1999-06-17 P&Z Meeting 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~ 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION MEETING
June 17, 1999
COMMISSION PRESENT: Chairman Ann Creighton; Vice-Chairman C.D. Peebles; and
Commissioners Michael Boutte, Kenneth Home, Dennis King, and Keith Shankland.
COMMISSION ABSENT: Mike Sandlin.
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Billy Campbell, City Manager; Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney; Greg
Last, Director of Economic Development; Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator; Dennis Killough,
Senior Current Planner; Keith Martin, Landscape Administrator; Charlie Thomas, Deputy Director
of Engineering Services; Angela Turner, Graduate Engineer; and Lori Farwell, Planning Secretary.
No Work Session was held.
Chaim~an Creighton called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #2, APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Chairman Creighton opened discussion of the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting held on June 3, 1999.
Motion was made to approve the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held
on June 3, 1999.
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
Peebles
Shankland
Home, Boutte, Peebles, Shankland, King, Creighton
None
6-0
Motion carded.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 06-17-99, tape 1, section #0016
AGENDA ITEM #3, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS:
Senior Planner Dennis Killough informed the Commission of a Capital Improvements Advisory
Committee meeting being held at 6:00 p.m. on June 24 in the Council Chambers. He said this
meeting will be a briefing of items the committee has covered in the past and will be coveting in the
future.
City Manager Billy Campbell introduced himself to the Commission and offered the assistance of
the City Manager's office to the Commission if they need anything.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on June 17, 1999 Page 1 of 23
Agenda Item #4 was on the consent agenda, and there was no separate discussion.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
"'"' 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
AGENDA ITEM #4, ZA 99-044, FINAL PLAT FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1, REMINGTON
ADDITION:
Motion was made to approve ZA 99-044 subject to Plat Review Summary No. 3, dated June 11,
1999.
Motion: Peebles
Second: Home
Ayes: Boutte, Peebles, Shankland, King, Home, Creighton
Nays: None
Approved: 6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 06-17-99, tape 1, section #0142)
AGENDA ITEM #5, ZA 99-038, REZONING:
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission this request is for a Zoning Change
on property legally described as a portion of Tract 1 situated in the John Childress Survey, Abstract
No. 253, and being approximately 5.270 acres. The property is located at 1581 Randol Mill Avenue
being on the south side of Randol Mill Avenue approximately 760' east of Marantha Way. The
Current Zoning is "AG" Agricultural District. The Requested Zoning is "RE" Residential Estate
District. The Land Use Category is Low Density Residential. The Owner and Applicant is Phillip
D. Fanning. Eight (8) 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) opposed.
Cynthia Fanning presented this item to the Commission.
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience stepped forward to speak.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Heating.
Motion was made to approve ZA 99-038.
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
Peebles
Shankland
Peebles, Shankland, King, Home, Boutte, Creighton
None
6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 06-17-99, tape 1, section #0407)
AGENDA ITEM #6, ZA 99-039, REZONING:
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on June 17, 1999 Page 2 of 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~' 22
23
24
25
26
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission this request is for a Zoning Change
on property legally described as a portion of Tract 1 situated in the John Childress Survey, Abstract
No. 253, and being approximately 3.093 acres. The property is located at 1581 Randol Mill Avenue
being on the south side of Randol Mill Avenue approximately 760' east of Marantha Way. The
Current Zoning is "AG" Agricultural District. The Requested Zoning is "SF-1A" Single Family
Residential District. The Land Use Category is Low Density Residential. The Owner and Applicant
is Phillip D. Fanning. Six (6) written notices were sent to property owners within the 200'
notification area, and no responses were received.
Cynthia Fanning presented this item to the Commission.
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 99-039.
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
Peebles
Shankland
Shankland, King, Home, Boutte, Peebles, Creighton
None
6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 06-17-99, tape 1, section #0450)
AGENDA ITEM #7, ZA 99-040, PLAT SHOWING OF PROPOSED LOTS 3 AND 4, J.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
CHILDRESS NO. 253 ADDITION:
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission this request is for a Plat Showing of
proposed Lots 3 and 4, J. Childress No. 253 Addition on property legally described as Tract 1
situated in the John Childress Survey, Abstract No. 253, and being approximately 8.3629 acres. The
property is located at 1581 Randol Mill Avenue being on the south side of Randol Mill Avenue
approximately 760' east of Marantha Way. The Current Zoning is "AG" Agricultural District. The
Land Use Category is Low Density Residential. The Owner and Applicant is Phillip D. Fanning.
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 opposed.
Cynthia Fanning presented this item to the Commission.
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience stepped forward to speak.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Heating.
Motion was made to approve ZA 99-040 subject to Plat Review Summary No. 3, dated June 11,
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on June 17, 1999 Page 3 of 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1999, deleting Items # 1 (lott'mg requirements, i.e.: lots shall abut a public or private street; minimum
lot width; and perpendicular or radial lot lines) and #2 (cul-de-sac right-of-way).
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
Peebles
Shankland
King, Home, Boutte, Peebles, Shankland, Creighton
None
6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 06-17-99, tape 1, section #0575)
Chairman Creighton called for a break at 6:24 p.m.
