1996-03-21 P&Z Meeting - City of Southlake, Texas
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 21,1996
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
March 7, 1996.
3. Administrative Comments.
4. Consider: ZA96 -20, SITE PLAN FOR VILLAGE CENTER, PHASE II, LOTS 3 AND 4,
BLOCK 2, being legally described as a portion of Tract 6, and being Lots 3 and 4,
Block 2 of the previously approved Revised Preliminary Plat, and being
approximately 16.672 acres situated in the T. Mahan Survey, Abstract No. 1049.
Location: approximately 200' south of E. Northwest Parkway (S.H. 114),
approximately 300' north of E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709), and approximately
2,000' west of Kimball Ave. Current Zoning: "C -3" General Commercial District.
Owner: James Farrar et al.; Applicant: Winkelmann & Associates. SPIN
Neighborhood #4.
Public Hearing
5. Consider: ZA96 -21, REZONING AND CONCEPT PLAN FOR FOX HOLLOW, being
legally described as a portion of Lot 3R1, Block 1, Crumbaker Addition as shown
on the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 807, Plat Records Tarrant County, Texas,
and being approximately 1.146 acres situated in T.M. Hood Survey, Abstract No.
706. Location: south of Northwest Parkway West (S.H. 114), approximately 2600'
south of the intersection of Shady Oaks Drive and W. Dove Street and
approximately 1000' east of Shady Oaks Drive. Current Zoning: "AG"
Agricultural District; Requested Zoning: "0-1" Office District. Owner: W. H.
Crumbaker; Applicant: Pima Properties, Inc. A Concept Plan for Fox Hollow, Lot
9, Block 1, will be considered with this request. SPIN Neighborhood #11.
Public Hearing
6. Consider: ZA96 -22, REZONING AND CONCEPT PLAN FOR FOX HOLLOW, being
legally described as a portion of Lot 3R1, Block 1, Crumbaker Addition as shown
on the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 807, Plat Records Tarrant County, Texas,
and being approximately 13.233 acres situated in T.M. Hood Survey, Abstract No.
706. Location: on the west side of Shady Oaks Dr., approximately 2,600' south of
City of Southlake, Texas
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE2
the intersection of W. Dove St. and Shady Oaks Dr. Current Zoning: "AG"
Agricultural District; Requested Zoning: "SF -20A" Single Family Residential
District. Owner: W. H. Crumbaker; Applicant: Pima Properties, Inc. A Concept
Plan for Fox Hollow will be considered with this request proposing 18 residential
lots. SPIN Neighborhood #11.
Public Hearing
7. Consider: ZA96 -23, PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FOX HOLLOW, being legally described
as Lot 3R1, Block 1, Crumbaker Addition as shown on the plat recorded in Cabinet
A, Slide 807, Plat Records Tarrant County, Texas, and being approximately 14.379
acres situated in T.M. Hood Survey, Abstract No. 706. Location: south of
Northwest Parkway West (S.H. 114) on the west side of Shady Oaks Dr.,
l approximately 2,600' south of the intersection of W. Dove St. and Shady Oaks Dr.
Current Zoning: "AG" Agricultural District; Requested Zoning: "SF -20A" Single
Family Residential District and "0 -1" Office District. Owner: W. H. Crumbaker;
Applicant: Pima Properties, Inc. The plat proposes 18 residential lots and 1
nonresidential (office) lot. SPIN Neighborhood #11.
Public Hearing
8. Consider: ZA96 -24, PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TIMARRON ADDITION, GOLF
COURSE, being approximately 138.463, situated in the H. Medlin Survey,
Abstract No. A -1037, Tracts 3C, 3C5, 3C2C, 3C3A, 3C2A, 3A3, 3A3A, 2A1, 2D,
3A3B, and a portion of Tracts 3C7 and 2, the H. Medlin Survey, Abstract No. A-
1038, Tracts 2A and 2B, the M.W. Davenport Survey, Abstract No. A -432, being
a portion of Tracts 1, 1D2, and 1D1, the Barnett and Hollingsworth Survey,
Abstract No. A -797, Tracts 2F, 2E, and 1D, and a portion of Tracts 2 and 2E, the
J. Gibson Survey, Abstract No. A -591, Tracts 2G 1 A, 2H 1 A, 2K 1 A, 2J 1 A, and
2J1B and a portion of Tract 1D1. Location: north of Big Bear Creek, south of E.
Continental Blvd., west of Brumlow Ave. and east of S. White Chapel Blvd.
Current Zoning: "R- P.U.D." Residential Planned Unit Development District.
Owner /Applicant: Timarron Land Development. The plat proposes 3 lots. SPIN
Neighborhood #9.
Public Hearing
9. Consider: ZA96 -25, SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE FOR
MASONRY SUPPLY, PER ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 480, SECTION 45.1
(27), being legally described as Tract 2B, Brumlow Industrial District as shown on
the plat recorded in Volume 388 -113, Page 441, Plat Records, Tarrant County,
Texas, and being approximately 2.615 acres. Location: 1675 Brumlow Ave., being
on the east side of Brumlow Ave., approximately 1,400' north of the intersection
of Brumlow Ave. and S.H. 26. Current Zoning: "I -1" Light Industrial District.
Owner: V -W Investments, Inc.; Applicant: Gary Howard. SPIN Neighborhood #7.
City of Southlake, Texas
1 REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 3
Public Hearing
10. Consider: ZA96 -26, REZONING AND SITE PLAN FOR SNOW'S SPORTS ACRES, being
approximately 3.00 acres situated in Jesse G. Allen Survey, Abstract No. A -18,
Tracts 4A15, 4A 16A, and 4A18. Location: on the east side of Pearson Lane,
I approximately 1,700' south of the intersection of Pearson Lane and W. Southlake
Blvd. (F.M. 1709). Current Zoning: "B -I" Business Service Park District and
"AG" Agricultural District; Requested Zoning: "S-P-1" Detailed Site Plan District
to allow gymnastics, swimming, diving, dance, martial as instruction, archery
range, after - school care, summer camp programs, pro -shop, and other related
41 businesses. Owner /Applicant: Randal B. Snow. SPIN Neighborhood #15.
Public Hearing
I I. Consider: ZA96 -28, PLAT VACATION, OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, DILG PLACE,
i being approximately 24.926 acres situated in the Obediah W. Knight Survey,
Abstract No. 899 and recorded in Volume 388 -128, Page 85, P.R.T.C.T., and
PLAT VACATION OF LOTS 1 -A, I -B, AND 1 -C, BLOCK 1, DILG PLACE,
being 14.926 acres situated in the Obediah W. Knight Survey, Abstract No. 899
and recorded in Volume 388 -136, Page 14, P.R.T.C.T. Location: south of and
adjacent to E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709), approximately 2,300' west of the
intersection of S. Carroll Ave. and E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709). Current
i Zoning: "R- P.U.D. No. 1" Residential Planned United Development District and
"SF -1A" Single Family Residential District. Owners /Applicants: James W. and
Loretta Baker. SPIN Neighborhood #9.
Public Hearing
12. 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
13. 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 15, 1996 at 5 :00 p.m., pursuant to the
"texas Government Code, Chapter 551.
'i City of Southlake, Texas
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA
MARCH 21, 1996 tµiuuu
° "i,
,
PAGE 4 ��VTHC "'',,
., 1 os q '� F 4 1
t 1 ti=
ze t
Sandra L. LeGrand
City Secretary
If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disability that requires special needs, please advise the City
I 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 \03- 21 -96. W PD
i
Z
1
I
1
1
■
1 I
COMMISSION MEETING
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING
MARCH 21, 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, City Civil
Engineer Shawn Poe, and Administrative Secretary Laurie Sheets
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Wright at 7:05 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion was made to approve the minutes of the March 7, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting, amended as follows:
1) page 1, line 19, in reference to the February 22, 1996 minutes, Staff made the revision of deleting
the words "to hinder the resemble" instead of just deleting the word "hinder" in modifying the
sentence
2) page 3, lines 22, 23, and 24, the three sentences should be formatted into one sentence and
deleting the words "It requires compliance with the articulation requirement" with "that applies"
3) page 3, line 34, replace the word "around" with "beside"
4) page 8, line 1, replace the words "will be" with "is"
5) page 12, line 12, delete the words "be rendered in the ordinance."
