Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Item 10 - MinutesP Z BRIEFING SESSION JULY 13, 2005 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TARRANT CITY OF GRAPEVINE The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Grapevine, Texas met in Special Briefing Session on this the 19th day of July, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Planning and Zoning Conference Room, 200 South Main Street, 2nd Floor, Grapevine, Texas with the following members present -to -wit: Larry Oliver Chairman Chris Coy Member Danette Murray Member Rob Undersander Member Becky St. John Member Mark Lowery Alternate Andrea Roy Alternate constituting a quorum, with Herb Fry and B J Wilson absent, and the following City Staff: H. T. (Tommy) Hardy Ron Stombaugh Scott Dyer Pamela Huntress CALL TO ORDER Director of Development Services Development Manager Manager of Engineering Planning Secretary Chairman Oliver called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ITEM 1. BRIEFING SESSION Chairman Oliver announced the Planning and Zoning Commission would conduct a briefing session relative to the following cases: PD05-01 SILVERLAKE ESTATES CU05-37 OUTLAW CUSTOMS CU05-41 WUF PET LODGE CU05-43 EPICENTRE MP05-01 MASTER PLAN UPDATE to discuss development issues. BS071905 1 P & Z BRIEFING SESSION JULY 19, 2005 W -A-0. �4111 PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMM SSIO ORAPAO•TH I S1 OF THE CITY•F GEVINE, TEXS N THIS THE 16 DAY OF AUGU 2005. ATTEST: NOTE: Planning and Zoning Commission continued with the Joint Public Hearing BS071905 2 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TARRANT CITY OF GRAPEVINE The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Grapevine, Texas met in Joint Public Hearing with the City Council, on this the 19th day of July, 2005, in the City Council Chambers, 200 South Main Street, 2nd Floor, Grapevine, Texas with the following members present -to -wit: Larry Oliver Chairman Chris Coy Member Danette Murray Member Rob Undersander Member Becky St. John Member Mark Lowery Alternate Andrea Roy Alternate constituting a quorum, with Herb Fry and B J Wilson absent, and the following City Staff: H. T. (Tommy) Hardy Ron Stombaugh Scott Dyer Pamela Huntress CALL TO ORDER Director of Development Services Development Manager Manager of Engineering Planning Secretary Mayor Tate called the joint meeting to order at 7:50 p.m. and Chairman Oliver called the Planning and Zoning Commission deliberation session to order at 9:35 p.m. INVOCATION Commissioner, Chris Coy delivered the Invocation. JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REQUEST PD05-01 — SILVERLAKE ESTATES First for the Commission to consider and make a recommendation to the City Council was Planned Development Request PD05-01 submitted by Martin Schelling of Wright Development for property located at the northeast corner of Dove Road and Inland Drive and proposed to be platted as Lots 100-119, C, D and E, Block 1, and Lots 1-28, F and G, 071905 P & Z JOINT PUBLIC, HEARING JULY 19. 2005 Block 5, Silver Lake Estates, Phase 3. The applicant was requesting to allow for a front yard setback of 20 -feet along Spring Creek Drive within Silver Lake Estates, Phase 3. The property, currently zoned "R-7.5" Single Family District, has topography that in some instances drops approximately 30 -feet from the western boundary of the proposed single family lots on the west side of Spring Creek Drive to the eastern boundary of the proposed lots on the east side of Spring Creek Drive. The applicant proposed to reduce the front yard setback by ten feet allowing a front yard setback of 20 -feet rather than 30 -feet to compensate for the extreme topography and minimize the need to remove mature trees during the construction process. In addition, this reduction in the front yard setback would allow the creation of a 20 -foot buffer between the proposed single-family homes on the east side of Spring Creek Drive and the Grapevine Cemetery. To minimize the impact on trees and to compensate for the topography on the site, a 45 -foot right-of-way was also proposed. Martin Schelling, representing Wright Development, was present to answer questions and request favorable consideration of the request. With no further guests to speak, two letters of protest and no petitions, the public hearing was closed. In the Commission's deliberation session, Rob Undersander moved, with a second by Mark Lowery, to approve Planned Development Request PD05-01, and the motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, Coy, Undersander, St. John, Lowery and Roy Nays: None Abstain: Murray CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST CU05-37 OUTLAW CUSTOMS Next for the Commission to consider and make a recommendation to the City Council was Conditional Use Request CU05-37 submitted by James Kea for property located at 321 East Northwest Highway and platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Central Business Park. The applicant was requesting a conditional use permit to allow for automotive repair. The applicant occupied the building for his business "Outlaw Customs" which provided retail sales and installation of after -market truck, jeep and SUV parts and accessories. James Kea, the applicant, was present to answer questions and request favorable consideration of the request. With no further questions, one letter of protest and no petitions, the public hearing was closed. 