Chairman Creighton called the meeting back to order at 6:34 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #8, ZA 99-056, REZONING AND CONCEPT PLAN FOR SABRE GROUP
18
19
20
21
'"" 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
CAMPUS:
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission this request is for a Zoning Change
on property legally described as Lot 4, Block A, MTP-IBM Addition No. 1, an addition to the City
of Southlake, according to the plat recorded in Volume 388/211, Page 68 and 69 of Plat Records,
Tarrant County, Texas, and as recorded in Cabinet G, Page 208, Plat Records, Denton County,
Texas; Tracts 1, 1Al, lC, 2Al, 2A2, 2A3, 2A4, 2A5, 2A7, and portions of Tracts 2A and 2A6
situated in the U.P. Martin Survey, Abstract No. 1015; portions of Tracts 1 and lC situated in the
James B. Martin Survey, Abstract No. 1134; and portions of Tracts 3Al, 3A1A, 3A1A2, 3A3A1,
4B, 4B1, 4B2, situated in the Rees D. Price Survey, Abstract No. 1207, and being approximately
154.8 acres. A Concept Plan for Sabre Group Campus will be considered with this request. The
property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of State Highway 114 and Kirkwood
Drive. The Current Zoning is "R-PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District and "NR-
PUD" Non-Residential Planned Unit Development District. The Requested Zoning is "NR-PUD"
Non-Residential Planned Unit Development District with "O-2," Office District uses and certain
other permitted and accessory uses set forth in Exhibit "B," Planned Unit Development Standards
which are generally related to communication, computer, and information technologies; training and
conference centers; parking structures; heliport/stop and verti-porffstop; hotel, restaurant, retail and
office uses. The Land Use Category is Mixed Use, Medium Density Residential, 100 Year Flood
Plain. The Owners of the property are Maguire Parmers - Solana Limited Parmership and
International Business Machines, Inc. The Applicant is The Sabre Group, Inc. Seven (7) written
notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area, and no responses were
received.
Tom Allen (Maguire Partners) presented this item to the Commission.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on June 17, 1999 Page 4 of 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
'~' 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Carol Kelly (Vice President of Corporate Services for The Sabre Group, Inc.) introduced her
company and the two (2) architectural firms working on this project to the Commission.
Kirk Teske (HKS, Inc.) introduced his company to the Commission and showed them examples of
other corporate campuses his firm has worked on.
Rico Cedro (The Hillier Group) introduced his company to the Commission and told them corporate
campuses are one of the core areas of his firms' expertise; they have been designing corporate
campuses since the early 1970's. He showed the Commission examples of other corporate campuses
his company has worked on.
Mr. Cedro said when they design large corporate campuses, one of the fundamental decisions is
where to locate the parking garage; parking is usually more inflexible than the location of the
buildings. He showed the Commission a landscaped master plan in which they have made
refinements to the alignment of the road and the structured parking. He said they feel this new
design will lower the scale and impact of the garage and promote better circulation within the garage.
He said the preponderance of the parking garage is located in the large cleared area. Mr. Cedro said
they are planning for ten (10) buildings at a build-out of approximately 2 million S.F. (200,000 -
250,000 S.F. per building). He said Sabre intends to have amenities such as a health facility,
volleyball court, tennis courts, etc.
Chairman Creighton asked Mr. Cedro to show the Commission the various phases. Mr. Cedro
showed two (2) buildings they intend to build first along with the northern bridges, a portion of the
road, and a portion of the garage.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked how many levels the garage will have. Mr. Cedro said there will be
five (5) levels of parking at about 42' above grade. Vice-Chairman Peebles asked why the
regulations show a maximum of 60'. Mr. Cedro said they wanted to anticipate if Sabre needed
additional density on the site in terms of their employees.
Mr. Teske said they would like to have flexibility to go up to that height.
Commissioner Home asked how many additional parking spaces it would add if another level of
parking was added. Mr. Teske said the drawings being shown right now are in the very early stages;
they believe they will have a cap of four and a half (4 ½) levels of parking, but they have not gotten
far enough in the details to be able to commit to that. He said they would like to have the
opportunity to go up to the maximum height allowed in the present ordinances.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 06-17-99, tape 1, section #2656)
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on June 17, 1999 Page 5 of 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
'"" 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
BoydDollar, 525 Brooks Court, Southlake, Texas, said he is delighted to have Sabre here and looks
forward to being a good neighbor, but being a good neighbor works two (2) ways. He said he has
four (4) very serious concerns. He said they have a beautiful concept with the separated buildings,
etc., but then they have one (1) huge, monstrous structured parking building which will be visible
up and down White Chapel Boulevard. He does not understand why they did not split the garage
up into smaller sections to reduce the impact on the neighbors. His second concern is the heliport.
He said if there are not restrictions or some specific traffic route for the helicopters, they are in
potential danger of destroying everything he and his neighbors have built on the north end of
Southlake. His third concern is regarding the four (4) secured entrances; the mom entrances they
have, the less secure their facility will be. He does not feel they need an entrance on White Chapel
Boulevard. He and his neighbors have recently endured 13 months of destruction, construction,
potholes, and broken windows to obtain a nice, two-lane asphalt drive along White Chapel
Boulevard. He said a developer is currently proposing a housing development on White Chapel
Boulevard just north of this site plus the construction traffic from the Sabre development will be a
huge impact on the residents north and on White Chapel Boulevard. He said when the City
privatizes those roads, they will have locked in all of north Southlake. He said they should not be
able to close the roads until there is a commitment from TxDOT to give an exit to S. H. 114. He said
the proposed exit onto White Chapel is dangerous and proposes a serious safety hazard. He urged
the Commission to consider the impact of this development on the entire north end of Southlake.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked staff what their understanding is regarding the entrance on White
Chapel Boulevard. Deputy Director of Engineering Services Charlie Thomas said it was his
understanding it was a construction and emergency entrance only. Senior Planner Dennis Killough
said it is also labeled that way on their concept plan.
Director of Economic Development Greg Last said staff mentioned to the applicant early on there
would be some sensitivity to the White Chapel entrance and Sabre has endeavored to reduce their
impact. He said staff mentioned as well they need to limit their construction access to just their first
phase. He said the only reason they pursued it is currently both of the existing public roads stub to
a creek, and they do not have a way to get to the interior property on their Phase I without that
access. Director Last said the applicant can verify it, but it was never intended to be a predominant
entrance for their day-to-day access.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked the applicant if the White Chapel entrance is for emergency purposes
only after Phase I is constructed, and they said yes. Mr. Teske said typically in the construction
process the roads are the last thing to be built and that is why they have asked for a two-year duration
on the White Chapel access.
