2000-03-09 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
44
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION MEETING
March 9, 2000
COMMISSION PRESENT: Vice-Chairman C. D. Peebles and Commissioners Michael Boutte,
Kenneth Home, Dennis King, Pamela Muller, and Mike Sandlin.
COMMISSION ABSENT: None
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney; Kuruvilla Oommen, City Attorney;
Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services; Charlie Thomas, Deputy Director of Public
Works; Dennis Killough, Senior Current Planner; Landscape Administrator, Keith Martin; Lisa
Sudbury, Current Planner; Angela Turner, Graduate Engineer; and Loft Farwell, Planning Secretary.
Vice-Chairman Peebles called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. and began the Work Session. The
Work Session ended at 6:25 p.m.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 1, section #0555)
Vice-Chairman Peebles called the meeting back to order at 6:42 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #2, APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Vice-Chairman Peebles opened discussion of the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting held on February 17, 2000.
Motion was made to approve the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held
on February 17, 2000, as presented.
Motion: King
Second: Boutte
Ayes: Boutte, King, Peebles
Nays: None
Abstain: Sandlin, Muller
Approved: 3-0-2
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 1, section #0580)
AGENDA ITEM #3, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS:
Them were no Administrative Comments.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 1, section #0588)
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 1 of 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Commissioner Home arrived at 6:46 p.m.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said Agenda Items//4 and//5 are on the Consent Agenda and will not have
a 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.
AGENDA ITEM ~4, ZA 00-013, FINAL PLAT FOR CARROLL MEADOWS, AND
8 AGENDA ITEM //5, ORDINANCE NO. 775, ABANDONMENT AND QUITCLAIM OF A
9 PORTION OF SOUTH KIMBALL AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY AT THE INTERSECTION OF
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
44
CROOKED LANE:
Senior Planner Dennis Killough made a correction to an informational comment on the review for
Agenda Item g4, ZA 00-013. He said the comment indicates that a portion of the prope~y is located
in the 75 LDN Airport Overlay, and it should actually read 65 LDN Overlay Corridor.
Motion was made to approve ZA 00-013 subject to Plat Review Summary No. 1, dated February
14, 2000, amending the informational comment from 75 LDN Overlay Corridor to the 65 LDN
Overlay Corridor and to approve Ordinance No. 775, Abandonment and quitclaim of a portion of
South Kimball Avenue right-of-way at the intersection of Crooked Lane.
Motion: Boutte
Second: Muller
Ayes: Boutte, Muller, King, Home, Sandlin, Peebles
Nays: None
Approved: 6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 1, section//0665)
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he moved three items up on the agenda, and they will be considered
next in the following order: Agenda Item #16, Agenda Item #12, and Agenda Item #13.
AGENDA ITEM #16, ORDINANCE NO. 774, AMENDMENT TO THE CURRENTLY
ADOPTED TRAIL SYSTEM MASTER PLAN, REGARDING INCREASED MINIMUM
RECOMMENDED WIDTHS FOR OFF-ROAD TRAILS:
Director of Community Services Kevin Hugman presented this item to the Commission. Director
Hugman said currently the Master Trail Plan calls for 6' trails with the exception of White Chapel
which shows 8' trails. He said the Park Board is currently going through a complete review of the
Master Trail Plan as required by the City Charter and envision it to be about a nine-month process,
however, they are anxious to change the width of the trails from 6' to 8'. He said the Park Board
considered it at their February meeting and recommended it for approval.
Commissioner Sandlin asked if the City participates in this or if a property owner is lucky or
unlucky enough to have a trail shown on his property, then is that property owner now responsible
for putting in that trail?
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 2 of 26
1 Director Hugman said the City will participate, however, the City has not had money to do any trails
2 out of the SPDC funds because those funds have been allocated for other projects. In an effort to
3 get trails constructed because of the need for them and the desire by residents to have trails is why
4 they included a bond proposal for trails in the Traffic Management Bonds. He said the City will be
5 building a significant portion of the Trail System Master Plan through the Traffic Management
6 Bond, and those will include 8' trails along North White Chapel Boulevard continuing down to State
7 Highway 26 and a trail the entire length of F. M. 1709 from Keller to Grapevine. He said other trails
8 will be built as development comes in. He said another portion of the trails the City will be building
9 is along Continental Boulevard in conjunction with the road improvements there.
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
44
Commissioner Sandlin said again if you are unlucky enough to be on the trail system, you are now
responsible for an 8' trail. He asked if that is correct. Director Hugman said that is correct.
Commissioner Sandlin said the property owner will not be getting any credit for it. Director
Hugman said that is true unless the Park Board looks at giving credit for it.
Commissioner Sandlin said the Park Board has only given credit in the past when a property owner
goes from what the requirement is (6') to a greater size, 8', and now we are changing the
requirement to 8' so there will be no credit given.
Commissioner Muller asked if that was discussed at any of the Park Board meetings. Director
Hugman said yes; they want to see 8' trails. Commissioner Muller asked if they want to see 8' trails
without giving credit, and Director Hugman said that is the general consensus of the Park Board.
Commissioner Sandlin said he does not have a problem with 8' trails; he thinks they are great. He
said it just seems unfair to penalize someone for being on the plan, and then someone right next door
is not on it. He said we collect fees from everyone. He said it just seems like there should be some
mechanism to spread it out and make it a little more fair. He said the trail system benefits the entire
City so the entire City ought to pay for it. He said all of the developers ought to pay for it instead
of just whoever happens to be on a particular section.
Director Hugman said he is not sure how to address that. He said the trails are shown on only one
side of the road.
Commissioner Sandlin said that is not good planning because the City does not get their trail system
in that way. He said what happens when a developer has a financial consideration to make and
Choice A is on one side of the road and Choice B is on the other side, the developer is going to look
at the cheaper one and will pick that one. He thinks the goal is to get as many of the trails in as
possible.
Commissioner Muller said a developer with a bigger vision may see the benefit of having that trail
adjacent to his property and that could be a selling point for him.
Commissioner Sandlin said he is going to vote for this because he has seen in other cities that 8' is
really a better width, but he has also seen where it doesn't work because of the reasons he stated.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 3 of 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
He said the Park Board needs to understand human nature and said they are getting themselves into
a trap of people just electing not to do it. He said the City needs to consider some way to make it
more equitable.
Commissioner Muller said the City has roundtables with developers and said this may be something
to have at the next meeting for discussion.
