1999-12-02 Joint P&Z/CC PacketCity of Southlake, Texas
11
JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORK SESSION
DATE: DECEMBER 2, 1999
LOCATION: 667 North Carroll Avenue, Southlake, Texas.
City Council Chambers of City Hall.
WORK SESSION: 6:30 P.M.
1. Call to Order.
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pursuant to Section 551.071, Texas Government Code, the Council
and Commission may meet in executive session to consult with the City Attorney regarding matters
authorized by Section 551.071, including matters posted on this agenda.
i
A. Section 551.071 - Consultation with Attorney
1. Receive legal advise related to conflict of interest
2. Receive legal advise related to Specific Use Permits
3. Legal issues relating to liability arising from Planning and Zoning decisions
4. Avigation Easements
5. Carroll/1709 LTD. vs. the Board of Adjustments of the City of Southlake
6. Legal issues related to site plan consideration
B. Reconvene: Action necessary on items discussed in executive session.
RECONVENE WORK SESSION: 7:30 P.M.
3. Discussion: C.I.S.D. Development Applications / Issues.
4. Discussion: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments as recommended by the Planning and
- - Zoning Commission and Staff, including site plan approval, district uses, and SP-
1 & SP-2 Zoning Districts.
5. Discussion: Ordinance No. 480-HH, Outside Storage and Screening regulations.
6. Discussion: Ordinance No. 4804I, Carport and Parking Garage regulations in non-residential
districts.
7. Discussion: Potential City -initiated Rezonings based on 1997 Land Use Plan ("LUP") Update.
8. Meeting Adjourned.
City of Southlake, Texas -
Joint City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session
December 2, 1999
Page Two
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the above agenda was posted on the official bulletin boards at the Administration
Building, 1725 E. Southlake Blvd., and City Hall, 667 North Carroll Avenue, Southlake, Texas, on
Wednesday, November 24, 1999 at 5:00 p.m., pursuant to the Texas Government Code, Chapter 551.
NIN
r �tR
Sandra L. LeGrand =U k
:a
City Secretary •''•••.......•••'� C2
ON
If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disabiliry that III III
re needs, please advise the City Secretary 48 hours in advance at 481-5581
extension 704, and reasonable accommodations will be made to assist you.
Y
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
November 18, 1999
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Planning and Zoning Commissioners
Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator, ext. 743
Potential Amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 480
Action Requested: Consideration of 1) whether or not to amend the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance No. 480, addressing the issues recommended by the Planning
and Zoning Commission as listed in a letter from City Attorney Debra
Drayovitch and those recommended by Staff and as listed in the attached
memorandum or 2) whether or not to undertake a comprehensive re -write
of the zoning ordinance.
Background
Information: The major issues appear to be as follow:
• S-P-1 and S-P-2 zoning districts;
• Substantial conformance;
• Time limitations for concept and site plans and greater discretion in
their approvals; and
• Elimination of antiquated uses or the relocation of certain uses to other
districts
Legal Reviews: None required at this time.
Financial
Considerations: If the comprehensive re -write of the zoning ordinance is undertaken, the
estimated cost according to one planning consultant could be between
$80,000 and $100,000.
Alternatives: Amend Ordinance No. 480.
Supporting
Documents: City Attorney Debra Drayovitch's letter listing the Commission's
recommended changes
Memorandum from Karen Gandy listing ordinance changes recommended
by Staff
\\SLKSV4001\L,OCAL\C0MMUNITY DEVELOPMFNT\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\480-CHANGES_ MEMO.DOC
'TAYLOR, OLSON, ADKINS, SRALLA & ELAM, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
500 THROCKMORTON STREET
3400 BANK ONE TOWER
fir- FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102-3821
DEBRA A. DRAYOVITCH
e-mail: dad@toaselaw.usa.rum
extension: 224
n
October 18, 1999
[Via Facsimile Transmission
and First Class U.S. Mail]
Karen Gandy
Interim Director of Community Development
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
1725 E. Southlake Blvd.
Southlake, Texas 76092
Re: Proposed Changes to Zoning Ordinance
Dear Karen:
TELEPHONE (817) 332-2580
TOLL FREE (800) 318-3400
FAX (817) 332-4740
In order to prepare for tomorrow's meeting, I went back over my notes from the
three meetings at which the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed changes to the
Zoning Ordinance. I compiled the following list of items that the Commission wants to be
explored and addressed:
1. Adopt site Plan zoning for all retail and commercial uses;
2. Vest in the City Council the ability to grant variances to the Zoning Ordinance
prospectively;
3. Amend C-2 and C-3 uses;
4. Eliminate S-P-2 Zoning category;
5. Establish limitations, time and other limits, upon the issuance of Specific Use
Permits;
6. Grant discretion in site plan approval;
7. Amend determination of substantial compliance o be rnade by administrative
official, planning and zoning commission, and city council;
8. Establish duration of concept plan, development plan and site plan;
9. Use form for waiver of 30 day requirement for plat approval; and
10. Make undesirable uses non -conforming.
RECD OCT 211999
Karen Gandy
October 18, 1999
Page 2
``"' This list does not include changes more minor in nature, such as:
Address flag lots;
2. Address side yard variances;
3. Address radial lot lines; and
4. Revise requirements for curvilinear streets.
If I have omitted some of the requested topics, or misstated them, please let me
I. ... ; al. e, -.,5 'tl "curl -fish ahi I�..a r._� ei...n r i a l r_ '. meeting.
knc�:. .t ei-vviPse, I T. this list o VVa � �e or wsa al to i o tov'1� s i eetin.J. .
Sincerely,
lev,
Debra A. Drayovitch
DAD:Imh
H:\LIBRARY\Southlake\LETTERS\Gandy.dO9.wpd
I AGENDA ITEM #8, DISCUSSION OF ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO
f 2 SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE NO.483 AND ZONING ORDINANCE NO.480, AND
3 AGENDA ITEM #9, CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO
4 SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE NO. 483 AND ZONING ORDINANCE NO.480:
5 The Commission began by discussing Vice -Chairman Peebles' list of proposed changes to the
6 Zoning Ordinance.
7
8 Ms. Drayovitch said Item #1 (Section 2.1 — Any provisions of this ordinance may be waived or
9 modified by the City Council) has some legal issues. She said it will involve a detailed decision on
10 the part of the City Council.
11
12 The Commission discussed Item #2 (Section 10.2.b. I (b) — change to read as follows: a contiguous
13 area of not less than five (5) acres unless approved by the City Council). They also discussed the
14 possibility of creating an intermediate zoning category between "SF -IA" and "RE." The
15 Commission agreed to eliminate Item #2 and Item #8 for the time being.
16
17 The Commission discussed Item #3 (elimination of Section 12 — "SF -I B ") and Item #4 (elimination
18 of Section 15 — "SF-20B "). The Commission agreed to eliminate Items #3 and #4 for now.
19
20 Chairman Creighton said site plan zoning is her number one priority.
21
22 Chairman Creighton said there would be an Executive Session held in order to seek legal advice
23 regarding the power of the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the authority of the City Council with
24 respect to the issue of variances pursuant to Section 551.071, Texas Local Government Code. The
25 Executive Session started at 9:44 p.m. and ended at 9:50 p.m. Chairman Creighton called the
26 meeting back to order and asked the City Attorney if there was any action necessary as a result of
27 the Executive Session, and the City Attorney said no.
28
29 (Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 10-07-99, tape 1, section #5112)
30
31 Vice -Chairman Peebles said Item #11 (Section 41.4 — If, in the opinion of the Administrative
32 Official, the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the City Council, the site plan...) is his number
33 one priority.
34
35 Ms. Drayovitch said she likes what Vice -Chairman Peebles wrote in Item #10 (Section 40.8 —
36 Failure to ... within 12 months of the granting of the application by City Council shall void any
37 approval of the City Council of that application and no permits or certificates may be issued by the
38 city.) She said the language may need to be changed a little, but it is consistent with what they have
39 recommended to all of their clients.
40
41 Vice -Chairman Peebles said he was not sure what should follow "failure to..." and said he did not
42 know what would be appropriate. The Commission discussed the possibility of adding the language
43 "failure to pull a permit..." and decided that would probably accomplish the goal. Ms. Drayovitch
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on October 7, 1999 Page 8 of 13
I said they would work on that wording.
2
3 Ms. Gandy said if the city has site plan zoning, it is her understanding zoning runs with the land, and
4 she did not think a time limit could be placed on zoning. She said that is her question regarding site
5 plan zoning versus zoning with site plan limitations.
6
7 Regarding time limits, Ms. Drayovitch said the new statute imposes limitations on when the time
8 limits can be done. On existing site plans, she said time limitations can be placed now but cannot
9 be effective until May 2004.
10
11 The Commission agreed to leave Item #7 (elimination of Section 32 — "S-P-2') on the list.
12
13 Vice -Chairman Peebles said he is going to make a motion that includes a resolution to City Council,
14 and it will include Items #7, #9, #10, #11, and #12 from his list. He said these items are important,
15 and he wants them taken care of fast.
16
17 Chairman Creighton said she will not support any motion that does not include amendment of the
18 "C-2" uses.
19
20 The Commission discussed Item #6 (Section 21.2 — eliminate or amend several permitted uses in
21 C-2).
22
23 Vice -Chairman Peebles said the "C-2" changes are going to be far reaching and will take longer than
24 the other changes.
25
26 Regarding Vice -Chairman Peebles' suggestion of limiting day nurseries to 25 children,
27 Commissioner Boutte asked if a size limitation based on number of children should be placed in the
28 ordinance or would that be over -ridden by the State of Texas regulations based on square footage
29 per child.
30
31 Chairman Creighton suggested amending day cares to be allowed only by S.U.P., but she said she
32 is not sure what zoning category is appropriate - "C-2" or "C-3."
33
34 Commissioner Horne said he believes there are some neighborhoods that may be in favor of having
35 a day care adjacent to them.
36
37 Chairman Creighton said that is why she thinks requiring an S.U.P. in the "C-2" zoning district may
38 be appropriate.
39
40 Commissioner Horne agreed with that but said he did not want to place a restriction on the number
41 of children allowed.
42
43 Commissioner Boutte expressed his concern about fast food, drive -through types of restaurants being
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on October 7, 1999 Page 9 of 13
I allowed in "C-2".
.. 2
3 Ms. Gandy asked the Commission if they are primarily concerned about the drive -through aspect
4 or restaurants in general.
5
6 (Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 10-07-99, tape 1, section #7102)
7
8 Regarding the piece of land between The Village at Timarron and Rockenbaugh, Commissioner
9 Boutte said he would not want to restrict a restaurant such as Tuscany or Just Java, but he would not
10 want to see a Burger King there.
