2000-05-18 P&Z Meeting 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION MEETING
May 18, 2000
COMMISSION PRESENT: Chairman Mike Sandlin; Vice-Chairman C. D. Peebles; and
Commissioners Michael Boutte, Kenneth Home, Dennis King, and Pamela Muller.
COMMISSION ABSENT: None
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney; Charlie Thomas, City Engineer; Dennis
Killough, Senior Current Planner; Ken Baker, Comprehensive Planner; Malcolm Jackson, Chief of
Building Services; Angela Turner, Graduate Engineer; and Lori Farwell, Planning Secretary.
Chairman Sandlin called the meeting to order at 6:36 p.m.
There was no Work Session held.
AGENDA ITEM #2, APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Chairman Sandlin opened discussion of the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting held on May 4, 2000.
Motion was made to approve the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held
on May 4, 2000,
Motion: Home
Second: Muller
Ayes: Muller, Home, Boutte, Peebles
Nays: None
Abstain: King, Sandlin
Approved: 4-0-2
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-18-00, tape 1, section #0026)
AGENDA ITEM #3, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS:
There were no Administrative Comments.
Chairman Sandlin said Agenda Item #4 is on the Consent Agenda and will not have a separate
discussion unless a Commission member or a citizen requests for it to be removed from the Consent
Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda. No one requested for this item to be removed from the
Consent Agenda.
AGENDA ITEM #4, ZA 00-044, FINAL PLAT FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CARROLL I.S.D. NO. 4
ADDITION:
Motion was made to approve ZA 00-044 subject to Plat Review Summary No. 2, dated May 12,
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 18, 2000 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
2000.
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
Muller
Home
Home, Boutte, Peebles, King, Muller, Sandlin
None
6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-18-00, tape 1, section/40068)
AGENDA ITEM #5, ORDINANCE NO. 480-KK, AMENDMENTS TO COMPREHENSIVE
ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 480, AS AMENDED, REGARDING NOISE REGULATIONS IN
ORDINANCE NO. 480 TO REMOVE ANY CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
15 ORDINANCE NO. 778;
16 AGENDA ITEM #6, ORDINANCE NO. 778, AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE CODE OF
17 ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE BY ADDING ARTICLE III TO DEFINE
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
CERTAIN NOISES TO BE A NUISANCE AND PROHIBIT THEM;
AGENDA ITEM #7, ZA 00-024, REZONING;
AGENDA ITEM #13, ZA 00-036, PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SIMMONS ADDITION:
Motion was made to table Ordinance No. 480-KK, Ordinance No. 778, and ZA 00-036 and to
continue the Public Hearings to the June 8, 2000, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and
to table ZA 00-024 and to continue the Public Hearing to the July 20, 2000, Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting.
Motion: Peebles
Second: Muller
Ayes: Boutte, Peebles, King, Muller, Home, Sandlin
Nays: None
Approved: 6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05 - 18-00, tape 1, section #0101 )
AGENDA ITEM #8, ZA 99-078, REZON1NG AND REVISED SITE PLAN FOR CARROLL
HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION:
Comprehensive Planner Ken Baker presented this item to the Commission for a Rezoning and
Revised Site Plan on property legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Carroll High School Addition,
an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in
Cabinet A, Slide 1460, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas; and Tracts lA and 1Al situated in the
R. J. Paden Survey, Abstract No. 1255, and being approximately 56.100 acres. The property is
located on the southeast comer of the intersection of West Southlake Boulevard (F.M. 1709) and
South Peytonville Avenue. The Current Zoning is "AG" Agricultural District and "S-P-I" Detailed
Site Plan District. The Requested Zoning is "S-P-l" Detailed Site Plan District with "CS"
Community Service District uses. The Land Use Category is Public/Semi-Public and Medium
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 18, 2000 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Density Residential. The Owner of the property is Carroll I.S.D. The Applicant is Cheatham &
Associates. Fifty-two (52) written notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification
area, and eleven (11) responses were received with ten (10) being opposed and one (1) being in
favor. One (1) response was received outside the 200' notification area which was opposed. A
petition with 26 signatures was also received on May 18, 2000.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if a super majority vote is required of City Council due to the
opposition on this item. Senior Planner Dennis Killough said it would require 20% of the land area
that is made up by a 200'perimeter that runs along the boundary of the school, and it would include
properties across the street as well.
Commissioner King asked if a resident signing his name to a petition is sufficient to count towards
the 20%. City Attorney Debra Drayovitch said the ordinance reads that a super majority vote will
be required if a case is protested in writing by the owners of at least 20% of either the lot covered
by the change or 20% the areas of the lots immediately adjoining the lot covered by the change.
Brent Kline (Total Program Management) 860 W. Airport Freeway, Hurst, Texas, presented this
item to the Commission. He reviewed the Site Plan with the requested variances.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked Mr. Kline why they put the Natatorium in this particular location; he
asked why it wasn't put by the practice field or on the comer of Peytonville Avenue and Southlake
Boulevard away from the neighbors. Mr. Kline said there are various uses already planned for the
rest of the site; this property was bought with this purpose in mind.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked why the Natatorium cannot be placed where the parking for Phase 5
is located. Mr. Kline said that area was intended to be an extension of the parking lot. Mr. Kline
said he is not sure the neighbors would be any happier with a parking lot right beside them.
Chairman Sandlin said he is still confused why the Natatorium cannot be placed on the comer since
there are angry homeowners on the east side compared to Walgreen's and a gas station on the west
side; he is just curious as to the thought process that went into this decision.
Dr. Ted Gillum (Superintendent of Carroll I.S.D.) said they need the extra space on the comer when
the campus becomes a 2,000-student campus. He said there is an overflow of parking right now.
He said if they put the Natatorium anywhere else on this site other than the location shown, that area
would have to be a parking lot and he believes the neighbors would object more to a parking lot next
to their homes than the Natatorium. He said the neighbors would have a more secure home with a
Natatorium next to them than a parking lot by their fence.
Chairman Sandlin said he appreciates that, but if he was living there he would probably take the
chance with the parking lot.
Commissioner Boutte asked how much money the City is putting into this facility as a joint use
facility. Mr. Kline said $1,250,000.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 18, 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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked how much the total cost will be. Mr. Kline said the estimate is
$6,700,000.
Mr. Kline said the reason the Natatorium is located where it is and not moved over to the west 20'
is because of an existing storm sewer which runs adjacent to the entrance element of the building.
