1998-02-17 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
667 NORTH CARROLL AVENUE, SOUTHLAKE
FEBRUARY 17, 1998
MINUTES
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Rick Stacy; Mayor Pro Tem W. Ralph Evans;
Deputy Mayor Pro Tem David Harris. Members: Scott Martin, Pamela Muller, Wayne Moffat,
and Gary Fawks.
STAFF PRESENT: Curtis Hawk, City Manager; Shana Yelverton, Assistant City Manager;
Darcey Imm, Assistant to the City Manager; Lou Ann Heath, Director of Finance; Bob
Whitehead, Director of Public Works; Greg Last, Director of Community Development; Lauren
Safranek, Director of Human Resources; Kevin Hugman, Community Services Manager; Karen
Gandy, Zoning Administrator; Ron Harper, City Engineer; Shawn Poe, Capital Projects
Coordinator; Chuck Ewings, Assistant to the Public Works Director; Billy Campbell, Director
of Public Safety; E. Allen Taylor and Wayne K. Olson, City Attorneys; and, Sandra L. LeGrand,
City Secretary.
WORK SESSION: The work session began at 5:10 p.m., whereby items on the agenda were
discussed by the City Cotmcil and staff. The following persons spoke during the work session:
Sherry Berman gave the Park and Recreation Board report and noted information on the
tennis association grant; signs at ballfields, and the need for maintenance employees to be
included in the budget for Bob Jones Park. She stated the Park and Recreation Board
retreat will be held on February 28, 1998.
Preston Scoggs was present representing Toll Brothers in the discussion regarding the
developer agreement and the increase in fees (agenda item gl0-D).
David McMahan was present representing Four Peaks Development in the discussion
regarding the developer agreement for Cedar Oaks Estates.
Kosse Maykus, chairman of the Building Board of Appeals, spoke in support of the new
building codes which are on the agenda, noting the BBA held three work sessions to
review the codes and want to express their support.
Jim Haggle, Chandler Sign Company, was present to answer questions regarding the
PetsMart request for sign variance (agenda item glO-C).
The work session ended at 6:00 p.m.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEB. 17, 1998 PAGE 1 OF 19
Agenda Item #Ir Call to Order and Invocation
The Regular City Council meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m., by Mayor Rick Stacy.
INVOCATION: Mayor Pro Tem W. Ralph Evans.
Agenda Item #2-A~ Executive Session
Mayor Rick Stacy advised the audience that the City Council will be going into executive session
pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, Sections
551.071, 551.072, 551.074, 551.076, to seek the advice of the City Attorney with respect to
pending or contemplated litigations, to discuss the purchase, exchange, lease or sale of real
property and to consider the appointment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or
dismissal of public officers, or employees, and to discuss the deployment of specific occasions for
implementation of security personnel or devices.
Council adjourned into executive session at 6:07 p.m.
Council returned to open session at 7:25 p.m.
Agenda Item #2-B~ Action Necessary/Executive Session
No action was taken as the result of the executive session.
Agenda Item #3, Approval of the Minutes of the Regular City Council meeting.
No action was taken tonight with regards to the minutes of the February 3, 1998 City Council
meeting.
Agenda Item #4-A~ Mayor's Report
Mayor Rick Stacy noted the following items during the Mayor's Report:
February 19, 1998, the Drug & Alcohol Commission will meet at 6:00 p.m. in the White
Chapel Room at Bicentennial Park. Councilmember David Harris stated the commission
extended the invitation to everyone who is interested in attending.
February 24, 1998, SPIN #8 will meet to discuss the Miron Elevated Water Tower. The
meeting will start at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
February 28, 1998, the SPIN Retreat will be held in the City Council Chambers.
Councilmembers will join the group at noon. Mayor Stacy will speak.
March 5, 1998, SPIN #12 will meet at 7:30 p.m. in the Lodge, at Bicentennial Park to
discuss neighborhood sewer in the Cross Timber Hills Addition.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEB. 17, 1998 PAGE 2 OF 19
February 16, 1998 was the first day to file for a place on the May 2, 1998 General
Election ballot with March 18, 1998, being the last day to file. Council places 3,4, & 5
are up for reelection as well as Judge of Municipal Court. For more information contact
the City Secretary.
Councilmember Pamela Muller stated she attended the Historical Society Meeting held on
February 16, 1998. She stated Jerrell Chivers presented the program. Ms. Muller stated
it was so interesting, maybe Southlake should vMeo tape more of the meetings for the
benefit of the new residents in Southlake.
Mayor Stacy stated the Ethics Review Committee, made up of ministers of the Southlake
Churches, in working on a program for the National Day of Prayer ceremony which will
be held on May 7, 1998 at Bicentennial Park.
Councilmember Scott Martin commented on clippings from the Business Press, which
stated that the Sandlin Company ranked #19 in Tarrant County for his home building
business. Martin noted that two of the companies recognized in the article are from
Southlake.
Agenda Item #4-B~ City Manager's Report
Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager, commented that Metroport will be meeting Thursday, February
19, 1998, in the Activities Building in Colleyville, beginning at 7:30 a.m. Subjects to be
discussed are the Northeast Regional Water System and the proposed F.M. 1938 alignment. He
stated it will be an important meeting and Southlake will be represented by himself and
Councilmember David Harris.
Agenda Item #4-C~ SPIN Report
The SPIN #5 Report was presented by representative, Jan Francis. Ms. Francis reported SPIN
#5 is located between Kimball Avenue and North White Chapel Boulevard. She stated there are
two concerns in SPIN #5: the land use issue, and zoning requested by David McMahan for
development. She commented a meeting will be held on March 4 for the purpose of discussing
sewer in Hillwood and Dove Acres. She thanked the City Council for their support and efforts
with the SPIN program.
Agenda Item #4-D~ Parks and Recreation Board Report
Sherry Berman gave a report from the Parks and Recreation Board during the work session
tonight. Lynn Jumper, President of the Southlake Tennis Association addressed Council
referencing grant opportunities for the association, stat'mg, every city related to tennis is involved
in the grant process. Thirty-seven million dollars are given in grants from the FTA, with a fifty
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEB. 17, 1998 PAGE 3 OF 19
million dollar package over the next five years. Only sixteen nation-wide awards will be given.
There will be television ads and metroplex wide promotions for tennis. Ms. Jumper stated with
a tennis center opening in Southlake in the next few years, she is hopeful we can become a "model
community tennis association."
Agenda Item #5~ Consent Agenda
Mayor Stacy read into the record the items which will be considered during the consent agenda:
5-A. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a commercial developer agreement with Southlake
Church of Christ, located at 2501 W. Southlake Boulevard.
5-B. Removed from consent.
5-C. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a Commercial Developer Agreement for Stonebridge
Park, Lot 2, Block 1, located approximately 800' west of the intersection of West
Southlake Boulevard, and Randol Mill Avenue, on the north side of West Southlake
Boulevard.
5-D. Change Order No. 1 with Saber Development's Huntwick sewer contract to include water
meter station modifications at the 5 million-gallon ground storage tank at F.M. 1709 and
Pearson Lane.