11
12 Ms. Gandy suggested leaving the restaurants where they are and creating an S.U.P. requirement for
13 drive-throughs.
14
15 Commissioner Boutte questioned what is meant by "financial institutions." He said having a use that
16 open-ended makes him nervous.
17
18 Chairman Creighton said there would probably be some merit in discussing all of these "C-2" issues
19 at the Joint Work Session with City Council.
20
21 Motion was made to approve a Resolution stating the following:
22
23 Whereas a number of issues have been presented in the development of our City that call into
24 question a number of the provisions contained in the Zoning Ordinance;
25 Whereas the importance of changing these particular items outweighs the need for a
26 comprehensive review of the Zoning Ordinance;
27 Whereas the changes needed to the Zoning Ordinance to effectuate significant change to the
28 development of the City are slight;
29 Now, therefore, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Southlake does hereby
30 make the following recommendations for change to the Zoning Ordinance to the Southlake
31 City Council:
32 1. 2.1 (added language) — Any provisions of this ordinance may be waived or modified by
33 the City Council.
34 7. Eliminate Section 32 (S-P-2).
35 9. Amend 40.4.c to read: "as appropriate, may take into consideration any factor that it is
36 legally entitled to consider." Eliminate Items 1 — 8.
37 10.40.8 (new section) — Failure to ... within 12 months of the granting of the application by
38 City Council shall void any approval of the City Council of that application and no
39 permits or certificates may be issued by the city. (He asked staff and attorneys to provide
40 appropriate language.)
41 11. 41.4 — If, in the opinion of the Administrative Official, the Planning and Zoning
42 Commission, or the City Council, the site plan...
43 12. 41.4.b (new section) — Failure to submit a development plan or site plan in accordance
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on October 7, 1999 Page 10 of 13
I with Section 40 within 12 months of the approval of the Concept Plan by City Council
2 shall void any approval of the City Council and another concept plan, development plan,
3 or site plan must be submitted for approval before any permits or certificates may be
4 issued by the city.
5
6 Motion: Peebles
7 Second: Shankland
8
9 Ms. Drayovitch suggested that the Commission discuss with City Council in the Joint Work Session
10 the ability to impose conditions (i.e.: duration) on S.U.P.s. She said they may want to make that
11 language clear in the ordinance because it is not in there currently.
12
13 Vice -Chairman Peebles asked Ms. Drayovitch if she is comfortable with the language he suggested
14 for Section 40.4.c and the elimination of Items 1 - 8 in that section.
15
16 Chairman Creighton said there would be an Executive Session held in order to seek the advice of
17 the City Attorney pursuant to Section 551.071, Texas Local Government Code, regarding matters
18 posted on this agenda and including Agenda Items #7, 8, and 9. The Executive Session started at
19 10:50 p.m. and ended at 10:55 p.m. Chairman Creighton called the meeting back to order and asked
20 the City Attorney if there was any action necessary as a result of the Executive Session, and the City
21 Attorney said no.
22
23 (Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 10-07-99, tape 2, section #0676)
24
25 Vice -Chairman Peebles said he would like to remove Item #9, Section 40.4.c, from the Resolution.
26 He said the reason he is removing Items #2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 is because he feels Items #7, 10, 11,
27 and 12 are important enough and simple enough to go ahead and act on them.
28
29 Chairman Creighton asked if the Commission has the ability and the authority to pass a resolution.
30 Ms. Drayovitch said the Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission has never passed a resolution
31 in its history, but she sees no legal reason why they cannot. She said the Commission is a
32 governmental body who has final authority on plats, but she wants them to know this is a first. She
33 said it is a very appropriate way to express their intent to the City Council.
34
35 Ayes: Shankland, King, Horne, Boutte, Peebles, Creighton
36 Nays: None
37 Approved: 6-0
38 Motion carried.
39
40 (Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 10-07-99, tape 2, section #0781)
41
42 The Commission discussed the Priority Ranking Form for Proposed Ordinance Amendments. Each
43 Commissioner ranked ordinance changes from high priority to low priority in preparation for the
,,,, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on October 7, 1999 Page 11 of 13
M
MEMORANDUM
November 18, 1999
TO:
Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM:
Karen P. Gandy, Zoning Administrator
SUBJECT:
Recommended Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance
Zoning Ordinance No. 480
Page
Section Priority Item
3-1
3.1 4 Administration and Enforcement - Administration and Enforcement
- Administrative Official
3-1
3.2 4 Administration and Enforcement - Complaints Regarding Violations
- Administrative Official
3-1
3.3 4 Administration and Enforcement - Building Permits Required - Permit
- Administrative Official
4-1
4.2 4 Definitions - Administrative Official
The above noted references should be clarified with regard to the
issue of "the" administrative official versus "an" administrative
official (state statute).
4-1
4.2 3 Definitions - Accessory Building or Use
Need a separate definition for each of these. Second sentence appears
to allow an attached garage to be considered as part of the living area
and would seem to allow a home occupation to use this space.
4-2
4.2 4 Definitions — Breezeway — "A breezeway shall" be considered an
accessory building." Delete this reference to conform to the building
department definition.
Check with Chuck to see if any changes to the definition are needed
nonconforming. The Board of Adjustment feels that it is onerous on the
property owner to pay for a variance to remedy a situation that was legal at
the time it was constructed.
6-2 6.5 4 Nonconforming Structures - Address the issue that if a structure's
nonconformity in only in one yard, the structure may be increased in size
if no further encroachment occurs and is in compliance with the other yard
requirements.
9-1 2 "AG" - Address the issue if the property is zoned "AG," is less than 10 acres,
and wants to build either a primary or an accessory structure. What lot
coverage do we use? Do we determine if an "AG" exemption exists on the
property or base the coverage on the size of the tract?
9-2
9.5 (i)
2
Maximum Residential Density - "AG"
10-3
10.5 (i)
2
Maximum Residential Density - "RE"
11-2
11.5(i)
2
Maximum Residential Density - "SF -IA"
13-2
13.5(i)
2
Maximum Residential Density - "SF-30"
14-2
14.5(i)
2
Maximum Residential Density - "SF-20A"
16-2
16.5(i)
2
Maximum Residential Density - "MF-1"
17-2
17.5(h)
2
Maximum Residential Density - "MF-2"
Revise the densities to reflect the actual density derived when the minimum
lot size for the district is developed.
10-3 10.5 g. 2 "RE" Development Regulations - g. Lot Dimensions
Several variance requests to the 300' minimum width and depth
requirements have been referred to the Board of Adjustment. As land has
been subdivided over time, some of the parcels meet the 5 acre minimum,
but have difficulty meeting the width and/or depth requirement of the "RE"
district.
11-2 11.5 e. 1 "SF -IA" Development Regulations - e. Maximum Lot Coverage - Accessory
Bldg.
Due to the number of Special Exception Use Permits requested from the
Board of Adjustment for "SF -IA" lots over one acre, I recommend that the
previous language be reinstated to allow 1,000 s.f. per acre (with fractions
being rounded to the nearest 10 feet).
13-2
13.6
1
"Concept Plan"
- (SF-30 District)
14-2
F
14.6
1
"Concept Plan"
- (SF-20A District)
24-5
24.6
1
"Concept Plan"
- (B-1 District)
25-5
25.6
1
"Concept Plan"
- (B-2 District)
28-2
28.6
1
"Concept Plan"
- (HC District)
fin..
4-10 4.2b,c 2 Definitions - Lot - Revise
4-10 4.2 1 Definitions - Lot Coverage - Revise by adding "... excluding driveways,
sidewalks" (which is the current interpretation).
4-11 4.2 1 Definitions - Lot Frontage - Major work needed to insure consistency
between definitions of frontage, lot frontage, front yard.
4-11 4.2 b.c. 2 Definitions - Lot Measurements - b. Depth, c. Width
4-12
4.2
4-13
4.2
4-14
4.2
4-15
4.2
�Wl
4-15
4.2
4-15
4.2
4-17
4.2
4-18
4.2
4-18
4.2
4-18
4.2
Section 6
(b) Revise to match current interpretation;
(c) revise "width" to be measured at front property line and providing a
minimum "width" for cul-de-sac lots (also measured at the front property
line).
4 Definitions - Lot Types - C is a through lot. Should it be noted that this type
of lot is not permitted.
4 Definitions - Parking Space Ratio: Evaluate the need for this definition
4 Definitions - Quarry or Mining - Add "Drilling" to the definition.
2 Definitions - Servants and Family Quarters - Amend this definition changing
the emphasis to "use" and making it an extension of the primary use rather
than accessory as stated. This will be consistent with WKO opinion.
2 Definitions - Setback - Amend to limit definition to "Front" or describe
setbacks in general.
4 Definitions - Sign - Make sure that there are no inconsistencies with
Ordinance No. 506-A.
1 Definitions - Yard, Front - Major work needed to insure consistency between
definitions of frontage, lot frontage, front yard.
1 Definitions - Yard, Rear - Simplify the language and address five -sided lots,
triangular lots, etc. (Correct page numbers for drawings.)
1 Definitions - Yard, Side - Simplify the language and address five -sided lots,
triangular lots, etc.
1 Definitions - Zero lot line - Add definition. Address this issue as it pertains
to commercial lots, especially within a commercial development.
3 Nonconforming Structures - Address the issue when a structure was
constructed legally (met setbacks, lot area, height, etc. of the ordinance at
the time) and due to ordinance revisions it is now considered
to conform to the current building department policy.
4-5 4.2 2 Definitions - Add - Density, Residential
Add this definition stating that it is calculated by using the gross
acreage, not net acreage; however, must address adjacent streets (i.e.
Lonesome Dove Estates and Versailles).
4-5 4.2 3 Definitions - Dwelling, Manufactured
Add this definition to address the statutory difference between mobile and
manufactured housing.
4-6
4.2
4-6
4.2
4-7
4.2
4-7
4.2
4-8
4.2
4-8
4.2
4-8
4.2
4-9
4.2.
1 Definitions - Front Yard/Floor Area
To correct the alphabetization of floor area and front yard.
1 Definitions - Frontage - Major work needed to insure consistency between
definitions of frontage, lot frontage, front yard (especially the issue of
corner lots - side of least dimension and 80% rule).
3 Definitions - Garage, Private (Residential)
Compare with accessory building definition to insure no inconsistencies.
4 Definitions - Garage Sales
Delete reference or establish a permitting and enforcement procedure.
3 Definitions - Grades - Add exhibit(s) for clarification from the
Applications/Interpretations Manual, U.B.C. '91 Edition
2 Definitions - Grazing animals - Add definition. Also review the provisions
of the Animal Control Ordinance and ensure that they do not conflict. Need
to address pigs (all kinds), chickens, ostriches, emus, llamas, etc. in the
zoning ordinance.
