1999-01-07 P&Z Meeting 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
_t7
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION MEETING
January 7, 1999
COMMISSION PRESENT: Chairman Ann Creighton; Vice-Chairman James Murphy; and
Commissioners Rob Jones, F. C. LeVrier, C. D. Peebles, and Keith Shankland.
COMMISSION ABSENT: Mike Sandlin.
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney; CJreg Last, Community Development
Director; Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator; Dennis Killough, Senior Current Planner; Stefanie
Sarakaitis, Comprehensive Planner; Charlie Thomas, Deputy Director of Public Works; and Lori
Farwell, Community Development Secretary.
The Work Session started at 6:26 p.m. and ended at 6:35 p.m.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-07-99, tape 1, section #0288)
Chairman Creighton stated there would be an Executive Session held in order to seek the advice of
the City Attorney. The Executive Session started at 6:50 p.m. and ended at 7:19 p.m. Chairman
Creighton asked the City Attorney if there was any action necessary as a result of the Executive
Session, and the City Attorney stated no.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Creighton at 7:24 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #2. APPROVAL OF M1NUTES:
Chairman Creighton opened discussion of the minutes of the December 17, 1998, Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting.
Regarding Case ZA 98-130, Mr. Killough stated there needs to be a correction to all references of
the "C-3" General Commercial District beginning on Page 4, Line 31, and ending on Page 6, Line
14. He said the "C-3" General Commercial District was incorrectly referenced in the meeting, and
it should instead read the "C-2" Local Retail Commercial District.
Motion was made to approve the December 17, 1998, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
minutes, as amended.
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Murphy
LeVrier
Murphy, LeVrier, Peebles, Shankland, Jones, Creighton
None
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 1 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
,-21
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Approved: 6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-07-99, tape 1, section #0300)
AGENDA ITEM #3. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS:
Chairman Creighton said the Commission received a memo from Director Last regarding possible
solutions to the backlog of development cases. She said the Commission has also been appointed
to the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) which she understands from Director Last
to be a fairly time intensive process as well. In the past, CIAC has met on the average of once every
two (2) weeks for approximately nine (9) months, although Director Last hoped it would not take
as long this year. She said a possible option is to begin the regular meetings earlier and discuss the
non-development items, ordinance revisions, and CIAC items during the early hours so that
members of the public would still be able to be at the meetings around 6:00 p.m. or 7:00 p.m. to hear
the planning and zoning items.
Director Last said per his discussion with Chairman Creighton, he tried to enumerate some options
in his memo to the Commission, and one option is always not to pursue an unusual schedule to
accomplish those. He said they are basically one (1) month behind on submittals. He said as one
(1) option is to not do anything, the others were options should the Commission decide to pursue
some alternatives.
Vice-Chairman Murphy asked if the CIAC items involve voting and require a quorum.
Director Last said they do require a quorum to have the meeting. He said they have tried to schedule
the first CIAC meeting for January 28, 1999, because that is an available meeting night for the City
Attorney. Allen Taylor has been involved previously before in the CIAC meetings and that is his
only available night so staff has tentatively booked it for that night. He said the Commission
typically does not have votes at each of those meetings. Staff will present a series of issues related
to the water system, the sewer system, and land use assumptions, etc., but there is really not a vote
until later in the process where there is an actual recommendation for it to go forward, and then City
Council will make a vote on it. He said he does not anticipate it taking as long as it has in the past;
the reason it took so long last year is because that was the first time for street impact fees which is
a very complex process.
Commissioner Jones asked who has been doing the capital improvements in the past.
Director Last said it has been an ad hoc committee appointed by City Council with various
representatives from different industries, some Planning and Zoning Commissioners, some
developers, some builders, and a variety of citizens.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 2 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
..21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Commissioner Jones asked if CIAC is currently a combination of the Commission and other groups.
Director Last said no - the make up of the Planning and Zoning Commission meets the requirements
of that committee as well.
Director Last said the other options listed on the memo are just other options should the Commission
desire to knock out some of the backlogged items. If the Commission was to have a roll-over
meeting on January 14, 1999, it would be a continuation of tonight's meeting. The Commission has
the ability to continue the items on the agenda and continue all Public Hearings to that meeting.
Commissioner Jones questioned the option of meeting longer on regular Thursdays; the Commission
has been getting out at 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. as it is.
Director Last said he did not anticipate that being an overwhelmingly interesting option. He said
these are not recommendations; they are options.
Chairman Creighton said the problem with starting the meetings early, too, is the elimination of
citizen input.
Director Last agreed that it is best to try to have the cases which involve citizen input during the
times that are most available to them.
Commissioner Peebles said he would like to get this taken care of as quickly as possible. For
personal reasons, January 14, 1999, will work out better for him. He said it is getting to the point
where he will have a commitment every Thursday night and cannot add any additional meetings on
Thursdays. He said he understands this is not a long term solution, but there is a backlog. He
suggested the Commission not only talk about Gateway Plaza next Thursday, but all of it they can.
Vice-Chairman Murphy said the CIAC problem will be routine.
Director Last said it will be routine, whether it is every two (2) weeks or once a month will depend
on how many other meetings they have.
Commissioner Peebles said he would like to handle the backlog problem as they did the Sign
Ordinance - for the Commission to get together and not necessarily on a Thursday. If there is
another backlog or the CIAC meetings, the Commission could just talk at the end of the meetings
and decide when was best for everyone to meet.
Commissioner Peebles said if there are some big cases coming in later, it makes more sense to hold
a Work Session rather than discuss it on a regular Thursday. He also thinks it would be helpful to
have a City Council member or two (2) present at the Work Sessions to make sure the Commission
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 3 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
,,.21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
is moving in the right direction.
Director Last said he will try to anticipate when those big cases come in and will contact the
Chairman regarding the possibility of needing Work Session for those items.
Vice-Chairman Murphy suggested scheduling January 14, 1999, for a continuation meeting. He has
already told Director Last he has a conflict for that night, but he will try to rework his schedule so
that he will make it by 7:00 p.m. He said he definitely cannot be at the January 28, 1999, meeting;
he will be in San Diego and cannot make it.
Commissioner Shankland said he cannot be here on January 14, 1999, but he has already planned
to be at the January 28, 1999, meeting.
Vice-Chairman Murphy questioned if Commissioner Sandlin could be at the January 14, 1999,
meeting, but no one knew for sure.
Chairman Creighton said them might not be a quorum on January 14, 1999.
Director Last said the Commission could go ahead and hold the meeting and if they did not have a
quorum, everything could be continued to another date.
The Commission decided to go ahead and have a continuation meeting on January 14, 1999.
Chairman Creighton said since Commissioner Peebles cannot make any additional Thursday night
meetings after the 14th, then maybe Thursday nights aren't the best choice.
Commissioner Shankland said if the CIAC meetings are scheduled far enough in advance, he can
probably be them.
Commissioner Peebles said Tuesdays and Wednesdays are good for him.
Commissioner LeVrier said with enough notice, he does not care what night the meetings are
scheduled.
Vice-Chairman Murphy suggested Tuesday nights for CIAC meetings.
Commissioner Shankland said, if need be, he does not mind coming in earlier for meetings.
Chairman Creighton said she does not have a problem with that either.
Commissioner Jones said it might be a good idea to come early.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 4 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Commissioner LeVrier said he has a problem meeting earlier.
Chairman Creighton said they will consider Tuesdays for CIAC meetings and have the P&Z
continuation meeting on January 14, 1999.
Chairman Creighton said Agenda Item//4, Amendments to Ordinance No. 693, was withdrawn by
the applicant.
AGENDA ITEM #8. ZA 98-118. REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CHESAPEAKE
PLACE AND
AGENDA ITEM #9. ZA 98-119. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHESAPEAKE PLACE:
Motion was made at the applicant's request to table ZA98-118 and ZA98-119 and to continue the
Public Hearing to the January 21, 1999, Pla~ing and Zoning Commission meeting.
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
Murphy
Shankland
LeVrier, Peebles, Shankland, Jones, Murphy, Creighton
None
6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-07-99, tape 1, section//0847)
AGENDA ITEM #5. ORDINANCE NO. 731. REVISING CHAPTER 5. ARTICLE V.
"SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES" OF THE SOUTHLAKE CITY CODE (1996). AND
AGENDA ITEM//6. ORDINANCE NO. 480-EE:
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Conunission that the next item, Agenda Item #6,
is an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and since Agenda Item #5 amends not only the Southlake
City Code but also the Zoning Ordinance, she will be combining the discussions and combining the
Public Hearings.
Ms. Gandy said she needs to include "Denton County" to the definition of "Park" on Page 7 of the
ordinance since Southlake is located in two (2) counties and due to the location of Bob Jones Park.
She also pointed out that the distance separations discussed in the ordinance not only protect the uses
within our municipal bounds but also outside our municipal boundaries.
In Section 11, Ms. Gandy recommended Section 26, "I-1" Light Industrial District, and Section 27,
"I-2" Heavy Industrial District be listed as districts these uses would be permitted in. She said the
Commission might also want to consider listing the "B-2" Commercial Manufacturing District.
Vice-Chairman Murphy said he is happy with just "I-1" and "1-2."
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 5 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Chairman Creighton said she is, too. She said staffcould determine if the limitation to the "I-l" and
"I-2" zoning districts provided sufficient area in the City overall before this item goes to City
Council.
Commissioner Jones said if staff indicates that the "I- 1" and "I-2" areas do not meet with the law,
the City Council might consider "B-2" as an option.
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience stepped forward to speak.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 731, adding "Denton County" to the "Park" definition
on Page 7; and limiting Section 11 to include Section 26, "I-1" Light Industrial District, and Section
27, "I-2" Heavy Industrial District of the Zoning Ordinance 480.
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
Jones
Murphy
Peebles, Shankland, Jones, Murphy, LeVrier, Creighton
None
6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-07-99, tape 1, section//1312)
AGENDA ITEM//7. ZA 98-156. REZON1NG AND SITE PLAN FOR TOM THUMB CENTER:
Comprehensive Planner Stefanie Sarakaitis informed the Commission that this request is for a
Zoning Change on property legally described as Lot 3, and a portion of Lots 2 and 4, L.B.G. Hall
No. 686 Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat
recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 1216, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and a 1.174 acre portion
of Tract 1C2 situated in the L.B.G. Hall Survey, Abstract No. 686, for a total acreage of
approximately 7.691 acres. A Site Plan for Tom Thumb Center will be included with this request.
The property is located on the northwest comer of the intersection of North White Chapel Boulevard
and West Southlake Boulevard (F.M. 1709). The Current Zoning is "CS" Community Service
District and "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District with "C-3" General Commercial District uses
excluding the following uses: frozen food lockers for individual or family use, not including the
processing of food except cutting or wrapping; bowling alleys; conventional golf courses, including
outdoor driving ranges accessory thereto, but excluding outdoor miniature golf courses; lodges,
sororities and/or fraternities; medical care facilities to include nursing and care homes, hospitals with
their related facilities and supportive retail and personal service uses operated by or under the control
of the hospital primarily for the convenience of patients, staffand visitors; mortuaries, funeral homes
and undertakers; skating rinks, ice and roller (indoor only); and taverns, clubs and other comparable
establishments under which the on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages is permitted subject
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 6 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
,..21
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
to issuance of a special use permit as required in Section 45 of Zoning Ordinance No. 480. The
Requested Zoning is "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District with "C-3" General Commercial District
uses. The Land Use Category is Retail Commercial. The Owner of the property is EPIPD-Southlake
No. 1, L.P. The Applicant is Bury & Pittman - DFW, Inc. Ten (10) written notices were sent to
property owners within the 200' notification area, and one (1) response was received which was in
favor.
David McMahan, 1335 Hidden Glen, Southlake, Texas, presented this item to the Commission.
Commissioner Peebles asked Mr. McMahan how he would feel about "C-1" zoning, but instead of
limiting grocery stores to 3,000 s.f., allowing this grocery store at this size.
