1996-05-09 P&Z Meeting City of Southlake, Texas
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9,1996
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
April 18, 1996.
3. Administrative Comments.
4. Consider: ZA96 -41, FINAL PLAT FOR RIDGEWOOD II, being approximately 18.663 acres
situated in the J. J. Freshour Survey, Abstract No. 521, Tract 7. Location: North
side of Johnson Road, adjacent and east of Ridgewood I, being approximately
2.200' east of the intersection of Pearson Lane and Johnson Road. Current Zoning:
"SF -20A" Single Family Residential District. Owner /Applicant:
Ridgewood/Southlake Joint Venture. SPIN Neighborhood #16.
5. Consider: ZA96 -42, FINAL PLAT FOR FOX HOLLOW, being approximately 14.379 acres
situated in the T. M. Hood Survey, Abstract No. 706, and being legally described
as Lot 3R1, Block 1, Crumbaker Addition as shown on the plat recorded in Cabinet
A, Slide 807, P.R.T.C.T. Location: South of Northwest Parkway West (S.H. 114)
on the west side of Shady Oaks Dr.. being approximately 2,600' south of the
intersection of W. Dove St. and Shady Oaks Dr. Current Zoning: "SF -20A" Single
Family Residential District and "0-1" Office District. Owner /Applicant: Pima
Properties. SPIN Neighborhood #11.
6. Consider: ZA96 -43, FINAL PLAT FOR COVENTRY MANOR, PHASE II, being
approximately 43.972 acres situated in the T. M. Hood Survey, Abstract No. A-
706, Tracts 1, 1C, 2A, 3A, and 3C, and being a portion of Lots 1 and 2, Bradley
Addition. Location: West of Shady Oaks Dr.. north of W. Southlake Blvd., on the
east side of N. Peytonville, being approximately Y2 mile south of W. Dove St.
Current Zoning: "R- P.U.D." Residential Planned Unit Development.
Owner /Applicant: Southlake- Coventry, Ltd. SPIN Neighborhood #11.
7. Consider: ZA96 -44, REZONING AND SITE PLAN FOR RACE TRAC PETROLEUM,
being approximately 2.704 acres situated in Thomas Easter Survey, Abstract No.
458, being a portion of Tract 2, and in Thomas Easter Survey, Abstract No. 474,
Tract 8B. Location: North side of E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709), being
City of Southlake, Texas
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA
MAY 9, 1996
PAGE 2
approximately 500' west of the intersection of Northwest Parkway East (S.H. 114)
and E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709). Current Zoning: "AG" Agricultural District;
Requested Zoning: "C -2" Local Retail Commercial District. Owner: Barbara Ann
Ward Bradford; Applicant: Southern Cornerstone, Inc. SPIN Neighborhood #7.
Public Hearing
8. Consider: ZA96 -45, SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR RACE TRAC PETROLEUM for the sale
of packaged beer for off - premise consumption, per Ordinance No. 480, Section
45.1 (1) and 45.6 (a and b), being approximately 2.704 acres situated in Thomas
Easter Survey, Abstract No. 458, being a portion of Tract 2, and in Thomas Easter
Survey, Abstract No. 474, Tract 8B. Location: North side of E. Southlake Blvd.
(F.M. 1709). being approximately 500' west of the intersection Northwest Parkway
East (S.H. 114) and E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709). Current Zoning: "AG"
Agricultural District; Requested Zoning: "C -2" Local Retail Commercial District.
Owner: Barbara Ann Ward Bradford; Applicant: Southern Cornerstone, Inc. SPIN
Neighborhood #7.
Public Hearing
, 9. Consider: ZA96 -46, REVISED SITE PLAN FOR VILLAGE CENTER, PHASE I (EAST),
LOT 3, BLOCK 1, being approximately a 13.07 acre tract of land situated in the
T. Mahan Survey, Abstract No. 1049, and being legally described as a portion of
Tract 6, and being Lot 3, Block 1 of the previously approved Final Plat. Location:
south and adjacent to E. Northwest Parkway (S.H. 114) and north and adjacent to
E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709). approximately 1000' west of Kimball Ave.
Current Zoning: "C -3" General Commercial District. Owner /Applicant: T & M
Southlake Development Co., c/o The Midland Development Group. SPIN
Neighborhood #4.
Public Hearing
10. Consider: ZA96 -47, PLAT VACATION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, FARRAR ADDITION,
being property legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Farrar Addition, being
approximately 1.162 acres situated in the T. Mahan Survey, Abstract No. 1049 and
recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 1539, P.R.T.C.T. Location: North side of E.
Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709), being approximately 2.600' west of the intersection
of Kimball Ave. and E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709). Current Zoning: "C -3"
General Commercial District. Owners: James P. Farrar, Melissa Farrar Auberty,
and William Scott Farrar; Applicant: T & M Southlake Development Co., c/o The
Midland Development Group. SPIN Neighborhood #4.
Public Hearing
11. Consider: ZA96 -48, REZONING AND CONCEPT PLAN FOR PROFESSIONAL
OFFICES, being approximately 1.747 acres situated in the R. V. Paden Survey,
City of Southlake, Texas
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA
MAY 9, 1996
PAGE 3
Abstract No. 1255, Tract 1A. Location: South side of W. Southlake Blvd. (F.M.
