The URL can be used to link to this page

1993-02-04 P&Z Meeting City of Southlake, Texas REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 1993 LOCATION: 667 North Carroll Avenue, Southlake, Texas City Council Chambers of City Hall TIME: 7:30 P.M. AGENDA: 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the January 21, 1993 P & Z Meeting. 3. Administrative Comments. 4. Consider: ZA 93 -01, Zoning change request for 3.0 acres situated in the A. Robinson Survey, Abstract No. 1131 -D, Tract 6 from "AG" Agricultural to "SF -1A" Single Family -1A Residential. Location: West side of North White Chapel Blvd., North of Sam Bass Ridge Road. Owner: Maryon Richman. Applicant: Sonia Thompson. Public Hearing. 5. Consider: ZA 93 -02, Plat Showing of Lot 2, A. Robinson No. 1131 -D Addition, being 3.0 acres situated in the A. Robinson Survey, Abstract No. 1131 -D, Tract 6. Location: West side of North White Chapel Blvd., North of Sam Bass Ridge Road. Owner: Maryon Richman. Applicant: Sonia Thompson. Public Hearing. 6. Consider: ZA 93 -03, Plat Revision of the Wilkinson Addition, being a single lot addition and being revised to Lots 1 and 2, Latrobe Addition. Location: West side of South White Chapel Blvd. adjacent to Big Bear Creek. Owner: Terry L. Wilkinson. Public Hearing. 7. Consider: ZA 93 -04, Final Plat of Oakwood Estates, Phase I (formerly advertised as the Lakeway Addition), being 11.369 acres situated in the R.D. Price Survey, Abstract No. 1003 -D, Tract 1 and the H.A. Throop Survey, Abstract No. 1273 -D, Tract 1. Location: Southeast of Indian Creek Addition on Bob Jones Road, East of North White Chapel Blvd. Owner: F.D.I.C., Steve Mundt, Vice - President. Applicant: Tim Fleet d \b \a VLMC, Inc. Public Hearing. 8. Consider: ZA 93 -05, Plat Revision of Lot 32, Block 7, Stone Lakes, Phase I and 0.3004 acres of a larger 160.073 acre tract situated in the R. Paden Survey, Abstract No. 1255 and being revised to Lot 32R, Block 7, Stone Lakes, Phase I. Location: Southwest corner of Stone Lakes Drive and Cambridge Crossing. Owner: Southlake Properties Joint Venture. Public Hearing. City of Southlake, Texas Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda February 4, 1993 Page Two 9. Consider: ZA 93 -06, Revised Preliminary Plat of Stone Lakes, Phases I and II, being legally described as 160.073 acres situated in the R. Paden Survey, Abstract No. 1255 and the J.T. Bailey Survey, Abstract No. 97. Location: South side of F.M. 1709 across from Ginger Creek Estates and SouthRidge Lakes. Owner: Southlake Properties Joint Venture. Public Hearing. 10. Consider: Land Use Plan Update Continuation of Public Hearing. 11. Consider: Tree Preservation Ordinance. Continuation of Public Hearing. 12. Meeting Adjourned. I hereby certify that the above agenda was posted on the official bulletin boards at City Hall, 667 North Carroll Avenue, Southlake, Texas on Monday, February 1, 1993, at 5:00 p.m., pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, Article 6252 -17 V.T.C.S. i A A 't � 1 2 l / . c Sandra L. LeGrand =4 City Secretary =` ,�_. „_ cJ • • ... • • * '9c ````ee !�!!NIlI {I lttltttttt CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 667 N. Carroll Avenue PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING February 4, 1993 7:30 p.m. MINUTES Commissioners Present: Interim Chairman, Ernest Johnson; Members: Dennis McGrath, Michael Richarme, Randy Arnold, and Nick McGarity. Commissioners Absent: Chairman, Joe Wright and Vice Chairman, Bob Dowdy. City Staff Present: Zoning Administrator, Karen Gandy; Community Development Director, Greg Last; Planner, Tom Elgin; and, Secretary to the City Manager, Kim Bush. The meeting was called to order by Interim Chairman, Ernest Johnson, at 7:35 p.m. Agenda Item #2, Approval of Minutes Motion was made to defer approval of the Minutes of January 21, 1993, until the Commission has a chance to review. Motion: McGrath Second: Richarme Ayes: McGrath, Johnson, Richarme, Arnold, McGarity Nays: none Approved: 5 -0 Agenda Item #3, Administrative Comments Community Development Director, Greg Last, informed the Commission that he would be out of town during the next meeting of the P &Z. Agenda Item #4, ZA 93 -01, Zoning Change, Sonia Thompson Zoning Administrator, Karen Gandy, presented the zoning change request for 3.0 acres situated in the A. Robinson Survey, Abstract No. 1131D, Tract 6 from "AG" Agricultural to "SF -1A" Single Family - 1A Residential. Owner of the property is Maryon Richman; applicant is Sonia Thompson. Thirteen notices were sent, and three responses were received: Two in favor - -Carl Smith and Eugene Weston; One in opposition -- Philip and Gail Elkins. Ms. Gandy stated that there is a boundary dispute on this property. However, the City should take no position on the resolution of this dispute. The only action the City should take is in regard to the adequacy of the surveyor's plat as submitted. Any further determination will be via the appropriate civil court. Sonia Thompson, 3100 Story Lane, Bedford, was present to answer questions for the Commission. She commented that she plans to build her home on the lot. P &Z Meeting Minutes February 4, 1993 Page 2 There were no comments from the audience during the Public Hearing. Motion was made to Approve ZA 93 -01. Motion: McGarity Second: McGrath Ayes: McGrath, Johnson, Richarme, Arnold, McGarity Nays: none Approved: 5 -0 Agenda Item #5, ZA 93 -02, Plat Showing, Sonia Thompson Zoning Administrator, Karen Gandy, presented the Plat Showing of Lot 2, A. Robinson No. 1131D Addition, being 3.0 acres situated in the A. Robinson Survey, Abstract No. 1131D, Tract 6. Owner of the property is Maryon Richman; applicant is Sonia Thompson. Thirteen notices were required to be sent, but as of this date no written responses had been received. Sonia Thompson, 3100 Story Lane, Bedford, was present to answer questions for the Commission. She commented that she had not seen the City staff review letter. Community Development Director, Greg Last, commented that if the applicant and the surveyor had any problems with the review letter it could be addressed at Council. There were no comments from the audience during the Public Hearing. Motion was made to approve ZA 93 -02, Plat Showing, subject to City staff's review letter dated 1/29/93. Motion: McGrath Second: Richarme Ayes: McGrath, Johnson, Richarme, Arnold, McGarity Nays: none Approved: 5 -0 Agenda Item #6, ZA 93 -02, Plat Revision, Wilkinson Addition Zoning Administrator, Karen Gandy, presented the Plat Revision for the Wilkinson Addition, being a single lot addition and being revised to Lots 1 and 2, Latrobe Addition. Ms. Gandy stated that a plat revision had been previously approved for three lots but not filed of record. Owner and applicant is Terry L. Wilkinson. Terry Wilkinson was present to answer questions for the Commission. He commented that he had no problems with City staff's review letter. There were no comments from the audience during the Public Hearing. 93- 02- 04.MIN /P &Z /kb P &Z Meeting Minutes February 4, 1993 Page 3 Motion was made to approve ZA 93 -03 subject to City staff's review letter of 1/29/1993. Motion: Richarme Second: Arnold Ayes: McGrath, Johnson, Richarme, Arnold, McGarity Nays: none Approved: 5 -0 Agenda Item #7, ZA 93 -04, Final Plat, Oakwood Estates, Phase I Zoning Administrator, Karen Gandy, presented the Final Plat of Oakwood Estates, Phase I (formerly advertised as the Lakeway Addition), being 11.369 acres situated in the R.D. Price Survey, Abstract No. 1003 -D, Tract 1 and the H.A. Throop Survey, Abstract No. 1273D, Tract 1. Ms. Gandy stated that the final plat of Phase I proposed eight (8) one -acre plus lots fronting Bob Jones Rd. Owner of the property is F.D.I.C., Steve Mundt, Vice - President; the applicant is Tim Fleet d \b \a VLMC, Inc. Tim Fleet was present to answer questions for the Commission. He commented that he had no problem with City staff's review letter. Motion was made to approve ZA 93 -04 subject to City staff's review letter of 1/29/1993. Motion: Arnold Second: McGarity Ayes: McGrath, Johnson, Richarme, Arnold, McGarity Nays: None Approved: 5 -0 Agenda Item #8, ZA 93 -05, Plat Revision, Stone Lakes, Phase I Zoning Administrator, Karen Gandy, presented the Plat Revision of Lot 32, Block 7, Stone Lakes, Phase I as recorded in Cabinet "A" Slide No. 915, P.R.T.C.T. and 0.3004 acres of a larger 160.073 acre tract situated in the R.Paden Survey, Abstract No. 1255 and being revised to Lot 32R, Block 7, Stone Lakes, Phase I. The owner /applicant is Southlake Properties Joint Venture. Eight (8) notices were sent, but as of this date no responses have been received. Darryl Benkendorfer with the Nelson Corporation and Phil Jobe, Developer, were present to answer questions for the Commission. They commented that they had no problem with staff's review letter. Community Development Director, Greg Last, informed the Commission that the Stone Lakes PUD was approved allowing 20' side yards adjacent to streets. There were no comments from the audience during the Public Hearing. 