Commissioner Boutte asked when the roads will be privatized. Director Last said technically they
will be privatized with the filing of the final plat and the abandonment of the rights-of-way through
an ordinance process,
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on June 17, 1999 Page 6 of 23
1 Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if the applicant would be willing to implement the privatization in
2 stages. Mr. Teske said they have not considered that but could consider possibly keeping the roads
3 open until occupancy of the first buildings.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
'"-' 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Cara White, 4475 Homestead Drive, Southlake, Texas', said she is on the Park Board and wanted to
let the Commission know that Sabre is not going to implement the trails in the park land area they
dedicated to the city. She said it will be the city's responsibility to put those trails in. She asked that
Sabre consider leaving the roads open until TxDOT agrees to a two-way access road. She said Paul
Spain is putting in a large residential subdivision north of this site and had he known they were
going to close these roads, he may not have chosen that area of town. She expressed her concern
about the heliport. She said the location of the entrance on White Chapel is in a terrible blind spot.
She questioned why they cannot go ahead and develop the north entrance so construction traffic can
use it.
Julie Landesberg, 305 E. Bob Jones, Southlake, Texas, said it was her understanding when this PUD
was originally agreed upon, it was agreed there would be no access to White Chapel. She is
concerned the city is sacrificing safety for the convenience of 9,000 employees. She would prefer
they stick to the original PUD agreement. She asked for the Commission to wait for TxDOT's
response to the two-way access before the applicant is allowed to close the roads. She asked them
to consider the surrounding residents when planning their helicopter routes, etc.
Kim O'Brien, 4380 Saddle Ridge Road, Southlake, Texas, asked if anyone has considered putting
the parking garage on the S.H. 114 side instead of the residential side. She is not very happy about
the access on White Chapel. She hopes there are no decisions made regarding the closing of the
roads until the city hears back for Tx DOT.
Chairman Creighton said she also has several comment cards from people who do not wish to speak
but wanted their positions recorded: Donna Walker, 400 Brooks' Court, Southlake, Texas, opposed;
Aaron Brooks, 415 Brooks Court, Southlake, Texas, opposed; Angela Higginbotham, 435 E. Bob
Jones Road, Roanoke, Texas, opposed; Peter Landesberg,, 305 E. Bob Jones Road, Southlake,
Texas, opposed; Jim 0 'Brien, 4380 Saddle Ridge Road, Southlake, Texas, opposed; and Robert
Spencer, 500 Brooks Court, Southlake, Texas, opposed to road closing.
Chairman Creighton left the Public Hearing open for the time being.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 06-17-99, tape 1, section #4039)
Mr. Cedro said they are absolutely not using the white Chapel entrance as an employee entrance.
Vice-Chairman Peebles questioned if they would agree to only one controlled access point into the
north end of the site and keep East T.W. King and Kirkwood Boulevard open. Ms. Kelly said they
did consider that but cannot do it because they also need to secure the existing building on Kirkwood
Boulevard since they will have foot traffic between the buildings. She said that has always been a
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on June 17, 1999 Page 7 of 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~-' 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
very definitive part of their plan.
Commissioner Boutte asked if the City has had any discussions with TxDOT regarding making a
two-way access road. Director Last said the City has had a preliminary conversation with them, and
TxDOT was not very receptive.
Boyd Dollar urged the Commission to go look at the proposed access to White Chapel Boulevard.
Julie Landesberg asked if anyone has considered the yearly flood situations for White Chapel
Boulevard. Director Last said there is a history of some flooding at that White Chapel culvert. He
said about five years ago, there was the highest Grapevine Lake elevation ever and it flooded that
area and the other access used was T.W. King which was why they told Sabre a secondary access
was critical to the north end of the City.
Adam Richardson, 4537 Homestead Drive, $outhlake, Texas, also has safety concerns along the
West T.W. King Road. He said it is hardly wide enough to support one car as it is and has a lot of
potholes in it. He said there are also kids out in that area playing much of the time.
Chairman Creighton brought up the issue of helicopter traffic.
Commissioner Shankland said he does not see there being that much helicopter traffic. Ms. Kelly
said they have no plans at all right now; they were just requesting a provision in the documents for
that but have no plans at this time.
Chairman Creighton asked if they would consider trying to work with the residents to come up with
limited hours of use for helicopters. Ms. Kelly said they would consider alternatives.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said the Commission may eliminate the heliport/vertiport at this level and
once they study it further, maybe they could discuss it with City Council.
Commissioner Shankland asked how tall the trees are between Kirkwood Hollow and the parking
garage; he asked if the trees will reach to the top of the garage. Mr. Teske said he is not sure how
tall the trees are. He said they have preserved the entire area west of Kirkwood Hollow and all of
the trees will be untouched. He said the closest point is 200' from the residential property line. Mr.
Cedro said they are in the process of doing a tree survey which will answer that question.
Vice-Chairman Peebles suggested telling Sabre to split up the parking garages like they have their
buildings and limit them to 45'. He said once they have looked at it, they can bring up any issues
with City Council.
Commissioner Home asked the applicants if they have seen the parking garages at Children's
Hospital in Dallas. He said they have them broken up in alignment with the buildings. Mr. Cedro
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on June 17, 1999 Page 8 of 23
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~ 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
said he has not seen them but said he appreciates the suggestion.
Commissioner Boutte asked if anyone has completed a site line study regarding the view from
Kirkwood Hollow towards the proposed parking garage. He was at this location on Sunday and said
there are some very large trees along the creek area.
Vice-Chairman Peebles suggested doing a site line study before they go to City Council.
Mr. Teske said if they have to break the garage up into excessive numbers of buildings, it will extend
down closer to the residences and create a further walk to the office buildings. Chairman Crei~ton
said she would rather see them go higher than longer; she would rather give them the extra 15' than
go closer to the residences.