1709). being approximately 1,300' east of the intersection of Peytonville Ave. and
W. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709). Current Zoning: "AG" Agricultural District;
Requested Zoning: "0-1" Office District. Owner: Clarence L. Pinson; Applicant:
Roland Limosnero. SPIN Neighborhood #13.
Public Hearing
12. Consider: ORDINANCE NO. 480-V, REVISIONS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE NO.
480, addressing miscellaneous definitions, accessory structures/buildings, off- street
parking requirements, regulations in the "S -P -1" and "S -P -2" Districts, and adding
additional uses in the "I -1" District and the Specific use Permits Section and
revising administrative processes sections.
Public Hearing
13. Consider: MEETING ADJOURNMENT.
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, May 3, 1996 at 5:00 p.m., pursuant to the Texas
Government Code, Chapter 551. o v ttmuro� ,
`
='
c , - - I
or ,
andra L. LeGrand . _. -
City Secretary
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 \05- 09 -96. WPD
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 9, 1996
COMMISSION PRESENT: Chairman Joe Wright, Vice - Chairman Ernest Johnson, Members:
2 Randy Arnold, and Jim Murphy
3
4 COMMISSION ABSENT: Commissioner Arthur Hobbs
5
6 CITY STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy, Planner Tom Elgin, Staff Engineer
7 Shawn Poe and Zoning Clerk Chris Carpenter
8
9 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Wright at 7:07 p.m.
10
11 AGENDA ITEM #2, APPROVAL OF MINUTES
12 Motion was made to approve the minutes of the April 18, 1996 Regular Planning and Zoning
13 Commission Meeting.
14 Motion: Arnold
15 Second: Murphy
16 Ayes: Wright, Arnold, and Murphy
17 Nays: none
18 Abstain: Johnson
19 Approved: 3 -0 -1
20 Motion carried.
22 (Planning and Zoning Meeting, 05- 09 -96, tape 1, section #00018)
23
24 AGENDA ITEM #3. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS
25 Planner Tom Elgin informed the Commission of the following items:
26 1) The Commissioners have before them an "Application for Appointment" form which has been
27 forwarded to them by the City Secretary at her request, and the Commisioners should return this
28 form by May 15, 1996, if they are interested in re- appointment.
29
30 Vice- Chairman Johnson stated that he had received a letter from the City Secretary which
31 implied that only a letter requesting re- appointment was necessary and asked Mr. Elgin to have
32 the City Secretary send him a new letter reflecting the proper procedure. Mr. Elgin agreed.
33
34 2) The previous P &Z Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) Work Session was canceled due to lack of
35 members able to attend. Therefore, at the conclusion of tonight's meeting, a proposed future
36 meeting for May 16, 1996, will be proposed.
37
38 Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy about the status of his request
39 to include P &Z's actions as written statements in the review letters going to Council. Mrs. Gandy
Page 1
1 replied that to her knowledge those written comments were now included in the review letters
2 that are going to council. Mr. Johnson also commented that the final plat review letters before
him tonight and at other times seemed too lengthy final plats, and he asked Staff for possible
alternatives. Chairman Joe Wright commented that he did not in general like to see long reviews,
5 but at times items that may have been agreed upon but not explicitly stated are often only
6 included at the final plat level, which may result in longer reviews.
7
8 (Planning and Zoning Meeting, 05- 09 -96, tape 1, section #00136)
9
10 AGENDA ITEM #7. ZA96 -44. REZONING AND SITE PLAN FOR RACETRAC PETROLEUM,
11 and AGENDA ITEM #8. ZA96 -45. SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR RACETRAC PETROLEUM
12 FOR THE SALE OF PACKAGE BEER FOR OFF - PREMISE CONSUMPTION.
13 Chairman Joe Wright announced that the Commission would move to agenda item #7, ZA96 -44,
14 Rezoning and Site Plan for Racetrac Petroleum, on the north side of East Southlake Blvd., as the
15 Commission has a request from the Applicant to table this item and continue the public hearing to
16 June 6, 1996. Vice - Chairman Johnson asked to include agenda item #8, ZA96 -45, Specific Use
17 Permit for the Sale of Package Beer in the motion to table until June 6, 1996, at the request of the
18 applicant.
19
20 Motion was made to table ZA96 -44, Rezoning and Site Plan for Racetrac Petroleum, and table
21 ZA96 -45, Specific Use Permit for Racetrac Petroleum for the Sale of Package Beer, until June 6,
22 1996, and continue the public hearing.
23
24 Motion: Johnson
Second: Murphy
26 Ayes: Arnold, Murphy, Johnson and Wright
27 Nays: none
28 Approved to table: 4 -0
29 Motion carried.
30
31 (Planning and Zoning Meeting, 05- 09 -96, tape 1, section #00175)
32
33 AGENDA ITEM #4. ZA96 -41. FINAL PLAT FOR RIDGEWOOD II
34 Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that the applicant's request is for the
35 Final Plat of Ridgewood II, being approximately 18.663 acres situated in the J. J. Freshour Survey,
36 Abstract No. 521, Tract 7, located on the north side of Johnson Road, adjacent and east of
37 Ridgewood I, being approximately 2,200' east of the intersection of Pearson Lane and Johnson Road.
38 The owner /applicant is Ridgewood/Southlake Joint Venture, the current zoning is "SF -20A" Single
39 Family Residential District, and the Land Use Plan indicates Medium Density Residential. No
40 additional surrounding owner notices were required because it is a Final Plat. Mrs. Gandy stated that
41 Staff finds that the Final Plat substantially conforms to the previously submitted Preliminary Plat
42 as noted in the provided Plat Review Summary No. 1 dated May 3, 1996. The proposal is for 30
43 residential lots.