93 -02 -09 . MIN /P &Z /kb P &Z Meeting Minutes February 4, 1993 Page 4 Motion was made to approve ZA 93 -04 subject to City staff's review letter dated 1/29/1993 deleting item #4. Motion: McGrath Second: Richarme Ayes: McGrath, Johnson, Richarme, Arnold, McGarity Nays: none Approved: 5 -0 Agenda Item #10, Land Use Plan Update Community Development Director, Greg Last, presented staff's recommended changes for the Land Use Plan for district 7. Again, the Proposed Land Use Plan shows all thoroughfares per the recently approved Thoroughfare Plan, the current noise cone delineation, Corps of Engineers property ownership, and floodway limits per FEMA maps. The Commission discussed and further recommended the following changes to staff's recommendation for district #7: - area on the south side of Continental Blvd., east of Brumlow, east from the property line of tract 2F1 to east property line of tract 1B4K2 off Woodsey Ct., - change from industrial use to mixed use. - area on south side of FM1709, between west of Bank Street and east of the designated mixed use - change area indicated as industrial use to mixed use. There were no comments from the audience during the Public Hearing. Motion was made to table the further revisions to the Land Use Plan Update and continue the Public Hearing time certain February 18, 1993. Motion: Richarme Second: McGrath Ayes: McGrath, Johnson, Richarme, Arnold, McGarity Nays: none Approved (to table): 5 -0 Agenda Item #11, Tree Preservation Ordinance Community Development Director, Greg Last, presented to the Commission the 2nd draft of the Tree Preservation Ordinance for their review and comment. Public Hearing: Barbara Atkins, 1345 Forest Lane, Southlake, expressed her concern with the tree ordinance and the fact that it is taking so long to 93 -02 -04 . MIN /P &Z /kb P &Z Meeting Minutes February 4, 1993 Page 5 get it finalized. Ms. Atkins suggested that trees be protected during development, that designated green space areas be required to be fenced off and protected from construction vehicles trespassing on the root systems. Ms. Atkins used Oakwood Hills subdivision as an example of the many trees that are dying a year after development. (Letters to staff from Ms. Atkins are attached to the minutes.) Greg Last commented that he would look in to how to handle Greenbelt areas during development. There were no other comments from the audience during the Public Hearing. A discussion was held in great detail on the ordinance. Greg Last commented that he believes the ordinance is going to be very difficult to enforce, and there will be some issues come up that he feels will be significant enough to bring before the Commission for their consideration. Other changes /discussions included: - Table of Contents 1.0 "Purpose and Intent" - adding requirement that local government must post notice of its intent to remove trees due to road reconstruction - City Public R.O.W. (include wherever mentioned) - 3.6 (d) 4, add "...only when approved by City Council." - 5.0, 5.1, change may to shall - change color of vinyl tape to something other than green when used to wrapped around trees to be saved - 6.2 (c), instead of circumference of tree say "drip line of the farthest branch of a tree - get a commitment from the developers and builders of their intent to comply with the tree preservation ordinance (perhaps include in the Developer's Agreement) - remove the category "Undesirable Trees" from Appendix A Motion was made to table the Tree Preservation Ordinance and continue the public hearing until March 4, 1993. Motion: McGarity Second: McGrath Ayes: McGarity, Johnson, Richarme, Arnold, McGarity Nays: none Approved (to table): 5 -0 93- 02- 04 .MIN /P &2 /kb P &Z Meeting Minutes February 4, 1993 Page 6 The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. E nest Johnson, nterim Chairman ATTEST: L/ Kim ush, Secretary to the City Manager 93- 02- 04.MIN /P &Z /kb , ' , ebruary 2, 1993 mO: Greg Last ROM: Barbara Atkins RE: Tree Ordinance, Draft dated 1 -15 -93 Recommended Changes to Ordinance and Appendix A, Tree Listing I recently spoke to Larry Schaapveld, an Urban Forester with the Texas Forest Service in Fort Worth, who aviewed the first draft of the Tree Ordinance. We agreed on some changes to Appendix A. Below are his omments concerning the Ordinance: . He felt the use of the term "clear cutting" was used incorrectly and suggested the use of "total clearing" vould be more appropriate. Apparently in Forestry terms, clear cutting has a different connotation than we're looking for here. ;. He suggested the best method to control development around our native trees would be to require in Code the consultation of a Certified Arborist or an Urban Forester (with 4 -year degree) and said he could provide a isting of five such people in Tarrant County. They would be able to advise the developer the correct methpds for _ aving and protecting existing trees, which trees are feasible to save, etc. 16 04 Ail\W. (\: L C LL-'tt LU We reviewed the listing of Quality, Marginal, and Less Desirable Trees (Apprendix A) and he suggested _aoving some from one category to another. I have attached our suggestions on a separate sheet. F. He agreed with me that the area around a large tree which should be protected extends well beyond the drip line. Could we expound on the definition of Drip Line under 2.2 to read "...ground. The root feeder system of most trees extends well beyond this drip line, and extra precautions should be taken to protect as much area urrounding the tree as possible." p 5. Larry would be very helpful to us and would be happy to provide additional assistance to the City I j _ V 1 egarding the Tree Ordinance. He can be reached at 817 - 429 -9318. � Tf you wish to discuss any of the above information with me, please call at 488 -6099. k k,' Thanks -- �� 3arbara 11 iron! fi r FEB - 2 igg3 { ii APPENDIX A QUALITY TREES 'ecan Cedar Elm 'led Oak Ave Oak Bur Oak .acebark Elm :hinese Pistache Austrian Pine laid Cypress - -likes wet areas tedbud -- Cercis canadensis (Eastern) and Cercis texensis (Texas)- -great native ornamental tree Mexican Plum -- Prunus mexicana- -great native ornamental tree "'ossumhaw Holly - -Ilex decidua - -great native ornamental tree MARGINAL TREES 3ois d'Arc -- horseapple fruit can be messy - -makes good shade tree " °squite- -thorns on branches - -not tolerant of people erican Elm Jeodar Cedar Western Soapberry ted Cedar- -great haven for birds 2ost Oak -- difficult to transplant Black Jack Oak -- difficult to transplant :rabapple- -can be messy, but good spring color LESS DESIRABLE TREES Cottonwood- -short lived; susceptible to borers Hackberry -- short-lived; susceptible to borers 3oneylocust -- thorns; breaks easily in wind Mimosa- -short lived Black Locust - -thorns ?ruitless Mulberry-- short-lived; webworms Siberian Elm -- breaks easily in wind Silver Maple - -short lived; not drought tolerant .rizona Ash -- short-lived; not drought tolerant Green Ash- -not drought tolerant Sycamore -- scorches in Texas sun; not drought tolerant Willow- -all varieties -- short-lived; breaks easily in wind HOME BUILDERS AGREE TREES HAVE DOLLAR VALUE* During the period 1979 to 1982, two researchers in Georgia, DDT Andrew F. 'Sella and Dr. L. M. Anderson conducted research on 8f new homes built in the Atlanta area. The homes averaged 2,814 square feet and the intent of the study was to determine if builders realized net gains from protection of existing shade trees on lots. There were twenty -two builders in all who responded to the study. They had an average of thirteen - and -a -half years of experi- ence and, at that time, their homes sold for an average of $122,000 each. Information they gave indicated that the average cost to clear a lot for home construction was $860, while the average cost to thin out some of the trees was $431. The average cost to pre- serve the trees (which meant do nothing to those trees after the actual homesite was cleared) cost $547 per lot. They revealed that those lots that sold with trees on them brought $5,700 more per lot than the cleared lots. - In questioning the builders, the researchers found that the builders were more likely to preserve the trees if the iob involved custom -built homes versus speculative or tract development construc- tion. They also were more likely to preserve trees on larger lots. It is interesting to note that the builders tended to preserve trees more on those lots where the density of stems was higher because the clearing costs would have been significantly higher. Additionally, the cost for removal of trees increased as the trees got larger. In study and in two other cases where research of this type was conducted, "builders agreed that trees helped houses sell sooner, and any cost involved in protecting trees cal be recovered at a profit when the finished unit is sold. As long as the homeowner is willing to pay a higher price for a home on a wooded lot, builders will continue to preserve trees on lots." * from Texas Timberline, July, 1984 issue riar u, • _ _.uary 18, 1993 O: Greg Last FROM: Barbara Atkins, 488 -6099 J AN 19 19 E: Tree Ordinance, Draft Dated 1 -15 -93 (Two) ( t t J . 