1999-09-09 P&Z Meeting 1
~' 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~ 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION MEETING
September 9, 1999
COMMISSION PRESENT: Chairman Ann Creighton; Vice-Chairman C.D. Peebles; and
Commissioners Michael Boutte, Kenneth Home, Dennis King, Mike Sandlin, and Keith Shankland.
COMMISSION ABSENT: None.
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney; Dennis Killough, Senior Current
Planner; Ed McRoy, Current Planner; Charlie Thomas, City Engineer; and Loft Farwell, Planning
Secretary.
Chairman Creighton called the meeting to order at 6:38 p.m. and said there would be an Executive
Session held in order to seek the advice of the City Attorney pursuant to Section 551.071, Texas
Local Government Code. The Executive Session started at 6:38 p.m. and ended at 7:08 p.m.
Chairman Creighton called the meeting back to order at 7:27 and asked the City Attorney if there
was any action necessary as a result of the Executive Session, and the City Attorney said no.
Chairman Creighton reordered the agenda due to the number of citizens present for several items.
She said the Commission would hear items in the following order: Item #9, #11, #14, #13, and then
the remainder of the agenda.
There was no Work Session held.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 09-09-99, tape 1, section #0168)
AGENDA ITEM #2, APPROVAL OF M1NUTES:
Chairman Creighton opened discussion of the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting held on August 19, 1999.
Motion was made to approve the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held
on August 19, 1999, as presented.
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
Sandlin
Home
Home, Sandlin, Boutte, Peebles, Shankland, King, Creighton
None
7-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 09-09-99, tape 1, section #0190)
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on September 9, 1999 Page 1 of 25
AGENDA ITEM #3, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS:
There were no Administrative Comments.
1
~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Chairman Creighton said Agenda Item #4 is on the Consent Agenda and will remain on the Consent
Agenda unless a Commissioner or a citizen requests for it to be removed. Commissioner Shankland
requested to remove it from the Consent Agenda and place it on the Regular Agenda for discussion.
AGENDA ITEM #9, ZA 99-076, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOTS 1 & 2, M_ALIK ESTATES
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~ 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
9 ADDITION:
10 Current Planner Ed McRoy presented this item to the Commission for a Preliminary Plat for Lots
11 1 & 2, Malik Estates Addition on property legally described as being Tracts 1A1A2B and 1A1A2C
12 situated in the Ben J. Foster Survey, Abstract No. 519, and being approximately 4.279 acres. The
13 property is located on the northeast comer of the intersection of Randol Mill Avenue and Gifford
14 Court. The Current Zoning is "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District. The Land Use Category
15 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.
Seema Malik presented this item to the Commission. She asked the Commission for access to Lot
I on Randol Mill Avenue. In her pursuit to get access, she said she asked Joy Clark how much she
wanted for the private drive, and Ms. Clark told her she would talk about it only after Mrs. Malik
brought her a $10,000 cashier's check. Mrs. Malik said that was not reasonable to her. She said she
also checked into costs for the building the street and was quoted from $50,000 to $350,000. She
said she cannot afford that. She said she is planning to have a circular driveway on Lot 1 so cars
would not be reversing onto Randol Mill Avenue.
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Heating. No one in the audience stepped forward to speak.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 09-09-99, tape 1, section #0396)
Commissioner Boutte asked staffto explain the issues with this request. Senior Planner Dennis
Killough said the primary issues contained in the review are limitations of the Subdivision Ordinance
for residential driveway access onto arterial streets. He said the other issues are with regards to the
local street connection to Randol Mill Avenue; staff's recommendation is that an agreement be made
which would combine Enterprise Place with Gilford Court to form a single, public right-of-way.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he spoke to the man who put the Enterprise Place road in and asked if
the City could use the road as a public right-of-way. Mr. Killough said it is 8' short of the standard
width, but it is a useable street. Vice-Chairman Peebles said this man told him he has not been
approached recently regarding the possibility of making that right-of-way public. He asked if that
right-of-way was made public if that would give Mrs. Malik the relief she needs on Lot 1, and Mr.
Killough said yes.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on September 9, 1999 Page 2 of 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~" 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Mr. Killough said the issue regarding the driveway, Enterprise Place, is that the actual physical
driveway is located within property under the ownership of Ms. Clark. He said the driveway exists
within a private easement carried with the land for the property to the east of Ms. Clark.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said before we start putting private access drives on Randol Mill, we need
to explore the issue of gaining access through this private easement. He said he does not think all
the parties have been approached recently.
Chairman Creighton asked if Mrs. Malik is considering the possibility of selling the front lot. Mrs.
Malik said maybe, or she may give it to her girls when they grow up.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said she is bringing this situation upon herself by platting this like she is.
He said she is creating her own hardship.
Chairman Creighton said she is creating the same problem all over again for Lot 2 because it won't
have access either and so she will be back someday asking for access to Randol Mill for Lot 2. Mrs.
Malik said the other owners will eventually want access, too, and then they can all join together and
resolve this issue.
Vice-Chairman asked staff how far her proposed driveway is from the private driveway. Mr.
Killough said it is approximately 375' from her driveway to the Gifford Court intersection.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he would be okay with 375' for Lot 1, but he knows Lot 2 will be sold
and then the new owner will be in requesting access to Randol Mill.
Commissioner Sandlin said the City should require 30' of right-of-way from Mrs. Malik and then
require 30' from Ms. Clark when she develops at some point in the future; he said doing it that way
would force the issue.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said there is no reason Mrs. Malik couldn't plat one (1) lot right now, and
subdivide it into two lots later.
Chairman Creighton asked if the Commission has the ability to approve a Preliminary Plat with one
lot since they have been provided with a plat which shows two lots. City Attorney Debra Drayovitch
said not unless it is at the applicant's request.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he is not inclined to approve it as it is, but he would be willing to
approve one lot right now.
Chairman Creighton said she agrees with many of the issues Vice-Chairman Peebles has brought up.
She said she would prefer to see this as one lot right now and possibly dividing it into a second lot
at some point in the future when the Gifford Court issue is worked out.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on September 9, 1999 Page 3 of 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~ 23
24
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked Mrs. Malik if she would agree to one lot instead of two right now, and
she said yes.
Mr. Killough said one thing Mrs. Malik should be aware of in this situation is that the City's
building requirements would require the front yard to be on Gilford Court if the lot line was removed
between Lots 1 and 2. He said she would be forced to orient her house towards Gifford Court
without a Zoning Board of Adjustment approval. He said to orient her house towards Randol Mill
as she has proposed would require ZBA approval.
Motion was made to approve ZA 99-076 subject to Plat Review Summary No. 1 dated September
3, 1999, deleting Items #1.a (private residential access to arterial streets is prohibited)and #1.b
(combining and dedicating a single public right-of-way for the private concrete driveway and access
easement with Gilford Court).
Motion: Sandlin
Second: Home
Ayes: Sandlin, Boutte, Shankland, Home
Nays: Peebles, King, Creighton
Approved: 4-3
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 09-09-99, tape 1, section #1145)
AGENDA ITEM #11, ZA 99-042, SITE PLAN FOR SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH:
Current Planner Ed McRoy presented this item to the Commission for a Site Plan for Southlake
Boulevard Presbyterian Church on property legally described as Tract 1D5 situated in the A. A.
Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 522, and including a 24' wide Common Access and Utility Easement
platted as part of Southridge Lakes, Phase C-l, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County,
Texas, according to the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 657, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas,
and being a total of approximately 5.169 acres. The property is located on the north side of West
Southlake Boulevard (F.M. 1709) approximately 480' west of Southridge Lakes Parkway. The
Current Zoning is "CS" Community Service District. The Land Use Category is Retail Commercial
and Office Commercial. The Owner of the property is Grace Presbytery USA. The Applicant is
Terry Cunningham Architects. Seventeen (17) written notices were sent to property owners within
the 200' notification area, and two (2) responses were received with both being undecided.
Terry Cunningham, 1903 Central Drive, Bedford, Texas, presented this item to the Commission.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if he would agree to abide by the City's new lighting ordinance. Mr.
Cunningham asked if that ordinance restricts them to no more than 0.2 foot candles at the property
line. Chairman Creighton said yes. Mr. Cunningham said yes, they do meet that ordinance.
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Hearing. She read the comment cards from people who do
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on September 9, 1999 Page 4 of 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,~' 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
not wish to speak but wanted their support of this item on record: Lynda Mathews, Stan Cochran,
Marsha Vt( Silva, Vicki Rose, Mike Littlejohn, Gail Brown, J.D. Brown, Layne Littlejohn, Roland
L. Stegall, Denise Light, Deb Behrens, Teresa Beaugh, Jane Ale, Corinne Skeels, and Jerry Light.
Reverend Mike Beaugh, 1641 Overcup Lane, Keller, Texas, thanked the Commission for their time
and attention to this item. He said they hope to be in this building by summer 2000.
Commissioner Shankland said last time this item was before the Commission, Reverend Beaugh
agreed to meet with the residents who are behind this area who would be affected. He asked if his
meeting occurred. Reverend Beaugh said they have spoken with the residents by phone and met
with them earlier tonight.
Commissioner Shankland asked if they talked to everyone adjacent to this site. Reverend Beaugh
said no. Commissioner Shankland asked if they would agree to maintain their plantings as long as
the church is there, and Reverend Beaugh said yes.
JeffMonahan, 104 San Jacinto, Southlake, Texas, said he understood at the last meeting the
applicant was going to show the adjacent homeowners an example of the proposed lighting, and that
has not occurred yet. He is being assured this lighting will fall at least 10' from his backyard. He
asked if the type and size of tree is determined by ordinance.
Mr. Killough said there is a requirement for the applicant to provide an 8' screening along Mr.
Monahan's property line; it can be either fencing or dense plant material. He said there is a caliper
requirement by ordinance. He said they would have to provide 8' of screening when the Certificate
of Occupancy is issued.
Mr. Monahan expressed his concern about the applican{ failing to maintain the trees and shrubs
indef'mitely; he is concerned about irrigation. Chairman Creighton said if this is the churches only
screening device, then the church must maintain it forever.
Mr. Monahan said they would still like to go out and actually see these lights for themselves. Ivlr.
Cunningham said he has every reason to believe the lighting company will give him a list of lighting
examples around the metroplex; these lights are commonly used on schools adjacent to residences.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said as long as the applicant agrees to meet the City's new lighting
ordinance, it should satisfy the adjacent property owner's concerns since the ordinance addresses
issues such as glare and spill-over lighting. Reverend Beaugh agreed to meet the new lighting
ordinance.
Commissioner Shankland asked when the church foresees the sanctuary being built. Reverend
Beaugh estimated in three (3) years they will be building the sanctuary.
Commissioner Sandlin asked if the church would agree to continue the north bufferyard all the way
over to the east property line, and Mr. Ctmningham said it wouldn't be a problem. Mr. Cunningham
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on September 9, 1999 Page $ of 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~' 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
said they are just trying to keep the costs down as much as possible.
Layne Littlejohn, 100 Belmont Place Circle, Southlake, Texas, said he is a member of the
congregation and wanted to voice his support of the church. He said the church is very excited about
its presence in the City of Southlake and wants to be a good neighbor.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 09-09-99, tape 1, section #2135)
Commissioner King asked city staffto explain the bufferyard and screening comments again. Mr.
Killough said all the screening is required with the first phase unless approved otherwise or varied
by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. He said the screening issue is a ZBA issue if any variance is
requested. He said the phasing of the bufferyards can be addressed by the Commission.
Commissioner Shankland said the addition of another house of worship will be a good addition to
the City. He said it bothers him that the church assured the Commission at the last meeting, they
would meet with the residents and ended up only meeting with two (2) of the residents tonight. He
thinks if the church would have met with the adjacent property owners as they said they would, they
could have addressed the homeowners concerns and the homeowners wouldn't have had to be here
tonight.
Reverend Beaugh said the person who tried to contact the homeowners is not present tonight, but
an attempt was made. He said he told Mr. Monahan that he would be willing to meet with the
neighbors in a joint meeting and that did not materialize. He apologized for not doing so.
Commissioner Shankland suggested that in the future the church maintain good communication with
the neighbors.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 09-09-99, tape 1, section #2244)
Motion was made to approve ZA 99-042 subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated
September 3, 1999, deleting Item #1.b but requiring the bufferyards to be placed along Lot 20 and
the first 30' o£Lot 19 with Phase I but acknowledging the applicant's agreement to phase in the
remainder of the bufferyards as phasing begins; acknowledging the applicant's agreement to
maintain the plantings in perpetuity; acknowledging the applicant's agreement to abide by the new
lighting ordinance; recommending that ZBA give relief to the applicant with respect to Item #1.a
with the exception that screenings be placed along Lot 20 and the first 30' of Lot 19; and also
recommending for the applicant and adjacent homeowners look at some lighting examples before
this item goes to City Council.
Motion: Peebles
Second: Sandlin
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on September 9, 1999 Page 6 of 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Ayes: Boutte, Peebles, Shankland, King, Home, Sandlin
Nays: None
Approved: 7-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 09-09-99, tape 1, section #2460)
Chairman Creighton called for a break at 8:40 p.m.
Chairman Creighton called the meeting back to order at 8:59 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #14, ZA 99-030, SITE PLAN FOR THE CHILDREN'S COURTYARD:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~ 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Current Planner Ed McRoy presented this item to the Commission for a Site Plan for The Children's
Courtyard on property legally described as Lot 2R, Block 60, Timarron Addition, Phase 5, an
addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Cabinet
A, Slide 4395, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being approximately 2.687 acres. The
property is located on the east side of Byron Nelson Parkway being approximately 630' south of East
Southlake Boulevard (F.M. 1709). The Current Zoning is "R-PUD" Residential Planned Unit
Development District, being P.U.D. No. 1, Timarron, and permitting "C-2" Local Retail Commercial
District uses. The Land Use Category is Retail Commercial. The Owner of the property is Realtex
Ventures, Inc. The Applicant is David Fisher Architects. Five (5) written notices were sent to
property owners within the 200' notification area, and the following responses were received: Five
(5) petitions, with one hundred six (106) signatures, were received being opposed.; twenty-two (22)
responses were received from outside the 200' notification area, with two (2) being in favor and
twenty (20) being opposed; ninety-seven (97) duplicate letters, "opposed to the Children's Courtyard
daycare facility being built in Timarron on Byron Nelson Parkway," were received; fifteen (15)
copies of the previous opposition letter were received with additional comments added.