Page 2
1
2 John Levitt, J.E. Levitt Engineers, 726 Commerce Street, Southlake, Texas, 76092 represented this
item and made the following comments:
5 1) He has reviewed the Plat Review Summary No. 1 dated May 3, 1996, and wishes to respond only
6 to numbered comment #9. This comment requires a 35' building setback line on the east line
7 of Lot 14, Block 1, and he seeks relief from this requirement. Mr. Levitt noted that this is a
8 similar request to the one for Lot 45 in Ridgewood I, which was granted a 20' building line.
9 Vice - Chairman Johnson asked if this request was for 20' as well, and Mr. Levitt noted that it
10 was, as shown on the plat. Chairman Wright indicated that he had no problem with this request,
11 as the lot was not reverse - frontage.
12
13 Motion was made to approve ZA96 -41, Final Plat for Ridgewood I, subject to Plat Review
14 Summary No. 1 dated May 3, 1996, amended as follows:
15
16 1) deleting item #9 requiring a 35' building setback line on the east line of Lot 14, Block 1, and
17 allowing a 20' building setback line as shown on the plat.
18
19 Motion: Johnson
20 Second: Murphy
21 Ayes: Arnold, Murphy, Johnson and Wright
22 Nays: none
23 Approved: 4 -0
24 Motion carried.
26 (Planning and Zoning Meeting, 05- 09 -96, tape 1, section #00305)
27
28 AGENDA ITEM #5, ZA96 -42, FINAL PLAT FOR FOX HOLLOW
29 Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that the applicant's request is for the
30 Final Plat of Fox Hollow, being approximately 14.379 acres situated in the T. M. Hood Survey,
31 Abstract No. 706, and being legally described as Lot 3R1, Block 1, Crumbaker Addition as shown
32 on the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 807, P.R.T.C.T. It is located south of Northwest Parkway
33 West (S.H. 114) on the east side of Shady Oaks Dr., being approximately 2,600' south of the
34 intersection of W. Dove St. and Shady Oaks Dr. The current zoning is "SF -20A" Single Family
35 Residential District and "0-1" Office District. The Land Use Plan indicates Mixed Use and the
36 Corridor Overlay Land Use designation is Office /Commercial. The owner /applicant is Pima
37 Properties. No additional surrounding owner notices were required because it is a final plat. Staff
38 finds that the Final Plat substantially conforms to the previously approved Preliminary Plat. The
39 request is for 18 residential lots and 1 lot designated as office use.
40
41 Mrs. Gandy requested that the Commission allow at this time the addition of an item #15 to the Plat
42 Review Summary No. 1 letter dated May 3, 1996, as follows: "Provide a utility company signature
43 block for the easement abandonment." Chairman Wright asked if the easement was made to the
Page 3
1 utility company, and John Levitt, J.E. Levitt Engineers, 726 Commerce Street, Southlake, Texas,
2 76092, who is representing the case, answered that the easement was made to Tri- County Electric,
who will furnish the electrical service to the development.
5 Mr. Levitt then stepped forward to address the Commission with the following comments:
6 1) He has reviewed the Plat Review Summary No. 1 dated May 3, 1996, and wishes to respond to
7 numbered comment item #8. Mr. Levitt stated that he has dedicated all the right -of -way
8 (R.O.W.) necessary, as the existing total R.O.W. should be approximately 56 feet, and if any
9 additional R.O.W. should be needed, it should be obtained from the west side.
10
11 Chairman Wright asked Mr. Levitt what R.O.W. he had from the centerline, and Mr. Levitt
12 responded that it was 30 feet, but it may appear to be different because of a labeling error. Chairman
13 Wright noted that item #8 could be left as it is, then, and Mr. Levitt agreed.
14
15 2) Mr. Levitt then commented on the building lines of residential Lots 17 and 18, for which he
16 proposed a building line of variable depth which would not be parallel to the R.O.W. It would
17 begin 35' from the R.O.W. on the west side of the two lots, dip down in a "V- shape"
18 approximately 67' deep on the common lot line, then swing up to 35' on the east side of the two
19 lots, providing more buildable area than previously possible due to the location of a creek on the
20 rear of the two lots. Both lots will maintain at least 100' at the building line.
21
22 Vice - Chairman Johnson asked what procedure would be taken to guarantee item #13d would be
23 accomplished (no building permit would be issued until adequate access has been provided to the
24 office lot). Planner Tom Elgin indicated that this was to prevent a potential buyer from being
unaware that access was not available. Chairman Wright noted that this disclaimer could be added
26 to the plat, and asked if that is what the applicant was doing. Mr. Levitt indicated that a provision
27 for ingress /egress by easement from Lot 3R2, Crumbaker Addition was being drawn up by the
28 attorneys for the applicant. Mr. Elgin agreed that if that easement document were executed, a note
29 on the face of the plat to that effect would not be necessary.