He said there is also a water line and a 6' drop from the existing building down to the Natatorium.
In order to move the building over, they would have to replace the sewer line, the water line, move
the road over, and put in a retaining wall.
Commissioner Boutte asked how much that would add to the cost. Mr. Kline said it would cost
approximately $180,000.
Chairman Sandlin asked where the area is in which they are wanting to eliminate the berm. Mr.
Kline said it is along the south property line. He said on the last Site Plan approval, they were
required to place a berm with Mondell Pines on top of it. He said the problem with that is once you
have a 3' high berm, a high school student can stand on top the berm and see over the residential
fences. He said this will be a normal area for the students to hang out during practice and if it were
him, he would not want them to be able to look over the fence. He said the original thought was
once the trees are planted on top the berm, it would provide that much more of a screen but being
back that far, they really do not have any tall buildings. He said the other issue regarding the berm
is they do not want to dam the water up onto the residential properties.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said the Landscape Administrator has verified what Mr. Kline is saying
regarding the berms, and that seems to make sense.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-18-00, tape 1, section # 1318)
Chairman Sandlin opened the Public Hearing.
Charles Whitacre, 110 Waterford Drive, Southlake, Texas, said he is not opposed to the Natatorium,
but he is opposed to the variance. He said he was glad when the school bought this property. He
knew there would not be a service station or a McDonald's there, and he knew the school would
come in and do something acceptable to everybody. He said he began communicating with the
school district immediately from that point on. He said he and his neighbors signed a petition
reiterating what they wanted the school district to do, and they never really received any
communication back from the school district. They wanted to work with the school district and
wanted to compromise. He said Councilmember Rex Potter organized a meeting with the residents,
TPM, and City staff to discuss the outstanding issues. He said they spent about three hours at this
meeting really hammering out the details. Mr. Whitacre said the school district told them at that time
they would put together a landscaping plan and get back with the homeowners; the homeowners still
have not heard back from the school district. He said another issue of the homeowners is the
turnaround; the residents do not want lights shining into their homes. He said he understands the
building needs to be moved 40' towards the High School in order to meet the 4:1 slope
requirements, and the homeowners discussed with the school district the possibility of moving it 20'
away so they will not be looking at the Empire State Building behind their homes. They want to be
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 18, 2000 4
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
able to have some distance between their homes and the building. He said there are eight parking
spaces next to the building and asked why they need that parking there at all; they could take that
parking out and move the building that distance. He said the homeowners also discussed the need
for new fences with the school district. He said the school district has not worked with them at all.
They have not seen anything prior to this meeting tonight. He said when the City Council gave the
school district $1,250,000 it was with the stipulation they would work with the homeowners. He said
another thing is that he looked out his window one morning and saw the biggest building he has ever
seen; he found out it was the Activities Building. He said when the Activities Building was voted
on, he does not think people thought the school district would build the Astrodome back there. He
said that building is so large it can be seen back through several neighborhoods.
Anthony Bologna, 100 Waterford Drive, Southlake, Texas, said he is in favor of the Natatorium, but
he is opposed to the variances. He said his whole issue is the height of the building. He said when
he first saw the plans his first thought is that the site is too small for this Natatorium. He said they
should have bought where the Walgreen's is located; it is a bigger piece of property with no
homeowners next to it. He does not want his property values to go down based on having a large
center like this behind his house.
Mary Ann Harless, 106 Waterford Drive, Southlake, Texas, said she does not recall a variance being
mentioned when the school district met with the homeowners back in November. She said she
received a letter from TPM on April 6 which did address the variances. In their second meeting with
TPM and the school district held in May, the homeowners explained all of their concerns and
requests, and TPM said they would go back and relook at the design and at the feasibility of a
redesign. She said she felt good about the possibility of moving the building forward after that
meeting. She said TPM said they would send a follow-up letter, and they did not. She said one of
her concerns is the lack of follow-up from TPM. She said a good question was raised by Mr. Peebles
when he asked why this building is being built on this property. She said she is not opposed to the
Natatorium.
David Nuese, 102 Waterford Drive, Southlake, Texas, said he recently moved to this area because
of the openness and the well-planned and thought out nature of the community. His overall feeling
is that he has not been involved in this process. He believes the Natatorium is a good facility, but
his background is in engineering and he would like to look into alternatives. He asked that he be
presented this plan in a better fashion so he can evaluate it. He would rather see a practice field with
bufferyards on this property.
Bill Harless, 106 Waterford Drive, Southlake, Texas, said the homeowners were willing to
compromise with the building being moved 20' instead of 40'. He said he thought the school district
agreed to eliminate the parking spaces in front, build the grade up, move the handicapped parking
to the side, and move the building forward. He said he is not opposed to the Natatorium and he is
not necessarily opposed to its placement on this site but he does not think the school board and TPM
has worked with the neighbors on compromising. He respectfully requested for the Commission to
deny a variance until the neighbors have had more time to work with the school district regarding
the placement of the building.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 18, 2000 5
1 Steve Little, 1412 Park Place, Southlake, Texas, said he is in agreement that the berm should go
2 because of drainage and the possibility of kids looking over the fence. He said he saw a detailed
3 landscaping plan about four weeks ago, and he is very concerned about it. He said the school district
4 told him about two-thirds of the mitigated trees are not to be placed at this school but at another
5 school. He said that upsets him pretty good. He asked that the 8' fence requirement not be scratched
6 until the types of trees are looked at further. He expressed his concern about the accessory buildings.
7 He said he noticed the trees behind his house were tagged so he called the City, and three different
8 people told him not to worry about it. The next morning he said he was woken up by bulldozers, and
9 there were 50 to 60 year old trees falling down 30' from his back fence. He said he does not believe
10 the previous plan would have been approved if the accessory buildings were shown where they are
11 today. He is opposed to the accessory buildings being that close to his fence due to the possibility
12 of students hanging out around the buildings.
13
14
Stacy Mims, 611 Boardwalk Avenue, $outhlake, Texas, presented the Commission with a petition
15 , containing 50 signatures opposed to the plan presented tonight and said that 17 of those signatures
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
are within the 200' area. She said she is opposed to the accessory buildings which are backing right
up to people's backyards. She said they were told no more trees would be removed but if the
accessory buildings are placed where they are shown, they will have to remove more trees. She is
tired of them telling the homeowners that they will not remove any more trees, and she is tired of
coming to these meetings in order to save trees. She said the school district is not being a good
neighbor. She said the shot put area is larger than they have shown on the plans, and the school
district is saying there is no more room to plant trees because of the location of the Shot Put.