Steve Yetts (Timarron Land Corporation) presented this item and introduced dim Mills (President
of Children's Courtyard, Inc., and Realtex Ventures, IncO 1825 Wirnbeldon Drive, Arlington, Texas,
to the Commission. Mr. Yetts made a correction as to the ownership of this property; it is still
owned by Timarron Land Corporation. Mr. Yetts presented a historical background of this site and
this area to the Commission. As a result of the second SPIN meeting, Mr. Yetts said they opened
up another driveway near the northeast comer of the site. He said this drive was shown on the
approved Concept Plan for the site.
Commissioner King asked if the original Concept Plan was approved as office space. Mr. Yetts said
it was approved as 30,000 s.f. of"C-2" uses which included restaurants and offices.
Mr. Mills said they have proposed a daycare with a 20,000 s.fi building with approximately 32%
impervious coverage. He said 30,547 s.f. of retail/office with approximately 90% impervious
coverage was approved with the Concept Plan. He said this center is designed to hold 268 children
with 142 being infants, toddlers, and pre-school children on the first floor and 126 after school
children on the second floor. He said they will give Timarron residents priority and expect to get
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on September 9, 1999 Page 7 of 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~' 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
80% of their children from a two (2) mile radius.
Although the Public Heating was previously closed, Chairman Creighton allowed anyone in the
audience who wanted to speak on this item the opportunity to do so.
Mike Mitchell, 2925 Harbor Refuge, $outhlake, Texas, said he wanted to speak regarding the need
for day care in Southlake. He said he currently uses a Children's Courtyard in Grapevine. He said
it would benefit him and many other Southlake residents to have this day care in Southlake. He
asked how many students the Grapevine school has enrolled, and Mr. Mills said around 400 students.
Mr. Mitchell said he went this morning and sat out in front of the Grapevine facility and counted
cars. He said he counted approximately one (1) car every 30 seconds. He said he does not want to
sound insensitive to the traffic concerns, but he found that the traffic generated was not a problem.
Chairman Creighton read the comment cards from people who do not wish to speak but wanted their
opposition of this item on record: Marion E. Dewey, Richard B. Dewey, Quivonna Stainbrook,
Laura Chelf, and Andy Low.
Robert Warner, 716 Wentwood Drive, Southlake, Texas, expressed his concern regarding the size
of this day care. He said there are at least six (6) other day cares located within a 4 to 5 mile radius
of Timarron; the urgent need for another one in our community is greatly exaggerated. He said
traffic is a significant concern. He does not think the existing retail center was meant to be a
thoroughfare for a nearly 300 child day care facility. He has spoken to 50 people in his
neighborhood and none plan to use this facility. He said the use of the Timarron name will greatly
benefit the Children's Courtyard, but the Children's Courtyard will not benefit Timarron.
Lisa Hassien, 725 Greymoor Place, Southlake, Texas, said there is no left mm into this site from
Byron Nelson Parkway. She said Commissioner Home suggested at the last meeting to create a left
mm into the site. She said she has not heard anyone say anything bad about Children's Courtyard;
it is just a location issue and a traffic issue. She understands this use already approved on this site,
but she hopes the citizens have a voice.
Cynthia Jalbert, 800 WentwoodDrive, Southlake, Texas, said there is another traffic concern which
has not been discussed - the light on F.M. 1709 only lets about three (3) to four (4) cars through at
a time during rush hour. She said parents will be coming to pick their children up after work and
will put a tremendous stress on Timarron families trying to get home. She is not sure where
Children's Courtyard got their demographic information; this is not something Timarron needs.
Chris James, 727 Greymoor Place, Southlake, Texas, said he read information about the zoning for
this site, and it refers to low to medium density which draws its clients from a 1 ½ to 2 mile radius.
He said if the applicant really feels the day care will draw from a 1 ½ to 2 mile radius and expects
that to support this facility, he is sadly mistaken because they will have to pull from way beyond that
distance. He asked if Children's Courtyard thinks it is okay to pull f~om beyond that 1 ½ to 2 mile
radius, then why is that distance written into the zoning category. He asked why the zoning
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on September 9, 1999 Page 8 of 25
documents refer to low to medium density? He clarified that Mr. Yetts is not speaking for the
Timarron residents.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~'23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Carolyn Morris, 403 St. Charles Court, $outhlake, Texas, said most of her issues have already been
addressed, but she wanted to say she is very concerned about the traffic impact on Byron Nelson and
the access to this site. She said there is no left turn off of Byron Nelson into this site, and Byron
Nelson is very congested in this area with Rockenbaugh Elementary. After the SPIN meeting in
which the applicant proposed opening a drive into the retail center, she went and drove down the fire
lane behind the retail center and said it is a disaster waiting to happen. As she was driving down
there, someone wheeled out of Frost Bank and almost collided into her. She said another thing that
disturbed her at the SPIN meeting was when Mr. Yetts suggested the day care give priority to
Timarron residents. She does not have children and she is not a Timarron resident, but she lives in
the area and goes up and down Byron Nelson Parkway frequently. She cannot imagine a private
business restricting the clientele to a particular subdivision; she said that really offends her. She said
there are not very many children who attend Rockenbaugh Elementary who use after school day
care.
Edgar Alvarez, 705 Greymoor Place, Southlake, Texas, said his only concern is the location of this
day care. He said this location will only increase safety issues and congestion. He is concerned
about people using his neighborhood as a place to turn around in order to get back to the day care.
The idea of a thoroughfare through the back of the shopping center is not a safe alternative, and he
did not know that was legal.
Frank Fisher, 725 Bryson Way, Southlake, Texas, said it was suggested at the last meeting that the
Children's Courtyard people meet with the residents and come up with a compromised plan. He said
they did meet, but there was not one suggestion regarding any sort of compromise. He brought up
several details of the traffic study he found particularly interesting. He thinks there potentially could
be traffic jams and accidents if the northeast drive is opened up into the retail site. He said there is
a very slim chance Children's Courtyard will get 75-80% of their enrollment from Timarron
residents as Mr. Mills said earlier.
Cynthia ~lalbert said she would like to know what demographics were used in the traffic study.