5-E. Authorization to advertise for bids for the construction of a deceleraf~on lane at F.M. 1709
and North Peytonville Avenue.
5-F. Authorization to seek sole certificafxon for water service to Oak Hills Mobile Home Park.
5-G. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a right-of-way dedication agreement for Napa Valley,
Phase II.
5-H. Approving the name for Southlake Senior Center.
5-I. Approving the Senior Activity Center Use Policy.
5-J. Authorization to advertise for bids for a portable sewer pump system.
5-K. Authorization to advertise for bids for Hydro-Storz Quick Connectors.
5-L. Change Order No. 2 to Mid-State Utilities, Inc., Contract for Mission Hills sanitary sewer
improvements.
5-M. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a professional services agreement with Transystems
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEB. 17, 1998 PAGE 4 OF 19
Corporation for the engineering and design of S-7, 15-inch sanitary sewer line through the
various fuel storage facilities along S.H. 26.
Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract to replace fences for Bicentennial Park
Fields//4 and//5.
5-0. Authorization to bid for contract mowing.
8-C. Ordinance No. 693, 1st reading, Adopting the Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition with
local amendments.
8-D. Ordinance No. 694, 1st reading, Adopting the International Mechanical Code, 1996
Edition, with local amendments.
8-E. Ordinance No. 695, 1st reading, Adopting the International Plumbing Code, 1997 Edition
with local amendments.
8-F. Ordinance No. 692, 1st reading, Adopting the Uniform Housing Code, 1997 Edition with
local amendments.
8-G. Ordinance No. 697, 1st reading, Establishing regulations applicable to substandard and
dangerous buildings, repealing Ordinance No. 615.
8-H. Ordinance No. 622-A, 1st reading, Amending Ordinance No. 622, providing changes to
the Building Board of Appeals.
9-A. Resolution No. 98-11, Authorizing the City Manager to pursue discussions pertaining to
Southlake's participation in the Greater Grapevine Regional Library System.
9-C. Resolution No. 98-10, Appointment of Alternate Judge for Municipal Court.
10-A.
Authorize the Mayor to enter into a developer agreement for Cedar Oaks Estates Addition
(Lots 4R7R1-5), located on the north side of Sleepy Hollow, approximately 750' east of
the intersection of Sleepy Hollow and Morgan Drive.
10-D.
Authorize the Mayor to enter into a developer agreement for Southlake Woods, Phase 3,
located north of East Continental Boulevard, west of Peytonville Avenue, and east of
Davis Boulevard, and south of West Southlake Boulevard.
Motion was made to approve the consent agenda items g5-A, g5-c, amending Section 4, as it
related to off-site sewer placement; items gS-D, gS-E, g5-F, g5-G, g5-H, g5-1, g5-J, g5-K, g5-L,
g5-M, g5-N, g5-o, g8-c, g8-D, g8-E, g8-F, g8-G, g8-H, gO-A, g9-c, inserting Teresa Campbell
as Alternate Judge of Municipal Court; gl0-A, and gl0-D.
Motion: Harris
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEB. 17, 1998 PAGE 5 OF 19
Second: Evans
Mayor Rick Stacy read the captions of the following ordinances: Ordinance No. 693;
Ordinance No. 694; Ordinance No. 695; Ordinance No. 692; Ordinance No. 697, and
Ordinance No. 622-A, as required by the City Charter.
Ayes: Harris, Evans, Fawks, Muller, Moffat, Martin, Stacy
Nays: None
Approved: 7-0 vote
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CONSENT ITEMS
Commercial Developer Agreement with Southlake Church of Christ. Director of Public
Works, Bob Whitehead, stated this is a standard developer agreement with no
modifications. The only issue is:
On-Site Water: This agreement is only for the extension of a water line to be
constructed within an utility easement.
5-B. This item removed from consent agenda.
Commercial Developer Agreement for Stonebridge Park, Lot 2, Block 1. Bob Whitehead,
Director of Public Works, stated normally this agreement would be brought forward by
the developer for the entire project, however, this lot has been sold and the owner is
desirous to begin work prior to the development of the entire site. The only issue is:
Park Fees: The developer will be required to pay a Park Fee of $495.97. The park
dedication requirement for this project would be 0.012 acres (523 square feet).
The developer has not met with the Park Board, however, this request will be
brought to the Park Board on March 9, 1998.
Change Order No. 1 with Saber Development's Huntwick Sewer Contract to include water
meter station modifications at the 5 million-gallon ground storage tank at F.M. 1709 and
Pearson Lane. The change order modifications include replacing a 16-inch segment of
pipe, fittings, vault, and a 16-inch meter with a 30-inch pipe segment. This meter and
vault are part of the old Keller meter, which was replaced by Keller with a new meter
closer to their ground storage tank. The total estimate provided by Saber Development
is $27,500. This amount is provided for in the 97-98 CIP Budget as part of the budget for
the ground storage tank.
Advertise for bids for the construction of a deceleration lane on F.M. 1709 at North
Peytonville Avenue. As part of the developer agreement with the City, the developer of
Southridge Lakes, Phase C-1 Addition agreed to dedicate ROW and participate in the cost
of a deceleration lane along the north side of F.M. 1709 at the intersection of North
Peytonville Avenue fronting Lot 4, Block 6, Southridge Lakes property. The City will
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEB. 17, 1998 PAGE 6 OF 19
fund the additional portion of the deceleration lane consisting of 200 feet of frontage
adjacent to Lot 6, Block 6, Southridge Lakes Phase C-1 Addition. The developer has
requested the City begin the bidding process for the construction of the deceleration lane.
The preliminary estimate on construction costs is $73,468.70. The City's commitment
will be approximately 50% of this amount.
City Council gave the City Attorney the authorization to proceed in seeking sole
certification for water service to Oak Hills Mobile Home Park.
Napa Valley, Phase II, Right-Of-Way Dedication Agreement. Council has previously
discussed the need to execute this agreement in order to accelerate the right-of-way
dedication at the intersection of the new Carroll Avenue and Continental Boulevard.
At their February meeting, the Senior Advisory Commission approved submitting the name
for the Senior Center as being Senior Activity Center. It is hoped that the use of the word
'activity' will convey to the community that this is a facility with a variety of programs
for seniors in the City of Southlake.
The Senior Activity Center Use Policy is designed to serve as a guideline for the
management of the Senior Activity Center. This policy is generally consistent with those
of neighboring senior centers, as well as the guidelines for park meeting facilities in the
City of Southlake.
Authorization to advertise for bids for portable sewer pump system. During the FY 97-98
Water Utilities Budget, Council authorized the purchase of a portable sewer pump system.
The budget provides $48,580 for the purchase of this item.
Authorization for bids for Hydro-Storz Quick Connectors. During the hearing of the FY
97-98 Water Utilities Budget, authorization was given for the purchase of Hydro-Storz
Quick Connectors, with $58,000 provided in the budget for the purchase of these items.