Gordy Vanyo, 1414 Park Place, Southlake, Texas, said he is here in opposition to the accessory
buildings. He said it would be absolutely impossible to put these buildings in without removing
more trees. He asked that the homeowners be remembered in consideration of this item. He said he
would not be opposed to the accessory buildings if they were placed somewhere else on the property
besides adjacent to the residential properties. He asked that they be given something in writing from
the school board regarding the trees.
Rob Nall, 1406 Park Place, Southlake, Texas, said he knew his house was behind a softball field and
practice field, but he does not think these accessory buildings have been shown on any plans before.
He does not want them there. He said if the school district really needs them, they can move them
to the center of the property and not up against the houses. He said he can only imagine what safety
issues those buildings would bring up.
Janie Middleton, 1418 ParkPlace, Southlake, Texas, said her first concern is the variances for the
buildings that were not shown on their first plan. She also stated her concerns regarding the trees.
She said it is ludicrous to build four separate buildings for equipment; a solution would be to put
equipment in the "Astrodome" building. Regarding the landscaping, the plan today is totally
different than what she first saw. She said she personally enjoys living behind the High School and
enjoys the activity, but at the same time, she wants the school to be good neighbors. She said what
was said at the City Council meeting and what is being done seems quite a bit different. She asked
why they do not take the money that was to be spent on berms and put it towards trees for this area.
She expressed her concern regarding the shot put being 10' from her fence, and her fence is only 6'
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 18, 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
tall. She said the shot put area was never shown on the plans, and the radius of the pits goes almost
to her fence.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if the shot put area would have to come through on a Site Plan. Mr.
Killough said those uses should have been shown on a Site Plan.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if they are putting in something that has not been approved by the
City. Mr. Killough said it appears that way.
Steve Lakin, 400 Donnally Court, Southlake, Texas, spoke in behalf of the Natatorium Committee.
He said the inside of this building will be a very nice facility. It will be used for the dual purpose
of the school district and the City. He said the proper location of it is the Commission's decision.
He said they think the variances should be given due to what the school district wants to provide in
the way of landscaping and a barrier from the homes.
Chairman Sandlin asked what the thought process was regarding the reason this facility was stuck
here around a bunch of homes. Mr. Lakin said he cannot answer questions as to the site location;
that would be the school district.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if it had already been determined there would be a 5-Meter platform
when this committee was formed. Mr. Lakin said no; when the committee was formed there was no
determination what would be in the building. Mr. Lakin said the 5-Meter platform requires the
building to be 35' high. He said without the platform, the requirement for the building is 32' high;
for a difference of 3', they gain another use for this facility.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked who made the determination that a 5-Meter platform needs a 35'
building and for a 3-Meter platform, the building needs to be 32'? Mr. Lakin said it is determined
by UIL rules; it has to do with the requirements for diving and the height required above the boards
for safety purposes. Mr. Lakin said the 32' high requirement is not dictated by the 3-Meter
platforms; it is dictated by the height of the building requirement to have the stands that project
upward. He said to have the seating capacity that this building has, they need to have that height.
Bill Harless asked if high schools compete on a 5-Meter platform? Mr. Lakin said no; it would be
for community uses and for competition and recreation leagues.
Mr. Harless said 3' is really not a lot of space, but the closer the building is to his property line and
his home, it is a lot of space.
Mary Ann Harless asked if anyone had considered the liability aspect of having the platforms?
Susan Ansley, 607 Loving Court, Southlake, Texas, said she wants to go on record as being in
support of this project. She said the diving clubs handle the insurance. She said the high school only
competes on 1-Meter at this time. She said she was thrilled to come before the City to ask for
funding for this project. She said this will be a world class facility that everyone will be proud of.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 18, 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
40
41
42
43
44
45
Shawn Roberts, 1405 Richmond Court, Southlake, Texas, said his backdoor opens up to one of the
accessory buildings, and he will have 90' of wall he will have to look at. He asked why the
accessory building could not be moved over to the activity building. He said he is also speaking for
his neighbor, John Johanson, who is in London for a year and a half and who is also opposed to this
building.
Brent Kline clarified that all four accessory buildings will actually be 30' X 60'. He said he believes
the southwest accessory buildings' location is drawn in error, and said it was never intended to take
out any more trees.
Gary Sietz, 1400 Park Place, Southlake, Texas, said what concerns him most is the variation in
drawings and the question of what is actually approved. He is concerned about things that are getting
built that do not seem to show up on the plans. He asked where the management is for this site.
Jim Sweeter, 1402 Park Place, Southlake, Texas, said this whole meeting seems like the caboose
pulling the train. He thinks this all of this discussion could have been eliminated if communication
would have been started a year ago with all of the homeowners. He does not think it is going to be
resolved until everyone sits down and hammers it out. He said this is out of control now.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-18-00, tape 1, section #3170)
Chairman Sandlin asked the City Attorney what the Commission's options are since this is a
rezoning. He asked if the Commission can initiate a tabling. Ms. Drayovitch said the Commission
can table this if they believe there are unresolved issues that need further consideration or
modification. She then said if the applicant does not request to table the plat, the Commission would
have to deny it due to lack of proper zoning. Regarding this case, she said the Commission can
approve it, approve it with changes, deny it, or table it.
Commissioner Muller asked if they can deny zoning for a school. Ms. Drayoviteh said the City is
authorized under state law to regulate land use and to adopt regulations to protect the citizens and
the school district is another governmental body created under state law that has the authority to
carry out academic programs. She said the school district has certain rights just as the City does. The
school district has a right to chose a location for an academic program but it must comply with the
police power regulations of the City, therefore, it is possible for the school district to construct the
Natatorium here but they still have to comply with the slope requirements and the other ordinances
of the City.
Commissioner Home said he is not that familiar with construction, but he asked what would happen
if they were to just grade the property 3' lower. Mr. Kline said the water would end up running in
the door. Mr. Kline said their original idea was to move the building 20' west and to eliminate the
parking spaces on the west side. He said the first thing to get in their way was the storm sewer. He
said they were going to move the handicapped spaces to the side of the building, but they determined
there would be such a grade differential that there would be no way to get a handicapped person
from a parking space into the door.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 18, 2000 8
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
Chairman Sandlin asked if the school district ever came up with a Plan A, B, or C regarding the
location of the Natatorium. Mr. Kline said no; it has always been on this property. He said they have
always thought the neighbors would not like a solid parking lot running up to 10' of their fence.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said they would not need to run the parking up to 10' of the fences. Mr.