Mr. Mills said the traffic engineer said at the SPIN meeting he did not take into account any of the
trips already being on the road; he assumed they were all new trips. He said regarding limiting the
number of children - their demographic profile tells them there is a percentage of preschool, a
percentage of infant/toddler, and a percentage of school age demand in this area. He said if they
were to lower it to 180 students considering the price of land and the cost of development, it would
have to be 180 full time students which is worse than 142 full time students with the remainder being
school age. He said the only thing the attendees of the SPIN meeting wanted to hear was Children's
Courtyard is going away.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he wants to put a stop to the talk regarding this case "just being a site
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on September 9, 1999 Page 9 of 25
1 plan." He said in Section 30.1 reads: "...the purpose of this district is to prevent flexibility and to
2 encourage a more creative, efficient, and aesthetic design and placement of buildings.., it is intended
3 that the flexibility permitted by this zoning category extends to discretionary approval...in
4 conjunction with site plan or concept plan review." He said when they are coming in with a PUD
5 and they are wanting Site Plan approval, the Commission has discretionary approval as per the City's
6 ordinances. He said this is not just a Site Plan; it is a PUD Site Plan. He said the problem he has
7 with limiting them to a certain number of children is that it will not be enforceable on them because
8 it needs to run with the land; if they were to sell this, the next owner could have 600 children. He
9 said if they could come back with a SUP saying they might want to teach elementary age children,
10 then he could piggy-back other limitations on that SUP.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~-' 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Commissioner Boutte asked where they came up with the limitation of 268 students. He said if he
read the Texas regulations properly, they have room in their 20,000 s.f. building for a lot more than
268 children. Mr. Mills said that is correct, but that is not the way they run their program.
Commissioner Home said he would think people coming down F.M. 1709 to get to this day care
would mm into the retail center behind the buildings instead of going down Byron Nelson Parkway.
He said he just spoke to City Engineer Charlie Thomas and was told the new drive is wide enough
for two way traffic. He said everyone is concerned about additional traffic on Byron Nelson, but that
may not be the case.
Mr. Yetts said he does not control the signalization on F.M. 1709 and Byron Nelson Parkway; he is
not sure the City even controls that light. He said no matter what goes in this site, there will be some
amount of traffic impact on Byron Nelson Parkway.
Chairman Creighton said she was on the Commission when the Site Plan was approved for Phase
I and the new driveway they are proposing was meant to be a fire lane; it was not meant to be access
for this shopping center. She remembers moving buildings around in an effort to avoid encouraging
cut-through traffic from the residents of Timarron. Mr. Yetts said he is not a traffic engineer, but
people will take the path of least resistance. He said that drive was something they proposed to
attempt to help the residents; the Commission does not have to approve it.
Commissioner Boutte said he measured the drive as 21 ', not 24' as discussed.
Commissioner Home said Mr. Yetts had him until he started talking about prioritizing the enrollment
for Timarron residents. He said for a person who lives in Southlake, this is his town; Timarron is
a part of our town. He said Timarron is not a separate town, it is part of Southlake. He is a tax
paying citizen of Southlake, Timarron is in Southlake, and this day care is in Southlake. He does
not like the idea of this facility being on F. M. 1709 or S.H. 114 because these kids are 3' tall and
are just about tail-pipe level. He does not like to think about a car running up over a curb and hitting
a child.
Mr. Yetts said he was a little misunderstood when he talked about Timarron residents having
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on September 9, 1999 Page 10 of 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~" 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
priority. He said they are bringing this facility in and would like Timarron residents to be involved
with it and use it. He said that is not a deal-killer; if the Commission does not want Timarron
residents to have preferred enrollment, then they can eliminate it.
Chairman Creighton asked staffwhat a service lane is considered to be. She considers it to be a lane
which allows service to the buildings that are there, such as deliveries, etc. Mr. Killough said that
is the primary function of a service lane. Chairman Creighton said she does not envision it handling
a high volume of traffic. Mr. Killough said the driveway ordinance addresses and defines services
lanes. He said a service lane is not intended to be a primary access point for the facility, although
it does not technically limit the access to users of the facility.
Commissioner Sandlin asked if there were any other compromises, other than the school size,
discussed at the SPIN meetings.
Lisa Hassien said they did bring up the issue of a left turn coming south on Byron Nelson Parkway.
Carolyn Morris said another point discussed was moving this facility to the Timarron property on
the southwest comer of F.M. 1709 and Byron Nelson Parkway. She said the residents were told that
location was preferred for a restaurant or something.
Mike Mitchell said at the most, they would see 50 to 60 additional cars over an hour. He does not
know what they could put there that would generate less traffic that that. He told everyone to be
careful what they ask for.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 09-09-99, tape 1, section #7229)
Chairman Creighton said she would have like to have seen the traffic study compare this use with
an office use because this use generates different traffic entirely. She said it also concerns her to use
a piece of pavement, as in the fire lane, not designed for this use and located close to a major
intersection which also impacts two (2) subdivisions to the north, Foxborough and Diamond Circle
Estates.
Mr. Yetts said he is not going to pretend to be a traffic engineer, but it was approved to be a fire lane
when they originally came in. He said a fire lane is like a road; it is a public easement. He said
Charlie Thomas can explain what a fire lane is.
Mr. Thomas said a fire lane is designated in parking lots so that it cannot be blocked; it allows for
free movement of fire trucks and emergency vehicles. He said vehicles cannot be parked there and ·
unloaded, and dumpsters cannot be located within a fire lane.
Chairman Creighton asked ifa fire lane has to be 500' from a major intersection. Mr. Killough said
any drive connection to a public or private thoroughfare or street requires spacing from both an
intersection or another driveway; they are evaluated in the same manner. He said service lanes have
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on September 9, 1999 Page 11 of 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~' 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
different criteria attached to them if they are truly service drives. In this particular instance, he said
it is labeled as a service drive on the previously approved Concept Plan, however, on the review it
was never evaluated as a service drive due to the amount of parking abutting the drive lane and the
broad range of access it provided through the site. Mr. Killough said staff evaluated it for stacking
and spacing requirements for a standard commercial driveway; they were granted a variance at the
370' spacing from Byron Nelson Parkway and a variance for stacking.
Commissioner Boutte said he sees a lot of tracks back behind these buildings making deliveries. He
asked if they are violating any rules. Mr. Killough said a commercial driveway can also serve as a
service driveway; they are interchangeable. He said when staff looks at something as a service
driveway, it has no real connection with the rest of the internal traffic moving through the site. He
said it is isolated somehow, either by building barriers or limited points of access to the main traffic
flow within the site. He said there are very few driveways in Southlake that have ever been
evaluated as solely service driveways.
Commissioner Shankland said he is confused and asked exactly what type of drive this is considered
to be. Mr. Killough said first of all, it is a commercial driveway; it also is serving as a fire lane. He
said a commercial driveway can also serve as a service drive.
Commissioner Shankland said it is not truly a fire lane since it is also used for deliveries and has
trucks blocking it.
Motion was made to deny ZA 99-030.
Motion: Peebles
Second: Boutte
Commissioner Sandlin said he wanted to point out the fact that the applicant is asking for three (3)
variances.
Commissioner King said he does not take it lightly to vote on a matter like this, especially when
there are developers like Timarron or Children's Courtyard, but after listening to everything said
tonight, he feels it is pretty clear the use is too intense for this site. He said it is a good use and a
good operator, but it is too much for the location. Given the size of the day care and the intensity
of the use, he feels it is not the use for this location.