2 Definitions - Height of Building - Add exhibit(s) from
Applications/Interpretations Manual, U.B.C. '91 Edition.
3 Definitions - Home Occupation - Add'h" stating that a C.O. be required. Add
this entire definition to Accessory Use Section (34). We have a policy that
requires the C.O. for health, safety, and general welfare concerns and to
keep record of businesses for sales tax purposes.
41-1 41.2
1 "Application" - Concept Plan
Add the following language to the noted section or create a new section:
"The Concept Plan shall be processed with the same notice requirement as
changes in zoning as provided in this ordinance and state law."
14-2 14.5 e.
4 "SF-20A" Development Regulations - e. Maximum Lot Coverage - 600 Sq.
Ft. (increase?)
Although few variances have been requested, the builders get around this
requirement by attaching the garage via a breezeway to the main dwelling
in order to build a larger garage. If this causes no concern, no change is
recommended.
14-2 14.6
1 Add the following language to SF-20A district regarding concept plan
approval.
"All properties zoned at the effective date of this ordinance which do not
have an approved Concept Plan on file with the City shall submit a Concept
Plan meeting the requirements of Section 41 of this ordinance prior to, or
in conjunction with, submittal of a preliminary plat.
The Concept Plan shall be processed with the same notice requirement as
changes in zoning as provided in this ordinance and state law."
17-2 17.5 h.
4 "MF-2" Development Regulations - h. Maximum Residential Density -
dwelling units.
Does the maximum number of 12 units/acre need to be revised in areas with
sanitary sewer so as not to draw possible judicial review (e.g., exclusionary
zoning)?
18-1 18.1
2 "O-1" Purpose and Intent - quality and appearance, design exterior
appearance, etc.
19-1 19.1
2 "0-2" Purpose and Intent - high site quality and appearance, etc.
Are the required setbacks sufficient for a possible 6-story structure?
Due to the probable location being on one of the major corridors, especially
Hwy. No. 114, consideration should be given to any inconsistencies
between this language, the corridor overlay requirements and residential
adjacency.
20-1 20.1
2 "C-1" Purpose and Intent - "appropriate thoroughfares, coordinated
architecture, landscaping and screening," etc.
20-3
20.5 k.
3
"C-1" Development Regulations - k. Off-street vehicle parking spaces
21-5
21.5 k.
3
"C-2" Development Regulations - k. Off-street vehicle parking spaces
22-4
22.5 k.
3
"C-3" Development Regulations - k. Off-street vehicle parking spaces
23-3
23.5 n.
3
"C-3" Development Regulations - n. Off-street vehicle parking spaces
24-4
24.5 j.
3
"B-1" Development Regulations - j. Off-street vehicle parking spaces
26-4
26.5 k.
3
"I- V Development Regulations - k. off-street vehicle parking spaces
27-7
27.5 k.
3
"I-2" Development Regulations - k. off-street vehicle parking spaces
35-8
35-10 c.
3
Off -Street Parking Req. - Parking and Storage of Vehicles
If parking is to continue in the front yard, we may wish to require berms or
at least a hedge row to soften the effect of vehicles facing the street.
21-1 21.2-11 1 "Cleaning, dying, and pressing works and laundries not exceeding 3, 000
square feet"
This provision should have been deleted when Ord. 480-0 was approved to
allow 3,500 s.f. limit. Replace #12 with the language in #3.
21-2 21.2-25 3 "Grocery stores and meat markets without size limitations."
The district regulations in section 21.5-f limit the size of structures to a
maximum of 40,000 sq. ft. The phrase without size limitations should be
deleted to avoid any confusion.
22-1 22.1 2 "C-3" Purpose and Intent - "It is not anticipated that this district will be
placed contiguous to or in direct proximity to residential zoning districts."
This language would seem to infer that Arvida's commercial zoning was
improperly located due to the adjacency of the residential lotting. We
should delete this language or amend is such a way to provide a "back door"
should this or a similar situation bring a challenge. Perhaps specific
provisions coming forth with the "Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance"
will eliminate the need for such language or will at least add "teeth" to the
enforcement.
22-4 22.5 g. 3 "C-3" Development Regulations - g. selling new merchandise only
This language should also be mentioned in the Purpose and Intent section
so that it is not overlooked.
22-4 22.5 j. 3 "C-3" Development Regulations - j. Outdoor storage of trash receptacles
This and all other district references to trash receptacles should reference
Section 39 so that conflicting requirements do not occur.
23-1 23.2 "C-4" Permitted Uses -Change the permitted use from traditional shopping
malls (i.e. Grapevine Mills, Northeast Mall, etc.) to superstores and big box
retail.
24-1 24.1 2 "B-1" Purpose and Intent - compatible with adjacent single family uses
Again, this language concerns me because it seems to imply regulations that
are not in the ordinance... this may sound good, but it can't be enforced as
written.
24-5 24.51. 2 "B-1 " Development Regulations -1. Roof mounted equipment
"Adequately screened" needs further amplification (parapet wall, etc.?)
This section should be added to all office, commercial, and industrial
districts, including the "HC" district . There needs to be consistent
language between the corridor overlay and residential adjacency
requirements.
24-5 24.5 in. 4 "B-1" Development Regulations - in. Off -Street Parking
All references to screening requirements should be listed in Section 39 of
the ordinance with a note to "see Section 39." This will eliminate
duplications and inconsistencies.
24-5 24.5 n. 2 "B-1" Development Regulations - n. No loading space
(W
All references to loading requirements should be listed in Section 36 of the
ordinance with a note to "see Section 36." This will eliminate duplications
and inconsistencies. Attention should be given to the corridor overlay and
residential adjacency requirements.
24-5 24-5 o. 4 "B-1" Development Regulations - "o. 40% of total lot area shall be open
space" Is there a conflict with the 70% o impervious coverage on a single
lot?
This section needs to be included with the lot coverage section ("e") to
avoid being overlooked.
25-1 25.1 3 "B-2" Purpose and Intent - proximity to residential zoning, etc.
There appears to be some incongruity with the name of the district and the
description of the district in the "Purpose and Intent." Is the district
"commercial" or "industrial?"
Where do these uses fit on the Land Use Plan?
0 What are and where are "environmentally sensitive areas" located?
25-1 25.2a.1 4 "B-2" Permitted Uses: "Any retail establishment which sells used or
previously owned merchandise with the exception of bona fide antique
R
dealers or dealerships and used motor vehicles."
Clarify this language, the parenthetical expressions are confusing. The City
Attorney's office needs to provide the most up-to-date provisions required
by state law.
26-1 26.2b2A,etc. 2 Add the following permitted uses to the I-1 district: auto painting facilities;
auto body shops, brake shops, auto upholstery shops, transmission shops;
and garages and repair facilities, including oil & lube shops, muffler shops;
and furniture upholstery. These uses are currently in the "B-2" district and
in that district's Purpose and Intent section it says that the uses are
appropriate in areas suitable for light industrial development.
Placed under C-4?
26-3 26.2b42A 2Add a permitted use to the I-1" district called "Superstores" whose sole
purpose is retail sales, but due to the size of the structure, may more
suitably' located in industrial areas. Or perhaps the current percentage of
15% retail sales could be increased for all _"1-1" uses.
28-1
28.5 b.
2
"HC"
Development Regulations - b. 30' Minimum Front Yard
28-1
28.5 c.
2
"HC"
Development Regulations - c. 15' (or 25') Minimum Side Yard
28-2
28.5 d.
2
"HC"
Development Regulations - d. 10' (25') Minimum Rear Yard
Are these sufficient setbacks for a possible 6-story structure? Due to the
probable location being on one of the major corridors, especially Hwy. No.
114, consideration should be given to any inconsistencies between this
language, the corridor overlay requirements and the proposed
"Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance."
29-1 29.2 a.3. 4 "MH" Permitted Uses - "Modular or prefabricated housing"
Check with the City Attorney regarding any changes in the state statutes
regarding these structures being classified as single family residential
structures.
29-2 29.5 f. 2 "MH" Development Regulations - f. Lot Area - Address max. sq. ft.
accessory use
List the maximum accessory square footage as 400 s.f. (to allow a typical
two -car garage).
29-2 29.5 g. 4 "MH" Development Regulations - g. Width of Lots - minimum of 60 feet
at building line
This may not need to be changed due to industry standards; however, other
residential districts require a minimum lot width of 100'.
30-1 30.1 1 "PUD" Purpose and Intent - change site plan to development plan
30-8 30.10 2 Common Open Space - Is the minimum 10% requirement net of any the
perimeter streets?
31-1 31.2 a. 2 "S-P-1 " Permitted Uses - "any use not prohibited by this ordinance..."
32-1 32.2 a. 2 "S-P-2" Permitted Uses - "any use not prohibited by this ordinance..."
This language should be changed to reflect any cumulative use of the
district requested to be consistent with the City Attorney's response to
Question #4 in the Zoning Guide prepared by their office.
31-1 31.3 2 "No variances to other city ordinances, codes or regulations will be
permitted."
32-1 32.2 & 32.3 2 "No variances to other city ordinances, codes or regulations will be
permitted."
Should we infer that any variance to the zoning ordinance may be approved
by the City Council with this zoning approval (e.g., parking, height,
setback, etc.) rather than being referred to the ZBA? If so, this section
should be clarified. Currently, the ordinance provides that the Council may
approve variances to the bufferyard requirements if reviewing a concept or
site plan.
31-2 31.5 a. 2 "S-P-1" Review and Implementation - "...state a list of the reasons for
approval or disapproval of each case ... incorporate into ordinance."
32-2 32.6 a. 2 "S-P-2" Review and Implementation - ..."state a list of reasons for approval
or disapproval of each case ... incorporate into ordinance."
This requirement has not been followed. Should the Council feel that the
reasons for approval or disapproval are sufficiently noted in their motion (as
recorded in the minutes) then this provision could be deleted.
33-1 33.2 a. 2 Supplementary Dist. Reg. - Fences - Add additional fencing requirements.
Should fences be permitted in the Front Yards?
33-2 33.6 d. 2 Supplementary Dist. Reg. - Projections of Buildings etc. - d. Gasoline filling
station pumps and islands projecting into required yards and being
constructed not less than 50' from any residential property line.
Check for inconsistencies with the corridor overlay and residential
adjacency requirements.
33-4 33.9 c,d,e 1 Supplementary Dist. Reg. - Front Yard Adjustments - c. Interior lots abutting
two streets, d. Corner lots, and e. Lots adjacent to thoroughfares
These provisions need to be reworked with the definitions of frontage, front
yard, etc. to insure consistency.
