1997-11-06 P&Z Meeting 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
~8
20
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
November 6, 1997
COMMISSION PRESENT: Chainman Joe Wright; Vice-Chairman James Murphy; Commissioners
Ann Creighton, Debra Edmondson, Rob Jones, F. C. LeVrier, and Lanny Tate
COMMISSION ABSENT: None
CITY STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney Debra Drayovitch, Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy,
Landscape Administrator Keith Martin and Community Development Secretary Lori Farwell
There was no Executive Session held.
WORK SESSION: The work session was held to discuss agenda items by the Commission and the
staff.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Wright at 7:20 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Chairman Wright opened discussion of the minutes of the October 23, 1997, Regular Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Edmondson requested the following addition on Page 3, Line 19:
"Commissioner Edmondson responded that Coventry was a PUD, with large areas of open space
to compensate for the smaller lots. Mr. Lewis asked what a PUD was."
Commissioner Edmondson also requested the following addition on Page 6:
"Commissioner Edmondson advised Mr. Lewis that his development more closely resembled
developments off of Plantation Drive, Post Oak Drive, and Wakefield Drive, which are all one
(1) acre or larger lots, and only one (1) or two (2) street subdivisions - not Coventry."
Commissioner Jones asked that there be more detail in future minutes and also that Chairman
Wright's comments regarding selective cutting be added to the October 23, 1997, minutes.
Motion was made to approve the October 23, 1997, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
minutes as amended.
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Tate
Jones
Creighton, Edmondson, LeVrier, Tate, Jones, Wright
None
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on November 6, 1997 Page 1 of 9
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.2.2
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Abstain: Murphy
Approved: 6-0-1
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 11-06-97, tape 1, section #1904)
AGENDA ITEM #3. ADMiNISTRATIVE COMMENTS:
There were no administrative comments.
AGENDA ITEM #4. ZA 97-141. CONCEPT PLAN FOR KIMBALL/1709 ADDITION. AND
AGENDA ITEM #5. ZA97-142. PLAT REVISION OF PROPOSED LOTS 1R3R1.1R3R2. 1R3R3.
AND 2. BLOCK 1. KIMBALL/1709 ADDITION;
Motion was made at the applicant's request to table ZA97-141 and ZA97-142, and continue the
Public Heating to the November 20, 1997, Regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Motion: Murphy
Second: Tate
Ayes: Murphy, Edmondson, LeVrier, Tate, Jones, Creighton, Wright
Nays: None
Approved: 7-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 11-06-97, tape 1, section #1946)
AGENDA ITEM #6. ZA 97-143. REZONiNG AND SITE PLAN FOR LOT 4R. BLOCK B.
NORTH DAVIS BUSINESS PARK ADDITION:
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy informed the Commission that this item is for a Rezoning and
Site Plan of property legally described as Lot 4R, Block B, North Davis Business Park Addition, an
addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Cabinet
A, Slide 253, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas. The property is located in North Davis Business
Park, on the northeast comer of the intersection of Greenwood Drive and Greenbriar Drive. The
current zoning is "I-1" Light Industrial District. The requested zoning is "S-P-l" Detailed Site Plan
District with "I-1" Light Industrial District uses and limited "B-2" Commercial Manufacturing
District uses to include auto painting facilities, automobile body shops, brake shops, glass shops, seat
cover & upholstery shops, transmission shops, automobile repair/service, oil & lube shops, and
muffler shops. The Land Use Category is Industrial. The owner is Van Til Properties. The
applicant is Jaime A. and Brenda P. Garcia. Eleven (11) written notices were sent to property
owners within the 200' notification area, and no responses have been received.
Jairne A. and Brenda P. Garcia, 6000 Kimberly Court, Haltom City, Texas, presented this item to
the Commission. Mr. Garcia stated that his body shop would handle mostly small repairs and have
no outside storage. He stated that it would be a direct repair facility for several local insurance
companies such as Allstate, State Farm, and Farmers. He stated that there would be a limited
number of cars allowed in the facility at any given time - probably only seven (7) to eight (8) cars.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on November 6, 1997 Page 2 of 9
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
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Commissioner Jones asked if there would be cars parked outside in any state of disrepair, and Mr.