Commissioner Home said he really wanted to have this day care in this location. He knows there
are many people who need a day care center for their children and need one the quality of Children's
Courtyard. He knows his vote will be a minority, but it is a vote more or less for Children's
Courtyard and a day care center that will be viable. He is going to vote against this motion because
he wants it on record we do need Children's Courtyard here, and he hopes they can come up with
some compromise. He hopes they do not take this vote as their final answer.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on September 9, 1999 Page 12 of 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Ayes: Peebles, Shankland, King, Sandlin, Boutte, Creighton
Nays: Home
Approved: 6-1 (to deny)
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 09-09-99, tape 2, section #0400)
Chairman Creighton called for a break at 11:00 p.m.
Chairman Creighton called the meeting back to order at 11:19 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #13, ZA 99-057, REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CROWN
18
19
20
21
22
~23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
12 RIDGE ADDITION:
13 Current Planner Ed McRoy presented this item to the Commission for a Rezoning and Development
14 Plan on property legally described as Tracts 8, 9, 18, and 19, situated in the R. D. Price Survey,
15 Abstract No. 992, and being approximately 63.43 acres. The property is located on the west side of
16 North White Chapel Boulevard approximately 700' south of West Bob Jones Road. The Current
17 Zoning is "AG" Agricultural District. The Requested Zoning is "R-PUD" Residential Planned Unit
Development District. The Land Use Category is Low Density Residential. The Owner of the
property is Southlake/Solana, Ltd. The Applicant is Huitt-Zollars. Fourteen (14) written notices
were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area, and two (2) responses were received
with both being in favor.
Paul Spain said he and Bobby Harrell are the developers of the property, and Mr. Spain presented
this item to the Commission.
Commissioner Boutte asked Mr. Spain what is unique about this property that causes him to request
a PUD. Mr. Spain said the topography, the location of the properties adjacent to it, the industrial use
to the north, the trees, the water storage tank, and the adjoining neighborhood in Trophy Club which
is much more dense single family. He said it is a combination of the uses around it; they took the
best interest of the site and laid it out accordingly and felt like a PUD was the best way to do that.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 09-09-99, tape 2, section #0677)
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Hearing. She read a comment card from William
Lamoreaux, Sr., who was in support of this item.
Bill Lamoreaux, Jr., 3650 ~ W King Road, Southlake, Texas, said this plan looks like a positive for
the City. He said they have been working out in this area for quite some time to get city services -
water and sewer - and have been told a developer has to do it. He said these people can do it, and
it looks like a reasonable compromise on their side of White Chapel. He would like to say they
support it.
Linnie McAdams, 4001 7~ W King Road, Roanoke, Texas, said she is hear speaking on behalf of her
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on September 9, 1999 Page 13 of 25
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
'~" 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
1 mother, Linnie Johnson, who resides at this address. They are in favor of this particular project. She
2 said they moved to this area in 1948 and purchased this property in 1951. Her mother has resided
3 here continuously since that time. She said they are in SPIN #1 but did not even know about SPINs
4 existence until this development came up and Mr. Spain informed them of it. She said they have
5 never been invited to meetings or received any notices. She wanted to make clear they are happy
6 to work with SPIN but have not had the opportunity in the past to do so. This area was annexed in
7 December 1988 and at that time, they were told the density would remain not less than two (2) units
8 per acre. She said they were also told in a reasonable time, they could expect water and sewer
9 services; those things have not come about. They were also not notified when this area went to low
10 density on the Land Use Plan; they received no information about it. She takes care of her mother's
11 mail and has not received anything. She said Mrs. Grigsby in Illinois (who owns property on Bob
Jones Road) also wants it to remain two (2) units per acre, and she is also supporting this proposal.
She said a Commissioner asked earlier what is unusual about this area - there are some very unusual
uses already in this area which have potential for limiting other uses in the area. She understands
some people want one (1) acre lots, but that is not what they were promised when they were annexed
in. She thinks if they are annexed under certain roles, it is nice to think they can depend upon those
rules. She thinks this is an excellent project.
Chairman Creighton read the comment cards fi:om people who do not wish to speak but wanted their
opposition on record: Donna Walker, Bill Sawchuk, Alberto G. Escobedo, C. A. Walker, Scott
Bengtson, Michelle Bengtson, Bino Dollar, Lloyd Holcomb, Mariann Nichols (who also wrote: The
developer does not live in our area and is only interested in making more money than isjustifted
It will create too much traffic across from a children's recreational area.), Bob Icard, Pete
Landesberg, Robert Spencer (who also wrote: Developers knew Land Use Plan before they bought
the land and now they complain. Developers leave after they take the profits; no long term interest
in area.), Tom and Jacqueline Carney, Beverly Escobedo (who also wrote: White Chapel cannot
handle added traffic), Rick White, Jim O'Brien, Carolyn Morris (who also wrote: This land is shown
on the Land Use Plan as low density which was reviewed in 1998. ldo not think it should be zoned
as medium density.) and Peter and Marilyn High (who also wrote: Because the addition is adjacent
to Lakewood Ridge Subdivision where the houses are on 1.3 to 1.5 acre lots, we do not want to have
85 homes on 65 acres in the neighborhood The new addition shouM have no less than one acre lots
excluding the roads.)
Boyd Dollar, 525 Brooks Court, Southlake, Texas, responded to earlier comments and said it is not
SPIN's responsibility to notify people of public meetings in regard to Land Use Plans. In addition,
the SPIN meetings for this item had very good attendance, and the people who attended were very
adamant and very direct in that they wanted the developer to comply with the Land Use Plan. He
opposed this zoning request based on several reasons. He sees no reason for the PUD request; there
is nothing unique about this property that begs for PUD zoning. He said this plan is against the Land
Use Plan's goals and objectives; specifically, it is far from low density. Also, it fails to preserve the
rural atmosphere, and it does not protect the ambiance of openness. He expressed his concern about
all of the trees being removed and the additional traffic of this development combined with the new
school on White Chapel Boulevard. He does not think this complies with the goals and objectives
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on September 9, 1999 Page 14 of 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~ 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
or the spirit or intent of the Land Use Plan. He said the significant change of the approved Land Use
Plan was that all residential property north of S.H. 114 was to be low density residential, and now
the first developer in the area wants to use a PUD to circumvent that planning requirement. He
asked the Commission to not allow a developer to use a PUD to circumvent our Land Use Plan; that
is not the intention of PUDs.
Kim 0 'Brien, 4380 Saddle Ridge Road, Southlake, Texas, read from the City's mission statement:
"...the City of Southlake strives to meet the service needs of our citizenry and effectively manage
quality growth while preserving the abundant open space and rich, natural resources of the
community." She expressed her concern about the traffic issues with this development. She said
with Sabre possibly eliminating access to S.H. 114 eastbound, it would be forcing the traffic from
this subdivision to use White Chapel. She said there is also a very low spot on T.W. King which
floods out frequently and would also cause more traffic from this subdivision on White Chapel.
