1998-08-06 P&Z Meeting 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION MEETING
August 6, 1998
COMMISSION PRESENT: Chairman Ann Creighton; Vice-Chairman James Murphy; and
Commissioners Rob Jones, F. C. LeVrier, C. D. Peebles, and Keith Shankland
COMMISSION ABSENT: Mike Sandlin
CITY STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney Wayne K. Olson, Community Development Director Crreg
Last, Senior Comprehensive Planner Chris Carpenter, Senior Current Planner Dennis Killough,
Deputy Director of Public Works Charlie Thomas, Comprehensive Planner Stefanie Sarakaitis,
Community Development Secretary Lori Farwell
The Work Session started at 6:30 p.m. and ended at 6:56 p.m. The Commission discussed the
agenda for the Regular Meeting.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 08-06-98, tape 1, section #0737)
There was no Executive Session held.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Creighton at 7:09 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Chairman Creighton opened discussion of the minutes of the July 23, 1998, Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting.
Commissioner Peebles requested the following change to Page 7, Line29:
"Commissioner Peebles stated that he does not want to dictate policy to the City Council, but
that the City Council has previously decided to exclude gated communities, so we should refuse
this request."
Motion was made to approve the July 23, 1998, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes,
as amended.
Motion: Jones
Second: Murphy
Ayes: Murphy, LeVrier, Peebles, Shankland, Jones, Creighton
Nays: None
Approved: 6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 08-06-98, tape 1, section #0780)
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on August 6, 1998 Page 1 of 17
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
AGENDA ITEM #3. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS:
There were no Administrative Comments.
There were no Consent Agenda items.
Chairman Creighton stated that the applicant for Agenda Item #7, ZA 98-065, has requested to
withdraw that item.
AGENDA ITEM #5. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. ORDINANCE NO. 480-BB:
AGENDA ITEM #8. ZA 98-082. SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE OF
PLANTS OR OTHER GREENERY AS PART OF A RETAIL OPERATION, AND
AGENDA ITEM #9. ZA 97-142. PLAT REVISION FOR THE PROPOSED LOTS 2, 3.4. AND
5. BLOCK 1. KIMBALL/1709 ADDITION:
Motion was made at the applicant's request to table Impervious Coverage, Ordinance No. 480-BB,
and to continue the Public Hearing to the September 3, 1998, Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting, and to table ZA 98-082 and ZA 97-142 and to continue the Public Hearings to the August
20, 1998, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Motion: Murphy
Second: LeVrier
Ayes: LeVrier, Peebles, Shankland, Jones, Murphy, Creighton
Nays: None
Approved: 6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 08-06-98, tape 1, section #1064)
AGENDA ITEM #4. SIGN ORDINANCE NO. 704:
Director Last stated that Comprehensive Planner Stefanie Sarakaitis will lead the discussion tonight,
and he introduced Building Inspection Supervisor, Eddie Wilson, who will also be available to
answer any questions as needed.
Ms. Sarakaitis reviewed the changes that were made as a result of the Work Session held on August
3, 1998.
The Commission agreed to make the following changes regarding "Builder Signs":
Page 2, Line 45: "A temporary on-site sign identifying the builder or general contractor of a
residential ...... ~ --'-' ...... ~ ....... ~o~tmct!~ ~."
Page 17, Line 35: "Signs may only be placed after issuance of a building permit and must be
removed upon ..... v ......................................... ~'~ ~!~ 7~;~
O~Pancy."
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on August 6, 1998 Page 2 of 17
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
The Commission agreed to limit the maximum area of Attached Signs to 0. 75 square feet for every
one foot of width of building or lease space not to exceed 400 square feet (Page 9, Line 30).
Ms. Sarakaitis stated that she spoke to Billy Campbell, Director of Public Services, regarding
limiting the hours of illumination of Attached Signs (Page 10, Line 1). She said that he had many
concerns regarding this change. He stated to her that it would severely darken the store fronts and
encourage crime and vandalism.
Chairman Creighton stated that she does not want to do anything that leaves areas ora large parking
lot poorly illuminated and, therefore, making them less safe. She asked if there would be any way
to differentiate between offices, which tend to be located next to residences, and commercial areas.