Motion: Murphy
Second: Johnson
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, and Hobbs
Nays: none
Approved: 5 -0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 03- 21 -96, tape 1, section #0 -102)
AGENDA ITEM #3. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS
Director Greg Last informed the Commission on the following:
1) provided a copy of the Master Thoroughfare Plan Notebook to the Commissioners who had not
received one at an earlier time
2) requested for the Commission to inform Adm. Secretary Laurie Sheets if they had any attendance
conflicts with the upcoming meetings on April the 18th and 25th; Vice - Chairman Johnson will
be unavailable to attend the meetings at those times.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 03- 21 -96, tape 1, section #104 -133)
PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 2
AGENDA ITEM #4, ZA96-20. SITE PLAN FOR VILLAGE CENTER, PHASE II
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that the Applicant's request is for the
Site Plan For Village Center, Phase II, Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, being legally described as a portion
of Tract 6, and being Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 of the previously approved Revised Preliminary Plat, and
being approximately 16.672 acres situated in the T. Mahan Survey, Abstract No. 1049. The
property is located approximately 200' south of E. Northwest Parkway (S.H. 114), approximately
300' north of E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709), and approximately 2,000' 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,
Winkelmann & Associates. The property is located in SPIN Neighborhood #4. Four (4) written
notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area, and Staff has not received any
response. Site Plan Review Summary No. 1 dated March 15, 1996, was provided to the
Commission. The Applicant has provided a response letter from Winnkelmann and Associates, Inc.
dated March 21, 1996, to address the staff review letter's comments.
Don Silverman (The Midland Group), 15935 Century Forest Circle, Dallas, Texas, Steve Lam
(Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc.),Paces West, 2727 Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA 30339, Emilou Barnes
(Greenberg Farrow), 3927 Peachtree Road, Ne., Atlanta, GA 30319, Mike Clark (Winkelmann and
Associates, Inc.), 12800 Hillcrest Road, Suite 200, Dallas, Texas 75230, and Cindy Preston
(Manager of Home Depot in Plano, Texas), represented this item. Mr. Silverman commented on the
following items in response to the staffs review letter:
1) The letter dated March 21, 1996, from Winkelmann and Associates, Inc. addressed most of the
comments.
2) item #1 (Correct the south boundary line of Lot 3. The lot configurations of Lots 1, 2, and 3 do
not match the approved Preliminary Plats.)
Response: The plan has been remodified to show the approximate lot configurations of Lots 1,
2, and 3.
3) items #2 through #8
Response: The plan has been addressed and modified.
4) item #8C (Show the locations of interior landscape on the graphic (with cross hatch or shading.
Although it appears that the overall area and plantings shown in the Site Data meet the interior
landscape area requirements, initial estimations of the area required in parking islands appears
deficient.)
Response: Mr. Clark has recalculated the measurements on the interior landscaping. He
believes that the submitted interior landscaping does meet the landscaping
requirement. He added that there are additional landscape areas planned at the front
of the property that will exceed the bufferyard requirements.
5) item #9C (The Driveway Ordinance No. 634 requires a minimum of 100' throats depths from
the adjoining right -of -way line for traffic stacking. The north driveway into Lot 3 intersecting
PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 3
Village Center Drive has a throat depth of approximately 70'.)
Response: He indicated that the location of the driveway throat in question is on Lot 3. He
requested to waive the 100 ft. driveway throat depth requirement due to the following
reasons:
1. in order to maintain the larger bufferyards
2. for the integrity of access to the parking area through the eastern most portion of the site
3. the driveway is 80 ft. from the front of the curb and 70 ft. from the right -of -way
4. that portion of Village Center Drive is 400 ft. off of W. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709) and 700
to 1,000 ft. off of Northwest Parkway East (S.H. 114) which help in any traffic backing up
on the major thoroughfares
5. in order to bring the driveway throat depth to 100 ft., they would have to break up the drive
in front of the property, which would make it difficult to have two -way access into the
parking area
6) item #9D (The Driveway Ordinance No. 634 requires a minimum spacing of 150' between
driveway center lines and right -of -way intersections. The proposed driveway located in Lot 5
is shown at approximately 130' from the intersection of S.H. 114 and Village Center Drive. Note
whether this driveway is to be temporary or permanent. If this driveway is to be temporary,
show the location of the proposed permanent driveway accessing the future S.H. 114 service
road. An appropriate access easement must be acquired across Lot 5 or be included in the
Developer's Agreement.)
Response: The plan has been revised to provide the minimum 150 ft. requirements from
Northwest Parkway East (S.H. 114).
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Silverman if the 150 ft. driveway is temporary. Mr.
Silverman stated that it was. Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Silverman the location of the
permanent driveway. Mr. Silverman pointed out on a visual display the location and stated that
it would provide direct access onto the service road for Northwest Parkway East (S.H. 114) and
that there will be no access to Village Center Drive from that portion of the property.
7) item #10 (Provide horizontal and vertical articulation of the building facades according to the
requirements of Ordinance 480 -S, Section 43.c.1.c.)
Response: He provided visual displays to point out the proposal's articulation and elevations.
He commented on the following:
1. the size of the Home Depot Building was a challenge to comply with the ordinance
2. the plan also includes the additional building on Lot 3 which enhances the front elevation
with articulation, depth, and character
3. the Phase II (Home Depot, the anchor tenant) is architecturally designed to be compatible
with Phase I (Kroger Building, the anchor tenant)
4. both Phases I and II will have the same color scheme on the building materials
5. front articulation elevation of the Home Depot Building:
a. the east side of the building
PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 4
b. complies with the requirement except for a 142 ft. section
c. the non - conforming 142 ft. section has a substantial amount of architectural design in the
south exit tower and canopies
d. the south exit tower of the Home Depot Building would have to be extended out "an
additional number amount of feet" to be in compliance with the requirement and they
would prefer not to do this because the tower's configurations are designed to give off
a certain effect for breaking up the building and would interfere with the fire lanes and
access to the front of the building
e. tried to meet the intent of the requirement
f. the minimum vertical articulation off -set requirement is off by 1 ft.; the problem is that
if they go over the 35 ft., they would have to appear before the Zoning Board of
Adjustment to get the variance
6. rear elevation articulation of the Home Depot Building:
a. the west side of the building
b. the length of the wall is very long
c. the wall has to incorporate exit and access doors
d. two sections of the elevation meet the requirement with "functionality"
d. there is a 124 ft. section that does not meet the requirement which is the distance between
the two sections that meet the requirement; this helps to break the building effectively
7. south side elevation articulation of the Home Depot Building:
a. there will be a common wall shared with the building to the south
8. front elevation articulation of the Garden Center of the Home Depot Building:
a. this will be on the north side of the Home Depot Building
b. this elevation articulation was treated separately in review
c. it does provide a different level of elevation
d. Home Depot will contain a "garden oasis" in a contained area of the building
e. it complies with the requirement; its use will be for the house plant enclosure
f. the east side has vertical elements and wrought iron sections
f. the height of this section will hide the "barrel section" of the house plant enclosures that
are located in similar stores of this size
g. if they extended this portion out, they would meet the horizontal articulation requirement
h. the north facing wall has the wrought iron sections
i. the north side that faces Northwest Parkway East (S.H. 114) has a 10 ft. screening wall
that will extend from the middle of the north wall to the loading docks
j. has doubled the number of required canopy trees from the middle of the building to the
front of the building
k. the elevation is higher than the roadway
1. the higher elevation, 10 ft. screening wall, and double plantings will buffer the visibility
of the area
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Silverman if there will be an overpass or underpass at
PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 5
Kimball Ave. when the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDot) expands Northwest
Parkway (S.H. 114). Mr. Silverman did not know this answer. Vice - Chairman Johnson
commented that if TxDot puts in an overpass in the vicinity, the area could be visible by
looking right down into it. Director Greg Last commented that it would probably be
depressed from where it is now. Mr. Silverman stated that the property is pretty far away
from Kimball Ave. and this building location is at the western most portion of the property.
Commissioner Hobbs asked if there were skylights on top of the garden center. Mr.
Silverman stated that this is a house plant enclosure which is below the reveal lines. He
added that they will have a glass top.
9. back elevation articulation of the Garden Center of the Home Depot Building:
a. will have truck wells
b. will be screened with the natural vegetation (existing oak trees) on the Diamond
Shamrock right -of -way
c. the compactor sits up against the wall to provide in and out truck traffic and this limits
the articulation capability
d. the back inside of the enclosure could have windows, however, the view would be only
of the truck docks
10. front and back elevation articulations of the south building:
a. the east and west sides of the building
b. the front and back articulations meet the requirements
11. south side elevation articulation of the south building:
a. this elevation will have the same type of articulation as the west wall on the Kroger Store
b. does not meet the articulation requirements
c. requested to waive this requirement
Vice - Chairman Johnson commented that the west wall of the anchor tenant of Phase I is
facing an interior roadway that had extra trees provided in the landscape area in the front of
it and the south wall of the anchor tenant of Phase II is facing a major thoroughfare and not
proposing any extra trees. He asked Mr. Silverman if he planned to provide extra trees in
front of the south wall of the Home Depot Building like he did for the Kroger Building. Mr.