Mr. McMahan said he would not be in favor of that. He said they currently have "C-3" uses in place.
He said they are not in 100% agreement that this zoning change is absolutely necessary; they are
simply trying to get along and go along. They want to keep and maintain the kind of uses they
currently have. He said they eliminated the movie theater use from their application because the
Commission did not want that use.
Chairman Creighton asked where he has eliminated the theater use from this application.
Mr. McMahan said it was in their application, but he does not know what staff did with it.
Mr. Killough said staffdid not see that on their application.
Mr. McMahan said it was his understanding it was in the application, but if it was not he would like
to add that change.
Regarding changing the zoning to "C-l," Mr. McMahan said they have certain rights to this property
granted by the City, and they would like to maintain those rights.
Chairman Creighton said his application is asking for broader rights than what is there right now.
Mr. McMahan said he does not think so.
Chairman Creighton said she is referring to the fact that there is 7.691 acres in which he is asking
for all "C-3" uses, not the limited "C-3" uses which are currently there.
Mr. McMahan said that is not correct because the previous exclusions are still in place. They are
asking for the zoning they have today but also excluding the movie theater use.
Ms. Sarakaitis said their requested zoning on their application reads, "S-P-2" with "C-3" uses. She
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 7 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
,-21
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
said it may have been their intent to have all the previous exclusions follow their zoning request, and
the applicant could state that here tonight and amend his request.
Mr. McMahan apologized to the Commission. He said he was told those things had been taken care
of. He said it is their intention to ask for a zoning change to list all of those previous exclusions plus
deleting the movie theater use.
Commissioner Peebles asked how he would feel about straight "C-2" zoning.
Mr. McMahan said no - his request is on the table.
Chairman Creighton asked Mr. McMahan if he is willing or unwilling to make modifications to this
plan to attempt to meet the impervious coverage requirements.
Mr. McMahan said they are willing to do so; the problem they have is the inability to do so. He said
they are extremely limited on what they can do. He said their only alternative is to remove parking
spaces, and they cannot do that.
Chairman Creighton said she could suggest other alternatives, and she is willing to devote the time
this evening to do that if he is willing to consider those alternatives.
Mr. McMahan said certainly, if the Commission has a suggestion and they can do it, they will.
Chairman Creighton said not adding the additional retail along the west side would increase the
pervious coverage.
Mr. McMahan said it would also make it economically unviable. He said they are tearing down a
five (5) year old center. He said they have more pervious area on the new site plan than they do
today. They are adding more landscaping than what is currently there.
Chairman Creighton said her other area of difficulty is the number of driveway cuts. She asked if
he is willing or unwilling to eliminate existing driveways.
Mr. McMahan said they are contractually obligated to keep those in place. There is nothing they can
do about that.
Chairman Creighton said she is just trying to tell him where she stands and unless he can close some
driveways and decrease the impervious coverage, then she cannot support this.
Mr. McMahan said then so be it.
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Heating. No one in the audience stepped forward to speak.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 8 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
.21
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Jones said this is still an improvement over what is there currently. He said it is an
improvement that everyone he has talked to wants to see come in. He said this is a gmat site for a
Tom Thumb. He said this will not decrease the safety, it will probably get a little better due to the
realignment of the parking lot.
Chairman Creighton said she has spoken to people who want a Tom Thumb in Southlake but not at
this location for the simple reason that this is already an exceptionally busy intersection. She said
Southlake Boulevard is a substantially different road today than it was back in 1991 when this site
was first developed.
Commissioner Peebles said a Tom Thumb could go on this site, but the western-most building would
have to be bladed and Mr. McMahan does not want to do that. Since the Commission last heard this
item, he has visited this center. He said even with Food Lion being completely empty, there are
many cars parking to the east of the west building, and he is convinced more than ever this parking
lot is not big enough. This is too intense a development for this property. This property is cut out
mom for a Hobby Lobby or a MJDesigns.
Commissioner Shankland said he is concemed about the driveway cuts and the stacking depths. He
said he would like to see Tom Thumb go in there, but he agrees with Commissioner Peebles. He
said the traffic is horrendous. When the current building was built, F. M. 1709 was a nice two (2)
lane country road with trees lining it.
Vice-Chairman Murphy said the Commission should take a straw pole to see where everyone is
because the applicant ought to know where everyone is.
Chairman Creighton said she agrees.
Vice-Chairman Murphy said he would like to see something done with this building and would like
to see Tom Thumb go in there. He thinks after modifications were made to the White Chapel
intersection, some of the safety issues would be mitigated. He said he is in this shopping center four
(4) times a week and does not feel at all threatened in the parking lot.
Chairman Creighton said her inclination would have been to work through the issues and to move
it on to City Council, but based upon her meeting with Council before the last meeting, she is
confident that moving it forward in its present form it will not get past Council.
Commissioner LeVrier said he is undecided.
Commissioner Shankland said he cannot vote for it as it stands.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 9 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Commissioner Jones said there are conflicting ordinances - the parking requirements versus the
impervious coverage ordinance. He said if they were to try to comply with one, they would not
comply with the other. He thinks it is a good project.
Motion was made to deny ZA 98-156.
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
Peebles
Shankland
Shankland, LeVrier, Peebles, Creighton
Jones, Murphy
4-2 (to deny)
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-07-99, tape 1, section #2281)
Mr. Killough stated the previous item will move on to City Council and due to the Commission's
vote, it will require a super-majority vote by the City Council to approve it.
Commissioner Peebles said he would be stepping down on this item.
AGENDA ITEM #10. ZA 98-136. REZONING AND SITE PLAN FOR DAVIS BOULEVARD
CENTER:
Comprehensive Planner Stefanie Sarakaitis informed the Commission that this request is for a
Zoning Change on property legally described as being a portion of Tract lB1, situated in the T. J.
Thompson Survey, Abstract No. 1502, and being approximately 0.55 acres. A Site Plan for Davis
Boulevard Center will be considered with this request. The property is located on the east side of
Davis Boulevard (F.M. 1938) approximately 300' north of Continental Boulevard. The Current
Zoning is "AG" Agricultural District. The Requested Zoning is "C-2" Local Retail Commercial
District. The Land Use Category is Retail Commemial. The Owner of the property is Ron Woods.
The Applicant is Segal Enterprises. Six (6) written notices were sent to property owners within the
200' notification area, and one (1) response was received which was in favor.
Lennie Segal (Segal Enterprises) 1907 Pebblewood Drive, Arlington, Texas, said they are wanting
to build a free-standing, premium quality, environmentally friendly dry cleaners and laundry. He
said the solvents they will use to clean the clothing are much less harmful than those currently being
used by other dry cleaners; the EPA has rated its toxicity at being equivalent to baby oil.
Lindy Ballew, 1727 E. Price Street, Keller, Texas, said they agree to comply with almost ail of the
issues. They have retained a traffic engineer, who is present this evening, to evaluate their situation.
They spoke to Mirage Car Wash and requested a common access easement through their driveway,
and the owner of the car wash said he was not interested.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 10 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
,-21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Don Penny, 1411 Natches Drive, Arlington, Texas, said he is a traffic engineer who has been
retained by Mr. Ballew to look at this site. His experience has been once you get anywhere from
120' to 150' away from an intersection, the placement of the driveways do not matter that much. He
said he saw the same problems occurring at a driveway 200' away as compared to one 500' away;
the difference seems to be the amount of traffic using the driveway. By concentrating traffic at one
driveway, it would appear it may be causing as many problems as it is solving. After reviewing the
plans, he said he does not see any problems with what is shown.
Chairman Creighton said she is concerned with the stacking depth.
Mr. Ballew asked for a variance to Items #la, #lb, and #3c.
Vice-Chairman Murphy asked if the traffic engineer discussed with the applicant the possibility of
a right-in/right-out driveway onto Davis Boulevard. He said he agrees with Chairman Creighton's
concern about the stacking depth, especially on Davis Boulevard.
Mr. Penny said he would probably need to spend a little more time looking at the site before he knew
exactly where this driveway would be staked. He said it is not unusual for this type of operation to
have a full driveway to allow for all turning movements. He said he cannot recall any experience
which would cause him to recommend a right-in/right-out driveway.
Vice-Chairman Murphy said he is concerned about southbound traffic on Davis Boulevard not being
able to complete a left-hand turn into this site because there is not enough stacking depth. He said
if someone else is waiting to make a left-hand turn into Mirage Car Wash, cars would have to take
evasive action to make a left into this site. On the other hand, he does not like the idea of making
someone coming from Southlake Boulevard go down to Continental Boulevard to make a left-hand
turn and then make another left-hand turn into this site and go through the shopping center to get to
the dry cleaners.
Commissioner Shankland asked what is going in to the east of this site.
Mr. Ballew said it will be office space,
Chairman Creighton asked what is going into the building south of the dry cleaners.
Mr. Ballew said it is a retail center. He said Mr. Woods is planning a convenience store in the
comer, but that is the only tenant he is aware of.
Commissioner Jones said the building looks much better than it did last time they were before the
Commission.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 11 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Mr. Ballew discussed the roof configuration of the dry cleaners. He said they have changed from
the obvious parapet situation they had before to a mansard roof. The reason they changed is because
the system they use to cool the dry cleaners is not a standard attic air conditioning unit; he said they
do not air condition the space in them because it is too costly. He said they use evaporative coolers
which are not very attractive and have to be exposed to outside air and cannot be concealed. He said
if they were to have a 4:12 roof and have the unit sitting on top of that, then there would have to be
additional screening around the sloped roof. He said the best way to do it is to have a flat space on
the roof for the exhaust fans and evaporative coolers and be concealed. He asked for a variance to
Item #3c to allow him to put this equipment in a well behind the mansard roof so that it are not seen
by anyone passing by.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-07-99, tape 1, section #3445)
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Heating. No one in the audience stepped forward to speak.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
Vice-Chairman Murphy said he really appreciates the work the applicant has done including the
organized approach they have taken to the variances they are requesting. He said he wanted to thank
the applicant for everyone he has collected to come talk to the Commission including the traffic
engineer.
Commissioner LeVrier asked if applicant would consider eliminating the two (2) parking spaces in
the northwestern comer of the site.
Mr. Ballew said they could do that.
Commissioner LeVrier said that would allow them to eliminate the turnaround which encroaches
into the bufferyard. They could then continue the bufferyard east and west. He said he really
appreciates the effort they have done, and he appreciates the applicant having a traffic engineer here.
Motion was made to approve ZA 98-136, subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated
December 31, 1998, deleting Items #la (driveway spacing) and #lb (stacking depth); accepting the
roof design (Item #3c) as shown; and eliminating two (2) parking spaces in the northwest comer and
continue the bufferyard east and west.
Motion: Murphy
Second: Jones
Chairman Creighton said she agrees with Vice-Chairman Murphy regarding the applicant's attempt
to comply with the ordinances, but she does not agree this is the best that can be done. She is still
too troubled with the distances they are off on the driveway spacing and the stacking depths. For
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 12 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
,-21
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
safety reasons, she said she cannot support this plan in its present form.
Ayes: Jones, Murphy, LeVrier, Shankland
Nays: Creighton
Abstain: Peebles
Approved: 4-1-1
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-07-99, tape 1, section #3711)
AGENDA ITEM #11. ZA 98-137. REZONING AND SITE PLAN FOR DAVIS BOULEVARD
CENTER:
Comprehensive Planner Stefanie Sarakaitis informed the Commission that this request is for a
Zoning Change on property legally described as being a portion of Tract 1 B 1, situated in the T. J.
Thompson Survey, Abstract No. 1502, and being approximately 1.23 acres. A Site Plan for Davis
Boulevard Center will be considered with this request. The property is generally located on the
northeast comer of the intersection of Davis Boulevard (F.M. 1938) and Continental Boulevard. The
Current Zoning is "AG" Agricultural District. The Requested Zoning is "C-3" General Commercial
District. The Land Use Category is Retail Commercial. The Owner of the property is Ron Woods.