30
31 Vice - Chairman Johnson then asked for clarification on the agreement to not allow the office lot
32 access to the residential cul -de -sac within the project. Mr. Levitt answered that the office lot does
33 not extend all the way to the cul -de -sac R.O.W., thus not providing access. Vice - Chairman Johnson
34 also asked staff if they had a problem with the building line adjustment to Lots 17 and 18, as
35 previously discussed, and Mr. Elgin said Staff would not. Chairman Wright asked Mr. Levitt if he
36 could provide a note on the plat indicating that there would be no access from the office lot into the
37 residential portion of the project via the cul -de -sac, and Mr. Levitt stated he would.
38
39 Motion was made to approve ZA96 -42, Final Plat for Fox Hollow, subject to Plat Review Summary
40 No.1 dated May 3, 1996, as amended:
41
42 1) Adding item #13e, which stipulates on the face of the plat that no access will be granted to the
43 residential cul -de -sac from Lot 9
Page 4
1 2) Adding item #15, providing a utility company easement signature block to the plat
2 3) Adding item #16, allowing for a building line which is not parallel to the R.O.W. on residential
Lots 17 and 18 as described by the applicant herein
5 Motion: Johnson
6 Second: Arnold
7 Ayes: Arnold, Murphy, Johnson and Wright
8 Nays: none
9 Approved: 4 -0
10 Motion carried.
11
12 (Planning and Zoning Meeting, 05- 09 -96, tape 1, section #00675)
13
14 AGENDA ITEM #6. ZA96-43. FINAL PLAT FOR COVENTRY MANOR. PHASE II
15 Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that the applicant's request is for the
16 Final Plat of Coventry Manor Phase II, being approximately 43.972 acres situated in the T. M. Hood
17 Survey, Abstract No. A -706, Tracts 1, 1C, 2A, 3A, and 3C, and being a portion of Lots 1 and 2,
18 Bradley Addition. The property is located between Shady Oaks Drive and Peytonville Avenue,
19 north of W. Southlake Blvd., being approximately one -half of a mile south of West Dove Street. The
20 current zoning is "R- P.U.D." Residential Planned Unit Development, and the owner /applicant is
21 Southlake- Coventry, Ltd. The Land Use Plan indicates Low - Density Residential. No additional
22 surrounding owner notice letters were required to be sent because this is a Final Plat. Staff finds that
23 the proposed Final Plat substantially conforms to the previously approved Preliminary Plat. The Plat
24 Review Summary No. 1 included in the packet should be dated May 3, 1996, rather than April 15,
1996. The plat proposes 52 residential lots and 1 common area.
26
27 John Levitt, J.E. Levitt Engineers, 726 Commerce Street, Southlake, Texas, 76092 was present to
28 represent this item and made the following comments:
29
30 1) He has reviewed the Plat Review Summary No. 1 dated May 3, 1996, and wishes to respond only
31 to numbered comments #4a and #4b.
32 2) Mr. Levitt sought relief from item #4a, which requires the provision of a 5' perimeter utility
33 easement on the north and east boundaries of the development, stating that utilities are currently
34 provided through the front, and a 5' easement in the rear would encourage utility companies to
35 come in from the rear, disturbing a large number of trees.
36 3) Mr. Levitt also sought relief from item #4b, which required a 25' drainage and utility easement,
37 stating that an agreement with an adjacent owner for an offset easement included a 10' buffered
38 area with trees which would be encroached by the 25' width required.
39
40 Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Staff why the 25' width was required, and Engineer Shawn Poe
41 replied that it was due to the width of pipe proposed. Vice - Chairman Johnson also asked Staff if
42 there should be a concern over the deletion of the 5' perimeter utility easement required in item #4a,
43 and Mr. Poe said that there was not.
Page 5
1 Motion was made to approve ZA96 -43, Final Plat for Coventry Manor Phase II, subject to Plat
2 Review Summary No. 1 dated May 3, 1996, amended as follows:
3
1) deleting item #4a
5 2) modifying item #4b, allowing a 20' drainage and utility easement offset 10' from the property line
6
7 Motion: Murphy
8 Second: Johnson
9 Ayes: Wright, Arnold, Murphy, and Johnson
10 Nays: none
11 Approved: 4 -0
12 Motion carried.
13
14 (Planning and Zoning Meeting, 05- 09 -96, tape 1, section #00927)
15
16 AGENDA ITEM #9, ZA96-46. REVISED SITE PLAN FOR VILLAGE CENTER, PHASE I
17 (EAST) LOT 3, BLOCK 1
18 Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that the applicant's request is for
19 ZA96 -46, Revised Site Plan for Village Center, Phase I (East), Lot 3, Block 1, being approximately
20 a 13.07 acre tract of land situated in the T. Mahan Survey, Abstract No. 1049, and being legally
21 described as a portion of Tract 6, and being Lot 3, Block 1 of the previously approved Final Plat.
22 The property is located south and adjacent to E. Northwest Parkway (S.H. 114) and north and
23 adjacent to E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709), approximately 1000' west of Kimball Ave. The current
24 zoning is "C -3" General Commercial District and the owner /applicant is T & M Southlake
Development Co., c/o The Midland Development Group. The Land Use Plan indicates Mixed Use
26 and 65 Ldn Airport Overlay designation, and the Corridor Overlay designation is Village Center.