3 L These are my suggestions for additions and/or changes to the tree ordinance: un Appendix A, please change "undesirable" to "less tolerant" or "less desirous" or "less valuable" and note reasons why the trees listed are not as desirable as others. I'm working on that list and will pass along my iggestions soon. 1,2: Definitions: • wilding Pad - -What is a "reasonable area " -- should this be left to the builder to decide? Could we be more specific? Tree, Undesirable - -Change to Less Desirous, or Less Valuable 4.2 Submittal Requirements: ees: What does the City plan to charge for this permit- -and is any fee necessary? Why not make the "fee" be ie replacement of any removed quality tree with a 3" or greater size quality tree? ;gest the following additions: (in bold type) 6.0 TREE PROTECTION '.1 d .Grade Changes: In the event that a grade change must be made around a tree or group of trees, the following should be done to maintain adequate oxygen and water exchange with the roots: 1. Increase grade: provide an aeration system just outside the trees' drip zone. 2. Decrease grade: provide retaining walls outside drip line. Major root cuts should be sealed with an approved wound dressing. When a root system is reduced, sufficient tree top growth should be removed from the tree to compensate for the root loss. The top pruning should be of a thinning nature and should be done evenly over the tree crown. .2 d. Proposed Green Belt Areas: Those areas of a development designated as green belt shall be fenced and left undisturbed during construction. No bulldozing, grading, heavy equipment, dumping of debris, waste materials, concrete or paint disposal will be tolerated in these areas. .,.2 Building Permit: No building permit shall be issued unless the applicant has been given a copy of the tree preservation ordinance and the "Trees Are Treasures" pamphlet outlining tree proective techniques or a )ndensed summary of the relevant aspects pertaining to the type of permit requested. itional notes: ie following factors have a significant influence on the preservation of acceptable native trees. The developer should be required to implement these factors when developing or constructing on the land: Patios, sidewalks, driveways and parking lots- -both oxygen and water are essential to the growth, development and nutrient uptake of the root systems. It is for this reason that there should be careful selection and placement of construction materials. If a patio, sidewalk, drive or parking lot must be placed within the drip line of a tree, material that will allow the passage of water id oxygen should be used. Examples of such materials would be brick, flagstone, concrete blocks, or a bed of gravel and *and. Precast, perforated concrete blocks are manufactured that can be used as a solid driving/walking surface under trees which will still allow water and oxygen to reach the tree roots. Pruning Damaged Trees- -Any trees that might have had the root system damaged should be pruned sufficiently to _impensate for root loss. Any damaged limbs should be removed. In the case of oaks, wounds should be sealed when appropriate. Educating the builders to protect the trees during construction is our best hope for saving the native woods in )uthlake. The "Trees Are Treasures" pamphlet prepared by the City of Atlanta tells the story correctly and __mp1y. Could we create a similar pamphlet for Southlake, or use the one from Atlanta ?. City of Southlake, Texas M E M O R A N D U M January 29, 1993 TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Karen P. Gandy, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: ZA 93 -01 Rezoning Request REQUESTED ACTION: Zoning change request for 3.0 acres situated in the A. G' Robinson Survey, Abstract No. 1131 -D, Tract 6. LOCATION: West side of North White Chapel Blvd., North of Sam Bass Ridge Road OWNER: Maryon Richman APPLICANT: Sonia Thompson CURRENT ZONING: "AG" Agricultural REQUESTED ZONING: "SF -1A" Single Family -1A LAND USE CATEGORY: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND INFO: It is Staff's understanding that there is a boundary dispute on this property. The City should take no position on the resolution of this dispute. The only action we should take is in regard to the adequacy of the surveyor's plat as submitted. Any further determination will be via the appropriate civil court. NO. NOTICES SENT: Thirteen (13) RESPONSES: Two (2) in favor: Carl J. Smith, "I would be in favor this request provided there will not be more than 2 residences on this 3 acres and no mobile homes." Eugene M. Weston, "I am in favor of "SF -1A" zoning. One in opposition: Phillip and Gail Elkins, "The Ward Surveying company's "UNDATED" survey does not correspond with two previous surveys (1944 & 1981). The north boundary lines from the Ward Survey, are incorrect. They extend into my property in the Robinson and Belcher Tracts which would cut off any reasonable access to my property. My deed of title indicates the proper property lines. KPG City of Southlake, Texas M E M O R A N D U M January 29, 1993 TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Karen P. Gandy, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: ZA 93 -02 Plat Showing REQUESTED ACTION: Plat Showing for Lot 2, A. Robinson No. 1131 -D Addition, being 3.0 acres situated in the A. Robinson Survey, Abstract No. 1131 -D, Tract 6. LOCATION: West side of North White Chapel Blvd., North of Sam Bass Ridge Road OWNER: Maryon Richman APPLICANT: Sonia Thompson CURRENT ZONING: "AG" Agricultural REQUESTED ZONING: "SF -1A" Single Family -1A LAND USE CATEGORY: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND INFO: It is Staff's understanding that there is a boundary dispute on this property. The City should take no position on the resolution of this dispute. The only action we should take is in regard to the adequacy of the surveyor's plat as submitted. Any further determination will be via the appropriate civil court. NO. NOTICES SENT: Thirteen (13) RESPONSES: None KPG City of Southlake, Texas PLAT REVIEW SUMMARY CASE NO: ZA 93 -02 REVIEW NO: ONE DATE OF REVIEW: 1/29/93 PROJECT NAME: Plat Showing - Lot 2, A. Robinson No. 1311 Addition OWNER /APPLICANT: ENGINEER /SURVEYOR: Marylon Richman Ward Surveying Company 304 S. Record P. O. Box 820253 Dallas, Texas 75200 Fort Worth, Texas 76182 -0253 Phone: Phone: (817) 281 -5411 Fax: Fax: (817) 838 -7093 CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 1/11/93 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT GREG LAST AT (817) 481 -5581, EXT. 744. 1. Provide the record owner and corresponding deed record volume and page for the unplatted adjacent tracts within 200' to the north and south. 2. Show and label Lot 2, Block A of Lakewood Ridge Addition. 3. The dedication should include the wording "...according to the deed recorded in V. P. , DRDCT" per the format as shown in Appendix 1 of the subdivision ordinance. 4. The acreages in the title block should be gross acres. 5. Label the survey line along the north property line and going due north at the midpoint. 6. The third call of the legal description should be "East" rather than "West." 7. Label the two east corners as pins /rods found or set with sizes. 8. Dimension the full width of the existing R.O.W. City of Southlake, Texas * Perimeter easements may be reduced to 5' utility easements if desired. * The F.I.R.M. note provided does not reflect the most current maps (effective 1/6/93.) * Original signatures will be required on each blackline mylar prior to filing the plat. Also required are two sets of owner's dedications and notaries (8.5" x 11" or 14" paper) with original signatures on each. * The applicant should be aware that any revisions made prior to City Council must be received at the City by 2/8 , 1993. All revised submittals must be folded 6" x 9" and include an 8.5" x 11" revised reduction. * Denotes Informational Comment cc: Maryion Richman Ward Surveying Company City of Southlake, Texas M E M O R A N D U M January 29, 1993 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Karen P. Gandy, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: ZA 93 -03 Plat Revision i REQUESTED ACTION: Plat Revision of the Wilkinson Addition, being a single lot addition to the City of Southlake, as recorded in Cabinet "A" Slide No. 228 e75 e ant County Plat Records and being revised to Lots d 2, - -of the Latrobe Addition. 2 / c 34 5 LOCATION: West side of South White Chapel Blvd. adjacent to Big Bear Creek. OWNER /APPLICANT: Terry L. Wilkinson CURRENT ZONING: "SF -20A" Single Family -20A Residential NO. NOTICES SENT: None required. The applicant owns all of the platted property under consideration. 1 STAFF COMMENTS: Attached please find the First Plat Review Summary dated January 29, 1993. Please note that the applicant previously submitted and had % L approved a similar plat revision showing three (3) lots and , renaming the property the Latrobe Addition; however, this 2q; k' plat has not been filed of record in Tarrant County per the applicant's request. / KPG City of Southlake, Texas PLAT REVIEW SUMMARY CASE NO: ZA 93 -03 REVIEW NO: ONE DATE OF REVIEW: 1/29/93 PROJECT NAME: Plat Revision -Lots 1R & 2,Block 1, Latrobe Addition OWNER /APPLICANT: ENGINEER /SURVEYOR: Terry Wilkinson Washington & Associates,Inc. 237 Hillview 500 Grapevine Highway,Ste375 Hurst, Texas 76054 Hurst, Texas 76054 Phone: (817) 329 -4599 Phone: (817) 485 -0707 Fax: Fax: (817) 485 -4106 CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 1/11/93 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT GREG LAST AT (817) 481 -5581, EXT. 744. 1. Provide the preamble to the standard form of dedication as found in Appendix 1 of the subdivision ordinance. 