The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000-01-06P & Z Workshop Minutes January 6, 2000 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 6th day of January, 20QQ, in the Conference Room, 200 South Main Street, 1 st Floor, Grapevine, Texas with the following members present -to -wit: Larry Oliver Chairman Herb Fry Vice -Chairman Chris Coy Member Kathy Martine-- Member Stephen Newby Member Cathy Martin Member Kevin Busbee Member Danette Murray Ist Alternate B J Nicholson 2nd Alternate Sharron Spencer Council Representative constituting a quorum, and the folic,.,. i. j ,"-'ity Staff: Roger Nelson, ' City Manager Bruno Rumbelow Assistant City Manager H. T. (Tommy) Har'-dy Director of Development Services Ron Stombaugh. Planner Pam Huntress Planning Secretary CALL TO ORDER Chairman Larry Oliver called the. Workshop to r)rder at 6:10 p.m. ITEM Ill. B. I.: CONSIDERATION' OF NEW ZONING DISTRICT: "RH", RETIREMENT HOME DISTRICT ,Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission consider the following standards for a new zoning district, the Retirement Housing District and take any action necessary. At the previous Planning and Z6'nin'g Commission work session, held on September 9, 1999, the Commission in§tructed,,staff to develop a zoning district specifically for retirement housing. wk010600 1 P & Z Workshop Minutes January 6, 2000 Mr. E. D. Sallee, a landowner, wishes to construct a retirement housing complex on 6.5 acres of land located on the north side of Glade Road, east of Main Street. The site is currently zoned "PCD", Planned Commerce Development. Mr. Sallee is proposing a retirement housing development for persons age 55 and above. He has received a grant of $500,000 from the Federal Home Loan Board to be applied to the development costs. Currently, retirement housing is not an allowed use within the "PCD", Planned Commerce Development District. Mr. Sallee does not wish to rezone the site to allow apartments. Mr. Lew Anderton was present to discuss and field questions concerning his proposal. The Committee explored options in dealing with the present case as well as future requests. Some choices discussed included revising one of the present zoning districts to incorporate retirement housing as well as considering the new "RH" Retirement Housing District. After discussion, the Committee determined that if no action was taken this specific use could remain a conditional use and deal with all submittals separately. The Committee decided to take no action. ITEM Ill. B. 2.: AMENDMENT TO -THE LAND USE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AS STATED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN, RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED "RH" RETIREMENT HOUSING DISTRICT Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission consider the following amendments to the Land Use Goals, Objectives and Policies for Commercial Development as stated in the Comprehensive Master Plan. Because the Committee decided to take no action on Item 111. B. 1., no action was necessary on Item 111. B. 2. ITEM Ill. B. 3. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 12, DEFINITIONS, OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED HOUSING DISTRICT Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission consider the following amendments to Section 12, Definitions, of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and take any action necessary. wk010600 2 P & Z Workshop Minutes January 6, 2000 Because the Committee decided to take no action on Item III. B. 1., no action was necessary on Item III. B. 3. ITEM III. B. 4. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 60 SIGNS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED RETIREMENT HOUSING DISTRICT Staff recommended the Planning and Zoning Commission consider amendments to Section 60, Signs, of the City of Grapevine Zoning Ordinance and takes any action necessary. Because the Committee decided to take no action on Item III. B. 1., no action was necessary on Item III. B. 4. it ITEM III. C. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 47 SITE PLAN REVIEW RELATIVE TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FEE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW Staff recommended the Planning and Zoning Commission consider the following amendment to Section 47, Site Plan Review relative to the establishment of a fee for administrative site plan review, and take any action necessary. The Planning Division of the Department of Development Services currently assesses a fee of five hundred dollars ($500.00) plus twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per acre for every additional acre or part thereof, for all zone change, conditional use, and special use requests. For permitted uses in each zoning district, an administrative site plan is required, which is reviewed and approved by the Planning staff; no fee is assessed at this time for an administrative site plan review. While property