Garcia stated that there would not be.
Commissioner LeVrier asked if all the cars would have current registration, and Mr. Garcia stated
that they would.
Chairman Wright asked how many cars will fit in the building, and Mr. Garcia stated that there is
room for eleven (11) cars, but once the equipment is placed in the building, there will be enough
room for about eight (8) cars.
Mr. Garcia stated that for insurance reasons, he will not take in more cars than what will fit in the
building; he will not leave them outside. He also stated that if there is no space available at his shop,
there are yards where vehicles can be towed until he is ready for them. He stated that he will not
take them until he is ready to work on them.
Chairman Wright opened the public hearing.
Jim Giffin, 3002 Briar Lane, Southlake, Texas, stated that if the Commission allows this use in the
"I-1" zoning, then the zoning ordinance needs to be changed. He asked that the Commission not
deteriorate the uses intended for the North Davis Business Park. He stated that this is the first
property people will see as they enter the park, and this is not an appropriate use. He stated his
concern regarding ventilation needed for painting and what type of structure will be required on the
outside of the building for this. He asked the Commission to deny this request.
Chairman Wright closed the public hearing.
Mr. Garcia stated that he will be painting in this building, but the spray booth requires approval by
the Fire Marshal and by the E.P.A.
Vice-Chairman Murphy asked if Mr. Garcia is requesting all of the "B-2" uses listed on the Staff
Report or is Mr. Van Til requesting them. Ms. Gandy stated that she spoke to Mr. Van Til, and he
stated that he preferred to include all of the listed uses, but would be agreeable to striking any uses
the Commission found unacceptable. She stated that in order for Mr. Garcia to operate his business,
he will only require the automobile body shop use and the auto painting facilities use.
Commissioner Creighton asked Ms. Gandy to describe the uses intended for the Davis Boulevard
"Service Corridor." Ms. Gandy said that the Corridor Study states that it is intended to be a mixture
of light industrial, large scale retail and wholesale uses, and it may include auto service and repair
uses.
Chairman Wright stated that he does not have a problem with Mr. Garcia's request, as long as he
keeps the vehicles contained within the building. Chairman Wright stated that he has never in his
life seen a body shop that contained everything within the building.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on November 6, 1997 Page 3 of 9
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
43
Chairman Wright stated that when someone brings a vehicle in for a bid or estimate, then the vehicle
needs to be pulled inside and not left outside.
Ms. Gandy stated that if the applicant can or cannot live within these guidelines, he needs to state
that now.
Chairman Wright asked Mr. Garcia where he intends to wet sand a vehicle once it has been painted,
and Mr. Garcia stated that he will have a designated area within building. Mr. Garcia stated that
there will be no work done on a vehicle outside.
Commissioner Creighton asked if the applicant can meet the requirements of the Staff Review, and
Mr. Garcia stated that he can.
Commissioner Edmondson stated that due to the uses that the "I-1" zoning district allows and due
to the fact that the property is already zoned "I-l," she feels this request is okay to approve.
Motion was made to approve ZA 97-143, subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 1, dated
October 31, 1997, eliminating the following uses from the requested zoning: brake shops, glass
shops, seat cover & upholstery shops, transmission shops, automobile repair/service, oil & lube
shops, and muffler shops; and requiring that no cars in any state of disrepair are allowed to be
stationed outside.
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
Edmondson
Murphy
Edmondson, LeVrier, Tate, Jones, Creighton, Murphy, Wright
None
7-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 11-06-97, tape 1, section #3424)
Chairman Wright called for a recess at 8:10 p.m.
Chairman Wright called the meeting back to order at 8:25 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #7. CONSIDER TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE NO. 585-A:
The following changes were agreed to in the Work Session:
Change the words, "A recommendation" to "An analysis" on Page 6, Line 21;
On Page 7, it was agreed by the Commission to completely exempt homeowners of
residentially-zoned property from this Tree Preservation Ordinance;
Change the words, "five (5)," to "seven (7)" on Page 7, Line 15;
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on November 6, 1997 Page 4 of 9
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
lg
19
20
21
.22
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Chairman Wright suggested the following language to be added to Section 3.5.a:
"It is not the intent of this ordinance to prohibit the clearing of land for legitimate,
agricultural use. An agriculturally zoned property owner shall request the Landscape
Administrator to make an on-site inspection of the property to be cleared and provide to the
Landscape Administrator the purpose and reason for the clearing. If the Landscape
Administrator determines the cleating of land to be for a legitimate, agricultural reason, he
shall issue a tree removal permit. To give the agricultural property owner the same rights
as the residentially zoned property owner, he can be exempt from this ordinance for a total
of two (2) acres total surrounding his dwelling."
