The URL can be used to link to this page

FINAL AgendaREGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 18, 2006 LOCATION: 1400 Main Street, Southlake, Texas Council Chambers in Town Hall WORK SESSION: 5:00 to 5:30 p.m. REGULAR SESSION: 5:30 p.m. or immediately following the work session. Executive Session. Reconvene: Action necessary on items discussed in Executive Session. INVOCATION: Margy Gore, Good Shepherd Catholic Church REPORTS: 4A. Mayor’s Report 1. Recognition of the Citizen’s On Patrol (COPs) and the Citizens Emergency Response Team (CERT) and Fire Rehab 2. Proclamation for Child Abuse Prevention Month 4B. City Manager’s Report 1. Information Technology Alignment Study presentation 4C. Financial Report 4D. Library Board Report 4E. Local Business Report CONSENT AGENDA: 5A. Approve the minutes for the April 4, 2006, regular City Council meeting. 5B. Consider excusing members of the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission for absences from meetings. 5C. Appoint two City Council members to participate in the Bicentennial Park Planning Work Group. 5D. Authorize a contract for a Library Automation System with Polaris Library Systems. 5E. Authorize a Professional Services Agreement with Graham Associates for design of N. White Chapel Blvd. from Highland St. to SH 114. 5F. ZA05-151, Preliminary Plat for Lots 2R1 through 5R2, Block 1, Stonebridge Park Addition, located at Stonebridge Lane and W. Southlake Blvd. Current Zoning: S-P-2. SPIN #15. 5G. ZA05-152, Plat Revision for Lots 2R1 through 5R2, Block 1, Stonebridge Park Addition, being a revision of Lots 2 through 5, Block 1, Stonebridge Park Addition, located at Stonebridge Lane and W. Southlake Blvd. Current Zoning: S-P-2. SPIN #15. 5H. ZA05-170, Plat Revision for Lots 7R1 and 7R2, Block 1, Timberline Estates, being a revision of Lot 1, Block 1, Timberline Estates, located at 220 Timberline Lane. Current Zoning: SF-1A. SPIN #15. 5I. ZA05-136, Plat Vacation for Sandlin Estates, save and except the right-of-way dedication for Shady Oaks Dr., located at 400 W. Chapel Downs Dr. Current Zoning: SF-20A. SPIN #10. 5J. Resolution No. 06-019, (CP06-001) Land Use Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for approx. 29.85 acres located at 945 and 985 Randol Mill Ave. and along the north side of Gifford Court for proposed Palomar Estates. THIS ITEM IS TABLED TO THE MAY 2, 2006 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. 5K. Ordinance No. 480-482, 2nd Reading (ZA05-169), Zoning Change and Development Plan for Johnson Place located at 2440 Johnson Rd. and 430 Randol Mill Ave. Current Zoning: AG and SF-1A. Requested Zoning: R-PUD. SPIN #15. THIS ITEM IS TABLED TO THE MAY 2, 2006 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. REGULAR AGENDA 6. Public Forum. 7A. Ordinance No. 894, 2nd Reading, to cancel the May 13, 2006, General Election and to declare each unopposed candidate elected to office; and providing an effective date. PUBLIC HEARING 7B. Ordinance No. 889-A, 2nd Reading, amending Ordinance No. 889, amending Fiscal Year 2005-06 annual Budget. PUBLIC HEARING 7C. Ordinance No. 585-C, 2nd Reading, Tree Preservation Ordinance and Technical Manual. PUBLIC HEARING 7D. Ordinance No. 480-485, 2nd Reading (ZA06-025), Zoning Change for 400 S. White Chapel Blvd. Current Zoning: AG. Requested Zoning: SF-1A. SPIN #14. PUBLIC HEARING 7E. Ordinance No. 480-486, 2nd Reading (ZA06-034), Zoning Change for 2787 Ridgecrest Dr. Current Zoning: AG. Requested Zoning: RE. SPIN #3. PUBLIC HEARING 7F. ZA06-001, Revised Site Plan for White Chapel Methodist Church, located at 185 S. White Chapel Blvd. and 175 E. Southlake Blvd. Current Zoning: CS. SPIN #9W. PUBLIC HEARING 7G. ZA06-002, Plat Revision for Lot 1R, Block A, White Chapel Methodist Church Addition, being a revision of Lot 1, Block A, White Chapel Methodist Church Addition located at 185 S. White Chapel Blvd. and 175 E. Southlake Blvd. Current Zoning: CS. SPIN #9W. 7H. ZA05-146, Site Plan for Bicentennial Plaza located at 410 W. Southlake Blvd. Current Zoning: C-2. SPIN #10. PUBLIC HEARING 8A. Ordinance No. 480-481, 1st Reading (ZA05-146), Zoning Change and Site Plan for Bicentennial Plaza at 410 W. Southlake Blvd. Current Zoning: C-2. Requested Zoning: S-P-1. SPIN #10. There are no items on this agenda. 10A. ZA05-128, Preliminary Plat for Bella Lago being Lot 10, Block 1, Harbor Oaks, and Tract 5 in the R. Price Survey, Abstract No. 1207, and being approx. 13.09 acres, located at 2970 Burney Lane. Current Zoning: AG. SPIN #3. 10B. Consider SP06-223, Variance to Sign Ordinance No. 704-B for Watermere at Southlake to be located at 2809 W. Southlake Blvd. 10C. Authorize a Residential Developer’s Agreement for Estes Park, Phase III, a 40-lot addition, located west of N. Carroll Ave. and south of E. Dove Rd. 11A. Placement of longhorn cattle statues within City parks as part of the Southlake Stampede public art exhibit. 