2000-05-04 P&Z Meeting1
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
44
45
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING
i COMMISSION MEETING
May 4, 2000
COMMISSION PRESENT: Chairman Mike Sandlin (left at 8.'44 p.m.); Vice-Chairman C. D.
Peebles; and Commissioners Mi{hael Boutte, Kenneth Home, Dennis King (left atlO:3Op, m.), and
Pamela Muller.
COMMISSION ABSENT: Non~
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Debm Drayovitch, City Attorney; Charlie Thomas, City Engineer; Dennis
Killough, Semor Current Planneg; Chris Carpenter, Senior Comprehensive Planner; Lisa Sudbury,
Current Planner; Mark Johnson,l Current Planner; Malcolm Jackson, Chief of Building Services;
Keith Martin, Landscape Admi~listrator; Angela Turner, Graduate Engineer; and Lori Farwell,
Planning Secretary.
Chairman Sandlin called the me*ting to order at 6:37 p.m.
There was no Work Session held.
AGENDA ITEM #2, APPROV~ OF MINUTES:
Chairman Sandlin opened disc~sion of the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting held on April 6, 2000, alnd the continuation meeting held on April 24, 2000.
Motion was made to approve the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held
on April 6, 2000, and the contin~lation meeting held on April 24, 2000, as presented.
Motion: Muller
Second: Home
Ayes: Home, Muller, King, Sandlin
Nays: None
Abstain: Boutte, Peebles
Approved: 4-0-2
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, tape 1, section #0092)
AGENDA ITEM #3, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS:
There were no Administrative Cbmments.~
AGENDA ITEM g4, ORDINA~NCE NO. 480-KK, AMENDMENTS TO COMPREHENSIVE
ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 490, AS AMENDED, REGARDING NOISE REGULATIONS IN
ORDINANCE NO. 480 TO ]~EMOVE ANY CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
ORDINANCE NO. 778:
Agenda Item g4, Ordinance No. 480-KK, has been requested to be tabled and to continue the Public
Planning and Zoning CommisSion Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
Hearing to the May 18, 2000, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Motion was made to table Ordinance No. 480-KK and to continue the Public Hearing to the May
18, 2000, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Motion: Peebles
Second: Home
Ayes: Boutte, Peebles, Muller, King, Home, Sandlin
Nays: None
Approved: 6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, tape 1, section #0117)
Chairman Sandlin rearranged the agenda to be heard in the following order: Agenda Item #6, #7,
#12, #13, #5, #8, #9, #10, and #11.
AGENDA ITEM #6, ZA 00-039, REZONING:
Current Planner Lisa Sudbury presented this item to the Commission for a Rezoning on property
legally described as Tract 2C2A situated in the Obediah W. Knight Survey, Abstract No. 899, and
being approximately 7.0 acres. The property is located at 223 Lilac Lane being on the south side of
Lilac Lane approximately 400' east of Pine Drive. The Current Zoning is "AG" Agricultural District.
The Requested Zoning is "RE" Residential Estate District. The Land Use Category is Low Density
Residential and 100-Year Flood Plain. The Owners of the property are Carlos Ramirez and Pam
Bolen. The Applicant is Stmhs-Mattson Company, Ltd. Twenty-eight (28) written notices were sent
to property owners within the 200' notification area, and two (2) responses were received with one
(1) being undecided and one (1) being in favor.
Tom Struhs (Struhs-Mattson Company) presented this item to the Commission. He said they intend
to build a 6,000 s.f. house on this property and do not intend to make any other changes that would
alter the drainage on this land.
Chairman Sandlin opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience stepped fonvard to speak.
Chairman Sandlin closed the Public Heating.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, tape 1, section #0262)
Motion was made to approve ZA 00-039.
Motion: Boutte
Second: Muller
Ayes: Peebles, Muller, King, Home, Boutte, Sandlin
Nays: None
Approved: 6-0
Motion carried.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000
2
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
44
45
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, tape 1, section #0279)
AGENDA ITEM #7, ZA 00-046, SITE PLAN FOR DR. WRIGHT'S OFFICE:
Current Planner Lisa Sudbury presented this item to the Commission for a Site Plan on property
legally described as Lot 1, W.W. Hall No. 687 Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake,
Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 2176, Plat Records,
Tarrant County, Texas, and being approximately 0.987 acres. The property is located on the north
side of East Southlake Boulevard approximately 350' east of North White Chapel Boulevard. The
Current Zoning is "O-1" Office District. The Land Use Category is Office Commercial. The Owner
of the property is GCSW, Ltd. The Applicant is Gregory Wright. Thirteen (13) written notices were
sent to property owners w/thin the 200' notification area, and one (1) response in favor was received.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked staffwhy the Commission needs to approve this plan. Senior Planner
Dennis Killough said this site was built prior to adoption of the Corridor Overlay Regulations and
does not have an approved Concept Plan or Site Plan. He said the Corridor Overlay Regulations
require that prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Site Plan be approved by the City Council.
He said their current building does not meet the articulation standards, and this addition to the
building would actually improve the articulation from what it exists today.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if the reason they are not subject to landscaping, bufferyard, and
driveway regulations is because they are not adding square footage. Mr. Killough said that is
correct.
Greg Wright (GCSW, Ltd.) presented this item to the Commission. He said this space was leased by
Prudential Real Estate who has left the City of Southlake. It is a large space, and he needs to split
it in two. He said the space will be occupied by Alamo Title and Dr. Wayne Hebert who is moving
his chiropractic practice from S.H. 114 into the middle space.
Chairman Sandlin opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience stepped forward to speak.
Chairman Sandlin closed the Public Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, tape 1, section #0438)
Motion was made to approve ZA 00-046 subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 1, dated April
28, 2000, deleting Item #1 (articulation requirements) and allowing as proposed.
Motion: Muller
Second: King
Ayes: Muller, King, Home, Boutte, Peebles, Sandlin
Nays: None
Approved: 6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, tape 1, section #0470)
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000
3
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
44
45
AGENDA ITEM #12, ZA 00-014, REZONING AND REVISED SITE PLAN FOR WHITE'S
CHAPEL METHODIST CHURCH:
Current Planner Lisa Sudbury presented this item to the Commission for a Zoning Change and
Revised Site Plan on property legally described as Tracts 5G, 5Gl, 5H and a portion of 5F situated
in the O.W. Knight Survey, Abstract No. 899, and Tract 3D1 and a portion of 3D situated in the H.
Granberry Survey, Abstract No. 581, and a portion of the Pine Drive right-of-way, and all of Lot 1,
Block A, White Chapel Methodist Church Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant
County, Texas according to the plat recorded in Volume 388-204, Page 12, Plat Records, Tarrant
County, Texas, and being a total of approximately 24.0 acres. The property is located on the east
side of South White Chapel Boulevard approximately 300' south of East Southlake Boulevard (F.M.
1709). The Current Zoning is "AG" Agricultural District and "CS" Community Service District. The
Requested Zoning is "CS" Community Service District. The Land Use Category is Public/Semi-
Public and Low Density Residential. The Owners and Applicants are White's Chapel United
Methodist Church, City of Southlake, and S. Garrett. Twenty-three (23) written notices were sent
to property owners within the 200' notification area, and six (6) responses were received with two
(2) being in favor and four (4) being opposed. Ms. Sudbury said the Ledbetters and the Ezells asked
for their letters to be read into the record as follows:
From: Charles A. and Amy L. Ezell-
"Amy and I wish to express our concerns over the proposed expansion plans for
White's Chapel United Methodist Church. We are homeowners at 514 Northwood
Trail in the Northpark subdivision of Timarron. As the proposed site plan currently
stands, this expansion will have a dramatic effect on the quality of our home life as
well as our property values. The parking lot for the proposed expansion creates the
greatest concern. The current site plan brings the parking lot within 50 feet of the
rear of our property. Behind my property are many beautiful, mature hardwood trees
that will be destroyed under the current site plan proposal. I'm sure you will agree
that Southlake's beautiful trees are one of its most valuable assets. I propose that
before any site is approved, a thorough tree survey should be conducted. Also, I can
only imagine what having 800 cars just behind my fence will sound like with doors
opening and closing and people running around whenever services are held. Lastly,
I object to having 30-foot lights in the parking lot. As earlier stated, I will be able to
see the parking lot from my second floor windows. The 30 foot lights will create an
eye sore and there is no way you can insure me that the illumination from 30 foot tall
lights will not have a negative impact on my property. I urge you to visit my home
and walk behind my lot to truly understand how the proposed site plan will effect my
family and our neighborhood. I do want to express my thanks to the leadership of
White's Chapel United Methodist Church and their willingness to listen to their
neighbors and their concerns regarding this project. On April 13th, several church
leaders, including the senior pastor, met with 2 neighbors and me to discuss the
impact of the proposed site plan on our homes and families. The church leadership
listened sincerely to our concerns. Following the meefmg they came over and walked
our properties, looking at the trees and our homes to see exactly how the site plan
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
would effect us. Before that meeting, they admitted that they had never gone out to
see how this plan would effect their neighbors or the trees at the perimeter of their
property. After visiting with us, seeing our homes, and looking at the beautiful trees,
they gave us a commitment to save the trees and do everything possible to limit the
impact of the expansion on our homes. I expect them to honor their word and
commitment to us as homeowners and neighbors. I would like to propose the
following: 1) Establish a minimum buffer of 200 feet between our property and the
site plan. 2) Conduct a tree survey of all wooded areas impacted by the expansion.