Silverman stated that he would double the canopy trees all along the south wall of the south
building for a screening device. He added that the extra trees will be the same number as
provided to the west wall of Kroger.
12. based upon the parking lots for building 2, there is a substantial amount of green space
13. they have provided a 50 ft. wide easement through Phase II from Village Center Drive to the
west property line for through traffic in the future development to the west
14. they propose three full lanes (one a continuous left turn lane in the middle of the lanes, one
lane going east bound, and one lane going west bound)
PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 6
15. they have provided a trail that will run from east to west
16. asked if the plan is approved, could they work with Staff to have the capability to decrease
the 37,500 s.f. building for Lot 3, Block 2 just in case the future tenant does not need that
large of a building.
17. materials of the buildings:
a. provided a letter from the architect regarding the material that will be used on the back
of the building
b. a painted textured material will be used on the back of the building and the truck well
which is not considered a stucco
c. this will be applied to the tilt wall
d. the texture paint will be done in two colors
e. "EFIS" will be applied all along the fronts of the buildings
f. the buildings will have a masonry material along the bottom
g. the buildings will have a terra -cotta tile roof
h. the materials in the front and along the sides will be similar to the ones used in Phase
1.
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Silverman if he was requesting to waive the tilt wall
requirement. Mr. Silverman stated that this was correct because at City Council on the Site Plan
for Kroger, they determined that the tilt wall with the synthetic stucco gives it a different
appearance than a tilt wall. Mr. Lam commented that he would prefer to use the painted texture
in the back of the building due to the beatings of heavy traffic from fork -lift trucks and lumber.
He added that five years from now it will look better in the back than if they used the synthetic
stucco. Chairman Wright asked Mr. Lam if the textured paint will be affected by the heavy
traffic. Mr. Lam stated that they can spray right over the existing layer of textured paint and no
damage to the wall can be detected. He added that the repair is very easy. Ms. Barnes
commented that no adjacent surface will be covered with the textured surface coating and the
dry -vit. Vice - Chairman Johnson asked if they were only planning to use a tilt wall with the
texture paint over for the exterior west wall of the building. Ms. Barnes added that the garden
center interior wall will also use this construction material. Chairman Wright commented that
he is familiar with the product and has no problem with it.
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Silverman to point out the location of the double trees. Mr.
Silverman stated that they are in the northwest corner. Vice - Chairman Johnson stated that the 5' -A
bufferyard to the west will not be sufficient to screen the west facing walls. Mr. Silverman stated
that they have provided a 10' bufferyard with canopy trees planted all along the back. Mr. Silverman
stated that the Diamond Shamrock tract of land has existing trees along their east property line and
that they have double the bufferyard for that area in which canopy and accent trees will be center -on-
center. Mr. Clark (Winkelman & Associates) commented that the double canopy trees in the west
bufferyard will fill the void. Commissioner Murphy asked how wide the easement was on the
Diamond Shamrock tract. Mr. Clark stated that it is a "20 ft. fee simple ". Chairman Wright
PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 7
commented that Diamond Shamrock already has an existing pipeline in the vicinity and that they do
have the ability to establish other pipelines. He asked Mr. Clark if he knew if Diamond Shamrock
was going to cut down trees when and if they add more pipelines in the vicinity. Mr. Silverman
stated that it is a 20' area that has been stripped of all vegetation with a row of mature trees on both
sides of it. He added that he did not know if they were going to cut more trees down in the process
of adding more pipelines in the future. Mr. Clark asked Staff if Diamond Shamrock had to request
a tree permit with the City for any removal of trees. Director Greg Last stated that Diamond
Shamrock would have to show their plans from a utility company prospective. He added that in
order for them to add utility lines, they would be allowed to remove the trees. Chairman Wright
commented that trees on the Diamond Shamrock should probably not be counted on. Vice -
Chairman Johnson asked if they could double the trees on the west (back) of the building in adjacent
to the area of the truck loading docks next to the Diamond Shamrock tract. Mr. Silverman stated that
there is a 10 ft. bufferyard in that area and that they will salvage all the existing trees they can within
the first 10 ft. Chairman Wright commented that he had no problem with the tree requirement
because the property to the west of the Diamond Shamrock easement will have its back to the Home
Depot Building.
Chairman Wright asked the Commission if they had a concern with approving the retail building to
be 37,500 s.f. or less. The Commission had no concern.
Chairman Wright opened the public hearing.
No discussion from the audience.
Chairman Wright closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hobbs asked Staff if they had the ability to waive the textured paint on the tilt wall.
Director Greg Last stated that with the adoption of the Corridor Overlay Zone, it granted the
Planning and Zoning Commission the authority to recommend to City Council to grant variances
to that requirement. He added that at the City Council's previous meeting, the City Council agreed
with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation that the materials and construction
methods meet the intent of the Corridor Study.
Motion was made to approved ZA96 -20, Site Plan for Village Center, Phase II (West), subject to
Plan Review Summary No. 1 dated March 15, 1996, amended as follows:
1) agreeing that the west wall will be a tilt wall covered with textured paint
2) accepting the articulation as presented, providing additional trees to the south of the anchor
tenant
3) stipulating that the anchor tenant may be smaller than presented on the plan but have the same
design
4) forgiving item #9C (100' driveway throat depth requirement) for the north driveway into Lot 3
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 8
intersecting Village Center Drive.
Motion: Johnson
Second: Hobbs
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, and Hobbs
Nays: none
Approved: 5 -0
Motion carried.
Motion was made to reconsider the previous motion on ZA96 -20, Site Plan for Village Center, Phase
II (West) and add the following amendment:
1) forgiving item #8B (If the loading area at the rear of the building located on Lot 3 is intended
to have a dock, the required canopy trees along the west and south lines must be doubled)
2) adding the doubling of canopy trees as presented on the plan.
Motion: Johnson
Second: Murphy
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, and Hobbs
Nays: none
Approved: 5 -0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 03- 21 -96, tape 1, section #133 -1813)
Director Last informed the Commission the agenda item #11, ZA95 -28, Plat Vacation needs to be
tabled.
The next agenda item was moved forward on the agenda due to the request to table.
AGENDA ITEM #11, ZA96 -28, PLAT VACATION
Motion was made to table ZA96 -28, Plat Vacation for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Dilg Place , and Lots
1 -A, 1 -B, and 1 -C, Block 1, Dilg Place, to the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting on April
4, 1996, and continue the public hearing.
Motion: Murphy
Second: Johnson
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, and Hobbs
Nays: none
Approved: 5 -0
Motion carried.
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 9
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 03- 21 -96, tape 1, section #1813 -1860)
AGENDA ITEM #5. ZA96 -21, REZONING AND CONCEPT PLAN FOR FOX HOLLOW
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that the Applicant's request is for the
Rezoning and Concept Plan for Fox Hollow, being legally described as a portion of Lot 3R1, Block
1, Crumbaker Addition as shown on the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 807, Plat Records Tarrant
County, Texas, and being approximately 1.146 acres situated in T.M. Hood Survey, Abstract No.
706. The property is located south of Northwest Parkway West (S.H. 114), approximately 2600'
south of the intersection of Shady Oaks Drive and W. Dove Street and approximately 1000' east of
Shady Oaks Drive. The Current Zoning is "AG" Agricultural District, and the Requested Zoning
is "0-1" Office District. The Land Use Category is Mixed Use. The Corridor Designation is Office
Commercial. The property Owner is W. H. Crumbaker; and the request is being submitted by the
Applicant, Pima Properties, Inc. Three (3) written notices were sent to property owners within the
200' notification area, and Staff has not received any response. The property is located in SPIN
Neighborhood #11. A Concept Plan for Fox Hollow, Lot 9, Block 1, will be considered with this
request. Concept Plan Review Summary No. 1, March 15, 1996, was provided to the Commission.
It will be adjacent to residential property.
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Staff the location of Northwest Parkway (S.H. 114) in relation to this
property. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy pointed out the location and stated that a portion of
this property will be taken for the future right -of -way. She added that Lot 9 will front the service
road for Northwest Parkway (S.H. 114). Vice - Chairman Johnson asked for Staffs recommendation
on property setbacks that could be altered with expansion of thoroughfares. Zoning Administrator
Karen Gandy recommended that typically a 50 ft. setback is applied from the new property line.
Director Greg Last added that it needs to be approximate to the "taking line" from the future right -of-
way of Northwest Parkway (S.H. 114).