She asked if Chief Campbell differentiated between the two (2) types of businesses.
Ms. Sarakaitis stated that he did not differentiate.
Commissioner LeVrier stated that the buildings themselves should still have security lighting of
some sort and that the Attached Sign should not be their only method of security lighting.
Vice-Chairman Murphy stated that he cannot imagine that the only lighting for an office is on the
sign.
Commissioner Peebles stated that he agrees with Vice-Chairman Murphy. He said he does not
believe the signs put off enough lighting to catch criminals.
Commissioner Jones stated that this is a safety issue brought up by the Director of Public Safety.
He said the Commission is talking about aesthetics over safety.
Vice-Chairman Murphy stated that if Chief Campbell feels that strongly over this issue, then he may
should show up at City Council when this ordinance is being discussed and further elaborate what
his concerns are exactly.
Commissioner Jones stated that he does not think the Commission should be questioning the
Director's judgement on this issue.
After discussion, the Commission decided to leave the wording regarding illumination of Attached
Signs as is, but still give Chief Campbell the opportunity to discuss his concerns with City Council.
Ms. Sarakaitis stated that she was asked by the Commission to find examples of the individual
channel lit lettering which is mentioned on Page 10, Line 45, and she could not find any. After
discussion, the Commission agreed to remove this wording entirely.
Regarding Subdivision Bulletin Board Signs (Page 14, Line 23), the Commission agreed to restrict
the maximum number of signs to one (1) per subdivision entrance with a maximum of two (2) signs.
The Commission also agreed to limit the placement of the Bulletin Board Signs to a minimum of
100' from an arterial.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on August 6, 1998 Page 3 of 17
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Director Last suggested granting relief to the masonry requirement on the Bulletin Board Signs.
Commissioner Peebles asked the City Attorney if it would be illegal for this ordinance to require
the new owner of a property which has a non-conforming sign on it, to replace the sign.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 08-06-98, tape 1, section #2055)
Mr. Olson stated that, if it was taken to court, it would be measured on whether it is an arbitrary and
unreasonable requirement.
Commissioner Peebles asked the same question regarding a new lease holder.
Mr. Olson stated that he feels the same issue applies there, too. He stated that in many cases, legally
the owners have changed, but the sign and the business stays the same. In other cases, he said it is
very clear that they are changing from one business to another, and it may be a little easier to defend.
He said we just need to be conscious of how we are going to apply this. Mr. Olson stated that many
times a City places a cost standard in the ordinance such as specifying if the sign is being replaced
or renovated up to 50% of the value, then a new sign is required. He said that many times when a
city comes up with a reasonable percentage figure, the courts will uphold it. He said that many times
the courts will agree that if substantial renovations to a sign are being made above a certain
threshold, then the city can make them conform to the new regulations.
Commissioner Jones stated that when businesses change owners, it usually takes care of itself
because the new owners want a new sign, and they will then be required to meet the new regulations.
Commissioner Peebles stated that he does not really want to go through this discussion tonight, but
requested that staffmeet with the City Attorney before this ordinance goes to City Council and work
in some language that gets us where we want without creating a liability situation.
Commissioner Shankland stated that Commissioner Jones is correct in that most of the time this
probably takes care of itself, but if the City can put something in the ordinance to be sure, he is all
for it.
Vice-Chairman Murphy suggested that, if need be, we do it in some form of an amortization.
Commissioner Jones asked that the City Attorney discuss this issue with the City Council and give
them an opinion regarding the amortization issue.
The Commission discussed limiting the maximum area of Banners to either 0.75 or 0.5 square feet
for every one (1) foot of width (Page 15, Line 32) and agreed to change it to 0.5 square feet.
Commissioner Jones stated that he does not agree with this change.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on August 6, 1998 Page 4 of 17
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Commissioner Peebles expressed his concern regarding the placement time allowed for Special
Purpose Signs (Page 16, Line 21). He gave the example ora soccer camp which would be allowed
to have a sign up for three (3) months or more given the current language.
Chairman Creighton agreed and stated that if it was a three (3) month camp, then they could feasibly
have their sign up for twenty-one (21) days plus three (3) months plus (3) days.
Commissioner Peebles suggested allowing twenty-one (21) days maximum.