3) Limit height of parking lot lights to 10 feet. Thank you for your consideration in
this matter of vital importance to my family and our neighborhood. Sincerely,
Charles A. and Amy L. Ezell"
From: Dale and Donna Ledbetter-
"We are homeowners at 516 Northwood Trail. Our property borders the southern comer of
the White's Chapel property. Our issues with the planned expansion are the removal of the
trees along the southern border and the height of the lights in the parking lot. At a meeting
on April 13, with the chumh leaders and others involved with the project, Brian Small,
Charles Ezell and I expressed our concerns regarding the trees and lights. We explained the
30' lights specified on the plan would be an eyesore and diminish our property values. We
also asked them to reconsider the back parking area. We asked them to try and save as many
of the larger trees as possible as they would provide a sound and visual barrier for us fi.om
the parking lot. After touring the area, the church expressed a desire to leave as many trees
as possible but they were not specific. They also said a tree survey would need to be done
to plot the trees accurately on the property. At the April 27 SPIN meeting, held at the church,
I again questioned the height of the lights and if the church had decided to modify the back
parking lot to preserve the trees. The project's architect stated all lights in the parking areas
had been changed to a 4' height, but I did not find that change on the site plan provided at
the meeting. On the issue of the trees, they again assured me every effort would be made to
save as many trees as possible. They again promised a tree survey showing which trees
would be saved. Before we could endorse this site plan, as adjacent property owners, and
believe it would have a minimal impact on our property and its value, we would like the
church to: 1) Specify on the site plan the 4' lights described at the SPIN meeting and their
placement in the parking lot. 2) Conduct the promised tree survey of the area impacted by
the parking lot and specify which trees will remain. 3) Redraw the parking area on the site
plan showing the changes necessary to preserve the trees. We hope the Planning and Zoning
will require the church to provide this information before endorsing the plan. We appreciate
the church's willingness to listen to our concems. Please know we want to be good neighbors
with the church. Our family worships at White's Chapel and we look forward to attending
the beautiful sanctuary they plan to build. However, we feel strongly that the creation of the
sanctuary should not diminish the beauty and quality of life we currently enjoy at our home
and in our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration of our opinion on this matter,
Dale and Donna Ledbetter"
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he had a question regarding trees. He said the Tree Preservation
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 5
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
44
45
Analysis indicates the applicant submitted a plan that does not meet the requirements of the
ordinance and asked how it is deficient. Malcolm Jackson, Chief of Building Services, said he is not
familiar with a survey that was actually submitted for this particular site plan process. He said he
spoke to Keith Martin, Landscape Administrator, earlier and he has not received a Tree Survey on
this particular plan. Mr. Jackson also said the previous construction project did not include the
completion of the required landscape, although this Site Plan tonight would require the removal of
those plantings even if they had been installed for some specific areas.
Ralph Evans, 315 N. Shady Oaks Drive, Southlake, Texas, presented this item to the Commission.
He said he is Chairman of the Board of White's Chapel United Methodist Church, and he in~oduced
other people in the audience who are instrumental in the church.
Richard Garrison (Hesson/Andrews/Sotornayor/Sprinkle/Robey Architects) reviewed the requested
variances with the Commission.
Mr. Killough said staff was not aware of nor did they address in their comments the phasing of the
bufferyards. He said if the applicant is proposing bufferyard phasing, the Commission needs to
approve the phasing.
Mr. Garrison said they would like to ask for the variance of the building of the bufferyards on the
east side be tied to the building of that parking lot.
Commissioner Boutte asked if the reason they are asking for a reduction in the bufferyard depth is
to save existing trees. Mr. Garrison said yes.
Commissioner Home asked how many trees are along the southeast comer of the parking lot. Mr.
Garrison said there is a very dense population of trees in that location.
Commissioner Home estimated about 180 parking spaces would be lost if they were to give the 200'
buffer the adjacent residents are asking for. Mr. Garrison agreed and said it would be a significant
impact on their parking.
Mr. Garrison said the church has not currently surveyed the trees on the additional six (6) acre tract,
but they have committed to get that survey done and will realign the parking. He asked that instead
of providing multiple, evenly spaced 12' X 18' parking islands throughout the parking lot that they
be allowed to group those together around the existing trees. He said it is the church's desire to save
every tree out there that they can possibly save. By looking at aerial photographs, he said they have
determined where the majority of the trees are which is part of the reasoning behind the 85' wide
landscape buffer. Mr. Garrison said they would like to utilize the same percentage of landscaped
islands but group them along the southern end of the site to preserve those trees.
Mr. Garrison said the church will maintain the 6' privacy fence currently located along the adjoining
Timarron property as the screening device. He said the chumh has been in contact with the owner
of the Small tract, and he has agreed he does not want an 8' fence or an 8' screening device; the
church will get a letter from that property owner to that effect.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 6
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
44
45
Mr. Garrison said the church would like to delay building a screening device along the remainder
of the Garrett tract pursuant to what happens to that property; if it does not go residential, there is
no need to provide a screening device.
Commissioner Home asked which way this property will drain once the east parking lot is in place.
Mr. Garrison pointed to the site plan showing the direction of drainage.
Mr. Garrison said they had a discussion with the neighborhood group about ballard lighting. He said
they would like to use ballard lighting for a distance of 200' fi.om the residential property line before
they go to pole lighting. He said their engineers feel they could drop the height of the poles from 30'
to 20' keeping them a minimum of 200' from the residential property line and maintain the lighting
ordinance requirements. He said the line of sight studies show the residential properties will not be
able to see a 20' pole over the top of the trees.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked the applicants how they would feel about eliminating the spaces south
of the lake. He said it seems to him that when people will block traffic as they back out of those
spaces.
Mr. Garrison said they feel like the majority of people will exit onto Southlake Boulevard and that
the Pine Street drive is more of a secondary exit.
Chairman Sandlin suggested making those spaces out of a material such as Grasscrete so that it
wouldn't encourage people to park there but would serve more as overflow parking.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he heard the church started work on this 1 ½ years ago and they were
supposed to put in the landscaping on December 17, 1998. He asked Kosse Maykus if the church
was considering this second edition before they decided not to put the landscaping in. Mr. Maykus
said the Long Range Planning Committee has been in existence for 3 to 4 years. He said the church
actually made a commitment 18 months ago to move forward. He said their long-range plans that
they think are 5 or 10 years out keep getting shortened. He said he does not think there was a
conscious effort to not do the landscaping in anticipation of this Site Plan.
Commissioner King asked if the EIFS they intend to use on the building will essentially look like
stucco to the untrained eye. Mr. Garrison said it will.
Chairman Sandlin said as long as EIFS is done correctly, there is not a problem. He asked Mr.
Garrison to describe his experience with EIFS. Mr. Garrison said they have used this material for
25 years in the southwest. He said the majority of problems people read about are related to
residential applications that were done without licensed applicators. He said Alamo Heights United
Methodist Church in San Antonio has been complete for more than 10 years and looks as good as
the day it was built. He showed the Commission pictures of Alamo Heights United Methodist
Chumh.
Mr. Killough said the applicant is proposing a metal roof with a metallic4ype finish. The Corridor
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 7
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
44
45
Overlay and Residential Adjacency Standards do not permit metal roofs without a factory matte
finish.
Mr. Garrison said it takes about 4 to 6 months to get down to the dullest finish. He said it is a very
good product in terms of ease of maintenance and longevity; it is a very good product that is
appropriate for this style of architecture.
Chairman Sandlin opened the Public Hearing.
Greg Standerfer, 201 Sheffield Court, Southlake, Texas, asked everyone who is a proponent of this
case to stand up before the Commission. He said this group of people would like to see the sanctuary
built; it is a big benefit to the City of Southlake and to the people here tonight, but they don't want
to take up so much time that the Commission hear the same comments over and over.
Chairman Sandlin said he has 24 sign-in cards from people in support of this item but who do not
wish to speak.
Blaine White, 250 Pine Street, Southlake, Texas, said this is a residential area as far as he is
concerned. He said a parking lot will sit right across the street from his house after this is built. He
said he is not in favor of the realignment of Pine Street; he does not see that it needs to be realigned.
He stated his concerns about the value of his home and what this will do to his home. He expressed
his concerns regarding the drainage and traffic. He said it does not make sense that the citizens of
Southlake have already paid for Pine Drive once and now they will pay for it again due to the
realignment and because of the church building a new building.
Deputy Director of Public Works Charlie Thomas said the realignment is to eliminate a hazardous
intersection. He said Pine Drive intersects White Chapel Boulevard at a very flat angle and is a very
difficult intersection. He said by moving this intersection further south, it will be getting it further
away from Southlake Boulevard and allows for better movement through the intersection of
Southlake Boulevard and White Chapel Boulevard. He said this has nothing to do with the church.
Chairman Sandlin asked which direction the preponderance of the drainage is now going on this
property. Mr. Thomas said most of the drainage is going south, and the plan is to utilize the pond
for drainage. He said he believes the drainage also goes south on Pine Drive.