The Applicant is Segal Enterprises. Six (6) written notices were sent to property owners within the
200' notification area, and one (1) response was received which was in favor.
Lindy Ballew, 1727 E. Price Street, Keller, Texas, presented this item to the Commission. He said
after meeting with staff, they came to the conclusion that Mr. Woods could possibly ask for "C-3"
zoning at this time and once Continental Boulevard is widened and a light is installed at the
intersection, Mr. Woods could revisit the issue of putting his gas station on this site again. He asked
the Commission to consider that possibility. He said Mr. Woods wrote him a letter, and he asked Mr.
Woods to read it to the Commission.
Ron Woods', 734 CR 2585, Alvord, Texas, read the following letter to the Commission:
"I recently expressed to you the desire to put a convenience store with gas pumps at the proposed
Davis Boulevard shopping center. My current business has served Southlake for 20 years, well
before developers decided to expand into this area of Southlake. Since the widening of Davis
Boulevard, my convenience store has lost most of its parking lot and its ability to compete with
like businesses. Therefore, in order to remain in Southlake, I would like to put a convenience
store at said location and continue to support a community I have lived in for 17 years, where
both my son and daughter graduated from high school and a community I have been proud to
be a member of and where I have developed loyal customers and friends. When we last spoke
the board had concerns about the traffic flow on Continental and at this time I agree that the
traffic flow could be an issue. I would like to come back after the road has been widened and
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 13 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
a traffic light has been installed and request to add gas pumps to the proposed Davis Boulevard
Center. This is not going to stop the shopping center ifI don't get this. When I go to the bank,
they know what business I'm in and its easier to get money ifI can say I'm running a business
here."
Commissioner Peebles asked how large a convenience store he plans to operate.
Mr. Woods said 2,500 - 3,000 s.f.
Commissioner Peebles asked Mr. Woods since he anticipates coming back to get approval for a gas
station, if he would have a problem with the Commission approving "C- 1" zoning so that he can put
in his convenience store and return at a later date to get the zoning needed for a gas station.
Mr. Woods asked if it would affect the balance of the shopping center. He intends to have an
upscale hair salon and questioned whether or not they could still go into the center.
Commissioner Peebles said he would be happy to show him the Zoning Ordinance and allow him
time to look it over. He said it does allow for a barber and beauty shop.
Mr. Woods said he sees no problem with that.
Commissioner LeVrier asked Commissioner Peebles to explain to Mr. Woods the differences
between "Col" and "C-3."
Chairman Creighton said the Commission could take a quick break to allow Mr. Woods time to
review the ordinance.
Chairman Creighton called for a break at 9:18 p.m.
Chairman Creighton called the meeting back to order at 9:37 p.m.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-07-99, tape 1, section #4129)
Commissioner Peebles asked if the applicant how he would feel about asking for "S-P-1" with "C-3"
zoning but only allowing the uses listed in "C-2."
Mr. Woods said he does not see a problem with that.
Commissioner Peebles said then Mr. Woods would only have to apply for S.U.P. approval for his
gas station at a later date.
Vice-Chairman Murphy asked Mr. Ballew what he intends to do about the stacking depth on the
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 14 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
common driveway.
Mr. Ballew said they will comply with the 50' stacking depth.
Commissioner Shankland asked why this driveway is under discussion if it is not on this property.
Mr. Killough said where there have been common drives in this situation, staff has allowed them to
be discussed and included in the site plan.
Commissioner Shankland asked if any decisions made on this is binding.
Mr. Killough said it is binding until the site to the east comes in.
Commissioner Shankland said it is not in concrete when it leaves here tonight so he does not
understand how it can be discussed.
Mr. Killough said if the Commission and the City Council approves a driveway in this location, the
City will issue a permit to build it.
Vice-Chairman Murphy asked if they could eliminate two (2) parking spaces in the southeast comer
to eliminate cars from backing up into the driveway.
Mr. Ballew agreed.
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience stepped forward to speak.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
Chairman Creighton asked if the applicant will meet a 50' stacking depth on the common drive.
Mr. Ballew said he is unsure how he would do it. He said the building comes down too far.
Chairman Creighton said she still has a problem with the stacking depth. If it is supposed to be 75',
then she wants 75'.
After talking to Mr. Woods, Mr. Ballew said they will shorten the length of the building in order to
get the 50' stacking depth.
Commissioner Peebles said it is his understanding that the only reason the common driveway is there
is because the Commission asked them to do it. He said the applicant has subjected himself to the
75' when the 50' is what was required before. He said if the applicant decided to leave the driveway
where it was originally (more to the west), then the customers of the lot to the east would still use
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 15 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
it periodically to get to the other site. He said with the applicant going to 50' and removing the two
(2) parking spaces, it seems like he is making an effort to address the Commission's concerns.
Chairman Creighton said she sees his point, and although the gas station is not before Commission,
she cannot see a gas station at this location under any scenario. The disadvantage she sees to the
underlying "C-3" zoning, she could see a future Commission thinking that it was anticipated by this
Commission that a gas station would be appropriate here and she does not want to send that message.
Vice-Chairman Murphy said he does not agree with Chairman Creighton given the approval process
required for gas stations.
Motion was made to approve ZA 98-137, subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated
December 31, 1998, amending the requested zoning to "S-P-1" Detailed Site Plan District with the
underlying zoning of "C-Y' General Commercial District but restricting it to "C-2" Local Retail
Commercial District uses; eliminating two (2) parking spaces in the southeast comer; accepting
driveway spacing (Item #la) as shown; and accepting the applicant's commitment to get 50' stacking
depth (Item #lb).
Motion: Murphy
Second: Jones
Ayes: Murphy, LeVrier, Peebles, Shankland, Jones
Nays: Creighton
Approved: 5-1
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-07-99, tape 1, section #5401)
AGENDA ITEM # 12. ZA 98-155, REZONING FOR PROPOSED LOT 3. DAVIS BOULEVARD
CENTER:
Comprehensive Planner Stefanie Sarakaitis informed the Commission that this request is for a
Zoning Change for proposed Lot 3, T.J. Thompson No. 1502 Addition, (Davis Boulevard Center)
on property legally described as being a portion of Tract lB1, situated in the T. J. Thompson
Survey, Abstract No. 1502, and being approximately 3,000 s.f. The property is located on the
northeast comer of the intersection of Continental Boulevard and Davis Boulevard (F.M. 1938). The
Current Zoning is "AG" Agricultural District. The Requested Zoning is "CS" Community Service
District. The Land Use Category is Retail Commercial. The Owner of the property is Ron Woods.
The Applicant is the City of Southlake. Four (4) written notices were sent to property owners within
the 200' notification area, and no responses were received.
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 16 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Wayne Haney (SPIN #15 Representative) 400 Brock Drive, Southlake, Texas, said he is ecstatic that
a portal is going in at this location. He said this is a plus for this area of Southlake. He said this is
the first time the City has had a chance to do something good for people entering the City from the
south.
Lindy Ballew, J 727 E. Price Street, Keller, Texas, said since he represents Mr. Woods, the owner
of this property, he thought it would be good if the City would notify him when any portal designs
are being considered.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
Motion was made to approve ZA 98-155.
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
Murphy
Shankland
LeVrier, Peebles, Shankland, Jones, Murphy, Creighton
None
6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-07-99, tape 1, section #5769)
Commissioner Peebles abstained from Agenda Item # 13.
AGENDA ITEM #13. ZA 98-139. PLAT SHOWING FOR PROPOSED LOTS 3.4. AND 5. T. J.
THOMPSON NO. 1502 ADDITION:
Comprehensive Planner Stefanie Sarakaitis informed the Commission that this request is for a Plat
Showing for proposed Lots 3, 4, and 5, T. J. Thompson No. 1502 Addition on property legally
described as Tract lB1, situated in the T. J. Thompson Survey, Abstract No. 1502, and being
approximately 2.00 acres. The property is located on the northeast comer of the intersection of
Davis Boulevard (F.M. 1938) and Continental Boulevard. The Current Zoning is "AG" Agricultural
District. The Land Use Category is Retail Commercial. The Owner of the property is Ron Woods.
The Applicant is Segal Enterprises. Six (6) written notices were sent to property owners within the
200' notification area, and one (1) response was received which was in favor.
Commissioner LeVrier asked why the common drive is not shown on this plat.
Mr. Killough said since the easement is on the property to the east and outside the boundary of the
plat, it will have to be drawn up by separate instrument. He said Item #7a states the City will not
issue any building permits until the applicant provides the City with a separate instrument dedicating
a common access easement.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 17 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Lindy Ballew, 1727 E. Price Street, Keller, Texas, said they imend to comply with all review
comments.
Vice-Chairman Murphy said this is as clean a Plat Review Summary as he has ever seen. He said
he really appreciates it, and they are welcome back anytime.
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience stepped forward to speak.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
Motion was made to approve ZA 98-139, subject to Plat Review Summary No. 2, dated December
31, 1998.
Motion: Murphy
Second: Shankland
Ayes: Shankland, Jones, Murphy, LeVrier, Creighton
Nays: None
Abstain: Peebles
Approved: 5-0-1
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-07-99, tape 1, section #6121)
AGENDA ITEM #14. ZA 98-141. SITE PLAN FOR TACO BUENO:
Comprehensive Planner Stefanie Sarakaitis informed the Commission that this request is for a Site
Plan for Taco Bueno on property legally described as a portion of Tracts 2B and 2C, situated in the
G.W. Main Survey, Abstract No. 1098, a portion of Tract 6, situated in the Samuel Freeman Survey,
Abstract No. 525, and a portion of Tract 12A4A situated in the Thomas Easter Survey, Abstract No.
474, and being approximately 0.80 acres. The property is located on the south side of East Southlake
Boulevard (F.M. 1709) approximately 150' east of the intersection of East Southlake Boulevard and
South Kimball Avenue. The Current Zoning is "C-3" General Commercial District. The Land Use
Category is Retail Commercial and 75 LDN Overlay Corridor. The Owner and Applicant is
Lawrence A. Cates & Associates. Seven (7) written notices were sent to property owners within the
200' notification area, and no responses were received.
Dave Walls (Lawrence A. Cates & Associates) said the primary concerns and considerations at the
last meeting was the building did not have a pitched roof. The architect created a new building
completely unique with the corporate identity for this site. They have also revised their landscape
plan per the City's direction. Originally, they intended to save all of the trees on the site, but some
of the City staff felt that some of the trees were not appropriate to save so they have eliminated those
trees and mitigated the loss of them. He agreed to meet all Review Comments.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 18 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Randy Bauer, 5100 Belt Line, Addison, Texas, said being a restaurant they have ventilation
considerations. He said they have a false pitched roof in the center; it pitches in the front and there
is a mechanical courtyard in the middle. He said it is about 7' high so it will hide all of the
mechanical equipment.
Commissioner Peebles asked staff if this complies with the ordinance since it is not a complete
sloped roof all the way to the peak. He asked if it is out of compliance.
Mr. Killough said yes, and it would require approval by the Commission. He said until right now
in the meeting, staff could not tell that is what they were doing on the plan so staff did not comment
on it.
Commissioner Peebles asked if there needs to be an Item #8 added which references the pitched roof
requirement.
Mr. Killough said yes.
Mr. Bauer said they are unable to meet that requirement. He said they are required to hide all
mechanical, but they also need ventilation for the equipment. He said they thought what they did
seemed to be in the spirit of the ordinance.
Chairman Creighton asked where the applicant is regarding the Tree Preservation Analysis.
Mr. Walls said they completely revised the grading plan, eliminated the trees, and have mitigated
them. He said they have added a significant amount of landscaping to the site. He said staff has
recommended the removal of some trees they originally were going to save.
Chairman Creighton asked if the Commission received a copy of the revised Tree Preservation
Analysis.
