Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1999-12-02
( 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: 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. \ \SLXSV40011LOCAL \COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT \ WP-FILES \ZBA \PENDING\DRAFT ORDINANCES'S -P DISTRICT.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 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.) 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 anything 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 any concept plan that they feel they can build possibly 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 zity 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. E. Southlake Blvd. suite 130 South lake, TX 76092 329 -1599 193 ?a =_ -;,< 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 yroject. That can be obtained within the S -P -2 district by restricting ° concept Olin y , ctmg the amount 'of time that the :con is valid If the he proposed project is not followed up with the S -P -1 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 -1 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 °.ngineering without some comfort that they are headed in the right direction with their plans. The market is always changing, Each development that occurs affects 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 -1 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 -1 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 ''elp in any way, I would appreciate the opportunity to assist. Sin r erry L. Wilkinson 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: 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\ LOCAL \COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP- FILES \ZBA \PENDING\480 - CHANGES MEMO.DOC TAYLOR, OLSON, ADKINS, SRALLA & ELAM, L.L.P. ATTORNEYS AT L A W THROCKMORTON STREET TELEPHONE (817) 332 -2580 BANK ONE TOWER TOLL FREE (800) 318 -3400 ,T WORTH, TEXAS 76102 -3821 FAX (817) 332 -4740 DEBRA A. DRAYOVITCH e -mail: dad @toaselaw.usa.cum extension: 224 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: 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 to be made 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: 1. 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 "+'"•. zi Otherwise, i furnish this to n... n for I. t\I I i r•. E ' �. L �i iiJR to y/vdy �e Ior US . QL tomorrow's meeting. Sincerely, ahlt 01 / 67/ Debra A. Drayovitch DAD:Imh H:\ LIBRARY \Southlake \LETTERS\Gandy.d09.wpd ' AGENDA ITEM #8, DISCUSSION OF ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO 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.1(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 -1A" 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-1B") 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 '? Chairman Creighton said there would be an Executive Session held in order to seek legal advice regarding the power of the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the authority of the City Council with 44 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 — I 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 said they would work on that wording. 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). �-, Vice - Chairman Peebles said the "C -2" changes are going to be far reaching and will take longer than z4 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 allowed in "C -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: Whereas a number of issues have been presented in the development of our City that call into z4 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." >i 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 with Section 40 within 12 months of the approval of the Concept Plan by City Council 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. 17 (Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 10- 07 -99, tape 2, section #0676) 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 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 -1A" 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-1A" 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 -1A" lots over one acre, I recommend that the previous language be reinstated to allow 1,000 s.f. der acre (with fractions being rounded to the nearest 10 feet). 