The Commission agreed to change the language to twemy-one (21) days and leave in the language
regarding no more than twice a year.
Regarding the limitation of height of Real Estate Signs (Page 17, Line 41), Commissioner Jones
stated that there are several signs in the City right now that stand over 4'. After discussion, the
Commission agreed to change the maximum height to be "5' above finished grade."
Commissioner Peebles asked that the language regarding Window Signs (Page 17, Line 48) be
changed to read that it cannot exceed 15% of the total window area on the first floor or on the first
8' of window.
Director Last suggested language such as "15% of all glass within 8' above finished grade, and no
signs above 8'."
The Commission agreed that it is not their intent restrict painted window decorations such as holiday
decorations.
For multi-stow buildings, Director Last suggested adding language which would read something to
the effect of"10' above the at-grade entrance to that lease space."
The Commission agreed to make the following change to the maximum number of Garage/Yard
Sale Signs on Page 18, Line 1:
"Two (2) per sale; one (1) at subdivision entrance and one (1) ~
to the subdivision."
Ms. Sarakaitis stated that the last item she has to discuss is the measurement of the monument sign
and the required borders. She suggested measuring the maximum height to include the border and
measuring the maximum area, as well, to include the border.
Commissioner Jones stated that we would substantially decrease the face of their sign by doing that.
After discussion, the Commission asked the staffto do more analysis regarding whether or not to
include the border when measuring the maximum height and maximum area and take the analysis
to City Council.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on August 6, 1998 Page 5 of 17
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Hearing.
Bill Kemp, 400 Southridge Lakes, Southlake, Texas, thanked the Commission for their effort and
time spent on this ordinance. He agreed that illumination of Attached Signs should be allowed only
during business hours and that the wording of the ordinance should be left as is.
Chairman Creighton thanked Mr. Kemp for all of his hard work and stated that she does not believe
the Commission would be where they are on this ordinance without his help.
Pamela Muller, 214 Westwood Drive, Southlake, Texas, thanked the Commission for spending two
(2) extra evenings on this ordinance. She asked for clarification of the location of Garage/Yard Sale
signs listed on Page 18, Line 3.
After discussion, Ms. Sarakaitis suggested deleting the subsection "Location of Signs" on Page 18,
Line 3, in its entirety since it is already addressed in the "Maximum Number of Signs" subsection.
Ms. Muller stated that she agrees with Mr. Kemp's comments regarding the illumination of Attached
Signs.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 08-06-98, tape 1, section #3890)
Commissioner Peebles expressed his concerns regarding Vehicular Signs. He asked to add them in
Section 17 as a letter 'K' and have it read: Vehicular Signs, except as provided in Section 23.1.
Commissioner Peebles also expressed his concem regarding using body parts, animals, and food on
signs and questioned if it should be listed in the ordinance. He said he just does not feel they are in
good taste.
Commissioner Jones stated that they cannot regulate taste.
Vice-Chairman Murphy stated that he does not feel comfortable that they can write an ordinance that
addresses that without getting in trouble.
Mr. Olson stated that it would be tough to regulate food, people, and animals. He said it would be
hard to regulate one item but not another.
Motion was made to approve Sign Ordinance No. 704 as discussed and amended this evening.
Motion: Murphy
Second: LeVrier
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on August 6, 1998 Page 6 of 17
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Chairman Creighton stated that this ordinance is a substantial improvement over the existing
ordinance and thinks it will make a substantial difference in future signs that are erected in
Southlake.
Ayes: Peebles, Shankland, Jones, Murphy, LeVrier, Creighton
Nays: None
Approved: 6-0
Motion carried.
Commissioner Jones asked that the City Council look at the section that pertains to schools not being
able to have logos on their scoreboards. He said that we are way out of line telling a school that they
cannot get a $5,000-$10,000 scoreboard for free.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 08-06-98, tape 1, section #4361)
Chairman Creighton called for a break at 8:52 p.m.