Commissioner King said there is some topography to this area and asked if they could do something
like a split-level where it is fit into the topography of the land. Mr. Cedro that is one of the
alternatives they are looking at. He said this site is unique because it has a lot of topography to it.
Ms. Kelly clarified a couple of items brought up earlier. She said they do have a number of
employees who work around the clock, but the majority of the employees work flex hours. She said
the majority of employees work from around 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 - 7:00 p.m. so there is not a rash of
traffic at 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Regarding the trail along the area of park dedication, she said
Sabre agreed to pay for the engineering fees associated with the path and make accommodations for
and pay for the pedestrian crossway on the bridge.
Commissioner Home asked if they will maintain it. Ms. Kelly said the path will not be on their
property, and they will not be responsible for it.
Chairman Creighton said the Commission would take a break before beginning to go through the
applicant's response to the review letter.
Chairman Creighton called for a break at 9:04 p.m.
Chairman Creighton called the meeting back to order at 9:26 p.m.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 06-17-99, tape 1, section #6500)
The Commission agreed to delete Item #I.A. 1 (to allow a minimum design speed of 25 mph).
Regarding Item #I.F.3, the applicant's attorney, Ike Shupe (Hughes and £uce), and City staff are to
work on clarifying the language in Paragraph 4.C.2 of the PUD Development Standards.
Regarding Item #I.I.2, Chairman Creighton asked what portion of the property the hotel use is
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on June 17, 1999 Page 9 of 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
t5
16
17
18
19
20
21
~-' 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
currently allowed. Mr. Allen said a hotel is currently allowed in the Non-Residential PUD along
S.H. 114.
Commissioner Boutte asked why they would want to keep the hotel use in. Mr. Allen said it is a use
which is currently allowed, and at some point it may make sense for Sabre to use it.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if that is what temporary residential accommodations are. Mr. Allen
said no.
Commissioner King said it seems inconsistent to him to have a hotel use on this property. He said
Sabra is making it a secured site, and they have temporary accommodations for employees. He said
in his mind, a hotel is a commercial use that would require being open to the public to make a profit.
If this site is not open to the public and the hotel would not be a commercial use for profit and they
already offer temporary accommodations for their employees, then he does not think it is necessary.
Commissioner Boutte said he does not think a hotel would be the type of business the City would
be pursuing and offering tax abatements to.
Commissioner King said he is not opposed to a really nice hotel somewhere along S.H. 114, but he
does not think this is the place for one.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 06-17-99, tape 1, section #7345)
Commissioner King said there are different types of eating establishments listed several times under
permitted uses and accessory uses. He said he feels the same about this as he did about a hotel; he
understands they will feed their employees but when it comes to a restaurant being a permitted use,
in his mind, it is a commercial use for profit. He said it does not seem to fit. He recommended
deletion ora restaurant as a permitted use for those reasons.
Commissioner Horne questioned why there is opposition for the restaurant and the hotel. He said
he could see visitors coming in who are not Sabre employees and are used to a hotel environment.
He said he can think of several area campuses that have hotels next to them; he named GTE as one
corporation that has a Marriott with it. He does not see what the objection is.
Commissioner King said he has to remind himself that the Commission is approving an ordinance
that will run with the property and if Sabre were to leave someday, there would be a hotel and a
restaurant there as a permitted use. He said if someone wants to do that someday, they can come to
the City and ask for it. He said he does not think GTE is a secured sight with secured access points.
Commissioner Home said if it is an accessory use, that would be fine with him.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked what the difference is between a principal restaurant and an accessory
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on June 17, 1999 Page 10 of 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~-' 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
restaurant. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy said Sabre is trying to cover their bases - should
they decide someday to subdivide their campus, they would have a permitted right to have a
restaurant or hotel use as well as have an accessory use.
Ms. Kelly said they may want to have some small fast food vendors come in and set up shop.
Commissioner King said he would read that as being a permitted accessory use.
Chairman Creighton said she would like to make clear it would have to be contained within the
buildings and not a stand alone fast food restaurant.
Commissioner King said them is a stand-alone building permitted for a restaurant, cafe, or cafeteria
under accessory uses.
Mr. Shupe said there are two (2) categories of accessory uses: one (1) is listed on Page 6 and are all
interior to the principal use of the building; two (2) begin at the bottom of Page 6 and do not have
to be in the main building and can be on a separate site.
Chairman Creighton asked why they are asking for accessory uses to be without regard to the floor
area. Mr. Shupe said in a corporate campus, the same people who go and use the accessory use are
the same people who drive in and office there so they do not have the issue of trying to limit the
accessory floor area as a percentage of the principal floor area. Mr. Shupe said he does not feel the
size limitations serve a purpose when dealing with a private campus.
Chairman Creighton said the Commission's fear is that this will not always be a private campus.
If Sabre goes away, she said someone else could come in, open up the gates, and have a
restanrant/office complex.
Commissioner Home asked if this request could be limited to Sabre.
Mr. Shupe said for the Commission to keep in mind the accessory uses will not do any outside
advertising and will only be used by the Sabre employees.
Commissioner King said he is not concerned as long as Sabre is there, but he is concemed if Sabra
goes away and another developer comes in, starts advertising, and opens the restaurants for business.
Chairman Creighton agreed with Commissioner King and asked if them is any way to address this
issue.
Mr. Shupe said he could work with Ms. Gandy and the City Attorney to address the proper language
regarding of the possibility of this property no longer being a private campus, and they could then
revert back to City standards.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on June 17, 1999 Page 11 of 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
'-' 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Mr. Shupe said if Sabre went away and there was an empty accessory building and the new owner
was not going to use the property as a corporate campus, they would have to rezone the property
because the accessory building could not be used as a principal use.
