2004-05-20 P&Z Meeting
SPECIAL PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING May 20, 2004
LOCATION: 1400 Main Street, Southlake, Texas
Third Floor Training Rooms of City Hall
WORK SESSION: Immediately following the adjournment of the Regular Planning and
Zoning Commission Meeting held at 6:30 P.M., May 20, 2004.
1. Discussion of the Sign Ordinance.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the above agenda was posted on the official bulletin boards at Town Hall, 1400
Main Street, Southlake, Texas, on Friday, May 14, 2004, at 6:00 p.m., pursuant to the Texas
Government Code, Chapter 551. lt$~il7ii!!
vT H(_,q
Lori Farwell . F-
City Secretary " v "
If you plan to attend this public meeting and have'ix,,rjf~A&&,Xat requires special needs, please advise the City
Secretary 48 hours in advance at 481-1519, and reasonable accommodations will be made to assist you.
REGULAR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING May 20, 2004
LOCATION: 1400 Main Street, Southlake, Texas
City Council Chambers of City Hall
WORK SESSION: 6:00 P.M.
1. Discussion of all items on tonight's meeting agenda.
REGULAR SESSION: 6:30 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings held on May 6,
2004.
3. Administrative Comments
REGULAR AGENDA:
4. Consider: ZA04-021, ZONING CHANGE AND CONCEPT PLAN FOR PROPOSED
LOTS 1, 2R1, 3, 4, AND 5, BLOCK 5, CORNERSTONE BUSINESS PARK
located on the east side of the 300 through 500 blocks of S. Nolen Drive,
Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: "S-P-2" General Site Plan District and "AG"
Agricultural District. Requested Zoning: "S-P-2" General Site Plan District with
"C-2" Local Retail Commercial District and "I-1" Light Industrial District uses.
SPIN Neighborhood # 7.
PUBLIC HEARING
5. Consider: MEETING ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the above agenda was posted on the official bulletin boards at Town Hall, 1400
Main Street, Southlake, Texas, on Friday, May 14, 2004, at 6:00 p.m., pursuant to the Texas
Government Code, Chapter 551.
\\1llasaseaelr'/e •
F-• AWSCD:
• e
e •
Lori Farwell •
City Secretary
X1/1 /1111/111\\
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 481-1519, and reasonable accommodations will be made to assist you.
I REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING
2 COMMISSION MEETING
3 May 20, 2004
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Vernon Stansell, Vice Chairman Ron Kulpinski and
6 Commissioners: Bill Vaughan, Ralph Williams, Mike Springer, and Debra Edmondson.
7
8 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
9
10 CITY STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Payne, Planning Director; Dennis Killough, Senior Planner;
11 Angela Turner, Graduate Engineer; and Lorrie Fletcher, Administrative Assistant.
12
13 Chairman Stansell called the meeting to order at 6:37 p.m.
14
15
16 AGENDA ITEM # 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
17 Chairman Stansell opened discussion of the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission
18 meeting held on May 6, 2004.
19
20 Motion was made to approve the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held on
21 May 6, 2004, as presented.
22
23 Motion: Edmondson
24 Second: Vaughan
25 Ayes: Vaughan, Kulpinski, Williams, Springer, Edmondson, Stansell
26 Nays: None
27 Approved: 6-0
28 Motion carried.
29
30
31 AGENDA ITEM # 3 ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS:
32 Bruce Payne announced the work session regarding the sign ordinance, scheduled immediately
33 following this regular meeting.
34
35
36 AGENDA ITEM # 4 ZA04-021 ZONING CHANGE AND CONCEPT PLAN FOR PROPOSED
37 LOTS 1 2R1 3A AND 5 BLOCK 5 CORNERSTONE BUSINESS PARK:
38 Senior Planner Dennis Killough presented this item to the Commission for a zoning change and
39 concept plan. The property is located on the east side of the 300 through 500 blocks of S. Nolen
40 Drive, Southlake, Texas. The current zoning is S-P-2 General Site Plan District and AG Agricultural
41 District. The requested zoning is S-P-2 General Site Plan District with C-2 Local Retail Commercial
42 District and I-1 Light Industrial District uses. SPIN Neighborhood # 7. The Owner/Applicant is Par-3
43 Properties, L.P.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 20, 2004 1
I Max Krugler, Par-3 Properties, L.P. presented this item to the Commission and reviewed the
2 requested variance.
