2017-09-12 Meeting Report (Ordinance 480-XXXX & 483-Q) JUSOUTHLAKE
SPIN MEETING REPORT
SPIN Item Number: SPIN2017-28
Project Name: Ordinance 480-XXXX &483-Q
SPIN Neighborhood: Citywide
Meeting Date: September 12, 2017
Meeting Location: 1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX
City Council Chambers
Total Attendance: Three (3)
Host: Jerod Potts
Applicant Presenting: Dennis Killough — Deputy Director of Planning and Development
Services
City Staff Present: Jerod Potts— Policy& Strategic Initiative Principal Planner
Dennis Killough — Deputy Director of Planning and Development
Services
Attached to the end of this report are the Southlake Connect Results for the September 12, 2017 SPIN
Town Hall Forum
Town Hall Forums can be viewed in their entirety by visiting http://www.cityofsouthlake.com and clicking
on "Learn More" under Video On Demand; forums are listed under SPIN by meeting date.
FORUM SUMMARY:
Property Situation:
• Citywide
Development Details:
• Zoning ordinance amendment proposal is intended to provide clarification
regarding lot coverage and accessory building area as well as address some
accessory uses not currently listed for residential properties
• Look to move approval for portable buildings from Special Exception Use (SEU)
to Specific Use Permit (SUP)
• Intending to establish a minimum threshold for increase of intensity of use on a
particular property that would dictate when sidewalks are required and provide
City Council variance authority for that regulation
• Amendment will also address miscellaneous corrections
• Currently accessory use and accessory building maximum area is listed under lot
coverage for the residential districts, however this provides some confusion
based on how lot coverage is actually calculated — amendment would provide
clarification on how the regulations are applied
• Pergolas do not count towards lot coverage or maximum accessory area allowed
in a residential district
• There are some accessory uses and structures that have become common that
are not currently listed in the accessory use provisions, and therefore do not
have a clear set of regulations
• This amendment would add fireplaces /fire pits to be permitted accessories in
residential districts and will dictate they be permitted in any yard on the property
but they be a minimum of at least 10 feet from any combustible materials or
structures (as determined by the fire marshal)
• This would also allow outdoor kitchens to be in any side or rear yard as long as
they are not forward of the principal structure
• Would add flag poles to be permitted in any district also in any yard subject to
whatever maximum height is for that particular district
• Clarify setbacks for accessory buildings if underlying district sets a lesser
standard
• Would establish that any structure over eight (8) feet would need to be set back
at least 10 feet off of a property boundary, which would hold true for an outdoor
kitchen as well (if there is a covering or structure that exceeds eight (8) feet
• Currently portable buildings require ZBA approval through an SEU — proposing
this be removed from this section and be placed under SUP section which would
require City Council approval
• Regarding sidewalks, currently, any project requiring City Council approval of a
site plan requires that sidewalks installed if not already installed — right now there
is no threshold that dictates a measure of when that is required. This revision
would add a threshold such that any project proposing a 20% increase in existing
floor area or existing parking would be required to install sidewalks at that point.
• Currently, City Council does not have variance authority in the zoning ordinance
when looking at a site plan. This amendment would add City Council variance
authority to grant variances where there may be practical difficulties when
installing a sidewalk
• Have had section changes — and there are some sections in the zoning
ordinance that have not been updated
• Amendment to the subdivision ordinance addresses a Tier 1 recommendation
within the Mobility Master Plan which recommends amending relevant
ordinances to remove any exemptions for sidewalks and to specify that all
minimum sidewalk widths be at least five feet
• Currently in the subdivision ordinance, single lot residential subdivisions are
exempt from being required to install sidewalks with home construction unless
there is a sidewalk on both sides of the lot, or if the subdivision is within 1,500
feet of a public or private school and is on the same side of the street — this
amendment would remove that exemption
• Also, the subdivision ordinance specifies the minimum sidewalk width shall be
four (4) feet and this proposal would change that minimum to five (5) feet
• P&Z Commission recommended approval of both items as presented on
September 7, 2017
• Items are going to City Council September 19th for first reading, and if approved
would go to second reading and Public Hearing on October 5th
Exhibits presented at SPIN:
u,�,y,�
i%f,
/
SOUTHLAKE
11Y
Zoning OrdinanceAmendments
/
/
I
I
f Proposeld
g I +rd!ii"M!an I 'm 480
. CAmdY'Lot C w ar "a "Cumulative ssorykee for r ° ' nta ry,baiftrqfs,,
am'm, st'rucwres,�
Addresssocessory structums'N0.1Pt P.wINt'a tulkfinp (lo I r iM1^hE'M .. n6, fire, t#,
-Move royal Il t ta} Ib` , IIs from SoecW ExWtkm Use sectibn tol'Spedfic,Use /i/
* Estabfish,th for sidewalk requirementsand pmvide CAy C IwI;am a
Correct miu*lwneous section 1ref emtces,
,
V
9 �
la
a*w*Q*s to mmomm Moog
i
llwxw 1w,
We AWma
OW MOM'40 SO of nW 11MIV,
i
i
r
✓i /// /��i/l r/�%% l�)lIN
cft tr&xemM,WOOp It' / i
mulg cmaml VMS a m*WMW?l
AN r fw, 131 Uel in MeV, OW
Ji
MI/Ell/
/viii/moi/ r %
1
On, '„
z
ftw am rme furaef Of
a s
til - CRI cojvst taw wwm mow,
"
q rrr.