Mr. Killough said he did not get a revised analysis from Keith Martin, Landscape Administrator.
Vice-Chairman Murphy asked if they can get one before this goes to City Council.
Mr. Killough said yes.
Mr. Walls said his landscaper has made extensive interface with City staff and their new plan has
been approved by City staff.
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 Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 19 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Commissioner Jones said the City needs to amend its ordinance to allow for roofing similar to this.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-07-99, tape 1, section #7199)
Motion was made to approve ZA 98-141, subject to Site Plan Review summary No. 2, dated
December 31, 1998, adding Item #8 stating the pitched roof requirement is not met and the applicant
is providing sloped roof with a vertical wall (mansard-like) in order to accommodate ventilation; and
requiring a new Tree Preservation Analysis to be completed prior to going to City Council and
stating the applicant has represented he has met with the Landscape Administrator who agreed to
the new landscaping as proposed.
Motion: Murphy
Second: Jones
Chairman Creighton said, in the furore, if the landscaping has been completely revised she would
hope the Commission would be provided with a new Tree Preservation Analysis before their
meeting.
Ayes: Jones, Murphy, LeVrier, Shankland
Nays: Peebles, Creighton
Approved: 4-2
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-07-99, tape 2, section #0087)
AGENDA ITEM # 15. ZA 98-146. FINAL PLAT FOR LOCH MEADOW ESTATES:
Comprehensive Planner Stefanie Sarakaitis informed the Commission that this request is for a Final
Plat of Loch Meadow Estates on property legally described as Tract 2B and a portion of Tract 2B1
situated in the Rees D. Price Survey, Abstract No. 1207, and Lot 12-R-3-A, Block 4, South Lake
Park, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in
Cabinet A, Slide 2791, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being approximately 31.412 acres.
Due to a portion of the property being previously platted, the applicant has amended his request from
a Final Plat to a Plat Revision. The property is located on the east side of Ridgecrest Drive,
approximately 600' south of the intersection of Ridgecrest Drive and Woodland Drive. The Current
Zoning is "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District. The Land Use Category is Low Density
Residential. The Owner and Applicant is Corps Property Holdings, Inc. Fifteen (15) written notices
were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area, and no responses were received.
dohn Levitt (,~ E. Levitt Engineers) 726 Commerce, Suite 104, Southlake, Texas, presented this item
to the Commission. He said they will meet all Review Comments.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 20 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Heating. No one in the audience stepped forward to speak.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
Motion was made to approve ZA 98-146, subject to Plat Review Summary No. 2, dated December
31, 1998.
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
Murphy
Jones
Murphy, LeVrier, Peebles, Shankland, Jones, Creighton
None
6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-07-99, tape 2, section #0262)
AGENDA ITEM # 16. ZA 98-115. PLAT SHOWING FOR PROPOSED LOTS 3 THROUGH 6. J.
THORNHILL NO. 1505 ADDITION:
Comprehensive Planner Stefanie Sarakaitis informed the Commission that this request is for a Plat
Showing for proposed Lots 3 through 6, J. Thornhill No. 1505 Addition on property legally
described as Tracts lB and lB1 situated in the James Thomhill Survey, Abstract No. 1505, and
being approximately 5.00 acres. The applicant amended the request to a Plat Showing for proposed
Lots 3 through 5, J. Thomhill No. 1505 Addition. The property is located on the north side of West
Continental Boulevard approximately 250' east of Southlake Hills Drive. The Current Zoning is
"AG" Agricultural District. The Land Use Category is Medium Density Residential. The Owners
of the property are Kaeini Family First Limited Partnership and Raman Chandler. The Applicant
is Kaeini Family First Limited Partnership. Twenty-nine (29) written notices were sent to property
owners within the 200' notification area, and five (5) responses were received with four (4) being
opposed and one (1) being undecided.
Mo Kaeini, 509 Dunn Court, Grapevine, Texas, presented this item to the Commission. He asked
for a variance to Item #7b.
Although the Public Hearing was held and closed on November 5, 1998, Chairman Creighton asked
if anyone in the audience would like to speak on this item.
Chairman Creighton read the following new response from Matthew Belaus, 1311 Northridge Drive,
Southlake, Texas:
"The residents of Southlake Hills that border the property are pleased with the platting changes
that have been since the meeting on November 5, 1998 (specifically the reduction in the number
of lots and the addition of drainage easements on the north, east and west perimeter of the
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 21 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
property). We now support the proposal to plat Lots 3 through 6 as discussed on this evening's
agenda. Our only remaining concern is with the sheds and shacks currently located on the
Chandler property. Raymond Blevins of Code Enforcement is currently working this issue."
Luis Bonet, 1002 Hidden Knoll Court, $outhlake, Texas, seconded Mr. Belaus' opinion. He said he
is very affected by the shacks and sheds Mr. Chandler has on his property, but the City employees
are taking care of that.
Chairman Creighton expressed her thanks to Mr. Kaeini for his willingness to work with the
neighbors in order to achieve this result.
Motion was made to approve ZA 98-115, subject to Plat Review Summary No. 2, dated December
11, 1998, allowing Item #1 (100' lot width) as proposed and deleting Item #7b (drive alignment).
Motion:
Second:
myesi
Nays:
Approved:
Murphy
LeVrier
LeVrier, Peebles, Shankland, Jones, Murphy, Creighton
None
6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-07-99, tape 2, section #0724)
Chairman Creighton said the items listed under Agenda Item #17 would be continued to January 14,
1999, at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #17. DUE TO CASE RESOLUTION NO. 97-22. THE FOLLOWING CASES
WERE NOT BE HEARD ON THIS AGENDA AND WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE JANUARY
14, 1999. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING:
g.
h.
I.
j.
ZA 98-145
ZA 98-149
ZA 98-152
ZA 98-157
ZA 98-158
ZA 98-159
Site Plan for Dardan Square;
Rezoning and Site Plan for Barton House Uncommon Care, Inc.;
Site Plan for Panorama Place, Phase II;
Rezoning;
Preliminary Plat for proposed Lots 1 and 2, Malik Estates Addition;
Site Plan for Gateway Plaza;
ZA 98-160, Preliminary Plat for Gateway Plaza Addition;
ZA 98-161, Rezoning and Site Plan for Primrose School;
ZA 98-162, Rezoning, and
ZA 98-163, Plat Showing for proposed Lots 10 and 11, J.G. Allen No. 18 Addition.
THE REMAINING ITEMS WILL BE HEARD THE EVENING OF JANUARY 14, 1999.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 22 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
COMMISSION PRESENT: Chairman Ann Creighton; Vice-Chairman James Murphy; and
Commissioners Rob Jones, C. D. Peebles, and Mike Sandlin.
COMMISSION ABSENT: F. C. LeVrier and Keith Shankland.
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney; Greg Last, Community Development
Director; Chris Carpenter, Senior Comprehensive Planner; Charlie Thomas, Deputy Director of
Public Works; and Lori Farwell, Community Development Secretary.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Creighton at 7:16 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #17a. ZA 98-145. SITE PLAN FOR DARDAN SOUARE:
Senior Comprehensive Planner Chris Carpenter informed the Commission that this request is for a
Site Plan for Dardan Square on property legally described as a portion of Tract 2, situated in the
Hiram Granberry Survey, Abstract No. 581, and being approximately 0.705 acres. The property is
located on the south side of West Southlake Boulevard (F.M. 1709) approximately 150' east of the
intersection of West Southlake Boulevard and Lake Crest Drive. The Current Zoning is "C-2" Local
Retail Commercial District. The Land Use Category is Office Commercial. The Owner of the
property is Conner Lam. The Applicant is Dana Bailey. Eleven (11) written notices were sent to
property owners within the 200' notification area, and two (2) responses were received with one (1)
being in favor and one (1) being undecided.
Director Last added three (3) corrections to the staff review letter: Item # lb - change Continental to
F.M. 1709; Item #3a - change 136' to 200' and delete Item #3c.
Kosse Maykus presented this case to the Commission. He stated Conner Lam no longer owns this
property; the Baileys have purchased it from him.
Chairman Creighton asked if Mr. Maykus has read the letter from SPIN 14 Representative, Mary
Dominguez. Mr. Maykus said he had not.
Chairman Creighton read portions of the letter to Mr. Maykus. Ms. Dominguez's primary concerns
are: stacking depth, customers making a U-mm using Lake Crest's entrance, and future development
of Lot 7. She asked Mr. Maykus his thoughts regarding this letter.
Mr. Maykus said he feels they have addressed her first concern by increasing the stacking depth and
widening the entrance to the from parking lot. Regarding her second concern, he said people could
make a U-turn using Lake Crest's entrance no matter what develops on this property although he
believes it will be alleviated once the light goes in at Shady Oaks and F. M 1709. Regarding placing
one building with two driveways, he said the applicant originally wanted to do that, but it was hard
enough getting one curb cut, much less two.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 23 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Commissioner Jones said this is not like a 7-11; this is going to have the same people going there
over and over again. He said people may do the U-mm movement into Lake Crest one time and then
they will plan a different route for the future. He said this right-in/right-out driveway was not on
their original plan; it was placed there by the City Council. He said he seriously questions the
Council's judgement on this particular issue; he thinks they have created a safety issue here. He
thinks it should be a full access driveway.
Commissioner Peebles asked if there could be an entrance only on the west and an exit only on the
east.
Mr. Maykus said that needs to be a question to the Baileys.
Conunissioner Sandlin asked what type of traffic goes in and out of this site; he asked what a typical
day is like.
Scott Bailey said it is not a typical school where the bell would ring and the whole clientele would
run out at one time. He said the classes are staggered and the number of students vary. He
estimated there are three to four cars stacked occasionally.
Chairman Creighton said it is the stacking that concerns her. She has seen the dance studio traffic
stacking in the fire lanes at the current location.
Mr. Maykus said it will be different in the new location with a single tenant and a single business.
He said she has the ability to send home notices requesting that her patrons pick up and drop offa
certain way. He said there is an element of control with a single user which is a little different than
with a multiple tenant shopping center.
Commissioner Jones asked what the Conunission thinks about sending this forward with a full-
service driveway. He thinks leaving it the way it is would be setting it up for failure. He said the
right-in/right-out driveway is not required by ordinance.
Commissioner Sandlin said he agrees with Commissioner Jones. He does not see right-in/right-out
here and said it makes no sense. He asked where cars are going to go when the 17 spaces in the front
are full; it needs some sort of turnaround in the back.
Commissioner Jones asked if it would be better off having two driveways where one is strictly an
in and one is strictly an out, or to have one full service driveway.
Director Last said the driveway configuration mentioned with an in driveway on the west and an out
driveway on the east would mean the cars from Lot 7 would need to cross this lot in order to exit.
He said that is something the Commission may not want to do.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 24 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Commissioner Sandlin said when a car pulls into this parking lot, they have no choice but to park
and when the 17 spaces are full, there needs to be some sort of turnaround in the back. He asked if
there could be a hammerhead put in back so people would have enough room to turn around.
Commissioner Jones asked if they could go ahead and put a hammerhead on Lot 7 right now.
Mr. Maykus said their father-in-law owns Lot 7 so they probably could go ahead and do that.
Vice-Chairman Murphy said he thinks a full service driveway is the lessor of two evils.
Commissioner Sandlin said it would make the people living in Lake Crest happier, and he is in favor
o f it.
Mr. Maykus said if the Commission wants the hammerhead, Dana's dad, who owns the property to
the west, said that would be fine.
Chairman Creighton asked Director Last if he was at the City Council meeting where they approved
a right-in/right-out driveway. Director Last said he was at the meeting, and he believed it to be
ordinance driven.
Commissioner Jones said it was ordinance driven in the fact that the ordinance does not allow a full
service or a right-in/right-out driveway at this location. Director Last agreed.
Commissioner Peebles said he is almost to the point that the other lot could remain empty and txaffic
would still be a problem given the number of cars coming in and out of this lot.