David McMahan (Pima Properties, 5215 N. O'Conner, Suite 200, Irving, Texas 75035), 1335
Hidden Glen, Southlake, Texas 76092, and John Levitt (JE. Levitt Engineers, Inc.), 725 Commerce
St., Suite 104, Southlake, Texas 76092, represented this item. Mr. McMahan commented on the
following items:
1) proposing to construct a 5,600 s.£, one story office building that resemble the surrounding
residential properties
2) item # 2 (bufferyards and planting calculations) on the staff review letter
Response: In order to comply with the requirement, they would have to cut down 200 or more
existing oak trees.
Commissioner Murphy asked Mr. McMahan exactly which concerns in item #2 he would like
to address. Mr. McMahan stated item #2A(2) (Northeast Bufferyard, adjacent to future
Northwest Parkway (S.H. 114), 7 canopy trees, 5 accent trees, and 29 shrubs) could be
addressed. Chairman Wright asked Staff if the tree issue could be worked out with the Applicant
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 10
by either a more detailed Site Plan or inspecting the site. Director Greg Last asked the
Commission if the irrigation could be addressed at this time. He added that the Applicant
probably would have credit for all the required canopy trees and accent trees, however, the shrub
requirement might need to be fulfilled. Furthermore, he stated that the real impact on the
property would be the irrigation. He recommended that the tree requirement should not be
waived for the Applicant has the right to ask for those credits and the Commission could
stipulate for an on site evaluation to the needs for irrigation. Chairman Wright commented that
the Commission's recommendation could be for the Applicant to work the issues out with Staff
on the site to try to meet the intent of the ordinance. Director Greg Last commented that the
Applicant could show the plants they intended and Staff could automatically give them credit
for the trees.
3) item #3 (Provide the distance to the nearest driveway centerline intersecting the southwest right -
of -way line of Northwest Parkway (S.H. 114) and southeast of the proposed driveway centerline.
Please note that driveways intersecting Northwest Parkway (S.H. 114) must be spaced a
minimum 500' apart; however, upon construction of the future S.H. 114 frontage road, driveways
accessing only the frontage road may be spaced a minimum of 25' apart) on the staff review
letter.
Response: The closest driveway is 750 ft. If they complied with this requirement, it would
cut into the propane outlet to the southeast of the property. The closest driveway
northwest of Dove St. is probably a few thousand feet.
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Mr. McMahan if the temporary road that will be built and utilized in
the easement until the expansion of Northwest Parkway (S.H. 114) will meet all the fire codes. Mr.
McMahan stated that it will.
Chairman Wright opened the public hearing.
C. Shivers, 1800 N. White Chapel Road, Southlake, Texas 76092, commented on the following:
1) he is the adjacent property owner to the north
2) all the trees to the north are located on his property with an existing driveway
3) after the expansion of Northwest Parkway (S.H. 114), there will be a strip of property between
the right -of -way of Northwest Parkway (S.H. 114) and the Applicant's property
Mr. McMahan stated that the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDot) has revised the
alignment for the proposal which involves the use of more land and will affect a portion ( "a few
feet ") of his property. Mr. Shivers asked Mr. McMahan if he was planning on building the
development when the right -of -way is moved. Mr. Mahan stated that he will be able to build.
Chairman Wright commented that Mr. McMahan is proposing a temporary drive.
Chairman Wright closed the public hearing.
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 11
Motion was made to approve ZA96 -21, Rezoning and Concept Plan for Fox Hollow, subject to Plan
Review Summary No. 1 dated March 15, 1996, amended as follows:
1) amending item #2 (bufferyards and planting calculations) to grant Staff the ability to review the
plantings in the bufferyard at the time of the irrigation review.
Motion: Hobbs
Second: Murphy
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, and Hobbs
Nays: none
Approved: 5 -0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 03- 21 -96, tape 1, section #1860 -2353)
AGENDA ITEM #6. ZA96 -22, REZONING AND CONCEPT PLAN FOR FOX HOLLOW
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that the Applicant's request is for the
Rezoning and Concept Plan for Fox Hollow, being legally described as a portion of Lot 3R1, Block
1, Crumbaker Addition as shown on the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 807, Plat Records Tarrant
County, Texas, and being approximately 13.233 acres situated in T.M. Hood Survey, Abstract No.
706. The property is located on the west side of Shady Oaks Dr., approximately 2,600' south of the
intersection of W. Dove St. and Shady Oaks Dr. The Current Zoning is "AG" Agricultural District,
and the Requested Zoning is "SF -20A" Single Family Residential District. The Land Use Category
is Mixed Use. The property Owner is W. H. Crumbaker, and the request is being submitted by the
Applicant, Pima Properties, Inc. The property is located in SPIN Neighborhood #11. Nineteen (19)
written notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area, and Staff has received
three (3), 1 concerned, 1 in favor, and 1 opposed, written responses within the notification area and
one response outside the notification area that is concerned. A Concept Plan for Fox Hollow will
be considered with this request proposing 18 residential lots.
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Staff if the equestrian trails were part of the City trail plan. Director
Greg Last stated that they were not. Vice - Chairman Johnson asked what the organization was and
what the basis was for the organization. Commissioner Murphy stated that the organization is a
private riding school located off of Highland. He added that the organization approved a Specific
Use Permit two years ago. Vice - Chairman Johnson asked for the basis of the trails that the riding
organization utilizes. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that this organization has utilized
the land with or without the consent of the property owners.
David McMahan (Pima Properties, 5215 N. O'Conner, Suite 200, Irving, Texas 75035), 1335
Hidden Glen, Southlake, Texas 76092, and John Levitt (J.E. Levitt Engineers, Inc.), 725 Commerce
St., Suite 104, Southlake, Texas 76092, represented this item. Mr. McMahan commented on the
following concerns with items #1, #4C, and 7 in response to the staff review letter:
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 12
1) item #1 (Delete Notes No. 1 and No. 2)
Response: They will delete the notes. The notes refer to the minimum size of the lot and the
setback line. He added that he preferred the notes to be left on the plan to show the
intent and proposal.
Director Greg Last stated the following:
1. note No. 1 is in incorrect in which it specifies the minimum size lots to be 20,000 s.f.; the
minimum size lots need to be 30,000 s.f. for the south side of the property
2. in order for the Applicant to comply with the lot width requirement, the Applicant increased
the building line, which conflicts with note No. 2.
Mr. McMahan stated that he would take off the notes 1 and 2.
2) item #4 (Lot 1 does not meet the minimum lot depth requirement of 125 ft. The Applicant has
provided a lot depth of approximately 107 ft.)
Response: He commented on the following:
1. this is the entry lot
2. Staff calculated a different area then what is proposed
3. he pointed out to the Commission the building area for Lot 1 and stated that it complies with
the lot depth requirement
4. a large portion of the entry will be included and maintained by Lot 1 due to the addition not
having a homeowner's association
5. requested for a variance or recalculation of Lot 1 on a "weighted average" of the viability lot
Director Greg Last commented the ordinance requires Staff to calculate the minimum lot depth
by taking the midpoint of the front and the midpoint of the back and draw a line between them.
He added that the lot will have enough building area for the depth from a practical stand point.
3) the plan will have deed restrictions.
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Mr. McMahan to discuss the details that were addressed in a letter
that addressed the trail issue. Mr. McMahan stated the following:
1) a meeting was held two weeks ago that involved residents from Shady Oaks, Ravenaux, and the
Garden Addition in which he introduced his proposal
2) some of the residents asked for an equestrian easement along the south side of the property
3) he did not have a problem providing this request, however, he would like to place certain
restrictions on the equestrian/pedestrian easement; for example, no motor /wheeled vehicles will
be allowed
4) the easement to be restricted to a certain area
5) a transformer is in this area
6) he will provide a 10 ft. segment of land
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 13
7) there is a 7.5 ft. easement already established for utilities
8) on the Ravenaux property there is a 15 ft. utility and drainage easement.
Chairman Wright opened the public hearing.
Doreen Bruton (President, Ride with Pride, Inc.), 480 W. Highland St., Southlake, Texas 76092,
commented that she owned the Ride with Pride Horse -Back Riding School on Highland St. She
stated that the trails are not only utilized by her organization but the surrounding residents along
Shady Oaks, Highland, and White Chapel Blvd. She added that it is not just "for profit" use.
Chairman Wright asked Ms. Bruton how would they access the proposed trail/easement. Ms. Bruton
pointed out the several entrances that they currently gain access to the existing trail. Chairman
Wright commented that if the residents fenced their property they would not have any access. Ms.
Bruton stated that they would "just go around" the residents that have fenced their property.