2. Show and label lot lines, easements, lot and block numbers, etc. for the portion of Timarron Phase 2, Section 2 within 200'. Label as "Approved Final Plat, Timarron Ph 2, Sec. 2." 3. Add "Section 2" to the Timarron, Phase 1 designation and label Creekway Bend. 4. Add the following to the end of the owner's dedication paragraph: "This plat does not alter or remove existing deed restrictions or covenants, if any, on this property." 5. The FEMA Floodway limits should be shown in a dashed or dotted line to differentiate it from the lot line. 6. Provide a single interior Lot 2 dimension along White Chapel. 7. Dimension the full R.O.W. width of Whith Chapel at both property corners. 8. Delete notes 1 and 2 from the plat. * Original signatures will be required on each blackline mylar prior to filing the plat. Also required are two sets of owner's dedications and notaries (8.5" x 11" or 14" paper) with original signatures on each. * The applicant should be aware that any revisions made prior to City Council must be received at the City by 2/8 , 1993. All revised submittals must be folded 6" x 9" and include an 8.5" x 11" revised reduction. * Denotes Informational Comment cc: Terry Wilkinson Washington & Associates, Inc. City of Southlake, Texas M E M O R A N D U M January 27, 1993 TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners � FROM: Karen P. Gandy, Zoning Administrator %r SUBJECT: ZA 93 -04 Final Plat \\*) REQUESTED ACTION: Final Plat for Oakwood Estates (formerly advertised as Lakeway Addition) , being 1H/ - 33.6.7 acres situated in the R. D. Price Survey, Abstract No. 1003 -D, Tract 1 and the H.A. Throop Survey, Abstract No. 1273 -D, Tract 1. The final plat of Phase I proposes eight (8) 1 -acre plus lots fronting Bob Jones Road. LOCATION: Southeast of Indian Creek Addition on Bob Jones Road, East of White Chapel Blvd. OWNER: F.D.I.C., Steve Mundt, Vice - President APPLICANT: Tim Fleet d \b \a VLMC, Inc. CURRENT ZONING: "AG" Agricultural REQUESTED ZONING: "SF -1A" Single Family -1A Residential LAND USE CATEGORY: Medium Density Residential NO. NOTICES SENT: None required STAFF COMMENTS: Attached please find the First Plat Review Summary dated January 29, 1993. WN' KPG ' City of Southlake, Texas PLAT REVIEW SUMMARY CASE NO: ZA 93 -04 REVIEW NO: ONE DATE OF REVIEW: 1/29/93 PROJECT NAME: Final Plat - Oakwood Estates, Phase I OWNER /APPLICANT: ENGINEER /SURVEYOR: V.L.M.C., Inc. Loyd Bransom Surveyors 2424 Rogers 1028 N. Sylvania Fort Worth, Texas 76109 Fort Worth, Texas 76111 Phone: (817) 429 -1617 Phone: (817) 834 -3477 Fax: I Fax: (817) 831 -9818 CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 1/11/93 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT GREG LAST AT (817) 481 -5581, EXT. 744. 1. Provide deed record volume and page and number of lots in the title block. 2. Provide deed record volume and page in the preamble and county reference for the notary in the dedication. (All county references should be Denton County.) 3. Label the name of the record owner and corresponding deed record volume and page for all adjacent unplatted tracts within 200', including owners across adjacent R.O.W. 4. Show as dashed the lot lines and lot and block numbers for Indian Creek Estates. Also show and label the 10' utility easement at the northern property line of Lot 16. 5. Label the proposed Phase II as "Phase II, Approved Preliminary Plat, Oakwood Estates" and show lot and block numbers of this phase. 6. Show and label all survey lines. 7. Indicate pin sizes either by note or reference in legal description. 8. Label the R.O.W. dedication along Bob Jones Road. Show and dimension the existing R.O.W. along Bob Jones Road and to the west of the proposed Lot 8 and east of the project. R.O.W. dedication along Indian Creek should be dimensioned 60' from Indian Creek. Along Lots 1 -5 it should be 30' from the centerline of the apparent existing R.O.W. 9. Add the flowage easement note in Appendix '5' of the subdivision ordinance. 10. Add the sight triangle note as per the subdivision ordinance (No. 483- 8.02.) City of Southlake, Texas 11. The building line at the southwestern property line of Lot 8, Block 1 should be 40'. (Council may approve setback as shown.) 12. The title and owner's dedication should be changed to "Oakwood Estates" if this is the intended name. 13. Please provide a graphic and calculated area for future Lot 1, Block 2 to confirm minimum area. Future R.O.W. may need to shift east to allow one acre minimum. Also, curve 2 must have a 630' radius for the future street to have a 600' centerline radius. 14. Label "Proposed R.O.W." as "Future 60' R.O.W." 15. Change 5' U.E. along south line to a 7.5' D. + U.E. 16. Add the following note on the plat: The City of Southlake will only enforce building setbacks required by the zoning ordinance in place at the time of building permit request. The setbacks shown are based on intended deed restrictions for these lots. 17. Legal description must be tied to survey corner or subdivision corner. 18. Remove deflection points along the east boundary line. 19. Provide a bearing along the north line of Lots 1 -5 or a dimension of 30' from the P.C. in Lot 5. 20. Provide an interior lot dimension along the east line of Lot 1. * The Developer's Agreement for this addition should consider perimeter street and drainage, park dedication requirements and off -site water extensions. * Original signatures will be required on each blackline mylar prior to filing the plat. Please confirm with staff or Denton County their unique filing requirements. * The applicant should be aware that any revisions made prior to City Council must be received at the City by 2/8 , 1993. All revised submittals must be folded 6" x 9" and include an 8.5" x 11" revised reduction. * Denotes Informational Comment cc: V.L.M.C., Inc. S.D.I. & Associates, Inc. City of Southlake, Texas M E M O R A N D U M January 29, 1993 TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Karen P. Gandy, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: ZA 93 -05 Plat Revision REQUESTED ACTION: Plat Revision of Lot 32, Block 7, Stone Lakes, Phase I as recorded in Cabinet 'A' Slide No. 915, P.R.T.C.T. and 0.3004 acres of a larger 160.073 acre tract situated in the R. Paden Survey, Abstract No. 1255 and being revised to Lot 32R, Block 7, Stone Lakes, Phase I. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Stone Lakes Drive and Cambridge Crossing with the proposed address of 1400 Cambridge Court The potential buyer of Lot 32 asked that the lot size be increased. OWNER /APPLICANT: Southlake Properties Joint Venture CURRENT ZONING: "R- P.U.D." Residential Planned Unit Development NO. NOTICES SENT: Eight (8) RESPONSES: None STAFF COMMENTS: Attached please find the First Plat Review Summary dated January 29, 1993. KPG City of Southlake, Texas PLAT REVIEW SUMMARY CASE NO: ZA 93 -05 REVIEW NO: ONE DATE OF REVIEW: 1/29/93 PROJECT NAME: Plat Revision - Lot 32R, Block 7, Stone Lakes, Phase One OWNER /APPLICANT: ENGINEER /SURVEYOR: Southlake Properties The Nelson Corporation Joint Venture 5999 Summerside Drive Two Turtle Creek Village Suite 202 Suite 1000 Dallas, Texas 75252 Dallas, Texas 75219 i Phone: (214) 521 -8300 Phone: (214) 380 -2605 Fax: (214) 521 -8339 Fax: (214) 380 -2609 CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 1/12/93 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT GREG LAST AT (817) 481 -5581, EXT. 744. 1. The title of the plat should be "Plat Revision...being a Revision..." and should include the gross acreage. 2. Provide the square footage of the lot area. 3. Provide the deed restriction statement as per, subdivision ordinance (483- 3.06 -C) at the end of the owners dedication paragraph. 4 The setback along Cambridge Crossing should be 30' in \ i accordance with the subdivision ordinance and to match the corresponding setback of Lot 33, Block 7 of the proposed Amended Preliminary Plat. 5. Label the drainage easement along the west line of the property. Do not include the word Floodway. 6. The reference to "Stone Lakes Drive" is incorrect in the P.O.B. statement. Also the second tangency bearing does not match the legal description. City of Southlake, Texas * We recommend this plat not be filed until the construction plans have been substantially approved. This will ensure adequate easements and finish floor elevation. * Original signatures will be required on each blackline mylar prior to filing the plat. Also required are two sets of owner's dedications and notaries (8.5" x 11" or 14" paper) with original signatures on each. * The applicant should be aware that any revisions made prior to City Council must be received at the City by 2/8 , 1993. All revised submittals must be folded 6" x 9" and include an 8.5" x 11" revised reduction. * Denotes Informational Comment cc: Southlake Properties Joint Venture The Nelson Corporation City of Southlake, Texas M E M O R A N D U M January 29, 1993 TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Karen P. Gandy, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: ZA 93 -06 Revised Preliminary Plat REQUESTED ACTION: Revised Preliminary Plat of Stone Lakes, Phases I and II, being legally described as 160.073 acres situated in the R.J. Paden Survey, Abstract No. 1255 and the J.T. Bailey Survey, Abstract No. 97. Phase II has been broken into Phases II and III to allow better tracking with the anticipated construction phases. LOCATION: South side of F.M. 1709 across from Ginger Creek Estates and SouthRidge Lakes OWNER /APPLICANT: Southlake Properties Joint Venture Phillip Jobe, Managing Partner CURRENT ZONING: "R- P.U.D." Residential Planned Unit Development NO. NOTICES SENT: Fifty -six (56) RESPONSES: One (1) written response, but no opinion given. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached please find the First Plat Review Summary dated January 29, 1993. KPG City of Southlake, Texas PLAT REVIEW SUMMARY REVISED CASE NO: ZA 93 -06 REVIEW NO: ONE DATE OF REVIEW: 2/4/93 PROJECT NAME: Revised Preliminary Plat -Stone Lakes Ph I, II & III OWNER /APPLICANT: ENGINEER /SURVEYOR: Phil Jobe The Nelson Corporation Two Turtle Creek Village 5999 Summerside Drive Dallas, Texas 75219 Suite 202 Dallas, Texas 75252 Phone: (214) 521 -8300 Phone: (214) 380 -2605 Fax: Fax: (214) 380 -2609 CITY ST?F: HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 1/12/93 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT GREG LAST AT (817) 481 -5581, EXT. 744. 1. Street centerline offset must be 125' or greater at Hampton Court and Plymouth Drive. 2. Provide written scale in close proximity to north arrow and graphic scale. 3. Provide record owner and corresponding deed record volume and page for all adjacent unplatted property within 200' of Phase II & Phase III (i.e. Morrison, Wayland.) 4. Show and /or label the following for the adjacent Timber Lake Addition: a. Lot 32, Block 2 - Common Area b. Lot 31, Block 2 - Correct lot lines and show utility easement as 5' c. Lot 31, Block 2 - Common Area, Floodway & Drainage Easement d. Lot 9, Block 2 - Timber Lake Section I e. Lots 15 & 16, Block 2 - 15' Utility Easement f. Plat record information 5. Label the Carroll I.S.D. tracts as "Approved Final Plat, Lot 1, Block 1, Carroll High School Addition." Also correct zoning is SP1 for that site. 6. Show the 10' utility easement along the southern and eastern property lines of the above C.I.S.D. property. 7. Label and show the existing easements in Phase I within 200' of these phases. 8. Contact staff for an updated version of the Land Use Schedule. City of Southlake, Texas 9. Common Area 24 should be labeled as Common Area 4 and Common Area 41 should be labeled as Common Area 5. Label the Common Area in the southeast corner as Common Area 6. 10. The 100 year floodplain portions of the common areas should be designated as drainage easements. 11. The following changes are required related to easements: - Add 15' D. + U.E. from Brighton Court east to creek. - The utility plan shows the existing S.S. along the west line of Lot 38, Block 8 rather than centered on the lot line as shown on the plat. - Eliminate the word Floodway from all drainage easements unless it is so designated on the FEMA maps. - Add 15' D. + U.E. between Lots 3 and 4, Block 8. 12. The following do not meet the intent of the requirement for radial or dicular lot lines: Block 7, Lot 33; Block 8, Lots 19 21 & 7 13. Compound curves along street centerline are not allowed. All reverse curves must have tangents meeting the criteria of the subdivision ordinance. 14. All courts with two street names should be shown with one name. (e.g. Melrose Court, Brighton Court, Cambridge Court.) 15. Change the title to "Revised Preliminary Plat." 16. Delete all references to pavement width within the R.O.W. Show a dimension for each street R.O.W. at least once to include cul -de -sac radii. 17. Label all blocks within the area of the revised preliminary plat. 18. The following lots do not appear to meet the minimum 100' lot width (at midpoint): Block 7, Lots 38, 61 & 62. City of Southlake, Texas � I � I * Please look at the possibility of offsetting Hampton Court cul -de -sac to the east to allow a more evenly balance front lot width. * Street names must be approved by public safety prior to final plat. * Please confirm the buildable area and setback limitations for all lots prior to final plat to eliminate the need for Amended Plats in the future. * The legal description and title include Phase I because there never was a revised preliminary submitted for Phase I when the changes were required on the final plat of Phase I. Staff is not requiring detail on all of the Phase I portion because this has already been final platted. * No utility easements to serve the interior lots have been shown. Provide all appropriate easements depending on the intentions to provide electric from the front or rear of the lots. * The applicant should be aware that any revisions made prior to City Council must be received at the City by 2/8 , 1993. All revised submittals must be folded 6" x 9" and include an 8.5" x 11" revised reduction. * Denotes Informational Comment cc: Phil Jobe The Nelson Corporation A 1 � �� CARRY LL AV E . . _ .• -� . —eaao• -vim .,.. .w ,ry s�+r He ars _ ..�._. -•. .. � —'�"— =�:.. :'_�i4.�.■i� :» ■s■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■� :» ■ . ■■ ■■ ■ ■ ■■ �> ::::: ■■ ■■■ ■ ■■■� �:�:: ■■ ■ ■ ■t - ::::: ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■■� �:; ■ ■■ ■■■ ■■■� ::::� :: >: ■ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ ■■ / �' :: >: ■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■ ■� ■ ■■■ ■■� ■■■ ■n■ ■� �: ■■ ' ■■ ■ ■■■ ■■� • >�: ■ ■■ ■■■■ ■■� ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■� :.:.: •: ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■■� :: ■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■■� :: >::: ■■ ■■■ ■ ■■ � :::;:;: ■ ■■■■ ■ ::.:: ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■� ■■ ■■ ...::.............:..... . :> ■ ■■■ ■■■ ■■� �` ' ■■ ■■■■ ■■1 • .�� w :•::•:•O :•::•::•::•::•:•: .. y.:.. : :.� :. :: A :? } : :V:•::•: •: :: :• : :• :•::•:: v • ,■�.■ n�.■■■ : >: ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■ �. ■1 C •': •• Ji::::::: :•: :•:•:':': J :::•::•:::•:•:::':'i :•:•::•:•::':•: � :•:•::':::•:•::Y:•:': ':':::::•::•:':'::•::? ::•:•::'::•:: � :•: � :::::::: • n� v �■��■ ■■VIII � ■■� . :::. ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■■ 1 1' ' L O -- -Art■ HU ■■■t 111 ■■ : �5: �> ::0:•>:• >:•::•:::•:::•:::•: B R - ..■■■■.■■.II .. �:�: ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■■ ■1 �...I■.. D ::::... .... ..1 I. ...... ...... ■■■.1 ., ::: . ■■■ ■■ ■1 ........................:..:.. .............................:. "�� . �Y ■� _ 0 ■■■■ ■■■■■■■ ■■ ■ ■ ■■ ■VIII■■ ■ ■ ■pi[ • >:•: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■1 • u■■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■■■ ■■ ■ ■W ■uu�■u w■ _�- -_�s� i� n■ ■■■ ■1 �� ■ .. �- Win■■■ ■u ■n ._ �:::> ■■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■■ °��■t■ ■n 1 - .. , .�- m ■■ ■u ■ ■■ ... ■ ■1 . • ........... ..............:................ .........:::. ..............:..:::.... :..;... u■■■ ■u■ :::.::• :.:::.:.: :::::::........ :..::. :....................... .::.............................. .:...:::::::::::::::::::::::::: • ::::::::::.:::::::: ... ...... ■ ■1 ....................... .......:: ............................ ............................... . .. ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • • ■ • • • ■ . ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ .::::::::::::::::•::•:::::::::::::::•: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ....... ... ......... I � •::.> r:• :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :•::::::::::::::::::•;;;>:::::: •... ... � �_ ................ ................. �i / ■1 ••••••• ■••• ■• ■■■••,.�i. �,��••••■• :. ::.:.:::::::;:::::::.: ::::::::::::::::::•:::::.:.; •:.::::.:.::::. :•.;•..:;:...... may ................ .................: m d ............. . • • a � • • • ■ ■ ■ • � • ■ •• ' ■ • ■ • _ _ �,, �.r ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■1 �' \ ■ • • ■ ■ • ■ °•� ■ • • • ■ :::::::: � .. ......... ■ ■ ■ ■1 ....... ......... ...........:...:.:.....:.:::... ■■■■■■■■ ■1 �. ■M ':: r ■ �• . . ................ " .... ■ ■■ ■ ■■■� r-- w��s�s, � ■ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ ■■ �� ::�f: • • ■ � _ ■ ■■ ••■■■■ ■■■gy ::•: :::::. ....................:. :. :... :.. ";: ■V ■ ■ ■ ■ ■t ■■••■■•■■•■■ ••■•••�■•■• ••■■•• ■• � ■H■■■ ■ ■� .... ::: • • ■ • • ■ ■ ■ ■ • • • • ■ • • ■ s,��■s,s,��' ' ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■1 •■■ ■••■•■••■■• ■•■■■ ■ •■■••■..y._._�r_r_rr ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■1 ■ ■ ■ • • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • • ■ ■ • � • • ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ • �e �` ■ ■■ O ■ ■ ■■ - f� ■ • • • ■ • • ■ ■ • ■ • ■ ■ • ■ a ■ • ■ • ■ ■ • ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ � �" ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • • • ■ • • ■ _ � � � -�� -� ■ �1 � [ V .L • ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ • ■ • • • • • ■ • • • ■ ■ ■ • ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ • ■ �' � V • ■�• ■•• ■�� ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■• ■�■■■ ■■ ■■■ � ■ ■■� '� • ■ ■•� ■ ■�■ri �■�I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■II ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■1T i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■I • • ■ ■ • • • • ■ ■ • ■\ \ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■� / ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■I I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■I •• ■ ■�� ■ ■ ■• ■•• ■•••�• ■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■••■ �■ ■ ■ • ■�• • ■ ■ ■�■ ■ ■ • • a ■ ■ ■ ■■\ 11 ■ ■ ■ ■II ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■R ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■� ■ • • ■ ■ • • • ■ • ■ ■ ■ • ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • • ■■■ ■■ \ \ ■�I ■ ■ ■ ■� ■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ • ■ ■ a ■ ■ ■�■ • ■ • •�• • • ■ i • _ a� ■ ■aa ■a ■ ■ ■ ■• ■• ■ ■ ■ ■� ■ ■• ■• ■•■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■►► 1 ■ ■�� J ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■I • • • • • ■ • • • • •, ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■_ ■lam ■ ■I ■ ■� '� ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ • • • ■ • • • • ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ • ■ ' ' ti ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■\ �■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■I O ■ • • • • • • � • ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ • ■ • • • a ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ \ \ \ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■[ � • ■••••• ■■■••■■• N ■ ■ \�■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■' O v • ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■q ■ \'� ■ ■ ■ ■I a y ■ ■ ■ ■•• "' ■• ■• ■ ■� ■ ■ ■�■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ i • ■ i i ■ ■; ■■ ■ ■ ■i •■ • ■ i • ■ i ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ iii ■�_ ■ ■ ■�.i � � � • 7/��- a ■ ■1 ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■•■ ■• ■ ■• ■ ■ ■ ■ ■� � ■ ■� a � ,� •:1........ .. � ■ •t ■ • • ■ ■ ■ • •1 ■ ■7 • ■ • V ■■ , ■ • ■ ■ ■ • • ■ • • �e ■ ■ ■ i ■ ■■ ■ ■■■■■••� • • ■i• ■■■ C�' ■■ t ■■ ■■ ■ ■• ■ ■ ■ ■. ■• �� • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ � � I■•■ ■■•■• ■ i ■ ■ i • ■■ ■■ ■■■ • ■ ■ ■ i i �� ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■� ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i i •■ c�;■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ a ■ ■ ■ ■ ■_ • ■ • • ■ ■ r1- ■ ■ • ■ • • ■ • ■ ■ f ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ • ■ ■ • t ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ •¢1■ ■ • • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 �� ■■ ■■ ■• ■•■ ■■ i� ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ • • ■ ■ ■ V ■ ■ • • ■ ■ ■ i • ■ ^ i ■ ■■•■ ■■ ■■ ■ • • • 1�■■■■■■ ■1 - -- - � ■ ■ ■■■ ■ ■ ■1 � 0 I ./ � � ��- ,■• I �� _� � � � �' :� - D C� to �t D D � r' p m � m m p D � U) � J 77 70 � r m G m •n Z Z n - � :� 1 ■1 ■• F � O � p oo O O o � � �_: / ■1 • P AY C� O O � N N O m m � -I r 3 3 Z v T m 0 O � � O � � m C r_ O m X O p O Z �° � ? � � C N m � O -I n [ o 1= O O m V N O y m m D 2 D m Z � � X O C 2 ...1 Z r' O 2 m m � �o r � N m z O � m � 3 2 m � Z O m � O A � C Z N r � C v, •� � n O m � Z . � � D r D C Mks City of Southlake, Texas M E M O R A N D U M January 15, 1993 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Greg Last, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Tree Prey rvat'on Ordinance Draft N TWO ated 1/15/93 Attached you will find the second draft of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Most of the wording changes do not effect the material requirements of the ordinance. Significant additions or changes are outlined with "clouds" for ease of identification. It was very helpful for me to get written copies of your comments or mark -ups of the previous draft. I have tried to incorporate as many recommendations as possible, however I have not included all comments. Please feel free to bring up any of your recommendations that were excluded and we can discuss them with the commission. Please feel free to call me should you have questions or comments about this draft. (817) 481 -5581 EXT. 744. GL /gh Attachment: Tree Preservation Ordinance cc: Sally Hall Jerry Farrier Frank Dorer Conner Lam Don Allen Phil Jobe DOCUMENT: MEMO /TRE.PRV FOLDER: PLANNER CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE DRAFT NO. TWO , DATED 1/15/93 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 PURPOS O .itA■ jai 2.0 DEFINITIONS 2.1 General Rules 2.2 Definitions 3.0 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT REQUIRED 3.1 General 3.2 Municipal /Public Domain Property a. Permit Requirements 3.3 Existing R.O.W. and Public Easements a. City Projects 1. Permit Requirements b. Franchise and Other Utility Companies 1. Permit Requirements 3.4 New Developments a. Residential Subdivisions 1. Permit Requirements b. Non - Residential Developments 1. Permit Requirements 3.5 Private Property a. Agricultural b. Residential Homeowner c. Builders /Contractors 1. Permit Requirements 3.6 Exceptions a. Damaged /Diseased Trees b. Public Safety c. Utility Service Interruption d. Business Interests 1. andsca.e ursery 2. Golf Course . •uarries 4. Council Approval 4.0 PERMIT REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS 4.1 Authority for Review a. Planning and Zoning Commission b. Appeals 4.2 Submittal Requirements a. Tree Removal Permit (T c. - Graphic Exhibit d. Permit Validity 5.0 TREE REPLACEMENTS 6.0 TREE PROT Il■ ..1 •rohibited Activities a. Material Storage b. Equipment Cleaning /Liquid Disposal c. Tree Attachments 6.2 Prior to Construction a. Tree Flagging b. Protective Fencing c. Bark Protection 6.3 Permanent Construction Methods a. Boring b. Cut4/Fill 7.0 TREE PLANTING RESTRICTIONS 7.1 Overhead Lines 7.2 Underground Utilities 8.0 ENFORCE ENT 8.1 Developers Agreement 8.2 Building Permit 9.0 VIOLATIONS 10.0 SEVERABILITY 11.0 CONFLICTING ORDINANCES 12.0 SAVINGS CLAUSE 13.0 PUBLICATIONS CLAUSE 14.0 EFFECTIVE DATE 15.0 APPENDICES A. Tree List: Quality, Marginal, Undesirable B. Example Tree Removal Permit C. Tree Exhibit (Dripline, canopy, root zone, etc.) D. Methods of Protection (Snow fence, boarded skirt) E. Construction Methods (Cut /fill, boring) F. Example Homeowner Site Plan G. Example Builder Site Plan H. Example Developer Site Plan I. Tree Trimming Recommendations DOCUMENT: TREE /ORD.2 FOLDER: PLANNER2 1/15/93 TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE ESTABLISHING CRITERIA AND REGULATIONS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF MATURE TREES; PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS; 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 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 Local Government Code; and WHEREAS, trees are a valuable amenity to the urban environment and serve to create greater human comfort by providing shade, cooling the air and otherwise tempering the effect of summer heat, thereby reducing the requirements for air conditioning and the subsequent depletion of scarce energy resources; and WHEREAS, trees purify the air by filtering pollutants and dust and release oxygen into the air; and WHEREAS, trees protect land and structures by reducing run -off, binding soil and minimizing flood damage; and WHEREAS, trees are known to add dollar value to residential and commercial property and to increase income levels and tax revenues by attracting new business, industry and residents through improving a city's image; and WHEREAS, the City of Southlake desires to actively participate in the "Tree City U.S.A." program and the "Keep Southlake Beautiful" program; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake has determined that tree preservation is necessary to adequately protect the public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS: TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE 1.0 PURPOSE AND INTENT The purpose of this ordinance is to encourage the preservation of mature trees and natural areas, to preserve protected trees during construction and to control the removal of protected trees when necessary. It is the intent of this ordinance to achieve the following: - Prohibit the indiscriminate clear cutting of property. - Protect and increase the value of residential and commercial properties within the City. - Maintain and enhance a positive image for the attraction of new business enterprises to the City. - Protect healthy quality trees and promote the natural ecological environmental and aesthetic qualities of the City. 2.0 DEFINITIONS 2.1 GENERAL RULES: For the purpose of this ordinance, the following rules shall be applied in constructing, interpreting or otherwise defining the terms and provisions hereof: a. Words used in the present tense shall include the future, words used in the singular number shall include the plural number and words used in the plural shall include the singular. b. The word "shall" is mandatory and the word "may" is permissive. 