Mr. Maykus said there has been an exhaustive effort given to try to make this work. He said they
have tried to meet the ordinances. He said when they put in 50' of stacking depth, they are in essence
saying there will never be more than 50 parking spaces on both lots because the ordinance says when
there is over 50 parking spaces, the stacking depth must be 75'. He said it is a self-imposition.
Chairman Creighton said the problem he is having developing this property is apparently created by
whatever financial restrictions which require him to put two buildings on two lots. She believes if
there was one building on one lot, they would not have had to come back tonight.
Commissioner Jones said he disagrees because the Commission was not prepared to grant him two
curb cuts at the last meeting. He said the second problem is that there are two lots here now and this
is a moot point.
Chairman Creighton said it is not a moot point.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 25 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Commissioner Jones said it is a moot point because there are two legally binding lots now.
Chairman Creighton said she disagrees that the problem cannot be fixed and that the problem was
not created by the applicant.
Mr. Maykus asked what situation they self-imposed.
Chairman Creighton said the 75' stacking depth.
Commissioner Jones asked how putting these two lots back into one will make them deeper.
Chairman Creighton said it would not make it deeper, but the stacking depth is driven by parking.
Conunissioner Jones agreed but said the parking will not get any deeper if these two lots were one
lot. He said the Commission does not have the ability to make this one lot now.
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Heating.
Larry Mudd, 104 Clear Lake Court, Southlake, Texas, said he has a real concern with the amount
of traffic which would be coming to the back if this driveway was hammerheaded. He said it would
be unfair to the residential property owners to throw that much traffic to the back parking lot. He
would prefer two curb cuts over the hammerhead suggestion. He said most commemial buildings
operate from 8:00 to 5:00, but this one will operate until around 10:00 to 11:00 p.m. He said he
would prefer to have two curb cuts - one right-in "entrance only" and one right-out "exit only."
Stephanie Chesbro agreed that she would like two curb cuts with only one building on the entire
property. She stated her concern about the possibility of having two different fence types and
heights on her property.
Commissioner Jones asked the applicant if they intend to build the entire fence at one time.
Mr. Maykus said they are going to build the entirety of the back fence at one time.
Commissioner Peebles said they came in and asked for two lots; they can come back and ask for one.
He asked the City Attorney if they can come back and ask for one lot.
Commissioner Jones said there is no reason why they cannot come back and ask for one lot, but the
City cannot require them to.
Ms. Drayovitch called for an Executive Session.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 26 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Chairman Creighton said the Commission will adjourn for an Executive Session to seek the advice
of the City Attorney. The Executive Session began at 8:16 p.m. and ended at 8:20 p.m.
Chairman Creighton asked if there was any action necessary as a result of the Executive Session.
Ms. Drayovitch said no.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01 - 14-99, tape 1, section # 1837)
In response to Commissioner Peebles question, she said there is nothing that prohibits the applicant
from asking for one lot instead of two, but it is the applicant's choice.
Mary Dominguez (SPIN Representative #14) said she and her neighbors are generally in favor of this
request. She said their deep concern is the amount of traffic. She said Lake Crest's only access is
located just west of this development. She said people coming from Shady Oaks commonly use the
shoulder to access White Chapel Boulevard. She stated her concerns about a full access drive and
said she did not know of a solution to this problem. She is worried about a building going in next
to this one and said it will only worsen an existing traffic problem. She said this is not that large of
a lot for all of this to be going on.
Glen Teal, 101 Clear Lake Court, Southlake, Texas, said he is basically in favor of this but feels it
is very intense. He asked what the required stacking depth is for this property.
Chairman Creighton said it is 75'.
Mr. Teal said this is too intense a development the way it is, and it should not be done on one of
these lots.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Peebles said this should come in as one lot instead of two, and it should have an
entrance only driveway on the west and an exit only on the east. He said the Commission could use
their violation of the stacking depth and possibly other ordinances as reason to cause them to come
back with this designed differently. He said if they came back with one lot, he would be in favor of
it but otherwise he is not.
Chairman Creighton said she has really struggled with this. She said this property should have never
had the current zoning on it. When she looks at the other uses which are allowed under this zoning
district, she wants the dance studio there, but she does not think the right-in/right-out driveway is
the proper solution. She does not see an entirely safe solution to this problem, and yet at the same
time, she wants very much for this building to go there.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 27 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
Vice-Chairman Murphy thinks the Commission has worked hard and the applicant has worked hard
in alleviating a number of the concerns about stacking. The one thing the Commission is going to
have to deal with in terms of granting forgiveness on is the stacking depth, whether it is 75' or 50'.
He would like to see this developed on this site and would like to see the hammerhead if only as a
safety valve in the event there are issues pertaining to getting traffic offF. M. 1709. He thinks it
needs to be a full access driveway and does not think right-in/right-out is the answer.
Commissioner Jones thinks the applicant has done a good job of trying to work with the Commission
on this. He said the applicant has asked for less variances and the variances he is asking for are
primarily driven by the lot itself.
Motion was made to approve ZA 98-145, subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated
January 11, 1999, deleting Items #la (driveway spacing) and #lb (stacking depth); granting the
reduction in the number of parking spaces from 33 to 30; deleting Item #3a (bufferyard along
property line of Lots 7 and 8); eliminating the right-in/fight-out driveway and making it a full service
driveway with a hammerhead at the end of the driveway; and accepting the applicant's commitment
to extend the fence along the entirety of Lots 7 and 8.
Motion: Sandlin
Second: Murphy
Chairman Creighton said she thinks the applicant has gone to a great deal of effort to put a
residential style building on this site. She said as she looks through the permitted uses in the "C-2"
zoning district, she said this is a pretty good use, but she would much prefer to see one building on
this entire site.
Ayes: Murphy, Sandlin, Jones, Creighton
Nays: Peebles
Approved: 4-1
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-14-99, tape 1, section #2535)
Chairman Creighton called for a break at 8:40 p.m.
Chairman Creighton called the meeting back to order at 8:58 p.m.
Vice-Chairman Murphy said there was a tabling for Primrose School during the break.
AGENDA ITEM #17h. ZA 98-161. REZONING AND SITE PLAN FOR PRIMROSE SCHOOL:
Motion was made at the applicant's request to table ZA 98-161 and to continue the Public Hearing
to the January 21, 1999, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and requesting it to be placed
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 28 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
as high on that agenda as possible.
Motion: Murphy
Second: Sandlin
Ayes: Sandlin, Peebles, Jones, Murphy, Creighton
Nays: None
Approved: 5-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-14-99, tape 1, section #2678)
AGENDA ITEM #17i. ZA 98-162. REZONINQ, AND
AGENDA ITEM #17_i. ZA 98-163. PLAT SHOW1NG FOR PROPOSED LOTS 10 AND 11. J.G.
ALLEN NO. 18 ADDITION;
Motion was made at the applicant's request to table ZA 98-162 and ZA 98-163 and to continue the
Public Hearings to the January 21, 1999, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and requesting
these cases to be placed as high on that agenda as possible.
Motion: Murphy
Second: Sandlin
Ayes: Peebles, Jones, Murphy, Sandlin, Creighton
Nays: None
Approved: 5-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-14-99, tape 1, section #2697)
AGENDA ITEM #17b. ZA 98-149. REZON1NG AND SITE PLAN FOR BARTON HOUSE
UNCOMMON CARE. 1NC.:
Senior Comprehensive Planner Chris Carpenter informed the Commission that this request is for a
Zoning Change on property legally described as Tract 6D situated in the Thomas M. Hood Survey,
Abstract No. 706, and being approximately 3.046 acres. A Site Plan for Barton House Uncommon
Care, Inc., will be considered with this request. The property is located on the west side of North
White Chapel Boulevard approximately 240' south of Countryside Court. The Current Zoning is
"AG" Agricultural District. The Requested Zoning is "S-P-I" Detailed Site Plan District with "O-1"
Office District uses including a personal care facility for Alzheimer's patients. The Land Use
Category is Office Commercial. The Owner and Applicant is Uncommon Care, Inc., dba Barton
House. Ten (10) written notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area, and
one (1) response was received which was undecided.
Bob Bouchard, 2600 Lake Austin Boulevard, Austin, Texas, presented this case to the Commission.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 29 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
He said Barton House is a very small assisted living facility designed specifically for people with
Alzheimer's disease. His company owns and operates four similar facilities: San Antonio, Houston,
Austin, Fort Worth, and Southlake would be their fifth. There would be 20 residents in the first
phase and 16 residents in the second phase with each having their own room. Each facility has
between two (2) to eight (8) employees depending on what time of day it is. There would be about
ten (10) parking spaces per facility.
Chairman Creighton asked if this is the type of facility is one where people basically invest money
(similar to a condominium) which would entitle them to residence there for the remainder of their
life along with a monthly fee.
Mr. Bouchard said no; it is totally monthly. The residents can leave anytime they choose, and the
facility can also ask them to leave if the facility feels they are inappropriate for the type of care the
facility provides. It is a very simple monthly lease.
Commissioner Sandlin asked where his Fort Worth location is located. Mr. Bouchard said it is just
south of Ridglea Country Club on Bryant Irvin.
Commissioner Sandlin asked how many residents are in the Fort Worth location. Mr. Bouchard said
there are 20 residents. Once you get over 20 residents with Alzheimer's disease it becomes fairly
unmanageable, and they do not think it is good care and neither does the Alzheimer's Association.
Commissioner Sandlin asked if there is a total of 36 patients at Barton House. Mr. Bouchard said
yes, but there is also one apartment in the first facility which they give out to a nursing student or
a medical student. They do not charge for it, and they are not included in their staffing ratios. He
said the apartment is a variance they are requesting because it put them over on the density ratios.
Commissioner Sandlinasked howlong he has been operating these types ofcenters. Mr. Bouchard
said 12 years, and this is the fifth center with Uncommon Care. He asked the Commissioners to visit
his facilities at any time. He said they are attempting to normalize what is typically a mistreated
disease.
Commissioner Jones asked how many units they would need to lose to comply with Staff Review
Comment #1.c.3 regarding the density. Mr. Bouchard thinks they would only need to lose the
student apartment. He said they have 3.047 acres, and they have 36 units in which they did include
the apartment in their calculations and that it what made them exceed the allowed density.
Commissioner Peebles said since 20 is the maximum number of residents they feel comfortable
having in one facility, they should keep their nursing student apartment and just have 19 resident
units. Mr. Bouchard said the problem with btfilding 16 and 20 unit facilities is that his margins are
much less than most other health care facilities.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 30 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Vice-Chairman asked staffto clarify whether density is calculated on net acreage or gross acreage.
Director Last said it is net of the dedicated public right-of-way inclusive of the entire area of the lot.
Commissioner Peebles asked Mr. Bouchard if it meant whether or not this case would pass, would
he eliminate one of the 20 units. Mr. Bouchard said he would rather have the twentieth unit; the
project is so expensive to build and to operate. He said losing the one unit means losing 5% of total
gross revenue of a 20 bed facility. He said they intend to build the 20 unit facility first, and they may
never build the second facility.
Vice-Chairman Murphy said he could put the student apartment in the second phase and go ahead
and build the 20 unit facility. Mr. Bouchard said they could do that.
Chairman Creighton asked why some units are larger than others if their facility is based on the
premise that making any unit larger than 270 s.f. encourages hibernation. Mr. Bouchard said some
people build big Alzheimer units so they are flexible with either being used for Alzheimer patients
or regular assisted living patients; if they are slow to fill the Alzheimer's wing, they will call it
assisted living.
Chairman Creighton asked why some traits are shown at 350 s.f. while others are smaller. Mr.
Bouchard said they do not have any which are 350 s.f.
Robert Montgomery, 3808 Big Horn Trail, Piano, Texas, said they do not have any 350 s.f. units;
that is the amount listed in staff comments. He said they have addressed all staff comments with
their new plan which shows the same bedroom all the way around. The bedrooms are roughly 271
s.f. to 275 s.f. each having its own restroom but no shower.