33-4 33.9 f. 4 Supplementary Dist. Reg. - Front Yard Adjustments - f. 50' from any
numbered ROW...
Since R.O.W. dedication has already been acquired on F.M. 1938 (south of
F.M. 1709) and on F. M. 1709, should this section be revised to require 50'
setback only on the F.M. 1938 north of F.M. 1709 and along State Hwy.
No. 114? What about S.H. 26?
33-5 33.10 c. 4 Supplementary Dist. Reg. - Front Yard Adjustments - c. Comer lots of record
Add the following phrase "... unless otherwise platted."
33-5&6 33.14 4 Supplementary Dist. Reg. - Health Regulations - Sewage Disposal
The Public Works department and the City Attorney's office are researching
4W the issue to establish a ratio of acceptable percolation rates to lot sizes.
33-6 33.16 1 Platting of Property Not Properly Zoned - Amend to prohibit split -lot zoning.
33-6 33.16 1 Supplementary Dist. Reg. - Signs- Amend the Ordinance No. to 704A to
reflect the current proposed amendment.
33-6 33.17 4 Supplementary Dist. Reg. - Natural Water Bodies - This section would be
better located with the other fencing requirements at the beginning of
Section 33 so that it won't be overlooked. Make sure that these provisions
do not conflict with the subdivision ordinance and drainage policy.
34-1 34.1 a. 3 Accessory Uses - Authorized Accessory Uses - a. "AG - # of animals in
"AG"
This section does not limit the number of animals or poultry in the "AG"
district. Do we need to establish a limit, especially if the "AG" zoning is
less than 10 acres?
34-1 34.1 d.1&2 4 Accessory Uses - Authorized Accessory Uses - d. 1&2
Clarify the permitted districts for Private Stables. Why would they be
permitted in the SF-30 district if they must have the same square footage as
SF-lA and SF-lB? Delete "SF-30."
( 34-2 34.1 d.3 3 Accessory Uses - Authorized Accessory Uses - d. 3&4 - define grazing
animals and enclosures for animals.
34-3 34.1 i. 3 Accessory Uses - Authorized Accessory Uses - i. Home occupation uses
Transfer the requirements listed in the definition section to this section of
the ordinance for ease of reference. Consider any needed revisions due to
current business trends.
34-7 34.1 bb. 3 3 Accessory Uses - bb. (3) "other antennas, telecommunication facilities, or
towers..."
Add "CS" to the section reading "Not exceeding 65' in height"
34-8 34.2 a. 3 Accessory Uses - Accessory Buildings
Clarify that structures with permanent foundations shall meet the side yard
requirement for the district unless they are located within the rear yard.
Then, and only then, may they be located as close as ten (10') feet to the
side and rear property lines. Consider including "and may not encroach into
any drainage and/or utility easement."
34-8 34.2 d. 3 Accessory Uses - Accessory Buildings - d.
This section should be deleted because the current interpretation is that
servant/family quarters are extensions of the principal use (if granted a
special exception use permit by the Board of Adjustment).
34-9 34.2 e. 1 Accessory Uses - Accessory Building - e. one story or 14' in height
This section is one of the most "varied" sections of the ordinance by the
Board of Adjustment. As the larger SF-1 and RE lots request permits to
build structures exceeding the maximum square footage of their district,
most also request a height variance.
This section should provide a "stepped method" for establishing the height
by increasing the setback from the side and/or rear lot lines. For example:
"Any accessory building shall not exceed one story in height and any
building which exceeds fourteen feet in height shall set back one additional
foot for each additional one foot in height with a maximum height of
feet."
34-9 34.2 f. 1 Accessory Uses - Accessory Building - f.
Amend this section to read: "No accessory building or structure shall be
located forward of the principal building on the lot."
Ev
This revision will prevent dumpsters from being placed forward of the
principal building.
35-1 35.1 4 Off -Street Parking Req. - Purpose and Intent - "No vehicles may park on city
streets or in front yards."
This needs clarification due to obvious inconsistencies. It should be deleted
from the Purpose and Intent section.
35-2 35.3 3 Off -Street Parking Req. - Parking Space Size
Establish a minimum aisle width, record the minimum fire lane width, and
consider requiring wheel stops to prevent "vehicular overhang" into
bufferyards. We may wish to consider adding parking lot design graphics
to the ordinance. (See Keller's zoning ordinance.)
35-2 35.6 a. 3 Off -Street Parking Req. - a. Residential Uses - "Some residential uses shown
below are not permitted."
Why create confusion? Delete the note and the residential uses that are not
permitted.
35-3 35.6 a (1) 3 Off -Street Parking Req. - (1) Single Family Detached Dwellings
To this section, add "... and not in the front yard."
35-5 35.6 b. 6 1 Off -Street Parking Req. - b. Non -Residential Uses - (6) Office, Professional
or Financial Uses
Amend this section to read: " For all categories listed under this heading,
a minimum of eight spaces shall be provided for the first 1,000 sq. ft. of
floor area for each building on the lot."
35-6 35-7 3 "Parking for the Handicapped"
This section seems to imply that handicapped parking is only required in
certain non-residential districts. Change title to read "Accessible Parking"
and keep just the first sentence. (The ADA and UBC address the %
requirements and the need for ramps and accessible paths.)
35-7 35.9a 1 Parking and Storage of Major Recreational Equipment
This section generates a great deal of code enforcement activity. Many of
the smaller lots have difficulty complying with this section.
35-8 35-10 b 3 Off -Street Parking Req. - Parking and Storage of Vehicles - b. commercial
M
36-1 36.2
38-1 38
39-1 39
41
41
2-10
42-13
44-1 44.1
M
Gd
0
1
vehicle or trailer
Describe (by gross vehicle weight, number of axles, motor vehicle
classification, etc.) the type and size of the truck and or trailer that is
permitted. Perhaps this will prevent another appeal to the Board of
Adjustment (i.e. SnapOn tool van in Woodland Heights).
"Location of Loading Spaces"
Consider amending this to allow on -street maneuvering (backing) in
industrial areas on streets that are local streets and not collectors or arterials.
This section as currently written would not allow lot sizes as those in
Commerce Business Park or North Davis Business Park because the lots are
not large enough to accommodate tractor trailer maneuvering on -site.
Also add the provision that the loading spaces should not be adjacent to the
front yard or adjacent to street.
Outside Storage - Redo Entire Section. (Add requirement that all outside
storage shall be on an all weather surface.)
Screening - Redo Entire Section. Address the need for parking lot screening
across from residential. Also, no dumpsters inside the setback line.
Insure that Concept Plans are processed per the same notice requirements
of a request for a zoning change.
1 Consider adding a requirement that a note be placed on the Concept Plan
stating that "all subsequent plans and plats must substantially conform to
this Concept Plan."
2 Bufferyards - Table Two
Change headings under street classification: Delete 90' arterial, Change
Collector to Arterial- 70' R.O.W., Add a column for 60' R.O.W. Consider
requiring industrial properties to provide a bufferyard adjacent to a street
and perhaps eliminating the requirement of the bufferyard at the rear of the
property.
2 Bufferyards - Illustration of Required Structures - Address the issue of
planting shrubs, trees, etc. in front of perimeter fences along streets (See
Greg Last memo dated 3/29/94)
3 Board of Adjustment - Establishment
Increase the number of alternates from two to four to insure a quorum.
Amend the fourth sentence to read as follows: " In making such
appointments, the City Council shall name one appointee as Chairman, one
as Vice -Chairman, and shall designate the alternates as Alternate I,
Alternate II, etc. to establish the voting order."
44-1 44.2 1 Board of Adjustment - Proceedings of the Board - Amend the last sentence
of this paragraph to read " ... and shall keep records of its examinations
and other official actions, all of which shall be a public record and be
immediately filed in the Office of the Board as defined in the Board's Rules
of Procedure."
44-1 44.3 a. 1 Board of Adjustment - Powers and Duties - a. Administrative Review
Address the timing and type of notice requirement.
44-5 44.8 a. 1 Board of Adjustment - Appeal to Board - a. "Such appeals shall be taken
within a reasonable time, not to exceed 60 days, or such lesser period as
may be provided by the rules of ZBA specifying the grounds thereof."
The Board of Adjustment has not addressed this issue in its current Rules
of Procedure.
44-5 44.8 b. 1 Board of Adjustment - Appeal to Board - "The Board of Adjustment shall
fix a reasonable time for the hearing of the appeal, give public notice
thereof as well as due notice to the parties in interest, and decide the same
within a reasonable time.
Timing of notice and notice requirements have not been addressed by the
Board of Adjustment in their current Rules of Procedure.
44-6 44.10 1 Board of Adjustment - Stay of Proceedings
The Board has requested a clarification of this section from the City
Attorney's office.
44-6 44.12 (1) 3 Special Exception Use Permit for "Servants or Family Quarters"
Many applicants when applying for this use request that the floor area be
1,200 s.f. The number of requests for this use is increasing significantly.
44-7 44.12(4) 3 Special Exception Use Permit for "Accessory buildings located in the front
yard."
Amend this provision to read as follows: "Accessory buildings located
forward of the principal building on the lot."
45-1 45.1 2.c. 3 Specific Use Permits - c. Add "Mother's Day Out Program" to children's
nurseries, child day care centers, and kindergartens accessory to a religious
institution.
45-2 45.1 2.d. 3 Specific Use Permits - Add a new subsection "2A. Day Camps, nature
centers, gymnastics centers," to be permitted in the "C-2" and "C-3"
districts."
45-5 45.1 18 3 Specific Use Permits - 18. Equestrian riding stables
Revise this section, better defining the types of equestrian uses (e.g., team -
roping arenas, etc.) and criteria for approval (lighting standards, etc.).
Under what requirements could certain equestrian uses be permitted as
accessory uses?
45-9 45.1, 35 1 Specific Use Permits - 35. "Non-commercial radio and television
transmitting and receiving antennas (height)..."
These sections should have been deleted with the adoption of Ord. 480-J.
46-1 46.2a2 1 Rezoning application - legal description: Amend the section to read:
"Unplatted properties shall provide ..." "Platted properties shall provide
the lot, block, subdivision and phase description for each lot requesting a
change of zoning."
47-1 47.2 4 Schedule of Fees Required: Update the list of applications requiring a fee
or delete the entire section.
? ? ? Clarify the conflict or overlap of the required shrubs along
parking areas due to the corridor study reqmt with the
requirements for interior landscape shrubs.
Further research the following from the zoning ord:
10-1 10.2 (c) 2"RE" Permitted Uses - Residential Uses - (c) minimum lot width of not less than
300 feet.