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Staff if the equestrian/pedestrian easement was granted, who would
be responsible for it. Director Greg Last stated that the Park Board has some receptiveness to
maintaining the equestrian/pedestrian easement. Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Staff if the
Commission could stipulate that the Park Board maintain it. Director Greg Last stated if it is
dedicated on the plat that it will be a public equestrian/pedestrian easement, and it will be the City's
responsibility. Chairman Wright asked Staff who would be liable. Director Greg Last stated that
he thought the land owner as well as the City would be liable.
C. Shivers, 1800 N. White Chapel Road, Southlake, Texas 76092, asked how far from the entrance
to the side of the road is the property line.
Director Greg Last stated that it was 15 ft. from the right -of -way. He added that it was 44 ft. from
Mr. Shiver's property line to the center of the road.
Mr. Shivers asked if the Applicant was going to provide an 8 ft. fence.
Gary Fawkes, 330 Ravenaux Dr., Southlake, Texas 76092, commented on the following:
1) the Applicant stated at the meeting with the surrounding residents, that he would include a
minimum 3,000 s.f. building size requirement and state in the deed restrictions that the Fox
Hollow residents would not be allowed to build stockade fences especially along the back. He
requested for the Applicant to reconfirm his commitment.
Chairman Wright asked Mr. McMahan if this was his commitment. Mr. McMahan confirmed that
this was correct. He added that the stockade fence issue had not been decided, and they were not
going to provide the Fox Hollow residents with stockade fences or have it required for the residents
to provide one. Chairman Wright asked Mr. Shivers if he understood the Applicant's response in
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 14
providing a fence. Mr. Shivers asked if the Applicant is going to provide a fence. Mr. McMahan
stated that he will not provide one. Mr. Shivers commented that he thought the Applicant was
providing a fence along the north property line. Chairman Wright stated that there will not be a
fence built by the developer or required of the homeowner but probably allowed by the homeowner.
He asked Mr. McMahan if this was correct. Mr. McMahan stated that this was correct. Mr. Shivers
stated that this makes a "good dumping ground ".
Chairman Wright closed the public hearing.
Vice - Chairman Johnson commented on his concern with the equestrian/pedestrian easement.
Chairman Wright commented on his concern with the issue that people have been riding on the trail
which is utilizing people's property with or without their permission and that they want to keep on
doing this. He recommended that if the adjacent residents to the south are wanting a trail, to use the
15 ft. easement along the back of their property. Commissioner Murphy pointed out that the
developer has already agreed to allowing this activity to continue. He recommended for Mr.
McMahan to inform the future residents of Fox Hollow that this activity takes place. He asked why
the Commission should be concerned, if the developer agrees to granting a 7 ft. to 10 ft.
equestrian/pedestrian easement. Vice - Chairman Johnson commented that he did not know if the trail
was legal through Ravenaux.
Chairman Wright asked Mr. McMahan if he would prefer to have the easement or not. Mr.
McMahan stated that "no developer wants to encumber his property with more easements ";
however, he stated that he has no problem with providing it. Commissioner Arnold asked if this
would hinder the sell of the proposed lots. Mr. McMahan stated that this will not burden the
property. He added that the easement will run to the City of Southlake, and he would not like to get
in the liability issues. Chairman Wright commented that the property owner could still be liable for
the property in the easement.
Commissioner Murphy asked Staff if this issue has been brought before the Park Board. Director
Greg Last stated that he did not know if the Park Board has formally acted upon it. He added that
there was a meeting with the Park Board Director Kim McAdams regarding this easement, and she
is going to address this issue before the Park Board and did not think this was going to be an issue.
Robin Jones, 510 Ravenaux Dr. Southlake, Texas 76029, asked to speak after the public hearing
was closed.
The Commission granted permission.
Ms. Jones commented that issue has been addressed with the Park Board, and the Park Board has
been concerned with the existing trails being overlooked in the Master Trail Plan update. She added
that they would like for some of the existing trails to be preserved. Chairman Wright commented
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 15
that he thought this was not an existing trail but just property that people ride through.
Commissioner Hobbs asked Mr. McMahan to address his concern with item #7 (Lot 9 does not abut
a public or private street.) in the staff review letter. Director Greg Last stated that item #7 could be
deleted because it really does not pertain to this request but the request before this.
Vice - Chairman Johnson commented on the following concerns:
1) surrounding residents thinking they have the right to legally ride along this area which might
create problems for nearby residents
2) if the Park Board will want to accept the responsibility and liability of the easement
3) asked the time frame and policy of the above for a better understanding.
Director Greg Last stated that with any park related issue, the Park Board will make a
recommendation to the City Council. He added that he has not heard anything from any of the Park
Board Representatives to the fact that they are not receptive to this trail.
Mr. McMahan commented that he is really not opposed to the easement for a turn around on the trail.
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Mr. McMahan which lots would have the easement (turn around).
Mr. McMahan stated that it would be for Lots 10 -17, terminating on a portion of Lot 17.
Motion was made to approve ZA96 -22, Rezoning and Concept Plan for Fox Hollow, subject to Plan
Review Summary No. 1 dated March 15, 1996, amended as follows:
1) forgiving item #4C (Lot 1 does not meet the minimum lot depth requirement of 125'.)
2) forgiving item #7 (Lot 9 does not abut a public or private street.)
3) requiring the developer to provide a 10 ft. wide equestrian/pedestrian easement along the south
property line from Lots 10 -16 and a portion of Lot 17 that will be dedicated to the City.
Motion: Johnson
Second: Hobbs
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, and Hobbs
Nays: none
Approved: 5 -0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 03- 21 -96, tape 1, section #2350 -3967)
Chairman Wright called for a recess at 9:02 p.m.
Chairman Wright reconvened the meeting at 9:08 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #7. ZA96 -23, PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FOX HOLLOW
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 16
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that the Applicant's request is for the
Preliminary Plat for Fox Hollow, being legally described as Lot 3R1, Block 1, Crumbaker Addition
as shown on the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 807, Plat Records Tarrant County, Texas, and
being approximately 14.379 acres situated in T.M. Hood Survey, Abstract No. 706. The property
is located south of Northwest Parkway West (S.H. 114) on the west side of Shady Oaks Dr.,
approximately 2,600' south of the intersection of W. Dove St. and Shady Oaks Dr. The Current
Zoning is "AG" Agricultural District, and the Requested Zoning is "SF -20A" Single Family
Residential District and "0-1" Office District. The Land Use Category is Mixed Use. The Corridor
Designation is Office Commercial. The property Owner is W. H. Crumbaker, and the request is
being submitted by the Applicant, Pima Properties, Inc. The property is located in SPIN
Neighborhood #11. Nineteen (19) written notices were sent to property owners within the 200'
notification area, and Staff has received two (2), 1 in favor and 1 opposed, written responses within
the notification area. The plat proposes 18 residential lots and 1 non - residential (office) lot.
Preliminary Plat Review Summary No. 1 dated March 15, 1996, was provided to the Commission.
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Staff if the Fire Department is concerned with the cul -de -sac's length
being 1,100 ft. Director Greg Last stated that he did not think that the Fire Department would have
a problem with the additional 100 ft. of length.
David McMahan (Pima Properties, 5215 N O'Conner, Suite 200, Irving, Texas 75035), 1335
Hidden Glen, Southlake, Texas 76092, and John Levitt (J.E. Levitt Engineers, Inc.), 725 Commerce
St., Suite 104, Southlake, Texas 76092, represented this item. Mr. McMahan commented on the
following items:
1) requested for a variance on the following items of the staff review letter:
a. item #4C (Lot 1 does not meet the minimum lot depth requirement of 125 ft. The Applicant
has provided a lot depth of approximately 107 ft.)
b. item #10 (The Subdivision Ordinance No. 483 requires a street stub into the north and south
lines of the property.)
c. item #11 (Cul -de -sac lengths may not exceed 1,000 ft. per the Subdivision Ordinance No.
483. The centerline length of proposed Fox Glen is approximately 1,100 ft.)
d. item #12 (Lot 9 does not abut a public or private street. The Subdivision Ordinance No. 483,
Section 8.01.A requires that all lots abut on a public or private street.)
Commissioner Murphy asked Mr. McMahan about item #4A (Lot 12 must have a minimum rear lot
line of 125 ft.) on the staff review letter. Mr. McMahan stated that the plat has been revised to
incorporate this request.
Chairman Wright opened the public hearing.
No discussion from the audience.
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 17
Chairman Wright closed the public hearing.