12. Meeting adjourned. SDCA Volunteer Recognition CERT: Community Emergency Response Team COPS: Citizens on Patrol Fire Rehab Team Contact President Anne Wise president@southlakedps.com Executive VP Angelique York executivevp@southlakedps.com VP Lisa Quinn vp@southlakedps.com Secretary Genny Hale secretary@southlakedps.com Treasurer Bob Robinson treasurer@southlakedps.com Website www.southlakedps.com April 18, 2006 City of Southlake, TexasIT Alignment StudyPresentation of Results Agenda Objectives Approach What We Found Recommendations Timeline Estimated Costs Benefits Question & Answer There Were 4 Key Project Objectives Align IT with the needs of the City Identify opportunities to improve management reporting either with existing, and/or new tools and systems Identify opportunities to improve process effectiveness and efficiency through the use of existing or new technology solutions Develop a high-level implementation roadmap that identifies the approach and timing to implement the required technology in order to improve City operations The Approach Was Comprehensive Implement Immediate Improvements Common Themes Implement Foundational Software Implement New Systems Expand Existing Systems Business Function Summaries Implementation Roadmap Future Application Architecture System Summaries Existing Application Footprint Business Cases Assessment Phase Deliverables Strategy & Plan Phase Deliverables Common Themes identified in the Assessment Phase led to a set of Business Case recommendations that were developed in the Strategy and Plan Phases and are supported by an Implementation Roadmap and a Future State Application Architecture Findings Were Grouped Into 4 Themes Missing system functionality results in manual or inefficient business processes Technology infrastructure is complicated and lacks critical integration between applications Current applications make reporting and analysis difficult or even impossible in some cases Current foundational applications are based on out of date technology and are hard to use What We Found Theme: Missing system functionality results in manual or inefficient business processes Example #1 Current Situation: The HR department currently uses an MS Access database and Excel spreadsheet to perform basic HR functions that would normally be supported/automated by a standard HR application Result: HR must manually track employee leave (FMLA/Workers Comp) and must manually calculate associated payroll calculations in Excel and load these values into the payroll system; this in turn requires reconciliation with payroll and is prone to human error Example #2 Current Situation: The current work order application is tailored for utility billing and cannot be used by other Public Works departments Result: A significant amount of daily work performed by the Public Works department is not tracked/managed in an application; this also has a significant impact on department reporting & planning What We Found Theme: Missing system functionality results in manual or inefficient business processes (continued) Example #3 Current Situation: The purchase order process is currently paper based and is not enabled online in the New World application Result: It sometimes takes days or weeks to process a purchase request because the paper purchase order must route through interoffice mail as part of the approval process. In addition, it is hard to determine the status of where a purchase order is in the process because Example #4 Current Situation: The New World application does not provide a facility for employees to enter their time online; they currently complete a timesheet created in MS Excel Result: The process to get an employee’s time into the New World application as part of the payroll process involves triple entry of the timesheet information (once onto paper document, once into Excel and once into New World) What We Found Theme: Technology infrastructure is complicated and lacks critical integration between applications Numerous Technology Platforms to Support: Operating Systems: AS/400, AIX, MS Server 2003, MS Windows XP, MS DOS Databases: IBM, Microsoft SQL Server, Sybase, Accuserver, PICS, Microsoft Access What We Found Theme: Current applications make reporting and analysis difficult Example #1 Current Situation: Activities/information stored in existing applications are saved in freeform text fields or the information is stored incorrectly because the application does not include the necessary data validation Result: Reports do not contain required information for valid reporting and require re-work in order to be meaningful Example #2 Current Situation: Key activities are not tracked because there is no supporting application (e.g., work orders, purchase orders, fleet maintenance, etc.) Result: In some cases, summary level information is saved in an Excel spreadsheet to enable very basic reporting or in some cases the City is not able to report on the information at all What We Found Theme: Current foundational applications are hard to use and run on a technology platform with weak future viability Technology With Weak Future Viability Finance & DPS applications run on the AS400/iSeries platform which has weak future viability as compared to other platforms AS400/iSeries comes with a higher total cost of ownership when compared to Microsoft apps AS400/iSeries requires a higher level of skill to support and skills are harder to come by Companies have started to “sunset” their support for the AS400/iSeries platform and are focusing efforts on Windows platforms Applications Are Not User Friendly User interface is based on “green screen” or “mainframe” paradigm Users must remember special key strokes and use function keys to navigate the many screens within the application Today’s users find these applications hard to use because they are accustomed to “windows” type applications The difficult user interface has been a barrier to the use of these applications Example “Green Screen” Application Recommendations We developed a future state application architecture to address the assessment themes Future State Application Architecture Foundation apps include automatic interfaces to support end to end processes Functions that were accomplished via MS Access are now part of foundation apps Additional functionality is available (reporting & analysis, self service, etc.) Foundational services such as GIS are integrated with foundational apps Future state architecture is simplified, using fewer operating system and db vendors The IT Roadmap Identifies Initiatives Required for Improvement Estimated Implementation Costs Note: 1) Costs would be incurred over a three year period from 2006 through 2008 2) Cost estimates are preliminary to be finalized as part of software selection & implementation planning The Benefits Are Significant Questions & Answers Finance Department’s Quarterly Review For the period ended March 31, 2006 General Fund Revenues Property tax $11,828,060 (97.5% collected compared to budget) Sales tax $2,777,203 collected ($633,475 above budget) Fines/Forfeitures $708,107 (collected 99.7% of budget) General Fund Revenues Permit fees 99 new residential permits issued Total square footage 512,952 Estimated value 44,006,000 15 new commercial permits issued Total square footage 344,356 Estimated value 19,482,077 General Fund Expenditures Department expenditures are within expected budget projections $10,536,778 (44.0% of budget) Utility Fund Total Revenue $7,554,057 48.0% collected compared to budget Total Expenses $8,220,518 51.1% disbursed compared to budget Other Funds SPDC Sales tax collections $1,368,201 Crime Control Sales tax collections $1,338,086 TIF Property tax collections on target Questions? Local Business Report Economic Development 200 N. Kimball Ave., Ste. 225 (817) 796-3200 www.americanbackyard.com Item 5C Appoint two City Council Members to participate in the Bicentennial Park Planning Work Group Bicentennial Park Planning Work Group Schrickel, Rollins and Associates contracted to perform master planning and schematic design of Bicentennial Park (east and west) Current site analysis work underway Due to scope and long term impact of project Council and Board participation is key Work Group developed to provide input to consultants during process: Three members of Parks Board SBA representation Staff Bicentennial Park Planning Work Group Propose addition of two City Council members First meeting scheduled for early May Also anticipate inclusion of stakeholder input through public forum (citizens, park users) and specific user group meetings (Tennis, Safety Town, Liberty Garden/KSB) Staff seeks direction on proposed addition of two Council members to volunteer to serve on the Bicentennial Park Planning Work Group Questions? Item 5D Library Automation System Library Automation System Upgrade Library Automation System Upgrade Reduced Cost: Current system cost over a 5-year period - $123,000 Proposed new system cost over same period - $91,369 Savings result from: 1 server vs. 3 servers Reduced maintenance costs Reduced staff upkeep of system Library Automation System Upgrade System Enhancements Allow for virtual library branches Ability to customize web interface and staff screens Extensive reporting capabilities More user-friendly Strong vendor support Library Automation System Upgrade 5 year cost comparison Current system Replace Servers (3): Year 1 & year 5 total: $63,000 5 year Maintenance Contract totals: $60,000 Total = $123,000 Proposed system Purchase system $51,369 Replace Server (1) in 5 years $8,000 5 year Maintenance Contract totals: $32,000 