Vice-Chairman Peebles opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience stepped forward to
speak. Vice-Chairman Peebles closed the Public Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 1, section//0992)
Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 774, Amendment to the currently adopted Trail System
Master Plan, regarding increased minimum recommended widths for off-road trails.
Motion: Muller
Second: King
Ayes: Muller, King, Home, Sandlin, Boutte, Peebles
Nays: None
Approved: 6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 1, section #1011)
AGENDA ITEM #12, ZA 00-008, REZON1NG:
Current Planner Lisa Sudbury presented this item to the Commission for a Rezoning on property
legally described as Tract 3D situated in the J. J. Fmshour Survey, Abstract No. 521, and being
approximately 5.03 acres. The property is located at 2750 Florence Road being on the south side
of Florence Road approximately 360' east of Brewer Road. The Current Zoning is "AG" Agricultural
District. The Requested Zoning is "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District. The Land Use
Categories are Low Density Residential and 100-Year Flood Plain. The Owner and Applicant is
Sreekumaran K. Nair. Nineteen (19) written notices were sent to property owners within the 200'
notification area, and no responses were received.
Mr. Nair presented this item to the Commission.
Commissioner Muller asked the applicant if he intends to build one home on this property, and he
said yes. Commissioner Muller asked if he will be residing in that home, and he said yes.
Commissioner Boutte said he recalls seeing a "For Sale" sign on this property. Mr. Nair said when
he bought the property, he had no idea he would have to go through all of these hassles just to build
a home. He did not think he had time to do all of these things so he thought he might just get rid of
the property.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 4 of 26
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
44
Commissioner Boutte asked if it is still for sale. Mr. Nair said if he gets the building permit in a
timely fashion, then it is not for sale.
Vice-Chairman Peebles opened the Public Hearing.
Troy Ketchum, 2839 Florence Road, Southlake, Texas, asked if the house will be built towards the
back on the lot or towards the front of the lot.
Mr. Nair said it will be built towards the front.
Mr. Ketchem said the City put in a 6' ditch across the back of Brewer Road and stopped it so that
water will flow into the area at the back of the property. He said if Mr. Nair was intending to build
his home towards the back, the ground would have to be built up and he was concerned where the
water would go and if it would come towards his property.
Commissioner Muller said the builder is responsible if he changes the flow of water onto his
property.
Mr. Nair said he has no intention of building a house back there. He said he was considering
building a pond back there so water can flow into it and continue on down stream.
Vice-Chairman Peebles closed the Public Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 1, section #1160)
Commissioner Muller asked staff if the reason this request is not for Residential Estate zoning is
because the lot width is under 300'. Mr. Killough said yes.
Motion was made to approve ZA 00-008.
Motion: Sandlin
Second: Muller
Ayes: King, Home, Sandlin, Boutte, Muller, Peebles
Nays: None
Approved: 6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 1, section #1205)
AGENDA ITEM # 13, ZA 00-011, REZON1NG:
Current Planner Lisa Sudbury presented this item to the Commission for a Rezoning on property
legally described as Tract 2B, situated in the T. M. Hood Survey, Abstract No. 706, and being
approximately 5.358 acres. The property is located on the west side of Shady Oaks Drive
approximately 360' south of Ravenaux Drive. The Current Zoning is "AG" Agricultural District.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 5 of 26
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
The Requested Zoning is "RE" Residential Estate District. The Land Use Category is Low Density
Residential. The Owners and Applicants are Kenneth and Lorrie Hill. Seventeen (17) written
notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area, and no responses were
received.
The applicant was not present.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said the applicant is not present but given the nature of this request, he
would recommend moving forward.
Vice-Chairman Peebles opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience stepped forward to
speak. Vice-Chairman Peebles closed the Public Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 1, section #1255)
Motion was made to approve ZA 00-011.
Motion: Muller
Second: Boutte
Ayes: Home, Sandlin, Boutte, Muller, King, Peebles
Nays: None
Approved: 6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 1, section #1268)
AGENDA ITEM #15, AMENDMENTS TO THE CURRENTLY ADOPTED MASTER
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
THOROUGHFARE PLAN:
Motion was made to table Amendments to the Currently Adopted Master Thoroughfare Plan and
to continue the Public Hearing at the applicant's request.
Motion: Muller
Second: Home
Ayes: Sandlin, Boutte, Muller, King, Home, Peebles
Nays: None
Approved: 6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 1, section #1320)
AGENDA ITEM #6, ZA 99-143, SITE PLAN FOR IHOP RESTAURANT:
Current Planner Lisa Sudbury presented this item to the Commission for a Site Plan for IHOP
Restaurant, on property legally described as Lot 6R, Block A, Southlake Bank Place, an addition
to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slides
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 6 of 26
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
44
4546 & 4547, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being approximately 1.666 acres. The
property is located on the northwest comer of State Highway 114 and Industrial Boulevard. The
Current Zoning is "C-3" General Commercial District. The Land Use Category is Retail
Commercial. The Owner of the property is IHOP 1419, Inc. The Applicant is Monsanto &
Associates. Two (2) written notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area,
and no responses were received.
Mr. Killough added a comment to the review that would require a common access easement to be
dedicated along the northwest driveway that would provide access back to the platted easement on
the southwest portion of the property and also a stub into the lot to the northwest.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked the applicant what he has done to the plan since the last time he was
before the Commission.
Hugo Monsanto said he brought two different proposals for the sides of the building.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if he brought a picture of the IHOP in Pflugerville. Mr. Monsanto
said he brought a drawing of that one.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked what was the original height of the tower. Mr. Monsanto said 35'.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked what height is shown. Mr. Monsanto said the tower is 35' which is
allowed in the zoning district.
The Commission discussed the requested variance to the stacking depth.
Commissioner Muller said she fears people will try to cut across to the access ramp to S.H. 114
unless some type of wall is put up. She said she does not know if granting the variance to the
stacking depth will help or hinder that.
Commissioner Boutte asked who is IHOP 14197 He said he noticed they have a Plano address. Mr.
Monsanto said the owner is Joe Caton who has several IHOP restaurants not only in Dallas but also
in Austin and other areas.
Commissioner King asked if Mr. Caton is here tonight. Mr. Monsanto said no.
Commissioner Boutte asked Mr. Monsanto if he is the sole representative again. Mr. Monsanto said
yes, but someone else is supposed to come but they have not shown up yet.
Commissioner Home asked where the brick is.
