2000-02-17 P&Z Meeting 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~ 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION MEETING
February 17, 2000
COMMISSION PRESENT: Chairman Ann Creighton; Vice-Chairman C. D. Peebles; and
Commissioners Michael Boutte, Kenneth Home, and Dennis King.
COMMISSION ABSENT: Mike Sandlin and Keith Shankland.
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney; Dennis Killough, Senior Current
Planner; Lisa Sudbury, Current Planner; Angela Turner, Graduate Engineer; and Lori Farwell,
Planning Secretary.
Chairman Creighton called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m.
There was no Work Session held.
AGENDA ITEM #2, APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Chairman Creighton opened discussion of the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting held on February 3, 2000.
Motion was made to approve the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held
on February 3, 2000, as presented.
Motion: Peebles
Second: King
Ayes: Boutte, Peebles, King, Creighton
Nays: None
Abstain: Home
Approved: 4-0-1
Motion carried.
Commissioner Home said he abstained because he missed most of that meeting.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 02-17-00, tape 1, section #0022)
AGENDA ITEM #3, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS:
There were no Administrative Comments.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 02-17-00, tape 1, section #0029)
Chairman Creighton said Agenda Items #4 and #5 are on the Consent Agenda and will not have a
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on February 17, 2000 Page 1 of 18
separate discussion unless a Commission member or citizen requests for either item to be placed on
the Regular Agenda. There was no request to remove them from the Consent Agenda.
1
2
3
4
AGENDA ITEM//4, ZA 00-001, FINAL PLAT FOR LOT 1, MALIK ESTATES ADDITION, AND
5 AGENDA ITEM #5, ZA 00-003, FiNAL PLAT FOR LOT 1 & 2, BLOCK 1, EMERY ADDITION:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
Senior Planner Dennis Killough said due to the number of issues surrounding the Malik Estates
Addition plat, he would like to address the applicant to make certain she has no questions with the
items remaining on the review. He asked Mrs. Malik if she had any questions with the remaining
items. Mrs. Malik said one item referred to get the agreement that needs to be signed by the Maness'
and Cady's; another item referred to the Tax Certificates; and another item referred to the utility
easement.
Mr. Killough asked Mrs. Malik if she understood what the City was asking for with those items.
Mrs. Malik said she thinks she understands but staff can explain it to her again if they want to.
Chairman Creighton said the important thing to understand is that although this is an approval of a
Final Plat there is a requirement contained within that approval that an agreement has to be entered
into before the applicant will be able to build. Mrs. Malik said she understands that.
Motion was made to approve ZA 00-001 subject to Plat Review Summary No. 2, dated February
11, 2000, and to approve ZA 00-003 subject to Plat Review Summary No. 2, dated February 11,
2000.
Motion: Peebies
Second: Boutte
Ayes: Boutte, Peebles, King, Home, Creighton
Nays: None
Approved: 5-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 02-17-00, tape 1, section #0222)
AGENDA ITEM #6, ZA 99-112, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF EASTER PLAZA:
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Motion was made to table ZA 99-112 and to continue the Public Heating at the applicant's request
to the March 23, 2000, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Motion: Peebles
Second: Home
Ayes: Peebles, King, Home, Boutte, Creighton
Nays: None
Approved: 5-0
Motion carried.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on February 17, 2000 Page 2 of 18
,,.. 1
2
3
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 02-17-00, tape 1, section #0242)
AGENDA ITEM #11, ZA 99-139, REZONING AND SITE PLAN FOR 114 KIMBALL AVENUE:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Motion was made to table ZA 99-139 and to continue the Public Heating to the March 9, 2000,
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Motion: Peebles
Second: Home
Ayes: King, Home, Boutte, Peebles, Creighton
Nays: None
Approved: 5-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 02-17-00, tape 1, section #0257)
Chairman Creighton said the applicant for Agenda Item #7 asked to have that item moved up on the
agenda since they need this approval in order to continue their planning of this event.
AGENDA ITEM #12, ZA 00-002, SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR SPECIAL EVENTS
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
ASSOCIATED WITH "ART IN THE SQUARE":
Current Planner Lisa Sudbury presented this item to the Commission for a Specific Use Permit for
Special Events associated with "Art in the Square" on property legally described as Southlake Town
Square, Phase I, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat
recorded in Cabinet A, Slides 4892 and 4893, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being
approximately 42.013 acres. The events are sponsored by Southlake Town Square and Southlake
Women's Club and will be held on April 28, 29, and 30, 2000, in Family Park and Rustin Park
Pavilion. The property is located on the northeast comer of the intersection of North Carroll Avenue
and East Southlake Boulevard (F.M. 1709). The Current Zoning is "NR-PUD" Non-residential
Planned Unit Development to include "C-3" General Commercial District uses. The Land Use
Category is Mixed Use. The Owner of the property is the City of Southlake. The Applicant is
Southlake Town Square. Eleven (11) written notices were sent to property owners within the 200'
notification area, and two (2) responses were received with both being in favor.