Total = $91,369 Questions? ITEM 5E Professional Services Agreement with Graham Associates for Design of North White Chapel Blvd. from Highland Street to SH 114 N. White Chapel Blvd.Professional Services Agreement Final Design of Project Included in 05/06 CIP Preliminary Schematic and Engineering completed by Graham Associates in 02/03 CIP Engineering Fee – Final Design is $120,242.69 N. White Chapel Blvd. Professional Services Agreement Proposed Section - 4 Lane Divided Approximately 1350 L.F. N. White Chapel Blvd. Professional Services Agreement SCHEDULE Design completion – Nov. 2006 Construction Start – Jan. 2007 Construction – 6 months N. White Chapel Blvd. Professional Services Agreement Staff Recommendation: Approve QUESTIONS? Items 5 F & G ZA05-151 & ZA05-152 OWNER: Stonebridge Monticello Pt., Ltd. APPLICANT: Realty Capital Corp. REQUEST: 1) Approval of a preliminary plat containing approximately 8.96 acres and proposing eight (8) lots for office development. 2) Approval of a plat revision for containing approximately 8.96 acres and proposing eight (8) lots for office development. LOCATION: The property is located at Stonebridge Lane and W. Southlake Boulevard. ZA05-151 & ZA05-152 Site Data Gross Land Area: 8.96 acres Net Land Area: 7.86 acres Area of R.O.W.: 1.10 acres Number of Lots: 8 lots View looking west along W Southlake Blvd W Southlake Blvd Davis Blvd Randol Mill Ave ZA05-151 & ZA05-152 P&Z ACTION: Approved (5-0) subject to review summaries. Questions? Item 5.H ZA05-170 OWNER: James Bedford APPLICANT: Salyer and Associates REQUEST: Approval of a plat revision containing approximately 5.00 acres and proposing 2 single family residential lots. LOCATION: The property is located at 220 Timberline Lane. View looking west Timberline Lane View looking north ZA05-170 Site Data Gross/Net Land Area: 5.00 acres Number of Lots: 2 lots Gross/Net Density: 0.40 du/acre Average Lot Size: 2.50 acres (108,965 sq. ft.) ZA05-170 P&Z ACTION: Approved (5-0) subject to review. ZA05-170 P&Z ACTION: Approved (5-0). Questions? Item 5. I ZA05-136 OWNER/APPLICANT: Savannah Court Partnership REQUEST: Approval of a plat vacation for Sandlin Estates. The purpose of the request is to vacate the existing subdivision plat to allow for a new plat for residential homes (Sandlin Manor) to be recorded with the County. LOCATION: Located 2,500 feet north of W. Southlake Boulevard between N. White Chapel Boulevard and Shady Oaks Drive. The physical address is 400 W. Chapel Downs Drive. SF-20 SF-20 View looking north ZA05-170 P&Z ACTION: Approved (5-0). Questions? Item 7B Ord. No. 889-A; Amending the Fiscal Year 2005-06 Annual Budget. City Council April 18, 2006 General Fund Revenues Total increase in revenue of $940,000. Sales tax: $750,000 above budget Fines/Forfeitures:$190,000 above budget for the period General Fund Expenditures Total Expenditure $507,024 General Fund Estimated Year-end Estimated Revenues: $25,054,677 Estimated Expenditures: $24,479,816 Revenues over Expenditures: $574,861 Ending Fund Balance: $7,993,528 (32.65%) Utility Fund Proposed revenue increase: $500,000 Year-end revenue: $16,253,000 Proposed expenditure increase: $223,813 (purchase of auto read system and additional transponders.) Year-end expenditures: $16,307,054 Anticipating ending the year with 70 days of working capital. Other Funds Park Dedication Fund Proposed expenditure increase: $62,500 (contract amendment for conceptual planning and schematic design for Bicentennial Park) Year-end fund balance: $105,935 Vehicle Replacement Fund Proposed expenditure increase: $26,100 (fund the Fleet Coordinator position) Year-end fund balance: $2,312,775 Other Funds SPDC-Capital Improvement Budget Proposed expenditure increase: $103,625 $37,825 for Nature Center asbestos abatement $65,800 for design, engineering and construction of Bob Jones Loop Rd. Questions/Comments? IT Study Phase I Implementation Integrated Foundational System Solution Selection: Technical expertise to assist the City in process development and solution selection by: assisting in defining the City’s process requirements identifying and evaluating various software vendors and products writing the RFP and assisting with final selection of the most appropriate software solutions for the financial management, accounting, fixed assets, human resources and utility billing systems The total mid-year budget adjustment for this project would be $98,000 IT Study Phase I Implementation Immediate Process Improvements: Development Review Process Solution: Implementation of a technological solution which will reduce staff time by as much as 15% and save the City $10,187 annually (software cost of $37,500) Purchase Order Processing Solution: Implementation of a technological solution for the on-line purchase order processing resulting in annual savings of $43,873 and allowing those