Kline said they will be pretty close to get that much parking lot in.
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he is not saying to use all of the Phase 5 parking for this facility; they
would not need it all.
Chairman Sandlin said the school district is the largest developer in Southlake and if it was any other
developer, the Commission would have already had them gone and would have told them to work
it out with the homeowners. He just thinks it is ludicrous that they do not come up with options to
give the homeowners. He thinks that is common courtesy. He said if someone could tell him why
this option is better than another option, then he is open to that.
Mr. Kline said there will be young children coming in during the day for lessons and moms coming
in to swim, and they are trying to isolate that traffic while school is going on.
Chairman Sandlin said he would argue it would be easier to get in and out if they put it by the traffic
light.
Mr. Gillum said when they went through the bond process, they had multiple meetings, focus
groups, and town hall meetings, and no one ever complained about this site, He said at the very first
P&Z meeting they had, the comments they heard was that this was better than anything ever
proposed for this site. He said they did not look at the comer because they have a lot of student
parking around there, and they felt this would blend in with those parking lots. He said they need
every square foot of parking they can get on this site when this school goes to a maximum of 2,000
students. He said if the Natatorium was moved to the comer, they would definitely need this space
for a parking lot. He said they have not talked to the adjacent neighbors because having been a high
school principal, he knows what happens in parking lots; if he lived there, he would not want a
parking lot by his back fence.
Commissioner Muller said the Commission could discuss parking tonight and mislead people in
thinking that parking is going to go there and then the school could come back with something else
if parking does not work.
Commissioner Boutte asked what the height is of the arches on the Natatorium. Mr. Kline said the
arch in the front is setting at 42'. He said one thing to note is that the arch does not run the whole
way back; it is a smaller piece that is there for articulation purposes only.
Commissioner Muller asked Mr. Kline to describe the windows in the facility. Mr. Kline said all the
windows on the east elevation and the west elevation are frosted glass and cannot be seen through.
Commissioner Muller asked if these windows can be opened, and Mr. Kline said no.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 18, 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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Muller asked where the lights will be located on the building. Mr. Kline said next to
each of the doors on the back side, there will be a sconce; one on each side of the doors. He said
there will be one light back in the maintenance area for security purposes, and then the rest of the
lighting will be out front underneath the soffets and on poles.
Commissioner Muller said she has heard the school district refer to moving trees from one school
to another and asked what school sites all of these trees are being moved to. Mr. Kline said they will
take a third of the trees to the Durham site, a third will go to Carroll Middle School, and a third to
the High School; at that time it was around 750 trees that had to be mitigated and 250 at each one
of those sites although he thinks they are around 300 trees on the High School site right now. He
said that is changing right now as they are trying to prepare a comprehensive landscape plan to
present to the Joint Use Committee.
Commissioner Muller asked him to move some of those trees to the east side of this building. Mr.
Kline said any of the trees outside the 6' range will be mitigated but the majority of them will stay.
He said anything outside the 6' range will be mitigated as per the ordinance.
Commissioner Muller asked Mr. Kline about the turnaround and the emergency gate. Mr. Kline said
they need just enough room for the last parking space to back up on the south end and then the gate
would occur. He said from that point on back would be 170' to the residential properties.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if they will maintain the residential fences.
Commissioner Muller said it is their responsibility to maintain the fences because it is a requirement
to put up the buffer and screening.
Commissioner Muller said there has been a lot of discussion about the accessory buildings and
moving them. Mr. Kline said the accessory buildings will be used for storage of mats and pads and
things for the track. He said they will be 12' in height and will be 30' X 60'. He said the building
on the southwest comer is 60' back from the residential property, the building on the southeast is
90' back, and the buildings on the east side are 50' back.
Jerry Lawrence, 1901 E. Highland, Southlake, Texas, said he is on the Joint Use Committee, and
he does not think there has been a great success rate with trees and landscaping with C.I.S.D.
schools. He said the Board, TPM, and the Committee would like to take into account native Texas
landscaping and complete a comprehensive landscaping plan that takes into account Kimball
Intermediate/Middle School site, stadium site, Natatorium site, and Elementary #5, and put
something together that takes all of these mitigated trees and instead of just throwing them at various
schools, try to come up with a comprehensive plan. He said the Committee is meeting twice next
week to do this. He is not a tree expert but the people working on this project are and have a lot more
knowledge than he does. He is sorry they do not have this plan tonight; he wishes they did. He said
it is one of those things that has taken a lot of time to development and get the people together. He
said there is not a question in his mind that there will be enough trees, but he wants to do it smart
and do it with the right trees and not end up with dead trees or trees that do not last. Mr. Lawrence
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 18, 2000 10
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 said although there may have been a better place for the Natatorium, once they get this late in the
2 game it is kind of hard to go back and move it. Regarding the height of the building, he said if they
3 could build it 20' tall, he would be in favor of that because it would be cheaper, but that will not
4 work. He said there was a lot of research put into this facility, and the residents and neighbors who
5 are swimmers helped them redesign the entire concept and told them what they have to do and what
the requirements are. He said they went through a painstaking process.
Vice~Chairman Peebles said he does not see why this Commission would discuss how many trees
are going where when there is another Committee looking into it, and they will make a
recommendation to City Council.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked Mr. Kline if he would like the Commission to defer to the findings
of that Committee, and Mr. Kline said yes. He would suggest for the Commission to hold their feet
to the fire on Item #1 and letting them work it out between now and 2nd Reading.
Mr. Kline said regarding the storage buildings, they would be willing to work with the neighbors
and refine these plans and show them correctly drawn. He said they could possibly eliminate one
or two of the buildings and say for absolutely certain where they will be located.
Commissioner Boutte asked why the shot put pits are not shown on the Site Plan. Mr. Kline said he
cannot explain why; they need to be on there along with the long jumps and the discus throws.
Chairman Sandlin asked if the neighbors would want a parking lot behind their house; he said there
are some negatives to a parking lot, too. Bill Harless agreed there are some negatives to a parking
lot, but the problem is they have not had the opportunity to talk about the options.
Chairman Sandlin closed the Public Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-18-00, tape 1, section #5930)
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked Mr. Kline to reassess all of the accessory buildings and decide exactly
how many they need and where they will be located. Mr. Kline agreed.