Chairman Sandlin asked Mr. White how long he has been at this property. Mr. White said it will
be two years next month.
Commissioner Muller asked what the bufferyard requirement is along Pine Drive across from Mr.
White's property. Mr. Killough said the "CS" district does not have a bufferyard requirement along
a local street, but there is a screening requirement that would require head-in parking to have shrubs
planted at 30" on center and those shrubs would count towards the interior landscaping.
Brian Small, 201 Pine Street, Southlake, Texas, said he did not waive the 8' screening requirement
as the church said he did. He said he discussed it with the church and would still like to see what
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 8
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
44
45
1 they intend to do there. He would like to see what is proposed and said he is willing to work with
2 the church on how the fence will look. He expressed a concern about drainage issues regarding the
3 pond and the culvert. He said he does not want his road to get washed out and was not sure if they
4 need to put in a new culvert or barditch on his property to direct the flow of water. He said he is very
5 concerned about the heavily wooded area towards the back and would like to see the trees remain.
He also questioned the need for the number of parking spaces they have shown on the plan.
Chairman Sandlin closed the Public Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, tape 1, section #3285)
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if what the church is doing now would require them to remove the
plantings that were required back in 1998 had they been planted.
Keith Martin, Landscape Administrator, said there are only 10 trees that are still required to be
planted from the 1998 plan.
Vice-Chairman Peebles clarified that the church would need to plant an additional 10 trees in order
to be in compliance with their 1998 plan. Mr. Martin said yes.
Commissioner Muller said she has read an article from Georgia on stucco and said they now prohibit
it because of the problems it has. She said it forms moisture in the walls and then forms a mold that
can be quite serious because of the illnesses involved. She asked if this also pertains to the type of
product the church is requesting to use.
Mr. Garrison said there have been some earlier applications in residential uses that were installed
improperly. He said this system has changed dramatically through the years and most recently, they
use a fiberglass-faced panel with a drainable system in which any moisture that was able to get
through will be able to drain out of the wall.
Commissioner Muller said she has no problem with the articulation variance. She said she would
like the applicant to get a letter from the Garretts agreeing to the delaying of the bufferyard on their
north tract. She asked the applicant to look at screening the parking spaces from Mr. White's
property and possibly using Grasscrete in those parking spaces. She said she hopes the applicant
has a tree survey with the types of trees listed for City Council.
Commissioner Home asked if there is anything the church could do to improve Mr. White's view
across the street such as a berm or buffer. Mr. Maykus said the Grasscrete won't have a visual
impact for Mr. White so the church will add a 4' or 5' bufferyard to plant some shrubs in. Mr.
Maykus said the church does not think a fence would be good, and it doesn't sound like Mr. Small
does either. He also said the church will work with Mr. Small regarding planting some type of
shrubs or hedge along there.
Mr. White said he doesn't think 5' is a whole lot at all. He said this is right across the street from
him. He is in a residential area and is paying a lot of money for a house and a lot of money for taxes
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 9
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
44
for a house, and he is going to have a parking lot right across the street from him.
Mr. Maykus suggested eliminating those 14 parking spaces and asked the Commission to allow them
to place them somewhere else. He said that would give Mr. White 20' and give the church the ability
to landscape 20'. Mr. Maykus said they will meet with Mr. White and talk some more. Mr. White
agreed.
Motion was made to approve ZA 00-014 subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated April
28, 2000, and subject to the following:
· Relocating the 10 trees from the 1998 submittal;
· Providing a tree survey with the new parking lot to City Council;
· Deleting Item #1.a (synthetic product shall be limited to 80%) and allowing as shown;
· Deleting Item #1.b (articulation) and allowing as shown;
· Requiring applicant to get a letter from the Garretts regarding the bufferyards and loading
dock;
· Requiring applicant to do tree survey, remove landscape parking lot islands on the east
parking lot, and relocate the landscape area along south portion of the property;
· Requiring applicant to size and locate parking islands in a manner to maximize tree
preservation;
· Requiring applicant to meet with Mr. Small and agree to plantings;
· Requiring the 41 parking spaces south of the pond to be Grasscrete;
· Regarding Item #3.a, waiving the fencing requirement for the east side and east portion of
south property line but requiring 8' screening along Mr. Small's property;
· Relocating the 14 parking spaces across from Mr. White's property and meet with Mr. White
and agree to a suitable buffer for that area;
· Regarding Item #3.b, allow as shown but request the applicant get a letter from Mr. Garrett
regarding the lack of screening on the loading area;
· Deleting Item #4.a (500' driveway spacing) and allowing as shown;
· Deleting Item g4.b (driveway on a local street) and allowing as shown;
· Deleting Item/~.c (200' driveway throat depth) and allowing as shown;
· Requiring ballard lighting to be used within 200' of single family residential properties with
a maximum 20' pole lighting to be used elsewhere;
· Permitting roofing materials as shown in the slide of Alamo Heights Methodist Church;
· And allowing the phasing of bufferyards on the east.
Motion: Peebles
Second: Muller
Ayes: King, Home, Boutte, Peebles, Muller, Sandlin
Nays: None
Approved: 6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, tape 1, section//4160)
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 10
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
AGENDA ITEM #13, ZA 00-033, PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LOTS 1R & 2, BLOCK A, WHITE
CHAPEL METHODIST CHURCH ADDITION:
Current Planner Lisa Sudbury presented this item to the Commission for a Preliminary Plat for Lots
1R & 2, Block A, White Chapel Methodist Church Addition, on property legally described as Tracts
5G, 5Gl, 5H, and 5F situated in the O.W. Knight Survey, Abstract No. 899, and Tract 3D1 and a
portion of 3D situated in the H. Cranberry Survey, Abstract No. 581, and a portion of the Pine Drive
right-of-way, and all of Lot 1, Block A, White Chapel Methodist Church Addition, an addition to
the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas according to the plat recorded in Volume 388-204,
Page 12, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being a total of approximately 28 acres. The
property is located on the east side of South White Chapel Boulevard approximately 300' south of
East Southlake Boulevard (F.M. 1709). The Current Zoning is "AG" Agricultural District and "CS"
Community Service District. The Land Use Category is Public/Semi-Public and Low Density
Residential. The Owners of the property are White's Chapel United Methodist Church, City of
Southlake, and Steve and Dixie Garrett. The Applicant is White's Chapel United Methodist Church.
Twenty-five (25) written notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area, and
five (5) responses were received with two (2) being in favor and three (3) being opposed.
Kosse Maykus presented this item to the Commission.
Chairman Sandlin opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience stepped forward to speak.
Chairman Sandlin closed the Public Heating.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, tape 1, section//4325)
Motion was made to approve ZA 00-033 subject to Plat Review Summary No. 2, dated April 28,
2000, allowing variance as shown for Item #1 (Lot 2 is currently zoned "AG" and no proper zoning
is proposed at this time).
Motion: Peebles
Second: Muller
Ayes: Home, Boutte, Peebles, Muller, King, Sandlin
Nays: None
Approved: 6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, tape 1, section g4404)
Chairman Sandlin called for a break at 8:44 p.m.
Chairman Sandlin left the meeting at 8:44 p.m.
Vice-Chairman Peebles called the meeting back to order at 9:00 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #11, ZA 99-125, REZONING AND REVISED SITE PLAN FOR TRI-DAL, LTD:
Current Planner Lisa Sudbury presented this item to the Commission for a Rezoning and a Revised
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 11
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
44
45
Site Plan on property legally described as Lot 2R1, Block C, Commerce Business Park, an addition
to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide
3817, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being approximately 6.65 acres. The property is
located at 540 Commerce Street being on the west side of Commerce Street approximately 200'
south of Market Loop. The Current Zoning is "S-P-l" Detailed Site Plan District to specifically
allow "I-1" Light Industrial District uses plus a contractor's storage yard with outside storage. The
Requested Zoning is "S-P-l" Detailed Site Plan District to specifically allow "I-1" Light Industrial
District uses plus a contractor's storage yard with outside storage. The Land Use Category is
Industrial. The Owner and Applicant is Tri-Dal, Ltd. Thirteen (13) written notices were sent to
property owners within the 200~ notification area, and two (2) responses were received with one (1)
being opposed and one (1) being in favor.
John Levitt (Civil Works Group) 600 S. Main, Suite 300, Rhome, Texas, presented this item to the
Commission. Mr. Levitt reviewed the requested variances with the Commission. He said while there
is an increase in office space on this tract, there will not be an increase in the number of employees
right now; the present employees are doubled up in the current office space.
Vice-Chairman Peebles opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience stepped forward to
speak. Vice-Chairman Peebles closed the Public Heating.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, tape 1, section//5047)
Regarding stacking depth, Commissioner Muller said she has heard the argument before that the
building won't be bringing in that many more employees, and that may be tree for this business. She
said in our own City's administration building, there are more employees where there is not enough
adequate parking. She said they should look at the big picture and what other future uses may come
in. Having said that, she said she feels there is enough property here that in the futura there can be
more parking provided if the use changes.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said that is the thing with this property; it is pre-existing. He said if they
were to add stacking depth, they would be taking away parking, and they are not asking for a
variance on parking.
Commissioner Boutte said the owner of Lot 14 wrote the letter of opposition for this case, and he
has noticed the owner of Lot 13 in the audience and asked Mr. Wang how he felt about this case.