Chairman Wright reiterated that the Commission agreed in the Work Session if someone contracts
a house to be built and have not moved into it yet, they would be considered a "homeowner" and
would come under the same requirements as the "homeowner."
The Commissioner agreed to remove the word, "Residential," from Page 7, Line 29.
Chairman Wright asked Landscape Administrator Keith Martin to explain the last sentence on Page
7, Line 44, which reads:
"If tree removal is necessary, the tree must be cut at ground level and the stump must be
ground below grade."
Mr. Martin stated that if someone went in with a bulldozer and tried to rip a stump out and there are
adjacent trees, they person could possibly rip up the root systems of the adjacent trees, too.
After discussion, it was agreed to remove the words, "and the stump must be ground below grade,"
from Page 7, Line 44.
Vice-Chairman Murphy asked that staff correct Line 16 on Page 8 to form a complete sentence.
Regarding Page 10, Item 10, Chairman Wright disagrees with showing trees on a survey within the
building pad. He stated that he does not believe in showing trees that, under this ordinance, have
the right to be removed anyway. He also suggested the addition of the following language (written
by Community Development Director Greg Last) to Item 10:
"The required tree survey must show all protected or marginal trees six inches (6") or larger
and understory trees two inches (2") or larger in size. Where mitigation of removed canopy
trees is anticipated, it is recommended that canopy trees having a caliper of three inches (3")
or larger also be shown, so as to be evaluated for potential credit against the mqnired
mitigation."
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on November 6, 1997 Page 5 of 9
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Chairman Wright stated that he agrees with the wording except for the last portion of the first
sentence. He stated that he would like to remove the words, "and understory trees two inches (2")
or larger in size," from that sentence.
Commissioner Jones stated that he spoke to an arborist for the City of Arlington, and she said that
if the trees under the building pad are exempted, the commercial builders may aim the building pads
for the largest number of trees to avoid the mitigation of those trees.
Commissioner Jones stated that he priced tree surveys for a heavily treed lot and was told it would
cost around $275 for a boundary survey plus about $85 per hour per man to locate and caliper every
tree. He said that he is not sure asking people to survey each and every tree on a lot, protected and
unprotected, is the right thing to do.
Lisa Stokdyk, President of Keep Southlake Beautiful, stated that Arborist John Davis said that a tree
survey usually costs around $200. She said he called it a point-and-shoot process, and he said it is
very simple to do.
Commissioner Edmondson stated that the reason to require all trees to be shown on a tree survey is
to insure that the most trees - whether they are 1", 2", or 6" - are saved.
Chairman Wright stated that is exactly what worries him the most. He stated that the use of the
property is primary and the preservation of the trees is secondary and if the Commission is not
careful, they could get it switched to where the trees dictate the use of the land.
Commissioner LeVrier stated that in order for Mr. Martin to assist with the positioning of the
building, the tree survey will need to be extremely thorough.
Chairman Wright stated that on the larger developments, he would be in agreement with showing
all 6" trees and larger, but nothing under that size. He stated that the developer still may want to
show all trees due to the mitigation situation.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 11-06-97, tape 1, section #7361)
Commissioner Edmondson stated that she would either like to leave in the language regarding
understory trees two inches (2") or larger in the paragraph Chairman Wright read or the language
in Item 4.2.c.10 regarding "a group of trees."
Chairman Wright stated that he would rather leave in the statement, "a group of trees," and delete
the statement about understory trees. He also stated that he would like to delete the statement on
Line 30 regarding the "quantity and quality." He stated he would like to see all six inch (6") trees
shown on a survey, any group of trees shown with a scalloped edge, and any six inch (6") trees
inside that group marked with an 'X.'