Motion was made to approve ZA96 -23, Preliminary Plat for Fox Hollow, subject to Plat Review
Summary Revised No. 1 dated March 15, 1996, amended as follows:
1) forgiving item #4C (the minimum lot depth requirement of 125 ft. for Lot 1)
2) forgiving item #10 (a street stub into the north and south lines of the property)
3) forgiving item #11(cul -de -sac lengths may not exceed 1,000 ft.)
4) forgiving item #12 (Lot 9 does not abut a public or private street)
5) requiring the developer to provide a 10 ft. wide equestrian/pedestrian easement along the south
property line from Lots 10 -16 and a portion of Lot 17 that will be dedicated to the City.
Motion: Murphy
Second: Johnson
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, and Hobbs
Nays: none
Approved: 5 -0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 03- 21 -96, tape 1, section #3974 -4265)
Chairman Wright stepped down and Vice - Chairman Johnson presided on the next agenda item.
AGENDA ITEM #8. ZA96 -24. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TIMARRON ADDITION GOLF
COURSE
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that the Applicant's request is for the
Preliminary Plat for Timarron Addition, Golf Course, being approximately 138.463, situated in the
H. Medlin Survey, Abstract No. A -1037, Tracts 3C, 3C5, 3C2C, 3C3A, 3C2A, 3A3, 3A3A, 2A1,
2D, 3A3B, and a portion of Tracts 3C7 and 2, the H. Medlin Survey, Abstract No. A -1038, Tracts
2A and 2B, the M.W. Davenport Survey, Abstract No. A -432, being a portion of Tracts 1, 1D2, and
1D1, the Barnett and Hollingsworth Survey, Abstract No. A -797, Tracts 2F, 2E, and 1D, and a
portion of Tracts 2 and 2E, the J. Gibson Survey, Abstract No. A -591, Tracts 2G1A, 2H1A, 2K1A,
2J1A, and 2J1B and a portion of Tract 1D1. The property is located north of Big Bear Creek, south
of E. Continental Blvd., west of Brumlow Ave. and east of S. White Chapel Blvd. The Current
Zoning is "R- P.U.D. No. 1" Residential Planned Unit Development District. The Land Use
Category is Public Parks /Semi - Public, Medium Density Residential, and Mixed Use. The property
Owner and Applicant submitting the request is Timarron Land Development. The property is
located in SPIN Neighborhood #9. Thirty -five (35) written notices were sent to property owners
within the 200' notification area, and Staff has received one (1) written response within the
notification that is concerned with the plan. The plat proposes 3 lots. Preliminary Plat Review
Summary No. 1 dated March 15, 1996, was provided to the Commission. The first Preliminary Plat
that was approved in 1992 and was never filed.
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 18
Steve Yetts (Timarron Land Corporation), 300 E. Carpenter Freeway, Suite 1425, Irving, Texas
75062, represented this item. He commented that the Final Plat expired and they are coming back
through the process.
Commissioner Murphy asked Mr. Yetts why the original Final Plat was never filed. Mr. Yetts stated
that the decision at the time was not to lock in the boundaries as they developed around the golf
course. He added that over the last year, they have added several areas that have been platted which
help to define the boundaries.
Vice - Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing.
No discussion from the audience.
Vice - Chairman Johnson closed the public hearing.
Motion was made to approve ZA96 -24, Preliminary Plat for Timarron Addition Golf Course,
subject to Plat Review Summary Revised No. 1 dated March 15, 1996, amended as follows:
Motion: Hobbs
Second: Murphy
Ayes: Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, and Hobbs
Nays: none
Abstained: Wright
Approved: 4 -0 -1
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 03- 21 -96, tape 1, section #4266 -4456)
Chairman Wright stepped down and Vice - Chairman Johnson presided on the next agenda item.
AGENDA ITEM #9, ZA96 -25, SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that the Applicant's request is for the
Specific Use Permit for Outside Storage for Masonry Supply, per Zoning Ordinance No. 480,
Section 45.1 (27), being legally described as Tract 2B, Brumlow Industrial District as shown on the
plat recorded in Volume 388 -113, Page 441, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being
approximately 2.615 acres. The property is located 1675 Brumlow Ave., being on the east side of
Brumlow Ave., approximately 1,400' north of the intersection of Brumlow Ave. and S.H. 26. The
Current Zoning is "I -1" Light Industrial District. The Land Use Category is Mixed Use. The
property Owner is V -W Investments, Inc.; and the request is being submitted by the Applicant, Gary
Howard. The property is located in SPIN Neighborhood #7. Five (5) written notices were sent to
property owners within the 200' notification area, and Staff has not received any response. Concept
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 19
Plan Review Summary No. 1 dated March 15, 1996, was provided to the Commission. The
remaining petroleum tanks have been agreed to be removed from the site within one year. The
Applicant is planning on leasing this for outside storage to Masonry Supply, Inc. and will possibly
give further details on the boundaries for the outside storage.
Marvin Sparks (President, V - W Investments), and Gary Howard (Masonry Supply, Inc.), 2090 Hwy,
157 N. Mansfield, Texas 76063, represented this item. Mr. Sparks commented on the following:
1) the plan proposes to remove all the petroleum related facilities which will include the tank and
loading facilities just south of the building
2) plans to lease this property to Gary Howard
3) item #6 (Provide a 5' type 'A' Bufferyard along the north, east, and south property.)
Response: Requested for variance for the bufferyard requirement on the north, east and south
property.
1. north side
a. the adjacent property owner is Diamond Shamrock
b. there is an existing 6 ft. tall solid concrete wall between his property and the adjacent
property
2. south side
a. there are existing trees along the Brumlow Ave., particularly in the southwest corner
where there is a water holding tank
b. the rest of the property is of great distance from anything or a road
3. east side
a. undeveloped land
b. not opposed to planting trees in this area
4. front bufferyard
a. there is an existing 10 ft. bufferyard which is mostly covered with asphalt driveways
and the parking area
b. propose to screen the front by interweaving the slats with the chain -link fence which
will run along the north property line to the south property line except for the 60 ft. area
where the existing building is
4) item #7 (Show and label all fire lanes. Fire Lanes must be per the Fire Department
requirements.)
Response: Requested for a variance on this item.
1. there is an existing all- weather surface on the road
a. a 12" to 36" thick fill material of concrete substance from Redi -Mix Concrete which is
covered with shredded asphalt shingles
b. the existing surface on the road is designed to eliminate any generated dust and slows
any drainage from the property to the southeast
2. the existing road has been supporting 18 -wheel tank trucks which are carrying an estimated
80,000 pounds of cargo.
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 20
Commissioner Hobbs asked Mr. Sparks if the existing chain -link fence currently had slats. Mr.
Sparks replied that it does not, however, they are planning to install them to the existing chain -link
fence on the Brumlow Ave. side.
Commissioner Murphy asked if the area for the outside storage is where the existing petroleum tanks
were.
Commissioner Hobbs asked what will the outside storage be intended for. Mr. Howard commented
on the following items:
1) the outside storage will be for brick, flue tile, angle iron, and re -bar
2) flue tiles are used inside chimneys
3) there will be a 12 yd. area with two sandpits consisting of one truck load of white and regular
sand that accommodate the customers in the need of finishing small jobs
4) they have an existing facility down the street at the corner of Brumlow Ave. and Hart St.
5) they want to lease this due to the need for expansion
6) the use of the property will not exceed the asphalt line
7) there will be about two truck loads of the stacked of cubed bricks and 12 pallets of the 40 x 48
pallet of clay flue tiles.
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Howard how tall the stacks of bricks, etc. will be and would the
items be below the 6 ft. fence line Mr. Howard stated that they can be if they have to be, however,
he preferred not to because it would cut the area for the turn around designated for the tractor trailers.
Commissioner Murphy asked Mr. Howard what the space would be if it was restricted to 6 ft. high.
Mr. Howard stated that the only item he had concern with is the flue tile being over the 6 ft. fence.
He added that it might be over the fence by 3 ft.; this can be located in the back. Vice - Chairman
Johnson asked if he objected to the restriction of the height of stacking the items. Mr. Howard stated
that he is hesitant due to the possible growth. Mr. Sparks stated that the property at the loading dock
to the east of the building slopes downward 10 ft. to 12 ft. to the east. Vice - Chairman Johnson asked
if the area east of the asphalt line could be available to accommodate the future growth. Mr. Howard
stated that it would be too costly for they would have to pour concrete in that area. Commissioner
Murphy asked if the height of the front wall on Brumlow Ave. could be raised if the stacking height
became excessive. Mr. Howard stated that he could keep the items from view of Brumlow Ave.