Nancy Hormann (General Manager at Southlake Town Square) presented this item to the
Commission. She brought a revised map with her and gave copies to the Commission. She said
their original map showed approximately 95 artists' booths, and this new map shows approximately
40 booths.
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience stepped forward to speak.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 02-17-00, tape 1, section #0385)
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on February 17, 2000 Page 3 of 18
~ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Motion was made to approve ZA 00-002 incorporating the new submittal but giving the applicant
the flexibility to add more booths if they so desire up to 90; he does not want to hold them to 40
booths if they want to put in more.
Motion: Peebles
Second: Home
Ayes: Home, Boutte, Peebles, King, Creighton
Nays: None
Approved: 5-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 02-17-00, tape 1, section #0436)
AGENDA ITEM #7, ZA 99-107, SPECIFIC USE PERMIT PER ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 480,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
'~' 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
SECTION 45.1 (11) FOR THE TEXAS SCHOOL OF BASEBALL:
Current Planner Lisa Sudbury presented this item to the Commission for a Specific Use Permit per
Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 45.1 (11) for the Texas School of Baseball (an indoor baseball
facility and outdoor fields for instruction and entertainment) subject to the conditions established in
Resolution No. 94-39 with a request for six (6) bleacher sets on property legally described as Lot 4R,
Block 1, Greenlee Business Park, Phase I, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County,
Texas, according to the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 1930, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas,
and being approximately 12.678 acres. A Concept Plan will be considered with this request. The
property is located at 2100 Crooked Lane being on the west side of Crooked Lane approximately
400' south of Brookshire Drive. The Current Zoning is "I-1" Light Industrial District. The Land Use
Category is Industrial. The Owners of the property are David and Beverly Thorne. The Applicant
is the Texas School of Baseball. Twelve (12) written notices were sent to property owners within
the 200' notification area, and four (4) responses were received with three (3) in favor and one (1)
opposed. A petition with 245 signatures was received on October 11, 1999, in favor. One (1)
response was received from outside the 200' notification area and was in favor.
David Thorne presented this item to the Commission. He said they would like to have some
bleachers for the parents and grandparents who currently attend the ball games and have to bring in
their own lawn chairs. He said it is difficult for people to have to carry in lawn chairs, coolers, and
sun umbrellas.
Commissioner Boutte asked why bleachers were specifically prohibited at the time this facility was
built. Mr. Thorne said when they applied for this Specific Use Permit about five years ago, he does
not think people understood the concept. He said they thought it would be like Softball World with
beer and tailgate parties and loud noise and disruption. They did not understand it would be for
children and not for adults.
Commissioner Home asked if these bleachers will be shielded from the sun in any way and also
asked if they intend to improve upon their porta-potty situation. Mr. Thorne said they do not have
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on February 17, 2000 Page 4 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~-' 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
any porta potties; all of their restrooms are indoors. Mr. Thorne also said the bleachers will be
covered.
Commissioner Home said their pictures show a porta potty. Mr. Thorne said that is a picture of
Bicentennial Park; it is not a picture of their facility.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if they ever intend to have adults playing at their facility. Mr. Thorne
said no. Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if the applicant would have a problem if the Commission
made the S.U.P. subject to ages 21 and under. Mr. Thorne said no.
Mr. Killough said it is already a condition of the existing S.U.P. - limited to age 19.
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Hearing.
Marty Goldsmith, 1331 Village Green Drive, Southlake, Texas, said he has been affiliated with the
Texas School of Baseball for about 4 ½ years. His son plays there and eight members of the Carroll
JV team play in select leagues of the Texas School of Baseball and came from their training
program. Being a parent who attends games here, he would like some bleachers. With many 100-
degree days in a row, some sheltered seating would be very beneficial. He asked the Commission
to vote in favor of this request.
Scott Livingstone said he is one of the many growing numbers of professional baseball players who
live in the area and help out at the Texas School of Baseball. Of all the fields he has been to, he has
never been to one without a set of bleachers. He does not see the bleachers as being a problem.
Caryl Washburn (Applied Therapeutic Science) said her business is south and adjacent to the Texas
School of Baseball. She asked how many people currently attend the games and sit on the lawn or
in lawn chairs. She said when she does relaxation therapy at night, there is already quite a large
noise factor already coming across the field so if they intend to increase the number of people
attending the games once the bleachers are in place, then she may need to look at some noise
abatement fences on her side. She said her company was supportive of the Texas School of Baseball
when they started and have not had any problems with them, but she is concerned about noise.