Commissioner King said if it is clear it is no longer an accessory use and is no longer in compliance,
then he does not have a problem with it. City Attorney Debra Drayovitch said if it would appease
the Commission, they could come up with some language addressing that fact.
Mr. Shupe said he does not have a problem with that because he thinks that is what the ordinance
says anyway and that is what the law says.
Commissioner Home asked staffto further define "personal services" listed in Paragraph 7.B, PUD
Development Standards.
Regarding Paragraph 7.B, Mr. Shupe suggested adding the language "and shall not be allowed as
a principal use" to the end of the following heading, "The following accessory uses shall be allowed
on a separate building site without regard to the floor areas of such accessory uses."
Chairman Creighton said she would like a definition for "general retail." Mr. Shupe said he does
not know what those types of retail would be. He said he does not think there is risk to the City
because of where it is and the constraints that go on it.
Commissioner Boutte said 20 years ago, no one knew corporations would be selling discounted
software to their employees and 20 years from now, we have no idea what companies will want to
sell to their employees. He asked how the Commission should handle this.
Commissioner Horne said he does not see this being a problem.
Chairman Creighton said it is just a big, open term in which they are telling the Commission they
do not know how to define it and asked how we as a City be able to say they could not sell a
particular item there.
Ms. Kelly asked if the Commission could start with some offensive items and work from there.
Chairman Creighton said she is certain that Sabre or one of their consultants has a general idea of
what they want to sell and as a City, we would prefer they tell us what those things are. She said she
would just like a definition.
Mr. Shupe said Ms. Gandy has an idea of a definition and agreed to work with her in that direction.
Chairman Creighton asked what they mean by "temporary residential accommodations."
Commissioner Boutte asked what is meant by a "full kitchen" or a "partial kitchen." Mr. Shupe said
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on June 17, 1999 Page 12 of 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
"-' 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
a partial kitchen would most likely include a small (1.3 cubic inch) refrigerator and a microwave.
Ms. Gandy said it is typically limited by having no cook-top.
Chairman Creighton asked if it needs to be further defined or is there an industry definition. Ms.
Gandy said she will get a definitive answer on that.
Regarding Paragraph 8.A. 1, the Commission agreed to modify it to read: "No principal use building
shall exceed six (6) stories above grade, nor shall it exceed 90' in height."
Regarding Paragraph 8.A.3, the Commission agreed to limit the architectural features to 50' above
the height of the building and if freestanding, they shall not exceed 140' and both shall be subject
to the 4:1 slope requirement.
Chairman Creighton called for a break at 10:45 p.m.
Chairman Creighton called the meeting back to order at 10:55 p.m.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 06-17-99, tape 2, section #1935)
Regarding Item #II.A.3, the Commission agreed to allow special equipment up to 25' above the
actual height of the building. They agreed it must be screened, it must be integral to the building,
and it will be subject to the 4:1 slope requirement.
Regarding Item #II.A.4, Mr. Teske said the purpose of their request is to allow them to do a six (6)
story building but also incorporate a sloped roof. He said under the current defmiflon, if they wanted
to do a sloped roof, they would have to reduce the number of stories. Mr. Teske agreed to reduce
their request to 35' from their original request of 50'. The Commission agreed this requirement will
also be subject to the 4:1 slope requirement.
Commissioner King said based on what the applicant is saying, they could potentially build 10
buildings at approximately 10 stories each (125' each). Mr. Teske said the buildings will not be
perceived anywhere near an 8 - 10 story building.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said City Council needs to know what Commissioner King is talking about
since the applicant is saying they may put pitched roofs on these buildings. He said all of the
buildings could potentially be that high.
Regarding Item #II.B.4, the Commission agreed to delete the review comment and allow accessory
buildings forward of the principal structure, but require the applicant to be subject to the height
restrictions under 8.A. 1 as amended.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on June 17, 1999 Page 13 of 23
1 Chairman Creighton said she has a real problem with a height limitation of six (6) stories for an
2 accessory building. Mr. Cedro said they can not imagine any accessory building going higher than
3 three (3) stories so they are willing to cut that in half. He said they may have an accessory building
4 with conference facilities on the first floor with two (2) floors of employee guest rooms above it.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
'"" 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Mr. Cedro said because this is a sloped site, they are finding they will have buildings with two (2)
floors on one side and three (3) floors on the other.
Commissioner Boutte asked if that means they can set a height restriction rather than a story
restriction. Mr. Cedro said that is what they have done. Mr. Shupe said they are asking for three (3)
stories or 46'; whichever one of those they hit first, that is it.
Chairman Creighton said she has a real problem with three (3) story accessory buildings.
Mr. Allen said one good example would be a health club with a gym; it can not be done with less
than 2 ½ to 3 stories.
Chairman Creighton suggested making an exception for the health club and temporary stay facility.
Ms. Kelly disagreed saying they need flexibility. She said they do not know how they might even
combine accessory buildings.
Commissioner Shankland asked them how many accessory buildings they may need. Ms. Kelly said
they really have no idea.
Chairman Creighton said she is very concerned that there were citizens here earlier in the evening
who were told there would be one (1) parking garage and ten (1) office buildings, but as the details
have come out, this project has the potential to be far in excess of what was described earlier in the
evening.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 06-17-99, tape 2, section #3661)
Commissioner King said in reading through the material and looking at their maximum lot coverage,
they can build six (6) story buildings with no maximum floor area. Based on that, he said they can
build 19 million S.F. on this site. Mr. Shupe said there is a traffic limitation on the site.
Mr. Allen said those requirements are generally based on the "0-2" ordinance. He said
Commissioner King is correct except for the limiting factor which is parking. He said they would
need huge parking garages which would greatly exceed the height restrictions to come anywhere
close to that figure. He said it sounds like they can do that but they can not.