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Howard if he would come before the City again needing to
expand because of growth, if the City restricted the height of the outside storage. Mr. Howard stated
that he could, however, he would prefer to restrict the outside storage that would exceed the 6 ft.
fence in the front to be located in the back of the building that will be equal to or not to exceed the
height of the back of the building.
Commissioner Murphy asked Mr. Howard what was currently in the office warehouse building. Mr.
Howard stated that the building has been completely empty for the past two months. He added that
the front of the metal building has just been constructed.
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 21
Commissioner Arnold asked Mr. Howard the hours of operation. Mr. Howard stated that the trucks
possibly would be coming in before 7:00 a.m. He added that at least three or four times of month
the trucks could come in at 2:00 a.m. Commissioner Murphy asked Staff if they had received any
noise complaints from the existing facility they have. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that
to her knowledge, she has not received any.
Commissioner Hobbs commented that he would not like to allow stacking containers or 36 ft. or 40
ft. trailers parked. Mr. Howard stated that they did not have any stacking containers or trailers.
Commissioner Murphy asked Mr. Howard how their customers purchase the materials. Mr. Howard
stated that they purchase the bricks by the cube unless the brick is broken and then they sell it buy
the brick.
Commissioner Murphy asked Mr. Howard if he would continue the operation of the existing
business located off of Brumlow Ave. and Hart St. Mr. Howard stated that he would discontinue
the operation at that location and move it to this location.
Vice - Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing.
Wanda Stowe, 1710 S. Brumlow Ave., Southlake, Texas 76092, commented on the following items:
1) she lives directly in front of the proposed property
2) opposed to outside storage because there already is a lot of existing industrial business in the area
3) opposed to the numerous amounts of trucks that are entering and existing in the vicinity and
requested for some of the trucks to be directed off of Brumlow Ave.
4) she had heard the City would like to make this area "a lot nicer" because it is the south entrance
to the City and appreciated any concern from the Commission.
Eli Melton, 1680 S. Brumlow Ave., Southlake, Texas 76092, commented on the following items:
1) he owns property 300 ft. directly to the west of the property
2) requested for the bufferyard requirements to be enforced
a. the fence requirement needs to be higher or to restrict the outside storage to be lower than
the 6 ft. fence line
b. the nature of the business tends to have a tacky appearance
3) the south side of the property is visible from Brumlow Ave. even with the existing trees
4) requested the Commission to consider the hours of operation due to surrounding residential areas
5) Brumlow Ave. will not be impacted with more traffic flow if they move their existing business
from Brumlow Ave. and Hart St. to this location
6) recommended for the outside storage to be located on the back side of the property.
Mr. Howard stated that the back side of the property (the previous petroleum tanks location) cannot
be utilized for outside storage due to dramatic drop -off.
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 22
Vice - Chairman Johnson closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Murphy commented that the Commission could place a time limit on the proposal;
five years from now, the City might need to reevaluate the site taking into consideration the traffic
impact on Brumlow Ave. due to the growth in the area.
Commissioner Murphy asked Staff if there was a time allocation for hours of operation in an "I -1"
Light Industrial District. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that the only reference in the
ordinance for that district that relates to the concerns addressed is the noise concern in which the
ordinance states that there are certain noise levels that cannot be exceeded during 9:00 p.m. and 6:00
a.m. and then from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. She added that the Commission probably could define
the hours of operation in a Specific Use Permit. Vice - Chairman asked Staff if the noise level
requirement is enforceable. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that it is very difficult to
measure the noise levels. She added that the City does have equipment to determine the noise level
factor, however, Staff might not be able to get an accurate reading that would hold up in court.
Commissioner Murphy commented on the following items:
1) the proposed interwoven slats in the existing chain -link fence may not have the best appearance
2) if the Commission approves this proposal, the Commission should encourage the Applicant to
complete the fence along the side property line
3) the visibility onto Brumlow Ave. should be considered
Commissioner Arnold commented on the following items:
1) agreed with Commissioner Murphy on the screening issue
2) the Commission should restrict the hours of operation.
Mr. Howard commented that he would not be able to run the business if the hours of operation
were restricted. On occasions, his type of business has materials delivered at night to take care
of his customers' needs. He added that he might just need to buy the grand fathered building
where he is presently located; however, he would like to relocate to this area, adding the
improvements to the proposed property.
Commissioner Hobbs commented on his concern with forgiving the south and east bufferyard
requirements in item #6C.
Vice - Chairman Johnson stated that perhaps Commissioner Murphy's recommendation (a time limit
on the proposal) might be considered due to the property being located in a Mixed Use Category in
the Land Use Plan. Commissioner Murphy added that it could provide the Commission the
flexibility to address this issue. Mr. Howard stated that he would not prefer to have this stipulated
on the Specific Use Permit due to him relocating to the property and foreseeing that he will have a
place of business in the future. He commented that there probably will be houses built on the Mobil
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 23
Tract close to this property which might generate some complaints in the future. Mr. Sparks
commented that he bought this land in an industrial district for an industrial use. He added that he
did not mind the screening requirements, however, he preferred not to have to add screening all
along to the back of the property. He added that the noise level will probably be one -fifth of the
noise that is generated by the adjacent property, Redi -Mix Concrete.
Commissioner Hobbs requested for the Commission to address the fire lane requirements in item
#7 of the staff review letter. Director Greg Last stated that the only recommendations that the
Commission could make is for the Applicant show and label the fire lanes and City Council will
have the ability to grant a variance to the fire code requirement if they see fit. He added that the
Commission could include a recommendation in the motion regarding item #7 if the Commission
would like.
Commissioner Arnold commented again on her concern with the hours of operation, however, the
Redi -Mix Concrete Plan is next door and there have not been any complaints filed with the City
regarding the excessive noise levels.
Vice - Chairman Johnson recommended that the bufferyard to the south be enforced and to restrict
the outside storage that exceeds the 6 ft. to be located to the back of the property as the Applicant
has volunteered.
Motion was made to approve ZA96 -25, Specific Use Permit for Outside Storage, subject to Plan
Review Summary Revised No. 1 dated March 15, 1996, amended as follows:
1) modifying item #6 (Provide a 5' type 'A" Bufferyard along the north, east, and south property.)
a. deleting the north and east bufferyards
b. maintaining the south bufferyard and adding slats along the chain -link fence
c. providing trees along the eastern portion of the property, per the Applicant
2) restricting the outside storage that exceeds the height of the 6 ft. fence line to a location east of
the rear of the building
3) no containers or storage of tractor trailers.
Motion: Murphy
There was not second on the motion.
Motion failed.
Commissioners Arnold and Hobbs commented that they would like the hours of operation to be
restricted. Vice - Chairman Johnson commented that there have been no complaints filed for this area
regarding excessive noise levels. Commissioner Murphy added that the proposed property is only
an estimated 300 yards to 500 yards from the existing facility. Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Mr.
Howard how many times the trucks would be entering and exiting the facility at unusual times of
the day. Mr. Howard stated that there will be 2 to 6 times a month that trucks will enter and existing
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 24
at unusual times in the day, i.e., 2:00 a.m. Commissioner Hobbs asked Mr. Howard if he would be
acceptable to a restriction that would not allows trucks to deliver or haul before 5:00 a.m. or 6:00
a.m.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 03- 21 -96, tape 1, section #4456 -7009)
Mr. Howard stated that this restriction would not be beneficial for his business.
Commissioner Hobbs recommended the Applicant to provide trees in the front of the facility to
enhance it. He asked Mr. Sparks if there were any existing trees at this location. Mr. Sparks stated
that there are three grassy areas with no trees. Mr. Sparks stated that he did not have any concern
with providing more landscaping. Mr. Howard replied that he preferred not to have any trees for
they would destroy the truck driver's vision of the site and of incoming vehicles on Brumlow Ave.
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Staff how to address the front bufferyard since Mr. Howard did not
prefer to have trees at this location. Director Greg Last commented that a 'C' Bufferyard has already
been proposed on the plan. Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Staff to state the landscaping items in 'C'
Bufferyard. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated that there are 3 canopy trees, 4 accent trees,
and 12 shrubs every 100 linear ft.
Eli Melton, 1680 S. Brumlow Ave., Southlake, Texas 76092, asked the Commission permission to
speak again.
Commission granted permission.
Mr. Melton commented that since there is already surrounding existing similar facilities, he had no
objection to the plan for it would not generate any more noise. He asked to refrain from his
opposition to the landscaping issue as addressed on the plan and the screening of the fence will be
addressed on the south and west sides of the property.
Commissioner Murphy asked the Commission to reconsider his motion.