Chairman Creighton called the meeting back to order at 9:01 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #6. ZA 98-079. CONCEPT PLAN FOR LOT 3. BLOCK 3. DIAMOND CIRCLE
ESTATES:
Senior Comprehensive Planner Chris Carpenter informed the Commission that this request is for a
Concept Plan for Lot 3, Block 3, Diamond Circle Estates, on property legally described as being Lot
3, Block 3, Diamond Circle Estates, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas,
according to the plat recorded in Volume 388-177, Page 7, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and
being approximately 1.02 acres. The property is located at 316 East Southlake Boulevard (F.M.
1709), on the northwest comer of the intersection of Diamond Boulevard and East Southlake
Boulevard (F.M. 1709). The Current Zoning is "O-1" Office District. The Land Use Category is
Office Commercial. The Owner of the property is 2 Diamond Ltd. The Applicant is James A.
Zimmerer. Twelve (12) written notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification
area, and three (3) responses were received with two (2) being undecided and one (1) in favor.
Nine (9) responses outside the 200' notification area were received and all nine (9) were in favor.
dames Zimmerer, 6528 Circle View Drive, Fort Worth, Texas, presented this item to the
Commission. He stated that regarding several responses which referred to the appearance of the
building, he met with surrounding property owners and went to a SPIN meeting and showed samples
of the materials he intends to use. He asked that the driveways be approved as shown (Item #1 on
the review).
Commissioner LeVrier asked Mr. Zimmerer why he came in with a Concept Plan and not a Site
Plan.
Mr. Zimmerer stated that it is the plan of least resistance.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on August 6, 1998 Page 7 of 17
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Commissioner Peebles stated that the problem he is having is that we have comments from twelve
(12) citizens who have gone out of their way to say the plan looks nice, and he wants to be sure that
those citizens get what they have been shown.
Vice-Chairman Murphy stated that Mr. Zimmerer has to come back with a Site Plan. He said the
Commission is going to have to take action on the driveway issue no matter what, and this is the
right time to deal with it.
Commissioner LeVrier asked Mr. Zimmerer if he realizes that his proposed cellar can only be used
for mechanical equipment and storage; he can never lease that space.
Mr. Zimmerer stated that he understands that.
Commissioner LeVrier asked how he intends to address the issue of parking.
Mr. Zimmerer stated that his designer interpreted the parking requirements differently than the City
does, and when he brings this back as a Site Plan he will address that appropriately and meet our
requirements. He said he is not asking for a variance.
Commissioner LeVrier asked staff if, technically, this plan could come back with the cellar as the
first floor, and the first floor as the second floor.
Senior Current Planner Dennis Killough stated that they could do that and revise their Concept Plan,
but with the limited amount of space on this site, he thinks it would be impossible to meet the
parking requirements for that much building.
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience stepped forward to speak.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Peebles stated that the applicant has given the Commission nothing as far as
elevations and articulation.
Vice-Chairman Murphy stated that the applicant is not required to.
Commissioner Peebtes stated that he understands that it is not required, but the applicant showed the
citizens a pretty picture. He said it concerns him that it is being handled this way, and he is not
going to vote for it.
Vice-Chairman Murphy asked how it should have been handled differently.
Commissioner Peebles stated that he would have submitted a Site Plan or a picture to go along with
the Concept Plan. Commissioner Peebles stated that he would like to see whatever was shown to
the citizens.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on August 6, 1998 Page 8 of 17
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Vice-Chairman Murphy stated that he thinks it was important that Mr. Zimmerer get out among the
citizens and show them what he has, and that is what he did.
Commissioner Peebles stated that he is not faulting Mr. Zimanerer for that, but what he is faulting
him for is not bringing the pictures to the Commission, too.
Mr. Zimmerer said he is very familiar with the problems of this site and read the past minutes of the
meetings. He said he has tried to do his homework and research everything. He wants to have the
support of the neighborhood and wants them on his side. He said that Jim Mellinger and Rich
O'Day actually have samples of the roof material and the brick.
Commissioner Peebles asked Mr. Zimmerer if he would be willing to submit the picture he showed
to the Commission along with this Concept Plan.
Mr. Zimmerer stated that he does not want to do that because it is only a concept.
Commissioner LeVrier stated that he has a problem asking the applicant to submit this elevation
along with this package because he is not at that stage yet.
Vice-Chairman Murphy stated that the applicant was never required to submit a Concept Plan. He
said the applicant's strategy was to find out whether or not he can get the driveway cut.