Kevin Howell, 2805 Brookshire, Southlake, Texas, said he is probably the closest house to the ball
fields. He sits on his back porch and listens to the ball games, and he actually enjoys it. He has no
concerns with the ball games or the ballpark; he has very little noise coming to his house. He has
talked to his adjacent neighbors, and they are not concerned either. He hopes the Commission
accommodates the applicant and allows them to have their bleachers. He would rather have the
ballpark than an industrial business of some sort.
Beverly Thorne said she was at the meetings for their initial approval more than her husband and
thought she could answer some questions. She said the reason the City Council left out bleachers
was for crowd control. She said the other restrictions were: no tail gate parties, no speaker systems,
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on February 17, 2000 Page 5 of 18
,-. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
and no bleachers. She said not having bleachers has not really bothered them, but it has been the
customers more than anybody who has wanted them. She said the customers kept bringing the
bleacher issue to them. She said they are not trying to increase numbers; they are only trying to
accommodate those people already there.
Commissioner Home asked if they will have seating down the first and third base lines. Mrs. Thome
said no. She said the seat'mg will be right behind the back stops which are built at an angle. She said
there will be a straight-away section right behind the catcher and then a right wing section and a left
wing section.
Chairman Creighton asked if Mrs. Thorne has a headcount on the number of people attending the
games. Mrs. Thome said there are home and away teams with twelve people on each team with two
parents each and possibly grandparents and some siblings.
John Miller lives adjacent to the Texas School of Baseball and kind of likes the noise of it. He
raised baseball kids and went to many, many games before his kids went offto college. He would
sure have liked to have a nice facility like this when his kids were growing up. He would sure like
to see them get the bleachers.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 02-17-00, tape 1, section # 1274)
Motion was made to approve ZA 99-107 allowing six (6) bleacher sets in the areas represented
tonight (mainly behind the center plate and to the right and left and separated for home and visitors)
with a maximum of three tiers; to be "Tip'n Roll" type bleachers; adopting the specification sheet
dated October 5, 1999; and adopting the previous conditions adopted by the City Council with the
exception of no bleachers.
Motion: Peebles
Second: Home
Commissioner Home said he will second this motion because the seats are covered.
Ayes: Boutte, Peebles, King, Home, Creighton
Nays: None
Approved: 5-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 02-17-00, tape 1, section # 1335)
AGENDA ITEM #8, ZA 99-116, SITE PLAN FOR SHADY OAKS CENTRE:
Current Planner Lisa Sudbury presented this item to the Commission for a Site Plan for Shady Oaks
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on February 17, 2000 Page 6 of 18
6
7
g
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~ 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
1 Centre, on property legally described as Tract 2C situated in the Hiram Granberry Survey, Abstract
2 No. 581, and being approximately 2.955 acres. The property is located on the south side of West
3 Southlake Boulevard (F. M. 1709) at the intersection of Shady Oaks Drive and West Southlake
4 Boulevard (F.M. 1709). The Current Zoning is "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District with certain
5 "O-1" Office District uses. The Land Use Category is Medium Density Residential. The Owner of
the property is Paragon-Eagle. The Applicant is CMPA, Inc. Seventeen (17) written notices were
sent to property owners within the 200' notification area, and four (4) responses were received with
three (3) being opposed and one (1) being in favor with concerns.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he received a new colored picture of the fence tonight and asked if it
is intended to replace the one included in his packet. Mr. Killough said yes; the previous proposal
called for a pre-cast paneling, and the new proposal is of a fence that is constructed of bricks.
Billy Williams (CMPA, Inc.) presented this item to the Commission. He said they originally
proposed a pre-cast fence with a brick appearance that was probably concrete. He said they had
some concerns from neighbors who did not like the pre-cast issue, so they are now proposing a brick
fence. He said it won't be exactly like the fence surrounding Timberlake, but it will matching in the
same or similar brick and the pilasters will have a cast-stone cap on them similar to the Timberlake
fence.
Commissioner Boutte asked Mr. Williams to explain how it differs from the Timberlake fence. Mr.