Commissioner Peebles asked Mr. Montgomery if he is saying all of their units are between 270 s.f.
to 280 s.f., and Mr. Montgomery said yes.
Commissioner Jones asked if eliminating the student apartment would have any affect on the
vertical/horizontal articulation. Mr. Montgomery said he does not think it would.
Vice-Chairman Murphy said he is still waiting for staff to tell him whether or not losing the student
apartment would have any affect regarding the density of Phase 1.
Chairman Creighton asked if the applicant has any data which backs up their premise that an
Alzheimer's patient is better off in a 270 s.f. room than a 350 s.f. room.
Mr. Bouchard said he sent the Commission a handout regarding a man from the University of
Wisconsin who is considered to be the gum of Alzheimer's in the United States, and he has published
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 31 of 49
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
a book on the temporary environments of people with dementia. This man ranks what he thinks to
be the top 15 centers in the United States and all have smaller rooms with a small resident
population. There is some revolutionary thought going on right now as to the care of Alzheimer's
patients.
Commissioner Peebles said he is not saying Mr. Bouchard is wrong, but the Commission did not
receive the complete work and what they did receive does not reference the need for smaller units.
Chairman Creighton said the assisted living ordinance is a relatively new ordinance in Southlake,
and a great deal of thought went into it. She realizes their proposal is based upon the assumption
that Alzheimer's patients are very different from the assisted living population at large, but at the
same time, the applicant will be creating a building, whether or not this business is successful, in
which the City will be left with. If this variance is granted, the City will be left with a building
which has a much higher density than the City's ordinance allows. Before she is willing to do that,
she would need to see something that says there is something wrong with putting in a 450 s.f. unit.
She can easily accept the premise that a smaller community is better for these people, but she has
a hard time believing that a few less square feet in their bedroom makes the difference.
Mr. Bouchard asked if their facility administrator could address the Commission.
Cindy Clements, 1421 Quick Silver Circle, Round Rock, Texas, said she has been a psychiatric nurse
for approximately 20 years and said these patients are similar to someone with a psychiatric disorder.
The patients require structure in their environment and if they are given a big room where they can
go vegetate, they will do that; they get lost in their "stuff." The more "stufff they have, the more
they get lost in it. Their goal is to bring the patients out of their rooms and out of their stuff and into
a large environment which provides an equal amount of space. They provide the same amount of
living space, it is just not in their rooms.
Chairman Creighton asked if a 450 s.f. room is so detrimental to their patients that they are not
interested in building a facility in Southlake with that size room. Ms. Clements said she is not an
owner so she cannot answer that question but feels it would be a disservice to the residents. Mr.
Bouchard said they have spent a lot of time on the design of the facility and thinks it is the best
design he has ever seen.
Commissioner Peebles asked if an assisted living facility could go into this Alzheimer's facility if
they wanted to.
Director Last said since this is an "S-P-1" zoning request, it could be limited.
Chairman Creighton said it is the physical structure in which the City has to worry about what else
can go in there. In her mind, that is why it makes sense to stick with the square foot minimum
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 32 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
because an assisted living facility is the next most likely use for this property.
Commissioner Sandlin said since this is an "S-P-1" zoning request, the Commission could tie the
approval to this use only.
Regarding the requested zoning CS-P-l" with "O-1" uses including a personal care facility for
Alzheimer's patients), Director Last said regarding the parking requirements they could not convert
this to "O-1" because it would require 54 parking spaces rather than the 29 shown. In all likelihood,
if it is anything other than this use, they would have to come back with a new "S-P" request.
Director Last said since their site is approximately 2.7 acres and they are proposing 37 units for both
buildings for a density of 13.7 units per acre, the 2.7 acres multiplied by 12 gives them gives them
32.4 units allowed, so they are 5 units over what is allowed by ordinance.
Commissioner Jones said if that figure includes Phase 2 and the applicant is not even sure he will
put in Phase 2, the applicant could eliminate five (5) units from their Phase 2 plan.
Mr. Bouchard said he does not understand where staff got the 2.7 acres; he thought it was 3 acres
which is where they came up with the 36 units.
Director Last said they were required to dedicate a significant right-of-way on White Chapel
Boulevard.
Commissioner Jones said if the applicant eliminates five (5) units from Phase 2, they would be in
compliance with the ordinance and asked the applicant if he would be willing to do that.
Chairman Creighton said she has a problem with that; she has a problem robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Mr. Bouchard said five (5) units is a major impact to the project, but they would proceed with that.
Chairman Creighton asked if in doing that, the Commission would be assured there would be no
more than the allowed number of units in Phase 2.
Ms. Drayovitch said the applicant would have to come back with a change in the zoning and the site
plan.
Director Last said they are proposing 20 units in Phase 1, so they could do no more than 12 in Phase
2 and that could be mandated in the zoning.
Commissioner Sandlin said this is not the only way to do this, they could go get some more land and
they would be in compliance with the 12 units per acre.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 33 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~.21
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Commissioner Peebles said given the nature of the facility, he thinks it is more a matter of room size.
If the rooms were larger, there would be less of them and they would come into compliance with the
ordinance. The density does not bother him. He would prefer the applicant put 18 units in one
building and 14 in the other and lose the apartment. The applicant is not going to build a building
with 11 units in it, so the Commission would be killing Phase 2 by requiting him to do that. He does
not see the purpose in that. If this project is successful and it is a good thing for Alzheimer's
patients, then there ought to be a Phase 2.
Commissioner Sandlin said he just needs more land to do that many units.
Mr. Bouchard said it is really hard to make it work in a city like Southlake due to the cost of land.
Chairman Creighton asked Commissioner Peebles if he is concerned about the minimum square feet
or the density or neither.
Commissioner Peebles said neither. He said if the applicant is saying 20 units is the maximum
number of units there should be in a facility, then he ought to be willing to take that down to 18
because why should he want the maximum available. If the rest of the Commission has concerns
about the density, they should rethink this and put 18 in one building, lose the apartment, and put
14 in the other. That is what he would prefer.
Mr. Bouchard said he will have to revisit the entire economics of the project; he cannot agree to this
tonight.
Ms. Clements said it is a licensing issue for them because 16 units is where the break is.
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Heating.
Cathy Carris said she lives in Ravenaux Place. They are looking at this facility from the perspective
of what is going to happen to it if they go under. At least if the building meets the City's ordinances,
it can be marketed as an assisted living facility. That way it would not have to be Alzheimer's, it
could be any type of assisted living. She asked what type of fencing is required. She questioned
where the water is going to flow. She asked what type of security they will have for this facility.
Vice-Chairman Murphy asked if there has been SPIN meetings.
Ms. Carris said she never received any notices from her SPIN representative regarding meetings.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-14-99, tape 1, section #4416)
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 34 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Mr. Bouchard said most of the drainage will probably go to an existing creek. He said they made
every attempt to contact everyone regarding a SPIN meeting. They had two (2) SPIN meetings.
There is an 8' fence required. The worst possible thing for them would be for a resident to get out
of the facility so the fence in the back is an 8' tall wooden privacy fence. The front doors are mag-
locked and only open in the case of a fire. To gain entry to the facility, visitors have to punch a
keypad and then the lock reactivates itself. The windows will only open to a certain degree and no
more.
Commissioner Peebles asked the applicant about the Tree Preservation Analysis regarding grading.
Mr. Bouchard said they redesigned their entire plan to accommodate the comment regarding grading
and to avoid the critical root zone.
Mr. Montgomery said they submitted the plans on Monday prior to this meeting. They resubmitted
plans addressing the staff review comments and saved some rather large trees by doing so.
Commissioner Peebles asked if the Commission has those new plans tonight. Director Last said no
because the applicant resubmitted after the review and the packet went out.
Commissioner Peebles asked if the units in the Fort Worth facility are all the same size. Mr.
Bouchard said it is exactly like this one and all of the rooms are the same size.
Commissioner Peebles asked if the room size is similar in their other facilities. Mr. Bouchard said
they are exactly like this one.
Commissioner Peebles asked what the occupancy rate is on their other facilities. Mr. Bouchard said
it is 100% on every one of them. He said the Fort Worth facility is being framed right now, but the
other facilities have 100% occupancy with a 100% waiting list.
Regarding Staff Comment Item #3, Chairman Creighton asked if it is allowed for the applicant to
use existing canopy and accent trees outside the designated limits of the bufferyards in lieu of
additional plantings. Director Last stated yes and said trees within 50' of the property line can be
used as credits against required trees in the bufferyard. As well, interior trees that are preserved
where 50% or more of the critical root zone is saved can be used for credits against interior planting
requirements.
Commissioner Peebles asked if this case could be heard next week if it was tabled to that meeting.
Director Last said it could be heard but not reviewed because the reviews for next week are going
out tomorrow.
Commissioner Peebles said he would like to see a review on the new plans and would like to have
more time to think over how he feels about the room size.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 35 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Mr. Bouchard said that would be fine. They are less concerned with time and if there is anything
they can do, they would rather get the Commissioners comfortable with the issue.
Commissioner Peebles said he would like to see the studies regarding the room size.
Chairman Creighton said she would like to see the studies which say anything larger than 270 s.f.
per room is detrimental to the proper treatment of an Alzheimer patient. It is not hard for her to
accept that no more than 20 patients in this type of facility should be grouped together because that
makes perfect sense to her, but she is not ready to make the leap into accepting the difference in the
square feet of the room also makes that much difference.
Commissioner Jones said he would be willing to accept the applicant's expertise on what their own
needs are.
Chairman Creighton said she would like to know if what is driving the square feet is economics or
is it the best interest of the patient.
Commissioner Jones said he thinks the Commission is being less than courteous and thinks it is
inappropriate to question them on that.
Mr. Bouchard said their facility costs more than any facility in the United States; they spend more
money per square foot than any other in the country.
Commissioner Jones said they have three (3) variances before them, the Commission is now one (1)
month behind, and asked if they could possibly address the three (3) variances and move the
applicant forward.
Chairman Creighton said the applicant has already agreed to table.
Commissioner Sandlin said if the applicant is saying 270 s.fi per room, then that is fine, but he
agrees with Chairman Creighton regarding staying with 12 units per acre. He said they could
possibly buy a 1/3 acre strip from the people to the south. They do not have to change anything in
the first phase, but they might have to buy a strip of land for the second phase. He asked where the
rest of the Commission is regarding the articulation.
Mr. Bouchard said he could put a cupula on the side and break that line and the articulation issue
would be over. He asked to table to the February 4 meeting. He said he will try to deal with the
room size issue.
Commissioner Peebles said they need to see very specific studies regarding room size.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 36 of 49
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Mr. Bouchard said what if they cannot find very specific studies.
Vice-Chairman Murphy said if they cannot find studies, then they need to bring someone from the
Texas Department of Health and Human Services.
Mr. Bouchard said he will. He asked the Commission to look at their web site and, if possible, visit
one of their facilities.
Motion was made at the applicant's request to table ZA 98-149 to the February 4, 1999, Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting.
Motion: Murphy
Second: Sandlin
Ayes: Jones, Murphy, Sandlin, Peebles, Creighton
Nays: None
Approved: 5-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-14-99, tape 1, section #5563)
AGENDA ITEM #17c. ZA 98-152. SITE PLAN FOR PANORAMA PLACE. PHASE II:
Senior Comprehensive Planner Chris Carpenter informed the Commission that this request is for a
Site Plan for Panorama Place, Phase II, on property legally described as a portion of Tract 5A
situated in the W. W. Hall Survey, Abstract No. 695, and being approximately 0.89 acres. The
property is located on the west side of North Carroll Avenue approximately 375' south of Southcrest
Court. The Current Zoning is "O-1" Office District. The Land Use Category is Office Commemial.
The Owner of the property is John Cole. The Applicant is Panorama Properties, Inc. Fourteen (14)
written notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area, and one (1) response
was received which was in favor.