33-5 33.12 Supplementary Dist. Reg. - Lot Area Per Family Adjustment
What does this mean?
? ? Think about inserting some language to accommodate situations like the
Elkins tract, maybe utilizing some heavy duty driveway.
Resolve conflict between Ordinance No. 483, Section 8.01 B and Ordinance No. 480, Section 33.14
regarding minimum acreage requirement for nonresidential properties.
13
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
November 18 1999
i
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator, ext.743
SUBJECT: Two Perspectives of the "S-P" Districts
For your information:
Attached are two perspectives regarding the "S-P," Site Plan districts. The first viewpoint was
presented to Council by Susan Johnson during a Public Forum following the Board of Adjustment
hearing of The Shops of Southlake. The second viewpoint is offered by Terry Wilkinson of
Wyndham Properties, Ltd., Southlake resident and local developer.
\\ KSWOOBWCAUCOMMUNITYDEVIIAPMENTNWP-FII.ES\ZBA\PENDING\DRAFTORDINANCES\S-P DIS'nUCr.DOC
Good evening. My name is Susan Johnson. I live at 308 Lakeside Court in the Oak Tree Estates sub-
division here in Southlake.
A few weeks ago I stood at this podium and gave testimony at a Zoning Board of Adjustments hearing
regarding a revision to a Concept Plan in an SP2 Zoning Case.
At the conclusion of the ZBA Meeting I was obviously pleased that the board ruled with us (the Oak
Tree Homeowners Association) on the issue of substantial conformance. However, in my mind, the
issue of whether a revision to a concept plan is allowable under SP2 Zoning has not been adequately
resolved. I understand that it was not within the authority of the ZBA to address this issue as part of a
specific case. That is why I am here tonight asking you to address it.
Citizens and developers should be able to read the Zoning Ordinances and clearly understand the
proper rules and procedures. Although most of our Zoning Ordinances are very clear, the issue of a
revision to a concept plan is not. Not only is it unclear to laypersons such as myself and it is unclear to
the legal community as well.
There were several lawyers present at the ZBA meeting, all with substantial credentials and experience
in Zoning Law. Several lawyers were in attendance to represent the developer; Angela Washington — a
former Dallas City Attorney -- was present to represent Oak Tree Estates; and Mr. Taylor was present
to advise the City.
Each of these lawyers has a different interpretation of the proper process for a revision to a concept
�w plan under SP2 Zoning.
It is my understanding that Mr. Taylor's interpretation is that the Concept Plan is an addendum to an
SP2 Zoning Ordinance and can be changed with the approval of the P&Z and the City Council —
without a rezoning request. From my discussions with him, he feels that the proper procedure for a
concept plan revision is for the applicant to submit the revision to the Zoning Administrator for review.
After receiving her positive recommendation, the revision should go to the P&Z and City Council for
approval.
Ms. Washington's interpretation is that a Concept Plan is a part of an SP2 Zoning Ordinance — not just
an attachment -- and cannot be changed without a rezoning request. She believes that the only lawful
procedure under Texas code is to require an applicant who wishes to revise an approved SP2 Concept
Plan to file a -rezoning request.
Cencor Realty' lawyers have a third interpretation. They feel that a favorable ruling from the ZA is a
final approval of the revised concept plan and no other city officials' approval is required. In the
specific case that was being considered last week, they believed that the ZA's ruling gave them the
right to proceed to the P&Z for variances — not for approvals. Their expectation was that when they
eventually submitted a site plan the P&Z and Council would only be allowed to compare the site plan
to the REVISED concept plan — not back to the original plan.
(I'm sure you can see how dangerous this interpretation could be.)
M
Our Zoning Ordinances are very clear and specific on a number of issues:
✓ They tell us who can approve a concept plan
✓ They tell us who can approve a site plan
✓ They tell us what must be considered when approving a site plan
✓ They tell us who can approve a revision to a site plan
✓ They tell us what must be considered when approving a revision to a site plan
However, our ordinances do NOT tell us an3qhin about a revision to a Concept Plan:
✓ They do not tell us who can approve a revision to a concept plan
✓ They do not tell us what must be considered when approving a revision to a concept plan
✓ They do not even tell us if a revision to a concept plan is allowable
This is a loophole that must be closed if we wish to avoid future issues. For the good of Southlake, we
must make every effort not to leave our Ordinances open to subjective interpretation.
I respectfully ask that the City Council take this under immediate advisement and amend the City
Zoning Ordinances, making the procedures and guidelines on revisions to concept plans clear and
specific— particularly in SP2 Zoning.
While I am not by any means an expert in this area, I have spent a considerable amount of time going
through Southlake Zoning Ordinances and have formed an opinion on this issue that I would like to
share with you before I leave the podium.
First of all, we obviously cannot allow a change to a concept plan with only an administrative ruling. I
do not believe it was the intent of any city official or staff member to allow that to happen, but it is
obvious to me that we need to make this clearer in order to protect the city in the future.
Secondly, I firmly believe that we should not allow ANY revision to an SP2 concept plan once it is
approved. To begin with, it would seem that this would be a moot point. If the revised concept plan is
in substantial conformance with the original concept plan — why is the revision even necessary? Why
not just proceed to the site plan phase?
Going back to my Freshman Algebra where if A=B=C then A=C, logic would tell you that:
✓- if the revised concept plan is in substantial conformance with the original concept plan
✓ and the site plan is in substantial conformance with the revised concept plan
✓ then the site plan is in substantial conformance with the original concept plan
Given this isn't it a waste of time and resources to go through the process of approving the revised
concept plan? What purpose does this step serve?
The only reason that I can imagine that a developer would revise a concept plan is if they want to
change the concept without having to go through the SP2 zoning process. Since what the city approves
in SP2 Zoning is a CONCEPT (I believe that is why the city refers to it as "what you see is what you
get" zoning) we should not allow this to happen.
Cencor Realty stated in front of the ZBA that they felt that a change to the concept plan was necessary
because conditions had changed so drastically since the original plan was approved. They further
stated that they did NOT want to go through rezoning because they realized that the master plan shows
this property with a lesser zoning than they have now. They did not want to take the risk of the zoning
going against them.
I understand their concern, but I don't see why the city would want to allow this to happen. If the
conditions have changed so dramatically that the developer does not feel they can build to the original
concept plan — how can a_y concept plan that they feel they can build possibI be in substantial
conformance to the original plan? (You don't go from unfeasible to feasible with minor changes.) If
we allow the developer to continually submit proposed revisions — hoping for a time when there is no
one at the meetings to speak against the revised plan -- the city would never have the opportunity to
consider the changed conditions and determine the best use of the land. Also, if we allow revisions to
concept plans, a patient developer could submit their changes in stages — each just one step away from
the previous one so that it will gain approval. After 4 or 5 iterations — and a lot of city officials and
staff time -- we could end up with a very different plan than the original one.
If conditions have changed dramatically, the developer has recourse — they can submit a rezoning
request. The city can then determine the best use of the land in light of the new conditions. Allowing
a change to a concept plan protects the developer from changes in conditions but does not protect the
city in the same way.
We need to protect the spirit of the zoning ordinances. Our zoning ordinances are here to protect the
city and its citizens by allowing the city officials to determine what is in the best interest of Southlake.
They are not here to make it easier for a developer to get what they want in spite of whether it is in the
best interest of the city.
Thank you for your time and attention. I would like to close by again asking that, whether or not you
agree with my opinion on allowing SP2 concept plan, you amend the Zoning Ordinances, making the
procedures and guidelines that you believe to be in the best interest of the city clear and specific.
Wyndham Properties, Ltd.
751 E. Southlake Blvd.
Suite 130
Southlake, TX 76092
(817) 329-4599
(817)488-2420 Fax
November 18, 1999
Karen Gandy
Zoning Administrator
City of Southlake
Re: S-P-2 Zoning Districts
It is my understanding that the City is looking for ways to restrict the speculative zoning, and better control the
developments being planned within the city. I also understand that the city officials want to make sure that the
project being approved is actually constructed and not some later variation of the approved project. That can be
obtained within the S-P-2 district by restricting the amount of time that the concept plan is valid. If the
proposed project is not followed up with the S-P-I site plan then the approved concept plan would expire.
I believe that the concept plan is an important process. One that allows a developer to have a hearing before the
P&Z and City Council, to be sure their plans tract with the desires of the city. The cost to prepare a concept
plan on a 100,000 sq. ft. shopping center is roughly 60 to 75 cents per sq. ft. or $60,000 to $75,000. The cost to
prepare a S-P-I site plan with all the applicable design and engineering requirements is $2.00 to $3.00 per sq. ft.
or $200,000 to $300,000. Most developers are unwilling to spend that much money on designing and
engineering without some comfort that they are headed in the right direction with their plans.
The market is always changing. Each development that occurs affect
s is the surrounding land, and how that land
is ultimately developed; the very reason land use plans are updated and revised. A project that is approved but
not constructed may have been an appropriate plan at one time, however, in its absence, and the development of
surrounding property, circumstances may have changed. The first approved project, no matter how good its
plan may no longer be appropriate to development in its new surrounding.
If the S-P-2 Zoning District is changed so that a property obtaining this classification had a one year window
within which to proceed to S-P-I Zoning District. Developers will not have an evergreen condition within
which to operate, and projects that are not proceeding will simply expire, unless the city officials approve an
extension. By making this modification to the Zoning District the surrounding properties will not be negatively
impacted by a change in market conditions (land use conditions do not change that quickly). However
developers will know if their plans are generally acceptable to the city, before they continue to spend money on
a project that has no hope of success.
Most tenants and retailers do not want to work through the zoning and development process themselves; rather,
they rely on developers to do that work for them. However, the developer cannot get the retailer to commit to a
project until he knows the general concept for the development, and the developer will not spend the money
necessary to obtain the S-P-I zoning when he does not have tenants lined up for the development. Therefore, I
believe that some form of concept plan is necessary to attract master planned commercial developments, and not
end up with a piecemeal approach with each user coming in for each tract.
Thank you for including me in your consideration of this matter. If I can provide any additional information, or
help in any way, I would appreciate the opportunity to assist.
Sin rel ,
erry L. Wilkinson
city of 5outmake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
November 23, 1999
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator, ext. 743
Art Wright, Zoning Assistant, ext. 828
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 480-1111, Outside Storage and Screening Amendments
Action
Requested:
Background
Information:
C: \TEMP\480-HHMEMOI . DOC
Discussion of proposed Ordinance No. 480-HH regarding provisions for
outside storage and screening.