Commissioner King said he recalls Mr. Monsanto saying last time that he could do all brick on the
building with a mansard roof. Mr. Monsanto said this is all IHOP feels they can do.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 7 of 26
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
44
Commissioner Home said he is concerned about the lack of brick.
Mr. Monsanto said they are doing an IHOP in Lewisville that is all brick and the City, as part of
their downtown renewal project, is picking up the difference between stucco and brick.
Commissioner Sandlin said he is a builder, and it costs just as much to do stucco as brick. He does
it everyday, and it does not cost anymore.
Mr. Monsanto said the people who were coming have those numbers with them.
Commissioner Sandlin said he does it everyday, and he is telling him that it doesn't cost anymore.
Commissioner Muller said she was not here for the first discussion on this case, but it is her
understanding the request for brick is because Kirby's is brick and the Commission is trying to keep
the same look.
Commissioner Home said it is because brick looks better; it looks more substantial.
Commissioner Boutte said he has heard an awful lot tonight regarding the Commission considering
all these different lots as one site and if he is going to think of it as one site, then he thinks they need
compatible architecture.
Commissioner Home agreed with Commissioner Boutte.
Although the Public Hearing was held and closed on February 3, 2000, Vice-Chairman Peebles
allowed audience members the opportunity to speak on this item. No one stepped forward to speak.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 1, section #1824)
Commissioner Home said he is thinking that if the other people are on the way then maybe this item
should be tabled to later in the evening. He said that would give them the opportunity to get hem.
Vice-Chairman Peebles agreed and said he will move this item to the end of the agenda.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 1, section # 1868)
AGENDA ITEM #7, ZA 99-116, SITE PLAN FOR SHADY OAKS CENTRE:
Current Planner Lisa Sudbury presented this item to the Commission for Shady Oaks Centre, on
property legally described as Tract 2C situated in the Hiram Granberry Survey, Abstract No. 581,
and being approximately 2.955 acres. The property is located on the south side of West Southlake
Boulevard (F. M. 1709) at the intersection of Shady Oaks Drive and West Southlake Boulevard
(F.M. 1709). The Current Zoning is "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District with certain "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
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 8 of 26
1
2
3
4
5
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
44
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 asked if the applicant and the adjacent property owners have reached a
consensus regarding the wall.
6
7 Billy Williams (CMPA, Inc.) said he is happy to say he thinks they have. They are proposing a
8 General brick, Camelot colored brick for the wall. They will be turning the face side of the brick
9 to the homeowners. He said it will be an 8' high one-brick thick wall with 24" X 24" pilasters at
10 20' on center with a pre-cast concrete cap on the wall as well as the pilasters with a continuous
11 concrete footing under the entire length of the wall with piers at the pilasters and piers at mid-point
between the pilasters.
Larry Flynn, 304 Sterling Court, Southlake, Texas, submitted a form to be given to the homeowners
regarding their option to either retain their own fence or to remove it and replace it at the developer's
expense.
Although the Public Hearing was held and closed on February 17, 2000, Vice-Chairman Peebles
allowed audience members the opportunity to speak on this item.
Mike Conrads (SPIN #14 Representative) 108 Springbrook Court, Southlake, Texas, said the
facilitation has gone smoothly. Regarding lighting, he said the pole heights have changed from 20'
to 12' tall with all of the lights going off at 9:00 p.m. except for two lights that will remain on from
dusk to dawn. He said the best way to describe the location of those two lights is: one is front,
center of Building B and one is across from the handicapped parking on Building A by the dumpster
area. He said the other issues are for the applicant to maintain the wall in perpetuity. He said the
homeowners request the applicant's best effort to have the fence disposition forms completed within
15 days of groundbreaking. He said the homeowners would like to have a five workday notice prior
to the physical construction or removal of their fences. He said they ask for all landscaping to be
put in immediately all at once.
Commissioner Boutte thanked Mr. Conrads and said he had a very difficult job to do as a SPIN
representative and said he did it very well.
Commissioner Home thanked the applicant for working with the SPIN representative and the
neighborhood.
Mr. Conrads said the Lakecrest entryway was the only other thing he did not mention. He said the
applicant originally submitted an 8' wooden shadowbox fence and that is what the Lakecrest
Homeowners Association has requested. He said the latest submittal went to an lattice-work 2'
topper, and they are requesting to go back to an 8' shadowbox fence with the metal posts supporting
it. Mr. Conrads confirmed that is acceptable with the applicant, and Mr. Flynn said yes.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 1, section #2285)
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 9 of 26
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Commissioner Muller said it needs to be real clear in the motion which lights will remain on.
Mr. Killough said he has the lights marked on the plans, and the applicant indicated he will be
submitting some revised plans before City Council and will have the lights noted on those plans.
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:
· The fence is going to be a single, brick 8' tall pre-cast concrete cap on both the top of the
wall and the pilasters; with the pilasters being 24" X 24" square, 20" on center, continuous
concrete footing under the fence with piers under the pilasters and piers at mid-beam under
the wall; General brick, Camelot colored with the face side of the brick towards the
homeowners;
· The light poles will drop in height from 20' to 12'; lights will drop from 250-watt to 150-
watt; all of the lights will be on timers to go off at 9:00 p.m. with the exception of the
security lighting that will be on from dusk to dawn and will consist of two lights that will be
located as shown on the plans: on the front center of Building B facing east and on the front
center of Building A facing north;
· The fence will be maintained in perpetuity by the developer;
· The fence disposition agreements shall be completed within 15 days ofgroundbreaking;
· Requiring a five workday notice prior to the physical construction or removal of the fence;
· Requiring all landscaping to be put in at the same time, and
· With respect to Lakecrest on the east side of the property, requiring an 8' shadowbox fence
with metal posts supporting it.
Motion: King
Second: Muller
Ayes: Boutte, Muller, King, Home, Sandlin, Peebles
Nays: None
Approved: 6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 1, section #2460)
Commissioner King said how much he personally appreciates how the developer and the
homeowners worked together on this.
Vice-Chairman Peebles called for a break at 7:41 p.m.
Vice-Chairman Peebles called the meeting back to order at 7:48 p.m.
Commissioner Home had to temporarily leave the meeting.