2.2 DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of this ordinance, certain words or terms applicable hereto are defined as hereinafter provided. Words and terms used in this ordinance, but not defined in this ordinance shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Zoning Ordinance, Landscape Ordinance or other ordinances of the City. Words and terms defined in two ordinances shall be read in harmony unless there exists an irreconcilable conflict in which case the definition contained in this ordinance shall control. BUILDABLE AREA: That portion of a building site exclusive of the required yard areas on which a structure or building improvements may be erected and including the actual structure, driveway, parking lot, pool and other construction as shown on a site plan. BUILDING PAD: The actual slab area of a building and a reasonable area around the slab necessary for construction and grade transitions. -1- DRIP LINE: A vertical line run through the outermost portion of the crown of a tree and extending to the ground. MUNICIPAL /PUBLIC DOMAIN PROPERTY: Examples of this would include City Hall, public parks, Corps of Engineers property, State of Texas R.O.W., library, fire stations, water tower sites or similar properties. q � x , PROTECTIVE FENCING: Snow fencing, chain link fence, orange vinyl construction fencing or other similar fencing with a four foot (4') approximate height. TREE: Any self- supporting woody perennial plant which will attain a trunk diameter of three (3) inches or more when measured at a point four feet above ground level and normally an overall height of at least twenty (20) feet at maturity, usually with one (1) main stem or trunk and many branches. It may appear to have several stems or trunks as in several varieties of oaks. TREE, MARGINAL: A tree which the City has determined may or may not be worthy of preservation depending on the individual characteristics of the tree. (See Appendix 'A'.) TREE, PROTECTED: A specimen tree identified as a 'quality' tree by the City or a specimen tree in the 'marginal' category which the Landscape Administrator has determined should be saved due to individual characteristics of the tree. TREE, QUALITY: A tree which the City has determined typically has significant positive characteristics worthy of preservation. (See Appendix 'A'.) TREE, SPECIMEN: A tree which has a diameter of 12" or greater at a height of four feet (4') above the ground. TREE, UNDESIRABLE: A tree which the City has determined does not typically have characteristics worthy of preservation and may be removed at the discretion of the owner /developer. (See Appendix 'A'.) YARD AREA: The front, side and rear yard areas as required under the comprehensive zoning code and the applicable zoning district. 3.0 TREE - REMOVAL PERMIT REQUIRED 3.1 GENERAL: No person, directly or indirectly, shall cut down, destroy, remove or move, or effectively destroy through damaging, any protected tree situated on property regulated by this ordinance without first obtaining a tree - removal permit unless otherwise specified in this ordinance. -2- + Al( ' v� �r� '- � • 3.2 MUNICIPAL /PUBLIC DOMAIN PROPERTY: All municipal or cp � ' V public domain property shall be subject to the C U requirements for tree preservation and replacement specified herein. J � } 1� a. Permit Requirements: A tree - removal permit shall �, �� not be required for removal of a v � � q protected tree, however protected trees to be removed must be � r , l/ shown on construction plans approved by the r[� ,` 5 Landscape Administrator.1 , r� _� y 3.3 EXISTI R.O.W. AND PUBLIC EASEMENTS: Al construction d maintenanc a activity within Cit R.O.W. or public easements sha 1 be subject to the requirements for tree r "c preservation and replacement specified herein. Y' ‘V •�� a. City Projects: The City shall be subject to the � � � , requirements for tree preservation and replacement �` specified herein on all projects. C`` 1. Permit Requirements: A tree - removal permit shall not be required for removal of a protected tree, however protected trees to be removed must be shown on construction plans approved by the Landscape Administrator. b. Franchise and Other Utility Companies: All utility company projects shall be subject to the requirements for tree preservation and replacement specified herein. 1. Permit requirements: A tree - removal permit must be obtained prior to the removal of a protected tree. This permit must be accompanied by a site plan or construction plan meeting the graphic exhibit requirements specified herein. 3.4 NEW DEVELOPMENTS: All developments which have not submitted final construction plans as of the effective date of this ordinance shall be subject to the requirements for tree preservation and replacement specified herein. a. Residential Subdivisions: All area within public R.O.W., utility easements or dra' a•e easements as ,, shown on an a.•rove. Final Pia and areas �° � designate. as cut fill on the master drainage �\ construction p an approved b the Landscape `-� dministrato s al se exempte. from he -w, _ requiremen s specified herein. All other area N shall be subject to these requirements. k\:," ,\ ') � —3— ! i 1. Permit Requirements: A tree - removal permit shall not be required for removal of a protected tree within said R.O.W. or easements, however a permit must be obtained prior to the removal of any other protected tree on the property. b. Non - Residential Developments: All area within public R.O.W., public utility or drainage easements as shown on an approved Final Plat, and the building pad, fire lanes and parking areas shown on an approved Concept Plan or Site Plan shall be exempt from the requirements specified herein. All other areas shall be subject to these requirements. 1. Permit Requirements: A tree - removal permit shall not be required for removal of a protected tree within an area noted in 3.4 -b above, however a permit must be obtained prior to the removal of any other protected tree on the property. 3.5 PRIVATE PROPERTY: Ot a. A. '- ltural: Prop- 4 zoned 'A ' .•ricu tural .nd bein. active y use.Pagricultural s all be exemc rom the r -..' ements specified herein. b. Homeowners: Individual homeowners shall be exempt from the requirements of this ordinance as it pertains to their ownership only. c. Builders /Contractors: All builders who have not submitted a request for a building permit as of the effective date of this ordinance are subject to the requirements herein. All area within the building pad, driveway, parking area and pool area as shown on an approved plot plan shall be exempt from the requirements of this ordinance. All other areas of the lot shall be subject to the requirements for tree preservation and replacement specified herein. 1. Permit Requirements: A tree - removal permit shall not be required for removal of a protected tree within the area noted in 3.5 -c above, however a permit must be obtained prior to the removal of any other protected tree on the property. 3.6 EXCEPTIONS: A tree removal permit shall not be required under any of the following circumstances. a. Damaged /Diseased Trees: The tree is dead, diseased, damaged beyond the oint of ecovery, or in dan.er o fal ing .s determineby the Landscape Administrator. -4- J�� b. Public Safety: The tree endangers the public health, welfare or safety and immediate removal is required. c. Utility Service Interruption: The tree has disrupted a public utility service due to a tornado, storm, flood or other act of God. Removal shall be limited to the portion of the tree necessary to reestablish the utility service. d. Business In erests: The following business ventures sha .e exempt from the requirements specified herein as follows. 1. Landscape Nursery: All licensed plant or tree nurseries shall be exempt from the terms and provision of this section only in relation to those trees planted and growing on the premises of said licensee which are so planted and growing for the sale or intended sale to the general public in the ordinary course of said licensee's business. 2. Golf Course: Golf courses shall not require a tree removal permit for removal of protected trees within areas designated as tee boxes, fairways or greens. All other areas shall be subject to th requirements specified herein. 3. Quarries: All approved quarry operations shall be exempt from the requirements specified herein within the limits of the active operations. , 4. council Approval: Che unforeseen business � ` interests may be exempted from the 1. . - '�'� 1 requirements herein only when so ate in developer's agreement or on a Concept Plan approved by the City Council. 4.0 PERMIT REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS 4.1 AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW: The Landscape Administrator shall be responsible for the review and approval of all requests for all tree - removal permits submitted in accordance with the requirements specified herein. a. Planning and Zoning Commission: The Landscape . Administrator may defer the approval of a tree � \� removal permit to the Planning and Zoning Commission for any reason. All decisions made by ) the Commission shall be final. b. Appeals: Any decision made by the Landscape Administrator may be appealed to the Planning and Zoning Commission. All decisions made by the Commission shall be final. -5- 4.2 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: The Landscape Administrator shall establish administrative procedures necessary to facilitate the implementation and enforcement of this ordinance. a. Tree - Removal Permit: A request for a tree - removal permit must be submitted and approved prior to the removal of any protected tree in the City. (See Appendix 'B' for example permit.) b. Fees: All tree - removal permits shall be accompanied by a check made payable to the City of Southlake in the amount specified by City Council. c. Graphic Exhibit: All request for tree - removal permits must be accompanied by a graphic exhibit showing at least the following. These requirements may be augmented by the Landscape Administrator as needed to administer this ordinance. 