Ordinance No. 480-1-IH proposes revisions to Section 38, "Outside Storage,"
and Section 39, "Screening." It is intended not only to improve the visual
impact on the City, but also to eliminate safety hazards such as tall displays
located within parking lots that block visibility.
Provisions regarding outside storage include the following:
• outside storage may be allowed only with a Specific Use Permit;
• there will be no outside display;
• a minimum 8' screening wall to enclose all storage areas, except
industrially zoned properties having no residential adjacency;
• outside storage is an accessory use to a principal use;
• storage must comply with the required setbacks for the principal
structures on the lot;
• storage must be located at the rear or side of the building, but cannot
be placed between the principal building and any adjacent public
street;
Screening issues are also addressed in this ordinance, dealing mainly with
clean-up of inconsistencies.
City of Southlake, Texas
IR
IM
Consideration of Ordinance No. 480-HH, Outside Storage and Screening
Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator
November 23, 1999
Page 2
Financial
Considerations:
Alternatives:
Supporting
Documents:
C:\TEMP\480-HHMEMO L DOC
Not applicable.
The Council and Commission may recommend such changes or conditions
to the ordinance as they deem appropriate.
Ordinance No. 480-HH.
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS
`%w ORDINANCE NO. 480-HH
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 480, AS
AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS; ADDING
SHOPPING CART STORAGE AS AN ACCESSORY USE;
ALLOWING OUTSIDE STORAGE IN ALL NON-
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, EXCEPT "0-1 ' AND 0-2,"
OFFICE DISTRICTS, ONLY BY SPECIFIC USE PERMIT;
DELETING SECTION 38, "OUTSIDE STORAGE," IN ITS
ENTIRETY; REVISING SECTION 39, "SCREENING;"
PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE
CUMULATIVE OF ALL ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY
FOR VIOLATIONS HEREOF; PROVIDING A SAVINGS
CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN PAMPHLET
FORM; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL
NEWSPAPER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Southlake, Texas is a home rule City acting under its Charter
" adopted by the electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter
9 of the Texas Local Government Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City has adopted Ordinance No. 480, as amended, as the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is appropriate and in the best interest
of the City to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its residents by amending
Ordinance No. 480 as provided herein; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has given published notice and held public hearings with
respect to the amendment of the zoning ordinance as required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS:
M COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\DRAFT ORDINANCES\480-HH8A.DOC (Draft 8, dated 10125199)
Page 1
M
SECTION 1.
Section 34.1, "Accessory Uses" of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by
adding the following accessory use thereto:
"cc. Shopping carts. Cart collection areas in parking CS, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, S-P-1,
lots shall not be placed in any required parking S-P-2, and PUD"
space. Cart collection areas adjacent to buildings
shall be screened by a wall of similar masonry
material as the principal building and constructed
to a minimum height of four (4') feet.
SECTION 2.
Section 45.1 (27), "Specific Use Permits" of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby
amended by revising the following provision thereto:
"27. Outside storage, subject to the requirements of CS, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, B-1,
Section -3.9- 45.11. ^ Go.i;G@p pla; i ems,;, B-2, I-1, I-2, S-P-I, S-P-2, HC,
PUD"
In granting a specific use permit for any outside
storage, the City Council is authorized to set out
specialized buffering, screening, design and
signage requirements to ensure that the outdoor
storage, display and sale is totally compatible
with the specific site and all surrounding land
uses.
SECTION 3.
Section 45.1 (29), "Specific Use Permits" of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby
deleted in its entirety:
FTT
NACOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\DRAFT ORDINANCES\480-HH8A.DOC (Draft 8, dated 10125199)
Page 2
SECTION 4.
Section 38, Outside Storage, of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby deleted in its
entirety, and said Section 38 shall be reserved for future expansion.
NACOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\DRAFT ORDINANCES\480-HH8A.DOC (Draft 8, dated 10125199)
Page 3
• .• WIMMMENTM
' , • -
SECTION 5.
Section 45, "Specific Use Permits," of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended
by adding the following new Section 45.11, to read as follows:
N:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\DRAFT ORDINANCES\480-HH8A.DOC (Draft 8, dated 10125199)
Page 4
"45.11 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE IN NON-RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS
Outside storage and display of any goods, materials, merchandise, equipment, parts, junk
or vehicles shall not be permitted unless granted a specific use permit and except in
conformance with the following provisions:
a. General Criteria
Outside storage shall be permitted only as an accessory use to the
principal use established on the lot or tract of land.
2. Outside storage areas must observe all setback requirements for the
principal buildings on the lot or tract of land.
3. No outside storage areas shall be located forward of the principal
building on the lot or tract of land, nor between the principal building
and any adjacent public street, except for the following consumer
goods: 1) newspapers, 2) bundled firewood, 3) prepackaged ice, 4)
food and drink sold through vending machines and 5) Christmas trees
stored outside for sale beginning one week before Thanksgiving and
ending December 31. Items so stored outside must be displayed in a
neat and orderly manner.
4. All areas of outside storage must be constructed of an all-weather
surface material and shall be exclusive of any required parking.
5. Outside storage by transient salespersons is prohibited.
6. Outside storage shall comply with the screening and bufferyard
requirements set forth in Sections 39.2 and 42, respectively, of this
ordinance.
7. Materials stored outside, excluding vehicles, trailers, and mobile
machinery or equipment, shall be stacked no higher than one (1) foot
below the top of the screening device.
b. Additional Screening Criteria
For all non-residential properties, except those properties zoned I-1 and I-2
which have no residential adjacency, the following shall apply:
1. Outside storage screening shall be accomplished by the construction
of a minimum eight -foot (8') masonry wall of the same material as
the principal building and integral to its design.
N:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\DRAFT ORDINANCES\480-HH8A.DOC (Draft 8, dated 10125199)
Page 5
2. The screening wall shall meet the articulation requirements set forth
in Section 43.13(d). This requirement shall apply to walls
constructed simultaneously with the principal building or those added
to the principal building at a later date.
C. In granting any specific use permit for outside storage, the City Council may
impose reasonable conditions as it deems necessary to ensure that such
storage is not visible from adjacent public rights -of -way and neighboring
properties."
SECTION 6.
Section 39.2, "Screening Standards," is hereby amended by revising paragraph "e," and
adding new paragraphs "g" and "h" to read as follows:
"e. A screening device shall be at least six (6) feet in height, but not more than
eight (8) feet in height unless otherwise specifically permitted or required by
this ordinance, or unless approved as a variance gyp@ ial g4G@p4144-by the
City Council in their consideration of a concept plan, development plan, site
plan or a specific use permit or unless otherwise approved by the Board of
1%r Adjustment. The height of a screening device shall be the vertical distance
between the ground and the top of the device.
f. All mandatory or pennissive screening shall be erected and maintained so as
not to interfere with or obstruct the view of traffic or constitute a traffic hazard
on any public or private street, alley or driveway.
g. A chain link fence with slat inserts shall not constitute an acceptable screening
device when located adjacent to a residentially zoned lot, tract or lot having an
occupied residential dwelling, or street rights -of -way.
h. Where the screening requirements prescribed by this section are in conflict with
special screening requirements which have been established by other provisions
of this ordinance, the more stringent requirements shall apply."
SECTION 7.
Section 39.3, "Residential Districts," is hereby amended by revising paragraph "c" and
by adding paragraph "d" to read as follows:
"c. Non-residential uses in a residential district shall be screened from view of
any adjacent residentially zoned lot or tract or lot having an occupied by a
residential dwelling by a screening device located along the side and rear
N:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\DRAFT ORDINANCES\480-HHBA.DOC (Draft 9, dated 10120199)
Page 6
property lines of such non-residential use to a height of eight (8) feet. Said
screening requirements shall not be mandatory for public schools, parks, or
churches, except where a parking lot or active outdoor intensive use area
(such as a playground) is adjacent to a residential lot or dwelling.
d. Where a screening wall or fence is provided between any residential
subdivision and any thoroughfare, the following requirements shall apply:
(1) No new fence or screening wall (which is parallel to, perpendicular to,
approximately parallel to, or approximately perpendicular to an existing
subdivision screening wall or fence) shall be erected to a height which
exceeds the height of the subdivision screening wall or fence.
(2) Where an existing subdivision constructs a wrought iron or other similar
non -opaque fence adjacent to any thoroughfare, no screening wall or
fence shall be erected within the required side or rear yard which is
parallel to such wrought iron or similar non -opaque fence.
(3) No existing screening wall or fence shall be repaired, extended or
modified unless such repairs, extensions, or modifications are done in a
manner consistent with the color, material, or character of the existing
screening wall or fence, and any such extension occurs along the entire
length of such screening wall or fence, including where such screening
walls or fences may be interrupted by streets, alleys, or other access
ways."
SECTION 8.
Section 39.4, "Non -Residential Uses," is hereby amended by changing the title to read "Non -
Residential Districts," and by amending paragraph 39.4.b to read as follows:
"b. Where a non-residential use abuts a residentially zoned lot or tract or lot having
an occupied residential dwelling, a screening device shall be erected along the
side and rear property lines abutting said residential lot or dwelling to a height
of eight (8) feet. Where the district boundary dividing a non-residential district
from a residential district is along a street or alley, and an automobile parking
lot or parking area is located in the front yard of the non-residential use, the
said parking lot or parking area facing the residential lot shall be suitably
screened to a height of not less than three and one-half (3 ''/2) feet. A variance
to this section may be approved by the City Council during its review of any
concept plan, development plan, or site plan requiring review by the Planning
and Zoning Commission and approval by the City Council, or by the Board of
Adjustment for all other concept plans, development plans, or site plans.
All screening devices shall be properly maintained in perpetuity by the non-
residential property owner. Lack of maintenance shall constitute a violation of
this ordinance."
NACOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\DRAFT ORDINANCES\480-HH8A.DOC (Draft 9, dated 10120199)
Page 7
SECTION 9.
Section 39.4, "Non -Residential Uses," is hereby amended by deleting paragraph "d," by
creating a new paragraph "d," and by revising paragraph "e" to read as follows:
d. Where a non-residential use abuts an existing residential screening wall or fence and
where a written agreement can be executed between the developer and residential
property owner, it shall be deemed the intent of this ordinance to allow the residential
screening wall or fence to satisfy that portion of Section 39.4.b. above (relating to side
and rear yard screening) as long as said screening device is maintained in good repair.
Should the screening device be destroyed by more than 50% of its fair market value at
the time of destruction, then the developer shall meet the requirements of Section
39.4b.
e. Off-street loading areas shall be adequately screened from view of any residentially
zoned lot or tract or lot having an occupied residential dwelling 44 or of any other
adjacent land use."
�w SECTION 10.
