Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-03-26STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF ARRANT 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 26th day of March, 1996, in the City Council Chambers, Room #205, 307 West Dallas Road, Grapevine, Texas, with the following members present to wit: Larry Oliver Cathy Martin Curtis Young Marvin Balvin Steve Stamos Darlene Freed Steve Newby Kristin Antilla Chairman Vice Chairman Member Member Member Member 1 st Alternate 2nd Alternate constituting a quorum, and the following City Staff: H.T.(Tommy) Hardy Director of Development Services Marcy Ratcliff Planner Teresa Wallace Planning Secretary Scott Dyer Senior Civil Engineer Ed Kellie Junior Civil Engineer Commissioner Marvin Balvin offered the Invocation. Mayor Tate called the joint meeting to order at 7:40 P.M., and Chairman Larry Oliver called the Planning & Zoning Commission deliberation session to order at 9:10 P.M. First on the Agenda for the Commission to consider and make a recommendation to the City Council was Zone Change Request Z96 -06 submitted by Southwest Grapevine Partners requesting to rezone 5.308 acres from "PID" Planned Industrial Development District to "LI" Light Industrial District to develop two lots from Lot 411-1 I for office and warehouse distribution. The subject properties are located at 2051 and 2151 Southwest Grapevine Parkway, and proposed to be platted as Lot 413-1 A and 4R -1 B, Southwest Grapevine Commercial Park. Marcy Ratcliff, City Planner, told the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council the applicant has two users desiring to develop on 5.308 acres. The applicant is requesting the zone change from Planned Industrial Development to Light Industrial because of the minimum lot size requirement of three acres in the Planned Industrial District. The Light Industrial District has a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. The concept plan submitted indicates the size of Lot 4R-1A to be 2.2723 acres and Lot 4R-1B to be 3.0357 acres. Lot 413-113 is proposed to be developed by NTN Bearing Company. The applicant did not want to request a variance to the minimum lot size nor to request rezoning a portion of the community commercial zoned property to the north. Mr. R. J. Grogan was introduced to respond to questions relative to the request. With no questions from the City Council or the Planning and Zoning Commission, no guests to speak, letters or petitions, the public hearing was closed. In the Commission's deliberation session, Kathy Martinez moved, with a second by Marvin Balvin, to approve the zone change request which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, Martin, Young, Balvin, Freed, Martinez and Newby Nays: None Commissioner Stamos was out of the room at the time the vote was taken. Next for the Commission to consider and make a recommendation was the final plat application of Lots 413-1 A & 413-113, Block A, Southwest Grapevine Commercial Park, being a replat of Lot 4131, Block A, Southwest Grapevine Commercial Park. The applicant is requesting to replat the 5.308 acre lot into two lots. NTN Bearing Corp. has proposed to build a facility on Lot 413-1 B. There is currently no user proposed for Lot 413-1 A. With no questions from the City Council or the Planning and Zoning Commission, no guests to speak, letters or petitions, the public hearing was closed. In the Commission's deliberation session, Kathy Martinez moved to approve the Statement of Findings and the Final Plat Application of Lots 4R -1 A and 4R -1 B, Block N A, Southwest Grapevine Commercial Park. Marvin Balvin seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, Martin, Young, Balvin, Freed, Martinez and Newby Nays: None Commissioner Stamos was out of the room at the time the vote was taken. Next for the Commission to consider and make a recommendation to the City Council was Conditional Use Request CU96 -02 submitted by Greg Tierney requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow the possession, storage, retail sale and on- premise consumption of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine and mixed drinks) in conjunction with a restaurant and a waiver to Section 47.E.2. in accordance with Section 47.F. The subject property is located at 420 North Main Street and is proposed to be platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Texas Bistro Addition. Marcy Ratcliff, Planner, explained the applicant is proposing to use the existing structure as a restaurant, with a small expansion for handicapped restrooms . The structure will contain 1,083 square feet and will provide 12 paved off - street parking spaces, which is one space more than required. The applicant will provide the required six foot wooden screening fence, along the north and east property lines. The applicant is required to plat this property as a part of the conditional use permit requirements. Marcy Ratcliff also explained the applicant has submitted a variance request BZA96- 05 for exceptions to the minimum lot size and width, masonry requirements and buffer yard requirements along the north and east property lines. The "CN" Neighborhood Commercial District requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square and the tract only contains 16,006 