AGENDA ITEM #8, ZA 99-139, REZON1NG AND SITE PLAN FOR 114 KIMBALL SQUARE:
43
~- 44
Current Planner Lisa Sudbury presented this item to the Commission for a Rezoning and Site Plan
for 114 Kimball Square on prope~y legally described as Tract lB3 situated in the Samuel Freeman
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 10 of 26
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
44
Survey, Abstract No. 525, and being approximately 1.4677 acres. The property is located on the
northwest corner of the intersection of State Highway 114 and Shady Lane. The Current Zoning is
"C-3" General Commercial District. The Requested Zoning is "S-P-l" Detailed Site Plan District
with "C-3" General Commercial District uses. The Land Use Category is Retail Commercial. The
Owner and Applicant is 114 Kimball Square, Ltd. Seven (7) written notices were sent to property
owners within the 200' notification area, and one (1) response was received and was opposed.
Dan Matise presented this item to the Commission. He reviewed his requested variances with the
Commission.
Vice-Chairman Peebles opened the Public Hearing on this item.
Tim Miller (SPIN g6 Representative) 2509 Rolling Lane, Southlake, Texas, said they held a SPIN
meeting on November 11, 1999, regarding this item and had about 18 people in attendance.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked Mr. Miller what the major concerns were at that meeting.
Mr. Miller said the major concerns were drainage and buffering and landscaping.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked Graduate Engineer Angela Tumer about the drainage on this property.
She said they have not looked at this. She said they would not be required to submit plans to Public
Works since there is no planned infrastructure improvements, and they did not submit a grading
plan.
Mr. Miller said there were also some concerns regarding fencing type. He said most of the concerns
were regarding the north end of the property. Mr. Miller said he would like to take his SPIN hat off
and make a few comments as a resident. He said this facility is 20 years old and many of the
ordinances have been changed since that time. He said someone is trying to come in and put some
time and talent into this to try to improve it and fill it so that it is not vacant and improve the whole
look of it. He thinks over time it will improve the community and the neighborhood. He said just
leaving it like it is will not benefit the neighbors, the tenants, or the owners. He asked the
Commission to keep that in mind when considering the variances.
Louise Sheriden, 420 Shady Lane, Southlake, Texas, said her concerns are regarding the removal of
the buffer space between this property and the residential property directly north of it. She said there
were approximately 40 trees that were recently cut, and she does not see any form of replacement
for those trees. She said the trees served as a noise buffer from S.H. 114 and from this site.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked what kind of trees they were. Planner Lisa Sudbury said they are
listed in the Tree Preservation Analysis.
Ms. Sheriden said she would like to state her concem regarding drainage, too. She asked whether
or not this case changes anything regarding the lighting on the property.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 11 of 26
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
44
Richard Clary, 415 Shady Lane, Southlake, Texas, said his main question is regarding the trees. He
said the whole area along the north end of this property was covered with trees, and they have
already chopped them down. He asked that since they have already chopped down the trees, how
can anyone make sure how they will do the rest of the property? He said those trees are all stumps
now. He asked if it is okay to remove the trees.
Commissioner Muller said no; it was done without a permit. She asked what the fine is for
removing the trees.
Commissioner Sandlin said he thinks it is $500 per tree.
Kay Absher, 410 Shady Lane, Southlake, Texas, said her main concerns are the bufferyard and the
drainage. She said she has fought the drainage for years and years before the current owner
purchased it. She said the removal of the trees has considerably taken away some of their noise
buffer and some of the distractions. She said she agrees that something needs to be done about this
building, but she does not agree with expanding it and allowing all of these variances.
Commissioner Boutte asked when the trees were cut down. Ms. Absher said probably about a month
or two ago.
Marcus Wayland, 2508 Rolling Lane, Southlake, Texas, said he is probably the oldest resident still
living in this area. He said the shopping center is not their drainage problem. He said the City had
a major water break at Shady Lane and S.H. 114 and all of the water went through the residential
properties on Shady Lane. He said Shady Lane has been under 1 V2' to 2' of water before; he has
seen it happen. He said construction is going on all along S.H. 114 and after it is built up, the water
will continue to go down Shady Lane. He said if they do not get something done to Shady Lane,
the drainage coming down is going to flood a lot of their houses. He said they need something down
to the shopping center to make it a bearable nice-looking area. He said this is an eyesore and if the
man is willing to put a million dollars into it, then he cannot see any reason to not allow him to
upgrade it.
Vice-Chairman Peebles left the Public Hearing open.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 1, section #3576)
Landscape Administrator Keith Martin said in the north bufferyard area approximately 370 caliper
inches were removed and most of them were quality trees as determined by the Tree Preservation
Ordinance. He does not know why they were removed, but they were removed without a Tree
Removal Permit.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked when they were removed. Mr. Martin said they speculate in
December.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked who brought it to Mr. Martin's attention. Mr. Martin said the
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 12 of 26
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
44
gentleman who lives directly north of the property. He said he went out and measured the stumps
and came up with 370".
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked what has been done since then. Mr. Martin said they haven't really
done anything; they did not cite Mr. Matise. He said they decided to wait and see what happened
with the development of the property because as Mr. Matise has discussed tonight one of the
variances being requested would be to move the parking lot up to the property line.
Commissioner Sandlin asked what the fine is. Mr. Martin said it is $100 per diameter inch so it
would be $37,000.
Mr. Matise said he purchased this property in August 1998 and started cleaning the property up at
that time. As leases came up, he moved the convenience store out because they did not want gas
pumps any longer and did not want to deal with it. He said they wanted to keep the interior design
tenant. He said he has owned property since 1983 and owns 12 acres on F.M. 1709, and he has
never been put on notice about the tree ordinance. He said they went and got construction
information from the City as far as the building code, landscaping, etc., and he did not see a tree
situation at all. He said at the SPIN meeting in December the residents talked about having drainage
problems, and he totally agreed with them that if they have a drainage problem then something
needed to be done about it. He said they looked at the property and it looked like they could raise
it 1' to 3'; whether it was dirt or concrete, the trees were going to get killed. He said they were
going to raise the area in the back and run it to Shady Lane. He said it needs to be raised a
significant amount. He said he does what he says he is going to and this will be an expensive
remodel. He said it is an asset to him and to the City of Southlake.
Commissioner Sandlin asked why he needs an additional 6,000 s.f. Mr. Matise said when they do
the remodel, about 75% of it is the revamping or the remodel itself and the 6,000 s.fi is only about
22% of the total cost. He said they have to have the economics in order to do it. He said they have
to have it because what they can spend is in direct proportion to the income they can receive from
it. He said it is an economic situation. He said by adding the 6,000 s.f., they have to spend $37,000
for a sprinkler system.
