Loading...
1996-03-07 P&Z Meeting City of Southlake, Texas REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 7,1996 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 February 22, 1996. 3. Administrative Comments. 4. Consider: ZA96 -14, SITE PLAN FOR PRIMROSE SCHOOL, being 1.7892 acres situated in the G. W. Main Survey, Abstract No. 1098, Tract 2E Location: East side of S. Kimball Ave.. approximately 300' south of the intersection of South Kimball Ave. and E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709). Current Zoning: "C -2" Local Retail Commercial District. Land Use Category: Mixed Use /75 Ldn Contour. Corridor Designation: Retail Commercial. Owner: Frank Cangelosi; Applicant: Patrick Saucedo. SPIN Neighborhood #7. Public Hearing 5. Consider: ZA96 -19, REVISED CONCEPT PLAN FOR COUNTRYSIDE BIBLE CHURCH, being Lot 2, Block A, Ravenaux Village and being 8.924 acres situated in the Thomas Hood Survey, Abstract No. 706. Location: 250 Ravenaux Drive, being approximately 600' west of N. White Chapel Blvd. Current Zoning: "CS" Community Service District. Land Use Category: Public /Semi - public. Owner: Countryside Bible Church; Applicant: Terry Mitchell. SPIN Neighborhood #11. Public Hearing 6. 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 lA 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 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. Vouklizas; Applicant: Ewing Properties. SPIN Neighborhood #10. City of Southlake, Texas REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 2 7. 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, "O -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. Vouklizas; Applicant: Ewing Properties. SPIN Neighborhood # 10. Public Hearing 8. Consider: ORDINANCE NO. 480 -U, REVISIONS TO THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 480, addressing definitions; side yard requirements in non- residential districts; height requirements for ornamental towers of all types, spires, belfries, flag poles, and other appurtenances in non - residential districts; split -lot zoning and minor clean -up items. Public Hearing 9. Discussion: Other revisions to the Zoning Ordinance No. 480. 10. 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, March 1, 1996 at 5:00 p.m., pursuant to the Texas Government Code, Chapter 551. � � ay � 0 o��tili����,, rh � FsoN al. X /4.41111 —I= Sandra L. LeGrand , City Secretary * ea 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:\WPF\MTG\AGN\1996\03-07-96.WPD COMMISSION MEETING REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MARCH 7, 1996 COMMISSION PRESENT: Chairman Joe Wright, Vice - Chairman Ernest Johnson; Members: Randy Arnold, Jim Murphy, and Arthur Hobbs COMMISSION ABSENT: none CITY STAFF PRESENT: Director Greg Last, Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy and Administrative Secretary Laurie Sheets The meeting was called to order by Chairman Wright at 7:03 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #2, APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made to approve the minutes of the February 22, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, amended as follows: 1) page 12, line 9, delete the words "to hinder the resemblance" 2) page 19, line 35, replace the sentence "Mr. Saucedo commented that all the dimensions are on the large scale blueprint; Staff did not recommend this." with "Mr. Saucedo commented that all the dimensions are on the large scale blueprint; however, he stated that Staff informed him that full -size elevations were required." Motion: Hobbs Second: Murphy Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, and Hobbs Nays: none Approved: 5 -0 Motion carried. (Planning and Zoning Meeting, 03- 07 -96, tape 1, section #0 -59) AGENDA ITEM #3. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission about the following: 1) agenda item #8, Ordinance No. 480 -U, is for revisions to the Zoning Ordinance 2) agenda items, #6 (Rezoning and Concept Plan for White Chapel Plaza) and #7 (ZA95 -131, Preliminary Plat for White Chapel Plaza), have been requested to be withdrawn by the Applicant. Chairman Wright commented that the Commission will need to take action on agenda items, #6 and #7. (Planning and Zoning Meeting, 03- 07 -96, tape 1, section #59 -90) PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 2 The next two agenda items were moved forward on the agenda due to the withdrawal request from the Applicant. AGENDA ITEM #6, ZA95 -126, REZONING AND CONCEPT PLAN FOR WHITE CHAPEL PLAZA Motion was made to withdraw ZA95 -126, Rezoning and Concept Plan for White Chapel Plaza, per the Applicant's request. Motion: Murphy Second: Arnold Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, and Hobbs Nays: none Approved: 5 -0 Motion carried. (Planning and Zoning Meeting, 03- 07 -96, tape 1, section #90 -107) AGENDA ITEM #7, ZA95 -131, PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WHITE CHAPEL PLAZA Motion was made to withdraw ZA95 -131, Preliminary Plat for White Chapel Plaza, per the Applicant's request. Motion: Murphy Second: Arnold Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, and Hobbs Nays: none Approved: 5 -0 Motion carried. (Planning and Zoning Meeting, 03- 07 -96, tape 1, section #107 -118) AGENDA ITEM #4. ZA96 -14, SITE PLAN FOR PRIMROSE SCHOOL Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that the Applicant's request is for the Site Plan for Primrose School, being approximately 1.7892 acres situated in the