13 -2 13.6 1 "Concept Plan" - (SF -30 District) 4 -2 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) 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 (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 -12 4.2 4 Definitions - Lot Types - C is a through lot. Should it be noted that this type of lot is not permitted. 4 -13 4.2 4 Definitions - Parking Space Ratio: Evaluate the need for this definition. 4 -14 4.2 4 Definitions - Quarry or Mining - Add "Drilling" to the definition. 4 -15 4.2 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. 4 -15 4.2 2 Definitions - Setback - Amend to limit definition to "Front" or describe setbacks in general. 4 -15 4.2 4 Definitions - Sign - Make sure that there are no inconsistencies with Ordinance No. 506 -A. 4 -17 4.2 1 Definitions - Yard, Front - Major work needed to insure consistency between definitions of frontage, lot frontage, front yard. 4 -18 4.2 1 Definitions - Yard, Rear - Simplify the language and address five -sided lots, triangular lots, etc. (Correct page numbers for drawings.) 4 -18 4.2 1 Definitions - Yard, Side - Simplify the language and address five -sided lots, triangular lots, etc. 4 -18 4.2 1 Defmitions - Zero lot line - Add definition. Address this issue as it pertains to commercial lots, especially within a commercial development. Section 6 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 1 Definitions - Front Yard/Floor Area To correct the alphabetization of floor area and front yard. 4 -6 4.2 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). 4 -7 4.2 3 Definitions - Garage, Private (Residential) Compare with accessory building definition to insure no inconsistencies. 4 -7 4.2 4 Definitions - Garage Sales Delete reference or establish a permitting and enforcement procedure. 4 -8 4.2 3 Definitions - Grades - Add exhibit(s) for clarification from the Applications /Interpretations Manual, U.B.C. '91 Edition 4 -8 4.2 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. 4 -8 4.2 2 Definitions - Height of Building - Add exhibit(s) from Applications /Interpretations Manual, U.B.C. '91 Edition. 4 -9 4.2 . 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 "0 -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 adj acency. 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 -1" 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 24.5 1. 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 m. 4 "B -1" Development Regulations - m. 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 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% 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? 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 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 2 Add 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 1 retail sales could be increased for all "I -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 ?8 -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. Corner 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 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 -1A and SF -1B? 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 permit by d Adjt). 34 -9 34.2 e. 1 Accessory Uses - use Accessory Building the Boar - e. one of story ustmen 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." '4 -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." 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 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). 36 -1 36.2 3 "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. 38-1 38 4 Outside Storage - Redo Entire Section. (Add requirement that all outside storage shall be on an all weather surface.) 39 -1 39 4 Screening - Redo Entire Section. Address the need for parking lot screening across from residential. Also, no dumpsters inside the setback line. 41 1 Insure that Concept Plans are processed per the same notice requirements of a request for a zoning change. 41 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 -10 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. 42 -13 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) '4 -1 44.1 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. • 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: 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. Legal Reviews: None required at this time. Financial Considerations: 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 ':\SLKSV4001\LOCAL \COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT \ WP-FILES \ZBAWENDING\LUP ZONING INCONSISTEN CIES. DOC r ZONING INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE MAP Citywide Grid No Inconsistent Parcels in Grid section B r '! ., .. -lit ".