Commissioner Sandlin said he knows Mr. Matise explained why he needed to cut down the trees,
but he still does not have a clue why he cut them down.
Mr. Matise said the north side has to be elevated and built up to help the drainage.
Commissioner Sandlin asked if he had any type of engineer look at the whole drainage area to
determine what exactly is happening with the drainage. Mr. Matise said their amhitect is hem.
Commissioner Sandlin said not an architect, an engineer. Mr. Matise said they have looked at the
topos, and yes they will have engineering before they spend the money to make sure it is draining
off the property.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 13 of 26
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
44
Ms. Turner said staffdid not receive any grading plans for this property. She said this property does
naturally drain to the north, but they can make accommodations to drain some of the back area to
Shady Lane. She said they will have to submit grading plans with the building plans.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if something could have been done without cutting down the trees.
Ms. Turner said she really cannot say for sure because she is not familiar with the exact location of
where the trees were.
A resident gave the Commission pictures of the northern area which showed the tree stumps.
Commissioner Muller said in order to grant a variance, the Commission needs to see an undo
hardship being put on this property that the applicant cannot comply with. She asked Mr. Matise
to explain what his hardship is in that he cannot comply with the City's ordinances as they are
written today. Mr. Matise discussed existing conditions such as the driveway locations and the
stacking conditions.
Commissioner Muller asked if this is considered a non-conforming building. Mr. Killough said he
believes it is probably legal non-conforming if nothing else. He said it certainly does not comply
with our corridor standards today.
Commissioner Muller said she would like clarification on that because it makes a difference in
granting variances on this property. She said if the property is non-conforming and he is adding
additional square footage on the building, then he has to come into compliance with the ordinances
if she is reading them right.
Mr. Killough said he has been thinking of the language in the ordinance which reads that the
Corridor Overlay District applies to anything that is currently not constructed or does not have an
approved concept or site plan on it.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked Commissioner Sandlin what his thoughts are on this project.
Commissioner Sandlin said he agrees with the homeowners in that we need to encourage getting the
place cleaned up, but the developer started out on the wrong foot by cutting the trees down. He said
the applicant could have come to the Commission and discussed what to do about the trees. He said
if the applicant would have done a drainage study, he would know where the problems are and know
what needs to be done for them. He said he does not understand why they need 6,000 additional
square feet. He said economics is not the Commission's problem; the Commission's job is to enforce
the ordinances and make our city better. He said there arc a lot of 10,000 s.f. buildings out here that
work, and the reason they work is because we do enforce our ordinances.
Commissioner Boutte said he went into this shopping center for the first time last weekend. He said
if he lived in the neighborhood, he would want to see something done. He did not know we had
anything in Southlake that looked like this. On the other hand, he said replacing what may be the
biggest mess in town with a bit less of a mess does not sound like an attractive option to him.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 14 of 26
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
44
Commissioner King said he knows what is there is not attractive and what is being proposed is
attractive, he just thinks it is too much for the site. He said the thing that bothers him besides the
bufferyard and the trees is the impervious coverage that is almost 90%. He said 90% exceeds what
we permit on an industrial zoning. He said it is one thing when someone tries to shoehorn a project
into a site and miss the impervious coverage by a percentage point or two, but this is missing it by
a really large amount.
Commissioner Muller said the woman made a good point earlier when she said the applicant
removed trees without a permit and not being comfortable with this project unless everything is in
writing. She said she is concerned about the impervious coverage when there is already a concern
about drainage. She thinks there is a lot of work to be done on this project but she thinks the
residents there deserve the very best just like any other resident in the City of Southlake.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he thinks what has been done on this property is absolutely
reprehensible. He just does not understand why somebody comes in and cuts down this many trees
(456" of trees and 370" of quality trees). He said the applicant has cut our legs out from under us.
He said he could have come to the Commission with this plan, and the Commission could have
studied it and probably would have wanted some bufferyard in the back and probably would have
given him a 10% break on parking.
He said the applicant never gave the Commission that chance. He just cannot believe this has been
done; that was a perfect bufferyard. He said there is no way on earth he can support this project
given the way it has been handled.
Commissioner Sandlin said one of the reasons Southlake gets higher rents is because they do not
allow this kind of stuff. He truly believes that if the applicant came back with a smaller footprint,
the Commission would continue to enforce that type of product in this area. He said it will develop
out similar to F. M. 1709, and it will justify the rents the applicant needs to make a profit.
Vice-Chairman Peebles closed the Public Hearing.
Motion was made to deny ZA 99-139.
Motion: Muller
Second: Sandlin
Ayes: Muller, King, Sandlin, Boutte, Peebles
Nays: None
Vote: 5-0 (to deny)
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 1, section g4865)
Mr. Killough said due to the denial by the Commission, this item will require a super-majority vote
by City Council to receive approval.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 15 of 26
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
44
I AGENDA ITEM #9, ZA 99-099, REZONING AND REVISED CONCEPT PLAN:
2 Current Planner Lisa Sudbury presented this item to the Commission for a Rezoning and Revised
3 Concept Plan on property legally described as Lot 1R2, W. W. Hall No. 695 Addition, an addition
4 to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide
5 4545, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas; Lot 1, Block 9, Southlake Town Square, an addition to
6 the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slides
7 4892 & 4893, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas; and a portion of the abandoned North Carroll
8 Avenue right-of-way; and being approximately 1.982 acres. The property is located on the
9 northwest comer of the intersection of North Carroll Avenue and East Southlake Boulevard (F. M.
10 1709). The Current Zoning is "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District with "O- 1" Office District uses
11 and "NR-PUD" Non-Residential Planned Unit Development District with "C-3" General
Commemial District uses. The Requested Zoning is "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District with "O-
1" Office District uses. The Land Use Categories are Medium Density Residential and Mixed Use.
The Applicant is Greenway-Southlake Office Partners, L.P. The Owners of the property are
Greenway-Southlake Office Partners, L.P. and Cooper & Stebbins, L.P. Ten (10) written notices
were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area, and one (1) response was received
in favor.
David Smith (Graham Associates) presented this item to the Commission.
Commissioner Boutte said this plan shows two alternates: one being a bank and one being office.
He said that seems like a fairly drastic difference in use and asked the applicants what they really
have planned there.