square feet after right -of -way dedication. The "CN" District also requires a minimum lot width of 125 feet; the tract has a width of 90 feet. The "CN" District requires a 20 foot buffer strip be provided when adjacent to any residentially zoned property. The property to the north is zoned "R -5.0" Zero Lot Line, and to the east the property is zoned "R -MF -1 " Multi Family. The expansion is required to meet the minimum 70 percent masonry standard. The applicant is proposing the expansion to be constructed of wood so as to match the existing wood structure. Greg Tierney was present to respond to questions relative to hours of operation, screening fence and buffer yard requirements. The following guests spoke in opposition to the request: 3 Betty Rice, 401 North Main Street M. C. Toyer, 503 North Main Street Karen Whittlesey, 503 North Main Street With no further questions from the City Council or the Planning and Zoning Commission, two letters of opposition, the public hearing was closed. In the Commission's deliberation session, members discussed a restaurant use with alcoholic beverage sales being allowed in an area that is predominantly residential. Also of concern was overflow off street parking that would block the residences along North Main Street. Steve Stamos moved, with a second by Cathy Martin, to deny the conditional use request and a waiver to Section 47.E.2. in accordance with Section 47.F. which failed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, Martin, Young, Stamos, Freed, and Martinez Nays: None Abstain: Balvin Next for the Commission to consider and make a recommendation to the City Council was Conditional Use Request CU96 -03 submitted by Larry Cates for Grapevine Tate Joint Venture. The applicant is requesting to amend the Planned Commercial Center to develop two 8,000 square foot retail uses on Lots 8 and 9, Block 1, Towne Center Addition No. 2. Lot 9 is proposed to have a 3,570 square foot patio area for outside display and storage of goods. The remainder of the Planned Commercial Center is proposed for future development. Also, the applicant is requesting a waiver to the site plan requirements of Section 47.E.2. in accordance with Section 47.F. The subject property is located at 1351 State Highway 114 West and is proposed to be platted as Lots 8 and 9, Block 1, Towne Center Addition No. 2. Marcy Ratcliff, Planner, explained Bar- B -Que's Galore, EyeMasters and Coleman Home Spas are currently interested in locating in the new buildings. The users are required to provide a total of 64 parking spaces and are providing 127 parking spaces. Larry Cates was introduced to respond to questions relative to outside storage shown on the site plan of spas and barbecue pits outdoor display areas. Mr. Greg Keith of Cencor Realty explained they were working on a rendering of the sites but he had nothing available to show them. The applicant asked the request be 0 tabled until April 16, 1996, at which time they would provide additional drawings for review. Marvin Balvin moved, with a second by Steve Stamos, to continue the public hearing on the conditional use until April 16, 1996, and close the public hearing on the final plat request. The motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, Martin, Young, Balvin, Stamos, Freed and Martinez Nays: None Next for the Commission to consider and make a recommendation to the City Council was Conditional Use Request CU96 -04 submitted by Timm Wikelski of Realworld Projects for Discount Tire Co. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the development of a new retail tire sales and service establishment. The applicant is also requesting a waiver to Section 47.E.2. in accordance with Section 47.F. Marcy Ratcliff, Planner, explained the applicant is proposing to develop a 6,765 square foot building for a retail tire sales and service establishment. The applicant is providing the required 36 off - street parking spaces. Timm Wikelski was introduced to respond to questions relative to the drives proposed for the development. Mr. Wikelski introduced Rick Simms, Vice President of Discount Tire Co., Inc. to address Planning and Zoning and the Council. Mr. Simms passed around colored brochures of the proposed development. Members expressed concerns about the location chosen for the proposed use, the open bay doors and noise adjacent to other uses and landscaping adjacent to the Grandy's Restaurant. With no further questions, guests to speak, letters or petitions, the public hearing was closed. In the Commission's deliberation session, members discussed the concerns addressed in the public hearing regarding the site. Members came to a consensus that the location was not suitable for the use. Steve Stamos moved to deny the conditional use request CU96 -04. Darlene Freed seconded the motion which failed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, Martin, Young, Balvin, Stamos, Freed, and Martinez Nays: None Next for the Commission to consider and make a recommendation was the Final Plat Application of Lot 2, Block A, Trinity Industries Addition submitted by Trinity Industries, Inc. Cathy Martin moved to deny the Statement of Findings and the Final Plat Application of Lot 2, Block A, Trinity Industries Addition. Steve Stamos seconded the motion