Commissioner Shankland stated that he commends Mr. Zimmerer on reading the minutes. He said
that anyone who reads the minutes knows that the Commission does not like surprises, and they like
as much information as they can get. He encouraged applicants to bring everything they have to the
meetings.
Motion was made to approve ZA 98-079, subject to Concept Plan Review Summary No. 1, dated
July 31, 1998, and accepting plans for the driveways as submitted and accepting the applicant's
commitment to comply with the remainder of the items on the review.
Motion: Murphy
Second: Shankland
Ayes: Shankland, Jones, Murphy, LeVrier, Creighton
Nays: Peebles
Approved: 5-1
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 08-06-98, tape 1, section #6118)
AGt~NDA ITEM #10. ZA 98-081. SITE PLAN FOR PROPOSED LOT 3R1. BLOCK 1.
GEORGETOWN PARK:
Senior Comprehensive Planner Chris Carpenter informed the Commission that this request is for Site
Plan for proposed Lot 3R1, Block 1, Georgetown Park, on property legally described as a portion
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on August 6, 1998 Page 9 of 17
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
of Lot 3, Block 1, Georgetown Park, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas,
according to the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 4216, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and
being approximately 0.89 acres. The property is located on the south side of East Southlake
Boulevard (F.M. 1709) approximately 800' east of South Kimball Avenue. The Current Zoning is
"C-2" Local Retail Commercial District. The Land Use Category is Retail Commercial and 75
LDN Overlay Corridor. The Owner of the property is Georgetown Monticello Partners, Ltd. The
Applicant is Pieter Andreis Jewelry. Nine (9) written notices were sent to property owners within
the 200' notification area, and one (1) response was received which was in favor.
Pieter Andreis Hye (Pieter Andreis Jewelry) 4522 Saddle Ridge Road Southlake, Texas, presented
this application to the Commission. Tom Wouters (Georgetown Monticello Partners, Ltd) 920 S.
Main Street, Suite 170, Grapevine, Texas; assisted Mr. Hye in the Site Plan Review Summary. Mr.
Wouters stated that the only variance being requested is for Item #2 (bufferyards). He said there is
no reduction in the number of plantings, it is just a relocation of the plantings and the open space.
Senior Current Planner Dennis Killough stated the due to realignment of the trail plan, this particular
site is not required to have a trail, but if the applicant chooses to put the trail in, then he could request
credits from the Park Board toward Park Dedication Fees.
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience stepped forward to speak.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
Regarding the Tree Analysis, Commissioner Peebles stated that there is a comment to the effect that
they are over the required amount of parking spaces.
Mr. Wouters stated that in one very heavily treed area of the property is the southwest comer, Mr.
Hye intends to have his own covered parking. He said there is not much that can be done as far as
the parking and the trees.
Mr. Hye stated that he is very much in favor of trees, and if he sees that there is a magnificent tree
there, he would rather give up the parking to save the tree.
The Commission asked that the applicant work with Keith Martin, Landscape Administrator, to
determine the health and vitality of the trees on the site. Mr. Hye agreed.
Motion was made to approve ZA 98-081, subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 1, dated July
31, 1998, deleting Item #2 (bufferyards) accepting the plan as proposed and accepting the applicant's
agreement to provide the required plantings and open space elsewhere on the site; and accepting the
applicant's agreement to work with Keith Martin, Landscape Administrator, in coordinating site
adjustments to preserve trees with consideration given to the existing health and vitality of the trees
to be saved.
Motion: Murphy
Second: LeVrier
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on August 6, 1998 Page 10 of 17
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2,4
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Ayes: Jones, Murphy, LeVrier, Peebles, Shankland, Creighton
Nays: None
Approved: 6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 08-06-98, tape 1, section #7062)
AGENDA ITEM gl 1. ZA 98-058. SITE PLAN FOR FRENCH SOUARE OFFICE COMPLEX:
Senior Comprehensive Planner Chris Carpenter informed the Commission that this request is for a
Site Plan on property legally described as Tract 5E situated in the Obediah W. Knight Survey,
Abstract No. 899, and being approximately 6.1441 acres. The property is located on the south side
of East S outhlake Boulevard (F.M. 1709) approximately 1,100' west of Byron Nelson Parkway. The
Current Zoning is "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District with "O-1" Office District uses. The
Owner and Applicant is David L. Ford. The Land Use Category is Low Density Residential. Five
(5) written notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification, and no responses
were received.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 08-06-98, tape 1, section #7269)
John Levitt (J.E. Levitt Engineers) 726 Commerce Street, Suite 104, Southlake, Texas, presented this
item to the Commission. He asked for variances to Items #Sa, b, and c (parking and loading areas),
Items #15a, b, and c (building setbacks), Item #16 (8' screening device), and Item #23 (articulation).