Change Order No. 2 to Mid-State Utilities, Inc. contract for Mission Hills Sanitary Sewer
Improvements. In order to serve the residents along the east side of San Juan Drive, the
sanitary sewer must be located within the existing utility easement in the backyards. The
proposed sewer line will parallel the existing private lake. Due to the existing ground
water and recent rains, the area along the proposed sewer line alignments is currently
saturated. Construction of the sewer line by open cut trenching will be drastically
hindered. In addition, there will be an extensive amount of clean-up and septic leech field
repair utilitizing the open cut trenching method for the construction of this sewer line.
Utilizing directional boring in lieu of the open cut trenching method will eliminate the
vast majority of the aforementioned problems. In recent discussions with some of the
homeowners that will be affected, boring this portion of the sewer line was preferred in
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEB. 17, 1998 PAGE 7 OF 19
order to minimize the mount of disturbance to their backyards. The total estimated
difference between open cut trenching and directional boring the sewer lines as provided
by Mid-State Utilities, Inc. is $16,732.50.
Professional services agreement with Transystems Corporation for the engineering and
design of the S-7, 15-inch sanitary sewer line through the various fuel storage facilities
along S.H. 26. Transystems Corporation has been hired by various fuel companies to
design private roads that will consolidate the access to the fuel storage facilities along
S.H. 26. This will allow for the closing of four private access points across the railroad
(DART) line that present a potential hazardous situation. This project presents an
opportunity for the City as well. The oil companies involved have agreed to allow the
City to install the S-7 sewer extension through their properties along the proposed private
roadway. Transystems has provided a proposal to design the sewer line extension during
the design of the private roadways. This will allow for the installation of the sewer line
prior to the construction of the roadway. The cost of the professional services proposal
totals $21,975. The S-7 sewer line will allow for the extension of sewer to areas such as
Woodsey Court and Timberline Court, the industrial area newly platted as Cornerstone
Business Park between Kimball Avenue and Crooked Lane, and will extend sewer to
eliminate the Bank Place treatment plant.
Contract to replace fences at Bicentennial Park, Fields #4 and #5. Staff recommends
accepting the quote by American National Fence for $14,770. This quote includes
replacement of the fences and installation of concrete pads in the dugouts. This $14,770
is within the budgeted amount of $16,805.
5-0.
Bid for contract mowing. The Parks Depathnent has budgeted again for contract mowing
of City rights-of-way, medians, parks, trails, and other City property. The ROW mowing
on SH 114 and FM 1709 will supplement the mowing done by the Texas Department of
Transportation. The budgeted amount is $120,000. Staff would like to begin mowing the
first part of April. The contract will be through October 31, 1998.
Ordinance No. 693, 1st reading, adopting the Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition with
local amendments. Portions dealing with fire sprinkler systems have been removed at the
request of the Fire Services Division due to the current research regarding questions
surrounding the requirement of residential sprinkler systems. Once these issues are
resolved, the Code can be amended and the issue can be dealt with in both the Fire Code
and the Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition.
Ordinance No. 694, 1st reading, adopting the International Mechanical Code, 1996 Edition
with local amendments. The Building Board of Appeals has recommended City Council
adopt the International Mechanical Code, 1996 Edition with 1997 supplements and local
amendments. This new code is a combined effort of the three nationally recognized code
groups in the United States. The differences in the new code were discussed at length in
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEB. 17, 1998 PAGE 8 OF 19
committee meetings at the NCTCOG.
Ordinance No. 695, 1st reading, Adopting the International Plumbing Code, 1997 Edition
with local amendments. NCTCOG recommends that each municipality adopt this code.
One major advantage of this new code is that it recognizes different design approaches to
plumbing systems and therefore tends to be more permissive. Through the use of venting
systems permitted there is potential for a cost savings of several hundred dollars in a
typical residential installation.
Ordinance No. 692, 1st reading, Adopt'rog the Uniform Housing Code, 1997 Edition with
local amendments. The local amendments provided by the City Attorney refer to several
sections of the code. Section 2 of the ordinance provides reference to the Substandard
and Dangerous Building Ordinance to define public nuisances and repeals Section 203 and
Chapters 11 through 16 of the code. Section 203, Housing Advisory and Board of
Appeals, describes an appellate body for this code; appeals concerning this code will be
heard by the BBOA. Chapters 11 through 16 are repetitive items that are covered in the
Uniform Building Code.
Ordinance No. 697, 1st reading, Establishing regulations applicable to Substandard and
Dangerous Buildings, repealing Ordinance No. 615. The new ordinance contains
significant changes in order to comply fully with the Chapter 214 requirements of the
Local Government Code.
Ordinance No. 622-A, 1st reading, Amending Ordinance No. 622, providing changes to
the Building Board of Appeals. This item contains a proposal to adopt the 1997
Uniform Housing Code. The code requires any appeals to be heard by the BBOA. This
proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 622 provides the BBOA with the responsibility to
hear and decide the appeals of "order, decisions, and determinations" related to the
Housing Code made by the Chief Building Official.
Resolution No. 98-11, Authorizing the City Manager to pursue discussions pertain'mg
to Southlake's participation in the Greater Grapevine Regional Library System.
Resohition No. 98-11, authorizes the City Manager to work with the city managers of
Colleyville and Grapevine to develop an interlocal agreement with the development of a
three-city library system which would allow Southlake to eventually build its own separate
library facility. It would be our assumption that this would probably result in expansion
of the current Grapevine Library facility, not the construction of a new facility elsewhere.
It is anticipated that our cost for participation in a three-city system will greatly increase
our annual contribution to Grapevine, which has therefore been based only on the existing
interlocal agreement in which we pay for the purchase of books. A memorandum to the
City Manager, from Darcey Imm, Assistant to the City Manager, dated February 13,
1998, is hereby attached to the minutes of this meeting.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEB. 17, 1998 PAGE 9 OF 19
Resolution No. 98-10, names Teresa A. Campbell as alternate judge of municipal court
for the City of Southlake. Due to the increased caseload of the court, the need for a
substitute in case of the temporary disability or absence of the Judge, Council will need
to appoint a new Alternate Judge as soon as possible. Teresa Campbell is a resident of
Southlake and is the only individual who has expressed an interest in serving. Ms.
Campbell currently serves as the Teen Court Judge.
IO-A.
Developer Agreement for Cedar Oaks Estates addition (Lots 4R7R1-5). This is a
subdivision of one existing lot within the Cedar Oaks Estates into five new lots. Several
items relative to this development need to be brought to Council's attention:
Common Access Driveway: The access to the lots on this development will be by
means of a common access driveway. The Developer has agreed to construct this
drive in accordance with Fire Services' requirements. This drive is not intended
to be a public roadway either now or in the future. Any future maintenance of this
drive will be the responsibility of the five property owners using the drive. The
Developer also agrees that no individual lot access onto Sleepy Hollow will be
allowed, and that no gates will be installed on the common access driveway.
Off-Site Sanitary Sewer: The developer plans on bringing sanitary sewer to this
project. The developer has requested that the cost of the off-site sewer be
reimbursed to him by the City since the off-site facilities may be used to service
other properties.