27 There were eight (8) notices sent to adjacent property owners, and no notices have yet been received.
28
29 Mrs. Gandy noted that the focus of the revision to the previously approved Site Plan for this lot is
30 on the west side, and concerns the addition of a drive - through window for Kroger's pharmacy and
31 subsequent relocations of parking (to the northeast of the complex) and landscaping to accommodate
32 this.
33
34 Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Staff if the addition of the drive - through would improve the
35 articulation of the facade, still recognizing that it would not meet the requirements of the ordinance.
36 Mrs. Gandy acknowledged this to be a true statement.
37
38 Donald Silverman, Midland Development Group, 12655 Olive Boulevard, Suite 200, St. Louis,
39 Missouri, 63141, was present to represent this case and made the following comments:
40
41 1) Kroger wishes to add the drive - through for the convenience of their customers
42 2) The intent is to create a landscaped island to form the lane of the drive - through, which would
43 provide a "net gain" in landscaped area
Page 6
1 3) The roof section created would match all other roof sections
2 4) The synthetic stucco on the front will be extended around the corner to the drive - through area
5) The drive - through will increase the articulation, but as was previously discussed, not to an extent
to meet the ordinance requirements
5
6 Chairman Wright opened the public hearing. There were no members of the audience wishing to
7 speak. Chairman Wright closed the public hearing.
8
9 Commissioner Murphy asked Staff if they knew of an instance where a drive - through has been
10 discussed in this format in the past, and whether this arrangement would pose difficulties with the
11 City's ordinances. Mr. Elgin noted that there are several preliminary proposals at the City now which
12 may make this same request.
13
14 Vice - Chairman Johnson asked Staff to clarify review comments # l a and #1b, which require the
15 provision of elevations with the Revised Site Plan. Mrs. Gandy noted that it is a requirement of the
16 ordinance, but these comments can be deleted.
17
18 Motion was made to approve ZA96 -46, Revised Site Plan of Village Center Phase I (East), Lot 3,
19 Block 1, subject to Plan Review Summary No. 1 dated May 3, 1996, as amended:
20
21 1) Deleting item # 1 a and #1b
22 2) Approving the facade change to the west side
23
24 Motion: Murphy
Second: Arnold
26 Ayes: Wright, Arnold, Murphy, and Johnson
27 Nays: none
28 Approved: 4 -0
29 Motion carried.
30
31 (Planning and Zoning Meeting, 05- 09 -96, tape 1, section # 01295)
32
33 AGENDA ITEM #10, ZA96 -47, PLAT VACATION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, FARRAR ADDITION
34 Planner Tom Elgin informed the Commission that the applicant's request is for ZA96 -47, Plat
35 Vacation of Lot 1, Block 1, Farrar Addition being property legally described as Lot 1, Block 1,
36 Farrar Addition, being approximately 1.162 acres situated in the T. Mahan Survey, Abstract No.
37 1049 and recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 1539, P.R.T.C.T. The property is located north side of E.
38 Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709), being approximately 2,600' west of the intersection of Kimball Ave.
39 and E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709). The current zoning is "C -3" General Commercial District. The
40 property owners are James P. Farrar, Melissa Farrar Auberty, and William Scott Farrar, and the
41 applicant is T & M Southlake Development Co., c/o The Midland Development Group. The Land
42 Use Plan indicates Mixed Use and the 65 Ldn Airport Overlay designation, with the Corridor
Page 7
Overlay designation as Village Center. A total of six (6) notices were sent to surrounding property
2 owners, and no responses have yet been received.
Mr. Elgin noted that the property was part of the original Farrar Addition and was platted for the
5 purpose of a small office complex. However, this plat is now part of the Village Center Phase II
6 (West) development on the southwest corner and must be vacated prior to the filing of the Village
7 Center Final Plat.
8
9 Chairman Wright opened the public hearing. No members of the audiences wished to speak.
10 Chairman Wright closed the public hearing.
11
12 Motion was made to approve ZA96 -47, Plat Vacation of Lot 1, Block 1, Farrar Addition_
13
14 Motion: Murphy
15 Second: Johnson
16 Ayes: Wright, Arnold, Murphy, and Johnson
17 Nays: none
18 Approved: 4 -0
19 Motion carried.
20
21 (Planning and Zoning Meeting, 05- 09 -96, tape 1, section # 01404)
22
23 AGENDA ITEM #11, ZA96 -48. REZONING AND CONCEPT PLAN FOR PROFESSIONAL
24 OFFICES
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that the applicant's request is for
26 ZA96 -48, Rezoning and Concept Plan for Professional Offices being approximately 1.747 acres
27 situated in the R. V. Paden Survey, Abstract No. 1255, Tract 1A. The property is located on the
28 south side of W. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709), being approximately 1,300' east of the intersection
29 of Peytonville Ave. and W. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709). The current zoning is "AG" Agricultural
30 District, and the requested zoning is "0-1" Office District. The property owner is Clarence L.
31 Pinson, and the applicant is Roland Limosnero. The Land Use Plan indicates Medium Density
32 Residential, and the Corridor Overlay designation is Residential. There were thirteen (13) notices
33 sent to property owners within 200', and to date, five (5) written responses within that group have
34 been received:
35 • Daniel and Susan George, 1406 Mayfair Pl., Southlake, Texas 76092 -7008, opposed,
36 "depreciation of property value."