Commissioner Home said he knows how long they have been kicking around this idea of a
Natatorium and for the longest time everybody said this was the ideal spot for it and now it is about
to be built and there are a lot of concerns that were not brought up before. He is not saying the
concerns are not legitimate because they are but asked where these concerns were on November 29,
19997
Mary Ann Harlcss said at that point in time they did not know there was a variance requested. She
said she certainly would have had a concern if she had known at that point. She said they also did
not know the height of the building at that time.
Steve Lakin said the advantage of having a 5-Meter platform in this facility is that more people can
utilize this facility. When they build such an expensive facility and certain components are left out,
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 18, 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
it limits what they can do in it and the swimming community thought that was a travesty. He said
it is maximizing this facility for the best use and the most use of the community.
Commissioner Home said he has noticed around the country in facilities such as this that when they
have these competitions throughout the year, they are generally revenue generators. He said he has
heard this and asked how that would work. Mr. Lakin said they could rent the facility for these
competitive events, and that money would go back to either the facility, to C.I.S.D., or to the
coInmunity.
Susan Ansley said having the 5-Meter platform will also benefit the students of the school district
who are vying for scholarships to get into a college; it opens up avenues in that direction, too.
Commissioner Boutte said the Commission sees the same pattern repeating itself which is the school
district seems to not work well with neighbors. He said this may be the worse case he has seen.
Commissioner King said he does not feel comfortable at all voting either way, and he thinks this
needs to be tabled. He thinks the people need to get together and see what issues they can work out.
He does not even know what he would be voting on right now regarding the accessory buildings,
the location of the Natatorium, and the landscaping. He said the communication has broken down,
and he is hopeful some of these issues can be worked out.
Commissioner Home said he agrees with Mr. King. He said when he asked his questions, he was
hoping to hear from the proponents; he has not heard enough on the side of the benefits to be able
to vote on this tonight. He said they need to sit down and work out these issues. He said there is too
much left unsaid and undone.
The Commission discussed the possibility of tabling this item and discussed dates. Mr. Killough
told the Commission there is no P&Z meeting on June 22 nor is there a Council meeting on July 4.
Motion was made to table ZA 99-078 to a June 22, 2000, Special Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting.
Motion: King
Second: Home
Vice-Chairman Peebles said he is going to vote against this motion because this item has two
readings at City Council, and the wiser thing to do would be to move this forward to City Council.
He thinks the Commission should let them see what they can do before City Council's June 20
meeting and if it still is not worked out by then, they will have to wait until the July 18 Council
meeting.
Commissioner Muller agreed with Mr. Peebles in that the Commission can be very specific in their
motion about the neighborhood concerns and give them something to work with. She said she feels
the school district should meet with this neighborhood, and she will put that in the motion. She
thinks the Commission would be passing something pretty clear to the Council. She said there are
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 18, 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
40
41
42
43
44
things that have to be shown on this plan that are not.
Ayes: King, Home
Nays: Peebles, Muller, Boutte, Sandlin
Approved: 2-4
Motion failed.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-18-00, end of tape 1, section #7172)
Motion was made to approve ZA 00-078 subject to Revised Site Plan Review Summary No. 4,
dated May 12, 2000, and subject to the following:
· Regarding Item #1 (interior landscaping and bufferyards): The following items are referencing
the Landscape Comments Review No. 4, dated May 11, 2000: removing the berms listed as the
second Item #3; regarding Item #4, not requiring there to be all Mondell Pines and instructing
the applicant to work with the Landscape Administrator to determine what canopy trees and
accent trees would be most appropriate for the south and east areas; regarding Item #5, the
applicant is to mitigate as required the 2,250 inches and with respect to the placement, diameter,
and number of trees defer to the decisions made by the Joint Utilization Committee; regarding
Item #6 (previous Site Plan approval) (the jst bulleted item) with respect to the trees to be placed
along Peytonville Avenue the applicant is to install the remaining trees and shrubs that have not
been installed and replace those that are demolished or dead; (the 2"a bulleted item) referring
back to the item regarding Mondell Pines; (the 3ra bulleted item) requiring the applicant to do
as the Landscape Administrator suggests and place all plantings on the west side of the channel;
removing the 4th bulleted item (berm); (the 5th bulleted item) applicant should note at the time
of final inspection for final Certificate of Occupancy all required plant materials will be required
to be installed as was approved; (the 6t~ bulleted item) applicant should meet the requirements
of the Tree Preservation Ordinance; regarding Item #7 (high school site landscaping) requiring
the applicant to provide an Interior Landscape and Bufferyards Summary Chart as required by
the Zoning Ordinance and Landscape Ordinance and shall comply with the Interior Landscape
and Bufferyard Summary Chart that is attached to the Landscape Comments; and regarding Item
#8 (Natatorium Site Landscaping) requiring the applicant to remove the undesirable trees and
replant quality trees in their place noting that the undesirable trees consist of China Berry and
Mulberry;
· allowing no variance on Item #2 and keeping the height of the building at 35';
· regarding Item #3 (screening device) if the residential properties on the east and south sides
already have fencing, the school district shall maintain those fences and if there is no fencing,
the school district shall complete the fencing at 6' or 8' in height, whichever the resident wants;
· deleting Item #4.a (articulation);
allowing no variance on Item (4:1 slope) and instructing the applicant to move the building
as far west as possible, a minimum of 20', and requiring the applicant to explain to City Council
why they absolutely cannot move it any further west;
· regarding Item #5 (lighting) requiring the lighting on the east and south sides of the Natatorium
building to be nothing but sconces with the lights pointed to the ground and allowing one sconce
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 18, 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
on either side of each door with a total of six on the east side and two on the south side;
· allowing frosted glass on the windows on the east side of the Natatorium;
· regarding the accessory buildings, requiring the buildings along the south property line to be
moved as far north as possible and the buildings along the east property line to be moved as far
west as possible and asking the applicant to completely reassess what it is they need regarding
accessory buildings and come back with the absolute minimum (if four are not needed, then do
not put in four); approving 30' X 60' and moving each of them a minimum of 50'; requiring that
any lighting on the accessory buildings to be sconces with the lights pointed downward and to
the interior of the site;
· requiring applicant to include al~l uses on any future Site Plans;
· approving the hammerhead turnaround shown on the exhibit tonight and putting the emergency
access gate 170' from the east residential properties;
· asking applicant to consider moving the Natatorium to the parking area shown in Phase 5 and
to explain to City Council why that is not a better site and why it would not work;
· and requiring compliance with the Lighting Ordinance.