owner notification and newspaper advertising is not required for development requests associated with permitted uses, Staff provides the same level of service and detailed level of scrutiny to these types of administrative requests as is given to zone change, conditional use, and special use requests. A small survey of area Metroplex cities reveals that the City of Grapevine is the only city that does not assess a fee for this type of development review. Staff recommends the establishment of a fee for administrative site plan review that is one-half that which is established for zone change, conditional use, and special use requests. The following is the proposed changes to Section 47- K: FILING FEES FOR USES REQUIRING A SITE PLAN: For applications requiring a site plan not associated with Section 48, Conditional Uses or Section 49, Special Uses, the applicant shall pay to the City the sum of two hundred fifty wk010600 3 P & Z Workshop Minutes January 6, 2000 dollars ($250.00) for all tracts or parcels of land that do not exceed one (1) acre and an additional fee of twelve dollars and fifty cents --($12.50) per acre or part thereof for each additional tract or parcel that exceeds one (1) acre, no part of which shall be refundable regardless of the action taken on the request. The Committee considered Item III C jointly with Items III D & E. ITEM A. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO DISCUSS AMENDMENTS TO THE MASTER LAND USE PLAN, AND TAKE ANY ACTION NECESSARY Staff recommended the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission consider amending the Official City of Grapevine Future Land Use Map 11 to bring land use designations into compliance with recent zoning changes and anticipated development trends and take any action necessary. Since the Future Land Use Map was last updated in 1992, development trends within the City have diverged from those envisioned. This proposed update will correct those discrepancies noted between the current zoning/development of these sites and their land use designations as shown on the Future Land Use map. The land use designations and their corresponding zoning districts are as follows: • Residential Low Density — All Single Family Districts and "PRD-6", Planned Residential Low Density • Residential Medium Density — "R-5.0", Zero Lot Line; "R-3.5", Two Family District; "R-3.75", Three and Four Family District; "R-MH", Manufactured Home District; "R-TH", Townhouse District; and "PRD-12", Planned Residential Medium Density. • Residential High Density — "R-MF-1" and "R-MF-2", Multifamily Districts and "R- MOD-H", Modular Homes District. • Governmental Use — "GU", Government Use District • Central Business District — "CBD", Central Business District • Low Intensity Commercial — "LB", Limited Business District; "GV", Grapevine Vintage District; "CN", Neighborhood Commercial District; "PO" Commercial Office District; "PO", Professional Office District; and "HGT", Historic Grapevine Township District. wk010600 4 P & Z Workshop Minutes January 6, 2000 • Commercial — "CC", Community Commercial District; "HC, Highway Commercial District; "HCO", Hotel/Corporate Office District; and "PCD", Planned Commercial Development District. • Industrial — "LI", Light Industrial District; and "BP", Business Park District. • Industrial/Commercial - "PID", Planned Industrial Development District • Recreational/Amusements — "RA", Recreation/Amusement District Two sites that have rezoned to the "CC", Community Commercial District do not correspond with their site designations of Industrial Use and Industrial/Commercial Use, respectively. These sites include a large portion of the land along the eastern side of State Highway 121, in the northeast quadrant of the city and a portion of the south side of the State Highway 114 corridor. Additionally, the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport has purchased a large portion of land located on the north side of State Highway 114. Currently, this land is designated for low Intensity Commercial and Commercial uses. Staff recommends that the Governmental Use designation be applied to this area. After discussion, Chris Coy moved to authorize staff to set a public hearing to approve the amendments to the Master Land Use Plan and Stephen Newby seconded the motion. The motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, Fry, Coy, Martinez, Newby, Martin, and Busbee Nays: None ITEM III. D. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 48 CONDITIONAL USES RELATIVE TO THE CREATION OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF MINOR CHANGES TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission consider the following amendment to Section 48, Conditional Uses, relative to the creation of a Site Plan Review Committee to consider administrative approval of minor changes to previously approved conditional use permits, and take any action necessary. Currently, any modification to a site plan associated with a previously approved conditional use permit, no matter how minor, must return to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for consideration. In an effort to reduce the size of the public hearing agenda, staff recommends the creation of a Site Plan Review wk010600 5 P & Z Workshop Minutes January 6, 2000 Committee that will review and approve minor modifications to previously approved conditional use permits. Conditional Use Permit applications will be submitted in their usual manner, with the Director of Development Services determining which requests should be considered by the review committee. For those Conditional Use Permit applications the Site Plan Review Committee approves administratively, staff recommends the retention of one-half of the application fee, with the other half being returned to the applicant. Section 48. Conditional Uses D. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: An application for a Conditional Use Permit shall be filed in duplicate with the Director of Gemmunity Development Services, or such other official as he may designate, who shall forward without delay one copy to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The application shall contain a Site Plan and the following information; as well as such additional information as may be prescribed by rule of the Commission or the Director of Community Development. A site plan is not required for property zoned R-5.0 Zero Lot Line District: 1. The applicant's name and address and his interest in the subject property; 2. The owner's name and address, if different than the applicant, and the owner's signed consent to the filing of the application; 3. The street address and legal description of the property; 4. The zoning classification and present use of the subject property; 5. The particular provision of this Ordinance authorizing the proposed Conditional Use; 6. A general description of the proposed Conditional Use; 7. An application for Site Plan approval, as required and defined in Section 47 of this Ordinance; 8. A statement or diagram showing compliance with any special conditions or requirements imposed upon the particular Conditional Use by the applicable district regulations; 9. A statement as to why the proposed Conditional Use will not cause substantial injury to the value, use or enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood; wk010600 6 P & Z Workshop Minutes January 6, 2000 10. A statement as to how the proposed Conditional Use is to be designed, arranged and operated in order to ensure that development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable district regulations will not be prevented or made unlikely. E. HEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION: A public hearing on the application shall be held and notice thereof given in the manner and form required for amendments as set out in Section 67 of this Ordinance unless the Director of Gem Development Services or the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the application is incomplete. For applications involving minor modifications to previously approved Conditional Use Permits, the Director of Development Services may present the application to a Site Plan Review Committee consisting of a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission (appointed by the Commission Chairman), the City Council Representative to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Director of Development Services, which shall determine if the proposed modification(s) are such that a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council is or is not warranted. If the Site Plan Review Committee determines that a public hearing is not warranted, the application will be reviewed and approved administratively under the authority of the Site Plan Review Committee. For administratively approved modifications to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit (50%) of the application fee shall be retained, the remaining fifty -percent (50%) will be refunded to the applicant. The Committee considered Item III D jointly with Item III C & E. ITEM III. E. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 49 SPECIAL USE PERMITS RELATIVE TO ESTABLISHING A METHOD FOR CONSIDERING CERTAIN COMMUNICATION USE REQUESTS AS PERMITTED USES AND CREATION OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF MINOR CHANGES TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SPECIAL USE PERMITS Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission consider the following amendments to Section 49, Special Use Permits, relative to the establishment of a method for considering certain communication uses as permitted uses, and creation of a Site Plan Review Committee to consider administrative approval of minor changes to previously approved special use permits. wk010600 7 P & Z Workshop Minutes January 6, 2000 "Council Member Darlene Freed, at a September 9, 1999 work session recommended the creation of a method for considering certain communication