Tommy Pigg (Greenway Investment Company) 1207 Strathmore Drive, Southlake, Texas, said they
are asking for "S-P-2" with "O- 1" Office District uses, but they also realized the likelihood of a bank
going in on this comer. He said banks are permitted in the "O-1" district.
Commissioner Sandlin asked if the Commission would be approving Alternate A or B or both. Mr.
Pigg said yes: A, B or both.
Commissioner Sandlin said he is just confused how to handle this since the concept plan goes with
the zoning for this property. He said he has never seen this before.
Mr. Pigg said they would be willing to drop the Altemate A and just show general office on the plan.
He said if a bank decides this is where they want to be, they know they will need to come back in
for approval. He said that would also be consistent with Mr. Stmnk's comments because a bank was
also his concern.
Commissioner Muller said she is curious why anyone would want to bank there since the road off
of Carroll Avenue is a right-in/right-out; it does not have any easy flow for banking.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said if the Commission is serious about eliminating banking uses, then the
safest way to do that would be to eliminate it from the zoning request.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 16 of 26
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
44
Commissioner Sandlin said his problem with concept plans is that they are kind-of like the great lie.
He said the applicant shows a concept plan in order to get zoning, and it means absolutely nothing
since they do not have a tenant yet. When they get a tenant, they will know what the building will
be. He said it is going to change again once they have their tenant.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said if they eliminate banks from the zoning, it is a much greater hurdle for
them to bring a bank in than if the Commission simply chooses Alternate B. So if the Commission
is serious about not wanting a bank here, they need to eliminate it from the zoning.
Commissioner Muller said drive-through banks are similar to fast food restaurants with their traffic
flow patterns. She said it does not make sense to her to have a bank here with a right-in/right-out
driveway.
She thinks banks should be removed from "O-1" zoning. She would prefer to see all office at this
location.
Mr. Pigg asked if the issue with the bank is the drive-through lanes.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said yes.
Mr. Pigg said he would very much like to keep the ability to do a bank, however, if the drive-
through lanes are the issue, he would be willing to delete the drive-through portion but keep the
ability to do a bank.
Commissioner Boutte asked if the definition of a bank is broader than what he is thinking of because
he cannot imagine a bank that could function without drive-through windows.
Vice-Chairman Peebles opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience stepped forward to
speak. Vice-Chairman Peebles closed the Public Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 1, section #5857)
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he thinks the Commission has the authority within this zoning district
to eliminate drive-through banking but permit stand-alone banks that do not have drive-through
lanes.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked Commissioner Sandlin how he feels about banks. Commissioner
Sandlin said they will probably be back for approval no matter what the Commission does because
they do not have a tenant yet. He pointed out that drive-through banks are going to be the biggest
impact fee generator because they create a lot of traffic.
Commissioner Muller said she is saying that banking is under the wrong zoning category
Commissioner Boutte said he would prefer to see this comer developed out without drive-through
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 17 of 26
,--- 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
44
windows.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if he would be okay with a bank use that did not have drive-through
windows, and Commissioner Boutte said yes.
Commissioner King said he does not feel as strongly as some of the Commissioners about drive-
throughs, but the applicant has already said he would be willing to take away the drive-throughs. He
says let the applicant have a bank; he thinks the likelihood of a bank going in without drive-throughs
is not very good anyway. His opinion is to go with Alternate B. He said the offices that are there
fight now look great and if they duplicate those, he thinks they will have a wonderful project and
he is okay with it.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he agrees with Commissioner King.
Motion was made to approve ZA 99-099 subject to Revised Concept Plan Review Summary No.
4, dated March 3, 2000, approving Alternate B; waiving Items #1 (500' driveway spacing on Carroll
Avenue) and #2 (bufferyard along the common property line); excluding banks with drive-through
lanes and drive-through ATMs; and stating that a portion of the tract has "S-P-2" zoning and they
are adding a tract with "NR-PUD" zoning to it and went with an "S-P-2" zoning in order to match
the districts; and stating that they want the "S-P-2" type of zoning in order to exclude drive-through
banks and allow a right-in/right-out driveway.
Motion: Sandlin
Second: King
Ayes: King, Sandlin, Boutte, Peebles
Nays: Muller
Approved: 4-1
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 1, section #6343)
AGENDA ITEM #10, ZA 99-100, PLAT REVISION FOR PROPOSED LOT 1R2-1, W. W. HALL
NO. 695 ADDITION:
Current Planner Lisa Sudbury presented this item to the Commission for a Plat Revision for
proposed Lot 1R2-1, W. W. Hall No. 695 Addition on property legally described as Lot 1R2, W. W.
Hall No. 695 Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to
the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 4545, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas; Lot 1, Block 9,
Southlake Town Square, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to
the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slides 4892 & 4893, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas; and a
portion of the abandoned North Carroll Avenue right-of-way; and being approximately 1.982 acres.
The property is located on the northwest comer of the intersection of North Carroll Avenue and East
Southlake Boulevard (F. M. 1709). The Current Zoning is "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District
with "O-1" Office District uses and "NR-PUD" Non-Residential Planned Unit Development District
with "C-3" General Commercial District uses. The Land Use Categories are Medium Density
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 18 of 26
------ 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
44
Residential and Mixed Use. The Applicant is Greenway-Southlake Office Partners, L.P. The
Owners of the property are Greenway-Southlake Office Partners, L.P. and Cooper & Stebbins, L.P.
One (1) written notice was sent to property owners within the 200' notification area, and no
responses were received.
David Smith (Graham Associates) presented this item to the Commission.
Vice-Chairman Peebles opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience stepped forward to
speak. Vice-Chairman Peebles closed the Public Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 1, section #6434)
Motion was made to approve ZA 99-100 subject to Plat Review Summary No. 4, dated March 3,
2000.
Motion: King
Second: Sandlin
Ayes: Sandlin, Boutte, Muller, King, Peebles
Nays: None
Approved: 5-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 1, section #6488)
Vice-Chairman Peebles called for a break at 9:21 p.m.
Vice-Chairman Peebles called the meeting back to order at 9:34 p.m.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he wants to reconsider ZA 99-099 because when the Commission was
talking about a right-in/right-out driveway, he thought they were only talking about the one on
Carroll Avenue; he did not see the one on F.M. 1709. The problem he has with the right-in/fight-out
on F.M. 1709 is that eventually the road will be widened and when it is widened, they will lose the
shoulder. He said if they had a decel lane coming up to that right-in/right-out, he would be okay
with it or if they had a shoulder, he would be okay with it; it is within 500' of the intersection, and
he thinks the right-in/right-out should be eliminated.