Williams said the Timberlake fence is a structural masonry fence in that it has a concrete footing and
a doublewide brick so that it is probably 8" wide. He said it also has intermediate wrought iron that
they will not have on their fence; theirs will be a solid 8' tall fence. He said the fence they are
proposing will be one brick thick and looking at it from the front or the back, you cannot tell how
thick a fence is so that won't make any difference. He said it will be constructed a little different in
that they will build the pilasters, will build a brick beam in between the pilasters, and will stack the
brick on top of that brick beam. He said the span of the wall is actually spanning between the
pilasters instead of sitting on a continuous concrete footing and saves them a considerable amount
of money with the amount of wall they are doing.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked what the distance is between the pilasters. Mr. Williams said it is 12'
on center.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he lived in southwest Fort Worth in Summer Creek and saw several of
these types offences fall. He just wants to make sure the applicant knows what he is doing. He said
the applicant may be biting offmore of a maintenance headache than he knows. He said he would
make approval contingent upon the maintenance of the fence.
Mr. Williams said there are quite a few of these types offences in the area. He recently saw one on
Hall Johnson that is built the same way. He showed the Commission a picture of one at Don Pablo's
headquarters on State Highway 121.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he just remembers where he used to live, the Homeowner's Association
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on February 17, 2000 Page 7 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~ 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
was looking around trying to sue someone to have the fence fixed.
Chairman Creighton asked staff if there is any of this type of fence in Southlake. Mr. Killough said
he is not aware of any.
Mr. Williams said there is a pm-cast wall around the City's water tower which is the fence they
originally proposed.
In addressing the concerns raised by residents at the SPIN meeting, Mr. Williams said 100% of the
water from their property will be collected on their property, carried to a detention pond to an
enclosed pipe which will go to the storm sewer.
Mr. Williams said another issue raised at the SPIN meeting was lighting. He said they have a
photometric study that shows they have zero foot candles at all property lines. He said their pole
lights are 20' and will be on timers, and their security lights in the backs of the buildings will be on
motion detectors.
Chairman Creighton asked if the security lights on the backs of the buildings will be flood lights and
will they comply with the Lighting Ordinance. Mr. Williams said they are very limited lights. He
said they are 100-watt incandescent bulbs and are not flood lights.
Chairman Creighton asked if the security lights have been considered in the photometric study. Mr.
Williams said no.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if the lights on the backs of the buildings will comply with the
Lighting Ordinance. Mr. Williams said yes.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked when the lights on timers are scheduled to go off. Mr. Williams said
probably around 9:00 p.m.
Chairman Creighton asked if they have tenants yet. Mr. Williams said they have one tenant who is
a land and title company who will probably be there until around 7:00 p.m.
Chairman Creighton asked if they have considered a lower height for their parking lot lights. Mr.
Williams said they need that height to get the proper coverage. He said if they bring the light poles
down, they will need more poles. He said their buildings are 23' high so in most cases the poles and
the lights will be blocked from the residences anyway.
Mr. Williams said another concern in the SPIN meeting was the color of their building. He said
some of the neighbors suggested he try to match Dr. Huckabee's building next to them. He said they
will be in that same range of colors.
Mr. Williams said there is an issue between the driveway the City wants them to install and the
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on February 17, 2000 Page 8 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~'~ 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
driveway that Dr. Huckabee has right now. He said since there is a light at Shady Oaks, the City has
asked them to put their driveway there and close Dr. Huckabee's driveway. He said they have been
in contact with Dr. Huckabee and so has staff, and he does not want to close his driveway. He
understands they will not get their permit until that issue is finalized. He said it is a whole lot less
expensive to use Dr. Huckabee's driveway, but the function of it would probably be better at the
light.
Chairman Creighton asked when he intends to start construction. Mr. Williams said once they get
their approval from City Council, they intend to submit their plans for a building permit for the first
building in the next few days. He said they have construction drawings already done.
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Hearing.
Mike Conracls (SPIN #14 Representative) 108 Springbrook Court, Southlake, Texas, said they held
a meeting with the neighborhood and the developer on February 10. He said there were ten items
from that SPIN meeting needing to be addressed.
Tom Jacobowsky said he was part of the original group who worked with the developer back in
1996-1997. He said they definitely want the fence to be brick, but they are very concerned about
what he has proposed. He said their original intent was for a fence to represent the quality of the
Timberlake development. He said he is worried about the solidness of the proposed fence that does
not have a continuous footing. He referred to the agreement back in 1997 regarding the trees along
the property line and said he is the homeowner referred to in the agreement at the southwest comer
of the property. He has a large tree that has survived five years since his house was built, and he does
not want anything to happen to it. He said the surrounding homeowners were supposed to sign an
existing fence disposition form that was the responsibility of the developer prior to the start of
construction of the masonry fence, and he wants to make sure that requirement continues to exist.