This ordinance shall be cumulative of all provisions of ordinances of the City of Southlake,
Texas, except where the provisions of this ordinance are in direct conflict with the provisions of such
ordinances, in which event the conflicting provisions of such ordinances are hereby repealed.
SECTION 11.
It is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the phrases, clauses,
sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause,
sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid
judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect
any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance, since
the same would have been enacted by the City Council without the incorporation in this ordinance
of any such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section.
NACOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\DRAFT' ORDINANCES\480-HH8A.DOC (Draft 9, dated 10120199)
Page 8
1%MW
SECTION 12.
Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply
with or who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be fined not more
than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Each day that a violation is permitted to
exist shall constitute a separate offense.
SECTION 13.
All rights and remedies of the City of Southlake are expressly saved as to any and all
violations of the provisions of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, or any other ordinances affecting
zoning yard regulations which have accrued at the time of the effective date of this ordinance; and,
as to such accrued violations and all pending litigation, both civil and criminal, whether pending in
court or not, under such ordinances, same shall not be affected by this ordinance but may be
prosecuted until final disposition by the courts.
SECTION 14.
The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby authorized to publish this ordinance
in book or pamphlet form for general distribution among the public, and the operative provisions of
this ordinance as so published shall be admissible in evidence in all courts without further proof than
the production thereof.
SECTION 15.
The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to publish the proposed
ordinance or its caption and penalty together with a notice setting out the time and place for a public
hearing thereon at least ten (10) days before the second reading of this ordinance, and if this
ordinance provides for the imposition of any penalty, fine or forfeiture for any violation of any of
its provisions, then the City Secretary shall additionally publish this ordinance or its caption and
N:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\DRAFT ORDINANCES\480-HH8A.DOC (L)raft 9, dated 10120199)
Page 9
penalty in the official City newspaper one time within ten days after final passage of this ordinance,
�W
as required by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake.
SECTION 16.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its date of passage and
publication as required by law, and it is so ordained.
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st reading the day of , 2000.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the day of , 2000.
ILVAK IX4
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
N:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEMMWP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\DRAFT ORDINANCES\480-HH8A.DOC (Draft 9, dated 10120199)
Page 10
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
CITY ATTORNEY
DATE:
ADOPTED:
EFFECTIVE:
NACOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\DRAFT ORDINANCES\480-HH8A.DOC (Draft 9, dated 10120199)
Page 11
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
November 18, 1999
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator, ext. 743
Art Wright, Zoning Assistant, ext. 828
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 480-II, Non -Residential Carports and Parking Garages
Action Requested: Consideration of proposed Ordinance No. 480-II regarding provisions for
carports and multi -level parking garages on non-residential property.
Background
Information: City Council has requested that staff prepare regulations for non-residential
carports and parking garages as a result of several recent requests for covered
parking in development projects. Presently, there are no specific development
regulations regarding carports and covered parking in Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance No. 480, as amended. Currently, a 120-day moratorium is in
place to allow sufficient time for the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
City Council to study, discuss, review and take appropriate action on this
matter. The moratorium is due to expire on December 29, 1999. However, it
is anticipated that the Council will extend the moratorium into the new year due
to only one regularly scheduled Council meeting being held in December.
Legal Reviews: A draft of this ordinance has been reviewed by the City Attorney. The
current draft reflects any recommended revisions.
Financial
Considerations: Not applicable.
Alternatives: May recommend such changes or conditions to the ordinance as deemed
appropriate.
Supporting
Documents: Proposed Ordinance No. 4804I
Staff
Recommendation: Discuss ordinance as approved (7-0) by the Planning and Zoning Commission
\\SIKSWO01\I.00AUCOMMUNPIY DEVELOPMEt4l�WP-FlIES\ZSA\PENDING\DRAFr ORDINANCESW80-1I MEMO.DOC
City of Southlake, Texas
Consideration of Ordinance No. 480-II, Carports and Parking Garages
Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator
November 18, 1999
Page 2
on November 18, 1999.
\MXSV4001\LOCAL\COM.MUNI7Y DEVELOPMFNTWP-FRBS\ZBA\PENDING\DRAFT ORDINANCFSW80-11 MEMO.DOC
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS
ORDINANCE NO. 480-H
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 480, AS
AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS; AMENDING
SECTION 4 "DEFINITIONS; AMENDING SECTION 45
"SPECIFIC USE PERMITS" BY ADDING PROVISIONS FOR
CARPORTS AND PARKING GARAGES FOR NON-
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY; PROVIDING THAT THIS
ORDINANCE SHALL BE CUMULATIVE OF ALL
ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE;
PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS
HEREOF; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING
FOR PUBLICATION IN PAMPHLET FORM; PROVIDING
FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Southlake, Texas is a home rule City acting under its Charter
adopted by the electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter
4W 9 of the Texas Local Government Code; and
N
WHEREAS, the City has adopted Ordinance No. 480, as amended, as the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is appropriate and in the best interest
of the City to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its residents by amending
Ordinance No. 480 as provided herein; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has given published notice and held public hearings with
respect to the amendment of the zoning ordinance as required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS:
SECTION 1.
Section 4, "Definitions" of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by adding
\'SLKSV4001\LOCAL\CONL%( NITY DEVELOPMENT,%?-FlLES\ZBA\RESEARCII\CARPORTSW80-1m8.DOC (Draft 8, 11/18/99)
Page 1
0
the following new definitions thereto:
"CARPORT - A permanent -roofed structure, attached to or detached from the
principal structure, being enclosed on not more than 2 sides, and providing space
for the parking and storage of motor vehicles (as provided for in this ordinance).
GARAGE, MULTI -LEVEL PARKING (NON-RESIDENTIAL) - A structure,
attached to or detached from the principal structure, having two or more levels,
and being used primarily for the parking and storage of motor vehicles (as
provided for in this ordinance) for which a fee may be charged by the owner or
operator of such structure.
GARAGE, SINGLE -LEVEL PARKING (NON-RESIDENTIAL) - An accessory
structure, attached to or detached from the principal structure, being fully
enclosed with a door, and -used primarily for the parking and storage of motor
vehicles (as provided for in this ordinance)."
SECTION 2.
Section 45.1 of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by adding paragraph
(41), to read as follows:
"41. Carports or multi -level parking garages for non- CS, 0-1, O 2, C-1, C-2, C-3,
residential property, subject to the requirements set forth C-4, HC, B-1, B-2, I-1, I-2,
in Section 45.12 of this ordinance.
S-P-I, S-P-2 and PUD
SITE PLAN REQUIRED"
SECTION 3.
Section 45 of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by adding Section
45.12, to read as follows:
"45.12 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR CARPORTS AND MULTI -LEVEL
PARKING GARAGES FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY-
-
In addition to the underlying zoning district regulations and any other
applicable regulations, multi -level parking garages and carports
(collectively referred to as parking structures) shall meet the
requirements set forth herein prior to issuance of a building permit. In
the event that there are conflicting requirements, the more stringent
regulations shall apply.
\`SIXSV4001',LOCAL',COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-FILES`,ZBAI,RESEARCH`CARPORTSW80-IID8.DOC (Draft 8, 11/18/99)
Page 2
General Criteria
1) No parking structure shall be located closer to the front building line
than the principal structure on the property.
2) No parking structure shall encroach into a designated bufferyard.
3) Parking structures shall be included when calculating maximum lot
coverage and maximum impervious coverage for any lot.
4) Parking structures shall comply with any required setback for the
principal buildings in the underlying zoning district.
Development Regulations for Non -Residential Carports
1) Height: Attached Carports: Carports attached to the principal
structure shall meet the height requirements of the
underlying zoning district.
Detached Carports: No detached carport shall exceed
one story or fourteen (14) feet in height. The height
of a detached carport shall be measured from the
finished grade to the highest point of the roof.
2) Structure
...................... .
Design: Roof: The roof of a detached carport shall be pitehed
and constructed with the same materials as the roof
of the principal building. The roof of an attached
carport shall be constructed in the same roof style
and with the same materials as the roof of the
principal building.
Maximum Number of Spaces and Size: The
maximum number of spaces that may be covered by
a carport shall not exceed four (4) spaces. The
minimum size of each space shall be 9' by 20'.
Maximum Number of Structures: There shall be no
more than one (1) carport, attached or detached, per
lot.
Building Materials: All exterior facades of a carport
shall be constructed with the same materials as the
principal building. Exposed structural support
columns shall be constructed or clad in the same
\`SLKSV4001\LOCAL\COMMUYCIY DEV,ELOPMENT�WP-RL.ES\ZBA\RESEARCH CARPORTSA80-IID8-DOC (Draft 8, 11/18/99)
Page 3
C
masonry material as the principal building.
Articulation: Any exterior fagade shall comply with
Section 43.13.d,
Paving: No carport shall be erected over any parking
space not constructed of an all-weather surface.
Development Regulations for Non -Residential Multi -Level Parking
Garages
1) Height: In all districts, multi -level parking garages shall
conform to height restrictions for the underlying
zoning districts. Height shall be measured from
grade.
2) Structure
Design: Building Materials: Any wall, exposed structural
support column or other architectural feature of a
parking garage shall comply with Section 43.13.a
and shall be constructed of the same masonry
material as the principal building.
Articulation: Any exterior fagade shall comply with
Section 43.13.d.
Compact Parking Spaces: If permitted, no compact
parking space shall be less than eight and one-half (8
1/2) feet in width by eighteen (18) feet in length.
Vehicular Ingress and Egress Points: The distance
from parking garage vehicular ingress and egress
points to a corner of a street intersection shall
conform to the driveway ordinance, as amended.
Ingress: The required minimum stacking depth shall
conform to the driveway ordinance, as amended. If
there are ingress control gates, the stacking distance
shall be measured from the edge of the right-of-way
to the ingress control gate. The required stacking
distance may be met by providing a right turn lane
(of adequate length as determined by the City
Engineer) leading to the entrance of the parking
garage.
l\SLKSV4W1\LOCAL,COM,MUNITYDEVIIAPMENTnWP.FILES\ZBA\RESEARCH'.CARPORTSANO•Im8.DOC (Draft 8, 11118/99)
Page 4
Egress: A minimum of twenty (20) feet shall be
�"" provided between an egress control gate and either
the inside edge of a sidewalk or the inside of the
right-of-way to minimize conflicts between exiting
vehicles and pedestrians.
3) Commercial
Uses: Multi -level parking garages may contain commercial
uses which are reasonably related to the principal
uses located on the lot with the parking garage. No
additional parking shall be required for such
commercial uses."
SECTION 4.