JeffWang, 595 S. KimballAvenue, Southlake, Texas, said Mr. Gammon used to office in his space
himself but now his office is in Colleyville. He said most of the adjacent property owners in this area
do not have a problem with Tri-Dal; occasionally they have big tractors that are noisy, but it is in
industrial zoning. He said the airplanes make more noise over there than anything because it is in
the 75 LDN Corridor.
Carolyn Morris, 403 St. Charles Court, Southlake, Texas, asked what types of products will be
stored on this site. She asked if there will be hazardous chemicals. She asked if there will be a major
increase in truck traffic that will impact F.M, 1709.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 12
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
44
45
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked City staff to address Mrs. Morris' comments.
Mr. Killough said he is not aware of all the restrictions in the City's ordinances that would restrict
hazardous chemicals.
City Attorney Debra Dmyovitch said they would also have to be permitted by the Fire Department.
Mr. Levitt said for the record they do not store hazardous materials on this site; it is mainly
construction materials. He said there will not be any increase in truck traffic on this site; no more
than what already exists. He said they store PVC pipe, RCP pipe, reinforced concrete pipe, and steel
pipe. He said materials will be stored on this site to take to job sites. He said equipment will be
brought in for maintenance, and the tracks will be brought in twice a month to clean them.
Mr. Killough said they are currently in compliance with the new outside storage ordinance. He said
the other purpose associated with this plan was for the applicant to address the new outside storage
regulations.
Motion was made to approve ZA 99-125 subject to Site Plan Review Summary No, 3, dated April
28, 2000, deleting Item #1.a (minimum 75' stacking depth); deleting Items #2.a (bufferyards) and
#2.b (landscape islands) but accepting applicant's commitment to relocate required plantings to
other areas of property; and deleting Item #3 (recycle bin screening).
Motion: King
Second: Muller
Ayes: Boutte, Muller, King, Home, Peebles
Nays: None
Approved: 5-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, tape 1, section #5656)
AGENDA ITEM #5, AMENDMENT TO THE CURRENTLY ADOPTED MASTER
THOROUGHFARE PLAN, REGARDING THE EXTENSION OF NOLEN DR1VE FROM
CROOKED LANE TO STATE HIGHWAY 114:
Senior Comprehensive Planner Chris Carpenter presented this item to the Commission.
Commissioner Muller asked how far it is from Commerce Street to the proposed Nolen Drive. Mr.
Carpenter said it is approximately 2,000'.
Commissioner Muller asked how far it is to Kimball Avenue. Mr. Carpenter said it is a little further
than 2,000' to Kimball Avenue.
Vice-Chairman Peebles opened the Public Hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000
13
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
44
45
Frank Fisher, 725 Bryson Way, Southlake, Texas, said it was discussed at the SPIN meeting whether
or not Nolen Drive would be a four lane or a five lane road through the Gateway area. He asked if
that has been determined and, if so, if 70' will accommodate a five lane road.
Deputy Director of Public Works Charlie Thomas said one of the concerns staff had in their initial
review of the circulation study cormecting F.M. 1709 and S.H. 114 was that it was necessary to have
the proper lanes to get through there. He said when there are developments on both sides with six
driveways connecting to it, there will be quite a few turning movements going on to access the
commercial properties. Without a mm lane, the concern was that it might encumber traffic going
from F.M. 1709 to S.H. 114 because of the driveways. He said the problem with that in a 70'
R.O.W. is that the pavement width would be approximately 62' wide that would only give them a
4' parkway on either side. He said he believes the developer has said he would accommodate
utilities by dedicating parallel utility easements along the outside of the R.O.W., but whether we
could accommodate that within our Master Thoroughfare Plan when it requires an 84' R.O.W. for
five lanes, he is not sure.
Mr. Carpenter said Mr. Thomas has had more discussions with the developer on this than he has,
but it could be done.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if the City could require as part of the Master Thoroughfare Plan that
any development that occurs on either side of Nolen Drive north of F.M. 1709 and south of S.H. 114
require the stacking of utilities.
City Attorney Debra Drayovitch said they could state that.
Commissioner Muller questioned why the City just doesn't ask for 84' R.O.W. instead of discussing
70' R.O.W.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked what the ramifications would be if the City required 84' R.O.W. and
then it were determined later that a developer was willing to stack utilities and go to 70' R.O.W. He
asked if the City would be prohibited from approving a plan showing 70' if the Master Thoroughfare
Plan showed 84'.
Mr. Killough said if the Commission decided to allocate an 84' R.O.W. any subsequent plat that
followed, the applicant could request of the Commission and the Council a reduction in that R.O.W.
Commissioner Muller said ifNolen Drive is feeding traffic to an HOV lane on S,H. 114, then she
thinks the City should require an 84 R.O.W.; it will be heavily traveled.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if the Commission has the same concerns about Nolen Drive on the
south side of Southlake Boulevard.
Commissioner Muller said she thinks that will carry a lot less traffic on the south side.
Commissioner Boutte said he thinks there will be truck traffic heading to the business park, and he
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 14
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
44
45
thinks there will be some pretty heavy football traffic heading through there.
Commissioner Boutte asked staff how they came up with 70' R.O.W. on the south side. Mr.
Carpenter said the study did not specify what type of road would go in there, but it showed a
connecting road. He said staff considers 70' to be a significant R.O.W. dedication for the mount
of traffic that would be going through that area.
Max Kmgler, 708 Nettleton Drive, $outhlake, Texas, said he is interested in assembling and
developing the properties adjacent to Nolen Drive. He said he would like to know exactly what he
can expect in the future if he develops those properties. He is aware of the driveway ordinance that
states he is required to have an arterial designation in order to permit commercial or service
driveways, and that is certainly something he is interested in. He said back in his early conversations
with Bob Whitehead when he was running Public Works, he recommended 70' R.O.W.
Ken Schafer, 2449 Crooked Lane, Southlake, Texas, said he is heating concern for the commercial
developers and how this affects them, but there does not seem to be any way for the residents
affected by this to be considered. He said the neighbors would like to see Crooked Lane ending at
Nolen Drive and not continued on north because that would keep a lot of traffic off Crooked Lane.
He said this may not be the right time to address that issue, but he wanted to make it known.
Commissioner Muller asked if the consensus from the Crooked Lane residents is to close Crooked
Lane. Mr. Schafer said he and his wife would like to see Crooked Lane end at Nolen Drive and not
continue to Southlake Boulevard.
Commissioner Home asked Mr. Schafer what he would think about also putting a cul-de-sac on
Crooked Lane. Mr. Schafer said that would be fine with him.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, end of tape 1, section #7183)
Commissioner Muller said that helps her to know that the Crooked Lane cut is out of the picture
now.
Commissioner Boutte said it sounded to him like the gentleman on the south side of F.M. 1709 who
has the most at stake is in favor of the 84' R.O.W. Mr. Kmgler said one thing to consider is that the
portion of Nolen Drive that is built today is a 60' R.O.W. He said there will be a bottleneck effect
there in going fi.om a larger R.O.W. to a 60' R.O.W.; he is not sure if that portion could be expanded
in the future.
Commissioner Muller said she did not realize Nolen Drive is a 60' R.O.W. She said it would be
going down from 84' to 60', and that would be creating a very serious situation. She said they
wouldn't need the 84' width for just a handful of lots. She said she does not feel the need to require
84' of R.O.W. since she is aware it goes down to 60'.
Mr. Carpenter said the City has the ability in the Master Thoroughfare Plan and Subdivision
Ordinance to require the extra width outside of the width that needs to be dedicated to accommodate
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 15
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
44
45
the mm lanes on F,M. 1709.
Vice-Chairman Peebles closed the Public Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, tape 1, section #0307)
Motion was made to recommend approval of an 84' R.O.W. from S.H. 114 to F.M. 1709 and a 70'
R.O.W. from F.M. 1709 to Crooked Lane.
Mr. Carpenter clarified that the Commission wants an A5U - 84' R.O.W. on the north side and an
A4U - 70' R.O.W. on the south side with the recommendation that staff further examine the
Crooked Lane closure issue. Commissioner Muller agreed.
Motion: Muller
Second: Home
Ayes: Muller, King, Home, Boutte, Peebles
Nays: None
Approved: 5-0
Motion carried.
(Pla~ing and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, tape 2, section #0365)
AGENDA ITEM #10, ZA 99-112, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF EASTER PLAZA:
Current Planner Lisa Sudbury presented this item to the Commission for a Preliminary Plat of Easter
Plaza on property legally described as Tracts 2A1A, 2A2A, 11, and 11E situated in the Thomas
Easter Survey, Abstract 474, and being approximately 32.6 acres. The property is located on the
south side of East Southlake Boulevard (F. M. 1709) approximately 650' west of Crooked Lane. The
Current Zoning is "AG" Agricultural District and "SF-1A" Single Family Residential Dislxict. The
Land Use Category is Low Density Residential and Retail Commercial. The Owners of the property
are Roger G. Williams; E. C. White; Michael and Leah Sathre; Dean Shanklin; and Richard
Shanklin. The Applicant is Caddy Property Management. Twenty-seven (27) written notices were
sent to property owners within the 200' notification area, and three (3) responses were received with
two (2) being in favor and one (1) being opposed.