071905 2 P & Z JOINT PVBLIC riEARMG JULY 19, 2005 In the Commission's deliberation session, there was discussion regarding the unfortunate circumstances of this case. Mr. Oliver stated that this property was clearly not 'grandfathered' into the current regulations. Chris Coy moved, with a second by Danette Murray, to deny Conditional Use Request CU05-37. The motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, Coy, Murray, St. John, Lowery and Roy Nays: Undersander CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST CU05-41 — WUF PET LODGE Next for the Commission to consider and make a recommendation to the City Council was Conditional Use Request CU05-41 submitted by Phil Morley with BGO Architects for property located at 418 East Northwest Highway and proposed to be platted as Lot 1 R1, Block 2, A. F. Leonard Addition. The applicant was requesting to allow for an animal -based day care facility with overnight stay. The applicant intended to develop a day care center for dogs that would focus on the care, grooming and indoor boarding of dogs only with some retail sales of canine products. No outside boarding would occur. The area to the rear of the building would be landscaped and screened from view. This area would be used as a supervised play area for the animals. A masonry fagade would be added to the northern and eastern elevations of the building. An eight -foot wood screening fence would be added along the eastern boundary to screen the site from Dooley Street and additional screening would be added along Wall Street. Jerrod and Jennifer Bassman, the applicants, were available to answer questions and request favorable consideration of the request. Citizens: Larry Lyons, Jon Michael Franks, Norman and Marcia Barfield and Glenda Fischer, spoke in protest of the request citing location, noise and odor as objections with the request. With no further speakers, six letters of protest and no petitions, the public hearing was closed. In the Commission's deliberation session, there was discussion regarding the proposed business and Danette Murray noted while the business was a good idea, it was not the best location. Mr. Oliver agreed that the business was needed but at a different location. Mr. Lowery also concurred that he liked the concept. Rob Undersander moved, with a second by Becky St. John, to deny Conditional Use Request CU05-41, and the motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, Murray, Undersander, St. John and Lowery Nays: Coy and Roy 071905 3 P & Z JOINT PUBLIC HEADING JULY 10, 2005 I Next for the Commission to consider and make a recommendation to the City Council was Conditional Use Request CU05-43 for property located at 1255 South Main Street and proposed to be platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Epicentre at Grapevine Addition. The applicant was requesting a conditional use permit to allow the possession, storage, retail sale and on -premise consumption of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine and mixed beverages) in conjunction with a restaurant. The applicant proposed the development concept of four restaurants occupying one lot. The first restaurant would be approximately 6,425 square feet with approximately 235 seats. Steve Hartnett, owner, and Bryan Klein, representing ION Design Group, were present to answer questions and request favorable consideration of the request. With no further guests to speak, no letters and no petitions, the public hearing was closed. In the Commission's deliberation session, Chris Coy moved, with a second by Danefte Murray, to approve Conditional Use Request CU05-43 with the condition that the alcohol verbiage be deleted from the request. The motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, Coy, Murray, Undersander, St. John, Lowery and Roy Nays: None Next for the Commission to consider and make a recommendation to the City Council was the potential amendments to the Future Land Use Map to bring land use designations into compliance with recent zoning changes and other development trends. Since the Comprehensive Master Plan was last updated, development trends within the City have diverged from those incorporated in the plan. In a number of cases, properties had been rezoned and map changes were proposed to bring the Comprehensive Master Plan map into accordance with current zoning. Citizen, Jim Massey, spoke in protest of the request stating that the change in Master Plan designation would be detrimental to his business. With no further guests to speak, two letters of approval and one letter of opposition, the public hearing was closed. In the Commission's deliberation session, Mr. Undersander questioned if these updates 071905 4 P & Z JOINT PUBLIC HEARING JULY 19, 2005 would affect the citizen who spoke in protest of the request. Mr. Oliver stated that the Master Plan change would not affect existing businesses. Rob Undersander moved, with a second by Chris Coy, to approve the updates to the Future Land Use Map 2, and the motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, Coy, Murray, Undersander, St. John, Lowery