He said the closing of Dr. Huckabee's driveway was in the agreement back in 1996-1997, too. He
asked if the landscaping would all be put in at the same time rather than putting in Phase I plantings
now and waiting to put in Phase 2 plantings with the second building. Regarding hours of operafion,
he said they agreed with the developer back in 1997 that the hours would be 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 12:00 noon to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked how Mr. Jacobowskry wants the fence placed around his tree and asked
if there was an agreement in place regarding that. Mr. Jacobowsky said the developer agreed that
he wants to save them and agreed to the fence line not going straight back, but going around the tree.
Larry Flynn, 304 Sterling Court, Southlake, Texas, said he is involved in this project although he
was more involved four years ago. He said he has not been as heavily involved in the development,
but he is still associated with the ownership. He said they intend to comply with every agreement
that was made with the homeowners at the time of zoning.
Chairman Creighton asked if he was an owner and the developer at the time the agreements were
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on February 17, 2000 Page 9 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
'-' 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
entered into. Mr. Flynn said yes.
Chairman Creighton asked if he is an owner and the developer at this time. Mr. Flynn said yes. He
said the property has changed hands as far a entities go. He said Mr. Diekert with Texas Land and
Building is no longer involved.
Commissioner King asked if it is still owned by Texas Land and Building Company. Mr. Flynn said
no; it is owned by Paragon-Eagle.
Chairman Creighton asked if Paragon-Eagle acquired all of the obligations of Texas Land and
Building Company. Mr. Flynn said no; they are assuming the responsibilities for the agreement that
exists on this property.
Chairman Creighton asked if it was his intention to enter into new fence disposition agreements with
each adjacent property owners. Mr. Flynn said yes.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked Mr. Flynn if he has a problem in maintaining the fence in perpetuity.
Mr. Flynn said no.
Kerry Parker said he has a problem with the fence. He was a mason and owner of a masonry
company for 15 years in Indiana. He said the fence they are proposing is clearly unacceptable. He
said it needs to have a continuous footer to be a safe fence. There are young kids that play in the
backyards of these homes. He said Vice-Chairman Peebles was right when he said the bottom of
the fence will fold and the bricks will collapse which could lead to the brick fence toppling over into
one of the neighbors' yards. He said the single brick width is also a safety hazard; most brick fences
are at least two bricks wide and they are tied together by brick ties or by a common brick going into
both walls. He is also concerned about the lighting. He said a light pole of 20' will send light into
his home. He is also concerned about the landscaping; he thinks it should all be completed at the
beginning of the project.
Dave Yandell, 204 Canyon Lake Drive, Southlake, Texas, said he is also concerned about the fence.
He said besides the safety factor, it appears to be a very cheap fence. He said if the fence develops
a crack in it, it will affect their property values. He said they have not even talked about other types
of fencing that could be used. He would like to see some conversation occur regarding fencing
because there could be a compromise.
Mary Dominguez, 209 Lakecrest Drive, Southlake, Texas, said she wanted to address the entry into
Lakecrest. She said there is an existing 6' wooden fence that was erected by Pulte Homes with the
Lakecrest subdivision. She said Dr. Huckabee did not erect a new fence on this side; he used this
same fence. She said she is concerned about how this fence will look abutting an 8' brick fence at
their entry. She asked that the Lakecrest Board of Directors be contacted by the developer regarding
this fence. She said she also shares the concerns voiced by the previous speakers.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on February 17, 2000 Page 10 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
"~ 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
L. Cheung, 202 Canyon Lake Drive, Southlake, Texas, said he would like to know how deep the
retention area is. He said he is also concerned about the safety of the proposed wall. He questioned
if the lights would be turned off at a certain time and if so, what time would that be.
Graduate Engineer Angela Turner said the detention pond is approximately 3' deep at the deepest
end to about 2 ½' at the other end. She said the water may stand there a few hours to a day
depending on how heavy the rain was, and the pipe has been sized so that it should not overflow.
Chairman Creighton said the Commission is going into Executive Session pursuant to Section
551.071 of the Texas Government Code to consult with the City Attorney regarding matters
authorized by Section 551.071 including matters on this evening's agenda. The Executive Session
began at 8:21 p.m. and ended at 8:52 p.m. Chairman Creighton reconvened the meeting at 8:56 p.m.
Chairman Creighton asked the City Attorney if any action is necessary as a result of the Executive
Session. Debra Drayovitch said no.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 02-17-00, tape 1, section #3296)
Randy Hodnett, 103 Springbrook Court, Southlake, Texas, said the current fence is an improvement
over the first fence aesthetically, but he still has a safety concern. He said he has not had experience
with this type of fence, but he is here to support his neighbors who have and say it is unsafe. He
would like to see a more solid construction of the wall.
Larry Flynn said it is actually the homeowners' decision whether or not to remove their existing
fence or to have their fence tie into the fence around this development. He said if they choose to,
they can leave up their own fence.