Park Fees: The developer has met with the Park Board and requested that he be
allowed to contribute Park Fees in lieu of land dedication. The Park Board has
agreed to allow the payment of $1,000 per lot ($5,000 total).
10-D.
Developer Agreement for Southlake Woods, Phase 3. There are no variances to the
standard agreement. Even though this is an agreement for Phase 3, work has not begun
on Phases 1 and 2. This developer, at the suggestion of Council, obtained a second access
point to the northern portion of the project by purchasing the Stonebury Addition. This
purchase shifted the order of development to the northern portion of Southlake Woods
rather than the southern. The developer agreements for Phases I and 2 are still in force;
however if they reach their two-year expiration, the agreements will need to be
resubmitted.
Park Fees: The developer met with the Park Board on February 9, 1998. The
Board recommended that the developer pay Park Fees in the amount of $69,000.
Agenda Item #5-B~ Lease Agreement with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Kevin Hugman, Acting Parks and Recreation Director, stated part of the master plan for Bob
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEB. 17, 1998 PAGE 10 OF 19
Jones Park included the use of the adjacent Corps of Engineers land. The major points of the
agreement are: 1) term of 25 years, commencing on January 20, 1998; 2) The City will submit
an annual Plan of Operation and Maintenance, including, development and management of the
leased property; 3) Structures may be built on the leased property with approval of the District
Engineer. Mr. Hugman noted the lease agreement with the Corps is one of the major steps in
completing the requirements of the Texas Parks and Wildlife grant for Bob Jones Park.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Marylyn Miles, 5609 Hensley Drive, Fort Worth. Ms. Miles asked the Mayor and City Council
for omission of 68 acres (Abstract No. 1003, Tract 6) from the land to be leased from the U.S.
Corps of Engineers. She stated she owns approximately eleven (11) acres of the land. A copy
of the letter submitted from Ms. Marylyn Miles to the City Council dated February 17, 1998 is
hereby attached to the minutes of this meeting.
City Manager, Curtis Hawk, stated what the City is leasing from
the Corps of Engineers is property under the ownership of the U.S.
Government. At such tune the courts make a decision, the city
lease will exclude the 68 acres from the lease agreement.
E. Allen Taylor Jr., City Attorney, stated he has obviously just heard about this dispute, and the
City Attorney's office recommends, as the City Manager did, to go ahead and approve the lease
agreement. Tomorrow they will inquire into this matter. If this is a dispute of long standing,
more than twenty (20) years, the federal government has almost certainly perfected the title by
adverse position, irrespective of any documentary disputes that might exist. Title will probably
remain in the federal government and they will have the authority to enter into the agreement with
the City. Mr. Taylor stated, "If the City has a need to utilize this property for park land, he has
heard nothing this evening to justify not proceeding with this agreement."
Councilmember David Harris stated we are not paying anything for this lease, so
essentially, it is going to be some time before anything is constructed for the park,
therefore, he does not see why their is an objection for moving forward tonight.
Motion was made to authorize the Mayor to enter into the lease agreement with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers for land adjacent to Bob Jones Park.
Motion: Harris
Second: Evans
Ayes: Harris, Evans, Fawks, Muller, Moffat, Martin, Stacy
Nays: None
Approved: 7-0 vote
Agenda Item #6~ Public Forum
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEB. 17, 1998 PAGE 11 OF 19
Patsy DuPre, 808 Timber Lake Circle, Southlake. Ms. DuPre invited the City Council and the
audience to attend a "meet the candidates forum" for State Representative District 98, to be held
on March 3, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. at the Marriott Solana. She noted the forum is sponsored by the
Greater Southlake Women's Society.
Agenda Item gT-A, Ordinance No. 691, 2nd reading, Approving Retail Base Rate Reductions
for Texas Utilities Electric Company.
The City Manager, Curtis Hawk, stated the rate reductions would be 4% for residential
customers, 2% for general service secondary customers (primarily small and medium-sized
businesses) and 1% for all other customers. Additionally, residential rates would be decreased
1.4% in 1999. Ordinance No. 691 is similar to the ordinances passed by the cities of Irving, Fort
Worth, Hurst, Grapevine and others. The City of Arlington has proposed a much stronger
ordinance.
Sonny Rhodes, Manager, TU Electric was present to answer questions for Council.
PUBLIC HEARING: No comments were made during the public hearing.
Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 691, 2nd reading.
Motion: Harris
Second: Martin
Mayor Rick Stacy read the caption of the ordinance.
Ayes: Harris, Martin, Evans, Fawks, Muller, Moffat, Stacy
Nays: None
Approved: 7-0 vote
Agenda Item g7-B, ZA 98-004~ Site Plan for Village a Timarron, Phase H
ZA 98-004, Site Plan for the Village at Timarron, Phase II, on property legally described as a
portion of Lot 2 and Lots 3 and 4, Block 60, Timarron Addition, an addition to the City of
Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 3675, Plat
Records, and being approximately 4.94 acres of land situated in the O. W. Knight Survey,
Abstract No. 899. Current zoning is "R-PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District
with "C-2" Local Retail Commercial District uses. Applicant: Venus (Drews) Partner V, L.P.
Owners: Venus (Drews) Partner V, L.P. and Westerra Timarron, L. P.
Karen Gaudy, Zoning Administrator, commented that eight (8) notices were sent to property
owners within the 200' notification area and no written responses have been received.
John Drews, 580 Commerce Street, Suite 400, Southlake. Mr. Drews stated he is the developer
of Village at Timarron, Phase II, and he has responded to the action taken by the Planning and
Zoning Commission with regard to staff review comments. A discussion was held with regard
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEB. 17, 1998 PAGE 12 OF 19
to the F-1 bufferyard, and the ten feet to fifteen feet masonry wall going across the east side of
the property. About eight feet will be above grade on his side of the property. In addition, they
have made an extensive effort to not have a back of building showing on any of those buildings.
He commented that this bufferyard is required because they abut residential zoning. He asked
for Council feedback on this issue.
Mr. Drews asked to have this item tabled until the March 3, 1998, City Council meeting.
Motion was made to table ZA 98-004, Site Plan for Village at Timarron, Phase II, time certain
March 3, 1998, continuing the public hearing.
Motion: Harris
Second: Evans
Ayes: Harris, Evans, Fawks, Muller, Moffat, Martin, Stacy
Nays: None
Approved: 7-0 vote (to table)
Agenda Item gS-A~ ZA 98-005, Plat Revision for the Proposed Lots 2R and 3R, Block 60~
Timarron Addition, Phase V
ZA 98-005, Plat Revision for the proposed Lots 2R and 3R, Block 60, Timarron Addition, Phase
V, being a revision of Lots 2 and 3, Block 60, Timarron Addition, Phase V, an addition to the
City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide
3675, P.R.T.C.T. Current zoning is "R-PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District
with "C-2" Local Retail Commercial District uses. Owner: Venus (Drews) Partners V, L.P. and
Westerra Timarron, L.P.
John Drews, developer, asked that this item be tabled until the March 3, 1998, City Council
meeting.
Motion was made to table ZA 98-005, at the request of the developer, time certain, March, 3,
1998.