and Roy Nays: None FINAL PLAT APPLICATION LOT 8, BLOCK 119, CLIFTON H. JONES ADDITION Next for the Commission to consider and make a recommendation to the City Council was the Statement of Findings and Final Plat Application of Lot 8, Block 119, Clifton H. Jones Addition submitted by Richard Pemberton for property located at 619 Austin Street. The applicant was final platting 0.23 acres for a proposed single family home. The property is zoned "R-7.5" Single Family District and is owned by Pemberton Fine Custom Homes, Inc. In the Commission's deliberation session, Chris Coy moved, with a second by Mark Lowery, to approve the Statement of Findings and Final Plat Application of Lot 8, Block 119, Clifton H. Jones Addition. The motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, Coy, Murray, Undersander, St. John, Lowery and Roy Nays: None FINAL PLAT APPLICATION OF LOTS 10R, 11, 12 & 13, BLOCK 7, W. C. LUCAS ADDITION Next for the Commission to consider and make a recommendation to the City Council was the Statement of Findings and Final Plat Application of Lots 1 OR, 11, 12 & 13, Block 7, W. C. Lucas Addition submitted by Gazim Idoski for property located at the northwest corner of Lucas and Worthington Drives. The applicant was final platting 0.997 acres for the sub- dividing of four existing residences. The property is zoned "R-7.5" Single Family District. In the Commission's deliberation session, Chris Coy moved, with a second by Mark Lowery, to approve the Statement of Findings and Final Plat Application of Lots 1 OR, 11, 12 & 13, Block 7, W. C. Lucas Addition. The motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, Coy, Murray, Undersander, St. John, Lowery and Roy Nays: None 071905 5 P & 27JOINT PUBLIC HEARING JULY 19, 2005 Next for the Commission to consider was the Election of Officers for the Planning and Zoning Commission. Danette Murray moved to nominate Larry Oliver as Chairman and Herb Fry as Vice Chairman. Becky St. John seconded the motion, and the motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Coy, Murray, Undersander, St. John, Lowery and Roy Nays: None Abstain: Oliver FINAL PLAT APPLICATION OF LOTS 100-119, C, D AND E, BLOCK 1, LOTS 1-28, F & G, BLOCK 5, SILVER LAKE ESTATES Next for the Commission to consider and make a recommendation to the City Council was the Statement of Findings and Final Plat Application of Lots 100-119, C, D & E, Block 1, Lots 1-28, F & G, Block 5, Silver Lake Estates submitted by Martin Schelling with Wright Development for property located northeast corner of Dove Road and Inland Drive. The applicant was final platting 52.036 acres for a proposed residential development. The property is zoned "R-7.5" Single Family District and is owned by Frederik Floren, Trustee. In the Commission's deliberation session, Chris Coy moved, with a second by Becky St. John, to approve the Statement of Findings and Final Plat of Lots 100-119, C, D and E, Block 1, Lots 1-28, F & G, Block 5, Silver Lake Estates. The motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, Coy, Undersander, St. John, Lowery and Roy Nays: None Abstain: Murray ADDITION Next for the Commission to consider and make a recommendation to the City Council was the Statement of Findings and Preliminary Plat Application of Lot 1, Block 1, Epicentre at Grapevine Addition submitted by Bryan Klein for property located at 1255 South Main Street. The applicant was preliminary platting 5.1671 acres for a proposed restaurant development. The property is zoned "PO" Professional Office District and is owned by Hartnett Commercial Properties. 071905 6 111"111hym In the Commission's deliberation session, Danette Murray moved, with a second by Becky St. John, to approve the Statement of Findings and Preliminary Plat Application of Lot 1, Block 1, Epicentre at Grapevine Addition. The motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, Coy, Murray, Undersander, St. John, Lowery and Roy Nays: None ADDITION Next for the Commission to consider and make a recommendation to the City Council was the Statement of Findings and Final Plat Application of Lot 1, Block 1, Epicentre at Grapevine submitted by Bryan Klein for property located at 1255 South Main Street. The applicant was final platting 5.1671 acres for a proposed restaurant development. The property is zoned "PO" Professional Office District and is owned by Hartnett Commercial Properties. In the Commission's deliberation session, Danette Murray moved, with a second by Becky St. John, to approve the Statement of Findings and Final Plat Application of Lot 1, Block 1, Epicentre at Grapevine Addition. The motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, Coy, Murray, Undersander, St. John, Lowery and Roy Nays: None Next for the Commission to consider were the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes of the June 21, 2005 regular meeting. Becky St. John moved, with a second by Danette Murray, to approve the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes of June 21, 2005. The motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, Coy, Murray, Undersander, St. John and Lowery Nays: None Abstain: Roy With no further business to discuss, Danette Murray moved, with a second by Chris Coy, to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m. and the motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, Coy, Murray, Undersander, St. John, Lowery and Roy 071905 7 ATTEST: SECRETARY 071905 8 JULY 26, 200�1 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TARRANT CITY OF GRAPEVINE The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Grapevine, Texas met in Workshop on this the 26th day of July, 2005, in the City Council Conference Room, 2nd Floor, 200 South Main Street, Grapevine, Texas with the following members present -to -wit: Larry Oliver Chairman Herb Fry Vice -Chairman Chris Coy Member Danette Murray Member B J Wilson Member Rob Undersander Becky St. John Mark Lowery Andrea Roy constituting a quorum, and also present: Roy Stewart and the following City Staff: H. T. (Tommy) Hardy Ron Stombaugh Pamela Huntress Lszftlw••-� Member Member Alternate Alternate Council Representative Director of Development Services Development Manager Planning Secretary Chairman Larry Oliver called the Workshop to order at 6:15 p.m. DISCUSSION RELATIVE TO "NON -PROTECTED TREES" First for the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider was amending Section 52, Tree Preservation to include a list of "non -protected" trees. As the ordinance is currently written a "protected tree" is pny self-supporting woody perennial plant which has a caliper diameter of three inches or more when measured at a point of four and one-half feet above ground level and which normally attains an overall height of at least twenty feet at maturity, usually with one main stem or trunk and many branches. During the development process, trees can only be removed Wk072605 P Z WORKSHOP MINUTES JULY 25, 2005 from a site when they fall within the `buildable' area (building pad site, parking/paving area) in conjunction with a building permit. Many times, given the size and scale of a construction project, mass grading and site work for commercial and residential development must be done outside the boundary or scope of the intended buildable area. Trees in this area cannot be removed without a tree removal permit and tree replacement plan approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. This situation can create unreasonable time delays in the construction and development process when in most cases the very trees that are being protected will ultimately be removed and the trees in question usually fall into a category that are considered undesirable as part of a finished, landscaped development. A short survey of surrounding cities revealed that some species of trees are classified as "non -protected" and can be removed as part of the construction/development process without a special tree removal or replacement permit. Staff is recommending that the Commission consider adding a section to the tree preservation ordinance creating a list of "non -protected" trees. There was a discussion regarding each species and Mr. Oliver noted that some of the species the City of Frisco listed as "non -protected" trees: the Mulberry; White Poplar and Silver Leaf Maple trees; are not native trees to the area and would not be necessary to include on the list. The following verbiage was considered and agreed upon to incorporate into Section 52, Tree Preservation: Protection and replacement will not be required for these species of unprotected trees less than ten caliper inches. Hackberry Cottonwood Bois d'Arc Mimosa Mesquite Honey Locust This list is subject to change and will be periodically updated by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), Bois d'Arc (Malcura pomifera), and Cottonwood (Populus deltoids) are exempt from tree protection and preservation requirements except when located in a floodplain and watercourse as defined by the City of Grapevine or other government agencies. An agreement was reached by consensus with no action taken. Wk072605 2 I 101,�IMTI• JULY 26, 2005 Next for the Commission to consider was possible changes and amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 60, Sign Regulations relative to object and displays used for signage, and take any other necessary action. Section 60, Sign Regulations establishes the criteria for signage in all zoning districts. Sign type, height, shape, square -footage, location, setback from the property line and number of signs allowed is strictly regulated. To control the use of "oddly" shaped signs, for example, placing a car on a pole for use as signage, a maximum width of twelve feet and a maximum cabinet depth of fourteen inches has been written into the ordinance for 20 -foot pole signs to minimize these situations. Chairman Larry Oliver has pointed out a situation that has occurred on occasion at the Texas Toyota dealership on State Highway 114 where a vehicle is placed on a scissor -hoist and elevated to a position in the air between 20- to 30 -feet with slow rotation all within the confines of a display parking space. No "signage" or wordage is placed on the vehicle while it is in the air rotating but its intent is obviously to be used as a form of display signage to draw attention to the dealership, which is not currently regulated by the zoning ordinance. There was discussion regarding if this use of an elevated vehicle would be considered as a sign. Mr. Oliver stated that this