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience stepped forward to speak.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
Vice-Chairman Murphy stated that he certainly does not have any problems with the applicant
providing fewer parking spaces than is required.
Chairman Creighton stated that she does not have any problem allowing him to leave the articulation
as presented.
Commissioner Peebles expressed his concern regarding the homeowner to the southeast of this
development, and he does not know why the applicant cannot provide the 8' screening device.
Vice-Chairman Murphy stated that the only problem with that is that the only side that actually has
residential on it is the east side, and the regulations require the applicant to put 8' on the entire west,
south, and east sides.
Chairman Creighton stated that she agrees with Commissioner Peebles in that property probably
changed hands fairly recently, and the homeowner most likely did not receive the notice of this case.
She stated that she does not see the harm in leaving Item #16 in until this case goes to City Council.
The Commission agreed to leave Item #16 in until this goes forward to City Council and give the
homeowners more time to come forward.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on August 6, 1998 Page 11 of 17
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Motion was made to approve ZA 98-058, subject to Revised Site Plan Review Summary No. 1,
dated July 31, 1998, accepting Items #8a, b, and c, (parking) as proposed; accepting Items #1 Sa, b,
and c, (building setbacks) as proposed; and accepting Item #23 (articulation) as proposed.
Motion: Murphy
Second: LeVrier
Ayes: Murphy, LeVrier, Peebles, Shankland, Jones, Creighton
Nays: None
Approved: 6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 08-06-98, tape 2, section #0828)
AGENDA ITEM #12. ZA 98-083. PLAT SHOWING OF LOTS 12. 13. AND 14. O. W. KNIGHT
NO. 899 ADDITION:
Senior Comprehensive Planner Chris Carpenter informed the Commission that this request is for a
Plat Showing of Lots 12, 13, and 14, O.W. Knight No. 899 Addition on property legally described
as Tract 5E situated in the Obediah W. Knight Survey, Abstract No. 899, and being approximately
6.1441 acres. The property is located on the south side of East Southlake Boulevard (F.M. 1709)
approximately 1,i00' west of Byron Nelson Parkway. The Current Zoning is "S-P-2" Generalized
Site Plan District with "O-1" Office District uses. The Land Use Category is Low Density
Residential. The Owner and Applicant is 1709 Joint Venture Partners. Five (5) written notices
were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area, and no responses were received.
John Levitt (dE. Levitt Engineers.) 726 Commerce Street, Suite 104, Southlake, Texas, presented this
item to the Commission. He stated that he will meet all Staff Review Comments.
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Heating. No one in the audience stepped forward to speak.
Chairman Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
Motion was made to approve ZA 98-083, subject to Plat Review Summary No. 1, dated July 31,
1998.
Motion: Jones
Second: Shankland
Ayes: LeVrier, Peebles, Shankland, Jones, Murphy, Creighton
Nays: None
Approved: 6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 08-06-98, tape 2, section #0979)
AGENDA ITEM #13. ZA 98-084. REZON1NG:
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on August 6, 1998 Page 12 of 17
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Senior Comprehensive Planner Chris Carpenter informed the Commission that this request is for a
Zoning Change on property legally described as Tract 2C1 situated in the Thomas M. Hood Survey,
Abstract No. 706, and being approximately 2.47 acres. The property is located on the west side of
Shady Oaks Drive approximately 760' north of Turnberry Lane. The Current Zoning is "AG"
Agricultural District. The Requested Zoning is "SF-1B" Single Family Residential District. The
Land Use Category is Low Density Residential. The Owner and Applicant is Estelle Shuping.
Twelve (12) written notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area, and no
responses were received.
