73 residential lots. No written
notices were required to be sent out to property owners due to this being Final Plat. Staff finds that
the Final Plat substantially conforms to the previously approved Preliminary Plat.
No one was present to represent this item.
Motion was made to approve ZA96 -08, Final Plat for Kirkwood Hollow, Phase I, subject to Plat
Review Summary No. 1 dated February 2, 1996.
Commissioner Potter asked Staff if the Applicant had any problems with the staff review letter.
Director Greg Last stated that the problem could have a concern about item #8f (delete all compound
curves). He added that the ordinance does not allow a compound curves.
Motion: Arnold
Second: Murphy
Ayes: Wright, Arnold, Murphy, Hobbs, Potter, and Schroetke
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
FEBRUARY 8, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 25
Nays: none
Abstained: Johnson
Approved: 6 -0 -1
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 02- 08 -96, tape 2, section #2243 -2426)
AGENDA ITEM #16, REVISED FINAL PLAT FOR HUSE HOMEPLACE
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that the Applicant's request is for the
Revised 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 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.
The common access easement along the common line is moved.
interior landscaping?
Gandy stated that the developer's agreement went before the City Council.
John Levitt (), represented this item. He commented on the following items:
1)the private drive did not get read in the minutes
2)location of the pedestrian equestrian easement from the west side of lot 6 to the east side of 6
Johnson commented on his displeasure of hearing this again and why this could not be addressed
earlier.
David McMahan, Hidden Glen, the location of the easement upon Tom Matthew's approval and
people buying the lots.is why your seeing this a second time.
Last, an agreement with everything on plat. The developer's agreement states that they can move
the trail whereever they see fit. Staff was uncomfortable with them adding stuff to the plat after the
Commission had already approved.
Motion was made to approve ZA96 -15, Revised Final Plat for Huse Homeplace, subject to Plat
Review Summary No. 1 dated February 2, 1996, amended as follows:
1)allow the Applicant to located the pedestrian equistrian easement
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
FEBRUARY 8, 1996, MINUTES
PAGE 26
2)driveway easeemnt prior to finaling the plat
Motion: Potter
Second: Murphy
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, Hobbs, Potter, and Schroetke
Nays:
Approved: 7 -0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 02- 08 -96, tape 2, section #2442 -
AGENDA ITEM #17, ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made to approve the adjournment of the meeting at 12:30 a.m. on Friday, February 9,
1996.
Motion: Murphy
Second: Potter
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, Hobbs, Potter, and Schroetke
Nays: none
Approved: 7 -0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 02- 08 -96, tape 17cti n #2837 -?
i it-k A. \..._ /)>-----
Joe Wrigkt
Chairman
ATTEST:
i— ,
. / 4
au ie Sheeli
Secretary
G: \WPF \MTG \MIN \ 1996 \02- 08 -96. WPD
THE STATE OF TEXAS *
*
COUNTY OF ,i�
�( 5
I /
� � 'C �r `�4 a SJ a memb of the 4 .^ K( CAM J
� ( k4
S /1
make this affidavit and hereby on oath state the following: I, and/or a person or persons Aated
to me, have a substantial interest interest in a bus ess entity that would be peculiarly affected by a vote
or decision of the . - v62 /(11•4.JDI)- (riV(Lw.) those terms are defined in
Chapter 171, Texas Local Government Code.
The business entity is/ ( " \
�S -
(name)
(A /-) L
(address) (
I have a substantial interest in this business entity for the following reasons: (check all which are
applicable)
Ownership of 10% or more of the voting stock or shares of the business entity.
) S Ownership of 10% or more or $5,000 or more of the fair market value of the
business entity. •
Funds received from the business entity exceed 10% of gross income for the
previous year.
Real property is involved and have an
equitable or legal ownership with a fair market value of at least $2,500.
A relative of mine has a substantial interest in the business entity or property that
would be affected by a decision of the public body of which I am a member.
Upon filing of this affidavit with the City Secretary, I affirm that I will abstain from voting on
any decision involving this business entity and from any further participation on this matter
whatsoever. (,, 4
Ei__
Signed this�ay of "/ U , 19 / �.
ignature of Of icialW
QC/ Vt --
Title
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, this day personally appeared I../ ,LA
on oath stated that the facts hereinabove stated are true to the best o know /dge or
belief.
Sworn to and subscribed to before me on this a day of 19 .
1 2 o''NY PGeI LAURIE M. SHEETS 11
* * Notary Public
r�
s STATE OF TEXAS Notary Public in and for e State of Texas
9 t�
IF My Comm. Exp, 10/30/99 ■
Type/Print Notary's Name
My Commission Expires:
•
•
G:\WPRFORMS\AFFID.FRM