37 • William E. Harless, 106 Waterford Dr., Southlake, Texas 76092, opposed, "decrease in
38 home /property values due to commercial development ... increase in traffic."
39 • Jack and Kelly Kapich, 1402 Mayfair Place, Southlake, Texas 76092, opposed, "... (1) prefer
40 it to remain agriculture, (2) could lower our property values."
41 • Charles and Vaunda Whitacre, 110 Waterford Drive, Southlake, Texas 76092, opposed, "don't
42 want our property values to decrease."
Page 8
• Douglas and Karen Nyhoff, 1404 Mayfair Place, Southlake, Texas 76092, opposed, "... fear
2 decreased property value, an undesirable view, and an invitation for more commercial building
3 in the area."
One hundred fifteen (115) written responses were received outside of the 200' notification area,
5 including signatures from a petition and the following written comments:
6 • J.M. Wright, 1402 Chelsea Circle, Southlake, Texas 76092, opposed, " ... adjacent to high school
7 and residential property ... foot traffic to the school presents a safety hazard ... Southlake Blvd.
8 is rapidly turning into a strip mall look."
9 • Gary and Karen Arrasmith, 1103 Stone Lakes Dr., Southlake, Texas 76092, opposed, "... too
10 close to house in our tract ... High School could use for future parking, etc..."
11 • Don S. and Sandra Boyer, 205 Waterford Dr., Southlake, Texas 76092, opposed, "It will create
12 additional traffic congestion with west bound traffic turning left after the light at Waterford Dr.
13 and create greater hazard for pedestrians between school and homes..."
14 • John and Alyson Rau, 1005 Normandy Drive, Southlake, Texas 76092, opposed, "We feel area
15 should remain purely residential; traffic turning off and on to 1709 could be hazardous."
16 • Deidre Sourbeer, 111 Waterford Drive, Southlake, Texas 76092, opposed, "We don't want
17 commercial property next to our neighborhood."
18 • James Dalton, 109 Waterford Drive, Southlake, Texas 76092, opposed, "It will decrease
19 property values ... impact traffic and create safety problems ... should be cleaned up and used for
20 agriculture as zoned ... potential security problem at night."
21
22 Mrs. Gandy also presented a summary of a letter of opposition from Rex Potter, 303 Waterford
23 Court, Southlake, Texas, 76092, stating many of the opposition points listed above, and including
24 drive separation issues. Commissioner Murphy asked Mrs. Gandy to verify that the petition was in
fact for opposition to the case, which she did. Mr. Murphy also asked for clarification of the
26 surrounding property owner "RIC I & II," which Mrs. Gandy indicated was a day care facility, and
27 also asked to clarify an error in the packet which indicated that the Land Use category for the
28 property was Mixed Use, which Mrs. Gandy corrected to Medium Density Residential.
29
30 Roland Limosnero, 1208 Crest Drive, Colleyville, Texas, 76034, represented this case, and made the
31 following comments:
32
33 1) Initially, he wanted to build on the entire lot in phases, with the office in the front as the first
34 phase. He has spoken with the residents in the area, who appear to have a problem with the rear
35 phase(s). He is open to suggestions, including canceling the rear phase, if the approval of the
36 office phase is granted.
37 2) He indicated that the building would be of construction materials similar to the residential
38 construction in the area and would be used for an orthodontics office.
39 3) He stated that the traffic impacts would not be significant because of his patient volume.
40
41 Chairman Wright opened the public hearing.
42
43 Rex Potter, 303 Waterford Court, Southlake, Texas, 76092, made the following comments:
Page 9
1 1) The proposed project differs from the Land Use Plan in that area
2 2) The traffic is already bad in the area
3 3) Would like to see both lots develop at the same time, preferably to residential or by Carroll ISD
4 4) Overwhelming support for the petition
5
6 Chairman Wright asked Mr. Potter if he would feel differently if the applicant agreed to build only
7 the front office, and Mr. Potter stated, speaking for himself personally, it would not change his
8 opposition, as it is the use that he opposes.
9
10 Bill Kemp, 400 Southridge Lakes Parkway, Southlake, Texas, 76092, made the following comments:
11 1) Southridge Lakes HOA has received adjacent owner notification but has not formally acted upon
12 it, but he has polled the members of the board and it is apparent they will oppose it.
13 2) Personally opposes the project, cited Section 43.3 of Corridor Overlay section of the Zoning
14 Ordinance: "... the F.M. 1709 corridor is intended to be primarily a corridor of residential
15 subdivisions, with some (other) uses at major intersections (emphasis added)"
16 3) Has a petition himself with 117 signatures in opposition
17
18 Donna Stengall, 318 Blanco Circle, Southlake, Texas 76092, made the following comments:
19 1) Concerned with traffic congestion at High School and in front of La Pettite
20
21 Chairman Wright closed the public hearing.
22
23 Commissioner Murphy asked Staff for the total size of the two parcels between the High School and
24 Stone Lakes to get an indication of how many SF-20 lots, for example, could go there, and consensus
was that there could possibly be as many as six lots. Mr. Murphy stated that his point is that the
26 traffic impact of the dental office would not be as great as some other alternatives. Vice - Chairman
27 Johnson noted that if the Carroll ISD were to purchase the land, for example, for a parking lot, that,
28 too, might cause a petition to be started in opposition.