Commissioner King said if they want to build a campus style, low rise, low density development,
then they need to make the PUD reflect that.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on June 17, 1999 Page 14 of 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~ 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Mr. Shupe said there is a traffic impact analysis which says they can do "X" amount of floor area
whenever certain conditions exist. When they reach the maximum floor area for that traffic impact
analysis and want to go above that number, he said they have to come back and justify that the traffic
can support that.
Mr. Allen said they have looked at this site for a long time and have always thought they could put
about 1.5 million S.F. on this site. He said the reason Sabre can do more than that is because of the
structured parking.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if they would agree to 3 million S.F. for the site. Ms. Kelly said no.
Ms. Kelly said they truly do not know what accessory buildings they need at this time; they are still
surveying their employees at this time.
Chairman Creighton asked staff what the answer is here. Director Last said they need the
entitlements; they will not close on the property until they have the entitlements they feel are needed
to finish out their program.
Commissioner King said he wants them to have entitlements that bare a reasonable resemblance to
what they are going to do out there.
Chairman Creighton said it has to bare a resemblance to what they represented to the public while
the public was here tonight.
Mr. Allen said six (6) stories are allowed on the site today in the "0-2" zoning district.
Ms. Kelly asked if there is some cap the Commission would agree to.
Commissioner King said in speaking only for himself, he would agree to 3 million S.F.
Mr. Shupe suggested using a formula such as placing a cap on principal uses and rather than picking
a number for accessory uses, choose a percentage.
Vice-Chairman Peebles suggested 3 million S.F. and 25% accessory uses within that amount. Ms.
Kelly suggested 3.5 million total without percentages. Mr. Teske said that would be exclusive of
parking garages.
Commissioner King said that is fine with him.
Commissioner Shankland agreed.
Commissioner Home said Sabre is coming here to grow not to stagnate. He said the Commission
needs to give them a little more leeway than what they are being given tonight.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on June 17, 1999 Page 15 of 23
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
"~ 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
The Commission agreed to 3.5 million S.F.
The Commission agreed to amend Paragraph 8,A. 1 to add the following: "No accessory use building
shall exceed three (3) stories above grade, nor shall it exceed 46' in height."
Regarding Item//II.D, the applicant asked for flexibility in the selection of its construction materials.
Commissioner King expressed his concern regarding reflective glass. Mr. Teske said he has done
a couple of buildings lately with a reflectivity of about 35% such as the Sterling Commerce
Building.
Commissioner King said he really likes that building but wants a comfort level that these buildings
will be the quality of the Sterling Commerce Building or the GTE Building. He wants no more
reflectivity than what is on those buildings.
Mr. Teske said they just want to keep that option open although they do not know what they are
going to use right now.
Regarding Item//II.I, Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if driveways could be looked at during the Site
Plan stage, rather thanjnst exempting them. Mr. Shupe asked what the rules are.
Mr. Teske asked if they are going to be held to the driveway standards currently in the ordinances.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said they will determine that at Site Plan.
Mr. Shupe said they cannot agree to that and will have to look again at the ordinance.
Mr. Teske said the concern is the spacing of the driveways coming out the parking garages.
Chairman Creighton said the Commission does not know where the buildings and the driveways are
and asked how they could possibly give driveway exemptions.
Director Last suggested for the applicant to resolve this between now and City Council to see if there
are issues there for them.
Ms. Kelly said she would like to be clear on what the Driveway Ordinance does or does not say.
Mr. Killough said to his knowledge it does not differentiate between public or private streets.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 06-17-99, tape 2, section//7235)
Mr. Killough said Item//III.B.4 (labeling) can be deleted; the applicant is correct.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked staff to explain Item//III.DA. Mr. Killough said along all the roads
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on June 17, 1999 Page 16 of 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
'""' 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
intended to become private, they are proposing no bufferyard.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked why they do not want bufferyards along the roads. Mr. Teske said
they prefer to keep the natural landscaping there as compared to the rigid landscaping that is
proposed in a bufferyard.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if the Commission could consider the bufferyards at Site Plan. Mr.
Shupe said he wants to know the rules.
Director Last said he understands why bufferyards are normally required, for example, for a Jack-in-
the-Box adjacent to a road; it is to make sure there is some landscaping adjacent to the roadway.
With a boulevard section, he said there is the benefit of plant material running through the middle
of the street which there is not another street in Southlake designed to that standard. He said it may
jeopardize the overall landscape plan to mandate a certain rhythm of plant material.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said no one is saying they can not do what they want to do at the Site Plan
stage. When they are starting to put blocks together and want a variance from a bufferyard, he said
that would be fme. He asked why the Commission is talking about driveways and bufferyards at this
stage. Mr. Shupe said because they are not applicable to this kind ora development. Mr. Shupe said
they could provide a 5' bufferyard and plant a tree every 100', but look at what is being saved - they
are not trying to create a typical bufferyard as in a Jack-in-the-Box. He said there are thousands of
trees being saved on this property.
Director Last said it is not too dissimilar to what was done with Town Square. On the Town Square
Concept Plan, he said there were waivers granted to the bufferyards because it was known they were
going to present a unique landscape pattern.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said just because he wants to reserve the right does not mean he is going to
exercise the right. Mr. Shupe said he thinks it is fair for a developer to know the rules as opposed
to leaving significant development issues that involve dollars to the discretion of the Site Plan. He
thinks he is entitled to know those rules when he gets his entitlements and when he gets his zoning.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said when they come in with a Site Plan that differs from the required
landscaping, they can explain the reasons why they do not want the required bufferyard and the
Commission will listen and go from there.
Director Last asked if there could be a middle ground and maybe the applicant could provide a
streetscape plan at the time of Site Plan. Mr. Shupe asked what the criteria would be to judge the
streetscape plan. He said he is not developing a bunch of individual lots; he is developing one lot
and does not think the bufferyard requirement applies.