G. W. Main Survey, Abstract No. 1098, Tract 2E. The property is located on the east side of S. Kimball Ave., approximately 300' south of the intersection of S. Kimball Ave. and E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709). The Current Zoning is "C -2" Local Retail Commercial District. The Land Use Category is Mixed Use /75 Ldn Contour. The Corridor Designation is Retail Commercial. The property Owner is Frank PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 3 Cangelosi, and the request is being submitted by the Applicant, Patrick Saucedo. The property is located in SPIN Neighborhood #7. Five (5) written notices were sent to property owners within the 200 feet notification area, and the Staff has received one (1) written response in favor of the plan. On February 22, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved to table (5 -0) this item to tonight's Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting and continue the public hearing. Site Plan Review Summary No. 2 dated March 1, 1996, was provided to the Commission in the packet. City Council approved the Concept Plan (ZA95 -125), noting that the north fence requirement was to be addressed on the Site Plan. Frank Cangelosi (Cangelosi Enterprises), 305 W. Chapel Downs, Southlake, Texas 76092, and Patrick Saucedo (A.I. G., Inc.), 1521 N Cooper, Arlington, Texas 76011, represented this item. Mr. Cangelosi commented on the following items: 1) he and his wife are co- owners 2) provided additional information of the east and south elevations to the Commission 3) requested to amend item #4 (provide vertical and horizontal articulation) due to the following reasons: 1) the articulation as presented is compatible to the adjacent residential zoned properties 2) the required articulation would alter the north elevation and would create pockets for children to hide; therefore, it would affect the viewing of the children in the play area. After reviewing the letter from the Applicant that discussed in great detail the distance from E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709) to the property, Vice - Chairman Johnson informed Mr. Saucedo that item #4 in the staff review letter mainly referred to the articulation requirement in the Zoning Ordinance that applies if a commercial property is within 400 ft. of residential property. He asked Mr. Saucedo if he understood this and Mr. Saucedo implied that he did. Vice - Chairman Johnson commented that the letter from the Applicant stated that additional "bump - outs" would create a problem. Then he asked Mr. Saucedo to clarify the center north element on the Site Plan. Mr. Saucedo stated that it is a mechanical room that has no windows. He added that there are no rooms or windows adjacent to the mechanical room which will block any viewing. Vice - Chairman Johnson commented that the fence on the north beside the play area is not on the Site Plan and asked Mr. Saucedo why he took it off since the fencing requirement was to be addressed at the Site Plan Stage. Mr. Saucedo stated that the fence was not taken off. He added that the fence plan has been revised. Vice - Chairman Johnson commented that during the Concept Plan there was discussion on the fencing requirements and the Applicant agreed to provide 6 ft. fence in the vicinity of the play area along the north property line. Mr. Saucedo stated that they could put this back; however, they would prefer not too due to the visibility of the play area and the desire to know who PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 4 is on the other side of the fence area. Commissioner Hobbs commented that it was his request for additional fencing around the play area for safety reasons. Chairman Wright commented that he is in agreement to require the Applicant to provide the fence. Mr Cangelosi commented that they will provide the fence. Director Greg Last commented that the Concept Plan that was approved by City Council had the fences located on the property line and the Applicant would also like to maintain the fencing around the perimeters of the play area. Chairman Wright commented that the Commission had reached a consensus that the play area would have a vinyl- coated chain link fence which was not on the perimeter of the property, and the Applicant agreed to provide 6 ft. wooden fence along the north partial property line and the entire length of the east and south property lines. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy commented that the City Council's motion on the approved Concept Plan is that they concurred with everything as shown and to deal with the northern fence issue on the Site Plan. She added that the fencing along the southern and eastern boundary was agreed upon. Mr. Cangelosi agreed to provide a chain link fence around the play area as requested and a 6 ft. wood fence on the property line. Chairman Wright recommended that the Applicant could have the capability to have the chain link fence or to not have it around the play area. Chairman Wright commented that he had no problem with the articulation as presented. Commissioner Murphy commented that at the last meeting, the articulation details were missing; therefore, the Commission could not address this issue. He added that an articulation chart has been prepared for the Commission to review since the last meeting and that the elevations do have residential character. Vice - Chairman Johnson asked the Applicant if the two -way traffic circulation