This ordinance shall be cumulative of all provisions of ordinances of the City of Southlake,
Texas, except where the provisions of this ordinance are in direct conflict with the provisions of
such ordinances, in which event the conflicting provisions of such ordinances are hereby repealed.
SECTION 5.
It is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the phrases, clauses,
sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause,
sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid
judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect
any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance, since
the same would have been enacted by the City Council without the incorporation in this ordinance
of any such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section.
SECTION 6.
Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to
comply with or who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be
fined not more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Each day that a
\SLKSV4001\LOCAL\COM.�fUN17Y DEVELOPMENT�WP•FILES\ZBA\RESEARCH`. CARPORTSA80.108.DOC (Draft 8, 11/18/99)
Page 5
4 violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense.
SECTION 7.
All rights and remedies of the City of Southlake are expressly saved as to any and all
violations of the provisions of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, or any other ordinances affecting
parking structures or land use which have accrued at the time of the effective date of this
ordinance; and, as to such accrued violations and all pending litigation, both civil and criminal,
whether pending in court or not, under such ordinances, same shall not be affected by this
ordinance but may be prosecuted until final disposition by the courts.
SECTION 8.
The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby authorized to publish this ordinance
in book or pamphlet form for general distribution among the public, and the operative provisions
of this ordinance as so published shall be admissible in evidence in all courts without further proof
than the production thereof.
SECTION 9.
The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to publish the proposed
ordinance or its caption and penalty together with a notice setting out the time and place for a
public hearing thereon at least ten (10) days before the second reading of this ordinance, and if
this ordinance provides for the imposition of any penalty, fine or forfeiture for any violation of
any of its provisions, then the City Secretary shall additionally publish this ordinance or its caption
and penalty in the official City newspaper one time within ten days after final passage of this
ordinance, as required by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake.
SECTION 10.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its date of passage and
\\SLKSV400I\LOCAUCOM.MUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-F[IFS\ZBA\RESEARCH\CARPORTS'480-11D8.DOC (Draft 8, 11/18/99)
Page 6
�Vw publication as required by law, and shall apply to any project for which an application for site plan
approval for the construction of a carport or multi -level parking garage is filed after the effective
date of this ordinance, and it is so ordained.
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st reading the day of 1999.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the day of 2000.
0
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
EFFECTIVE:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
CITY ATTORNEY
"SIKSWOOBLOCAL\COM.MUNITY DEVELOPMENMWP-FILES\ZRA\RESEARCH\CARPORTS\480-IID8.DOC (Draft 8, 11/18/99)
Page 7
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
November 18, 1999
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator, ext. 743
SUBJECT: Zoning and Land Use Plan Inconsistencies
Action Requested: Consideration of whether or not the City should initiate rezoning of certain
properties having zoning inconsistent with the current Land Use Plan.
Background
Information:
Legal Reviews:
Financial
Considerations:
Over the past few months, several questions have been raised regarding the
possibility of city -initiated rezoning of properties that do not conform to the
Land Use Plan.
Staff has compiled a list of such properties for your review and
consideration. Please note that the shaded entries in the tables indicate
properties that either had no established use at the adoption of the Land Use
Plan; have been rezoned since the adoption of the plan; or were
inadvertently excluded during the consideration of the plan.
None required at this time.
None
Alternatives: Consider prioritizing the list of properties and initiating changes on a
monthly basis until all have been corrected; address those inconsistencies
along the major corridors, or take no action at this time.
Supporting
Documents: Land Use Plan Study Area Maps
Table of Inconsistencies per Area
\\SLKSWOOOLOCAL\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\L.UP ZONING INCONSISTEHCIES.DOC
M
ZONING I NCONSI STENT WITH
THE LAND USE MAP
Gtywide Grid
r..
*I
V
W
y
Section A
Parcel
No.
Existing Zoning
Existing Use
LUD
Comments
mobile home
per 01-20-98 City Council Public
Al
MH
residences
Low Density
Hearing
fish distribution
this area is within the 65 LDN;
per 01-20-98 City Council Public
A2
SP-2
facility
Low Density
Hearing
Shaded entries indicate that a rezoning occurred after the adoption of the land use plan,
that a use of property was not established at adoption of the plan, or the property was
inadvertently excluded during consideration of the plan.
t
0
W
y
1
:1
ISM
s�
M
U
t
0
4
0
Section C
Parcel
No.
Existing Zoning
Existing Use
LUD
Comments
Doug's Barber Shop may
disappear with the future
C1
C-2
barber shop
Medium Density
expansion of SH 114
Randoll Mill west of Oak Tree
C2
SF-30
residence
Low Density
Mobile Home Park
southwest corner of Florence
C3
SF-30
residence
Low Density
and Randoll Mill
Hick's Country Store; annexed
into City in October 1987,
rezoned to C-2 in September
1989 with the adoption of Zoning
C4
C-2
convenience store
Low Density
Ordinance No. 480
rezoned prior to the city-wide
ELownsity
rezoning in September 1989, but
C5
C-1
vacant
has never developed
Shaded entries indicate that a rezoning occurred after the adoption of the land use plan,
that a use of property was not established at adoption of the plan, or the property was
inadvertently excluded during consideration of the plan.
m
0
Mi
ode
Section D
Parcel
No.
Existing Zoning
Existing Use
LUD
Comments
D1
SF-20B
residence
Low Density
Royal Oaks and Dove
D2
SF-20B
Residence
Low Density
N Carroll
D3
SF-20A
residence
Low Density
this area is within the 65 LDN;
per 0 1 -20-98 City Council Public
Hearing
D4
B-2
auto repair shop
Office Commercial
per corridor study
recommendation
D5
C-2
vacant
Office Commercial
per corridor study
recommendation
D6
B-2
trucking co. & garden
center
Office Commercial /
Flood Plain
per corridor study
recommendation
D7
SF-1A
residence
Retail Commercial
this area is within the 65 LDN
D8
MF-1
2-family residences
Medium Density
this area is within the 65 LDN
D9
1-1 PUD
metal building
manufacture
Mixed Use
Anderson Industries and Mesco;
this area is within the 65 LDN
D10
SF-30
residence
Low Density I
Raintree Drive
Shaded entries indicate that a rezoning occurred after the adoption of the land use plan,
that a use of property was not established at adoption of the plan, or the property was
inadvertently excluded during consideration of the plan.
[7
game:
UP
3
Section E
Parcel
No.
Existing Zoning
Existing Use
LUD
Comments
E1
C-3 & CS
vacant
Office Commercial
per recommendation from 11-13-
97 P & Z Work Session
E2
SF-30
residence
Low Density
Adjacent to Florence Elem.
E3
SF-1A
vacant
Office Commercial
Retail
residential
Commercial/Low
E4
R-PUD
subdivision
Density
Chesapeake Place
S-P-2 with personal
Low Density / Public
E5
care facility uses
Retirement village
/ Semi -Public
Remington
H&S Strip Center - Southern
strip center of
Mixed Use & Flood
Refractory, Huffaker Roofing,
Total Collision Service, H&S
E6
1-1
industrial uses
Plain
Trucking
E7
SF-30
residence
Office Commercial
per recommendation from 10-02-
97 P&Z Work Session
3 single story office buildings an
E8
C-1
office
Office Commercial
correction to LUP map; feel this
area should be visible on LUP
Southlake Feed and Tack; with
E9
C-1
feed store
Medium Density
expansion of S. White Chapel,
use may disappear
vet clinic, dance
northern portion of Reutlinger
E10
C-2
school and vacant
Office Commercial
tract and commercial lots at Lake
Crest and 1709
E11
C-2
vacant
Medium Density
southern portion of Reutlinger
tract
future Bicentennial Park
Public Parks & Open
expansion; reflects land
E12
C-2 & SP-2 w/ C-3
vacant
Space
exchange north and west of
Crossroads Square
reflects land exchange north of
Retail Commercial /
Crossroads Square; per corridor
E13
CS
vacant
Public Parks I
study recommendation
Shaded entries indicate that a rezoning occurred after the adoption of the land use plan,
that a use of property was not established at adoption of the plan, or the property was
inadvertently excluded during consideration of the plan.
1A
�� • AIMS�rliara
ME
ilk minLip
,
�L .r �� �— 1y11 �. •
..�� ai�K1111 .J�a�■r +Ir
�F�� Sri■ ,ii�l i�.4 _��
-ar �sotii�l�tr.11�111R�a'��■
Section F
Parcel
No.
Existing Zoning
Existing Use
LUD
Comments
per corridor study
F1
C-2 & SP-2 w/ B-2
retail uses & vacant
Office Commercial
recommendation
Telesupport East Concept Plan
approved June 1997; per
F1
C-1
approved office use
Office Commercial
corridor study recommendation
Southlake Commons; rezoned
from C-2 in March 1996; due to
existing zoning; per corridor
study recommendation; per 01-
20-98 City Council Public
F2
SP-2 w/ C-3
vacant
Office Commercial
Hearing
landscape /irrigation
RBI Landscape / Irrigation
F3
C-3
business
Medium Density
contractor
Holt Dental Care & Eye Doctor -
Site Plan approved in August
1996, Remax - Concept Plan
dentist, optometrist,
approved in 1993 (after 1993
F4
C-2
& realtor
Office Commercial
LUP update)
Retail Eyecare & Professional
Offices - Site Plan approved in
F4
C-2 & C-1
vacant
Office Commercial
July 1997
F5
C-2
Drug store
Office Commercial
Ekerd's
F6
SP2 w/ 0-1
vacant
Low Density
French Square Office Complex
established industrial uses;
surrounding area is medium
F7
1-1
Industrial
Medium Density
density residential
F8
1-1
industrial uses
Mixed Use
Mixed Use, Industrial
Fischell Co., Masonry Supply,
F9
1-1 & 1-2
industrial uses
& Flood Plain
and oil tank farm
medium density residential use
Medium Density /
would present a better entry into
F10
1-1
industrial
Flood Plain
the City
mobile homes & single family
residences in Industrial Land
residences &
Mixed Use &
Use designation; industrial
F11
1-1 & MH
industrial uses
Industrial
zoning in Mixed Use designation
Meadow Ridge Addition rezoned
from AG in October 1995, this
area is within the 65 LDN; CISD
F12
SF-20A
vacant
Public / Semi -Public
owned property
car rental, golf shop,
per corridor study
F13
1-1
dentist
Retail Commercial
recommendation
per corridor study
retail center,
recommendation; a portion of
F14
C-3, C-1
residences, vacant
Office Commercial
this area is within the 65 LDN
Shaded entries indicate that a rezoning occurred after the adoption of the land use plan,
that a use of property was not established at adoption of the plan, or the property was
inadvertently excluded during consideration of the plan.