Max Krugler presented this item to the Commission. Since the last Commission meeting, he said he
held a neighborhood meeting in which seven (7) people attended, and there was no opposition to the
proposed construction of Nolen Drive. He said the only overall comment from the neighbors at that
meeting and at other meetings is that the neighbors would like to see Crooked Lane abandoned from
its point of intersection with Nolen Drive to the north. He said he is working on assembling the
properties to the east of the proposed road and would like to request to table this item until he can
have a little more time to complete the assembly and the presentation of a Concept Plan. He
requested to table to the June 8, 2000, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Vice-Chairman Peebles opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience stepped forward to
speak. Vice-Chairman Peebles left the Public Heating open.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 16
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
44
45
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, tape 2, section #0715)
Motion was made to table ZA 99-112 and to continue the Public Hearing to the June 8, 2000,
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Motion: King
Second: Home
Ayes: King, Home, Boutte, Muller, Peebles
Nays: None
Approved: 5-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, tape 2, section #0769)
Vice-Chairman Peebles called for a break at 10:20 p.m.
Vice-Chairman Peebles called the meeting back to order at 10:30 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #8, ZA 00-020, REZON1NG AND CONCEPT PLAN FOR GATEWAY PLAZA,
PHASE II:
Commissioner King said he will have to recuse himself from voting on this matter because of the
possibility of a conflict and to avoid the appearance of any improprieties.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said they are down to four (4) people now just as they were last time
Gateway, Phase 2, was being considered. He said Mr. King has mcused himself because of a
possible conflict of interest, and he spoke to Mr. Sandlin before he left the meeting and Mr. Sandlin
said he would prefer the Commission continue on with the hearing; given those circumstances he
will go ahead and hear ZA 00-020.
City Attorney Debra Drayovitch requested to meet with the Commission in a closed meeting for the
purpose of discussing legal issues pertaining to the following case.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said pursuant to Section 551.071, Texas Government Code, the Commission
will meet in Executive Session to consult with the City Attorney regarding matters authorized by
Section 551.071, including matters posted on this agenda. The Executive Session began at 10:32
p.m. and ended at 10:55 p.m. Vice-Chairman Peebles called the meeting back to order and asked
the City Attorney if any action is necessary as a result of the Executive Session. Ms. Drayovitch said
not at this time.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked staff to forgo the initial presentation of this item. He said
Commissioner Boutte has some information he would like to present to the Commission and to the
public.
Commissioner Boutte said the requested zoning for this case is "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan
District with "C-3" General Commemial District uses. He said in looking at our Zoning Ordinance
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1!
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
44
45
trying to find a category under which Costco truly fits, he discovered by researching their literature
and it is his opinion they do not fit in the "C-3" district. It is his opinion that they require "I-1"
Light Industrial District which allows warehouses. In reading their literature, he said Costco always
refers to their outlets as warehouses, they never call them stores. He read from their Investors
Overview, Company Profile, and the opening paragraph reads:
Costco Wholesale Corporation operates an international chain of membership
warehouses mainly under the Costco Wholesale name. They carry quality brand
name merchandise at substantially lower prices than are typically found at
conventional wholesale or retail sources. The warehouses are designed to help small
to medium-sized businesses reduce costs in purchasing for resale and for everyday
business use. Individuals belonging to certain qualified groups are also able to
purchase for their personal needs.
Commissioner Boutte said he has another printout he got off the Costco website entitled,
"Costco Confesses," and one of the questions posed to Costco was, "Why are there separate
shopping hours for business and gold star customers?" The answer Costco provided was,
"Small businesses generate almost 70% of our sales. In return, we give them some extra time
before we open so they can make their large volume purchases."
Commissioner Boutte said that is just a little bit of what he has got, but it provides the flavor.
In looking at this information, looking at the fact they always refer to themselves as a
warehouse, looking at their name - Costco Wholesale Corporation - and looking at their
description of their business plan, he believes they fit into the category of warehouse and that
means they need "I-1" zoning in this town.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked for the applicant's response.
Terry Wilkinson (Wyndham Properties, Ltd.) 1200 Wyndham Hill, Southlake, Texas, said they have
the words, wholesale warehouse, in their name but they really aren't a warehouse type of
merchandiser.
He said they sale retail; it is a retail store which has to be parked for retail and not as industrial.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he will hear from the public now on this issue.
Steve Drilling, 1711 Egret, Southlake, Texas, said it seems to him, being a business owner himself,
that the word "warehouse" is absolutely nothing more than a marketing strategy. It is no different
than a Home Depot or a Sam's. The fact that they are using the word "warehouse" is nothing more
than for appearance or a marketing strategy.
RickPrechtel, 905 Independence Parkway, Southlake, Texas, said he thinks under Mr. Boutte's idea
we would have to call the Mattress Factory an industrial factory. He thinks he is just using words
in this situation, and he does not agree with what he is saying.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
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
44
45
Glen Harrell, 2706 E. Southlake Boulevard, Southlake, Texas, said Mr. Boutte stated this is a
warehouse and asked the question, "What is Wal-Mart zoned or what is Lowe's zoned?"
Commissioner Muller answered that they have commercial zoning and are retail sales.
Sandy Rhone, 1816 Kleburg Court, Southlake, Texas, asked the Commission to explain the "I-1"
zoning.
Cameron McCartha, 1211 WoodcreekDrive, Southlake, Texas, said she believes this issue is just
window dressing for someone who does not want this use. She said Southlake is an affluent area and
everyone aspires to live here, and asked if that means the residents need to pay more for everything
they buy? She said there has been a lot of conversation up to this point and asked the Commission
to cut to the chase. She said, "Are we against what they are zoned or are we against what Costco
is about?" She said she really wants value. She does not want to go to Grapevine or other places to
value shop. She thinks this is just window dressing to put these people through more hoops.
Ralph Evans, 315 N. Shady Oaks Drive, Southlake, Texas, said you cannot retail in an industrial area
in Southlake so this would not fit at all. He would assume they would charge sales tax, and they
cannot do that in an industrial area as our ordinances are written. He said it would be totally
inappropriate to put this in an industrial area.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said the zoning request before the Commission tonight is "S-P-2" with "C-
3" uses. He said the Commission cannot do "S-P-2" with "I- 1" uses without the applicant requesting
to table and to re-notice the hearing. He asked the applicant that given the information supplied
tonight does he want to table this and re-notice it for "S-P-2" with "I-1" for Costco.
Mr. Wilkinson said they feel like the use is consistent with "C-3" zoning and do not feel like "I-l"
is necessary. He said from talking with the Zoning Administrator and starting this process nine
months ago, he thinks everybody has known from day one who their tenant was; they have made
no secret of that. He said unless someone can tell him Costco does not fit in the "C-3" category,
then he needs to move forward.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said if the Zoning Administrator, Karen Gandy, is requested to do so, she
will make a determination whether or not a particular retailer would be "C-3" or "I-1". That issue
has not been presented to her; she has not made a ruling on that issue. He said the ordinance reads
that any person can make a request of the Zoning Administrator to rule on whether or not a
particular user is "C-3" or "I- 1".
Mr. Wilkinson said they have been tabled several times, and they have run out of time; they need
to move forward. He said he will be visiting with Ms. Gandy about this. He asked that the plan
move through with "C-3" zoning and if it doesn't fit, he can make other plans.
Commissioner Muller said she personally feels that the Commission should move through with this
as requested, as a Site Plan with "C-3" zoning. She is a little concerned when we get nit-picky about
the name of a business. She looks at things like if this is appropriate zoning for the area and what
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minntes on May 4, 2000 19
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
44
45
1 is the impact on traffic, parking, etc. She said this area is definitely a "C-3" commercial area. She
2 said it is between two major roads, and it is under the 75 LDN which prohibits a lot of uses. She
3 would like to move forward, but she agrees with Mr. Boutte that through the company's own web
4 page they have brought forth this question of whether or not this is an industrial use. She said that
5 is something for our Zoning Administrator to look at and make a ruling on, and she may still see this
as "C-3" but everyone should be put on notice that there are probably citizens here that would appeal
that to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. She is ready to proceed with this and is ready to move on.
Commissioner Boutte said he wanted make sure it is understood that he did not come to the
conclusion he did because of a name. He came to the conclusion he did because of the company's
description of their business; that was the only thing that brought him to that conclusion. He said the
three Costco stores he has personally known in his life were all in industrial areas. He said he
couldn't agree more with Commissioner Muller that this is "C-3" property and if the Commission
goes through with this tonight, he is going to presume that Costco is the major tenant that is
currently known and he is going to address that throughout the evening.
Commissioner Muller said there was the exact opposite situation with Mayor Stacy's store. He had
started off as a warehouse in industrial zoning and evolved into retail sales; he had the wrong zoning
for a while which had to be corrected. She doesn't know what the answer is, but she appreciates Mr.
Boutte bringing this up because it is important to have the appropriate use in the appropriate zoning
category. She said she has no problem in discussing this as a commercial use.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked the Commission to make a motion to table this item to wait for the
Zoning Administrator's decision. He said if any Commissioner wishes to make that motion, then
the Commission will hear the motion and see if it passes.