will work. Mr. Saucedo stated that the traffic circulation area will provide fire lane capacity and any needed u -turns. Vice - Johnson recommended strongly to direct traffic in some manner and suggested a one -way designation for the traffic flow. Chairman Wright asked the Applicant if he had any problem with designating the traffic circulation to one -way. Mr. Saucedo commented that he did not have a problem with this request. Chairman Wright opened the public hearing. No discussion from the audience. Chairman Wright closed the public hearing. Motion was made to approve ZA96 -14, Site Plan for Primrose School, subject to Plan Review Summary No. 2 dated March 1, 1996, amended as follows: 1) forgiving item #4 (provide vertical and horizontal articulation) PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 5 2) noting a 6 ft. wood fence on the north property line adjacent to the play area and along the entire east and south property lines 3) traffic flow will be designated as one way. Motion: Johnson Second: Murphy Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, and Hobbs Nays: none Approved: 5 - Motion carried. (Planning and Zoning Meeting, 03- 07 -96, tape 1, section #132 -765) AGENDA ITEM #5, ZA96 -19, REVISED CONCEPT PLAN FOR COUNTRYSIDE BIBLE CHURCH Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that the Applicant's request is for the Revised Concept Plan for Countryside Bible Church, being Lot 2, Block A, Ravenaux Village and being approximately 8.924 acres situated in the Thomas Hood Survey, Abstract No. 706. The property is located at 250 Ravenaux Drive, being approximately 600' west of N. White Chapel Blvd. The Current Zoning is "CS" Community Service District. The Land Use Category: is Public /Semi- public. The property Owner is Countryside Bible Church, and the request is being submitted by the Applicant, Terry Mitchell. The property is located in SPIN Neighborhood #11. Twelve (12) written notices were sent to property owners within the 200 feet notification area, and the Staff has received three (3) - -two in favor and one that had no comment and who no longer owns the property . Concept Plan Review Summary No. 1 dated March 1, 1996, was provided to the Commission in the packet. The previously approved Concept Plan proposed a gymnasium with class rooms in the upper level and a recreational area on the lower level. The plan proposes two buildings, an additional slab to be used for a basketball court or a future building, and a larger parking area for additional church members. Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Staff about the current status of Ravenaux Drive and the location of the temporary turn around. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that on the plat, the temporary turn - around is located at their drive. She added that Christian Men's Network had bought a large tract of land. They then subdivided it out with different zoning and lastly, they replatted it. The location of the turn- around is still at the same position as on the Concept Plan. Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Staff if the fire lane was accessed only by the drive with no west access. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that this was correct. She added that the fire lane will come in and go through the parking lot with an adequate turn- around. PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 6 Terry Mitchell, 1610 Pheasant Lane, Southlake, Texas 76092, represented this item. Commissioner Arnold asked the Applicant if he had any opportunity to review the staff letter and asked if he had any problems with it. Mr. Mitchell stated that he wanted to address the bufferyard on the north property line. He commented that the request for the waiver of the north bufferyard requirement is because there are existing oak trees along the entire north property line and Suburban Propane backed up to the trees. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy commented that the Zoning Ordinance requires the extent of trees be located on the plan. She added that the Applicant has not indicated any existing trees on the plan. Mr. Mitchell commented that the existing trees are not on Countryside Bible Church's property. He added that it would be a "over- kill" to provide a north bufferyard due to the existing trees. Chairman Wright asked Mr. Mitchell if he had any other concerns with the staff review letter that he would like to address. Mr. Mitchell stated that he had none. Chairman Wright opened the public hearing. No discussion from the audience. Chairman Wright closed the public hearing. Commissioner Murphy commented that the location of the existing trees were in question. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that the location of the trees need to be defined. Chairman Wright asked Staff what the zoning district was for the adjacent property to the north. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that it is zoned "AG" Agricultural District. Chairman Wright asked Staff what the Master Plan had the area designated as. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that it is Mixed Use. Commissioner Murphy asked Staff how much of the area will be impacted by future expansion of S.H. 114. Director Greg Last stated that there is a Concept Plan for the right -of -way for that area. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that the property to the south will be impacted. She added that expansion of S.H. 114 will have little or no impact to the property. Director Greg Last commented that the plan submitted by the Applicant is listing all the required bufferyards; however, the Applicant is requesting the north bufferyard be waived. Chairman Wright commented that it would beneficial to the church to have the bufferyard. Vice - Chairman Johnson commented that the north bufferyard might be needed depending upon the impact of the expansion of S.H. 114 to the property. He asked Staff which chart would determine the bufferyard if the property was adjacent PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 7 to the S.H. 114 right -of -way, and asked what the use for the property would be. Zoning Administrator Karen stated that it would require an 'E' Bufferyard; however, the Corridor Overlay Zone requirements would come into effect which then would require a 'J' Bufferyard that requires a 25' width with 4 canopy trees, 3 accent trees, and 14 shrubs per 100'. She added that the use is "CS" Community Service District. Director Greg Last commented that if the property for the right - of -way is taken, it would not be adjacent to the church's property line. Commissioner Murphy commented that if T. Glosser, who owns adjacent property to the north, came forward with a development case that he would probably not be required to provide a bufferyard due to the density of trees on his property. Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Staff what the corridor designation for this property would be taking into consideration the expansion of S.H. 114. Director Greg Last stated that it would office /commercial. Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Staff what bufferyard would be required between the "CS" Community Service District and the office /commercial use. Director Greg Last stated that it still would require an 'A' Bufferyard. Motion was made to approve ZA96 -19, Revised Concept Plan for Countryside Bible Church, subject to Plan Review Summary Revised No. 1 dated March 1, 1996, amended as follows: 1) forgiving the north bufferyard in item #6 (bufferyard requirements). Motion: Murphy Second: Arnold Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, and Hobbs Nays: none Approved: 5 -0 Motion carried. (Planning and Zoning Meeting, 03- 07 -96, tape 1, section #765 -1397) AGENDA ITEM #9, ORDINANCE NO. 480 -U. REVISIONS TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that Staff has come up with a list of recommended changes to the ordinance. She added that 163 items have been accumulating over a period of time including recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of Adjustment. She commented that Sections 1 and 2 refer to a zero lot line and party wall construction. She added that the zero lot line condition and party wall construction is a common construction practice that the City is confronted with. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy commented that she had received a copy of the City of Plano's PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 8 Zoning Ordinance. She stated that their ordinance has no side yard requirements in their office, commercial, and industrial districts; however, their corner lots require a 50 ft. setback. She added that their ordinance has language that addresses lots being adjacent to residential use. Vice - Chairman Johnson commented that he had concern with the language flow in Sections 1 and 2 and recommended the following: 1) Rephrase Section 2 to be more declarative. 2) State which districts would allow zero lot lines. 3) Be consistent in the reference to "dwelling units" that are discussed in the party wall definition and asked Staff if "MF -1" Two - Family Residential District was on the list. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that the "MF -1" District was not on the list and only the non- residential districts were included. Director Greg Last commented that it was not unusual to have a party wall for duplexes. 4) Define the party wall so that it will include the aspect of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and Uniform Fire Code (UFC). 5) Relocate the sentence, When this development standard is approved, the party wall may be a shared or abutting wall construction when in compliance with regulations in the currently adopted Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code." to another area of the ordinance because he felt it did not pertain to the definition. He asked Staff if the sentence even needed to be in there. Director Greg Last stated that the building code and fire code addresses "bits and pieces" of the party wall and zero lot line issues, and that possibly it could be taken it out. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy commented that the occupancy determined whether they can have a shared wall or have two walls. She added that if they have a shared wall, the Building Official requires them to have a signed agreement that the shared wall can not be taken down if something has happened to one of the buildings. Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Staff to clarify Section 9. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that this item will be addressed at a later time. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy asked the Commission what they recommended for Section 2. She asked them if they wanted to state the zero lot line with no minimum requirement with the exception of corner lots. Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Staff if they wanted to preserve the definition. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that it would be useful to have the definition. Vice - Chairman Johnson recommended to designate the districts that will allow the zero lot line. Director Greg Last commented that the reason why this section is stated this way is because there are differences in the zero lot line requirements for the non - residential and some type of residential districts. He recommended caution in adding this language taking into consideration that the Timarron Golf Villas have zero lot lines. However, they do not have shared construction walls. He added that the reason why they put the language in is for commercial districts and that the multi- PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 9 family districts (duplexes) will be addressed at a later time. Chairman Wright commented that it is not the intent of the zero lot line housing to build to the property line on both sides. He added that if the language is incorporated, a person could build solid all the way through. Vice - Chairman Johnson commented that if definitions are stated in the ordinance, they should be engaged somewhere in the text. He suggested Section 2 state that zero lot lines are permitted when they are constructed with a party wall. Director Greg Last recommended that it could be stated that zero lot lines are permitted on a common interior lot line with no minimum side yard. Vice - Chairman Johnson recommended review of this section again. Director Greg Last recommended to delete the words in the first sentence of Section 2, "there shall be no minimum side yard ", and replace it with "a zero lot line may be permitted ". Vice - Chairman Johnson recommended adding the words, "if it is used ". Vice - Chairman Johnson recommended taking the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and Uniform Fire Code (UFC) references out of the ordinance. Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Staff to clarify the words in the first sentence of Section 2, "within a comprehensively, planned development ". He recommended rephrasing this sentence to place a restriction that only allows a one roof structure to have only one or two of these. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that Staffs intention was to connect this with an organized planned development. Director Greg Last recommended tying this requirement to a Concept or Site Plan that would be approved by City Council. Vice - Chairman Johnson added to Staffs comment requesting that it would be tied to a single Concept or Site Plan. Director Greg Last added that this topic needed more review since some buildings will not require a Concept or Site Plan. Vice - Chairman Johnson recommended that if someone requests to have a zero lot line or party wall then to require them to have a Concept or Site Plan. Chairman Wright asked Staff what the side yard setback would be on a corner lot in "C -3" General Commercial District. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that it is 30 ft. She recommended that if this language is used that they might refer to the language in the Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 24.5 (e), "B -1" Business Service Park District, that refers to maximum lot coverage. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy asked the Commission for their comments on Section 3. She added that this section was a clean -up item for the purpose to clarify Section 4 in reference to the manufactured housing district. The Commission did not have any comments. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy asked the Commission for their comments on Section 5. She commented on the following: 1) that she would like to delete this section on platting of property not properly zoned 2) there are newly adopted statutes from the State of Texas that refer to vesting, permitting, and PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 10 when permitting processes begin 3) after working with the City Attorney, they have tried to differentiate the planning and zoning process 4) they would like to eliminate the subdivision or platting requirements from the Zoning Ordinance with the deletion of this platting paragraph. Chairman Wright commented that he did not agree with the recommended wording for this section, "Split -lot Zoning- No lot shall be approved which has more than one zoning classification on the lot." Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that they are just eliminating the paragraph that is currently in Section 33.15 and substituting a new heading entitled, "Split -Lot Zoning ", in this section which will not allow split lot zoning. Chairman Wright stated his disagreement in not allowing a split -lot zoning district. Director Greg Last provided an example for the Commission to take into consider - -what if someone wanted to build across two differently zoned properties (commercial on one side and the other side is industrial)? He added that the building would have various parts that would have different zoning. Vice - Chairman Johnson commented that if the City allow split -lot zoning that it would interfere with the bufferyard requirements. Chairman Wright agreed with the comments concerning the problems that might arise from allowing split -lot zoning. Commissioner Murphy commented that it might be easier to have a large tract replatted. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that Section 6 is a clean -up item and wanted to make this more in a generic language that will refer to the currently adopted Sign Ordinance No. 506 -A. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that Section 7 refers to antennas, satellite dishes, telecommunication facilities or towers. She stated that these items impacted the revisions for Zoning Ordinance 480 -J. She added that the City Attorney failed to delete all the sections where the extraneous uses were mentioned. Section 8 also refers to this. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that Section #9 will address special circumstances when Applicant(s) have to request exceptions from the Board of Adjustment on articulation requirements, and, as an example, items that are not occupied by humans and have decorative reasons /functions. She added the ordinance is currently written specifying this. She would like to revise Section 9 of the ordinance to have a clause that will define with a certain number, but not to exceed that requirement. Then put a provision in that states that they will need to address the Board of Adjustment if they want to exceed that number required. Chairman Wright recommended to have it mentioned on the Site Plan to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Vice - Chairman Johnson commented that some of buildings will not require a Site Plan. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that she would like to use similar PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 11 language that is in Section 42 of the Zoning Ordinance that lets the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council have the right to change the bufferyard requirements. She added that this section will be brought back to the Commission for further discussion and requested for direction from the Commission. Vice - Chairman Johnson recommended that this section be brought forward with the proposed Ordinance 480 -U. Chairman Wright asked Staff if the zero lot line also included residential. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that it was advertised for non - residential and that the residential (duplex) requirements will have to be addressed later. Vice - Chairman Johnson asked if the definition that refers to the word "dwelling" in Section 1 should be used. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that she would like it to leave it in the ordinance. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy asked the Commission for direction and their comments on items that they would like to address again. Vice - Chairman Johnson replied that he would like to address the zero lot line issue and Section 9 again. Chairman Wright opened the public hearing. No discussion from the audience. Motion was made to table until March 21, 1996 Ordinance No. 480 -U and continue the public hearing. Motion: Johnson Second: Murphy Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, and Hobbs Nays: none Approved: 5 -0 Motion carried. (Planning and Zoning Meeting, 03- 07 -96, tape 1, section #1398 -2738) AGENDA ITEM #9, OTHER REVISIONS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 480 Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that this agenda item, revisions to the Zoning in Ordinance No. 480., was for discussion only. She asked the Commission for their comments and suggestions that they would like incorporated in the list. Vice - Chairman Johnson commented that it would be useful to know which kind they are. He recommended cleaning out any of the "back log" and packaging the items, for example, locating all the easy "No. 1 s" together, etc. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that there are 25 -30 items in each case. She added that PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 12 this request will need some research and will have to totally redo the sections on outside storage and screening sections. Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Staff the time span if only the easy items were addressed. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that it might be towards the end of May until the recommended revisions are addressed. She added that it could be addressed in little batches of series, for example, the 1 s, 2s, etc. Commissioner Murphy asked Staff if they could advertise at least 10 to be addressed. Director Greg Last stated that this could be done. Vice - Chairman Johnson recommended that flag lots and the hierarchy of the districts be added to the revisions. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy recommended adding a section for lighting requirements. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy asked for direction and recommended forming ad hoc committees to tackle certain projects, and before this item goes forward in a public meeting, to have a meeting that included commercial representatives. Vice - Chairman Johnson stated that this should could be looked at. (Planning and Zoning Meeting, 03- 07 -96, tape 1, section #2738 -3390) AGENDA ITEM #14, ADJOURNMENT Motion was made to approve the adjournment of the meeting at 8:45 p.m. on Thursday, March 7, 1996. Motion: Murphy Second: Johnson Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, and Hobbs Nays: none Approved: 5 -0 Motion carried. (Planning and Zoning Meeting, 03- 07 -96, tape 1, section #3390 -3399) PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 13 Joe Wright P Chairman ATTEST: Laurie Shee ss Secretary G:\WPF\MTG\MIN\1996\03-07-96.WPD