Will Edgington (Panorama Properties, Inc.) presented this case to the Commission. He had a
question regarding roofing in response to the new residential adjacency standards. They are asking
to do a copper roofing material on the small low-pitched front portion of the roof and asked for
approval of that material. He said there was not a staff comment regarding the copper roofing
simply because they did not note it anywhere on their plans. Regarding Item #7 - Impervious
Coverage, he thinks staff miscalculated the number and said they have under 61% impervious
coverage. Regarding Item #18, he said the height of one of their buildings is 20' 1". He also
expressed his concern regarding Item #13 by saying he does not have any problem changing the
drainage easement from 10' to 15', but he hopes he can still put parking in that easement.
Director Last said parking can go in an easement as long as it does not impede the flow of water.
He said Item # 15 is asking for curbs to the parking lots along the west and south sides and said the
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 37 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
two requirements may be conflicting. He believes they can find a way to make it work; the
engineers would just need to review what the applicant is proposing in that area.
Vice-Chairman Murphy said this item could be passed with those comments left in the review and
the applicant would need to work it out.
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Heating. No one in the audience stepped forward to speak.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
Motion was made to approve ZA 98-152, subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 1, dated
December 11, 1998, accepting the proposed copper roofing as proposed.
Motion: Murphy
Second: Sandlin
Chairman Creighton said it was the Commission's opinion since the copper roofing would undergo
a natural aging process, it would not be reflective for any period of time and, therefore, would not
violate the intent of the residential adjacency ordinance.
Ayes: Murphy, Sandlin, Peebles, Jones, Creighton
Nays: None
Approved: 5~0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-14-99, tape 1, section #6273)
AGENDA ITEM #17d. ZA 98-157. REZON1NG:
Senior Comprehensive Planner Chris Carpenter informed the Commission that this request is for a
Zoning Change on property legally described as being Tracts 1A1A2B and 1A1A2C situated in the
Ben J. Foster Survey, Abstract No. 519, and being approximately 4.279 acres. The property is
located on the northeast comer of the intersection of Randol Mill Avenue and Gifford Court. The
Current Zoning is "AG" Agricultural District. The Requested Zoning is "SFolA" Single Family
Residential District. The Land Use Category is Low Density Residential. The Owners and
Applicants are Parvez and Seema Malik. Four (4) written notices were sent to property owners
within the 200' notification area, and no responses were received.
There was no one present to represent the applicant.
Director Last said the Commission has the following options: the Commission could approve the
zoning and approve the plat; they could table the zoning and take action to deny the plat because
there would not be appropriate zoning on the lots, but they do need to take action on the plat since
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 38 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
,--~1
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
it was received on December 14 and even if it was tabled to January 21, it would be past the 30-day
rule, so they do not even have an option to continue it to the next meeting.
Commissioner Sandlin said he does not have any problems with the zoning, but he does have
problems with the plat.
Director Last said if the Commission does not have any problems with the zoning, they could bring
the plat up and make whatever recommendations they feel comfortable with. That would give better
guidance than a rejection because City Council would not know what their desires are.
Chairman Creighton said the only problem she has with the zoning is that the applicant is not even
present to request it. Her first preference would be to table the zoning and deny the plat since they
do not have zoning and let the applicant come back.
Motion was made to table ZA 98-157 and to continue the Public Hearing to the February 4, 1999,
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting due to the applicant not being present.
Motion: Murphy
Second: Peebles
Ayes: Sandlin, Peebles, Jones, Murphy, Creighton
Nays: None
Approved: 5-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-14-99, tape 1, section #6729)
AGENDA ITEM #17e. ZA 98-158. PRELIMiNARY PLAT FOR PROPOSED LOTS 1 AND 2.
MALIK ESTATES ADDITION:
Senior Comprehensive Planner Chris Carpenter informed the Commission that this request is for a
Preliminary Plat for proposed Lots 1 & 2, Malik Estates Addition on property legally described as
being Tracts 1A1A2B and 1A1A2C situated in the Ben J. Foster Survey, Abstract No. 519, and
being approximately 4.279 acres. The property is located onthe northeast comer of the intersection
of Randol Mill Avenue and Gifford Court. The Current Zoning is "AG" Agricultural District. The
Land Use Category is Low Density Residential. The Owners and Applicants are Parvez and Seema
Malik. Four (4) written notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area, and
no responses were received.
There was no one present to represent the applicant.
Motion was made to deny ZA 98-158 due to lack of adequate zoning and the items on the review
letter.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 39 of 49
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Motion: Jones
Second: Murphy
Director Last said they may need to open and close the Public Hearing since it was advertised as
such.
Commissioner Jones withdrew his motion, and Vice-Chairman Murphy seconded it.
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience stepped forward to speak.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
Motion was made to deny ZA 98-158 due to lack of adequate zoning and the items on the review
letter.
Motion: Jones
Second: Murphy
Ayes: Peebles, Jones, Murphy, Sandlin, Creighton
Nays: None
Approved: 5-0 (to deny)
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-14-99, tape 1, section #6875)
Chairman Creighton called for a break at 10:31 p.m.
Chairman Creighton called the meeting back to order at 10:50 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #17f. ZA 98-159. SITE PLAN FOR GATEWAY PLAZA:
Senior Comprehensive Planner Chris Carpenter informed the Commission that this request is for a
Site Plan for Gateway Plaza on property legally described as Lots 1 through 14, Block E; Lots 20
through 22, Block E; Lot 31 and a portion of Lot 32, Block E; Lots 1 through 6, Block D; a public
alley, and the following dedicated public Rights-of-Way: Austin Place, Oak Knolls Drive, and
Gatewood Lane, all being a part of Oak Knolls Lakeview Addition, an addition to the City of
Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Volume 388-W, Page 51, Plat
Records, Tarrant County, Texas; Lot 30R, Block E, Oak Knolls Lakeview Addition, an addition to
the City of S outhlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Volume 388-183,
Page 40, Plat Records, Tan'ant County, Texas; Lots lA, lB, 2, 3A, 3B, 3B1, 4, 5A, and 5B, Block
A, and a public alley, all being a part of Oak Knoll Business Park, an addition to the City of
Southlake; Tract 6B, W. E. Mayfield's Subdivision, according to the plat recorded in Volume 388-C,
Page 4, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and Tracts 3, 3B, 3C, 3E, 8, and 8B, situated in the
Thomas Easter Survey, Abstract No. 474, excluding the proposed Lots 4 and 5, Block B, (located
in the northwest comer of the site and totaling approximately 2.4658 acres) and being approximately
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 40 of 49
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
,-a1
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
39.5212 acres. The property is located on the northwest comer of the intersection of State Highway
114 and East Southlake Boulevard (F.M. 1709). The Current Zoning is S-P-2" Generalized Site
Plan District with limited "C-3" General Commercial District uses excluding the following uses:
22.2 (7) Conventional golf courses, including outdoor driving ranges accessory thereto, but
excluding outdoor miniature golf courses; 22.2 (16) Lodges, sororities and/or fraternities; 22.2 (17)
Deleting the words "and care" but allowing "medical care facilities to include nursing -~nd care
homes, hospitals with their related facilities and supportive retail and personal service uses operated
by or under the control of the hospital primarily for the convenience of patients, staff and 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; and requiring that
Building 13 to be contained in its own lot and to allow single story O-1 uses only or a sit-down
restaurant with table service within the same pavement envelope. The Land Use Category is
Mixed Use. The Owners of the property are: Southlake Properties, Inc.; Shirley A. McCarty; John
Michael Tare; Victor L. Leighton; Carlos E. Dorris; Thomas C. and Nancy C. Reilly; Cindy Jane
Suski; Mary Louise Albano; Peter and Kristine Johnson; Eugene and Frances A. Bump; Mary
Hutchison; Charles Wood; Dennis Carpenter; and Kevin Lawrence Marks. The Applicant is Lincoln
Property Company. Thirty-three (33) written notices were sent to property owners within the 200'
notification area, and four (4) responses were received which were in favor.
Terry Wilkinson, 751 E. Southlake Boulevard, Southlake, Texas', presented this case to the
Commission. On Item #1.a regarding driveway spacing, they have either improved the spacing
between driveways or are in compliance with the ordinance on all driveways with the exception of
Drive A to B, and he asked for a variance to that driveway.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-14-99, tape 1, section #7250)
He asked for a variance to Item #1.b because driveway C5 has moved over by 10' in order to
minimize fill work adjacent to the open area. He asked for a variance to Item gl .c and said their new
drive configuration has 89'/130' which improves the short side by 11' and the long side is within 5'
of their Concept Plan.
Regarding Item # 1.f.2, staff recommends realigning the westernmost drive to discourage cut-through
traffic. He said this drive alignment has more tums and offsets than the Concept Plan. The Village
Center East Cimulation Study provided for a new road west of this site, and he believes that road
will be an easier access than going through this shopping center.
Commissioner Peebles asked if they would consider putting speed bumps along that drive. Mr.
Wilkinson said they did not perceive it to be a potential problem, but they would certainly consider
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 41 of 49
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
speed bumps to discourage it if it became a problem. They envision it being mainly a service drive
and would rather the large trucks not have to go over big speed bumps. After discussion, the
Commission decided to require speed bumps along this drive according to the Fire Marshal's
recommendations.
Mr. Wilkinson asked for a variance to Item #3.a which requires a 25' Type J bufferyard at the north
side of Lot 26R, south and adjacent to State Highway 114. He said they are showing a 10'
bufferyard in this area because it is adjacent to a drainage easement and not State Highway 114 right-
of-way.
Vice-Chairman Murphy asked if he is willing to provide the plantings for a 25' bufferyard elsewhere
on the site. Mr. Wilkinson said yes. Mr. Wilkinson said this is a critical item for them because their
tenant for this space requires a minimum number of parking spaces, and he is at their minimum.
Chairman Creighton asked who that tenant is. Mr. Wilkinson said it is Cole's Department Store.
Mr. Wilkinson asked for a variance to Items #3.f. and #3.g which requires a 5' Type A bufferyard
between Lots 1 and 2, Block B. He said they are relocating this bufferyard in the open area between
Lots 2 and 3. Chairman Creighton asked if he would consider instead planting those plantings along
F. M. 1709 to further obscure the view. He said they would do that.
Commissioner Peebles asked about Item #2 on the Tree Preservation Analysis which references the
Grading Plan. Mr. Wilkinson said they are asking to go ahead and grade Block A because they need
to balance the dirt on site. By grading Block A at the same time they grade Block B, they will
eliminate a large amount of track traffic on the roads. He said they will be coming back to P&Z and
City Council at a later date with Site Plans on Block A.
Chairman Creighton asked how long this property will be graded but not built upon.
Robert Dozier (Lincoln Property Company) said they do not have any users for that yet, but the
overall development should be completed sometime in the summer of 2000.
Mr. Wilkinson said they have agreed to go ahead and put in the perimeter landscaping and the drives.
He said Block A will not simply be graded and left alone because they intend to go ahead and
establish all of the perimeter landscaping.
Director Last asked if he means the perimeter only on F.M. 1709 or the entire perimeter of Block
A. Mr. Wilkinson said he just anticipated the F.M. 1709 frontage.
Conunissioner Peebles asked if they would provide the landscaping and the bufferyards for the entire
perimeter of Block A and not just on F.M. 1709. Mr. Dozier and Mr. Wilkinson said they would do
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 42 of 49
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~21
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
that.
Jack O'Brien (O'Brien & Associates') 5310 Harvest Hill Road, Suite 136, Dallas, Texas, addressed
the articulation issues. On Sheet #SP.5 for Buildings 14 and 15, the requirement is 4' minimum
horizontal offsets. He said they can accomplish this, however, the resulting valley will result in
water infiltration problems, and he requested a variance. On Sheet #SP.6 for Btfildings 18, 2, 3, and
3A, no articulation is shown. He feels these building faces are sufficiently removed from the street
and are not visible. They have doubled the bufferyard and have the buildings set back from the
property line by 70' to 80'.