Commissioner King asked how tall the neighbors' fences are - 6' or 8'. Mr. Flynn said there are
both.
Randy Hodnett said they really have no choice because if they leave their own fence up, there will
be a gap between their fence and the developer's fence which will lend itself to critters living in
there. He also said many of their fences have the slats put on from the outside, so if they needed to
do repair work, they could not get to it.
Dave Yandell said his fence is a 6' wooden fence so it will not look very good if he chooses to leave
his fence up because he will have 2' of brick at the top of it.
Commissioner Home read the following section from the previous agreement with homeowners:
"...a solid 8' tall masonry wall matching in masonry appearance." He said one brick thick does not
look like two bricks thick. He said he would like to hear the applicant argue the safety of the wall.
Mr. Williams said in looking at a wall, you cannot tell how thick it is. Commissioner Home said
it does not specify from what angle the wall is being looked at.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on February 17, 2000 Page 11 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
'--' 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Mr. Williams said the fence will be designed by a structural engineer, and he will be liable to the
stmctum of the fence. He said any structure can fall down. He has seen a solid masonry fence fail
down due to ground heave. He said the ground could move just right and that could happen to this
fence, too, but even as an architect he will have to trust the stmcturai engineer. He said when they
submit their drawings to the City for approval, they will have a structural engineer's seal on them.
He said it is not feasible to build the length offence they have to build and build the other type of
fence.
Larry Flynn said he was involved in the original negotiations regarding the fence. He said the
homeowners' concern was for the fence to have a matching appearance not necessarily a matching
construction. He was involved in those original negotiations, and he knows what was intended. He
said the homeowners wanted it to look like the Timberlake fence. He said there was no obligation
or requirement that it have two or three bricks thickness to it. He said Mike Cortrads was involved
in those discussions and maybe he can address that also.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he has seen these fences fail before and when they fail, there really isn't
much to it. He never saw them actually fall on anyone. He said he would think that if an engineer
is going to stamp these plans them is going to be some reliability there. He said he does not see the
issue. He said we have the applicant's agreement to maintain the fence in perpetuity. He said they
are not going to put up something that is going to be structurally flawed in the beginning, and the
applicant is doing his best to put up a brick fence. Regarding lighting, the applicant has already
represented there will be zero foot candles at the property line, and that is what the "S-P-2" zoning
calls for. He said the City could start fining him if there is not zero foot candles. While he
understands we need to be cognizant of the neighbors, he feels the applicant has been.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked staff what types of fencing they could put up and still be in
compliance with the "S-P-2" zoning. He asked if they could put up the fence they originally
proposed. Mr. Killough said they could because it matched the appearance of the Timberlake fence.
Chairman Creighton said that is purely subjective. She said she does not feel there is a consensus
between the applicant and the adjacent homeowners as to exactly what this fence should be and what
the lighting should be. She said this fence plan was presented tonight, and the homeowners have not
had the chance to consider the pros and cons of this type offence. She has not seen this type of
fence come forward since she has been on the Planning and Zoning Commission in Southlake. She
said she is concerned by the adjacent homeowner who knows about masonry and who told the
Commission this type offence has problems. She would like to see these issues resolved and said
just because a developer agrees to maintain a fence in perpetuity does not take away the fact this
fence is adjacent to these people's homes. She said they do not want a lawsuit against an engineer;
they want a fence that is going to stand up against the elements and against the test of time.
Chairman Creighton said another problem she has is with lighting. She understands the Commission
could pass this subject to there being no spillover lighting, but the homeowners want assurances that
there is no spillover. She said the Commission has not seen a lighting study showing there is no
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on February 17, 2000 Page 12 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~ 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
spillover. She said she is also concemed about the security lighting in the back and questioned if
it will be directed towards the homes. She said lighting is always a problem when someone wants
to place an office building fight next to homes. She thinks there are too many issues fight now, and
she would like to see this go away and come back after the applicant has talked further with the
homeowners.
Mr. Williams said they are abiding by City codes and ordinances, and he does not know what else
they can do.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if the applicant agrees to place 100 watt incandescent bulbs in the
back for security lighting. Mr. Williams said yes; all the lights are for is to throw out some light in
case someone was walking around back there.
Commissioner Home said he does not have as much of a problem with the parking lot lights as he
does with the security lights. He asked what the 100 watt lights are for except to help thieves see
better.
Mr. Williams said if there is someone walking around back there, they could be seen from the road
if the lights are on.
Chairman Creighton asked if the applicant would be willing to table this item. Mr. Flynn said no.