Motion: Harris
Second: Fawks
Ayes: Harris, Fawks, Muller, Moffat, Martin, Evans, Stacy
Nays: None
Approved: 7-0 vote (to table)
Agenda Item gS-B~ ZA 98-002~ Plat Showing of Lots 8-10, T.M. Hood No. 706 Addition
ZA 98-002, Plat Showing of Lots 8-10, T.M. Hood No. 706 Addition, on property legally
described a being approximately 6.313 acres situated in the T.M. Hood Survey, Abstract No. 706,
Tract 8D. Current zoning is 'SF-IB" Single Family Residential District. Owner: Terry R.
Seaborn. Applicant: Julian Head.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEB. 17, 1998 PAGE 13 OF 19
Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator, commented that twelve (12) notices were sent to property
owners within the 200' notification area and two (2) written responses have been received from:
E.S. Wilson, 280 East Highland Street, Southlake, opposed; and Terry R. Seaborn, 108 Oram
Street, Arlington, in favor.
Julian Head, 205 East College, Grapevine. Mr. Head stated they have not dosed on the property
as of this time. They plan to build a house. They are purchasing the property to build a house
on the 2.5 acres in the middle of the tract. There will be 2 acres on each side of his proposed
house.
Motion was made to approve ZA 98-002, subject to the Site Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated
February 13, 1998.
Motion: Martin
Second: Harris
Ayes: Martin, Harris, Evans, Fawks, Muller, Moffat, Stacy
Nays: None
Approved: 7-0 vote
Agenda Item g9-B~ Resolution No. 98-12~ Appointment to the Planning and Zoning
Commission
No action was taken tonight with regard to Resolution No. 98-12.
Agenda Item #10-B~ Developer Agreement for Cambridge Placer Phase 2.
Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Works, presented the developer agreement for Cambridge
Place, Phase 2, stating, the usual requirements for performance bonds, letters of credit or cash
escrow, and indemnification are incorporated into the agreement. There are several items that
need to be brought to the attention of the City Council for this project:
Off-Site Sewer: The S-7 sewer line was constructed as part of Phase 1 of this
project. The Developer Agreement for Phase 1 indicated details of the Developer
and City responsibilities for this construction. The S-7 line has been constructed
and is in service. The Phase 1 Developer Agreement stated that all Sewer Impact
Fees would be waived for all phases of Cambridge Place.
Park Fees: The Developer met with the Park Board on February 9, 1998. The
Park Board is recommending a credit of $8,000 which would result in a Park Fee
of $68,000.
Roadway Impact Fees: Phase 1 of this project was platted prior to the adoption of
the Roadway Impact Fee Ordinance No. 657. For Phase I, the Developer paid
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEB. 17, 1998 PAGE 14 OF 19
Perimeter Roadway Fees ($20,057.83) and Drainage Pro-Rata Fees ($39,465.04).
Phase 2 is subject to Roadway Impact Fees of $1,200 per lot ($91,200). The
Developer plans on reconstructing Rainbow Street as a part of this project and is
requesting that the cost of this reconstruction be used as credit towards the
Roadway Impact Fees. The cost to construct Rainbow Street is estimated to be
$59,002.47. The City has allowed for this type of credit in the past, i.e.,
Versailles and South Carroll Avenue, but those roads were shown on the Master
Thoroughfare Plan. Rainbow Street is not shown on the Master Thoroughfare
Plan, since it has been classified as a local street.
Sidewalks: The Sidewalk Ordinance No. 683 requires that a Pedestrian Access Plan
be submitted with the Preliminary Plat and that the plan be made a part of the
construction documents. This project was preliminary platted prior to the adoption
of the Sidewalk Ordinance and is exempt from this requirement. In addition, this
project is Phase 2 of a project where sidewalks were not required or built in Phase
1.
Bobby Harrell, partner in Lara Lane Development. Mr. Harrell stated they agree with the terms
in the developer agreement. Mr. Harrell stated he was given $8,01)0 credit by the Park Board for
Phase 1 which resulted in a $68,000 park fee. This is a two year project and they have been
trying to keep up with the rules as they have been changing. He wants an additional credit for
the park fee in Phase 1. He asked for an additional $20,000 credit.
Councilmember David Harris said, "What we do by giving Mr. Harrell additional
credit here, is allow him to prioritize this project, to the detriment of other
projects that folks have been waiting in line for. Mr. Harris stated he appreciates
Mr. Harrell's situation, but when the City adopted the impact fees, the city did it
with the understanding that the impact fees would be to improve those roads that
are on the Thoroughfare Plan and this road is not, and will not ever be on the
Thoroughfare Plan." He stated he does not want to set the precedent to allow a
developer to come in and carve out an exception to the policy. There are few
roads that exist in Southlake that couldn't stand some improvement, some of them
are worse and some are in better shape than this one. Harris stated, he does not
feel Mr. Harrell will have much success in selling the lots in the development if
he doesn't do something with the road. He stated he feels this is a bad example.
Motion was made to authorize the Mayor to enter into a Developer Agreement for Cambridge
Place, Phase 2 as drafted and recommended by City staff; granting the relief requested on the S-7
sewer line; and acknowledging the sidewalk ordinance did not come into place until after the
initial platting was in place and would not be equitable; and denying the request by the applicant
in regard to the park fee and the roadway impact fee.
Motion: Harris
Second: Fawks
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEB. 17, 1998 PAGE 15 OF 19
Ayes: Harris, Fawks, Muller, Moffat, Martin, Evans, Stacy
Nays: None
Approved: 7-0 vote
Agenda Item #10-C~ Variance to the Sign Ordinance for PetsMart in Village Center
Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Works, presented the variance request to the sign ordinance
for PetsMart located in Village Center. This item was discussed in work session. Mr. Whitehead
stated the sign ordinance permits one sign per street frontage. The applicant would like an
additional sign of 200 square feet on the south elevation, although it is not technically near a street
frontage. He claims the driveway to the south of the structure is designed and functions as a
street, therefore, the additional sign should be permitted.
The applicant also requests that a 328 square foot sign, plus two 30 square foot small signs be
permitted on the east elevation. A 279 square foot sign is permitted on this particular elevation.
The applicant states that this portion of the building faces commercial property and will not affect
residential properties.
Jim Haggle, Chandler Sign Company, was present to answer questions of Council.
Motion was made to deny the requested variance to the Sign Ordinance No. 506-B.
Motion: Harris
Second: Fawks
Ayes: Harris, Fawks, Muller, Moffat, Martin, Evans, Stacy
Nays: None
Denied: 7-0 vote
Council adjourned for recess at 9:20 p.m.
Council returned to open session at 9:45 p.m.
Agenda Item #11-A~ Discussion: Homestead Exemptions
Curtis Hawk, City Manager, stated this item was placed on the agenda at the request of
Councilmember Gary Fawks. He asked Council to review the information provided by the
Director of Finance, Lou Ann Heath, with regard to Homestead Exemption options.