which failed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, Martin, Young, Balvin, Stamos, Freed, and Martinez Nays: None Next for the Commission to consider and make a recommendation were the proposed amendments to the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82 -73, to Section 31, "LI" Light Industrial District and Section 32, "BP" Business Park District relative to warehouse /distribution uses; Section 49, Special Use Permits and Section 60 Sign Regulations relative to neighborhood day care centers, ground, pole, portable and vehicle signs; and Section 52, Tree Preservation, Section 45, Concept Plans, Section 47, Site Plan Review, and Section 53, Landscaping relative to tree preservation. Tommy Hardy, Director of Development Services, explained that the Planning & Zoning Commission had been reviewing the districts and have proposed language to be approved as follows: • Warehouse Distribution Uses Section 31.A. and 31.C., "LI" Light Industrial District Section 32.A. and 32.C., "BP" Business Park District The Planning and Zoning Commission authorized Staff to set a public hearing to consider amending the industrial districts to change warehouse distribution from a permitted use to a conditional use. Councilwoman Spencer has expressed concern about industrial distribution development that could occur in the northeast part of Grapevine. With the proposed development of the Grapevine Mills Value Center Mall, it is possible there may be substantial land use changes from industrial to commercial in the northeast area. The amendments to Section 31.A., "LI" Light Industrial District allow warehouse distribution as a permitted use on properties platted as a lot of record with concept plan approval prior to March 27, 1996. The amendments to Section 31.C. "LI" Light Industrial 0 District will require a conditional use permit for warehouse distribution on properties platted as a lot of record after March 27, 1996. Amendments to the "BP" Business Park District are the same, except there is no reference to platting. Only two lots are currently zoned "BP" Business Park District and are final platted or under construction at this time. The amendment, as drafted, is intended to address possible changes in development trends in northeast Grapevine. Consideration should be given to the effect of the amendment on all land in the City of Grapevine zoned "PID" Planned Industrial Development, "LI" Light Industrial, and "BP" Business Park. Future development could be effected by the conditional use request and public hearing process. Cases could also be negatively impacted by comments received from adjoining property owners in a public hearing, as in the case of NTN Bearing recently proposed on Southwest Grapevine Parkway. An alternative to amending the zoning ordinance to address development in northeast Grapevine would be to initiate a zoning case for the area. The zone change could establish conditional use requirements for warehouse distribution type users for that specific area which would not effect other property zoned "LI" Light Industrial or "BP" Business Park in Grapevine. This process would be similar to past cases that were approved with deed restrictions. • Neighborhood Day Care Centers Section 49.8.14., Special Use Permit Section 60.F., Sign Regulations in Residential areas At Council's request, the Commission reviewed the language to Section 49 and Section 60 at the January 30, 1996 Workshop, to provide an avenue to allow neighborhood day care centers in residential areas. The proposed language is the result of the zone change request of the Memorial Baptist Church from "R- 7.5" to "R -MF -1" Multifamily, and conditional use permit for a day care center. Section 49.13.14. defines a neighborhood day care center and its development restrictions relative to location and size. Proposed amendments to Section 60.F., Sign Regulations, allows neighborhood day care centers to request ground and wall signs along with the special use permit. • Tree Preservation Section 52, Tree Preservation Section 45.C., Concept Plans Section 47.E.1.b.24., Site Plan Review Section 53.G.2., Landscaping Regulations 7 At the October 30, 1995 Workshop the Commission requested Staff to draft language for a Tree Preservation Permit to accompany zone change requests and concept plans for plats. The purpose of the proposed language is to provide a review process to preserve the existing natural environment whenever possible and to encourage the preservation of large specimen trees throughout any construction or land development. At the February 20, 1996 meeting, the Commission substituted language to state a Tree Preservation Permit may he required as Council or the Commission determine may be needed. Prior drafts required tree preservation review on all cases requested. No zoning districts are excluded from the Tree Preservation Permit requirements. The proposed language defines a Tree Preservation Permit and a Tree Removal Permit and when, or if, either permit would be required to be submitted. A Tree Preservation Permit defines large specimen trees as eight (8) inches or larger when measured four and one -half (4 % ) feet above the ground level. A Tree Removal Permit defines a specimen tree as three (3) inches or greater when measured four and