resources to be applied to higher priority issues (software cost of $37,500) The total mid-year budget adjustment for these two projects would be $75,000. IT Study Phase I Implementation Financial Considerations: Integrated Foundational System Solution Selection - $98,000 Immediate Process Improvements (Purchase Orders and Development Review) - $75,000 Total Mid-Year Budget Amendment for IT Study Implementation: $173,000 IT Study Phase I Implementation Questions/Comments? Payroll Processing Current process is extremely inefficient (i.e. triple entry of data between departments and finance) An area of high importance to the Finance Dept. and confirmed in the initial IT assessment Total Mid-Year Budget Amendment for outsourcing payroll processing: $22,576 Payroll Processing Questions/Comments? DPS Promotional Process Annual testing process will allow for: Promotion eligible list Quickly fill supervisory positions Consistency in process / managed expectations Provides equal opportunity for advancement Uses ethical industry accepted performance measures Provides increased professionalism Third party objectivity DPS Promotional Process Southlake Specific Process and not an “off the shelf” process Testing will focus on Southlake job functions, values Specific promotional process geared towards the needs of SDPS Dynamic promotional process will use current Standard Operating Procedures and General Orders 69% of SDPS employees disagreed that the promotional process is fair (2005 DPS Management Study) DPS Promotional Process Financial Considerations: Currently only $11,000 budgeted for promotional process Requesting an additional $29,000 to hire professional consulting firm to create and conduct the promotional process DPS Promotional Process Questions/Comments? Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Southlake must have a FEMA approved Hazard Mitigation Action Plan in place to receive future federal disaster grant funds Mitigation Planning is an integral part of emergency and disaster preparedness Southlake will use the grant funds in conjunction with local funds to prepare the required action plan Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Financial Considerations: The total cost to develop the action plan is $40,000 The City of Southlake applied for and received a federal grant to pay for the Hazard Mitigation Action Plan The federal portion of the grant is 75% with the local match portion being 25% In order to receive the $30,000 in federal funds, the City must match $10,000 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Questions/Comments? Underground Utilities Placement of utility lines underground at Shops of Southlake development Council directed staff to proceed with this project, understanding that a mid year budget request would come forth later in the year Total Mid-Year Budget Amendment for underground utility placement: $220,000 Underground Utilities Questions/Comments? City Branding $6,000 is currently budgeted for a city logo update 3/21-Leadership Southlake Team recommends branding initiative for Southlake 18 month process employing a branding consultant Estimated total initiative cost of $60,000 Option 1: $20,000 (+$6,000) = $26,000 RFP Development, Consultant selection Process begins (5 months) but doesn’t finish by Sept. Option 2: $54,000 (+$6,000) = $60,000 RFP Development, Consultant selection Completion of process by Sept. may be unrealistic Option 3: $34,000 (+$6,000) = $40,000 in FY 05-06 Anticipate $20,000 in FY 06-07 RFP Development, Consultant selection Completion of process in 2005 more realistic City Branding Questions/Comments? ITEM 10C Residential Developer’s Agreement for Estes Park III Estes Park Phase III Site Location Estes Park Phase III 5,300 LF PAVEMENT 5,900 LF WATER LINE 6,000 LF SANITARY SEWER 850 LF STORM SEWER Estes Park Phase III Required Park Land Dedication for Estes Park III is 1 Acre. RDA states 0ne (1) acre credit from The Cliffs at Clariden Ranch to be used. Actually, No credits from The Cliffs at Clariden Ranch are required to be used. Estes Park Phase III Estes Park II RDA included dedication of Park Land for Estes Park III. No Additional Dedication required as part of this RDA. QUESTIONS? Item 11A Placement of Longhorn Cattle Statues within City parks as part of the Southlake Stampede public art exhibit Discussion of Placement of Longhorn Cattle in Southlake parks Southlake Stampede public art exhibit approved by City Council on April 4, 2006 Current park sites proposed for placement of longhorns include: Bicentennial Bob Jones Town Square Noble Oaks (Central Park) Individual site placement reviewed to account for: site characteristics visibility aesthetics and security Bicentennial Park Planning Work Group Sponsor requests for placement in these particular City parks is considered a preference and is not guaranteed