Cara White (SPIN #1 Representative) 4475 Homestead Drive, Southlake, Texas, said she is not
speaking for SPIN; she is speaking for herself. She is on the Park Board and was recently presented
with Mr. Spain's proposal; she voted against it. One of her reasons for rejecting it was the number
of trees he is proposing to remove; she said that is absolutely ridiculous. Her second reason for
voting against this item at the Park Board is drainage. She said Mr. Spain has not cleared up the
drainage issues related to Cambridge Place. Her understanding is that he has told the residents of
Cambridge Place it is not his problem anymore. She sees the same potential drainage problem with
this development. She said the land out in this area is very flat, and they have trouble getting it to
drain properly. She said Mr. Spain said in the SPIN meetings he lacked in having any
communication on the Land Use Plan, but he closed on the property in February 1998 and the Land
Use Plan was approved in January. She would think a large corporation would find out what they
are buying first. She said he also argued the fact that he would not be able to sell one (1) acres lots;
Mr. McMahan is selling lots in SheltonWood for $180,000 an acre.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 09-09-99, tape 2, section #1940)
Chairman Creighton said due to the late hour, there are a number of items that will not be heard this
evening. There are a number of plats which must be heard tonight. She said if anyone is present for
any item other than Items #4, 8, and 12, the Commission will not be hearing their item tonight. She
said the items being tabled to the September 23 meeting can be placed at the beginning of that
agenda.
Chairman Creighton said she has a comment card from Tony and Sheri Barrett who do not wish to
speak but wanted to record their opposition.
Dana Boyles, 4600 North White Chapel, Southlake, Texas, said she is opposed to anything less than
one (1) acre zoning. She expressed her concern about the traffic situation in the area. She said there
is nothing in this area which would require them to get special permission for PUD zoning. She said
people are always looking for several acres to buy for horses and to build a single home on. She
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on September 9, 1999 Page 15 of 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~ 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
encouraged anyone out in this area who wants to sell their property to put up a "For Sale" sign
because she is constantly getting asked how they found their five (5) acres of land. She said
Southlake has built a reputation as a city who wants openness and wants to consider people's
privacy. She asked the Commission if they have ever stopped to consider what an attractive area this
is with its equestrian possibilities; it could be such an elite and sophisticated environment to draw
people. There could be a polo club out there; there could be all kinds of neat and exquisite
altematives out in this area. She said there are lots of people like her and her husband who are
willing to spend their life savings on several acres.
Mike Lewis, 4564 Homestead Drive, Southlake, Texas, said he stood before the Commission about
15 to 17 months ago as a developer. He reminded the Commission of their decision when he asked
for a variance to the one (1) acre Land Use Plan, and he had 42,000 s.f. lots. He said the door was
shut to him. He asked the Commission to please be aware they have already made their ruling once
before on his parcel of land.
Dennis Minder, 223 Eastwood Drive, Southlake, Texas, said he is having drainage problems due to
Mr. Spain's Cambridge Place development, and these problems have never been resolved. He
explained the history of the drainage problems to the Commission. He said he talked to Bobby
Harrell a year ago, and Bobby told him he would try to do something about the drainage. He saw
Bobby again in City Hall in May and told him of the situation again and Bobby told him, "We've
sold the subdivision; it's not our problem." He wanted to advise everyone who does business with
these people they need to have everything in writing.
Doug Fulp, 188 Sam Bass Ridge Road, Southlake, Texas, said he won't discuss the possible drainage
problems, the traffic, or the surrounding lot sizes because they have already been discussed. He said
he has not heard anything that should make the Commission change the decision they made on the
Land Use Plan; he does not see any reason to go against that decision.
John Richardson, 4637 Homestead Drive, Southlake, Texas, said he would like to discuss something
the City has had difficulty with over the years. Ifa majority of people in a given area of Southlake
would like to see a situation go a certain way, we have had a difficult time of communicating that.
He gave the example of the recent Sabre approval. When people are involved who are close to a
situation, it seems to him those opinions ought to matter. He said there are ways to develop this area
without violating the Land Use Plan. He said the Commission is hearing tonight fxom a lot of people
who are affected by this request, and it seems to him that should carry a lot of weight. He has never
been assured citizen opposition made any difference in the past, but he would appreciate the
Commission taking it into consideration tonight.
Baron Rittiner, 134 Sam Bass Ridge Road, Southlake, Texas, commented on Mrs. McAdams earlier
statement about being promised two (2) houses per acre when she was annexed into the city. He said
a big reason the Land Use Plan was changed was Bob Jones Park. The park has over 18 fields with
30 players per field, and each parent will probably drive a separate car; if you do the math, that
means a lot of cars. He said the trade off in order to have this park with that number of cars was to
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on September 9, 1999 Page 16 of 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~ 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
lower the Land Use Plan to low density. He asked Mr. Spain if he really wants to waste these lake-
view lots on three (3) units per acre when right down the street in SheltonWood, they are selling lots
for $180,000 per acre and cannot even smell the lake from there. He said he will not stand for
increased density. He said it is in the Commission's hands to do the right thing and uphold the Land
Use Plan or cave in for economic interests.
Irene Holcomb, 4488 Soda Ridge Road Southlake, Texas, said she strongly agrees with the
comments brought up tonight. She said her property is on a pond, and she is concerned drainage in
the area. She said she is strongly opposed to less than one (1) acre lots. She believes her pond has
received less drainage since the park was built and thinks the drainage situation needs to be looked
at.
Jackie White, 1203 Plantation Drive, Southlake, Texas, said she recently purchased property at 600
W Bob Jones Road Southlake, Texas, and said one of the reasons she is moving is because promises
are not being upheld in her area. She can tell everyone that no matter how nice this subdivision
would be if it went in, the traffic would be unreal. She said she was not notified for this item and
should have been. She said when she looked at the proposed plan it showed a sewage lift facility
right outside her driveway and asked what this would look like.
City Engineer Charlie Thomas said it is a below-ground facility which will be a concrete slab with
pipe.
Ms. White asked him if it has landscaping around it. Mr. Thomas said a lot of times they do.
Ms. White asked for the Commission to stick with the Land Use Plan. She said she would even hate
to see one (1) acre lots; she would much rather see an equestrian development.
Susan Quinn, 192 Sam Bass Ridge Road Southlake, Texas, said she lives about a block and a half
from this development and asked the Commission to not approve this request.
Dick Anderson, 4553 N. White Chapel Road Southlake, Texas, said the area up there needs to be
maintained as a low density use area. The rest of Southlake has its small lots, big homes, and
manicured lawns, and that is great if that is what you want; he chose to live up north. He has 2 IA
acres and lives on a pond. He expressed his concem about drainage around that pond if this property
develops. He drove around the northern area to get an idea of what the market is like for the homes
in that area; he found one (1) home for sale. That goes back to what his neighbors are saying about
the demand for large lots. He said this area lends itself for the development of equestrian trails,
parks, subdivisions, polo fields, etc. He urged the Commission to go with the Land Use Plan.