one -half (4 %a) feet above ground level. Both permits require a Tree Replacement Plan and a Tree Protection Plan. Staff also proposed amendments to Section 53, Landscaping Regulations to define the minimum acceptable tree size. Currently, the Landscaping Regulations require trees to be a minimum height of seven (7) feet. The new definition states the tree to be a minimum size of three (3) caliper inches when measured three (3) inches above ground, and a minimum height of seven (7) feet. Section 45, Concept Plans and Section 47, Site Plan Review were also amended to require Tree Preservation Permits to be a part of zoning cases or platting when Council or the Commission determine there is a need to consider existing specimen trees relative to a request. As proposed, an approved Tree Preservation Permit may be amended by City Council by resolution after receiving a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. This would not require a public hearing to amend the Tree Preservation Permit. • Ground, Pole and Portable and Vehicle Signage Section 60.B.2.b., Ground Sign Regulations Section 60.B.2.c.12., Conditional Use Pole Sign Regulations Section 60.C.13., Portable and Vehicle Sign Regulations The proposed amendments for ground signs are new design standards to encourage developments to use ground signs in lieu of the standard twenty (20) foot pole sign. The new design standards relate to increases in the overall height, maximum gross surface area and percentage of changeable copy. The amendments create separate criteria for residential and non - residential uses. The amendments redefine ground signs to be solid from the ground up with all poles or supports to be concealed. In a few instances, the proposed amendment would create non - conformity in existing ground signs. To be compatible with the pole sign regulations, the amount of changeable copy for all ground signs was increased to thirty percent (30 %) as a matter of right, a larger percentage of changeable copy would require a conditional use. Also included is the ability to increase the height of ground signs when they are placed on a two (2) foot berm or a masonry planter box. The proposed amendments to pole signs, not exceeding forty (40) feet in height, relate primarily to permitted highway locations, establishment of design requirements for signs and supporting poles, and allowing forty (40) foot pole signs as a conditional use on any property zoned "CN" Neighborhood Commercial, "CC" Community Commercial and "HC" Highway Commercial along designated highways. Signs and supporting pole(s) would be required to be designed and constructed to be related or complementary with the architectural style of the primary structures. A good example of what this amendment would accomplish is the design of the pole sign at the Red Robin Restaurant. Forty (40) foot pole signs may be approved under current requirements on State Highways 114, 121, and 360. The proposed amendments would add S.H. 2499, but would eliminate signs along S.H. 360 and S.H. 121 south of the intersecting point of these two highways. Eliminating the ability to request forty (40) foot pole signs along S.H. 360 could effect development along the corridor in the future. Staff expects development on S.H. 360 to be similar to that seen on S.H. 114. There would be little effect of forty (40) foot pole signs in residential areas along S.H. 360 since the only residential development in that area is largely adjacent to a city park area. Staff feels the development of S.H. 360 will begin to occur soon due to increased traffic and TXDOT's plans to move forward on the development of the freeway lanes from State Highway 183/ Airport Freeway to State Highway 121 /William D. Tate Avenue. Staff expects these improvements will soon generate the need for signage along that corridor. An exhibit is attached outlining the areas forty (40) foot pole signs may be requested as a conditional use under present and proposed locations. The proposed amendments will permit forty (40) foot pole signs on any property along designated highways as a conditional use if the property is zoned "CC" Community Commercial, "CN" Neighborhood Commercial, or "HC" Highway Commercial. Presently, signs are permitted with a conditional use only along designated highways in Planned Commercial Centers. Council has requested the 0 Planning & Zoning Commission consider this change to give all users along designated highways the ability to request forty (40) foot pole signs. The proposed amendments include language to specifically regulate portable and vehicle signs. Staff is currently unable to regulate those signs on a stationary vehicle. The proposed amendments would provide Staff the ability to eliminate these types of signs. In response to Mayor Tate's question, Mr. Hardy, explained that Council had asked Planning and Zoning to propose amendments for Neighborhood Day Care Centers in residential districts, Tree Preservation, and signage along highways. Ms. Spencer asked the Planning & Zoning Commission to review warehouse distribution uses in the industrial districts. The Council came to a consensus that a joint workshop needed to be held to discuss action on the proposed amendments except those proposed for Neighborhood Day Care Centers. Steve Stamos