Lyle Shuping (Estelle Shuping's son) presented this item to the Commission. He said his mother
wants to sell a portion of her land to a neighbor.
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Hearing.
Larry Marshall, 905 Par~iew Lane, Southlake, Texas, stated that he has purchased the tract to the
south of Ms. Shuping's property about 4 months ago. He said he and his wife like the area and like
the way it feels. They intend to build a large home on their property in one to two years, and they
do not want a 300' driveway that close to their home. He said his lot is not all that wide and the
driveway will be extremely close.
Commissioner Jones asked Mr. Marshall what type of zoning he intends to ask for on his property.
Mr. Marshall stated that it will probably be a similar zoning. He said the zoning is okay with him,
but he is opposed to the division of Ms. Shuping's property into two lots.
Mr. Shuping stated that they are not tied down to the zoning. He said if the zoning needs to be
something with larger lots, then that is okay with them.
Senior Current Planner Dennis Killough stated that Ms. Shuping's existing home on the property
is approximately 1,800 square feet and if they were to choose a larger zoning than "SF-1B," it would
put her into a non-conforming category.
Commissioner Peebles stated that he does not like the way people are dividing up these long tracts
and putting homes behind homes. He said that is not his vision of Southlake.
Lynn Dixon, 909 Suffolk Court, Southlake, Texas, that he is the party who is trying to purchase the
back portion of Ms. Shuping's property. He said all he wants it for is for his kids to play back there;
he wants to put a sport court back there. He said he does not intend to build a house on it. He said
he does not need the driveway or the access from Shady Oaks.
Mr. Killough stated that the City cannot landlock a property, which is what would occur if he did
not require a driveway on Shady Oaks.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on August 6, 1998 Page 13 of 17
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Vice-Chairman Murphy asked why this could not be replated into a lot which would be adjacent to
and part of Mr. Dixon's property where his home is now located.
Mr. Killough stated that because Coventry is a Residential Planned Unit Development, they would
have to rezone the entirety of Coventry.
Chairman Creighton stated that this is not a residential use anymore, this will be a sport court.
Mr. Killough stated that staff was not aware of the intended use for the property. He said that they
cannot construct an accessory structure without a primary structure first. He said they can go to the
Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) to ask for a variance to that.
Chairman Creighton stated that she is not about to approve a non-residential use under a residential
zoning.
Mr. Dixon stated that if he cannot buy a piece of property and put a sport court on it adjacent to his
house, then he has a problem with that. He said that he is sorry, but he is straggling with the process.
Chairman Creighton asked Mr. Marshall what his thoughts are regarding having a sport court back
there instead of a house.
Mr. Marshall stated that the driveway is his major concern. He said the sport court would be better
to look at than a house.
Mr. Killough stated that the particular use he is proposing on the property is permitted under the
accessory uses in that zoning district. He said it is considered an accessory use in the "SF-1B"
zoning district.
Senior Comprehensive Planner Chris Carpenter stated that they believe he would have to go to ZBA
to get permission to have an accessory use prior to the primary use.
Chairman Creighton asked if staff has consulted the City Attorney regarding this request.
Mr. Killough stated that he has not because he did not know the intended use for the property.
Mr. Dixon: stated in order to make it easier on everyone, he could put the sport court in his yard. He
said if it is the sport court that the Commission is struggling with, he can either put it in his yard or
not build a sport court at all. He said he just wants some land for his kids.
Chairman Creighton asked Mr. Shuping if he would be willing to table this item and the plat, to
allow staff to consult with the Zoning Administrator and the City Attorney.
Mr. Shuping asked the Commission to table this case and the plat to August 20, 1998.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on August 6, 1998 Page 14 of 17
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Motion was made at the applicant's request to table ZA 98-084 and ZA 98-085 and to continue the
Public Hearing to the August 20, 1998, Plaiming and Zoning Commission meeting.
Motion: Murphy
Second: Jones
Ayes: Peebles, Shankland, Jones, Murphy, LeVrier, Creighton
Nays: None
Approved: 6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 08-06-98, tape 2, section #2106)
Chairman Creighton called for a break at 11:05 p.m.