Mr. Spain presented his drainage plan to the Commission. Regarding the drainage at Cambridge
Place, he said they have abided by all City regulations and told anyone to contact Mike Moore with
the City to see if he has any issues. As they developed Cambridge Place, he said they took a lot of
time and effort to save trees because they are very important to him. When he went before the Park
Board, he complied with everything they asked for and took away one (1) negative vote and the rest
were positive. He said the traffic will not be a problem with 1.3 du/acre when the roads were
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on September 9, 1999 Page 17 of 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~" 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
designed for 1.8 du/acre and more. He does not believe there is a traffic problem or staff would
have asked for more right-of-way. He said the owners are partners in the property and went to the
City in November 1997, and that point it was medium density and that is what they were told.; they
went about their work not knowing there was change in effect. By the time they closed on the
property in February, he said the Land Use Plan was Low Density. He said they are looking at a
variety of uses in the area which is why they asked for PUD zoning.
Linnie McAdarns said she wanted to correct one thing and that is the people in support of this item
are here for the short term. Her mother has been here for more than 50 years and has no intention
of leaving; she intends to live there until she dies. She said a major portion of the area southeast of
this development is currently being developed at a greater density that is proposed in this particular
plan. She said property on T.W. King is not selling for these horrendous amounts being discussed
tonight; a realtor told her property in that area is selling for $25,000-$35,000 per acre.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 09-09-99, tape 2, section #3460)
Commissioner Sandlin said the Commission has approved one (1) PUD since he has been on it. He
said when a PUD is approved, the City gets something in return, such as park land. He does not see
what the City is getting with this PUD. He thinks this property should remain lower density since
it is surrounded by tracts with an acre to five acres each.
Chairman Creighton said she was on the Commission at the time the Land Use Plan was amended.
She said it took several months and feels all of these issues being raised tonight were addressed in
the Land Use Plan meetings. It is her recollection there was a great deal of consideration that went
into the decision to make this area Low Density Residential.
Commissioner Home said when this property was annexed, they were supposed to have received
water and sewer services. He asked what the City's obligation is to hold to that. Mr. Killough said
he is not aware of the annexation documents; he does not have that material available.
Commissioner Home said this property was annexed in December 1988 and now more than ten (10)
years later, water and sewer services are not available; that disturbs him.
Motion was made to deny ZA 99-057.
Motion: Boutte
Second: Shankland
Commissioner Home said he wants to keep the issue open about the water and sewer line, and he
will talk to staff more about it.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said Chesapeake Place was a lot like this item except for two things. He said
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on September 9, 1999 Page 18 of 25
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~ 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
1 they are similar regarding the following: the adjacent city has a higher density, there are drainage
2 problems, you have Northwest school district versus Keller school district versus Carroll school
3 district, and they are shown as Low Density Residential on the LUP. He said he and Jim Murphy
4 both came to the number 1.3 du/acre for Chesapeake Place, so when he first looked at Crown Ridge
5 and saw 1.3 du/acre, he did not think much of it. He pointed out there are two things different: this
6 development has several one acre lots in it. He asked Mr. Killough to mn a rough calculation for
7 him tonight, and the western portion which does not have one acre lots is actually a density of 1.7
8 du/acre. He said that is a big difference; Chesapeake Place was 1.3 dtffacre, but that was spread out
9 over the entire development. He said Crown Ridge is almost like two different developments in one;
10 it is almost misleading to throw around that 1.3 du/acre number. The second thing he said is this
property is north of S.H. 114; that is a big consideration for him.
Chairman Creighton said she remembers the discussions on the LUP, and it was decided at that time
it was desirable for the City to have different types of realty available; it was a benefit to the City
to offer both the opportunity for medium density development and low density development. She
has not been persuaded there is a real reason to deviate from the LUP. She said Mr. Spain drove her
through this area, and it is a beautiful piece of land. She said it is inconceivable to her it could not
develop as a very nice low density development.
Commissioner Home agreed saying low density is one of the reasons he bought his home north of
S.H. 114.
Ayes: Shankland, King, Home, Sandlin, Boutte, Peebles, Creighton
Nays: None
Approved: 7-0 (to deny)
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 09-09-99, tape 2, section #3954)
AGENDA ITEM #4, ZA 99-067, FiNAL PLAT FOR CHESAPEAKE PLACE:
Senior Planner Dennis Killough informed the Commission this a Final Plat for Chesapeake Place
on property legally described as Tracts 4A, 4A8, 4A9, 4B, and 4E2, situated in the J.G. Allen
Survey, Abstract No. 18, and being approximately 54.574 acres. The property is located on the
northeast comer of the intersection of South Pearson Lane and Union Church Road. The Current
Zoning is "R-PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District. The Land Use Categories are
Low Density Residential and Retail Commemial. The Owner of the property is Pulte Homes of
Texas, L.P., and the Applicant is Carter & Burgess, Inc. There were no notices required for a Final
Plat.
Motion was made to approve ZA 99-067 subject to Plat Review Summary No. 3, dated September
3, 1999.
Motion: Sandlin
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on September 9, 1999 Page 19 of 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Second:
myes~
Nays:
Abstain:
Approved:
Home
King, Home, Sandlin, Boutte
Shankland, Creighton
Peebles
4-2-1
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 09-09-99, tape 2, section #4221)
AGENDA ITEM #5, ZA 99-068, REZONING;
AGENDA ITEM #6, ZA 99-081, REZONING;
AGENDA ITEM #7, ZA 99-062, REZONING;
AGENDA ITEM #8, ZA 99-063, PLAT SHOWiNG OF PROPOSED LOTS 6 AND 7, J. J.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,~'23
24
25
26
27
28
29
FRESHOUR NO. 521 ADDITION, AND
AGENDA ITEM #10, ZA 99-079, REVISED SITE PLAN FOR ECKERD:
Motion was made to table ZA 99-068, ZA 99-081, ZA 99-062, ZA 99-063, and ZA 99-079 and to
continue the Public Hearings to the September 23, 1999, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting,
placing those items at the beginning of the agenda.
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
Sandlin
Shankland
Home, Sandlin, Boutte, Peebles, Shankland, King, Creighton
None
7-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 09-09-99, tape 2, section #4426)
AGENDA ITEM #12, ZA 99-034, PLAT REVISION FOR LOT 3, BLOCK 6, SOUTHRIDGE
30 LAKES, PHASE C-l:
31 Senior Planner Dennis Killough presented this item to the Commission for a Plat Revision for the
32 proposed Lot 3, Block 6, Southridge Lakes, Phase C-l, on property legally described as Tract 1D5
33 situated in the A. A. Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 522, and including a 24' wide Common Access
34 and Utility Easement platted as part of Southridge Lakes, Phase C-l, an addition to the City of
35 Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 657, Plat
36 Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being a total of approximately 5.169 acres. The property is
37 located on the north side of West Southlake Boulevard (F.M. 1709) approximately 480' west of
38 Southridge Lakes Parkway. The Current Zoning is "CS" Community Service District. The Land
39 Use Category is Retail Commercial and Office Commercial. The Owner of the property is Grace
40 Presbytery USA. The Applicant is Area Surveying. Fourteen (14) written notices were sent to
41 property owners within the 200' notification area, and one (1) response was received which was
42 undecided.