moved to continue the public hearing on the proposed amendments to Section 31.A. and 31.C., "LI" Light Industrial District, Section 32.A. and 32.C., "BP" Business Park District, relative to warehouse distribution, Section 52, Tree Preservation, Section 45.C., Concept Plans, Section 47.E.1.b.24., Site Plan Review, and Section 53.G.2., Landscaping Regulations relative to Tree Preservation, and Section 60.B.2.b., Ground Sign Regulations, Section 60.B.2.c.12., Conditional Use Pole Sign Regulations, Section 60.C.13., Portable and Vehicle Sign Regulations relative to ground, pole, portable and vehicle signage. Marvin Balvin seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, Martin, Young, Balvin, Stamos, Freed, and Martinez Nays: None Curtis Young moved to close the public hearing on Neighborhood Day Care Centers. Marvin Balvin seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, Martin, Young, Balvin, Stamos, Freed, and Martinez Nays: None Next for the Commission to consider and make a recommendation was the final plat application of Lots 4R1, 6R, 8, 9, and 10, Block 1, Towne Center Addition being a replat of Lot 6, Block 1, Towne Center Addition submitted by Grapevine/Tate Joint Venture. Action on the plat was required because the conditional use request was tabled to April 16, 1996. Steve Stamos moved to deny the Statement of Findings and the Final Plat Application of Lots 4111, 6R, 8, 9, and 10, Block 1, Towne Center Addition No. 2. Darlene Freed seconded the motion which failed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, Martin, Young, Balvin, Stamos, Freed, and Martinez Nays: None Next for the Commission to consider and make a recommendation were amendments to the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82 -73, Section 49.6.14., Special Use Permits, Section 60.F., Sign Regulations in Residential areas relative to Neighborhood Day Care Centers. Cathy Martin moved, with a second by Steve Stamos, to approve the amendments to Neighborhood Day Care Centers. The motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Martin, Young, Balvin, Stamos, and Freed Nays: None Abstain: Oliver and Martinez Next for the Commission to consider were proposed amendments to the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82 -73 relative to Communication Uses. Marcy Ratcliff, Planner, reminded members in September of 1995, William Cothrum of Masterplan, requested the Planning and Zoning Commission review their proposed zoning amendments to allow antennas on certain existing structures. Staff drafted 11 language for the October 30, 1995 and January 30, 1996, Special P & Z Workshops. The Commission at the February 20, 1996 meeting requested Staff to include new language relative to the number of accessory equipment buildings allowed per structure, minimum distance separating commercial antennas and to include as a definition an antenna array. Further, she explained, Section 42.1. was developed to define terms and regulations of where antennas are allowed as a matter of right, and where they are allowed as a special use permit. Section 42 will allow commercial antennas spaced no less than 1,000 feet apart to be attached to an existing utility structure, electrical transmission /distribution tower or elevated water storage tank; and if it exceeds 75 feet in height and has only one accessory equipment building 100 square feet or less, and constructed to a maximum height of 8 feet high. Also, Section 49.8. was amended to include the accessory equipment building criteria and terminology as defined in Section 42. All commercial antenna support structures (towers, monopoles, tripods, etc.) are still required to submit a special use permit for Council and Commission approval. During deliberations, members discussed concerns about allowing antennas on existing structures as a matter of right. They also discussed allowing antennas on utility structures without platting the property. Members questioned options utility companies have in leasing their property to communication companies. Members suggested researching the uses with a TU Electric representative. Members came to a consensus that a special use permit would still need to be required and instructed Staff to change the drafted language to remove the 1,000 feet distance of separation between antennas and require a special use permit without platting of the property. Cathy Martin moved, with a second by Kathy Martinez, to table the item until April 16, 1996. The motion prevailed as follows: Ayes: Oliver, Martin, Young, 8alvin, Stamos, Freed, and Martinez Nays: None Next for the Commission to consider were the minutes of the February 20, 1996 meeting. Darlene Freed moved to approve the minutes of February 20, 1996 as amended. Steve Stamos seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: 12 Ayes: Martin, Young, Balvin, Stamos, Freed, Nays: None Abstain: Oliver and Martinez With nothing further to discuss, Steve Stamos moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 P.M. Marvin Balvin seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Oliver, Martin, Young, Balvin, Stamos, Freed, and Martinez Nays: None PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, ON THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 1996. NO ATTEST: SECRETARY 13