He said they made an agreement with the homeowners three years ago, and it was a very long and
arduous negotiation. He said they have met every requirement of it, and there is no reason to table
it because there is nothing else they can do.
Commissioner King asked if Mike Conrads could discuss the original negotiations regarding the
fence. Mr. Conrads said it is subject to interpretation. He said the developer and the homeowners
worked very hard to get it to this point. He said the assumption on the homeowners' part and the
intent back then was that it would look like Timberlake's fence.
Commissioner Home asked Mr. Conrads about the security lights. Mr. Conrads said the motion
sensored lights have not been a major issue.
Tom Jacobowsky said if the parking lot lights go off at 9:00 p.m. with the business closing at 8:00
p.m., it is a non-issue.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Heating but reserved the right to reopen it depending on how
the motion goes.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 02-17-00, tape 1, section #4990)
Motion was made to approve ZA 99-116 subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated
February 11, 2000, and subject to the following:
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on February 17, 2000 Page 13 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~' 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
· Incorporating into the motion the fourteen points listed in the "S-P-2" zoning;
· Requiring all lights to be on timers and to go off at 9:00 p.m.;
· The security lights on the west side of Building 1 and the south side of Building 2 will be motion
detector lights using 100 watt incandescent bulbs and will be mounted no higher than 6';
· Referring to the "S-P-2" document Item #12, requiring for there to be no spillover lighting and
acknowledging the applicant's representation that there has been a lighting study done with
respect to the 20' role and there will be zero footcandles at the property line;
· Acknowledging the applicant's submittal dated February 16, 2000, and requiring the wall as
shown to be complementary in color to Timberlake's fence;
· Instructing the applicant to get in touch with the Lakecrest Board of Directors before going to
City Council to determine whether they prefer a wood fence that ties into the existing fence or
whether the Board can get the approval from Dr. Huckabee, if needed, to piggyback onto their
contract and continue their brick wall along that side;
· Requiring a similar agreement to be signed between the applicant and individual homeowners
as to whether or not the homeowner's fence will remain and if it is to be removed, it will be
removed at the developer's expense;
· Referring to the "S-P-2" document, requiring the applicant to take the steps necessary to avoid
the trees, particularly the tree on the southwest comer, and requiring the applicant to work with
that homeowner to placate the concerns that may be raised;
· Acknowledging the applicant's self-imposed restriction of office hours of: 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
weekdays; 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays; and 12:00 noon to 6:00 p.m. Sundays;
· Requiring maintenance of the wall to be in perpetuity;
· Requiring the incandescent security lighting to comply with the Lighting Ordinance;
· Upon signalization of the Shady Oaks intersection, the applicant is to have in place a cross access
easement to the adjacent property to the east and he is to align the new driveway with the
signalization of the intersection to the north as submitted in the plans and recommending to the
City if the applicant fails to obtain the cooperation of the property owner to the east to close that
driveway, that the City takes the steps necessary to effectuate the closing of that driveway, and
· Acknowledging the applicant's representation that the distance between the pilasters is 12' and
also instructing the applicant to make the pilasters a width similar to if not exact to those in
Timberlake (requiring the applicant to get the width of the pilasters before City Council
meeting).
Motion: Peebles
Second: King
Referring to the colored rendering dated February 16, 2000, Chairman Creighton asked the applicant
what the gray portion is underneath the brick but above the grassy area. Mr. Williams said it is not
intended to be a footing; it is open.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he will acknowledge that the gray area shown on the applicant's
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on February 17, 2000 Page 14 of 18
submittal dated February 16, 2000, is not a footing but rather an open space between the pilasters.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
~9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
'"" 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Chairman Creighton said she would like to see this tabled. She does not think the fence remotely
resembles the Timberlake fence, and she does not think the residents' issues have been addressed.
Ayes: Peebles, King
Nays: Boutte, Creighton
Abstain: Home
Vote: 2-2-1
Motion failed.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 02-17-00, tape 1, section #5794)
Motion was made to table ZA 99-116 to the March 9, 2000, Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting and asking that the neighborhood and the applicant come back as best buddies in total
agreement.
Motion: Boutte
Second: Home
Ayes: Home, Boutte, Creighton
Nays: King, Peebles
Approved: 3-2
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 02-17-00, tape 1, section #5983)
Chairman Creighton called for a break at 9:58 p.m.