1. Appropriate title (i.e. Tree Removal Permit Exhibit.) 2. Title block includes street address, lot and block, subdivision name, city and date of preparation. 3. North arrow, graphic and written scale in close proximity. 4. Name, address and phone of owner and person preparing the exhibit if different. 5. Location of tree(s) to be removed is tied down with dimensions from nearest property lines. 6. Caliper and common name of tree to be removed. 7. Any required replacement trees shown with caliper size and common name of tree. d. Permit Validity: Permits for tree removal issued in connection with a building permit or site plan shall be valid for the period of that building permit's or site plan's validity. Permit(s) for tree removal not issued in connection with a building permit or a site plan shall become void ninety (90) days after the issue date on the permit. -6- i . „ ( 5.0 TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS �7 5.1 General: In the event th it is necessary to remove a protected tree via permi approval or other appropriate process, the applicant, condition to issuance of a tree - removal permit, may be required to replace the �.�� protected tree(s) being removed with quality trees as ✓G defined herein or canopy trees as recommended in the Landscape Ordinance. A sufficient number of trees shall l / � be planted to equal, in caliper, the diameter of the (�v tree removed. Said replacement trees shall be a minimum of 3" caliper and 7 feet in height when planted. At the time of application review, the agent responsible for replacement, the time of replacement and the location of (') the new trees will be determined by the Landscape Administrator. (6.0 TREE PROTECTION A major purpose of this ordinance is to protect all quality trees which are not necessarily removed to allow approved construction to occur. The following procedures are deemed appropriate in the situations noted, however unique circumstances may allow modifications by the Landscape Administrator. 6.1 Prohibited Activities: The following activities shall be prohibited within the limits of the drip line of any V protected tree subject to the requirements of this ��k) ordinance. a. Material Storage: No materials intended for use in construction or waste materials accumulated due to excavation or demolition shall be placed within the limits of the drip line of any protected tree. QJ b. Equipment cleaning /liquid disposal: No equipment may be cleaned or other liquids deposited within Z the limits of the dripline of a protected tree. This would include paint, oil, solvents, asphalt, concrete, mortar or similar materials. c. Tree Attachments: No signs, wires or other attachments, other than those of a protective nature shall be attached to any protected tree. 6.2 Prior to Construction: The following procedures shall be followed on all types of construction projects (i.e. residential subdivisions, commercial, multifamily, industrial developments, residential builders). a. Tree Flagging: All protected trees within 50' of a construction area shall be flagged with bright vinyl tape wrapped around the main trunk at �—` a height of 4' or more such that the tape is very visible to workers on foot or driving construction n 2 equipment. -7- b. Protective Fencing: In those situations where a ., protected tree is so close to the construction V' area that construction equipment will infringe on ti ' the root system, a protective fencing may be required between the tree and the construction ��;kj J ''-) activity. (, (, c. Bark Protection: In situations where a protected ' P V �, tree remains in the immediate area of intended V�L� , J construction, the tree shall be protected by ii 4 n , . enclosing the entire circumference of the tree t't with 2" x 4" lumber encircled with wire or other means that do not damage the tree. The intent here is to protect the bark of the tree against incidental contact by large construction equipment. 6.3 Permanent Construction Methods: a. Boring: Boring of utilities under protected trees may be required in certain circumstances. When required the length of the bore shall be the width of the canopy at a minimum and shall be a minimum depth of 48 ". b. Cut /Fill: In situations where the grade change within the dripline of a protected tree exceeds six inches (6 "), the procedures noted in Appendix 'E' shall be required. 7.0 TREE PLANTING RESTRICTIONS 7.1 Overhead Lines: 7.2 Underground Utilities: 8.0 ENFORCEMENT 8.1 Developers Agreement: No developer's agreement shall be approved which does not state that all construction activities shall meet the requirements of the tree W preservation ordinance 8.2 Building Permit: No building permit shall be issued , unless the applicant has been given a copy of the tre C � � {b ` preservation ordinance or a condensed summary of the A relevant aspects pertaining to the type of permit & ' requested. b' ii v I r, l/1 -8- u1` 9.0 VIOLATIONS 10.0 SEVERABILITY 11.0 CONFLICTING ORDINANCES 12.0 SAVINGS CLAUSE 13.0 PUBLICATIONS CLAUSE 14.0 EFFECTIVE DATE 15.0 APPENDICES It is anticipated that the following appendices will be changed periodically by the Landscape Administrator in response to changes in the administration of this ordinance. mRN`( SmALL. LNANC-7E5 M ADS liE g.L APPENDIX 'A' The following is a summary of representative trees for each category of tree. See definitions section for description of the tree categories. QUALITY TREES Common Name Botanical Name Identification Notes Pecan Carya illinoensis Pecan fruit, compound leaves Cedar Elm Ulmus crassifolia Deciduous, 1 " -2" dark green leaves Red Oak Quercus shumardii Deep pointed lobes in leaves Live Oak Quercus virginiana 1 1/2" dark green pointed leaves Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Large acorn, leaf broader at end Post Oak Quercus stellata Deep lobes, rounded tip on leaf Black Jack Oak Quercus marilandica Leathery 3 " -7" leaf, no lobes Lacebark Elm Ulmus parvifolia Small dark serrated green leaves Chinese Pistache Pistacia chinensis 3" sickle leaflets, fall color Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua Star shaped leaf Austrian Pine Pinus nigra Two needles Chinquapin Oak Quercus muhlenbergii Oblong 4" - 6" serrated leaf Southern Magnolia Magnolia grandiflora Large evergreen leaf, white flower Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum Feather -like foliage, fall color MARGINAL TREES Common Name Botanical Name Identification Notes Cottonwood Populus deltoides Deep fissures in bark, heart shape leaf Sugar Hackberry Celtis laevigata Rough corky warts on bark Mesquite Prosopis glandulosa Lacy open foliage, 10" bean fruit Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Large leaf, round ball fruit Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Narrow interwoven fissures in bark American Elm Ulmus americana 'V' shaped main branching Slash Pine Pinus elliotti Honeylocust Gleditsia triacanthos Lacy foliage, thorns, bean fruit Globe Willow Salix matsudana globosa UNDESIREABLE TREES Common Name � �� Botanica Identification Not Mimosa A lbizia julibriss Pink flower, /lacy foliage, be n fruit Caralpa ." / Catalpa speciosa 14 "- 16 "Cig looking fruit, large leaf Bois d'Arc J Maclura pomifera Horseapple'Fruit Chinaberry . Melia azedarach 1/2" yelow hard berry -like fruit Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Short spines at base of leaf Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Often called 'Chinese Elm' Willow Salix babylonica Branches arch to ground Mulberry Morus rubra Large/green leaves, smooth bark Western Soapberry Sapindus drummondii 18" compound leaf, 1/2" clear fruit Red`. Cedar Juniperus virginiana Native, pyramidal shape Arizona Ash Fraxinus velutina Di -'ond fissures in bark Crab ple, Malua spp. T' y apple fruit, spring flower Deoda C dar Cedrus deodara urge pyramidal evergreen Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Gray bark, silver leaf Boxelder Acer negundo 3 -7 leaflets, 2 " -5" long, light green -10- 401. EXHIBIT 'B' 01/15/93 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TREE - REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT NAME: LOT: BLOCK: STREET ADDRESS: OWNER CONTRACTOR /BUILDER NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: I hereby certify that this application meets the requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance and further certify that all construction pertaining to this project shall meet the requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Signed: Title: Date: For City Use Only: I hereby acknowledge receipt of this application and the application fee in the runt of $ on this the day of , 19 Signed: Title: ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Shown Not On Plan Applic. GENERAL INFORMATION Appropriate title (i.e. Tree Removal Permit Exhibit) Title block includes street address, lot and block, subdivision name Title includes City and date of preparation North arrow, graphic and written scale in close proximity Name, address and phone of owner Name, address and phone of person preparing the exhibit Location of tree(s) to be removed is tied down with dimensions from nearest property lines Caliper and common name of tree(s) to be removed Any required replacement tree(s) shown with caliper size and common name of tree Permit for tree removal approved the day of , 19 By: Title: