Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-07-26AGENDA CITY OF GRAPEVINE FIRST TRI -ANNUAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORKSHOP TUESDAY JULY 26, 2005 AT 6:00 P.M. CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM SECOND FLOOR - CITY HALL 200 SOUTH MAIN STREET, GRAPEVINE, TEXAS CALL TO ORDER III. NEW BUSINESS A. Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss possible changes and amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 52, Tree Preservation relative to "non -protected trees" and take any other necessary action. B. Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss possible changes and amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 12, Definitions relative to the definition and application of a "flag lot" and take any other necessary action. C. Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss possible changes and amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 60, Sign Regulations relative to objects and displays used for signage and take any other necessary action. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Presentation by the Development Services Director, Tommy Hardy 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. V. ADJOURNMENT IF YOU PLAN TO ATTEND THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND YOU HAVE A DISABILITY THAT REQUIRES SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS AT THE MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AT (817) 410-3155 AT LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS WILL BE MADE TO ASSIST YOUR NEEDS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, CHAPTER 551.001 et. seq. ACTS OF THE 1993 TEXAS LEGISLATURE, THE PLANNING AND ZONING WORKSHOP AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2005 AT 5:00 P.M. DIRECTOR OF DEV L ENT SERVICES 0:/zcu/Agnwk072605 MEMO TO: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: H. T. HARDY, DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES P" RON STOMBAUGH, DEVELOPMENT MANAGER rX-z, MEETING DATE: JULY 26, 2005 SUBJECT: WORKSHOP—POSSIBLE CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 52, TREE PRESERVATION RELATIVE TO "NON -PROTECTED TREES" RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission consider amending Section 52, Tree Preservation to include a list of "non -protected" trees and take any other action necessary. As the ordinance is currently written a "protected tree" is any_ 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 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 reveals 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. See the attached survey. Staff is recommending that the Commission consider adding a section to the tree preservation ordinance creating a list of "non -protected" trees. /rs O:/ZC U/nonprotectedtrees.memo July 22, 2005 (11:OOAM) The following is the findings of surrounding cities regarding non protected trees: Southlake: Not specifically in the Ordinance however they do have a "Landscape Administrator' who can make decisions as to removal of "non -quality" trees. Frisco: The following trees shall not be included in the definition of Protected Trees: Silver Leaf Maple Hackberry, Texas Sugarberry Honey Locust Bois d'Arc Mimosa Mulberry White Poplar Cottonwood Mesquite Willow Plano: 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 or watercourse as defined by the City of Plano or other government agencies. Coppell: Unprotected tree means a tree of an undesirable species, which does not require preservation, protection measures, or replanting. 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 This list is subject to change and will be periodically updated by the city manager or his designee with the approval of the park and recreation board. Colleyville, North Richland Hills, and Bedford: No non -protected tree designation. 02CUVreesurvey MEMO TO: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: H. T. HARDY, DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES f�-A j" N -r RON STOMBAUGH, DEVELOPMENT MANAGER r7,� MEETING DATE: JULY 26, 2005 SUBJECT: WORKSHOP—POSSIBLE CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 60, SIGN REGULATIONS RELATIVE TO OBJECTS AND DISPLAYS USED FOR SIGNAGE RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission consider the following information and determine if it is necessary to amend Section 60, Sign Regulations to control or eliminate the use of objects and displays for signage and take any other action necessary. BACKGROUND: 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. Staff is recommending the Commission consider this situation and determine whether Section 60, Sign Regulations should be amended to regulate this type of display. /rs OIZCU/displaysignage.memo July 22, 2005 (10:47AM) MEMO TO: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: H. T. HARDY, DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (7.5t- !n- RON STOMBAUGH, DEVELOPMENT MANAGER MEETING DATE: JULY 26, 2005 SUBJECT: WORKSHOP—POSSIBLE CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 12, DEFINITIONS RELATIVE TO THE DEFINITION AND APPLICATION OF A "FLAG LOT" RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission consider the following information and determine if it is necessary to amend Section 12, Definitions relative to the definition and application of a flag lot, and take any other action necessary. Currently the ordinance has no explicit definition of a "flag lot," that being a lot that does not meet minimum lot width requirements at right-of-way, 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. 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 0:2CU/flaglot.memo July 22, 2005 (12:07PM) 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. /rs 01WILI/flaglot.memo 2 July 22, 2005 (12:07PM) P & Z WORKSHOP MINUTES JULY 26, 2005 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 Herb Fry Chris Coy Danette Murray B J Wilson 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 l:N_1111 Chairman Vice -Chairman Member Member Member 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 any 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 26, 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 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 P & Z WORKSHOP MINUTES JULY 26, 2005 DISCUSSION RELATIVE TO SECTION 60 SIGNAGE 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, 2005 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 P & Z WORKSHOP MINUTES 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. PRESENTATION BY THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 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. CF9AIRMAN ATTEST: SECRETAR W k072605 5