3
4 Under the "S-P-2 Detailed Site Plan District zoning the applicant proposes "C-2" Local Retail
5 District uses for Lot 1. In addition, the applicant proposes "I-1" Light Industrial District uses and
6 regulations for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 with the following exceptions:
7
8 • Permitted Uses - Lots 1 - 5 shall permit `Health and Physical Fitness Centers and
9 Gymnasiums', not to exceed 16,000 square feet.
10
11 • Non-Permitted Uses - The following "I-l" Light Industrial District uses shall not be
12 permitted:
13
14 o Blacksmithing or horse shoeing
15 o Broom manufacturing
16 o Candle manufacturing
17 o Creamery and dairy product manufacturing
18 o Egg storage, candling, sorting and grading
19 o Farrier (horseshoeing)
20 o Feed stores
21 o Ice manufacturing and bulk ice storage
22
23 • Bufferyards - The following regulations are being proposed:
24
25 o Bufferyards along lot lines internal to the development shall not be required.
26
27 o The "F-1" bufferyard between Lot 4 and the adjacent "C-3" commercial property
28 shall not be required, in favor of the existing natural drainage easement.
29
30 • Maximum Impervious Coverage - The maximum impervious coverage shall be limited to
31 81.2% per lot, not to exceed 80% for the site total.
32
33 • Parking - The number of parking spaces required/provided may be adjusted to 10%,
34 provided that in no case shall the maximum site impervious coverage exceed 80%.
35
36 • Residential Adjacency-All lots shall be relieved from Residential Adjacency requirements.
37
38 The following variance is being requested:
39
40 • Stackiniz -The minimum stacking depth required for the southernmost common access drive
41 (drive `E') is 50 feet. The applicant is requesting a stacking depth of 40 feet.
42
43 Tim Dooley, JDJR Engineers, answered questions about the bufferyards and landscaping.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 20, 2004 2
r
I Max Krugler answered additional questions about tree preservation and SPIN.
2
3 Chairman Stansell opened the public hearing
4
5 No one from the audience came forward to speak.
6
7 Chairman Stansell closed the public hearing
8
9 Tim Dooley answered additional questions regarding the drainage plan.
10
11 Max Krugler talked about his business plans and commitment to creating an appealing landscape.
12
13 Tim Dooley answered additional drainage questions.
14
15 Motion was made to approve ZA04-021 subject to Concept Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated
16 May 14, 2004, as proposed; noting the applicant's willingness to leave the drainage area in a natural
17 state, and to work with the landscape administrator in locating some required bufferyard plant
18 material in the landscape areas along the sides of the buildings.
19
20 Motion: Edmondson
21 Second: Kulpinski
22 Ayes: Kulpinski, Williams, Springer, Edmondson, Vaughan, Stansell
23 Nays: None
24 Approved: 6-0
25 Motion carried
26
27
28 AGENDA ITEM # 5 MEETING ADJOURNMENT:
29 Chairman Stansell adjourned the meeting at 7:09 P.M. on May 20, 2004, and announced the work
30 session following.
31
32
33
J4
36 Vernon Stansell
37 Chairman
38 ATTEST:
39
40
41
fi
44 Lorrie Fletcher
45 Administrative Secretary
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 20, 2004 3
t
I SPECIAL PLANNING AND ZONING
2 COMMISSION MEETING
3 May 20, 2004
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Vernon Stansell, and Commissioners: Bill Vaughan,
6 Ralph Williams, Mike Springer, and Debra Edmondson.
7
8 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Vice Chairman Ron Kulpinski
9
10 CITY STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Payne, Planning Director; Ken Baker, Senior Planner; Jayashree
11 Narayana, Senior Planner; and Lorrie Fletcher, Administrative Assistant.
12
13 Work session called to order at 7:25 p.m.
14
15 This meeting was a follow up to the image survey of various signs that the Commission rated at
16 their work session on May 6th, 2004. Senior Planner Ken Baker reviewed the ratings of the
17 different categories of signs and comments made by commissioners for each set of images were
18 then noted. The following is a list of comments noted by the Planning & Zoning Commission by
19 sign classification.