• --, .---:,', ---- .. —. ____, A n o n f�• B I% - :illfie All • ._ ■ .:., • _; -' \ �i , • i b 11i 'IMA 1 " -1r :1i r ...n.-= 1 ?c �. '°= ,.wry K = r - a• i ;:w , • •o=r.[i wi Jr lu. ■18 - w..� , .:;!...-1 - • al :Illi'�10QII:o� - ..:1J «. ,:f - ..... _ s .1 " e - _.. .� ..�.. i °_1°9.� = °ate - I �1W i • t ti l�. ,,it � N�t�� � ?�a . � .�'r )Ir �• • � Sa■ \� _ " WAIL IIILI: AI I ..?:1 • . n i "E .."' L "-' • 11:: :: ,; :l .T. C f.Fii`n = t i 1 : � . Y., .r, ■t E , . :.. „., - E. ., ,,,..........., ir F ftil l iim PiP •I'- k Anil v 17 41 atra, VIII ' 1 Iii a " gown, 4 par MOM i A ) �a el141 • ICIP/ Z .-, . . Mi JAM 1115111Nr .. r _), • 0 :-c-d ct .4_, p.i 4) 0 = -.5 rzl .cs o : lii ca _4et: aA = • 0 0 = o .,74 N Section A Par 2 € r ✓ o a X d m ttt}Itt ��ICIS fIIE���§`,.,,a, „ n. s � U mobile home per 01 -20 -98 City Council Public Al MH residences Low Density Hearing this area is within the 65 LDN; fish distribution 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. ' r fir Q �� ��j 11 IAr :Mill; I.l{ �. .� ( +• sy +1, +►, i � ,. a Ilya Air ...... . r111ru11 • /- mi S ■ .' rr '1 ,,,e di III ■lli ■„, „„, _. ■ i . I 14 mtri pi 4 i s lit ` s*`''' 0 < � 5 9 : ; ;I�� ■ .0 TICi'�_' =ar ...a III ,. ■ �� 5 ♦��■ n y � � ��� ; � IIII �1if a. a l E ■ = i 1 I ISM Itrr�+I Pit ‘1.:`1=4 r.. ; � ■ ■ ■�...111 i,nI1p�r.v: �4�.r r lIt�1 w ;111111 / rr ;a _*±+l# : er I _ _aid: i �r P • f I t 1'■ I r . i'lr 1 .� 0 . .. • /NS Y. . ■ice �►. f1r fertig �wcawri N IL i •em.Ill ! '” ` ��.it.! . i , r f l 7 1.111 •■. . ,- =. t O o to y,� r . f ! 4 4 Vai +iil u p E rtl mi neat. Am R■ ■ ■I■ ■M,= -1 - "MM. •0� /Jt '. ■1ll 'l.T: IN ��' ■rte i 1111R aril r 1:61 IA F Mill iiii. � F . CI �, ,�� ■IIIII MR (I) = cD CD r4 � CA CA N KU '� U ("9") o ° U 111111 ' Cs) a mop 1 1111111111111 ' -OM I . _.Trim 0 C G ri ilii N lilt lir Section C parcel ,14,44; Ex`istin eZaning •. .. Exrstir use ..LID 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 rezoning in September 1989, but C5 C -1 vacant Low Density 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. cz Cli = cu cu cf , il MI d ii g ii.e..., Z ti) 4 a) ,---4 t 1■ ■ ■r Q ■. 1 6,. . i N o� i11 �!IIr11111k 0 I d ! gIwuuuiI i 4113 li ' ._' - 74.111..Ilniums,„_11 Fr r - -.-r, .........inialiffr im. , riwIr 11 .: . : - - ---- ---..:---..''') �ilI■■i' /bi `iii■.e �ioilm ,`: 1111 clizt,-74:.,..„--/iiimille AIIIMINF 14 : 11 . i j 6. 0 : 1 ir - ITEIBIE 00 w - , nig o......„,:i. --,.„„,-,...„L 1 11 . !....,,,,,.,,,. a mr_guiranrigil iii al F ''.II h 1lii= ii7 �S; 1?1 ! �i *Lerij 111111 ttE ! ' A o paiHriMillIMWOr � �■ gari;a .1"I'I_iv, t7. ii - h. �Ii, ■111 S ` I� "" - ����� Lsk L .7 4�— r �i7. a'if�71r.f. ill 721 = 111 1"laimuirri , -- I FA FM FEE II C I' ) av p 'El Ilk " wirmiz .t. IRH;41:47.40....k;vibp■4111.00.7 lifillitiviii warn ii ail-.-7„,W.8 ... 6 11 1 ,- .-.. lip rginigni,,,,, 1 .4 grA L. CNI a * MEI SOLI TI2-2W AINIMILIkailiefail 1EN •I 1 F ti -111/ . 11011"11111r zoom gitairo Section D Parcel No Existing- Zonini Existing -Use, LUD Gornments Di SF -20B residence Low Density Royal Oaks and Dove D2 SF -20B Residence Low Density N Carroll this area is within the 65 LDN; per 01 -20 -98 City Council Public D3 SF -20A residence Low Density Hearing per corridor study D4 B -2 auto repair shop Office Commercial recommendation per corridor study D5 C -2 vacant Office Commercial recommendation trucking co. & garden Office Commercial / per corridor study D6 B -2 center Flood Plain 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 metal building Anderson Industries and Mesco; D9 1 -1 PUD manufacture Mixed Use this area is within the 65 LDN D10 SF -30 residence Low Density 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. M CN1 O ,� w w w w w .ii .mi\• VII :.k room l!1 _ 11_ wismi11 l il t.. -' v : is #! *4 111 ' : i li ■■ . . - L1lR■'� ! Jf } +' '� �'i1V Min :: 1 : 1 ' ri ,..is a � I l I ' J IIE41)* �� �aiuuii ' la % mime: 4 ■•Ti• , 111111C.■ 4 3 ' en � '. 111ri� , �■■rriii ■ .:� * + ` IIIME M - ; _l u iu11rI ++ 1 � + 4u 1 ' Ira1r ■ ■■ ` ■ si■ ■1 • * ;y 1r�t; ;_� =. . .1,44 S 1 � fi r,!iil 't.w� il1��i: ?