Ms. Heath stated Section 11.13 of the Property Tax Code allows a city to adopt a local-option
percentage homestead exemption. April 30th is the last day that this local-option may be adopted
by a City. Ms. Heath presented an analysis of the impact that adopting a local-option percentage
homestead exemption would have had on the 1997-98 tax revenues (a copy of the analysis is
hereby attached to the minutes of this meeting). The Tarrant Appraisal District's records indicate
that the average home value in Southlake is $244,000. There are 4,950 single family residential
accounts, which are assumed to be 95% owner-occupied. The minimum homestead amount that
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEB. 17, 1998 PAGE 16 OF 19
can be adopted by law is $5,000. Using the 1997-98 taxable property values, adopting the
minimum $5,000 exemption would result in a $99,170 reduction of property tax revenues. For
the 10% exemption, a $483,950 reduction of property tax revenues is estimated and $967,899 for
20%.
The 1997-98 taxable property value in Southlake is 75% residential, 14%
commercial/industrial/utilities, and 11% is acreage/vacant lots/real property inventory. Currently
the City offers a $50,000 over-65 homestead exemption, and a $50,000 disabled person
exemption.
Curtis Hawk, City Manager, stated, "Given the magnitude of the public works projects we have
facing us, I am not sure I can give you a recommendation until we have completed our long range
financial plan. Unfortunately, this will not be completed until June. I am eager to start an
exemption program; we cannot say it will not adversely affect our current programs and plans
until we get a better look at the long range financial plan."
Councilmember Gary Fawks stated this is something that should be looked at
periodically, and as the tax base starts to shift this is the appropriate way for the
governing body to deal with the tax rate issue.
Staff is to bring the numbers and a ftrst reading of an ordinance with regard to tax exemptions to
the March 3, 1998, City Council meeting.
Agenda Item #11-B, Discussion: Traffic Management Study
Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Works, stated that over the past several months, staff has had
the city's traffic consultants conduct studies on the future management opportunities for F.M.
1709. "We have apprised City Council of the results of these studies during the June retreat,
budget briefings and normal Council meeting updates, Mr. Whitehead said. He noted this is an
oppommity to combine and summarize the findings to date, to layout the next steps and to obtain
proper direction and consensus from the City Council. The studies and issues that need to be
discussed include:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Traffic signalization study
Median study
Third-lane striping
Intersection improvements
Deceleration lanes
Village east circulation study
A copy of the information provided is hereby attached to the minutes of this meeting.
Agenda Item #Il-C, Discussion: Pitched roofs, Proposed Ordinance No. 480-DD
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEB. 17, 1998 PAGE 17 OF 19
Councilmember Gary Fawks requested Ordinance No. 480-DD, which will address concerns
regarding flat and built up roofs on development within the Corridor Overlay Zone. He noted on
two occasions Council has discussed pitch roof requirements in our ordinances (assisted care and
gas stations). He stated Council has expressed concerns regarding the current requirements for
mechanical screening on rooftops which allow boxes or panels to be used as a screening device.
Mr. Fawks asked that the City of Bedford overlay regulations be reviewed by staff, as he believes
this will be useful information.
Agenda Item #Il-D, Discussion: City-Initiated Rezonlng
Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator, stated Counciimember Muller recently presented staff with
a list of areas which she believes are suitable for city-initiated rezoning. Most changes on the list
are located on or near F.M. 1709, with two changes being at the intersection of South White
Chapel and Continental Boulevard. Of these, most recommendations made by Ms. Muller were
classified as being "not in compliance with the Land Use Plan" by the 1997 Lane Use Plan
update. A list of the properties is hereby attached to the minutes of this meeting.
Agenda Item #Il-E, Discussion: Impervious Coverage, proposed Ordinance No. 480-BB
Proposed Ordinance No. 480-BB, was recommended by the study work group, which was
comprised of Councilmembers Fawks and Muller and including P&Z members, Ann Creighton
and Debra Edmondson. According to Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator, it is her
understanding that the work group's objective was to maintain natural areas and open spaces in
an effort to lessen the impacts of parking areas, to increase the survivability of existing native
trees by keeping the critical root zone open for water and gas exchange, and to lessen the impact
of drainage run-off.
Agenda Item #Il-F, Discussion: Residential Adjacency Regulations, proposed Ordinance No.
480-CC.
Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator, stated the proposed Ordinance No. 480-CC, reflects the
recommendations of the work group, which was comprised of Councilmember Pamela Muller,
Commissioners Edmondson and Creighton. The work group's objective was to preserve the
quality of residential life and to protect property values within all existing and future residential
neighborhoods from developing non-single family residential uses within 400' of any single family
residential property. The regulations attempt to maintain a generally harmonious outward
appearance of non-single family residential structures adjacent to single family residential
properties.
The information presented on items #Il-C, #11-D, #11-E and #11-F is attached to the minutes
of this meeting. It was suggested by Councilmember Muller that the proposed ordinances be
presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission level at the same time. Zoning Administrator
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEB. 17, 1998 PAGE 18 OF 19
Karen Gandy will bring the proposed ordinances back at the next Council meeting for further
discussion.
Agenda Item #12~ Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned by Mayor Rick Stacy at 11:10 p.m.
Ma~o/Rick Stacy
ATTEST:
Sandra L. LeGrand
City Secretary
M:\WP-FILES\MINUTES\CC-2-17-.MIN~sl
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEB. 17, 1998 PAGE 19 OF 19
"Q IT ROW 7 .)
Lb FEB 1 I998
Date: February 17, 1998
To: Southlake City Council OFFICE OF CITY
From: Marylyn E. Miles SECRETARY
Re: Agenda Item 5: A Request for omission of 68 acres
(AB -1003 Tr. 6) from land Mayor Stacy will lease from the
U. S. Corps of Engineers.
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR STACY AND DEDICATED CITY
COUNCIL MEMBERS
I own what is left of the original 79 1/2 acres in Abstract 1003, Track 6 in
Southlake, Texas, Denton County. (Approx 11 acres)
I respectfully request that you omit the 68 and 1/2 acres which J. D. "Bob"
Jones deeded to his daughter, my grandmother, Alice Jones Fretwell from the
land which is being considered for lease from the U. S. Corps of Engineers.
Legal documents have been removed from the files of Denton County,
Tarrant County and the U. S. Corps of Engineers which could help determine
the boundary line between Tarrant and Denton County. It has been brought
to my attention that the possibility of Obstruction of Justice charges may be
taken against the persons or persons responsible for the removal of
documents from government files. I am making my legal records from Bob
Jones dated from the early 1930's available to help in this legal matter.
Among these papers are documents which confirm that the 79 1/2 acres were
taken in excess of federal needs and should have been returned to Alice
Jones.
Please DO NOT include the 68 1/2 acres in your lease so that Southlake will
not become in this legal entanglement which Denton and Tarrant County are
involved. This would be a real waste of the tax dollars of the citizens of
Southlake. As is stated in the documents about Southlake we already have
and abundance of park land for the 3,700 families living in this beautiful city.
We do not need the 68 acres that will soon belong to the Bob Jones family.