rII
'
1111
imam mJ ' �,", '� �m�u� �� � � � �� � o
Se
2
d
Section 319.6"'Screening and F m"m l incf Non-Residentiall DistrictsChan l
reference from Section 39.6b to,Section 39Z&
Section 45 S dt c Use Pei s", Correct refererice,numbers tD correspond
h current re, and a e r in, Iconsecui�,e
i
�r�r r�rrr
%%�� �, ,,,,,,,,, ,. �'111fSSti4tititillllllll�llll�llll�llll�ll�l�llllllll111111111111����
y.,r rig,,,,,,
Liar
i
r
11
11Y
S(DUTHLAKE
----------------------
-------------
f/iiir„ o
%iSubdivisioh O a
endmehitsrNr�/ii ,
Iir
I�w
I V ,
r
i
IIV I i
� ���r�� rr I iou>1�Immooi��mn�inl�ut ���
%W01!9�eW.W��iJw Nq�19D�M�w�i lVll�M�S ',A�NWH1�y,91�DUU9NUU14NU1r
ro ,m�wwervols�r vwn�vr"1�i�!�uwam�wi, 'quppmry �Lf /ii///
�U�rv�fi,a�uo<u'�lb�i,U�re WimtiumN Tuw�uNa�wUAwnmwpunwwlxro�w; %///���
auwwu;��www����iwlrrowA� Nro� w r�>mulo7NrF aU�o �uww�wwa�Rwua�
ft',N �tlmnolumim�:w^,an!iwwUan nnmo�oi�6�m 000w MUCfi 'W�N!�w;W `diw�N sw i� �I;>I,,��r f���
2030 Mobility Master Plan
rm+�vwr�wu,aw�m �wuiwmrm�i�aro7,ntlua�rvuwuuwwv,w,.
nhddUJfv��91IM,yW�IV 'rl w;��/+'H1Wy 1�+1� 19U`0'S7� 0 '"O1V b1N OUOgtr+Nft"wfUg
�kFU�lUw�w'NP](Wwrr!h'�!�/aU1w�i',Nf9M�fCNr+'wJwq, 'lV,�,wpw ID rY/N :
ZZ&,m,wmfooU'rri
"Y rm�n,xs^�W,
�r
-�mr�V+wixas,G^
�iwm>moIDI1�9N,^,w�Wi�� �rerxr�wM�w;�waKo ➢a;Wv,7W
rv,w,vr Yof k o�r ft,
OfwPuvIWImN)Avfw�w wra nit'nt! Pw iu,^rlrUl� iw!'
�WU^Ute'ice',roU-U�ei4NuuvU IW -Nf ul�» '1r OWW fu OAffi "
I VNf� �iwdwNWUNwr�uw' Nro+% MN WN'd'b:DUlfd i'o'y�'iDitUfl'N�! '�, a'"'WwAkom w
' ImO Ofo0f%*lam r Iwuiiui (w"i v, �twawnfAt rcl
wHVd��il "' "N,�V41Nd�'�bMU 'Niu" (tl�C�w'/;�'N4#
ro�eniu��r�mrolu�� tul
xemptions
8.21.1), EXEMPTIONIS %
froI
�f
I �
Set Minimum Sidewalk
C,1 SIS SII SIE AND LOCATIONi%
Si dew al k Siz anii Lcal n s, ill s I eMINI a s 1 l ,s , /
feet Wide or in conformance with the Trwrl Systems Master IPlan,
whichever is greater, an shall Ike located Ibetw,een thecurb, or gradel Imre
the publIc street and the ROW kne or putlicaccess easement if
approvedIbythe city, nol dos eranfeet the curb or grade lila
The City Engineer r Building Offilcial may alIter alignmerd sothatthe !f�
,SII alk meanderswithin the area rb an "r =
liars.
1
P Z Action
i
I „
�'�, ��
l ( !%
September �" � �� Planning� and Ill
Commission ' cSIImend approval both r ite s
as presented.
1
U�.............. ,,......
111%i;
,l
j/
F S(DUTHLAKE,
fes/
Qpe i�on;s7
Sti
QUESTIONS /CONCERNS:
• Is an encroachment agreement considered City Council site plan?
o No — a site plan is a specific application that addresses some site
improvement on a piece of property which is required by ordinance to go
to City Council before a permit could be issued
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 Zoning Commission and final action by City Council.
Southlake Connect Results for the September 12, 2017 SPIN Town Hall Forum
I VIN T111 I Fo— S 12,20117
Detailed NotificatIon Analysis
SPIN Town Hall ForLIM-Septemlov 12,2017
5-,D- I Vl-I Al
.........
M in t '0 W,
D—I-
T—I
'�-'y SIMI 24V"
"10"'-'0 I.."A.......... W 15�i6
4 y"Ok",
WKW,—I
..........I...........I..... ......
NzDe1-11,1 d5 G JkPl
I P"Ih N"M4, 0 9u1'
002
I'M11,
10,
A..O TI— D.W.w 14.m.d AII—pI I A..pl 2 A"I 3 A..pt 4 All—P,6 A..pl 6 A—pl 7 A—ptl 8 T—I,
.......... 0 Q
1; 11 15 a f f1
3 0 G Sr f, I
MINI,- A" ij d 0 0 1G
id-I H I
ri ij 2i rr7n-nn
?f I r UP I I "IDU I 1`l"S C, 6 0 13 Q C' (3
4"51"IS 1. U 0 0 a I� 0 0 0
i, 4 1, U 11 1) 11
tl"�innaluy 4d hi H� r, 0 G 11 "1 0 (." (11
srV I IT"I'd I�' Q 0 G 0 0 411 0
PI 0 1 0 0 f,
B Aim. G 0 r 0 1,
Mi
0