Motion was made to reconsider ZA 99-099.
Motion: Peebles
Second: King
David Smith (Graham Associates) said they only have one full access driveway, and they believe
the right-in/right-out is a good solution to alleviate some of the congestion. He said they could put
in a decel lane.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 19 of 26
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
44
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if the decel lane will still be there when they eliminate the shoulder
on F.M. 1709. Mr. Killough said it is a good question that when that expansion takes place, what
is going to drive them to put the decel lane back in place? He said the City can require the
dedication necessary on the plat, and they would be required to construct it based on the cross
section of the roadways right now.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if we can require them to put in a decel lane after the shoulder is gone.
City Attorney Debra Drayovitch said the problem would be if they are already there and a C.O. has
been issued. She said through a Developer's Agreement they could put up a bond or escrow the
money so that the money would be there at that point in time.
Jeff Williams (Civil Engineer for Graham Associates) said many times the transition zone would
actually go into the intersection there on Carroll Avenue, you would not necessarily stop it and start
it. He said when someone is making a right, they would actually be benefited by having an
acceleration lane in a deceleration lane. He said many times that is used to accommodate a driveway
such as this. Another alternative would be to cut down the length of the deceleration lane. He said
they are going to be grading on the site to try to cut down on the amount of differential there
especially for the driveway itself. He said that is a very important driveway to them because it does
dissipate the traffic.
Ayes: Boutte, Muller, King, Peebles
Nays: Sandlin
Approved: 4-1
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 1, section #7126)
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he said two weeks ago he is going to come down on these 250' and
500' rules along F.M. 1709; there is way too much access in and out of F.M. 1709. He said in some
cases they have no choice but in this situation when the Commission can start with a clean slate and
require them to adhere to the ordinance, the Commission ought to do it. When there is a situation
where you know F.M. 1709 is going to be expanded and you will lose the shoulder, this is something
that needs to be considered because traffic in that right-hand lane is going to come to a dead stop
when someone is trying to turn right into this site.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, end of tape 1, section #7194)
Commissioner Boutte asked if he is wrong in thinking that having this after the intersection is safer
than having it before the intersection. He could see a problem if it were on the Town Square side,
but he does not see a problem with it being on the west side of the intersection.
Commissioner Boutte said he is always in favor of deceleration lanes, but he does not see what the
proximity to the intersection has to do with whether or not a deceleration lane is needed.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 20 of 26
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Commissioner King said he was focusing on the driveway cut on Carroll Avenue earlier and did not
focus so much on the cut on F.M. 1709 but if something can be worked out with a
deceleration/acceleration lane that will work, then he is certainly in favor of that.
Mr. Williams said they can escrow the money in a Developer's Agreement such that it would be
constructed at the time F. M. 1709 is widened.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he thinks the City Council has an idea of the issues involved here, but
he would like to see a Developer's Agreement to include a deceleration lane and the escrowed
money.
Motion was made to approve ZA 99-099 subject to Revised Concept Plan Review Summary No.
4, dated March 3, 2000, approving Alternate B; waiving Items #1 (500' driveway spacing on Carroll
Avenue) and #2 (bufferyard along the common property line); excluding banks with drive-through
lanes and drive-through ATMs; stating that a portion of the tract has "S-P-2" zoning and they are
adding a tract with "NR-PUD" zoning to it and went with an "S-P-2" zoning in order to match the
districts; stating that they want an "S-P-2" type of zoning in order to exclude drive-through banks
and allow a right-in/fight-out driveway; and adding the condition of a deceleration lane and putting
the money in escrow.
Motion: Sandlin
Second: King
Ayes: King, Sandlin, Boutte
Nays: Muller, Peebles
Approved: 3-2
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 2, section #0288)
Motion was made to reconsider ZA 99-100.
Motion: King
Second: Boutte
Ayes: King, Sandlin, Boutte, Muller, Peebles
Nays: None
Approved: 5-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 2, section #0304)
Motion was made to approve ZA 99-100 subject to Plat Review Summary No. 4, dated March 3,
2000, and requiring the dedication of right-of-way along F.M. 1709 for a deceleration lane in an area
that is wide enough to provide for a deceleration lane once the shoulder is gone.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 21 of 26
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
44
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Approved:
King
Muller
Sandlin, Boutte, Muller, King
None
Peebles
4-0-1
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 2, section #0358)
AGENDA ITEM #11, ZA 99-101, PRELIMiNARY PLAT OF LOTS 1 & 2, GREENWAY-
CARROLL ADDITION:
Current Planner Lisa Sudbury presented this item to the Commission for a Preliminary Plat of Lots
1 & 2, Greenway-Carroll Addition on property legally described as Tract lA situated in the Richard
Eads Survey, Abstract No. 481, and being approximately 10.559 acres. The property is located on
the southeast comer of the intersection of North Carroll Avenue and State Highway 114. The
Current Zoning is "C-Y' General Commercial District. The Land Use Category is Retail
Commemial. The Owner and Applicant is Greenway-Carroll Road Partners, L.P. Eight (8) written
notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area, and one (1) response was
received which stated they no longer own the adjacent property.
David Smith (Graham Associates) presented this item to the Commission.
Vice-Chairman Peebles opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience stepped forward to
speak. Vice-Chairman Peebles closed the Public Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 2, section #0427)
Motion was made to approve ZA 99-101 subject to Plat Review Summary No. 4, dated Mamh 3,
2000, allowing Item #1 (utility easement) as proposed and subject to staff's recommendation.