29
30 Motion was made to deny ZA96 -48, Rezoning and Concept Plan for Professional Offices.
31
32 Motion: Johnson
33 Second: Arnold
34 Ayes: Wright, Arnold, Murphy, and Johnson
35 Nays: none
36 Approved: 4 -0 (to deny)
37 Motion carried.
38
39 Chairman Wright called for a recess at 8:35 p.m.
40
41 (Planning and Zoning Meeting, 05- 09 -96, tape 1, section # 02118)
42
43 Chairman Wright called the meeting back to order at 8:50 p.m.
Page 10
1 AGENDA ITEM #12, ORDINANCE NO. 480 -V
2 Zoning Administrator Gandy informed the Commission that 480 -V consists of 165 revisions of
3 various types to the City of Southlake Zoning Ordinance No. 480, and the discussion will center on
4 17 items before them tonight. Vice - Chairman Johnson first asked to be briefed on several items of
5 discussion at the previous meeting, including:
6
7 1) Clarification on the discussion of "superstores," which was discussed in his absence and which
8 is present in the minutes of that meeting. Mrs. Gandy stated that she felt as if the Commission
9 did not want to mix the high- intensity retail with the industrial uses of an I -1, as was suggested.
10
11 2) Mr. Johnson also asked for clarification on the discussion of the administration of building
12 permits on AG tracts less than 10 acres, especially pertaining to what else was needed in the way
13 of input from the Commission. Mrs. Gandy stated that an example for the need for the revision
14 is, for example, the granting of up to 10% of lot size to accessory buildings in the AG district.
15 Mrs. Gandy also stated that further direction as to the precise terminology of any proposed
16 regulation to this effect was needed. Chairman Wright agreed, indicating that the Commission
17 would not want to "box itself in" with a regulation that was not prepared correctly.
18
19 Mrs. Gandy opened the discussion on the revision items before the Commission tonight, and the
20 following comments were made:
21
22 1) Section 1: Mrs. Gandy began by stating that there is a need for revision of the definitions of
23 "accessory building" and "accessory structure" into one definition and having "accessory use"
24 as another. Commissioner Johnson asked Mrs. Gandy to clarify the term "detached" as used in
the introduction, either by picking up from what is implied or creating a separate definition. Mr.
26 Johnson also wished to see the term "customarily" stricken and the term "on the same lot and
27 incidental to" used to clarify the accessory. Mr. Johnson also wished to avoid referencing Section
28 34 if possible.
29
30 2) Section 2: Mrs. Gandy indicated that this item was the addition of a definition for "flag" or
31 "panhandle" lot and read the proposed definition. Vice - Chairman Johnson indicated a need to
32 define these terms as a means of prohibiting them, and offered "a lot which does not meet the
33 minimum frontage requirement on a public road" as applicable. The goal, he stated, is to avoid
34 "nested lots" which are more and more removed from public services. Chairman Wright noted
35 that he would not want to eliminate flag lots under all circumstances, and Commissioners
36 Murphy and Johnson agreed that the wording should eliminate that nesting without eliminating
37 them altogether. Chairman Wright said language should be worded to "not favor" them, but leave
38 them to the P &Z and Council's discretion. Vice - Chairman Johnson stated the length of the
39 narrow "flagpole" should be regulated, but Chairman Wright said that may be too much of an
40 engineering decision. Vice - Chairman Johnson commented that he wants to be consistent in the
41 handling of these cases. Commissioner Murphy stated that the definition is fine as written, it just
42 doesn't conjure the image of a "flag" shape, but it does and should prohibit too narrow of
43 frontages. Vice - Chairman Johnson said that we already have regulations that prohibit lots of
Page 11
1 certain narrow widths, but not compounded narrow widths. Chairman Wright stated that one
2 reason for the flag lot is the measuring of lot widths at the building line, not at the public road.
3 Mrs. Gandy commented that the typical relief for individuals who wish to have a flag lot is the
Board of Adjustment. After several past cases were discussed, Commissioners Murphy and
5 Johnson reiterated that this definition should be fixed for consistency's sake. Mr. Johnson
6 proposed to strike Section 2, and the Commission agreed to do so, placing it on a low- priority
7 list for future amendment.
8
9 3) Section 3: Vice - Chairman Johnson noted the following problems with various parts of this
10 section:
11 a. He had trouble connecting the diagrams of grade to the text, namely that the definitions speak
12 of things which do not appear in the diagrams, such as sidewalks.
13 b. In the definition of grade, there is mention of "adjoining" but there is only a later reference to
14 what that means, and it should be clarified sooner and to a greater extent.
15 c. Item C: There is a reference to "average" that needs to be clarified.
16 d. Need to clarify in diagrams that "P.L." means property line.
17 Mrs. Gandy agreed to work on connecting the diagrams and the text.
18
19 4) Section 4: Mrs. Gandy noted the reason for the "per acre" language for "SF -1A" district
20 accessory structure square footage is for the large number of ZBA cases for this variance. Vice -
21 Chairman Johnson noted the following clarifications he would like to see in this section:
22 a. Change "20% of the lot area except ..." to "20% of the lot area and ..."