Commissioner Boutte said he is not going to make that motion. He said this item has been tabled
twice, and he believes the Commission can go through with it tonight. He said Karen Gandy can
make her ruling in the future, and Mr. Wilkinson understands that if Karen Gandy agrees with him,
then he has lost his major tenant but there is no sense in making him wait another month.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said the discussion that Mr. Boutte is engaging in is an important one for
the City. He said we do not need to be giving "C-3" zoning blindly. He said there are some people
who have the sentiment that the Lowes and the Home Depots of the world should have industrial
zoning. He thinks it is an important decision and the City should look at it.
Commissioner Home said he thinks it is an important decision Mr. Boutte has brought forward but
said every business in Southlake who has sold to another business would then fall into the industrial
category. He said that would go for Home Depot who sells to contractors and to Lowes that will sell
to contractors and it would go to the grocery stores that give money away to charity. He said it is
not the applicant's fault if they come to us with a use we have not nailed down; we cannot nail down
all future business configurations today. He said things will evolve, and they will change; in
different businesses there will be certain things that do not correspond with an exact zoning category
and that is what we have now. He thinks the Commission should move forward with this and vote
it up or down.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 20
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
44
45
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked staff to make a presentation.
Current Planner Lisa Sudbury said staffreceived a new plan on Monday, May 1, and that plan was
put in front of the Commission tonight. She said due to technical difficulties, staff did not complete
a new review that could also have been put in front of the Cormnission tonight. She said she would
like to point out some changes to the Commission after a brief presentation.
Ms. Sudbury presented this item to the Commission for a Zoning Change and Concept Plan on
property legally described as portions of Tracts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7, W. E. Mayfield's Subdivision,
according to the plat recorded in Volume 388-C, Page 4, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and
being approximately 39.5636 acres. The property is located on the south side of S.H. 114 and the
north side of East Southlake Boulevard (F. M. 1709) approximately 200' west of Crooked Lane. The
Current Zoning is "AG" Agricultural District and "C-2" Local Retail Commercial District. The
Requested Zoning is "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District with "C-3" General Commemial District
uses, including a gasoline service station and tires, batteries, and automobile accessories. The Land
Use Category is Mixed Use. The Owners of the property are Conner Lam, Gregory P. Woodside,
Donald E. Vogel, Chung Chang Hong, Glen Scott Harrell, Wetzel Family Partnership, Ltd., and
Gateway Phase II, J.V. The Applicant is Wyndham Properties, Ltd. Twenty-five (25) written notices
were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area, and three (3) responses were received
with all being in favor. There were six (6) responses outside the 200' notification area, and three (3)
were opposed and three (3) were in favor.
Ms. Sudbury said there has been a change in the location of Drive A, the applicant added a
permissible building area on Tract A, and they have provided a maximum building area for Tracts
A and C as noted on the plan. She said there have been some changes in staff's comments, and Mr.
Wilkinson was given a draft set of comments today. Ms. Sudbury reviewed the staff comments with
the Commission.
Based on the Master Thoroughfare Plan amendment, Mr. Killough said Nolen Drive is now an 84'
R.O.W. instead of a 70' four lane undivided roadway. He said one other issue regarding Nolen Drive
becoming an arterial is that staffreviewed it as a collector street which requires minimum driveway
spacings of 100' or mom between driveways; in becoming an arterial, that spacing requirement
increases to 250' between driveway centerlines and along F.M. 1709, there is a requirement of a
minimum 250' from an intersection for a full access driveway; that would be driveways adjacent to
intersecting F.M. 1709. He said it appears on this plan those two driveways are in compliance with
that requirement, however, it would appear that the four driveways at the south end of Nolen Drive
would be out of compliance.
Ms. Sudbury said changes to the bufferyards would also be required along Nolen Drive.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked the applicant to make a brief presentation on Costco and the
development as a whole and then he will take public comments on the development as a whole. He
said the public needs to understand that after this process, the Commission will take up each of the
variance requests.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 21
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
44
45
Mr. Wilkinson addressed the development as a whole with the Commission.
Larry Hart (Costco) made a presentation to the Commission.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, tape 2, section #2602)
Vice-Chairman Peebles opened the Public Hearing.
Cameron McCartha, 1211 Woodcreek Drive, Southlake, Texas, said she is coming before the
Commission as a Vice-Chairman of SPIN. She apologized for her anger but said the Commission
tabled this item last time because they wanted to have a SPIN meeting to hear what the citizens had
to say and between 85 and 100 citizens attended the meeting. She found that the SPIN people who
came and the neighbors were in favor of Costco and they reported that at the meeting. She is a
volunteer and when the Commission calls them, they get a SPIN meeting together in two days.
When the Commission comes back tonight talking about an "I-1" zoning and having a revelation,
she asked what does that mean to all the people who showed up at the SPIN meeting? She said 85
to 100 people showed up in good faith, including herself, with babysitters at home, thinking their
voice would be heard. Now with the changing of zoning, the Commission really changes the whole
thing. She apologized for being angry. She said it is matter of public trust, and that is what made
her angry. She received her tax bill a week ago and was not real thrilled about it. This type of
development is a high volume development that generates retail sales and a tax base for all the things
the citizens would like to have here including trails and ball fields. Half-cent sales tax would go a
long way for all of those things. She is in support for this development. She said it isn't so much
that it is Costco; she has never shopped at one and doesn't know if she'll shop at this one, but she
would think that she maybe would. She said she wants the Commission to consider this on its merits
and listen to the voice of the people who came to the SPIN meeting and her neighbors who say they
are in favor of Costco.
Sandy Rhone, 1816 Kleburg Court, Southlake, Texas, said she thinks the Commission needs to be
very careful about getting into semantics and what that can of worms could open with other stores
in the area. She moved back to Texas from Agora Hills in California which is right next to Wesflake
Hills. She said Westlake Hills has the tightest restrictions and zoning she has ever seen. She has
thought before she would like to go out there and take pictures of Westlake Hills and bring back to
the Council and the Commission. She called a friend of hers who lives in Westlake Hills and asked
her to take some picture to send her. Her friend asked her if she wanted a picture of Costco. Her
friend was very proud about how Costco looked in her area; this is a woman who lives about six to
ten blocks away from Costco. She said she has been in an old Price Club which was bought out by
Costco, and it was a big box in an industrial area. She said that store and this Costco in Westlake
Hills are two totally different things. She asked the Commission to really look at the pictures. She
said this could be a good thing for Southlake.
Glen Harrell, 2706 E. Southlake Boulevard, Southlake, Texas, said he grew up in his house and has
lived there for 25 years. He has a 7 year old son who lives between a 50-60 mph mad in fi'ont of him
and behind him, lives next to abandoned houses, a Liberty Bank, a Lowe's and a Wal-Mart close
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 22
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
44
45
by, a retail development close by, and numerous offices across the street. He has seen F.M. 1709 go
from a two lane road to a five lane road. Whether it is Costco or not, he would not be in favor of
anything across the street from him because it would create more of a traffic problem for him. It is
going to change his taxes dramatically if there is commercial all the way around him. He does not
see anyone taking care of any of the abandoned houses mound him and that is what people see when
they drive into town. He asked the Commission to approve the zoning for "C-3".
Dana Sternfeld, 402 Bayou Vista Court, Southlake, Texas, gave the Commission a letter from Lynda
Warner who had to leave the meeting earlier and had her own thoughts about the City-wide SPIN
meeting. She said she would be opposed to "C-3" zoning if there were outside storage of tires, a gas
station, and any other outside storage use. She said if there was a way to zone it to restrict the use,
she would be okay. She said so many times these centers get junked up with Firestones and other
types of auto services. She has never seen a Costco as pretty as these pictures; if the Commission
can approve the pretty pictures along with the legal documents, then she would say okay. Another
problem she has is the limited access to the gas station off of S.H. 114; if they are going to restrict
the access, then why do they even need a gas station?
Mr. Hart (Costco) said the gas pumps will be for members only and will be unattended.
Frank Fisher, 725 Bryson Way, Southlake, Texas, thanked Mr. Boutte for bringing up the issue of
zoning whether he is right or he is wrong. He would like to think that any representative of the City
of Southlake who represents him would always ask a question before the cement was poured and
not after it was poured and it was too late. If there is a vote this evening and if it is approved with
"C-3" zoning, he would recommend tabling it until they have actual plans of what this building will
look like and not just plans from other locations.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked Mr. Wilkinson if he would make the pretty picture part of his
submittal. Mr. Wilkinson said he would be happy to do that and additionally he has elevations in the
Commission's packet.
Carolyn Morris, 403 St. Charles Court, Southlake, Texas, gave each one of the Commission gold
stars tonight. She said the hour is late and their dedication is still there. She likes the unity of a plan
of this entire corridor between S.H. 114 and F.M. 1709, and she commended Mr. Wilkinson for
putting together all the land and making this effort. She said this is some of the prettiest land in
Southlake and she hopes they do everything they can to preserve that when they do the grading,
elevations, etc. She said she thinks the gas bays are in the wrong place; if it is something that is not
open to the public, then why do they want the public to see it as they are passing by? She said that
location would be a perfect place for a restaurant. She asked where and how it will impact the taxes
in Southlake. She asked if this will put some of the existing businesses out of business. She said she
knows it will not impact the school taxes because Southlake is in the Robin Hood plan, and it will
be sent to Austin as part of that plan.