Motion: Peebles
Second: Muller
Ayes: Muller, Home, Boutte, Peebles, Sandlin
Nays: King
Approved: 5-1
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-18-00, tape 2, section #0623)
Chairman Sandlin called for a break at 10:00 p.m.
Chairman Sandlin called the meeting back to order at 10:15 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #9, ZA 00-006, PLAT REVISION FOR LOT 1R, BLOCK 1, CARROLL HIGH
SCHOOL ADDITION:
Comprehensive Planner Ken Baker presented this item to the Commission for a Plat Revision of
proposed Lot 1 R, Block 1, Carroll High School Addition on property legally described as Lot 1,
Block 1, Carroll High School Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tan'ant County, Texas,
according to the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 1460, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas; and
Tracts lA and 1Al situated in the R. J. Paden Survey, Abstract No. 1255, and being approximately
56.100 acres. The property is located on the southeast comer of the intersection of West Southlake
Boulevard (F.M. 1709) and South Peytonville Avenue. The Current Zoning is "AG" Agricultural
District and "S-P-1" Detailed Site Plan District. The Land Use Category is Public/Semi-Public and
Medium Density Residential. The Owner of the property is Carroll I.S.D. The Applicant is
Cheatham & Associates. Fifty-two (52) written notices were sent to property owners within the 200'
notification area, and seven (7) responses were received with five (5) opposed, one (1) undecided,
and one (1) in favor.
Senior Planner Dennis Killough added a comment which read that approval of this plat is subject
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 18, 2000 14
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
to approval of the proper zoning.
Brent Kline (Total Program Management) 860 W. Airport Freeway, Hurst, Texas, 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 Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-18-00, tape 2, section #0778)
Motion was made to approve ZA 00-006 subject to Plat Review Summary No. 3, May 12, 2000,
adding a comment that approval of the plat is subject to approval of the zoning.
Motion: Peebles
Second: Home
Ayes: Muller, Home, Boutte, Peebles, Sandlin
Nays: King
Approved: 5-1
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-18-00, tape 2, section #0817)
AGENDA ITEM #10, ZA 00-026, SITE PLAN FOR CARROLL I.S.D. NO. 5 ADDITION:
Comprehensive Planner Ken Baker presented this item to the Commission for a Site Plan for Carroll
I.S.D. No. 5 Addition on property legally described as Tract lA4 situated in the J. W. Hale Survey,
Abstract No. 803, and being approximately 16.081 acres. The property is located on the north side
of East Continental Boulevard approximately 400' west of South Carroll Avenue. The Current
Zoning is "R-PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District with "CS" Community Service
District uses. The Land Use Category is Medium Density Residential. The Owner of the property
is Carroll I.S.D. The Applicant is Cheatham & Associates. Thirteen (13) written notices were sent
to property owners within the 200' notification area, and two (2) responses were received in favor.
One (1) response outside the 200' notification area was received and was opposed.
Brent Kline (Total Program Management) 860 W. Airport Freeway, Hurst, Texas, presented this
item to the Commission. He said this elementary school is based offof the plans for Rockenbaugh
Elementary; Rockenbaugh is the prototype for this school. He said a lot of the same elements that
exist at Rockenbaugh also exist at this school such as the entrance drive and the configuration of the
parking at both ends of the property.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked why this school fronts on Carroll Avenue. Mr. Kline said trees are
part of the issue, but they needed a long frontage road for more parent stack-up. He said the traffic
patterns on Carroll Avenue and Continental Boulevard were not that much different so they fronted
it off of Carroll Avenue. He said one advantage to this site over Rockenbaugh is that parents can exit
through this site instead of having to exit out the same side they enter.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 18, 2000 15
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
Commissioner Muller asked what the distance is from the building to Continental Boulevard. Senior
Planner Dennis Killough said it is 275'.
Mr. Kline said they propose to clean up the drainage ditch and put a pilot channel down the center
of it to keep the water moving and build a weir on the end of it for retention of the water.
Mr. Kline said them was T.I.F. money designed to put in two pipes that would mn the length of this
property and to fill in the hole.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked when he anticipates having the T.I.F. money to put in the permanent
solution. Mr. Kline said probably three to five years.
Commissioner Home asked how deep the water will be in this detention area.
Derek Cheatham (Cheatharn & Associates) 1601 E. Lamar Boulevard, Suite 200, Arlington, Texas,
said the water will temporarily be detained during a big storm event and then it will run off; it won't
ever retain water permanently. He said it will be 2' to 3'.
Commissioner Home asked how long it will hold water. Mr. Cheatham said probably for about an
hour.
Chairman Sandlin said he thinks Mr. Turner has a problem right now and asked if Mr. Cheatham
thinks this would be helping him any. Mr. Cheatham said at this point, they have looked at detaining
only what they are going to increase and just that amotmt; they have not looked at it to see if they
have extra capacity to possibly let less flow go through them. Mr. Cheatham said they can look into
that to see i£they can decrease it any. Chairman Sandlin asked them to look into it and see if they
have the storage capacity; he does not think it would cost them anymore.
Mr. Cheatham said the more water the try to detain, the cost does increase dramatically on the size
of the outlet structure.
Chairman Sandlin asked if they are doing the cast stone around the windows. Mr. Kline said they
are actually changing it up a little and will be using some brick detailing around the windows and
for the strip across.
Chairman Sandlin said the thing he likes about Rockenbaugh is the stone so this is not like
Rockenbaugh.
Regarding the articulation, Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if they could break up the long line on the
south side somewhat.
Howard Vestal (VLK Architects) 1161 Corporate Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, Texas, said they have
studied the Rockenbaugh building in depth and made changes to the design. He said it does not meet
the articulation requirements because they think that with a building of this sort if it was more highly
articulated it would not reflect the function going on inside. He said they think the entrances are the
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 18, 2000 16
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
elements that should be emphasized, and that is exactly what they did. He said for them to consider
other artificial articulations and treatments would not be a straightforward expression and
aesthetically pleasing as the solution they have presented.
Commissioner Home said this reminds him of the schools built in the late 1940s and 1950s. He said
that as a matter of fact he went to a school that looked almost like this in a housing project in
Chicago.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-18-00, tape 2, section # 1900)
Chairman Sandlin opened the Public Hearing.