type of display is a sign especially when the intent would clearly be advertising purposes. Mr. Fry questioned if the height was an issue and Mr. Oliver stated that the issue was the intent of the display. The Planning and Zoning Commission were in agreement that Section 60, Sign Standards should be amended to regulate this type of display. No action was taken. DISCUSSION RELATIVE TO SECTION 12, DEFINITIONS AND APPLICATION OF "FLAG LOTS" Next for the Commission to consider was Section 12, Definitions relative to the definition and application of "flag lots" and take any other action necessary. Currently, the ordinance has no explicit definition of a "flag lot" however; it is implied in the definition of "width of lot." The following is our current definitions of "Lot" and "Width of Lot": LOT shall mean a tract of land occupied or to be occupied by a building and its accessory buildings, and including such open spaces as are required under this ordinance, and having its principal frontage upon a public street or officially approved place. Wk072605 3 P & Z WORKSHOP MINUTES JULY 26, 20055 WIDTH OF LOT shall mean the distance between the side property lines measured at a required building setback line, measuring parallel to the front property line, perpendicular to the side property line. At no time, however, shall the front property line be less than twenty (20) feet. A typical application of both of these definitions relative to the establishment of a flag lot would be to allow a "flag" or narrow portion of a lot, not less than twenty feet in width to serve as a driveway from the right-of-way whereupon at some point the lot would widen to meet minimum lot width, depth, and area requirements. The concept of a flag lot is an excellent planning tool in the development of commercial property however; its application relative to single-family residential property is questionable. In extreme cases, a residential lot, usually the flag lot is placed directly behind another lot with only a small piece of frontage on the street used for driveway access. Essentially, one house is developed behind another potentially choking off all visibility of a residence built upon the flag lot. Virtually all cities allow the application of the flag lot concept. Some control the length of the flag or control the minimum width of the flag such as we do in our ordinance. Staff is recommending that the Commission discuss this situation as it applies to single-family development and determine whether any changes to the ordinance need to be made in the definition or application of these concepts. There was discussion regarding the use of flag lots and their regulation. Mr. Hardy stated that because the City is almost out of developable residential land, without this type of flexibility it could eliminate possible new residences. B J Wilson stated that she did not have a problem with flag lots while Larry Oliver stated that he felt the lots created problems especially multiple lots. It was agreed that sometimes flag lots do not present problems and if considered on a 'case by case' basis this would give the Planning and Zoning Commission a chance to consider individual cases. Mr. Fry noted that few cases actually are denied. Mr. Hardy relayed the Council's posture as being one of accommodating newcomers and Mr. Stewart agreed that Council wanted to work with people in trying to relocate to the City of Grapevine, especially since some of the remaining land is oddly shaped and difficult to develop. Herb Fry noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission's job is not to promote development but to control it in a reasonable manner. Rob Undersander stated that it was possible imposing some limitations would eliminate some of problems associate with the flag lots. Mr. Stombaugh suggested that instead of requiring a "Conditional Use" permit the Commission might consider requiring a "Special Use" permit to alleviate any problems with cul-de-sacs. Wk072605 4 JULY 26, 2005 The Commission agreed to consider amendments to all residential districts relative to allowing "flag -lots" with a "Special Use" permit. No action was taken. IW-,J:M:4JJ, IIII&IJU _n , #ffilk f offi& M :a Next for the Commission to consider was a presentation by the Director of Development Services, Tommy Hardy. Mr. Hardy gave a presentation relative to the remaining large developable tracts of land in the City of Grapevine and the efforts undertaken by the City to encourage potential development on these tracts. Mr. Hardy discussed the Northeast Corridor (Uptown Grapevine) and the 360 Corridor and noted that 792 acres to be developed in Uptown Grapevine and 402 acres remain along the 360 Corridor. Also discussed were additional tracts throughout Grapevine and development possibilities. No action was taken. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to discuss, Danette Murray moved, with a second by Becky St. John, to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 p.m. and the motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, Fry, Coy, Murray, Wilson, Undersander and St. John Nays: None PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS ON THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2005. CHAIRMAN ATTEST: SECRETARY Wk072605 5