Mr. Teske said Mr. Shupe is absolutely right. He gave an example with the driveway issue and said
he is trying to design the parking garages right now and the parking garage ramps have to line up
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on June 17, 1999 Page 17 of 23
1 with the driveways. If he is going to be held to a spacing that he cannot live with, then he needs to
2 know it now because he is spending a lot of time and money trying to design the garages, and he
3 cannot go down a road and two months later find out the Commission cannot live with it.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~ 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he understands they will have spent that time and money and when they
return asking for 150' instead 0£250' and have a good explanation why they want it, then he does
not see any reason why the Commission would not understand their reasoning and go forward. He
does not see why the Commission has to make those decisions now.
Mr. Shupe said this is one area'they have to agree to disagree.
Commissioner Shankland said he is comfortable that when they come back, they will have an
excellent design; he has confidence in them.
After looking at the Driveway Ordinance, City Attorney Debra Drayovitch said there is some
ambiguity. She said she understands Mr. Shupe's position to construe that it might be required for
the applicant to comply with it.
Commissioner King said he understands Vice-Chairman Peebles is very passionate about it, but he
is okay with what they are proposing on the bufferyards and driveways. He said he understands it
is one big lot, the driveways are going onto a private road, and they are giving far in excess of what
the ordinance requires; he is okay with it.
Commissioner Boutte said he is on Vice-Chairman Peebles' side on this. He said he hates giving
up control completely.
Chairman Creighton said she is less concemed about the bufferyards than she is about the driveways.
She thinks it is very difficult to tell whether a driveway is going to work when she cannot see it.
Commissioner Home said he agrees with Commissioners King and Shankland, He thinks there
would be too much time involved to have someone come back and then find out they have to move
it 10' one way or 20' the other way. He does not think the bufferyards are an issue. He said when
they design a parking structure like this one, they are not going to have their employees crashing
their cars because they cannot make a turn; they know what they have to do.
Commissioner Shankland said they are designing this for themselves. He said they are not a
developer building something and then leaving in order to sell it to someone else. He seriously
doubts they are going to spend this much money, and then build something that does not work. He
said he is not concerned about it. He said the Commission has sat here listening to the testimonies
regarding the quality of the architects and the people involved, and he is comfortable with what they
are doing.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on June 17, 1999 Page 18 of 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~ 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Commissioner Horne said he agrees with Commissioner Shankland.
Chairman Creighton said it appears the Commission is split 3-3 on these issues and asked if the
Commissioners feel so strongly about not deferring driveway and bufferyard issues until Site Plan
that they will not be able to support a motion which defers those issues.
Commissioner Home asked the applicant how much it would set them back if the Commission
defers consideration ofbufferyards and driveways until Site Plan. Mr. Teske said they could expend
1,500 to 2,000 man hours in that time frame only to find out at Site Plan they need to change it
again.
Commissioner King said he does not feel strong enough to vote against the other Commissioners
on this. He said part of the Commission wants a safeguard on this, and he is willing to go with them
to give them the comfort level they want.
Mr. Allen said Sabre is not only buying the land being discussed tonight but also the existing
building. He said in the very first meetings with the City it was a requirement in order to accomplish
the security concerns for the roads to be closed.
With regard to the road closure, Mr. Shupe said they can leave them open until the first phase is
ready for occupancy. He said they agree to work with Tx DOT to see if the two-way access road can
be achieved. Regarding the heliport, he said they agree to live by all FAA roles; it will be for
Sabre's use only as opposed to a commercial operation; and they will maximize flight paths over
S.H. 114 and minimize residential over flights. He said they agree to designate the flight path on
the Development Plan or Site Plan (whichever first shows the location of the heliport) so the
Commission and the City Council will be able to approve the path.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked him to take these concerns to City Council because he promised the
residents who were here earlier in the evening the heliport would be gone.
Regarding the parking garages, Mr. Shupe said they will get a sight line study completed. He said
they can break them up into a couple of sections, but they cannot break them up into as many
sections as the offices. Regarding the White Chapel access, he said they cannot agree to limit the
construction access to a specific period of time.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 06-17-99, tape 3, section #1104)
Motion was made to approve ZA 99-056, subject to Concept Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated
June 11, 1999, and being subject to the following:
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on June 17, 1999 Page 19 of 23
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~ 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Item # I.A. 1, Review Summary, delete (to allow a minimum design speed of 25 mph);
Item # I.F.3, Review Summary, Applicant's attorney and staff are to work on clarifying the
language in Paragraph 4.C.2 of the PUD Development Standards and noting the Applicant's
agreement to use commercially reasonable efforts to identify buildable areas in an attempt
to minimize tree removal as noted on Page 2 of the Applicant's response letter dated June
16, 1999;
Paragraph 7.A, PUD Development Standards, delete Hotel and Restaurant (Item # I.I.2);
Paragraph 7.B, PUD Development Standards, further define General retail and Personal
services (Item # I.J. 1);
Paragraph 7.B, PUD Development Standards, add "and shall not be allowed as a principal
use" to the end of the following paragraph heading, "The following accessory uses shall be
allowed on a separate building site without regard to the floor areas of such accessory uses;"
Paragraph 7.B, PUD Development Standards, delete Heliport/verti-port;
Paragraph 7.B, PUD Development Standards, ask Council to review staff's language
clarifying the conformity of Temporary residential accommodations for
employees/customers/visitors (Item # I.J.2, Review Summary);