Keith Turner, 1027 E. Continental Boulevard, Southlake, Texas, said he thinks the Commission
understands what the drainage problem is currently, but what he is worried about is five years from
now when they put the pipe in there. He said there will be nothing to slow the water down. He
guesses that will be the function of the City to take care of the people downstream. He said if they
shoot all the water off of their property and onto his property, there is going to be a lake there
somewhere. He said there is no problem right now, he is just worried about five years from now. He
said he likes this school facing Carroll Avenue instead of Continental Boulevard.
EdAdams, 1203 Lorraine Court, Southlake, Texas, said his children currently go to Rockenbaugh
and this school was kind-of sold as Rockenbaugh II. He said they are very pleased with the
appearance of Rockenbaugh and the less this looks like Rockenbaugh, the more concerned he is. He
has only been in his home nine months and did not receive a notice so he has leamed of this and of
the proposed five-lane road in the last 24 hours. He said the traffic on Carroll Avenue and on
Continental Boulevard is greater than on Breeze Way. He asked if this is not just a question of the
school facing Carroll Avenue or Continental Boulevard but of the possibility of it facing Breeze
Way. He asked what the reasoning is for making Carroll Avenue into five lanes. He said making
Carroll five lanes will increase traffic and therefore facing the school onto Carroll no longer makes
sense.
Chairman Sandlin asked what the future plans are for Carroll and Continental. City Engineer Charlie
Thomas said Carroll Avenue is shown as a four-lane arterial on the Master Thoroughfare Plan. He
said when staff reviewed the site with the school facing Carroll Avenue with the prospect of 270 cars
coming to this school in the morning and afternoon, staff determined it would be necessary to have
a center turn lane in front of the school to accommodate that much turning traffic. He said
Continental Boulevard is shown as a three-lane roadway.
Bill Jennings, 1199 E. Continental Boulevard, Southlake, Texas, said he lives right next door to Mr.
Turner. He said the water coming through the flume hits his property first and then Mr. Turners. His
concern is that if they do close in the ditch, it will min him completely unless they put it all
underground all the way through to Timarron's lake.
Jamie Meyer, 708 Lorraine Court, Southlake, Texas, said they were told Carroll Avenue was not
going to be widened behind them at all. She said by facing the school towards their homes, they are
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 18, 2000 17
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
adding another thoroughfare of traffic. She said they could save the money for the third lane and put
it towards the stone on the school. She said they are talking about the distance of a football field
between the houses in Timarron and the school as opposed to her only being 200' away from it. She
is concemed about her children crossing Carroll Avenue to get to school.
Reid Belew, 706 Lorraine Court, Southlake, Texas, said he has two small children who will be
walking across the street, too. He has been aware for quite some time that Carroll will be widened
but if you look at the traffic patterns, there will be children crossing a five-lane road in front of
parents and buses. He said almost all of the traffic from Versailles exits right in front of this school.
He said Breeze Way is sitting over there with little or no traffic whatsoever, and it is potentially a
place to cue up some traffic. He is an engineer and said he would be happy to sit down and redraw
this.
Dr. Ted Gillum (Superintendent ofCarrollI. S.D.) said the school is not proposing five lanes; they
are asking for a turn lane. He said they should not even be talking about five lanes; that is a future
issue. He said they cannot face it to the west because there is a big drainage ditch, and you cannot
build a school on top of a drainage ditch. He said the traffic will come in and go out on Continental.
He said they are not proposing putting in a box culvert right now so they don't need worry about
what happens when they do that. He does not understand why time is being spent talking about it.
They will retain the water offthis site that they are putting into the ditch that is extra by putting the
weir in there so they just need to say to the Commission they will not increase the downstream flow.
They are committing to the City that when they do come back and put the box culvert in there that
the district will contribute its portion of the downstream improvements that will be needed to take
care of the three property owners. He said the truth is, when Versailles was built, the improvements
were not done and that was in error. The school did not do that. Between that road and the property
down further where Timarron is building, there is a problem; it is going to have to be fixed and it
will take some money and the district will pay their fair portion based on the pement of water they
are putting in there, but tonight that is not the issue. He said everybody gripes about anything they
put up here, but the City builds all these neighborhoods and does not leave room for schools and
then they are trying to build the schools to serve the children in those neighborhoods and nobody
likes it.
Bret Boren lives on Breeze Way and has been following this school for about two years now and
has been dealing with Dr. Gillum and Brent Kline, and they have addressed every concern he has
put before them. Everything Dr. Gillum said was really on the line. He said he watches the ditch fill
up with water from Versailles. He said whenever they get ready to put the culvert in there is really
only one choice; they will have to extend the culvert to a retainment lake and there is one in
Timarron. He said he has been watching this for two years and he knows a lot of people who just
moved in but everybody else has had a chance to follow along with this. He said waiting until the
last minute to start addressing these issues is really too late. He said this will be in his front yard,
and it may depreciate his property value a little bit but he has two kids in school and they do not
have far to walk. He thinks they are doing a good job. He said the architect will make it look good
because he wants the next job. He said he thinks it is a great site.
Chairman Sandlin closed the Public Hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 18, 2000
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
t4
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, 05-18-00, tape 2, section #2721)
Commissioner Muller said she thought the City had considered in the past that when South Carroll
was abandoned and became Breeze Way, that it would be used for access to the schools. At that time
though, she does not think the drainage ditch had been put through there. She said that does seem
like an ideal situation for the school to face Breeze Way and the parents could come in and
turnaround and head north or south. She said yes it is an additional expense, but for the safety of
children, she doesn't think that should be an issue.
Commissioner Boutte asked what the Commission has the authority to do on this.
Chairman Sandlin 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 11:23 p.m. and
ended at 11:27 p.m. Chairman Sandlin called the meeting back to order and asked the City Attomey
if any action is necessary as a result of the Executive Session, and Ms. Drayovitch said no.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-18-00, tape 2, section #2888)
Commissioner Home asked how many children this school is designed to accommodate. Mr. Kline
said it will be designed for 600 children.
Commissioner Home asked if there is any room to expand this school. Mr. Kline said yes; the
dashed lines at the east end are just like the additions going on at Rockenbaugh.
Commissioner Home asked how many children it would then accommodate. Mr. Kline said it would
accommodate 800 children.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked if they have read the Tree Preservation Analysis. He said the
Landscape Administrator made five suggestions and asked how the applicant feels about those. Mr.
Kline said they have addressed all of the suggestions.