Chairman Creighton called the meeting back to order at 11:19 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #15. ZA 98-086. PLAT REVISION FOR THE PROPOSED LOTS 17R
THROUGH 27R. AND LOT 28R (COMMON GREEN 45). BLOCK 42. TIMARRON ADDITION-
~OYALE:
Senior Comprehensive Planner Chris Carpenter informed the Commission that this request is for a
Plat Revision for the proposed Lots 17R through 27R, and Lot 28R (Common Green 45), Block 42,
Timarron Addition - Crescent Royale, being a revision of Lots 17 through 27, and Lot 28 (Common
Green 45), Block 42, Timarron Addition - Crescent Royale, an addition to the City of Southlake,
Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slides 2626 and 2627, Plat
Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being approximately 3.075 acres. The property is located on
the south side of the intersection of Queensbury Turn and Regency Crossing in Crescent Royale.
The Current Zoning is "R-P.U.D." Residential Planned Unit Development District. The Land Use
Category is 100 Year Flood Plain. The Owner and Applicant is Westerra - Timarron, L.P. Three
(3) written notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area, and no responses
were received.
Senior Current Planner Dennis Killough asked the Commission to add Item #13 to the Plat Review
which will state: This plat should not be filed until the Letter of Map Revision has been completed
by FEMA.
Richard Pcp?ne (Carter & Burgess) 7950 Elmbrook Drive, Suite 250, Dallas, Texas, presented this
item to the Commission. He stated he has no problem meeting all of the Plat Review comments
including Item #13.
Chairman Creighton opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience stepped forward to speak.
Chaimaan Creighton closed the Public Hearing.
Motion was made to approve ZA 98-086, subject to Plat Review Summary No. 1, dated July 31,
1998, adding Item #13 stating: This plat should not be filed until final approval of the Letter of Map
Revision by FEMA.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on August 6, 1998 Page 15 of 17
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
Murphy
Jones
Shankland, Jones, Murphy, LeVrier, Peebles, Creighton
None
6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 08-06-98, tape 2, section #2309)
AGENDA ITEM #16. ZA 98-062. REZONING AND SITE PLAN FOR PARK PLACE PET
HOSPITAL:
Senior Comprehensive Planner Chris Carpenter informed the Commission that this request is for a
Zoning Change on property legally described as Lot 1R2, Block A, Commerce Business Park, an
addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Cabinet
A, Slide 2552, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being approximately 0.78 acres. The
property is located on the south side of East Southlake Boulevard (F.M. 1709) approximately 180'
east of Commerce Street. The Current Zoning is "I-1" Light Industrial District. The Requested
Zoning is "C-2" Local Retail Commercial District. The Land Use Category is Retail Commercial.
The Owner and Applicant is Park Place Pet Hospital. Seven (7) 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.
Dr. Tom Holbrook, 2100 West Northwest Highway, Suite 207, Grapevine, Texas, presented this item
to the Commission. He said that the problems regarding the access and the circulation were resolved
today.
Commissioner Peebles asked staff if they have had the chance to review the new plans based on the
agreement made today.
Senior Current Planner Dennis Killough stated that they have not reviewed the new plans.
Commissioner Peebles stated that he would feel more comfortable tabling this item until staff had
the chance to review the new plans.
Mr. Killough asked Dr. Holbrook to provide some additional prints of the one plan he brought to the
meeting tonight and staff could review it for the next meeting.
Dr. Holbrook requested to table this item to the next meeting.
Chairman Creighton asked if this item could be placed at the first of that agenda.
Motion was made at the applicant's request to table ZA 98-062 and to continue the Public Hearing
to the August 20, 1998, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and requesting that it be placed
at the beginning of that agenda.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on August 6, 1998 Page 16 of 17
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
it
19
20
21
22
25
29
30
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
Murphy
LeVrier
Jones, Murphy, LeVrier, Peebles, Shankland, Creighton
None
6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 08-06-98, tape 2, section #2731)
AGENDA ITEM # 17. MEETING ADJOURNMENT:
Chairman Creighton adjourned the meeting at 11:37 p.m. on August 6, 1998.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 08-06-98, tape 2, section #2736)
Ann Creight n -- - '
Chairman~ ~5
ATTEST:
Loft A. Farwell
Community Development Secretary
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on August 6, 1998 Page 17 of 17