uses as permitted uses, eliminating the need to conduct a public hearing on the communication request if the applicant could meet a certain set of criteria .established for such situations. Staff recommends that if the communication use is located on an existinq structure with all associated cabinetry/equipment located underground or within an existing structure, the use will be considered a permitted use to be reviewed and approved by the Planning staff under the authority of the Director of Development Services. As is the case with conditional use permit requests, any modification to a site plan associated with a previously approved special use permit, no matter how minor, must also return to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council for consideration. Staff is recommending the same type of administrative oversight by the Site Plan Review Committee for minor changes to site plans associated with previously approved special use permits. Following is the proposed change to Section 49-13-1 -a: B.1.a. EXCEPTIONS: Communication uses shall be required to plat the property as required by Section 47, Site Plans, but shall not be required to meet the minimum lot size, width or depth and area requirements as regulated in the specific zoning district. For requests relative to communication uses that will be located on existing structures with associated cabinetry/equipment located underground or on/within an existing cabinet area/structure, or for the reconstruction of existing towers or monopoles with no increase in height, said request, upon review by the Director of Development Services may be considered a permitted use to be administratively reviewed and approved under the authority of the Director of Development Services pursuant to Section 47, Site Plan Review... E. HEARING ON SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION: A public hearing on an application for a Special Use permit shall be held and notice thereof given in the manner and form required for amendments as set out in Section 67 of this Ordinance. For applications involving minor modifications to previously approved Special Use Permits, the Director of Development Services may present the application to a Site Plan Review Committee consisting of a member wk010600 8 P & Z Workshop Minutes January 6, 2000 of the Planning and Zoning Commission (appointed by the Commission Chairman), the City Council Representative to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Director of Development Services which shall determine if the'proposed modification(s) are such that a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council is or is not warranted. If the Site Plan Review Committee determines that a public hearing is not' warranted, the application' vVill be reviewed and approved administratively under the authority of the Site Plan Review Committee. For administratively approved modifications to a previously approved Special Use Permit, the full application fee shall be retained by the City... Cathy Martin moved with a second by Kevin Busbee, to authorize staff to set public hearing to approve the amendments to Section 47, Section 48, and Section 49. The motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, Fry, Coy, Martinez, Newby, Martin, and Busbee Nays: None ITEM III. F. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 52 TREE PRESERVATION RELATIVE TO PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission consider the following amendments to Section 52, Tree Preservation relative to protected tree removal, and take any action necessary. Recently, the Development Services staff was involved in a situation where a protected tree, which was diseased and in danger of falling, was removed without notification to the Building Department. Section 52, as written, is somewhat vague on the area of notification to city staff if a building permit is not required, therefore staff recommends amending Section 52.H Protected Tree Removal to require any tree removal related to diseased, or injured trees to have the approval of the Director of Development Services as well as an inspection by the Building Department prior to the removal of any tree(s). The following are the proposed changes to Section 52- D-2 and Section 52- H-2: Section 52. Tree Preservation D-2- A Protected Tree Removal Permit shall be required when Protected Trees are to be removed from a site. No person, directly or indirectly, shall cut down, destroy, remove or move, or effectively destroy through damaging, any Protected Tree, specimen tree or historictree situated on property described above without first obtaining approval from the Director of Development Services and a Protected Tree Removal Permit unless the conditions of wk010600 9 P,& Z Workshop Minutes January 6, 2000 Section 52.1-1.1 and, .,52.H,.,2 apply. A registered, landscape,_ architect, egistered architect.; registered,:engineer or .registered surveyor shall prepare ., a permit submitted I for approval by the Planning, and Zoning Commission. A Tree Removal Permit and/or Protected Tree Removal Permit submitted for approval, ,y, DeveIoprp_ppt,,.,,Spryices ,Stqff does� not,have to be prepared by a .,registered landscape arch . itect, registered architect, registered engineer or registered surveyor... H-,2.Upon issuance of, a building permit, developer shall be allowed to remove Protected Trees located'on the. buildable area of the property. Protected Trees located..i,n required yard areas, buffers, and open space areas shall be maintained,. The buildable area shall include sufficient adjacent area to allow the normal operation. -of construction equipment. Prior to any tree removal, pn_Jn!