Motion was made to approve ZA 00-026 subject to Revised Site Plan Review Summary No. 3,
dated May 12, 2000, deleting Item #4 (articulation).
Motion: King
Second: Home
Ayes: Home, Boutte, Peebles, King, Sandlin
Nays: Muller
Approved: 5-1
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-18-00, tape 2, section #3108)
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 18, 2000 19
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
received.
Senior Planner Dennis Killough said the applicant is fulfilling a commitment made to the City
Council by changing the zoning of this property to "O-1" Office District zoning.
Bill Stonaker, 2410 Los Robles, Grapevine, Texas, presented this item to the Commission.
Chairman Sandlin opened the Public Hearing.
Louise Davis, 200 S. Peytonville Avenue, Southlake, Texas, said the applicant has already answered
her question.
Chairman Sandlin closed the Public Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-18-00, tape 2, section #3441)
Motion was made to approve ZA 00-016.
Motion: Muller
Second: King
Ayes: Boutte, Peebles, King, Muller, Home, Sandlin
Nays: None
Approved: 6-0
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-18-00, tape 2, section #3470)
AGENDA ITEM #14, ZA 00-042, REVISED SITE PLAN FOR BLOCK 2, PHASE 1 - STAGE 2,
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE:
Comprehensive Planner Ken Baker presented this item to the Commission for a Revised Site Plan
of Block 2, Phase 1 - Stage 2, Southlake Town Square on property legally described as Block 2,
Southlake Town Square, Phase 1, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas,
according to the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slides 4892 and 4893, Plat Records, Tarrant County,
Texas, and being approximately 5.624 acres. The property is located on the northeast comer of the
intersection of North Carroll Avenue and Main Street. The Current Zoning is "NR-PUD" Non-
Residential Planned Unit Development District with "C-3" General Commercial District uses. The
Land Use Category is Mixed Use. The Owner of the property is Southlake Venture West, L.P. The
Applicant is Cooper & Stebbins, L.P. Six (6) written notices were sent to property owners within
the 200' notification area, and one (1) response was received and was undecided.
Frank Bliss (Cooper & Stebbins) 1362 Lakeview Drive, Southlake, Texas, presented this case to the
Commission. He reviewed the requested variances with the Commission.
Vice-Chairman Peebles asked how many feet they are out of compliance of the east drive. Senior
Planner Dennis Killough said 82'.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 18, 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
AGENDA ITEM #11, ZA 00-027, PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CARROLL
I.S.D. NO. 5 ADDITION:
Comprehensive Planner Ken Baker presented this item to the Commission for a Preliminary Plat for
Lot 1, Block 1, Carroll I.S.D. No. 5 Addition, on property legally described as Tract IA4 situated
in the J. W, Hale Survey, Abstract No. 803, and being approximately 16.081 acres. The property is
located on the north side of East Continental Boulevard approximately 400' west of South Carroll
Avenue. The Current Zoning is "R-PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District with "CS"
Community Service District uses. The Land Use Category is Medium Density Residential. The
Owner of the property is Carroll I.S.D. The Applicant is Cheatham & Associates. Thirteen (13)
written notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area, and two (2) responses
were received with both being in favor.
Senior Planner Dennis Killough said there is one comment to be added which requests the addition
ora common access easement with the park property at the northeast comer.
Brent Kline (Total Program ManagemenO 860 W. Airport Freeway, Hurst, Texas, 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 Hearing.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-18-00, tape 2, section #3208)
Motion was made to approve ZA 00-027 subject to Plat Review Summary No. 3, dated May 12,
2000, adding a comment regarding the addition of a common access easement with the park property
at the northeast comer.
Motion: King
Second: Home
Ayes: Home, Boutte, Peebles, King Sandlin
Nays: Muller
Approved: 5-1
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-18-00, tape 2, section #3245)
AGENDA ITEM #12, ZA 00-016, REZON1NG:
Comprehensive Planner Ken Baker presented this item to the Commission for a Rezoning on
property legally described as Tract 3C1 and a portion of Tract 3C situated in the W. R. Eaves
Survey, Abstract No. 500, and being approximately 1.349 acres. The property is located on the west
side of South Peytonville Avenue approximately 300' south of West Southlake Boulevard (F.M.
1709). The Current Zoning is "C-2" Local Retail Commercial District. The Requested Zoning is "O-
1" Office District. The Land Use Category is Retail Commercial. The Owner of the property is
Southlake Associates Limited Parmership. The Applicant is Wilson & Stonaker, L.L.C. Five (5)
written notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area, and no responses were
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 18, 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 the applicants if they would give up a couple of parking spaces on
either side of the driveway to increase the effective amount of stacking.
Commissioner Muller asked what types of businesses are in this block that this parking lot is
servicing. Mr. Bliss said this parking lot will actually service both the block above as well as the
buildings in this block. He said it will include The Container Store, Storehouse, the Post Office,
Sandels Caf6, Stride Right Shoes, a luggage store, a cellular phone store, a kids clothing store, and
a formal wear shop.
Vice-Chairman Peebles suggested eliminating some parking spaces and pointed them out to Mr.
Bliss.
Brian Stebbins (Cooper & Stebbins) proposed that if it becomes a problem in the future, they have
a condition placed on them to remove the parking spaces. He said they have a tendency to mn out
of parking spaces during events such as 4thof July or Art in the Square; it seems counter intuitive
to him to take them away unless there is a problem.
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, 05-18-00, tape 2, section #3883)
Motion was made to approve ZA 00-042 subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated May
12, 2000, deleting Item #1 (20' Type 'O' bufferyard) and allowing the applicant to use the proposed
alternative landscaping; regarding Item #2 (minimum stacking depth of 100') requiring the applicant
to delete two parking spaces on either side of the north entrance and three parking spaces on the east
entrance; and Item #3.a (articulation) allowing as shown.
Motion: Peebles
Second: Home
Ayes: Peebles, King, Home, Boutte
Nays: Muller, Sandlin
Approved: 4-2
Motion carried.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-18-00, tape 2, section #3952)
AGENDA ITEM # 15, MEETING ADJOURNMENT:
Chairman Sandlin adjourned the meeting at 11:55 p.m. on May 18, 2000.
(Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 05-18-00, tape 2, section #3960)
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 18, 2000
22
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
17
18
19
20
Mike Sandlin
Chairman
ATTEST:
Lori ~. Farwell
Planning Secretary
N:\Community Development\WP-FILES\MTGLMIN~2000\05-18-00.DOC
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on May 18, 2000 23