GENERAL FUND
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
for the period ended January 31, 1998
with comparative actual amounts for the period ended January 31, 1997
(fiscal month 4 - 33.33%)
Adopted Percent Actual Percent
Month Year to Date 1997/98 Collected/ Year to Date Total Collected/
REVENUES 1997/98 Budget . ..11.. 1/31/97 9/30/97 Expended
Ad Valorem Taxes $1,980,212 $2,685,996 $4,036,234 66.5% $2,495,657 $3,464,260 72.0%
Sales Tax 163,871 594,699 2,717,500 21.9% 412,343 1,930,016 21.4%
Franchise Fees 181,622 561,742 801,030 70.1% 654,736 899,600 72.8%
Fines 36,063 202,725 515,300 39.3% 129,677 526,967 24.6%
Charges for Services 31,095 123,580 551,550 22.4% 77,977 337,886 23.1%
Permits /Fees 195,671 713,263 2,264,710 31.5% 690,966 2,549,285 27.1%
Miscellaneous 7,151 25,095 113,975 22.0% 35,988 172,956 20.8%
Interest Income 14.723 42.740 155.000 27.6% 59.942 185.630 32.3%
Total Revenues $2,610,408 $4,949,840 $11,155,299 44.4% $4,557,286 $10,066,600 45.3%
EXPENDITURE
City Secretary $16,185 $70,060 $237,412 29.5% $91,157 $242,576 37.6%
Human Resources 19,980 67,271 168,488 39.9% 29,184 144,948 0.0%
City Manager 24,201 107,186 350,120 30.6% 149,979 499,981 30.0%
Support Services 137,687 504,178 1,210,601 41.6% 433,199 1,346,068 32.2%
Community Services 19.591 122.702 360.113 34.1% Q Q 0.0%
subtotal - General Govt. Dept. 217.644 871.397 2.326.734 37.5% 703.519 2.233.573 31.5%
Finance 34,530 132,547 410,436 32.3% 149,142 418,018 35.7%
Municipal Court 20,513 83,565 276,930 30.2% 65,747 253,010 26.0%
Municipal Court-Teen Court 4.503 17.576 54.609 32.2% 14.641 48.328 30.3%
subtotal- Finance Dept. 59.546 233.688 741.975 31.5% 229.530 719.356 31.9%
Fire 155,323 564,672 1,527,724 37.0% 354,360 1,460,111 24.3%
Police 229,789 893,073 2,600,413 34.3% 678,732 2,242,915 30.3%
' ; Safety Support 88.308 314.001. 982.880 31.9% 322.002 1.002.714 32.1%
tal -Public Safety Dept. 473.420 1.771.746 5.111.017 34.7% 1.355.094 4.705.740 28.8%
_ .sting 35,574 150,300 587,485 25.6% 169,565 474,511 35.7%
Streets /Drainage 61,494 228,840 911,629 25.1% 204,756 941,843 21.7%
Public Works Administration 11, 260.337 856.528 30.4% 223.222 650.360 34.3%
subtotal -Public Works Dept. 168.972 639.477 2.355.642 27.1% 597.543 2.066.714 28.9%
Parks and Recreation Dept. 77.762 322.150 1.301.738 24.7% 257.157 1.013.014 25.4%
Community Development 35,551 144,981 555,593 26.1% 158,957 463,551 34.3%
Economic Development 6.936 31.179 114.285 27.3% 21.207 90.319 23.5%
subtotal - Community Development 42.487 176.160 669.878 26.3% 180.164 553.870 32.5%
Pay Plan Implementation Q Q 285.409 0.0% Q Q 0.0%
Total Expenditures $1.039.831 $4.014.618 $12.792.393 31.4% $3.323.007 $11.292.267 29.4%
Excess (deficiency) of
Revenue over Expenditures $1,570,577 $935,222 ($1,637,094) $1,234,279 ($1,225,667)
OTHER FINANCING
SOURCES AND (USES)
Proceeds from C.O. Sale (net) $0 $0 $715,547 $0 $842,183
Transfer In -Other Funds 175,000 233,333 700,000 0 633,000
Total Other Sources /(Uses) $175,000 $233,333 $1,415,547 $0 $1,475,183
Excess (deficiency) of
Revenues /other sources over Exp. $1.745.577 $1.168.555 ($221.547) $1.234.279 $249.516
FUND BALANCE OCT 1 $2,603,169 $2,603,169 $2,353,653 $2,353,653
Change in reserved fund balance $0 $0 $0 $0
ENDING FUND BALANCE $3.771.724 $2.381.622 $3.587.932 $2.603.169
fund balance percentage 18.6% 23.1%
JAN98.XLS Page 1
WATER AND SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND
Comparative Statement of Revenues and Expenses
for the period ended January 31, 1998 and January 31, 1997
(fiscal month 4 - 33.33%)
Adopted Percen Actual Percent
Month Year to Date 1997/98 Collected/ Year to Date Total Collected/
REVENUES ' : 1997/98 Budget . •[ • • -. 1/31/97 9/30/97
Expended
Water Sales - residential $270,299 $1,462,197 $4,887,500 29.9% $1,113,653 $4,425,797 25.2%
Water Sales - commercial 49,857 260,850 701,500 37.2% 191,753 657,807 29.2%
Sewer Sales 73,682 317,196 920,000 34.5% 252,785 811,624 31.1%
Sanitation Sales 46,463 197,696 534,000 37.0% 169,252 508,224 33.3%
Other utility charges 27,508 128,015 359,000 35.7% 125,919 409,950 30.7%
Miscellaneous 10,468 14,360 91,600 15.7% 25,492 84,698 30.1%
Interest Income 5.251 23.648 77.000 30.7% 33.177 77.196 43.0%
Total Revenues $483,528 $2,403,962 $7,570,600 31.8% $1,912,031 $6,975,296 27.4%
EXPENSES
Water $552,732 $962,824 $4,413,701 21.8% $1,044,561 $3,971,926 26.3%
Sewer 65,254 230,903 792,206 29.1% 257,306 727,546 35.4%
Pay Plan Implementation 0 0 15,705 0.0% 0 0 0.0%
Sanitation 39,928 119,108 500,000 23.8% 106,717 445,205 24.0%
Debt Service -
Revenue Bonds 356.979 663.642 2.062.490 32.2% 520.794 L817.529 28.7%
Total Expenses $1,014,893 $1,976,477 $7,784,102 25.4% $1,929,378 $6,962,206 27.7%
Excess (deficiency) of
Revenue over Expenses $427.485 ($213.502) ($17.347) $13.090
OTHER FINANCING
SOURCES AND (USES)
sfer In-Other Funds $69,512 $278,048 $834,145 $232,723 $698,170
fer Out -Other Funds 7 11.1 (233.333) (700.000) 0 (633.000)
....41 Other Sources /(Uses) ($105,488) $44,715 $134,145 $232,723 $65,170
Excess (deficiency) of
Revenues and other sources
over Expenses .. .: $472.200 ($79.357) $215.376 578.260
05 '.6s -
JAN98.XLS Page 2
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
HISTORICAL SALES TAX REVENUES
1997 -98 collected budget balance
budget to date balance percent
$2.715.000 $861.136 $1.853.864 68.28%