Mr. Wilkinson said they are partially handicapped when it comes to grading because the Americans
with Disabilities Act require certain grades. In the Phase I section, there was 30' of topography
change to F.M. 1709 to S.H. 114. He said they spent over half a million dollars on retaining walls
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
in Phase I, and they will spend more than that in Phase II. He said they put the gas pumps where
they did because it qualified at that location as per the City's ordinances.
Mr. Hart (Costco) said the nature of their business is that they do not put other businesses out of
business. He said someone couldn't do all of their weekly grocery shopping at a Costco; it would
be impractical. For example, he said they probably only sell seven or eight cereals, hut they are
probably the most popular cereals, too. He said a Costco has around 4,000 SKUs (Store Keeping
Units) whereas a supermarket may have 45,000 to 50,000 SKUs. He said they do not have the depth
of variety in any one category to be able to compete head on with other retailers.
Vice-Chairman Peebles closed the Public Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, tape 2, section g4000)
Commissioner Boutte said he has five pages of questions for Mr. Hart and Mr. Wilkinson. He said
he has flip-flopped over the past few months back and forth on this. Right now, he is definitely
leaning against this item, however, if they can give him five pages worth of good answers to five
pages worth of good questions then he is certainly open to flip-flopping again.
Commissioner Boutte asked Mr. Wilkinson how he calculated his projected tax revenue. Mr.
Wilkinson said they looked at what uses they would be expected to do. He said the pad sites along
F.M. 1709 will most likely be restaurants. Based on their leasing in Phase I, they project to have
similar types of tenants in Phase II and they projected what they do. He said Lincoln Properties has
a lot of expertise in the leasing, and they know what their tenants sell.
Commissioner Boutte questioned whether some of that extra tax money that Costco will generate
will be coming fi.om sources that are akeady generating tax revenue for the City. He said where he
is ultimately trying to get is what is true added value to the City's coffers.
Mr. Wilkinson said he does not think there is anyone here that is capable of pulling that information
offthe top of their head. He said they could guess, but it would not be accurate. If Mr. Boutte could
give them specific information, they would be happy to do research and provide him with that
information but he is not being fair with them asking them to come up with numbers at this point
in time on very complicated calculations.
Commissioner Boutte said it is actually the type of information the City's Economic Development
office should probably have on file and would be able to provide them.
Commissioner Boutte said one of the things the Planning and Zoning Commission is charged with
is bringing up issues for later consideration by City Council. Even if the Commission cannot get
answers tonight, they are questions that need to be brought up and made part of the record so that
Council can address them in the future.
Commissioner Boutte asked Mr. Hart where else Costco is going in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Mr.
Hart said they are currently under construction in Plano and in Fort Worth near Hulen Mall. He said
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 24
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
44
45
they are through the entitlement process in Arlington and are filed in Mesquite. He said there are
a number of other places they are looking at in the metroplex.
Commissioner Boutte asked Mr. Hart what Southlake has in common with the other locations. Mr.
Hart said it is the target demographics and their consumer area; he thinks they are very similar as
far as the target demographic of customer they are looking for. He said they all have high end
consumers; well educated people with lots of disposable income. He said they have done a lot of
demographic research to target those specific areas.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, tape 2, section #4885)
Mr. Wilkinson said his traffic engineers are here, and he was told last time he would be first on the
agenda He said the Commission asked for a presentation fi.om them and asked if they could go ahead
and give a presentation and send them home.
Tom Brown (Transportation Analyst with Kimley-Horne and Associates) 5126B Brian Street, Dallas,
Texas, said in doing a traffic study they generally start out looking at existing conditions and then
they try and make some assumptions on how traffic is going to grow over the years. He said the
intersection ofS.H. 114 and Kimball is operating at a level of service 'F'. Once the frontage roads
are built, that intersection will operate at a level service 'B'. He said they take an average of all of
the turning movements to come up with that level of service. When the traffic from their site is
added in 2001, the intersection at S.H. 114 and Kimball will operate at a level of service 'B' and will
not be affected. The intersection of F.M. 1709 and Kimball is operating at a level of service 'C'. He
said when F.M. 1709 is restriped to seven lanes the F.M. 1709 and Kimball intersection will operate
at a level 'C' with their site in place.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, tape 2, section #5125)
Vice-Chairman Peebles called for a break at 12:50 a.m.
Vice-Chairman Peebles called the meeting back to order at 1:12 a.m.
Mike Lloyd (Kimley-Horne and Associates) said they found that the future intersection ofF.M. 1709
and Nolen Drive will need to be studied for signalization as the site develops out. Due to the speeds
along the frontage road, a deceleration and an acceleration lane should be considered for the
intersection of the frontage road and Nolen Drive. Due to the volume of traffic using the driveways,
the deceleration lane should be provided for the west bound F.M. 1709 direction at Nolen Drive as
well as for the easternmost driveway on the site.
Commissioner Boutte asked Mr. Hart if Costco's supply of high-end goods is stable. He said he is
aware that there have been some manufacturers who did not wish for Costco to sell their goods, and
Costco has ended up having to pull goods off of shelves because of court action. He questioned if
the higher-level goods can be counted on. Mr. Hart said he can certainly counted on Costco having
high quality goods. He said there are occasional instances where they have had issues, but those are
the exception and not the rule. He said he is not really qualified to answer these questions; it is not
his area of expertise.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 25
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
44
45
1
2 Commissioner Boutte said he has seen an instance where an existing Costco store was in a town, and
3 Costco told the town they will move unless they can get some tax abatements. He said they said they
4 would move two miles down the road to a new town and build a new store instead of fixing up the
5 old one. He was just wondering how safe Southlake is before Costco says the grass is greener in
Grapevine or Keller. Mr. Hart said Costco does not go into a market thinking they are not going to
stay there. He said they are going to spend well in excess of $20 million here, and they do not take
those kind of investments lightly. He cannot address whatever instance Mr. Boutte is talking about,
but he has been with Costco since 1991 and cannot ever recall Costco inducing a relocation by
requiring or requesting an inducement from a municipality to relocate.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked Mr. Wilkinson to address the requested variances. Mr. Wilkinson
reviewed the variances with the Commission.
In discussing the impervious coverage area and parking spaces, Vice-Chairman Peebles asked that
they eliminate approximately 30 parking spaces by enlarging the islands on the plan beside the areas
labeled 32 - 34 - 32 - 34 - 32. He said they could eliminate 2 parking spaces beside each island and
enlarge the island. Mr. Wilkinson asked the Commission to give them some flexibility but agreed
to look at eliminating some of those parking spaces.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, end of tape 2, section #7170)
Commissioner Muller asked if there is some way the applicant can soften the look of the loading
dock. Mr. Wilkinson said they will take a look at that.
The Commission agreed to leave in Item g4.a and ask the applicant to show, label, and dimension
the distance and then ask the City Council for a variance of that request. Mr. Wilkinson said he will
do that.
Regarding Item g4.c, Vice-Chairman Peebles asked staffto look at the culvert situation on the south
side of F.M. 1709 and make a recommendation to City Council as to the minimum distance possible
to avoid a problem by moving Drive B to the west. In other words, keep Drive B as far east as
possible without creating a problem on the south side of F.M. 1709.
Mr. Killough said the Commission needs to address the arterial aspect of Nolen Drive, too.
Commissioner Muller asked if the Commission could leave eveI3,thing as is and not grant any
variances and have Mr. Wilkinson work with staff.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he thinks the Commission should give him his four lanes but have him
stipulate that he will stack his utilities. Mr. Wilkinson agreed to that.
Mr. Wilkinson said the spacing requirement is larger on an arterial than it is on a collector. He said
this was all designed because he was told it would be a collector road, the Master Thoroughfare Plan
calls for it to be a collector road, and they designed for it to be a collector road; tonight it became
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 26
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
44
45
an arterial road. He would ask that either it be a collector road or for the Commission to grant the
variances required that the change in designation creates.
Commissioner Muller said if this is an arterial road, Mr. Wilkinson will need a little time to look at
it or else he is requesting a variance. Mr. Wilkinson said he is requesting a variance.
Mr. Wilkinson said they have done what they were told repetitively and now they are on plan
number 50. Commissioner Muller said she appreciates where he is coming from, but she is not
responsible that the Master Thoroughfare Plan just came before the Commission this evening to
consider this road differently.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked how that would change required spacing. Mr. Killough said it would
go from 100' to 250. He said Drives H2 and H1 are at 220'; the distance between Drives H1 and F
is in compliance; the distance between Drives F and E is 165'; and the distance between Drives E
and C is 165'.
Mr. Wilkinson said this road will have a lot of traffic in the morning and it will not be the hours that
the retail center will be that active. It will have very little south bound traffic; he questions the need
for two south bound lanes. Regarding the north bound lanes, it will be easier for most people to take
Kimball Avenue which will have two lanes accessing the access road whereas Nolen Drive will
funnel into one lane.
Commissioner Muller said Mr. Wilkinson brought up some good points; she wishes he would have
spoken earlier when the Commission was discussing the Master Thoroughfare Plan. She said the
other arterials such as Kimball Avenue, Carroll Avenue, and White Chapel Boulevard have
crossovers to the north side of S.H. 114, and Mr. Wilkinson also made a good point about the south
bound traffic.