Commissioner Edmondson stated that she would be willing to compromise on that point.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on November 6, 1997 Page 6 of 9
~...q
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
43
Commissioner Tate stated one could move a house around a lot to save some trees if you know
where the trees are. He stated that one could do some adjusting easily on a half-acre to one-acre lot.
The Commission agreed to compromise and require complete tree surveys on lots 30,000 square feet
or larger.
City Attorney Debra Drayovitch stated that there are six (6) separate references to tree surveys in this
ordinance, and she asked if the Commission would like her to combine the information that overlaps.
The Commission agreed that was a good idea.
On Page 11, Line 7, Commissioner Jones had a concern about the subjectivity of some of
the criteria and the verbiage itself. Commissioner Edmondson suggested the following language on
Page 11, Line 7:
"The Landscape Administrator or the Tree Board shall grant a tree removal permit based on
the following criteria."
The Commissioners agreed with the change.
Commissioner Jones stated his concern regarding the tree replacement requirements listed on Page
12. He asked that the Commission look at these requirements and determine whether or not they are
practical in real situations.
Commissioner Edmondson responded that she felt the replacement requirements as written were
acceptable.
As a compromise, Commissioner Creighton suggested placing an upper limit on the number of trees
a property owner is required to mitigate as a possible solution to Commissioner Jones' concerns.
Commissioner Creighton did indicate that she agreed with Commissioner Edmondson's comments,
though.
Chairman Wright suggested placing a "cap" per acre, possibly.
Commissioner Jones asked if "selective thinning" might apply to this situation and if it should be
added to this section.
Chairman Wright asked if Mr. Martin would take a look at this situation and suggest a solution.
Regarding Item 6.2.e, Chairman Wright suggested reversing the grade changes back to four inches
(4") from two inches (2").
Regarding Item 6.3, Chairman Wright suggested changing the percentages back to their original
form (75% and 25%).
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on November 6, 1997 Page 7 of 9
Z
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
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Chairman Wright also suggested putting the stricken sentence back into the ordinance in Item 6.4.a.
He stated that the flagging is primarily done for the developer, and he should already know where
he is not allowed.
Commissioner Edmondson stated that the flagging is done for the subcontractors, not the developers.
After discussion, it was agreed to put the sentence back into Item 6.4.a.
Chmrman Wright suggested placing the sentence, This shall not mh~b~t placement of necessary
underground services such as electric, phone, gas, etc.," back into Item 6.5.c., and the Commission
agreed with him.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 11-06-97, tape 2, section #1783)
Chairman Wright opened the public heating.
GeraM Shivers, 1800 N. White Chapel, Southlake, Texas, stated that he thinks the City of Southlake
did a good job of enforcing the current Tree Preservation Ordinance. He made the comment that if
a property is too dense, it will need to be thinned in order for some trees to survive; he stated he
hopes the City will allow a property owner that right.
Lisa Stokdyk (President of Keep Southlake Beautiful) stated that the Tree Workgroup tried to give
the Landscape Administrator room enough to use his expertise in protecting trees in Southlake. She
stated that homeowners are telling her that they want more control over residential property to
maintain the tree coverage; they say that developers are clearing the lots before homeowners get a
chance to voice their opinions. She presented the Commission with a petition from Southlake
residents who support Keep Southlake Beautiful's commitment to tree preservation and support their
efforts to revise the current Tree Preservation Ordinance.
Caroline Havens, 1303 Wakefield Court, Southlake, Texas, stated that the main concern of Southlake
homeowners is preserving nature and preserving trees. She asked that Southlake be the forertmner
in the area of environmental protection.
Motion was made to table Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-A and to continue the Public
Hearing to the November 20, 1997, Regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
LeVrier
Murphy
LeVrier, Tate, Jones, Creighton, Murphy, Edmondson, Wright
None
7-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 11-06-97, tape 2, section #2525)
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on November 6, 1997 Page 8 of 9
.~---1
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
19
AGENDA ITEM #8. MEETING ADJOURNMENT:
Chairman Wright adjourned the meeting at 11:09 p.m. on November 6, 1997.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Lori A. Farwell
Community Development Secretary
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on November 6, 1997 Page 9 of 9