� {► i1t4 #+ I *f j � p 511 • *• y■ Ili ifti�111Ni.111Yiamai �rt + , de. 1 , 0 +.. 4 iN . 'ol..1 111111111roo ifd a'll* ♦�} le, • L ' ■;� �TJI fi * *- i • ♦ 0 . yr . Tr1 . Z :11011./Jr 1 r. sEr i d s ' ; w ■ *.. X1 ''4 :U��� 4t z ...- : +- -WI : �6 . + i' .1 7.. } tali. !411 1..ti � #a — J 1` .t4 %�tiai y��• *# f` *#!al 73 4 ' ll ' .i ce �/„1b - r • rN7F aim 1r�__Ir W � l �� ,14 p#' ■r. ff 4 .. Ri+' *air " .; Imo} St / ; � k � � :�itir. I no j � + #��j #11� • . �4 y aL }• �� ty i� t y � �a }F, �w. ;�7�` ■r.■ _ +Ir�� 0 , ♦ ■ F it + liilL�r.r� � + IF F � • • ii i f i woo R # � .�V *t� ^ r f'- �.li. /i�1ri■ �J r l �R *. f ■� � �I �■■ f ...I - ir �1 ■11111�111 1 f1♦ 1 1 =tie pp c„) ....+ .■. �L11111;n ' 1 1"11111111 7 t T � .'� . ..7 11 .1 ■ 1• ..r * , M f r. ■ No111�� :tr• * .Tlr 11� 1111: �r M�+ . +'rt #a L-kill ■ miL Ill: 1.141.11 � �+ 1 L ii ; �1 11n1try {r , � �R�� e��lillll �"r ■ r 1 111 I CI II OI /i1 ra .r;EA - , ANIML� mogiou`lt I , : 0 oupp viii !l am' 7 �� riil M �11■■1M OI�� �1 ■■ 11, * 1111 ■1 11 11. ` .� ili ■��∎ � 11 11` adNM t. mow,„ -- ~ ILI -- m .■l ■ Nor a�I�ti 1:111 t���1.r, CJ et 1111111111111u� :::• g - - -- .���— • "a 4 11JYL..+1116lar go, 0 mop 1111111111M11111 ■fl r..uu1 a� mp! N mon vm , immi pi I�u111111u1r. � l1i�r >r ■ ,„ - r • ��� N W Section E Parcel No Existing Zoning : Existing,Use LUD = Comments per recommendation from 11-13 - E1 C -3 & CS vacant Office Commercial 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 Refractory, Huffaker Roofing, strip center of Mixed Use & Flood Total Collision Service, H &S E6 1 -1 industrial uses Plain Trucking per recommendation from 10-02 - E7 SF -30 residence Office Commercial 97 P &Z Work Session 3 single story office buildings and correction to LUP map; feel this E8 C -1 office Office Commercial area should be visible on LUP Southlake Feed and Tack; with expansion of S. White Chapel, E9 C -1 feed store Medium Density use may disappear northern portion of Reutlinger vet clinic, dance tract and commercial lots at Lake El0 C -2 school and vacant Office Commercial Crest and 1709 southern portion of Reutlinger El1 C -2 vacant Medium Density tract future Bicentennial Park expansion; reflects land Public Parks & Open exchange north and west of E12 C -2 & SP -2 w/ C -3 vacant Space Crossroads Square reflects land exchange north of Retail Commercial / Crossroads Square; per corridor E13 CS vacant Public Parks 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. CI C y T _m ; 1111 11.11111.11 il i -I tilt ir III A f:1 ■tL `VIM rdin �n ,4 ILL imits—im prio1/4111110i 11 1 , / � Z 11111 N E • mill ow ni . 4201,1,1..... '�� ....., 0 i--: � 1' lir i � lit m _ 1 0 _lig ' I .. . - ■ar fl�r /'.r MI L t. = � 1111 is li, ;„,.,, ....., ,„,,...,,.... ■7. tea. 4. Awn Alltr di , . r is op IIIII � � rti .etas � I I Mr N� .r +��rIts_ �rr Ja ■T /r ti�� impl .r 1� i I 7r�>tr.�� , r 0 ..ii .. ter!.. r.l. 'd ill I a ,...,, ...rrr* r uvt rfi t .41. , z I -..:,... ii a , .s.l. Img 10.: rrlr . .Ia�� • �.. iiiio: mss rrr ill i\ 11..7E . . 1'1111 r. I 1_:..111` � ILI ra■ .. t; � + ` X71 aiyl� i ■� %M I�rf tlLtlr rrr � 11 ,tTJ ■ I .Ire \ � rJT • id f�. `4� p ..�- � �G nJI �'. i 'i r J �11 rr,t', . 1 "I � ■*�L ■■!rte � 1 .r , - r��+� i~ E - • l i1r +fie.', �' l ui lf+ . : + � + Q - ��r � J,- - ■ :1;••‘•;;4 �r `: {-J r. n /� � (1) z rl `' I'•� rte• I lli. -�- - � Ft� � ,� T � �,�, �, lL' ��'� a4> ti � -41 rr'� f 7 u I ;i f � �i,� -, \r ,ti i 1 � � t u.. - i 1z r �ti }� {jr �• i. � i1 T .: l inprm•irsAL— -In ..It -:. 0,,, --h11 ±.: *tit. +F,wei ....rwti +� t..... 1 ■ m aim r I zir , 't ,i.a1Uu Y� -•is * - ,.,71,01•,,,.1r..- ♦ fJ t� / 1 : ■ 'I P vq :14r 11 x .* I, ts:Ls 11 I� L ■ I g d o . l e_ #i yt *ti� p � • L "t ■� ► 0 t . 4 st' ` # � i 1� 'a��l �� _ 11 ■ ■�_J_�._ _ irrJ L r a tes . •:...._. .l + if s 1 1' •'f 11 .? l i .1 I "T i % r 1,74=fr : rat in Section F Parcel; No. Existufg Zoning ''-'Existing Use LU © Cos nialnts - - 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 I -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. 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. 480 -II Staff Recommendation: Discuss ordinance as approved (7 -0) by the Planning and Zoning Commission \\SLKSVa00, LOCAL \COMMUNITY DE VE OPMEY'I\WP- FILES \ZBA \PENDING\DRAFf ORDINANCES 483-II 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. \\SLKSV400I\ \COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT \ WP-FILES \ZBA\PENDING\DRAFC ORDINANCES \480-1I MEMO.DOC CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS ORDINANCE NO. 480-11 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 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: SECTION 1. Section 4, "Definitions" of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by adding \'SLKSV4001 LOCAL\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP- FILES \ZBA \RESEARCH\ CARPORTS \480- I1D8.DOC (Draft 8, 11/18/99) Page 1 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, 0-2, C -1, Ca, C -3, residential property, subject to the requirements set forth C -4 HC, B -1 $ 2 , I -1' I -2 , in Section 45.12 of this ordinance. S -P -1, SP-2 and PIJD SI'T`E 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. \ \SLKSV4001 \ LOCAL \ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .WP-FILES \ ZBA \RESEARCH\CARPORTS\480- 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 Carports 1) Height: Attached Carports: Carports attached to the princ 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 pitched 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 \\SLKSV400I\ LOCAL \COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP- FILES \ZBA \ RESEARCH \ CARPORTS \480- IID8.DOC (Draft 8, 11/18/99) Page 3 masonry material as the principal building. Articulation: Any exterior facade 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 facade 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 'h) 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. \\SLKSV4001 \LOCAL \COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\ WP-FILES \ ZBA \ RESEARCH \CARPORTS\480- IID8.DOC (Draft 8, 11/18/99) 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 \\SLXSV4001 LOCAL \COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\ WP-FILES \ZBA\ RESEARCH •.CARPORTS 48O.11D8.DOC (Draft 8, 11/18/99) Page 5 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 SLKSV4001' LOCAL ,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT \ WP-FILES \ZBA\ RESEARCH \ CARPORTS \480- IID8.DOC (Draft 8, 11/18/99) Page 6 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. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY EFFECTIVE: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CITY ATTORNEY \\STKSV4001 \ LOCAL \COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN'TWWP- FILES \ZBA \RESEARCH \CARPORTS 480 - 1D8.DOC (Draft 8, 11/18/99) Page 7 City of Southlake, 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 -HH, Outside Storage and Screening Amendments Action Requested: Discussion of proposed Ordinance No. 480 -HH regarding provisions for outside storage and screening. Background Information: Ordinance No. 480 -HH 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. C: \TEMP \480- HHMEM01. DOC City of Southlake, Texas Consideration of Ordinance No. 480 -1111, Outside Storage and Screening Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator November 23, 1999 Page 2 Financial Considerations: Not applicable. Alternatives: The Council and Commission may recommend such changes or conditions to the ordinance as they deem appropriate. Supporting Documents: Ordinance No. 480 -HH. C: \TEMP \480- HHMEMOI. DOC CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS 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: N: \COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP- FILES \ZBA \PENDING \DRAFT ORDINANCES \480- HH8A.DOC (Draft 8, dated 10/25/99) Page 1 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 - C -3, C - S - -`1, lots shall not be placed in any required parking S - -2, an 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 - C - C -3, C -4, B Section -a- 45.11. A c °ptpkin r d B-2, 1-1, I -2, S -P -1, 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: « . C 2,C3 C1,B3" permit the City Council to allow limited N: \COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP- FILES \ZBA \ PENDING \DRAFT ORDINANCES \480- HH8A.DOC (Draft 8, dated 10/25/99) Page 2 In granting a specific ` use permit for this activity, the City Council is authorized to set OFreafrr 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. " SECTION' 38 OUTSIDE STORAGE • e . or vehicles not accessory to a reside esidential use shall not be permitted except when in 38.2 OUTSIDE