Given high profile nature of project staff seeks Council input and direction regarding placement Southlake Stampede Chair Mary Georgia also available should you have questions or require additional information Park site information available upon request Questions? Tuesday, April 18, 2006 City of Southlake City Council Meeting Item 7CTree Preservation Ordinance(No. 585-C) 2nd Reading Presentation Outline Ordinance Background Key Changes (585-B) Standards for Approval of Tree Permits Tree Conservation Analyses and Tree Conservation Plans Format Changes (incorporation of the Tree Technical Manual) Clarification of Administrative and Approval authority Penalties Vested Rights Changes from First Reading (January 3, 2006) Questions Background Originally adopted in June 1993 First amended in December 1997 and then in January 2000 Needs to be updated to reflect the Community’s desire for tree preservation based on the recently adopted Southlake 2025 Plan Tree Permits Tree Permit Required to Alter Protected Trees except for the following: Trees immediately endangering public health or safety; Trees located on property of a licensed nursery; Residential zoned districts; and A tree located within 150’ of AG homestead. Tree Permits Approval of Tree Permits unrelated to development (Section 6.5.a): Installation or maintenance of a utility or service line; Diseased, damaged or hazardous tree; Less than 7 trees per calendar year on AG zoned property; Damage to existing structures and improvements; and Selective thinning in a heavily wooded area Tree Permits Approval of Tree Permits related to development (Section 6.5.b): Based on the City Council approved Tree Conservation Plan that is approved in conjunction with the corresponding Preliminary Plat or Site Plan. Tree Conservation Analyses (TCA) & Tree Conservation Plans (TCP) Tree Conservation Analysis Tree Conservation Plan Tree Permit Concept or Development Plan Site Plan/ Prelim. Plat Building/ Earth Dist. Permit Development Review Process TPO Review Process Tree Conservation Analysis Tree Conservation Analysis Tree Conservation Plan Tree Permit Most general analysis with alarge scope Identification of major siteconstraints Establishment of potentialconservation and development areas Evaluation based uponERP Map and recommendations City Council approval basedupon P&Z recommendation Concept / Development Plan/Preliminary Plat* * Site Plan Required Tree Conservation Analysis Tree Conservation Plan Tree Conservation Analysis Tree Conservation Plan Tree Permit Detailed analysis witha site specific scope Based on Council approvedTree Conservation AnalysisRecommendations Site design and layoutbased upon environmentalfeatures identified forpreservation City Council approval basedupon P&Z recommendation Site Plan/ Preliminary Plat* No Site Plan Required* Tree Conservation Analyses (TCA) & Tree Conservation Plans (TCP) Required for all development applications based on Table 1.0 (Section 7.0) Tree Conservation Analyses (TCA) & Tree Conservation Plans (TCP) Standards of Approval: Based on the minimum existing tree cover to be preserved (Table 2.0) for all development proposed in straight zoning districts (e.g. SF1-A, SF-20, C-1, O-1, etc.) (Section 7.2.a) *The minimum percentage of existing tree cover to be preserved shall exclude any area in public rights-of-way as approved by City Council. Tree Conservation Analyses (TCA) & Tree Conservation Plans (TCP) For all other zoning districts (including SP districts and PUD’s) the following criteria apply (7.2.b): Preservation of environmental features in the placement of all improvements on the site Maximizes the tree preservation areas identified in the ERP Map Maximizes tree preservation along creeks, drainage channels, and existing neighborhoods Proposed mitigation of altered trees through tree replacement Tree Conservation Plan Adopted Environmental Resource Protection Map, a component of the Southlake 2025 Plan is a basis for TCA & TCP. Existing Ordinance Proposed Ordinance Format Changes Format changes – incorporation of tree technical standards in conjunction with the ordinance Approval Authority Clarification of Administrative and Approval Authority City Council makes the final decision on the Tree Conservation Analysis and Tree Conservation Plan based on P&Z recommendation (Section 7.0) Administrative Official grants Tree Permit based on approved Tree Conservation Plan where applicable (Section 6.4) Appeals to Administrative Official’s interpretation and decision to be heard by the Tree Board (Section 14.1) Appeals to the civil penalties assessed by the Administrative Official to be heard by the City Manager (Section 12.3) Variances are granted by City Council after P&Z recommendation (Section 14.2) Vested Rights All properties that have an approved concept, development, site plan or preliminary