Chairman Creighton called the meeting back to order at 10:11 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #9, ZA 99-135, SITE PLAN TIMARRON COUNTRY CLUB:
31 Current Planner Lisa Sudbury presented this item to the Commission for a Site Plan for Timarron
32 Country Club, on property legally described as Lot 3R1, Block 1, Timarron Golf Course, an addition
33 to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide
34 2988, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being approximately 12.606 acres. She said the
35 Commission's staff report and the notifications listed Lots 3R1 and 3R2; Lot 3R2 is the vacant lot
36 to the north and they are not proposing anything on that lot at this time. She said Lot 3R2 was
37 shown on their first submittal, and it was misinterpreted as being part of the Site Plan. The property
38 is located at 1400 Byron Nelson Parkway being on the south side of Byron Nelson Parkway
39 approximately 400' east of Falrwood Court. The Current Zoning is "R-PUD" Residential Planned
40 Unit Development District. The Land Use Categories are Mixed Use, Medium Density Residential,
41 and 100 Year Flood Plain. The Owner of the property is Timarron Land Corporation. The Applicant
42 is Chris Consultants, Inc. Eight (8) written notices were sent to property owners within the 200'
43 notification area, and three (3) responses were received with all being in favor and one listing
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on February 17, 2000 Page 15 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~ 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
concerns about Lot 3R2.
Joseph Crews (Chris Consultants, Inc.) presented this item to the Commission. He said they have
asked for a variance to the bufferyard requirement. He understands there is a particular interest in
the area around the cul-de-sac (Lot 3R2) adjacent to future residential development, and they are
willing to do some landscaping and raised berms in that area to effectively screen it from the
residential property.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked how many feet around the cul-de-sac they are making this proposal
for. Mr. Crews said they had it at a 30' building line, but he understands the City is asking for a 40'
building line. He said they have no problem incorporating that in their next set of drawings.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked how far down they will do the berm. Mr. Crews pointed to the
drawing and said they could landscape it to be similar in appearance to the bunkers on the golf
course.
Commissioner King asked if there is already adequate parking there. Mr. Crews said yes; there are
enough existing parking spaces to accommodate the additions to the north and south of the building.
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience stepped forward to speak.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 02-17-00, tape 1, section #6355)
Motion was made to approve ZA 99-135 subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated
February 11, 2000, deleting Item #1 but acknowledging the applicant's willingness to provide 6'
berms along the indicated cul-de-sac area and continuing along the radius 30' to the north and about
40' back to the south and extending to the property line to the southeast; requiring the berms to tie
into the golf course and stating they do not all have to be exactly 6' tall but be meandering as
suggested by the applicant.
Motion: Peebles
Second: Home
Ayes: Home, Boutte, Peebles, King, Creighton
Nays: None
Approved: 5-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 02-17-00, tape 1, section #6545)
AGENDA ITEM #10, ZA 99-136, SITE PLAN FOR LOT 2, BLOCK B, HART INDUSTRIAL
42
43
PARK:
Current Planner Lisa Sudbury presented this item to the Commission for a Site Plan on property
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on February 17, 2000 Page 16 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~-' 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
legally described as Lot 2, Block B, Hart Industrial Park, an addition to the City of Southlake,
Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Volume 388-217, Page 61, Plat Records,
Tarrant County, Texas, and being approximately 0.996 acres. The property is located at 1595 Hart
Street being on the south side of Hart Street approximately 200' east of Brumlow Avenue. The
Current Zoning is "I-1" Light Industrial District. The Land Use Category is Mixed Use. The Owner
of the property is Spence Corporation. The Applicant is Kaker & Ware, Inc. Eight (8) written
notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification district, and one (1) response was
received which was in favor.
Mike Weir (representing CliffSpence) presented this item to the Commission.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if they would be required to put up a 10' masonry wall around the
loading space. Mr. Killough said they would not be required to put up a 10' masonry wall unless
that space is needed for semi-tractor trailer deliveries.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if it will be used for tractor trailer deliveries, and Mr. Weir said no.
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience stepped forward to speak.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 02-17-00, tape 1, section #6948)
Motion was made to approve ZA 99-136 subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated
February 11, 2000, on Item #1 granting relief to any loading space within 400' of residential
property and permitting the driveway at the front of the building but acknowledging that this entry
is not intended for semi-tractor trailer deliveries.
Motion: Peebles
Second: King
Ayes: Boutte, Peebles, King, Home, Creighton
Nays: None
Approved: 5-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 02-17-00, tape 1, section #7068)
AGENDA ITEM # 13, MEETING ADJOURNMENT:
Chairman Creighton adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. on February 17, 2000.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 02-17-00, tape 1, section #7078)
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on February 17, 2000 Page 17 of 18
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
14
15
16
17
Ann Creighton
Chairman
ATTEST:
Planning Secretary
N:\Community Development\WP-FILESLMTGLMIN~2000\02-17-00.DOC
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on February 17, 2000 Page 18 of 18