STORAGE FOR THE PU OF MANUFACTURE OR ASSEMBLY • • or outside assembly o items (herein defined as such activities as nailing) bolting or a. Such outside storage shall only be permitted in the I 2 district ® - ... • (100) feet of any AG or resident z p roperty: : ordinance of no less than fifty (50) feet in width; and a. A solid or opaque wall or fence of wood, masonry or a combination of the 1;.ed .. storage abuts a lot or tract zoned AG. Such special `exception may be . N: \COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\ WP-FILES \ZBA \PENDING \DRAFT ORDINANCES \480- HH8A.DOC (Draft 8, dated 10/25/99) Page 3 any and all conditions required in Section 44.12, together with such other conditions as the Zoning Board of Adjustment may impose. c. When such out oor storage directly abuts an arterial thoroughfare or major collector as defined in the Master Thoroughfare Plan, then such storage area must be of the two, which is no less than eight (8) feet in height. 38.3 OUTSIDE STORAGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RETAIL SALES' Outdoor storage for the a. Businecses with current certificates of occupancy may display for sale merchandise of the floor area of the business. These items shall include outdoor racks for the display and '` sale of newspapers, the storage and sale of bundled firewood, prepackaged ice if stored and displayed in a safe, hygienic storage bin or containers and items of 'a comparable nature. It is not the intent of this provicion to allow the displayed and sold within the confines of a traditional, retail establishment. Christmas tree sales are excepted from this requirement, and such trees may be stored Items' so stored outside must be displayed in a neat and orderly manner. b. Outside storage by transient salespersons is prohibited. c. Outdoor or open storage of automobiles for the purpose of retail salec shall only be permitted by special exception. The Board of Adjustment shall establish those screening or buffering requirements necessary and appropriate to protect adjoining properties. Screening from public ctreets, highways and rights of way shall be discretionary with the Board based upon their evaluation of the project upon a 381 OTHER OUTSIDE` STORAGE a. Outside storage of items not for sale or for the purpose of manufacture or assembly shall only be permitted in the C 1 B '2 and I 2 districtc. set out in Sections 39 and 42 of this ordinance, respectively." 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- HHSA.DOC (Draft 8, dated 10/25/99) 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 1. 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 10/25/99) 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 or special exception 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 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 permissive 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- HHSA.DOC (Draft 9, dated 10/20/99) 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 1 /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." N: \COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP- FILES \ZBA \PENDING \DRAFT ORDINANCES \480- HHSA.DOC (Draft 9, dated 10/20/99) 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. In alb -flirt ' is ere euts P s* -rage ;s -eizsiaittecl,screening shall be provided as required in Section 38 of this ordinance. 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 let or of any other adjacent land use." 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. N: \COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT \ WP-FILES \ZBA \PENDING \DRAFT ORDINANCES \480- HH8A.DOC (Draft 9, dated 10/20/99) Page 8 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 (Draft 9, dated 10/20/99) Page 9 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 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. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY N: \COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT \WP- FILES \ZBA \PENDING \DRAFT ORDINANCES \480- HH8A.DOC (Draft 9, dated 10/20/99) Page 10 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CITY ATTORNEY DATE: ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: N: \COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT \ WP-FILES \ZBA \PENDING \DRAFT ORDINANCES \480- HH8A.DOC (Draft 9, dated 10/20/99) Page 11