��ec�tiion by We Building Department shall be required and written approval from the Building Official shall bq_q[�n1ted_before said tree( are removed... ,.Chris Coy moved to . authorize , staff , to set a public hearing to approve the amendmen't to Seption 52 and Kevin Busbee secon.d,ed.'The motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes:, Qliver, Fry, Coy, Martinez, Newby; 'Martin, 'and Busbee Na*ys:. None , ITEM Ill. G.' AMENDMENT TO SECTION 58, PARKING, LOADING AND OUTSIDE STORAGE AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RELATIVE TO OFF- STREET PARKING ON A LOT OR TRACT OF LAND, COMPRISED OF MULTIPLE ZONING DISTRICTS; Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission consider the following amendment to Section 58, Parking, Loading, and Outside Storage Area Development Standards relative to off-street parking on a lot or tract of land comprised ,of multiple zoningdistricts,,; nd take, any action necessary. The Pool Road/Stato'Highway 26 Alb�erfs6n's Grocery store project that was denied by Council on August 3, 1999 raised a number of issues not addressed in the zoning _qrdipance as it is, currentlyOne issue was related to the placement of off- street parking on platted lots r-ised of mu I Itiple zoning districts. The applicant for the Pool 'Rbad/State' Highway 26, 1 project 'prd'po�sed,the placement of off-street parking for the grocery cery store on a'pbrtion of 1he lot thathad a less restrictive zoning designation. This was -met with a great deal' of resistance. In an effort to eliminate this situation-from,occurring again', staff recommends the'lmod,ification of Section 58, such that no off- street parking for a principal use can be located upon property that is of a less restrictive zoning than that of the prin6ipal use: , -, , - wk010600 10 P & Z Workshop Minutes January 6, 2000 Stephen Newby moved to authorize staff to 'set a public hearing to -accept the amendments to 'Section 58 and Kathy Martinez seconded- the motion.- The motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, ,Fry, Coy; Martinez, Newby,Wartin, and Busbee Nays: None ITEM Ill. H. DISCUSSION OF SECTION 53, 1- LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS RELATIVE TO SCREENING REQUIREMENTS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AND VEHICLE USE AREAS Staff recommends .the Planning and Zoning Co , mmission' consider possible amendments to Section 53, Landscaping Regulations relative to screening requirements for off-street parking and vehicle use areas, and take any action necessary. Council Member Sharron Spencer has recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission consider amending Section 53 as it relates to 1einds6a for pe screening vehicle use areas. Currently, the ordinance requires a living landscape6 screening barrier be established to screen all vehicle use areas from abutting properties or adjacent rights -of -way. A landscaping barrier two -feet in width'and thirty-inbries in height at the time of planting are the minimum requirements. 'Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission consider possible alternatives to the current screening requirements for discussion and possible ordinance modification. The Committee discussed alternatives to screening. The Committee suggestbel that Staff. modify Section 53 to include alternate screening choices numbered 1, 4, & 5 and exclude alternate screening choices numbered 2, 3, & 6. No action was taken at this time. ITEM Ill. 1. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO DISCUSS THE SCHEDULING OF THE TWO REMAINING WORKSHOPS DURING CALENDAR YEAR 2000 The Planning and Zonihg,'C'ommission, Bylaws mandate. * the hold,in-9 of 'three meetings throughout the year, in January, May, and September, to keep- abreast of issues related to the Master Plan, zoning ordinance a ' mendments, and �general planning activity. To this end, staff has tentatively scheduled Thursday, May 4,; 2000 and Thursday, September 7.,.,,2000 for the remaining two workshop meetings.. - Having noted the dates, no action was taken. wk010600 11 111 aftln'-MOVO 'With �bothin�-'fufffis'W or to, di*S's,'Oath'y-M 846-Efdjoutn the meeting at 7:45 WWbyteoo6d�iotidri;' wK4,bIVprOV6il6d by'the following vote: bliv oy,,'Matti'n `Newby, FryM-affin, a6d -Susbee Mfib ATTEST: OL R A- A M A N -12