Loading...
2015-06-23 Meeting Report (Revisions to Ordinances) SPIN MEETING REPORT SPIN Item Number: SPIN2015-22 Project Name: Revisions to Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, and Sign Ordinance 704-G Meeting Date: June 23, 2015 Meeting Location: 1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX City Council Chambers Total Attendance: 1 Host: Bobbie Heller,Community Engagement Committee Applicant(s) Presenting: Dennis Killough, Deputy Director of Planning and Development Services City Staff Present: Jerod Potts, Planner I; Mike White,Chief Building Inspector; Dennis Killough, Deputy Director of Planning and Development Services City Staff Contact: Dennis Killough,Deputy Director of Planning and Development Services(817)748-8072 Attached to the end of this report are the Blackboard Connect Delivery Results for the 6/23/2015 SPIN Town Hall Forum Town Hall Forums can be viewed in their entirety by visiting http://www.cityofsouthlake.comand clicking on “Learn More” under Video OnDemand; forums are listed under SPIN by meeting date. FORUMSUMMARY Development Details: Item 1 –Revisions toZoningOrdinance No. 480 Ordinance No. 480-SSSS is a proposed amendment to set the maximum individual tenant space in a building to 60,000 square feet, and to add language to the SUP section of the zoning ordinance to allow developments which proposeto exceed that to come forward with a SUP This would affect any future development in the C-3 district or developments zoned S-P- 1 or S-P-2 withunderlying C-3 districts; would affect any of thosethatdo not have a currently approved building on the site, or a specifically proposed plan specifically authorizing a floor area for the structures Will be proposing language and working with legal staff to address situations where there is currently an approved plan of record on file with the City that identifies building square footage as well as address issues where there are existing buildings that may already exceed that Item 2 –Revision to Subdivision Ordinance No. 483 Amendment is intended to address something which has commonly began occurring in the City where singletracts of record that were created prior to the City requiring filing of a subdivision plat have an existing older home and the property is purchased with the desire of building a new home. The subdivision ordinance is set up such that when the house is demolished, before they can get a building permit for the new home it requires a subdivision plat be filed of record. Typically these properties are in an Agricultural zoning classification or may be in an SF-1 or SF-2; some cases even SF-20 or SF-30, but may not meet the size and dimensional criteria for those districts. This requires the owner bring forward a zoning amendment to change the zoning to a category that the existing tract fits. This proposal is intended to provide an exemption for those situations to where the individual as long as the property is within any of the single family residential classifications, can filea plat and get a permit without having to go through the zoning process. Eligibility includes property within the following single family residential districts: AG, RE, SF-1A, SF-1B, SF-30, SF-20A, SF-20B Also, proof of exiting residential dwelling was within the identified tract boundaries and the tract itself must have been created prior to a plat having to be filed with the City Item 3 –Revisions to Sign Ordinance No. 704-G Currently the sign ordinance does not address signage as it may be impactedon multi- story buildings The initial proposal planned to come forward will require that any building signage above the ground floor be brought to the Sign Board for recommendation and then City Council for final approval Ground floor signage in conformance with the sign ordinance would be permitted Presented at SPIN: QUESTIONS / CONCERNSfor item 1 -Revisions to Zoning Ordinance No. 480: Why is this being asked for? It is to place betterCity control on where what we might consider a “big box” o tenant would belocated. It would give City Council a little more discretion in development coming forward that might propose large buildings. It is not intended to outright prohibit it, but give City Council a little better control as to where they are located,impacts on surrounding property, how traffic might be managed. What is the street where most of this is? Most of the properties that have a zoning on them today are along the 114 o corridor as well as the Southlake Blvd. corridor. It is to allow the City control over who can take over a building and move into the City? Will work with legal staff to add language that will provide some exemptions for o buildings that have been constructed to date aswell as a building that has plan approval specific to the square footage, size, location of the building and tenants. This would impact any new zonings coming forward or plans that would be submitted on some of the properties that do not have a plan that specifies building size, tenant size The majority of the buildings then are on 114 atabout what crossroads? Southlake Blvd., Kimball, Carroll Ave. o On the map of existing buildings, what is the large building? Gateway Church. Primarily developed for churchusebutthe zoning they are o under does permit C-3 uses. QUESTIONS / CONCERNS for item 2-Revisionsto Subdivision Ord. No. 483: None QUESTIONS / CONCERNS for item 3-Revisions toSign Ord. No. 704-G: Newer buildings in Town Square? Town Square has a master plan. Our sign ordinance would allow signage floor by o floor if each individual tenant has frontage and or lease space width on the frontage of the building. Town Square has its own rules so what you are proposing would be for someof the other two or three story buildings going up off Kimball? Town Square recently had a multi-story building approved on the 114 frontage, o so that particular building and area is not included in the Town Square master plan so they would need to come inand addressan amendment to that. Concerned about some of the recent signs that have been approved. Question the guidelines being looked at moving forward Currently have a set of guidelines; it does leave quite a bit of discretion with the o City Council as it stands nowas tohow the master sign plan would be put together. As a citizen what needs to be done to raise visibility to the current signage process in place? Any comments you would have would be well received at the public hearings. o SPIN Meeting Reports are general observations of SPIN Meetings by City staff and SPIN Representatives. The report is neither verbatim nor official meeting minutes; rather it serves to inform elected and appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues and questions raised by residents and the general responses made.Responses as summarized in this report should not be taken as guarantees by the applicant.Interested parties are strongly encouraged to follow the case through the Planning and ZoningCommission and final action by City Council.