Paragraph 8.A. 1, Building Height, PUD Development Standards, modify to read: "Except
as provided below, no principal use building shall exceed six (6) stories above grade, nor
shall it exceed 90 feet in height." With respect to accessory use height, add the following
to read: "Except as provided below, no accessory use building shall exceed three (3) stories
above grade, nor shall it exceed forty-six (46) feet in height;"
Paragraph 8.A.2, Structured Parking Height, PUD Development Standards, being Item #
II.A. 1, Review Summary, With respect to parking garage, Applicant is to provide a sight line
study to Council and also request that the Applicant break up the structured parking to match
the red buildings shown on the Landscape Master Plan presented tonight;
Paragraph 8.A.2, Structured Parking Height, PUD Development Standards, being Item #
II.A. 1, Review Summary), modify to read: "Except as provided below, no parking structure
shall exceed six (6) levels above grade, nor shall it exceed 60 feet in height;"
Paragraph 8.A.3, Architectural Features, PUD Development Standards, being Item # II.A.2,
Review Summary, modify to read: "Architectural features (i.e., portions of buildings or
structures not intended for occupancy) which are integral to the architectural style of the
building or structure (including spires, belfries, towers, cupolas, domes, feature walls and
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on June 17, 1999 Page 20 of 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~ 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
similar features) shall not exceed 50' above the height of the building; if freestanding, they
shall not exceed 140', and both (i.e., roof-mounted and freestanding architectural features)
shall be subject to the 4:1 slope requirement;"
Paragraph 8.A.4, Special Equipment, PUD Development Standards, being Item # II.A.3,
Review Summary, Commission agrees to allow special equipment up to 25' above the actual
height of the building; it must be screened and must be integral to the building and shall be
subject to the 4:1 slope requirement;
Paragraph 8.A.5, Pitched Roofs, PUD Development Standards, being Item # II.A.4, Review
Summary, modifying the second sentence to read: "The high point of the sloped roof may
exceed the height limitations set forth above (i.e., maximum 90') by up to thirty-five (35)
feet to allow up to a maximum of 125' and shall be subject to the 4:1 slope requirement;"
Paragraph 8.B.2, Side Yard Setbacks, being Item #II.B.2, requiring side yard setbacks;
Paragraph 8.B.7, Accessory Buildings, PUD Development Standards, being Item # II.B.4,
Review Summary, delete review comment and allow accessory buildings forward of the
principal structure, but require that they be subject to the height restrictions under 8.A.I as
amended;
Paragraph 9.A, Parking Spaces Required, PUD Development Standards, being Item # II.C.1,
Review Summary, delete review comment and allow parking ratios as requested by the
Applicant;
Paragraph 9.C, Parking Space Size, PUD Development Standards, being Item # II.C.3,
Review Summary, delete review comment and allow the 8.5' parking space width in all
parking spaces (both structured and surface parking);
Paragraph 9.D, Off-Street Loading/Service Areas, PUD Development Standards, being Item
# II.C.4, Review Summary, delete review comment and accept as proposed to allow as set
forth on Page 5 of the Applicant's response letter dated June 16, 1999;
Paragraph 10, Architectural Standard,; being Item #II.D, accept as proposed to allow as set
forth on Page 5 of the Applicant's response letter dated June 16, 1999;
Paragraph 11, Screening, PUD Development Standards, add Radio towers to the list of
screened improvements;
Paragraph 11, Screening, PUD Development Standards, being Item # II.E.1, delete
bufferyard requirements as set forth in Section 43, Ordinance No. 480, but leave the rest
(Section 42, Bufferyards, Ordinance No. 480 required);
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on June 17, 1999 Page 21 of 23
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
'-' 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Paragraph 11, Screening, PUD Development Standards, being Item # II.E.2, delete;
Paragraph 13, Fencing, PUD Development Standards, being Item II.G, Review Summary,
delete;
Paragraph 15, Parks/Trails/Open Space, PUD Development Standards, being Item II.H,
Review Summary, accept as proposed by the Applicant and as further described on Page 6
of the Applicant's response letter dated June 16, 1999;
Paragraph 16, Driveway Requirements, PUD Development Standard,', being Item II.I,
Review Summary, will be determined at Site Plan;
Item # III.A, Parkland Dedication, Review Summary, allow as proposed by Applicant and
as further described on Page 6 of the Applicant's response letter dated June 16, 1999;
Item # III.B.1 & III.B.2., Right-of-Way, Review Summary, allow as proposed by Applicant
and as further described on Page 6 of the Applicant's response letter dated June 16, 1999;
Item # III.B.4, Review Summary, delete (per staff's request);
Item # III.C.1, 25' Pedestrian Access Easement, Review Summary, allow as proposed by
Applicant and as further described on Page 7 of the Applicant's response letter dated June
16, 1999;
Item # III.D.1, Landscaping, Review Summary, Bufferyards along T. W. King and along
Kirkwood Blvd. will be determined at Site Plan;
With respect to the T.W. King East--that will remain open until Phase 1 is completed;
Acknowledging Sabre's agreement to "put their full weight" behind efforts to get TxDOT
to allow the two-way road from T.W. King to Kirkwood Blvd. interchange;
Limit the total square footage of the proposed development to 3.5 million S.F.; and
With respect to White Chapel being used as a construction entrance, the Commission
recommends that Sabre complete "as quickly as possible" the northern bridge across
Kirkwood Branch and that as soon as it is feasible to utilize the bridge for construction
traffic, close White Chapel entry for construction and utilize the entry for emergency use
only. It should be recognized, however, that while Sabre is proceeding with all due haste in
the completion of the road and bridge along Kirkwood Blvd. that they not be prevented from
using the White Chapel entrance to do whatever is necessary to develop the property.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on June 17, 1999 Page 22 of 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
22
~" 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
33
34
35
36
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
Peebles
Boutte
Home, Boutte, Peebles, Shankland, King, Creighton
None
6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 06-17-99, tape 3, section # 1755)
AGENDA ITEM #9, MEETING ADJOURNMENT:
Chairman Creighton adjourned the meeting at 1:54 a.m. on June 18, 1999.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 06-17-99, tape 3, section # 1760)
Atrm Creighton.,.J
Chairman
ATTEST:
Lori A. Farwell
Planning Secretary
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on June 17, 1999 Page 23 of 23