Chairman Creighton said the backside of the buildings in Town Square look horrible and she does
not want to see it ever repeated in Southlake. Mr. Wilkinson said these buildings are approximately
400' from F.M. 1709, 80' from the creek on the west, and 700' to 800' from State Highway 114, so
he does not think there is much opportunity to see them.
Commissioner Peebles said they need to articulate these buildings.
Vice-Chairman Murphy agreed and said he does not understand why they came in here with no
articulation whatsoever; it does not seem like it would be that hard. He is not as concerned about
the interiors, but the westernmost exposures need some articulation.
Commissioner Sandlin asked the applicant if that is a problem.
Mr. Dozier said the western exposures do not face any streets or roads or anything.
Commissioner Sandlin agreed that today it does not but said that is the problem, nobody knows what
is going to be there.
Mr. Wilkinson asked ifa lessor degree of articulation would be acceptable. He said it would require
them to push the road over more, and they are trying to keep it as far from the creek as possible.
Chairman Creighton suggested maybe putting ornamentation on the buildings. Mr. O'Brien said they
could put some reveals on the buildings.
Commissioner Peebles said they should comply entirely with the articulation.
Vice-Chairman Murphy agreed with Commissioner Peebles. He thinks the Commission should send
this along requesting compliance from the applicant, but if they want to go to City Council with
something other than that, they could take some pictures to City Council showing what they want.
Commissioner Sandlin said City Council could very well support it if the applicant could show them
something.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 43 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Commissioner Jones said if he was going to trade something for the articulation, he would want a
buffer of trees along that side yard - something to visually block it such as Mondell pines.
Mr. O'Brien asked for a variance on Sheet #SP.7 for Building 6 which requires 10' minimum
articulation lengths and 6' is provided. Director Last said the review said ail facades do not comply,
but he thinks the only one that does not is the north facade which is actually not visible so he thinks
the comment for SP.7 goes away. Vice-Chairman Murphy said the Commission should require
compliance with this comment and let the applicant work it out with staff.
Regarding Item #14, Mr. Wilkinson asked for a variance requiring the loading dock for Building 8
to be screened from view from adjacent right-of-ways with a minimum 10' masonry wall. He said
they are providing a screening wall in ail areas with the exception of the driveways. He said this area
will not be visible from the rights-of-way due to their landscaping berms, and the topography of the
property.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-14-99, tape 2, section # 1313)
Chairman Creighton asked what the effect of the narrative is on the plan. For example, she asked if
the statement on Page 2, "Buildings on outparcels (Block A, Lot 1, 2, and 3, Block B, Lots 4 and 5)
will be required to have similar materials to the shopping center," is restricting the applicant to this
and asked if the narrative goes along with the Site Plan. Director Last said yes, it would accompany
the Site Plan and anything in the narrative would be part of the Site Plan approval. He said the
Commission can modify anything in the narrative as well as anything on the Site Plan. He said any
use aspect or zoning aspect is obviously water under the bridge at this point but details relating to
the materials on the facade, bufferyards, landscaping, etc. are part of this plan.
Vice-Chairman Murphy said he would think staffwould have been aware of what the narrative was
and anything that was in conflict in the narrative would have been commented on in the staff review.
Director Last agreed.
Chairman Creighton asked if the Commission could modify the comment to say the building
materials would be "identical" instead of"similar." Director Last said that might be a question they
need to answer.
Mr. Wilkinson said they were tied down at City Council level on the Concept Plan. They have to
meet 60% brick on the outparcel buildings.
Mr. Dozier said he does not know if that percentage was applicable to Block A. He said they do not
have a problem saying the outparcels will be predominantly the same, but they cannot agree to
identical because, for example, if someone wants wooden windows in an outparcel, they do not have
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 44 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
wooden windows in the shopping center.
Director Last said the Commission has another opportunity to look at the outparcels since they have
to come back for Site Plan approval.
Commissioner Peebles asked if they would use identical brick and stone on the outparcels.
Mr. Dozier said they have no idea who the tenants are going to be so they cannot commit to
"identical." He suggested the words "architecturally compatible."
Commissioner Peebles said he would be alright with architecturally compatible.
Chairman Creighton asked if it would be architecturally compatible brick and stone. Mr. Dozier said
the buildings would be architecturally compatible with the balance of the shopping center which is
brick and stone.
Vice-Chairman Murphy asked if they would agree to the wording, "Buildings on outparcels (Block
A, Lot 1, 2, and 3, Block B, Lots 4 and 5) will be required to have similar materials to the shopping
center and be considered to be architecturally compatible." Mr. Dozier said that is fine.
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Hearing.
Thomas Reilly (homeowners'representative for the Oak Knoll Addition) said all the homeowners'
contracts are dependant upon the approval of this Site Plan by the Commission and the City Council.
It has been difficult to keep 11 people together to work with the City and with the developers. At
this point, half of the people have already vacated the City and they are all still in favor of this
development and have been since the beginning. On his own personal account, he thinks the
Commission is being too restrictive. The developer has presented a beautiful design and a beautiful
entryway to the City.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Peebles asked if there is any way to get more green space at the very front of this
development. He asked if they could move the building back and eliminate some parking spaces (the
spaces labeled on the plan as 7, 4, and 6) to create a larger green space.
Mr. Wilkinson said he walked the property with some City Council members and thinks the Council
members felt there was enough room to do their entry portal. If they move the pad back more, they
will be getting into the creek area. They have paid a lot of money for that particular piece of
property and cannot afford to use less than what was approved in the Concept Plan.
Commissioner Peebles asked if any effort has been made to see whether the spaces labeled on the
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999
Page 45 of 49
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
,~7,l
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
plan as 7, 4, and 6 can be moved to another location on the site, and Mr. Wilkinson said no.
Commissioner Peebles asked if he would agree to look at that, and Mr. Wilkinson said he would.
Mr. O'Brien said they have studied this site quite extensively and if they move those spaces back any
more, it will mean a larger retaining wall because they are fighting some significant grades at this
location.
Commissioner Peebles said he just wanted to make sure every avenue had been explored to get more
green space at the crown of the City.
Motion was made to approve ZA 98-159, subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 1, dated
January 11, 1999, accepting Item #1.a. 1 (driveway spacing) as shown on the plan; accepting Item
#1 .b (Drive C5 to State Highway 114) as shown on the plan; accepting Item #1.c (Drive C6 stacking
depth) as shown on the plan; deleting Item #1.f.2 but recommending speed bumps be installed along
the western-most drive but requesting comments from DPS or Fire Marshal as to whether or not this
is appropriate; accepting Item #3.a (bufferyard on the north side of Lot 26R, Oak Knolls) as shown
but requiring the required plantings to be placed along F.M. 1709; accepting the applicant's
commitment to relocate the required plantings for Items #3.f (bufferyard along east line of Lot 1,
Block A) and #3.g (bufferyard along west line of Lot 2, Block A) along F.M. 1709; regarding Item
#4.a (articulation), accepting SP.5 as proposed and accepting the applicant's commitment to comply
with all other articulation requirements; allowing Item # 14 (screening of loading docks) as shown;
and changing the wording on Page 2 of the narrative to read: "Buildings on outparcels (Block A, Lot
1, 2, and 3, Block B, Lots 4 and 5) will be required to have similar materials to the shopping center
and be considered to be architecturally compatible."
Motion: Murphy
Second: Jones
Commissioner Peebles asked if it is assumed the applicant is in compliance with Item #3.h (Provide
the attached bufferyard and interior landscape charts on the plan.).
Director Last said the Commission's motion as stated would mean the applicant has to comply with
this comment.
Vice-Chairman Murphy thinks Commissioner Peebles is saying he would prefer it to read, "Provide
the attached bufferyard and interior landscape charts on the plan and comply."
Vice-Chairman Murphy amended his motion to include this and Commissioner Jones seconded it.
Ayes:
Nays:
Jones, Murphy, Sandlin, Peebles, Creighton
None
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 46 of 49
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Approved: $-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-14-99, tape 2, section #2689)
AGENDA ITEM #17g. ZA 98-160. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GATEWAY PLAZA ADDITION:
Senior Comprehensive Planner Chris Carpenter informed the Commission that this request is for a
Preliminary Plat for Gateway Plaza Addition on property legally described as being Lots 1 through
14, Block E; Lots 20 through 22, Block E; Lot 26R, Lot 31 and a portion of Lot 32, Block E; Lots
1 through 6, Block D; a public alley, and the following dedicated public Rights-of-Way: Austin
Place, Oak Knolls Drive, and Oatewood Lane, all being a part of Oak Knolls Lakeview Addition,
an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in
Volume 388-W, Page 51, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas; Lot 30R, Block E, Oak Knolls
Lakeview Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the
plat recorded in Volume 388-183, Page 40, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas; Lots lA, lB, 2,
3A, 3B, 3B1, 4, 5A, and 5B, Block A, and a public alley, all being a part of Oak Knoll Business
Park, an addition to the City of Southlake; Tract 6B, W. E. May field's Subdivision, according to the
plat recorded in Volume 388-C, Page 4, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and Tracts 3, 3B, 3C,
3E, 8, and 8B, situated in the Thomas Easter Survey, Abstract No. 474, and being approximately
43.3217 acres. The property is located on the northwest comer of the intersection of State Highway
114 and East Southlake Boulevard (F,M. 1709). The Current Zoning is "S-P-2" Generalized Site
Plan District with limited "C-3" General Coinmercial District uses excluding the following uses:
22.2 (7) Conventional golf courses, including outdoor driving ranges accessory thereto, but
excluding outdoor miniature golf courses; 22.2 (16) Lodges, sororities and/or fraternities; 22.2 (17)
me&cal care
Deleting the words "and care" but allowing" ' facilities to include nursing ~-~ ....
homes, hospitals with their related facilities and supportive retail and personal service uses operated
by or under the control of the hospital primarily for the convenience of patients, staff and 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; and requiring that
Building 13 to be contained in its own lot and to allow single story O-1 uses only or a sit-down
restaurant with table service within the same pavement envelope. The Land Use Category is Mixed
Use. The Owners of the property are: Southlake Properties, Inc.; Shirley A. McCarty; John Michael
Tate; Victor L. Leighton; Carlos E. Dorris; Thomas C. and Nancy C. Reilly; Cindy Jane Suski; Mary
Louise Albano; Peter and Kristine Johnson; Eugene and Frances A. Bump; Mary Hutchison; Charles
Wood; Dennis Carpenter; and Kevin Lawrence Marks. The Applicant is Lincoln Property Company.
Thirty-three (33) written notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area, and
four (4) responses were received with three (3) being in favor and one (1) gave no opinion and said
she no longer owns property in Southlake.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999
Page 47 of 49
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Terry Wilkinson, 751 E. Southlake Boulevard, Southlake, Texas, presented this case to the
Commission. He asked for a variance to Item #10.e (perpendicular or radial lot lines) which he said
is typically a requirement for residential lots and has not been applied to commercial lots in the past.
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience stepped forward to speak.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
Motion was made to approve ZA 98-160, subject to Plat Review Summary No. 1, dated January 11,
1999, deleting Item # 10.e (perpendicular or radial lot lines).
Motion: Murphy
Second: Sandlin
Ayes: Murphy, Sandlin, Peebles, Jones, Creighton
Nays: None
Approved: 5-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-14-99, tape 2, section #2829)
The Commission discussed possible meeting dates for the Capital Improvements Advisory
Committee. It was decided staff would provide the Commission with a series of dates and times
which they would each check off the dates best for them and return to staff.
AGENDA ITEM #18. MEETING ADJOURNMENT:
Chairman Creighton adjourned the meeting at 12:22 a.m. on January 15, 1999.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 01-14-99, tape 2, section #2955)
Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 48 of 49
ATTEST:
Lori A. Farwell
Community Development Secretary
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on January 7, 1999 Page 49 of 49