20
21 Big Box SiLmne
22
23 Positive Scored Images
24
25 • Scale in relation to background
26 • Clarity of the sign
27 • Signs that fit into the context of the community and respect local needs (unlike Wal-Mart,
28 Target, Sam's Club)
29 • Sign is proportional, readable, and attractive - thus creating a win-win for both the
30 community and the business
31 • Signs complement the architecture/design of building that they are on
32 • Signs are crisp, clean - backlit; do not overwhelm the building fagade
33 • Need flexibility to deal with smaller tenants and larger tenants
34 • Cities may have difficulty in adapting franchised, corporate signs to local conditions (but
35 has been done in many cases)
36 • Simplicity is signage is more effective - it reduces clutter, improves clarity
37 • Signs that do not have too many messages are better (single line versus double line)
38 • Keep font/lettering simple
39 • Need to regulate maintenance of signs
40 • Need to balance the need for new businesses entering the market to add a second by-line
41 to their sign.
42 • Need to limit signs behind display windows
43 • Sign colors should complement the building colors
Special Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 20, 2004 1
1
2 Negative Scored Images
3
4 • Letters are too large for the size of the facade and the space the sign occupies
5 • Buildings are themselves a sign for the business because of franchised design
6 • "red" colored signs do not look attractive
7 • Fluorescent signs and building elements
8 • Unattractive big-box buildings
9 • Poor architectural integration of the sign with the building
10 • Limited use of architectural detailing and elements to create a logical place for signs -
I 1 signs end up looking slapped on and "do not fit"
12 • Multi-colored/logo-oriented signs that may be rotated and lack symmetry
13 • Sign does not fit in the building facade
14
15 Highway Restaurant
16
17 Positive Scored Images
18
19 • Sign is proportional to the building
20 • Non-franchise building
21 • Colors of the sign relate to the building signs
22 • Sign is easy to ready - has clarity (cut letters) - optimal size for the fagade (not too large
23 or too small)
24 • Proportional to the fagade panel the sign is on - not necessarily relate to the entire
25 building
26
27 Negative Scored Images
28
29 • Tacky sign (neon)
30 • Muted (not clear); multiple fonts/complexity in the sign makes it hard to read and
31 understand
32 • Flags and pennants attract unwarranted attention to the building
33 • Roof signs do not "fit in" - look too busy
34 • Too busy, tacky, no relation to the building (are not customized to the building)
35 • Logos and corporate symbology on the buildings
36 • Incorporation of too many elements in the fagade that call attention to the building (roof,
37 awnings, window signs, etc)
38 • Signs that are out of scale
39
40 Highway Retail
41
42 Positive Scored Images
Special Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 20, 2004 2
a
1
2 • Earth toned colors (although the lettersize is big and the sign incorporates a logo) (Drexel
3 Heritage)
4 • Limited number of signs and messages
5
6 Negative Scored Images
7
8 • Multiple scripts, colors, fonts, and messages - increases complexity and clutter
9 • No consistency of signs in a single shopping center
10 • Building becomes a sign (Best Buy)
11 • 0#2(b) sign is secondary to the building
12 • 0#3 - pole signs - deteriorate rapidly over time, draw the eye away from the building
13 • CO# 1(a) - not crisp or clear; bad font
14 • S# 1(a) - too many messages on the same sign - makes it hard to read any one sign.
15
16 Meeting adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
17
18
19
20
21
24 Vernon Stansell
25 Chairman
26
27
28 ATTEST:
29
30
31
32 r
33
34 Lorrie Fletcher
35 Administrative Secretary
Special Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 20, 2004 3