Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-30STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OFTARRANT CITY OF GRAPEVINE The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Grapevine, Texas, met in Joint Workshop with the City Council, on this the 30th day of April, 1996, in the Police Training Room #104, 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 Kathy Martinez Steve Newby Chairman Vice Chairman Member Member Member Member Member 1 st Alternate with 2nd alternate Kristin Antilla absent, constituting a quorum, and the following City Staff: H.T. (Tommy) Hardy Marcy Ratcliff - Teresa Wallace Director of Development Services Planner Planning Secretary Mayor Pro Tern Ted Ware called the Joint Workshop to order at 7:00 P.M. The Planning and Zoning Commission had authorized Staff to set a public hearing on March 26, 1996 to consider amending the industrial districts to change warehouse distribution uses from a permitted use to a conditional use. The amendments to Section 31.A. would allow warehouse distribution uses 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. would require these uses as a conditional use on properties platted as a lot of record after March 27, 1996. Amendments to the Business Park District would be the same, except with no reference to platting, because only two lots are zoned and final platted or under construction at this time. 0 P & Z Minutes 04/30/96 Mr. Tommy Hardy, Director of Development Services, showed colored exhibits depicting industrial zoned properties available for development in the City of Grapevine. Mr. Hardy explained concerns had been expressed about the amount of warehouse distribution uses possible relative to the large mass of property in northeast Grapevine currently zoned for industrial development. With the proposed Grapevine Mills Mall development in northeast Grapevine more commercial /retail uses would be desirable to developers. Mr. Hardy explained the amendments proposed at the public hearing on March 26, 1996 would require a conditional use permit to be granted by City Council to develop warehouse distribution uses. During discussion, concerns were expressed that requiring a conditional use permit would limit a property owner's right to develop his property and would be contrary to the free trade zone which was created to attract warehouse distribution uses. Mr. Hardy told the board the City Attorney, John Boyle, had suggested the City might consider initiating a zone change for specific tracts of land in northeast Grapevine that would allow commercial /retail development along the corridors near the proposed mall. Property owners could develop frontage along the corridors as commercial retail and the rear portion of their land for warehouse /industrial uses. Mayor Tate suggested Staff meet with the property owners in the northeast Grapevine area, adjacent to the mall property to consider a zone change request to Community Commercial. Discussion moved to southwest Grapevine along the State Highway 26 /Ira E. Woods Avenue corridor. Concerns were expressed about increased truck traffic and requests to allow another railroad cut on the west side of Ira E. Woods Avenue. Concerns were expressed about increased truck traffic and requests to allow another railroad cut on the west side of Ira E. Woods Avenue to access the City of Southlake. Staff was requested to review the property west of Ira E. Woods Avenue for possible initiations of zoning changes or site plan requirements to control traffic patterns and for potential truck traffic problems. Proposed Amendments to Section 52, Tree Preservation, . Section 45. Co,peept Plans Section 47. Site Plans and Section 53 Relative tQ Tree Preservation At the October 30, 1995 Workshop, the Commission requested Staff to draft language for a Tree Preservation Permit to accompany zone change requests and 4 P & Z Minutes 04/30/96 -- concept plans for plats. The purpose of the proposed language was 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 required as Council or the Commission determine may be needed ". Prior drafts required a tree preservation permit review on all cases requested. All zoning districts would be included in 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. The Tree Preservation Permit defined large specimen trees as 8 inches or larger when measured 4.5 feet above the ground level. The Tree Removal Permit defined a specimen tree as 3 inches or greater when measured 4.5 feet above ground level. Both permits would 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. The Landscaping Regulations currently require trees to be a minimum height of 7 feet. The new definition stated the tree to be a minimum size of 3 caliper inches when measured 6 inches above ground, and a minimum height of 7 feet. Section 45, Concept Plans, and Section 47, Site Plan Review, was amended to require Tree Preservation Permits to be a part of zoning cases or platting when Council or the Commission determined there was 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. Mr. Hardy explained the intention of the proposed language was to create a tree preservation permit which may be required by City Council or the Planning and Zoning Commission if deemed necessary on zone change requests and concept plan for plats. He cited the tract at the corner of Ball and College Street as a example. Concerns were expressed that requiring a tree preservation permit would be punitive to property owners and especially home builders. Mayor Tate suggested Staff define a workable solution with the Tree Ordinance. Also discussed was the measurement of tree. Staff was directed to massage the language to define a tree at 7 feet above ground and establish a minimum size of tree. No further action was taken. 3 P & Z Minutes 04/30/96 Section 60 Sign Regulations RPlativP to GraundSigns, Conditional Use Pale Signs Portable and Vehicle Sians The proposed amendments for ground signs were new design standards to encourage developments to use ground signs in lieu of the standard 20 foot pole sign. The new design standards related to increases in the overall height, maximum gross surface area and percentage of changeable copy. The amendments created separate criteria for residential and non - residential uses. The amendments redefined ground signs to be solid from the ground up with all poles or supports to be concealed. In a few instances this 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 would be increased to 30% as a matter of right, a larger percentage of changeable copy would require a conditional use. Also, included was the ability to increase the height of ground signs when placed on a two foot berm or a masonry planter box. Amendments to pole signs not exceeding 40 feet in height related primarily to permitted highway locations, and the establishment of design requirements for the signs and supporting poles, and allowing 40 foot pole signs as a conditional use on any property zoned Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial and 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 pole sign at Red Robin Restaurant. A 40 foot pole sign may be approved under current requirements in Planned Commercial Centers on State Highways 114, 121, and 360. The proposed amendments would add F.M. 2499 (formerly International Parkway, now Grapevine Mills Parkway) and eliminate signs along S.H. 360 and S.H. 121, south of S.H. 360. The proposed amendments would permit 40 foot pole signs on any property along designated highways with a conditional use if the property is zoned Community Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, or Highway Commercial. Presently, signs are permitted with a conditional use only along designated highways in Planned Commercial Centers. Council requested that the Planning & Zoning Commission consider this change to give existing users along designated highways the ability to request 40 foot pole signs. E P & Z Minutes 04/30/96 _- The proposed amendments also included language to specifically regulate portable and vehicle signs. The proposed amendments would provide Staff the ability to eliminate these types of signs. Mr. Hardy showed colored exhibits that depicted current standards and proposed size standards of ground signs. The proposed amendments would establish new criteria for ground signs, increasing the size and percent of changeable copy to be compatible with 20 foot pole sign regulations. Also, the height of the sign could be increased by placing the sign on a two foot berm or planter box. Mr. Hardy also discussed 40 foot pole signs along major highways. The proposed amendments would allow all property zoned Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial or Highway Commercial the ability to request a 40 foot pole sign. The Planning and Zoning Commission had carefully reviewed sign regulations and had proposed language to exclude pole signs south along State Highway 360 and State Highway 121, south of the point at which these two highways intersect. Concerns were expressed on limiting pole signs along State Highway 360 and south State Highway 121 because property owners would be penalized for similar types of development along State 114 which allows pole signs. Members agreed ground signs should be made similar in design with increased sign and changeable copy area. With nothing further, Ted Ware adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, ON THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 1996. ATTEST: SECRETARY Ke