Motion was made to approve ZA96 -25, Specific Use Permit for Outside Storage, subject to Plan
Review Summary Revised No. 1 dated March 15, 1996, amended as follows:
1) modifying item #6 (Provide a 5' type 'A" Bufferyard along the north, east, and south property.)
a. deleting the north and east bufferyards
b. maintaining the south bufferyard and adding slats along the chain -link fence
c. providing trees along the eastern portion of the property, per the Applicant volunteering
2) restricting the outside storage that exceeds the height of the 6 ft. fence line to a location east of
the rear of the building
3) no containers or storage of tractor trailers.
Motion: Murphy
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 25
Second: Hobbs
Ayes: Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, and Hobbs
Abstained: Wright
Approved: 4 -0 -1
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 03- 21 -96, tape 2, section #0 -253)
Vice - Chairman Johnson called for a recess at 10:23 p.m.
Chairman Wright reconvened the meeting at 10:27 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #10, ZA96 -26, REZONING AND SITE PLAN FOR SNOW'S SPORTS ACRES
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that the Applicant's request is for the
Rezoning and Site Plan for Snow's Sports Acres, being approximately 3.00 acres situated in Jesse
G. Allen Survey, Abstract No. A -18, Tracts 4A15, 4A16A, and 4A18. The property is located on
the east side of Pearson Lane, approximately 1,700' south of the intersection of Pearson Lane and
W. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709). The Current Zoning is "B -1" Business Service Park District and
"AG" Agricultural District, and the Requested Zoning is "S -P -1" Detailed Site Plan District to allow
certain "C -3" General Commercial District uses: gymnastics, swimming, diving, dance, martial arts
instruction, archery range, after - school care, summer camp programs, pro -shop, and other related
businesses. The property Owner and Applicant is Randal B. Snow. The property is located in SPIN
Neighborhood #15. Five (5) written notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification
area, and Staff has received two (2) responses within the area in favor of the plan. Site Plan Review
Summary No. 1 dated March 15, 1996, and a letter from Randy and Debbie Snow the City received
on March 1, 1996, was provided to the Commission. The surrounding areas in the City limits are
zoned "AG" Agricultural District. It was a legal non - conforming use established in 1988.
Randal and Debbie Snow, (Snow 's Gymnastics), 2011 Faux Lane, Roanoak, Texas 76262,
represented this item. Mr. Snow commented on the following items:
1) presenting a development case for the first time
2) combining the two parcels of land
3) expanding their business
4 proposing an aquatic center having a pool, bath house and office combination, and large meeting
room
a. the pool will provide swim teams, swimming lessons, and diving teams
b. a diving team in Grapevine is interested in relocating to our facility
6) willing to comply with the ordinance
7) timing is an issue for they would need an appropriate amount of time to advertise for summer
programs.
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 26
Commissioner Arnold asked Mr. Snow for the possible uses people could rent the facilities for. Mr.
Snow stated that this would be for children's birthday parties and other related uses.
Vice - Chairman Johnson commented that the majority of comments listed on the staff review letter
need to be addressed. He asked the Applicant if he had discussed the comments with his planner.
Mr. Snow commented on the following items:
1) he had been through it with his surveyor
2) they intend to comply with all the ordinance requirements, however, they do have several
questions they would like to go over with the Commission
3) the existing metal building facility for Snow's Gymnastics does not meet the code requirements,
however, they have been grand fathered in
a. requested for a variance on the brick building material requirement due to the cost to cover
the proposed pool
b. requested for the pool cover to be the same color of material that is on the existing Snow's
Gymnastics' facility
c. Snow's Gymnastics' facility is tan colored with red trim on the sides and a white top.
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy commented that the Applicant has the right to request this,
however, it will need to be addressed through a separate process. She added the requested "C -3"
General Commercial District uses will require 80% brick material on all exterior walls.
4) they will address all the landscaping requirements
5) requested for a geodesic dome for the bathhouse and office combination building due to it being
cost effective which will comply with the masonry requirement
6) requested to only putting in the pool in time for the children summer programs due
7) asked if they had to replat including the existing building or they could just add on to the existing
building.
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy commented that the proposal needs to be platted into one
lot. She added that a pool is not allowed in a "B -1" Business Service Park District.
Chairman Wright informed Mr. Snow that the requirements in item #26 (Provide a summary chart
showing all proposed variances and to the closest zoning district in which the proposed use(s) would
be allowed. This should show the referenced zoning district, the existing requirements and the
proposed variances) should be provided for the Commission's review. Mr. Snow stated that they
need to hire a consultant to help make the determining factors of the plan.
The Commission recommended for the Applicant to table this item to allow him more time to
address the numerous comments on the staff review letter and by doing this, it will provide the
Commission with more details.
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 27
Chairman Wright asked Mr. Snow what date he preferred to readdress this agenda item. Mr. Snow
stated that he would like to readdress this agenda item before the Commission on April 18, 1996.
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy commented that the Applicant will need to provide Staff with
the resubmittal by 5:00 p.m. on April 8, 1996.
Chairman Wright opened the public hearing.
No discussion from the audience.
Motion was made to table ZA96 -26, Rezoning and Site Plan for Snow's Sports Acres, to the
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting on dated April 18, 1996, 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- 21 -96, tape 2, section #253 -1005)
AGENDA ITEM #12, ORDINANCE NO. 480-U, REVISIONS TO ORDINANCE NO. 480
The Commission agreed to the revisions in Sections 1 through 8.
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that Section 9's purpose is to address
the free standing structures.
Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Staff why cooling towers are allowed in this section. Zoning
Administrator Karen Gandy stated that they are listed to look at buildings that might exceed the 35
ft. limit.
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy recommended for the Commission to keep the flagpole
restriction. Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Staff if church steeples would fit in this category. Zoning
Administrator Karen Gandy stated that they are considered roof standing and are not intended for
human occupancy.
Vice - Chairman Johnson recommended restricting this to property adjacent to residential property.
Commissioner Murphy recommended adding the words "not addressed elsewhere in the ordinance ".
Vice - Chairman Johnson recommended deleting the words "or the other appurtenances ".
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 28
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy commented that item #c refers to the City Council having the
right to waive a requirement without having the Applicant go before the Zoning Board of
Adjustment.
Vice - Chairman Johnson recommended rewording the phrase "publicly owned" in item #d, however,
he would like to have the meaning stay the same.
Commissioner Murphy asked Staff if the mobile communication towers needed to be added. Zoning
Administrator Karen Gandy stated that they are addressed in a different location in the ordinance.
The Commission agreed with items #e and #f.
Director Greg Last recommended using the UBC (Uniform Building Code) definition for ornamental
towers. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy could add the words "per the UBC" to describe
ornamental towers.
Chairman Wright opened the public hearing.
No discussion from the audience.
Chairman Wright closed the public hearing.
Motion was made to approved Ordinance No. 480 -U, Draft No. 2, with the revisions modified
tonight.
Motion: Johnson
Second: Murphy
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, and Hobbs
Nays: none
Approved: 5 -0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 03- 21 -96, tape 2, section #1015 -1547
AGENDA ITEM #14, ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made to approve the adjournment of the meeting at 11:15 p.m. on Thursday, March 21,
1996.
Motion: Johnson
Second: Murphy
Ayes: Wright, Johnson, Arnold, Murphy, and Hobbs
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1996
PAGE 29
Nays: none
Approved: 5 -0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 03- 21 -96, tape 2, section #1547 -1552)
A " Iii
/-
Joe 7 ight
Chairman
ATTEST:
/ . iZer;
Lau ie Sheetu
Secretary
G:\WPF\MTG\MIN\1996\03-21-96.WPD
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF ` <c�
I, as a member of the VSaviu- 4� �ru i'nmLe uY ti
make this affidavit and hereby on oath state the following: I, and/or a person or persons related
to me, have a substantial interest in a business entity that would be peculiarly affected by a vote
or decision of the a f uL - - .k.7L ) ? +F `./ as those terms are defined in
Chapter 171, Texas Local Government Code. j6L ���� r r
The business entity is g � ) (1-1-' 2yrk 4�1 10 "r tiA-
(name) 0
(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.
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.
Signed this ,2 7 / day of / , 19
Signa Vi of • fficial
r- ?
Title
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, this day personally appeared ; � /�� '
on oath stated that the facts hereinabove stated are true to the best of L
� y knowledge or
belief.
L -�
Sworn to and subscribed to before me on this , / day of 7'4rh 19 1 (.5 .
1PU LAURIE M.
SHEET /6:
* �� * Notary Public ) �' it
s� � STATE OF TEXAS '7.=
/�.
E Jr iE My Comm. Exp. 10/30/9^ Notary Public in aid for the State of Texas
Type/Print Notary's Name
My Commission Expires:
G: \WPF\FORMS\AFFID.FRM