After discussion about Nolen Drive being designated as an arterial, the Commission agreed to accept
the driveway spacings as shown on the plan tonight and require 5 lanes within the 70' R.O.W.
Mr. Wilkinson said he would like to discuss with staffthe necessity of two south bound lanes. Mr.
Thomas said staff discussed the possibility of having one south bound lane, and one of their
concems is that people drive out of habit and that would he a very non-typical roadway section with
one lane in one direction and two lanes in the other. Another item discussed is that the traffic going
south will more than likely be truck traffic coming off of S.H. 114, and they will need that turning
room off of S.H. 114. He said they would like to keep it as standard as possible.
Regarding Item #4.e on Drive G stacking depth, Vice-Chairman Peebles suggested moving the
opening to the gas station as far west as they can. Mr. Hart said they will do that; one thing they
think really mitigates the deficiency is the fact that it is on the inbound side as opposed to the
outbound side. He said the effective stacking is greater than what is shown because of how it will
operate.
Regarding Item g4.e, Vice-Chairman Peebles asked Mr. Wilkinson to remove two spaces on either
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 27
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3l
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
side to the west and one space on either side to the east on Drive F. Mr. Wilkinson agreed.
Vice-Chairman Peebles also asked if he would widen Drive F a little to help avoid track rots because
of turning movements. Mr. Wilkinson agreed.
Commissioner Boutte thanked Mr. Hart, Mr. Dozier, and Mr. Wilkinson. He does not believe
anyone in this town can walk around tomorrow morning and say this site was not fully examined,
and that the people they expect to watch out for them did not look out for every conceivable issue
and watch out for them. He thanked all of the applicants for persevering.
Motion was made to approve ZA 00-020 subject to Concept Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated
April 20, 2000, and subject to the following:
· In addition to this Concept Plan approved with the S-P-2 zoning, the development
regulations in the document shall be required on this development. If any requirements in
the regulations are in conflict with other requirements of the approved plan and development
regulations, the more stringent requirements shall apply.
· Regarding Item # 1.d (impervious coverage) allow as shown but recommending decreasing
the number of parking spaces along Nolen Drive by increasing the size of the parking islands
located on the east side of the parking lot except those affronting Nolen Drive by two spaces;
· Deleting Item #1.e (parking requirements for restaurants) requiring no additional parking
spaces for outdoor seating;
· Allowing the variance requested in Item # 1.f with respect to the one ancillary building less
than 2,000 s.f. limited to the gas station building only;
· Regarding Item #2.b (5' bufferyard), allow as proposed;
· Permitting the variance in Item #3 (location of loading dock) but accepting the applicant's
guarantee that it is not visible from F.M. 1709 or S.H. 114 and requiring the applicant to
find ways to soften the appearance from Nolen Drive;
· Regarding Item ~4.b, requiring a right-in/right-out on Drive A unless the driveway is moved;
· Regarding Item g4.c, keeping Drive B as far east as possible with out conflicting with the
culvert on the south side of F.M. 1709;
· Deleting Item #4.d (minimum 500' driveway spacing), and allowing as shown;
· Regarding Item g4.e, requiring Drive B to be reevaluated due to the new design; increasing
Drive F by two spaces on the south and one space on the north; and moving Drive G, the
turn into the gas station, as far west as possible;
· Deleting Item #4.h (relocating Drive J further north);
· Deleting Item #5.c (articulation) and allowing as shown and requiring articulation on all
visible areas;
· Recommending outside storage as permitted by Ordinance 480, Section 45.11, as amended,
with noted conditions;
· Permitting 5 lanes on Nolen Drive within a 70' R.O.W. as shown with stacked utilities
adjacent to the R.O.W.;
· Allowing bufferyard along Nolen Drive as shown;
· Allowing Drive I as shown;
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 28
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
44
45
Allowing one gas station as approved tonight, and
Allowing "C-3" Uses, excluding the following:
7) conventional golf courses, including outdoor driving ranges accessory thereto, but
excluding outdoor miniature golf courses;
16) Lodges, sororities, and/or fraternities;
18) Mortuaries, funeral homes and undertakers
23) Plumbing and heating appliance repair installation service
Allowing this "C-3" use, amended as follows:
17) Allowing Medical care facilities to include nursing and car: homes, hospitals
with their related facilities and supportive retail and personal service uses
operated by or under the control o f the hospital primarily for the convenience of
patients, staff and visitors.
Allowing "O-1" Uses, excluding the following:
29) Radio recording and television broadcasting offices and studios.
Allowing "C-2" Uses, excluding the following:
8) Business colleges or private schools for vocational training
24) Frozen food lockers for individual or family use.
Other Limitations include:
a) Limiting any office related training to 30% of the tenant's floor area
b) Limiting the number of screens in auditoriums, theaters, and cinemas to twelve
screens
Motion: Muller
Second: Home
Vice-Chairman Peebles said if after further review by staff there are other variances that are going
to be requested, City Council should consider them and said the Commission is not granting a
variance to those items simply because they were not included.
Ayes: Home, Boutte, Muller, Peebles
Nays: None
Approved: 4-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, tape 3, section #2750)
Vice-Chairman Peebles called for a break at 3:15 a.m.
Vice-Chairman Peebles called the meeting back to order at 3:22 a.m.
AGENDA ITEM #9, ZA 00-032, PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GATEWAY PLAZA, PHASE II:
Current Planner Lisa Sudbury presented this item to the Commission for a Preliminary Plat on
property legally described as portions of Tracts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7, W. E. Mayfield's Subdivision,
according to the plat recorded in Volume 388-C, Page 4, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and
being approximately 39.5636 acres. The property is located on the south side of S.H. 114 and the
no~d~ side of East Southlake Boulevard (F. M. 1709) approximately 200' west of Crooked Lane. The
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 29
6
7
8
9
lO
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
1 Current Zoning is "AG" Agricultural District and "C-2" Local Retail Commercial District. The Land
2 Use Category is Mixed Use. The Owners of the property are Conner Lam, Gregory P. Woodside,
3 Donald E. Vogel, Chung Cheng Hong, Glen Scott Harrell, Wetzel Family Partnership, Ltd., and
4 Gateway Phase II J.V. The Applicant is Wyndham Properties, Ltd. Twenty-five (25) written notices
5 were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area, and two (2) responses were received
with both being in favor.
Terry Wilkinson (Wyndham Properties, Ltd.) presented this item to the Commission.
Mr. Killough said there are no variances required as per the review received by the Commission in
their packet but due to the recent recommendation made on the Master Thoroughfare Plan, the
applicant is requesting a reduction to a 70' R.O.W. He said staffis asking that the applicant provide
easements as may be required along that R.O.W. to compensate for the R.O.W. width issue. Mr.
Wilkinson agreed.
Vice-Chairman Peebles opened the Public Heating. No one in the audience stepped forward to
speak. Vice-Chairman Peebles closed the Public Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, tape 3, section #2844)
Motion was made to approve ZA 00-032 subject to Plat Review Summary No. 1, dated March 31,
2000, adding a comment to allow Nolen Drive as an A5U arterial within a 70' R.O.W. and providing
utility easements adjacent to the R.O.W. to allow stacking of utilities as required by City
Engineering.
Motion: Muller
Second: Home
Ayes: Boutte, Muller, Home, Peebles
Nays: None
Approved: 4-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, tape 3, section #2890)
AGENDA ITEM #14, DUE TO CASE RESOLUTION NO. 97-22, THE FOLLOWING CASES
WERE NOT HEARD ON THIS AGENDA AND WERE CONTINUED TO THE MAY 18, 2000,
37 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING:
38 A. ZA 00-026, SITE PLAN FOR CARROLL I.S.D. NO. 5 ADDITION, on property legally
39 described as Tract lA4 situated in the J. W. Hale Survey, Abstract No. 803, and being
40 approximately 16.081 acres. Location: On the north side of East Continental Boulevard
41 approximately 400' west of South Carroll Avenue. Current Zoning: "R-PUD" Residential
42 Planned Unit Development District with "CS" Community Service District uses. Applicant:
43 Cheatham & Associates. Owner: Carroll I.S.D. SPIN Neighborhood #8. (Public Hearing)
44
45
B. ZA 00-027, PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CARROLL I.S.D. NO. 5
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
29
30
31
ADDITION, on property legally described as Tract lA4 situated in the J. W. Hale Survey,
Abstract No. 803, and being approximately 16.081 acres. Location: On the north side of East
Continental Boulevard approximately 400' west of South Carroll Avenue. Current Zoning: "R-
PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District with "CS" Community Service District
uses. Applicant: Cheatham & Associates. Owner: Carroll I.S.D. SPIN Neighborhood #8. (Public
Hearing)
AGENDA ITEM #15, MEETING ADJOURNMENT:
Vice-Chairman Peebles adjourned the meeting at 3:25 a.m. on May 5, 2000.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-04-00, tape 3, section #2896)
Mike Sandlin
Chairman
ATTEST:
Loft A. Farwell
Planning Secretary
N:\Community Development\WP-FILE SWITG~INq2000\05 -04-00.DOC
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 4, 2000 31