23 b. Need to indicate ...of lot coverage... after the term "1000 square feet..." to verify what the
24 1000 square feet is of
c. Need to add "...or structures.." after "buildings" to remain consistent
26 d. Need to make sure changes noted above carry over to other parts of the ordinance where they
27 are mentioned similarly.
28
29 5) Section 5: Mrs. Gandy asked the Commission if they had any exception to the language "...the
30 use is one contained in a lower cumulative zoning district... ." The following discussion ensued:
31 a. Vice - Chairman Johnson stated that the word "use" is not clarified in reference to a proposal
32 for an S -P -1 district, and should be made more clear
33 b. Mr. Johnson was not clear on the differentiation of the term "either attached or detached" in
34 reference to "single- family uses" in this section.
35 c. The Commission agreed that "no residential uses shall may be authorized in an S -P -1 district"
36 would be a more proper phrasing
37 d. Item C: Vice - Chairman Johnson wanted clarification as to whether this was a documentation
38 requirement or not, and Mrs. Gandy agreed to verify the reasoning for this item. Mr. Johnson
39 proposed adding language that stated that the Administrative Official determines the
40 "predominant or prevailing use."
41
Page 12
1 6) Section 6: Mrs. Gandy provided input from the City Attorney which stated that "variances" to
2 regulations in an S -P -1 district are rather just simply new "regulations," and not variances. The
3 following discussion ensued:
4 a. Vice - Chairman Johnson noted that opinion would basically serve to delete this section, and
5 Mrs. Gandy agreed, except that "regulations" meant those in the zoning ordinance, not the others.
6 b. Mr. Johnson commented that the wording "change of zoning to S -P -1 ..." could be interpreted
7 several ways and needs to be clarified
8 c. The order of the sentence that begins "... no variance to other city ordinances" needs to be
9 reversed so that one knows what Council does approve.
10 d. Need to clarify whether "zoning ordinance" means the whole zoning ordinance or just the
11 particular section. Mrs. Gandy said that she thought this meant that it was an "open book."
12 e. Mr. Johnson suggested wording to the effect "The City Council, upon a recommendation from
13 the Planning and Zoning Commission, may vary any provision any in the Zoning Ordinance, but
14 it may not vary any provision of any other ordinance, code or regulation ..." as a replacement in
15 that area of section 6.
16 f. Mrs. Gandy reiterated the attorney's statement that "... in reality, the Council is not granting
17 variances by approving development regulations in the S -P -1 and S -P -2 districts, it is merely
18 adopting appropriate regulations."
19 g. Commissioners Murphy and Johnson asked Mrs. Gandy to add the attorney's language to the
20 second half of the paragraph with no limitations as to which ordinance regulations could be
21 "changed." Mr. Johnson also asked Mrs. Gandy to go back and add "upon recommendation by
22 the Planning and Zoning Commission" to that paragraph.
23 h. Mrs. Gandy agreed to work on this section and return with examples revisions from the
24 discussion tonight.
26 7) Section 9: Mrs. Gandy presented an opening reading of Section 9. The following discussion
27 ensued:
28 a. Item A: Vice - Chairman Johnson requested the following changes: "Accessory buildings or
29 structures having a permanent foundation and located in the rear yard as defined by this
30 ordinance shall be erected no closer than ..."
31 b. Item D: Mrs. Gandy noted than she is deleting the end of the sentence because it conflicts with
32 the attorney's opinion that family quarters are an extension of the primary use, not an accessory
33 use.
34 c. Item E: Mr. Johnson questioned the use of the term "each portion of a building in excess of
35 14 feet in height ..." and Mr. Murphy agreed that the language appeared to leave open the
36 prospect of L- shaped or towered buildings of which only part was set back. The Commission
37 agreed to revisit this item at a future date.
38
39 Chairman Wright opened the public hearing.
40
41 Motion was made to table Ordinance No. 480 -V to the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
42 on May 23, 1996, and continue the public hearing.
43
Page 13
1 Motion: Johnson
2 Second: Arnold
3 Ayes: Wright, Arnold, Murphy, Johnson
Nays: none
5 Approved: 4 -0
6 Motion carried.
7
8 Planner Tom Elgin notified the Commission that there is a tentatively scheduled Master
9 Thoroughfare Plan work session on Thursday, May 16, 1996, at Bicentennial Park and told them that
10 he would be forwarding information to them.
11
12 (Planning and Zoning Meeting, 05- 09 -96, tape 1, section #06195)
13
14 AGENDA ITEM #14, ADJOURNMENT
15 Motion was made to approve the adjournment of the meeting at 10:13 p.m. on Thursday, May 9,
16 1996.
17
18 Motion: Murphy
19 Second: Johnson
20 Ayes: Wright, Arnold, Murphy, and Johnson
21 Nays: none
22 Approved: 4 -0
23 Motion carried.
24
(Planning and Zoning Meeting, 05- 09 -96, tape 1, section #06200)
26
27 /tc-
39
30 Joe Wrigw.
31 Chairman
32
33 ATTEST:
34 ( nl
35
36
^1; A • f;' )'
39 Chris Carpenner f
40 Acting Secretary
41
42 G: \WPF \MTG \MIN \1996 \05- 09- 96.WPD
Page 14