43
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on September 9, 1999 Page 20 of 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~' 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Terry Cunningharn 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 99-034 subject to Plat Review Summary No. 4, dated September
3, 1999.
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
Shankland
King
Sandlin, Boutte, Peebles, Shankland, King, Home, Creighton
None
7-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 09-09-99, tape 2, section #4559)
Mr. Killough asked the Commissioners to keep the packets for the items tabled and bring them to
the September 23, 1999, meeting.
Commissioner Shankland motioned to reconsider Agenda Item # 9, Preliminary Plat for Lots 1 &
2, Malik Estates Addition. He said he was confused when the motion was made earlier and would
not have voted the way he did.
Motion was made to reconsider ZA 99-076, Preliminary Plat for Lots 1 & 2, Malik Estates
Addition.
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
Shankland
Peebles
Boutte, Peebles, Shankland, King, Home, Creighton
Sandlin
6-1
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 09-09-99, tape 2, section #4685)
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he does not want to create a situation where they will have a lot which
can be sold to someone who may think he is getting a nice, one acre lot and after he has signed on
the dotted line, discovers he cannot get a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) because he does not have
a road to Randol Mill and the other one is a private access easement. He thinks we are better offtbJs
way. He said Mrs. Malik agreed to it when she was standing here to make this one lot; the hold up
was it would have to go to ZBA for approval. His solution would be to deny the plat, acknowledge
her willingness to replat this to one lot, and requiting the house and the driveway to be shown as
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on September 9, 1999 Page 21 of 25
depicted on her plan. He said the Commission can recommend for ZBA to approve her request to
face her home towards Randol Mill.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
/""' 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
Commissioner Sandlin asked why she cannot use the private access easement to the south for Lot
2.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said if he bought Lot 2 right now and wanted to get a C.O., he would be
denied. He would have to come before the Commission, explain the situation and request a driveway
on Randol Mill.
Commissioner Sandlin asked why you couldn't put a house on Lot 2 facing Randol Mill and have
a driveway come out to the 60' easement.
Commissioner King said you would have to agree to pay to build the road.
Commissioner Shankland said there are neighbors to the east and Ms. Clark to the south may get
together in the future and work this out.
Commissioner Sandlin said he was angry when he heard Ms. Clark wanted $10,000 to talk to Mrs.
Malik, and he was only trying to think of ways to help out Mrs. Malik.
Commissioner Shankland said this helps her and she was happy with this when it was discussed. He
said she can still build her house, have access to Randol Mill, and she doesn't have to worry about
this right now.
Chairman Creighton said her hope is by the time Lot 2 comes in, the other property owners would
be in line to develop and the whole issue of one property owner having to pay for the road might not
be there.
City Attorney Debra Drayovitch said she would recommend when someone makes the motion -
instead of a motion to deny, make a motion to approve subject to it being one lot.
Commissioner Boutte said he feels very uncomfortable with sending that nice lady home hours ago
because the Commission rushed a vote and was hurrying too fast. He said, frankly, in his opinion
the Commission did not do a good job.
Commissioner Shanldand said she is going to get what she wants. He said when this was discussed
when she was here, she was pleased with it.
Mrs. Drayovitch said this is subject to her going to another body for approval after she goes to the
City Council; she does not think she understood that.
Commissioner Shankland said this is what is best for her.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on September 9, 1999 Page 22 of 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~ 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Commissioner Sandlin said generally people submit what they think is best for them.
Commissioner Boutte said he wishes them was a way to table this until we could have her before the
Commission again and do it all over with apologies.
Mr. Killough said the best ultimate solution for all of these properties would be to combine Gifford
Court and Enterprise Place into a single right-of-way. He said the Maliks are just trying to get a
building permit on their property, and staff is trying to work with them to get them them but still find
a way to accomplish the overall goal for those properties. One idea he had is to allow them the
access on Lot 1. He and Charlie Thomas went out and looked at the site and said for a single
residential lot which has adequate turn around on site, there does not appear to be any safety issue.
Allowing them access for Lot 1 on Randol Mill and requiring access for Lot 2 to be to Gifford Court
will keep people working trying to resolve the street issue. He has spoken to Joy Clark, and she is
interested in sitting down to work with everyone. He has also had calls from the people who
purchased the Massey property and from the people who have purchased two tracts east of that; all
of these people want to find a solution to this because they want to build new homes out there.
Chairman Creighton asked if staff recommended two lots. Mr. Killough said staff did not
recommend that to them.
Mr. Killough said it is the City's goal to solve this overall big problem, but at the same time, he is
trying to help the Maliks.
Mr. Thomas said on subdivision plats, we have put the statement on the plat regarding no driveway
access from this lot to whatever street. He said we do that for double-frontage lots. He asked why
we couldn't put that statement on Lot 2, denying it access to Randol Mill.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said that is fine and well with it on the plat, but he is trying to protect the
ignorant. He said a person may buy Lot 2 with that written on the plat but not see it and still come
to the City wanting a driveway on Randol Mill.
Mr. Killough said with that statement on the plat, no building permit could be issued on the lot until
the street issue is resolved.
Chairman Creighton said that is not their only concern. What she hears being said is that in two
months, Lot 2 may be back before the Commission with no access.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he would feel better for the future purchaser of Lot 2, if they didn't
make it. He said Mrs. Malik was fine with that.
Chairman Creighton asked about Commissioner Boutte's request to table this item. Mr. Killough
said it was submitted August 23 for formal review, and the next meeting is not until September 23,
so it would put it over the 30 day time limit by one day.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on September 9, 1999 Page 23 of 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
Motion was made to approve ZA 99-076 subject to Plat Review Summary No. 1, dated September
3, 1999, approving only one lot and acknowledging the applicant's willingness to go to one lot;
acknowledging the applicant's plan which showed the driveway being approximately 350' from
Enterprise Place; recommending to ZBA to allow the applicant to realign her home towards Randol
Mill because the realignment was brought forth about by P&Z's action to eliminate Lot 2; suggesting
for staff to continue to make the effort necessary to make Enterprise Place a public road; deleting
Items #1.a (private residential access to arterial streets is prohibited)and #1.b (combining and
dedicating a single public right-of-way for the private concrete driveway and access easement with
Gifford Court).
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
Peebles
Shankland
Peebles, Shankland, King, Home, Creighton
Sandlin, Boutte
5-2
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 09-09-99, tape 2, section #5856)
AGENDA ITEM #15, ZA 99-023, REVISED CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE SHOPS OF
21
22
~ 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
SOUTHLAKE:
Tabled to the September 23, 1999, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting pending an appeal to
the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
AGENDA ITEM #16, MEETiNG ADJOURNMENT:
Chairman Creighton adjourned the meeting at 1:45 a.m. on September 10, 1999.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 09-09-99, tape 2, section #5863)
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on September 9, 1999 Page 24 of 25
1
2
3
4
5
8
9
10
11
ATTEST:
Loft A. Farwell
Planning Secretary
N:\Community DevelopmenflWP-FILES\MTG\MINX 1999\09-09-99DOC
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on September 9, 1999 Page 25 of 25