Motion: Boutte
Second: Muller
Ayes: Boutte, Muller, King, Sandlin, Peebles
Nays: None
Approved: 5-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 2, section #0512)
AGENDA ITEM #14, ZA 00-015, REVISED SITE PLAN FOR LOT 3, BLOCK 1, GATEWAY
PLAZA ADDITION:
Current Planner Lisa Sudbury presented this item to the Commission for a Revised Site Plan for Lot
3, Block 1, Gateway Plaza Addition, on property legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, Gateway Plaza
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 22 of 26
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
44
1 Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded
2 in Cabinet A, Slides 5365 & 5366, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being approximately
3 32.0 acres. The property is located on the north side of East Southlake Boulevard (F.M. 1709)
4 between Crooked Lane and Bank Street. The Current Zoning is "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan
5 District with limited "C-3" General Commercial District uses excluding the following uses: 22.2 (7)
6 Conventional golf courses, including outdoor driving ranges accessory thereto, but excluding
7 outdoor miniature golf courses; 22.2 (16) Lodges, sororities and/or fraternities; 22.2 (17) Deleting
8 the words "and care" but allowing "medical care facilities to include nursing an~ car: homes,
9 hospitals with their related facilities and supportive retail and personal service uses operated by or
10 under the control of the hospital primarily for the convenience of patients, staffand visitors; 22.2
(18) Mortuaries, funeral homes and undertakers; 22.2 (23) Plumbing and heating appliances, repair
and installation services...; 21.2 (8) Business colleges or private schools for vocational training of
office related careers, such as stenographers, executive secretaries, etc.; 21.2 (24) Frozen food
lockers for individual or family use, not including the processing of food except cutting or wrapping;
18.2.A (29) Radio recording and television broadcasting offices and studios. The Land Use
Category is Mixed Use. The Owner of the property is Lincoln Property Company. The Applicant
is O'Brien & Associates. Seventeen (17) written notices were sent to property owners within the 200'
notification area, and no responses were received.
Terry Wilkinson (Wyndham Properties) presented this item to the Commission. He said they have
a signed Joint Access and Common Parking Agreement with Dr. Tate and need to do a little more
work on that for the City, and they will agree to do that.
Vice-Chairman Peebles opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience stepped forward to
speak. Vice-Chairman Peebles closed the Public Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 2, section #0713)
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked Mr. Wilkinson to take a look at the articulation before he goes to City
Council to see if he can bring it into compliance. Mr. Wilkinson agreed.
Commissioner King asked if this building is leased and who the tenant will be. Mr. Wilkinson said
it is leased, and he honestly cannot remember who the tenant is.
Commissioner Home returned to the meeting at 10:16 p.m.
Motion was made to approve ZA 00-015 subject to Revised Site Plan Review Summary No. 2,
dated March 3, 2000, waiving Item #3.e (150' minimum throat depth for Drive C6).
Motion: Muller
Second: King
Ayes: Muller, King, Home, Sandlin, Boutte, Peebles
Nays: None
Approved: 6-0
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 23 of 26
--- 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
44
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 2, section #1028)
Vice-Chairman Peebles said the Commission will now consider ZA 99-143.
AGENDA ITEM #6, ZA 99-143, SITE PLAN FOR IHOP RESTAURANT:
Hugo Monsanto said Randy Hayden is one of the directors of IHOP 1419 and was supposed to be
here tonight. He was on his way here and was called away to a family emergency. He said he talked
to Mr. Hayden regarding the brick issue and said they are willing to do the Lewisville design that
is all brick. He distributed colored renderings which showed the building with brick.
Commissioner King said the picture shows parapet with brick which will match the Kirby's
Steakhouse. Mr. Monsanto said that is correct.
Commissioner Home asked what the color of the brick will be. Mr. Monsanto said it is brick
colored; it is red.
The Commission discussed the requested variance to the stacking depth.
Motion was made to approve ZA 99-143 subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated Januat~
28, 2000, waiving Item #1 allowing the parapet type construction as shown; #2 (5' bufferyard
adjacent to the property line along rear of the lot); #3 (minimum 100' driveway throat depths);
adding Item g4 (requiring a common access easement to be dedicated along the northwest driveway
that would provide access back to the platted easement on the southwest portion of the property and
also a stub into the lot to the northwest); and making the colored rendering submitted this evening
part of the submittal.
Motion: Muller
Second: Sandlin
Ayes: Muller, King, Home, Sandlin, Boutte, Peebles
Nays: None
Approved: 7-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 2, section #1739)
AGENDA ITEM #17, ELECTION OF A CHAIRMAN:
Commissioner Muller said normally on City Council when people would resign, it was normally the
feeling to leave those positions open until the next election and let the newly elected people decide
on those appointments. She said she believes in hierarchy and seniority and unless someone really
has not performed up to their duties, she likes to let the flow continue. She said the people she has
heard are being considered for Chairman are both well qualified so it is nothing personal on her part.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 24 of 26
.---- 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
i7
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
44
The Commission discussed various options to selecting a Chairman.
Commissioner Sandlin said he believes everyone on the Commission ought to have the benefit of
hearing who they are considering actually chair one or two meetings.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he does not have a problem with Commissioner Sandlin chairing the
next two or three meetings. He said the Commissioners know how he himself chairs meetings so
that way they could see how Commissioner Sandlin chairs them.
Commissioner King nominated Commissioner Sandlin for Chairman.
Commissioner Muller nominated Vice-Chairman Peebles for Chairman.
Vice-Chairman Peebles called for votes for Commissioner Sandlin for Chairman.
Ayes: King, Home, Sandlin, Boutte, Peebles
Nays: Muller
Approved: 5-1
Motion carried.
Commissioner King said he voted for Mike Sandlin because he has seen C. D. Peebles chair
meetings and feels they are both qualified.
Commissioner Home said he voted for Mike Sandlin for many of the same reasons as Commissioner
King. He would like to see how Mike Sandlin chairs a meeting since he has already seen how C.D.
Peebles chairs meetings.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 2, section #2161)
Mr. Killough said he was approached by the school district to possibly have a special meeting
regarding their elementary school site on the Versailles property and also their natatorium site at the
high school. He thinks both items will probably have a lot of citizen input and will probably take
up most of a meeting.
Commissioner Home said as much as we need new schools, he wants to see them put a sprinkler
system in that old school first because there are children there now. He said we have children who
are at risk right now in need of a sprinkler system.
Mr. Killough said since the second P&Z meeting in April was cancelled, the special meeting would
possibly be held on April 13 or April 20.
Commissioner King said he is not inclined to have a special meeting for the school district. He said
they can just come up on the agenda like anybody else.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 25 of 26
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~ 25
26
27
28
1 Commissioner Home agreed.
2
3 Commissioner Muller said she has a problem with special meetings because they are sometimes
4 missed by residents; the special meetings can catch people off guard.
5
AGENDA ITEM #18, MEETING ADJOURNMENT:
Chairman Sandlin adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. on March 9, 2000.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 03-09-00, tape 2, section #2345)
C. D. Peebles
Vice-Chairman
ATTEST:
Planning Secretary
N:\Community Development\WP-FILESkMTGhMiN~2000\03-09-00.DOC
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on March 9, 2000 Page 26 of 26