plat on or before September 1, 2005 shall meet the standards of Ordinance 585-B unless: the proposed development changes significantly from the original approved plan and is considered to be a new project; or an approved preliminary plat expires before a corresponding final plat is approved; or if the applicant voluntarily chooses the provisions of Ordinance 585-C. Penalties Increases penalties for violation from $100 per diameter inch to $200 per diameter inch and from a maximum of $500 per incident to a maximum of $2,000 per incident (Section 12). Penalties apply to the person responsible and does not run with the land. Ordinance Amendment Process October – November 2005: Planning and Zoning Commission Review and Public input meetings including: November 16, 2005 meeting with area developers and builders November 21, 2005 SPIN Public Forum and Open House December 8, 2005 – Formal Consideration by Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2006 – Approved on first reading by City Council. Changes made since First Reading Establishment of standards for approval for Tree Permits (Section 6.0); Criteria for approval of Tree Conservation Plans and Tree Conservation Analyses depending on the zoning district of the proposed development (Section 7.0); Clarification of vested rights for all developments and plats approved before September 1, 2005 (Section 19); Clarification of penalty clause to apply to the person responsible for any offense to the ordinance (does not run with the land-Section 12.0); Definition of all protected trees as trees over 6” DBH (Section 4.0); Incorporation of a recommended tree planting list and requirements for submittal for a tree survey and alternative to a tree survey as appendices into the ordinance by reference. The other attachments will be noted as supplements to the Tree Technical Manual (Appendix B & Supplements); Clarification and addition of several definitions (Section 4); and Elimination of the term “clear cutting” in favor of “Multiple tree clearance” to address removal of all trees over 7 trees per year on AG zoned property (Section 8.1.d). Changes made since First Reading Ordinance 585-C QUESTIONS? Item 7D ZA06-025 OWNER: Todd & Amanda Tracy APPLICANT: Kenny Anderson Construction REQUEST: 2nd Reading Approval of a zoning change from “AG” Agricultural District to “SF-1A” Single Family Residential District on approximately 2.50 acres. LOCATION: The property is located at 400 S. White Chapel Boulevard. Land Use Recommendations Underlying Low Density Residential with a Rural Conservation optional designation. View looking east toward property View looking south towards the property Submitted Plat Showing P&Z Action Approved (5-0) as presented. City Council Action Approved first reading (6-0) ZA06-025 QUESTIONS? Item 7E ZA06-034 OWNER/APPLICANT: Peter & Ginny Lane REQUEST: 2nd Reading Approval of a zoning change from “AG” Agricultural District to “RE” Single Family Residential Estate District on approximately 5.82 acres. LOCATION: The property is located at 2787 Ridgecrest Drive. View looking south toward property View looking east towards the property Submitted Plat Showing Submitted P&Z Action Approved (5-0) as presented. City Council Action Approved first reading (6-0) ZA06-034 QUESTIONS? Item 7F & G ZA06-001 & ZA06-002 OWNER: Whites Chapel United Methodist Church APPLICANT: Jacobs & Associates REQUEST: 1) Approval of a revised site plan under the existing “CS” zoning for expansion of the church campus 2) Approval of a plat revision containing approximately 23.35 acres and proposing a single lot for a church. LOCATION: The property is located at 175 E. Southlake Boulevard. Land Use Recommendations Existing land use designation – Low Density Residential and Public/Semi-Public. View looking East S White Chapel Blvd View looking South at proposed improvements & variance request Request approval as permanent structures & variance to masonry regulations Area of proposed Chapel ZA06-001 Site Data Gross Land Area: 23.35 acres Net Land Area: 23.28 acres Number of Lots: 1 lot Square Footage: 133,284 square feet -104,806 sq. ft. existing* -33,255 sq. ft. proposed Parking Required: 667 spaces Parking Provided: 994 spaces Open Space: 47.21% (478,774 sq. ft.) Impervious Coverage: 52.79% (535,303 sq. ft.) *Some existing square footage to be altered by new construction Classroom Building ‘A’ Classroom Building ‘B’ Area of additional parking Wedding Chapel Existing Portable Buildings *Requesting variance to horizontal & vertical articulation; West façade of Bldg. A, visible from S. White Chapel *Requesting variance to match the roof materials on existing buildings (Bldgs. A, B & C) Height of Steeple Max. permitted = 50’ Requesting = 61’ *Requesting variance to Masonry Ordinance No. 557, as amended *Requesting variance to Masonry Ordinance No. 557, as amended *Requesting variance to Masonry Ordinance No. 557, as amended Plat Revision ZA06-001 & ZA06-002 P&Z ACTION: ZA06-001 – Approved 5-0 subject to review, granting height waiver to allow the 61 foot steeple; granting variance to articulation and to the roof material; and allowing all classrooms buildings (as temporary) with variance to masonry requirements until June 24, 2010. ZA06-002 – Approved 5-0 subject to review. ZA06-001 and ZA06-002 QUESTIONS? Item 7H ZA05-146 Proposed Site Plan Under Existing “C-2” Zoning OWNER: Thomas Stephen / The White House Exe. Center, L.P. APPLICANT: GSO Architects REQUEST: Approval of a Site Plan. An alternate site plan for consideration under the existing “C-2” zoning with no zoning change. LOCATION: The property is located at 410 W. Southlake Blvd, at the Southlake Blvd entrance to Bicentennial Park. View looking East along W. Southlake Blvd W Southlake Blvd Bicentennial Park Currently Approved Plan Currently Approved Elevations ZA05-146 Site Data ( “C-2” Plan) Gross/Net Land Area: 1.35 acres Number of Lots: 1 Total Square Footage: 11,340 sq. ft. -2,000 sq. ft. restaurant -9,340 sq. ft. retail Parking Required: 67 spaces Parking Provided: 60 spaces (10% reduction) Impervious Coverage: 69.92% (41,234 sq. ft.) Alternate Site Plan Stacking: Req’d = 50’Prop. = 22’ Spacing: Req’d = 250’ Prov. = 219’ Spacing: Req’d = 250’ Prov. = 80’ *Requesting 10% reduction in parking *Requires Access Agreement w/City Variance to Corridor Overlay Masonry Standards to Allow stained tilt wall ZA05-146 P&Z ACTION: Approved (6-0) Recommended approval preferring the S-P-1 plan, also approving the alternate site plan and approving requested variances. ZA05-146 QUESTIONS? Item 8A ZA05-146 “S-P-1” Zoning and Site Plan OWNER: Thomas Stephen / The White House Exe. Center, L.P. APPLICANT: GSO Architects REQUEST: Approval of a Zoning Change and Site Plan for “S-P-1” Detailed Site Plan District zoning. LOCATION: The property is located at 410 W. Southlake Blvd, at the Southlake Blvd entrance to Bicentennial Park. ZA05-146 (Item 8A) “S-P-1” Zoning & Site Plan Under the “S-P-1” zoning the applicant proposes the following: “C-2” Local-Retail Commercial District uses and development regulations Side Yard – Not less than 10’ from the east property line Masonry – Concrete tilt wall with a stained finish shall be permitted to comply with exterior masonry requirements ZA05-146 Site Data Gross/Net Land Area: 1.35 acres Number of Lots: 1 Total Square Footage: 12,548 sq. ft. -2,200 sq. ft. restaurant -9,998 sq. ft. retail Parking Required: 72 spaces Parking Provided: 65 spaces (10% reduction) Impervious Coverage: 68% (246,398 sq. ft.) Proposed Site Plan Proposing 10’ Side Yard Setback Stacking: Req’d = 50’Prop. = 41’ Spacing: Req’d = 250’ Prov. = 219’ Spacing: Req’d = 250’ Prov. = 80’ *Requesting 10% reduction in parking *Requires Access & Parking Agreement w/City ZA05-146 P&Z ACTION: Approved (6-0) Recommended approval preferring the S-P-1 plan also approving the alternate site plan and approving requested variances. ZA05-146 QUESTIONS? Item 10A ZA05-128 APPLICANT: Maxxus Development, L.P. REQUEST: Preliminary Plat approval proposing nine single family residential lots on 13.09 acres LOCATION: The property is located at the 2900 Block of Burney Lane. Environment Resource Protection Recommendation Locate the building pad sites to maximize tree preservation. ZA05-128 Site Data Gross Land Area: 13.094 acres Net Land Area: 11.39 acres Area of R.O.W.: 1.70 acres Number of Lots: 9 lots Gross Density: 0.69 du/acre Net Density: 0.79 du/acre Average Lot Size: 1.27 acres (55,128 sq. ft.) Proposed 9-Lot Plat 564’ contour = flood plain limit line 572’ contour = Corps of Engineers’ flowage easement line Flood Plain Elevations ZA05-128 P&Z ACTION: DENIED 5-0 ZA05-128 QUESTIONS? Item 10B SP06-223 APPLICANT: Southlake Watermark Holdings, L.P. LOCATION: 2809 West Southlake Boulevard REQUEST: Variance to Sign Ordinance No. 704-B with respect to maximum sign height, sign area, and time of installation for a temporary development sign: SP06-223 The applicant is requesting to install the sign in the next few weeks. A temporary development sign must be removed upon the issuance of a C.O. on 75% of the lots within the subdivision for a residential subdivision. Location Map Site Plan Sign Location Proposed Sign Total height will not exceed 15 feet Shops of Southlake Development Sign Total height – 13.5 feet Area – 160 square feet Conditions of Approval - Approved for a period of one year Town Square Development Sign Total height – 13.96 feet Area – 152 square feet Town Square Development Sign Conditions of Approval: Applicant may change the sign face several times throughout the year. The permit for the existing sign was extended for a period of one year (sign will be displayed for two years total) SP06-223 QUESTIONS?