I FISCAL FISCAL FISCAL FISCAL FISCAL
YEAR % Inc YEAR % Inc YEAR % Inc YEAR % Inc YEAR % Inc
MONTH 93/94 -Dec 94/95 -Dec 95/96 -Dec 96 -97 -Dec 97 -98 -Dec
'October $99,408 95.1% $89,951 -9.5% $128,689 43.1% $161,892 25.8% $237,164 46.5%
November 50,623 20.2% 52,099 2.9% 111,917 114.8% 135,367 21.0% 193,664 43.1%
1 December 70,155 107.3% 67,243 -4.2% 103,975 54.6% 115,084 10.7% 163,871 42.4%
January 106,541 57.3% 95,687 - 10.2% 140,362 46.7% 198,873 41.7% 266,437 34.0%
February 57,839 47.0% 68,015 17.6% 95,269 40.1% 125,671 31.9% 0 - 100.0%
(March 59,378 34.4% 56,600 -4.7% 103,163 82.3% 104,733 1.5% 0 - 100.0%
April 87,438 27.3% 88,212 0.9% 137,030 55.3% 182,384 33.1% 0 - 100.0%
'May 58,291 6.7% 81,109 39.1% 109,371 34.8% 152,577 39.5% 0 - 100.0%
'first month of 1/2 cent sales tax
June 59,577 14.5% 83,253 39.7% 112,317 34.9% 171,813 53.0% 0 - 100.0%
(July 94,157 16.9% 135,187 43.6% 179,803 33.0% 223,854 24.5% 0 - 100.0%
August 58,980 22.1% 109,584 85.8% 132,367 20.8% 184,851 39.7% 0 - 100.0%
'September 75.228 38.3% 106.563 41.7% 122.445 14.9% 173.917 42.0% 0 - 100.0%
I $877,615 _ 37.8 %_ $1,033,502 17.8% $1,476,708 42.9 %_ $1,931,017 30.8 %_ $861,136 189.7%
SOUTHLAKE PARKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
1997 -98 collected budget balance
budget to date balance percent
51.357.500 $430.568 $926.932 68.28%
FISCAL FISCAL FISCAL FISCAL FISCAL
YEAR % Inc YEAR % Inc YEAR % Inc YEAR % Inc YEAR % Inc
1MONTH 93/94 -Dec 94/95 -Dec 95/96 -Dec 96 -97 -Dec 97 -98 -Dec
October $0 n/a $44,975 n/a $64,344 43.1% $80,946 25.8% $118,582 46.5%
(November 0 n/a 26,049 n/a 55,958 114.8% 67,684 21.0% 96,832 43.1%
December 0 n/a 33,622 n/a 51,987 54.6% 57,542 10.7% 81,935 42.4%
'January 0 n/a 47,843 n/a 70,181 46.7% 99,437 41.7% 133,219 34.0%
February 0 n/a 34,007 n/a 47,635 40.1% 62,836 31.9% 0 - 100.0%
March 0 n/a 28,300 n/a 51,581 82.3% 52,366 1.5% 0 - 100.0%
(April 0 n/a 44,106 n/a 68,515 55.3% 91,192 33.1% 0 - 100.0%
May 29,145 n/a 40,554 39.1% 54,686 34.8% 76,289 39.5% 0 - 100.0%
June 29,788 n/a 41,627 39.7% 56,159 34.9% 85,906 53.0% 0 - 100.0%
July 47,079 n/a 67,593 43.6% 89,901 33.0% 111,927 24.5% 0 - 100.0%
29,490 n/a 54,792 85.8% 66,184 20.8% 92,426 39.7% 0 - 100.0%
'September 37 614 n/a 53,282 41.7% 61.223 14.9% 86.958 42.0% 0 - 100.0%
r
TOTAL $173,116 _ n/a $516,751 198.5% $738,354 42.9% $965,508 30.8% $430,568 189.7%
/ 7 ( 8 3
2/13/98 SLSTX98.XLS
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
Sales Tax Analysis
FY1997 -98
Actual Budget Actual Estimated (budget -est.) %
Month 1996 -97 1997 -98 1997 -98 1997 -98 Difference Chanae
October 161,892 211,176 237,164 237,164 25,988 12.31%
November 135,367 180,672 193,664 193,664 12,992 7.19%
December 115,084 157,347 163,871 163,871 6,524 4.15%
January 198,873 253,704 266,437 266,437 12,733 5.02%
February 125,671 169,522 0 169,522 0 0.00%
March 104,733 145,443 0 145,443 0 0.00%
April 182,384 234,742 0 234,742 0 0.00%
May 152,577 200,464 0 200,464 0 0.00%
June 171,813 222,585 0 222,585 0 0.00%
July 223,854 282,432 0 282,432 0 0.00%
August 184,851 333,186 0 333,186 0 0.00%
September 173,917 323.729 Q 323.729 Q 0.00%
1,931,016 2,715,000 861,136 2,773,238 58,238 2.15%
40.60% 43.62%
Southlake Parks Development Corporation
1/2 cent sales tax
Actual Budget Actual Estimated (budget -est.) %
1996 -97 1997 -98 1997 -98 1997 -98 Difference Change
October 80,946 105,588 118,582 118,582 12,994 12.31%
November 67,684 90,336 96,832 96,832 6,496 7.19%
December 57,542 78,673 81,935 81,935 3,262 4.15%
' Vary 99,437 126,852 133,219 133,219 6,367 5.02%
3ry 62,836 84,761 0 84,761 0 0.00%
52,367 72,721 0 72,721 0 0.00%
/1Nnl 91,192 117,371 0 117,371 0 0.00%
May 76,289 100,232 0 100,232 0 0.00%
June 85,907 111,292 0 111,292 0 0.00%
July 111,927 141,216 0 141,216 0 0.00%
August 92,426 166,593 0 166,593 0 0.00%
September 86 959 161.864 0 161.864 0 0.00%
965,508 1,357,500 430,568 1,386,619 29,119 2.15%
40.60% 43.62%
1 7 ( Z - �
2/13/98 SLSTX98.XLS
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
February 13, 1998
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Darcey Imm, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 98 -11, Authorizing the City Manager to pursue discussions
pertaining to Southlake's participation in the Greater Grapevine Regional
Library System.
Background
The City of Grapevine has allowed residents of Southlake to use the Grapevine Public Library
since the City of Southlake's incorporation in 1956. Historically this service has presented no
problems to the Grapevine Library due to the relatively small population of Southlake. This
arrangement has worked well for both Southlake and Grapevine: Southlake has received the
benefit of the library service; Grapevine has received the benefit of Southlake volunteers who
have assisted the Grapevine library staff, and Southlake citizens have considered Grapevine as
a destination place to spend sales tax dollars. It has been another example of the two closely -
knit communities working together.
Attempts to Establish Southlake Library
As Southlake began experiencing explosive growth in the early 1990s, there were those in
Southlake who began exploring the possibility of a separate Southlake public library, not
because of any dissatisfaction with the Grapevine Public Library, but rather in recognition of
the civic pride that comes with a community library. The first (1989 -90) Leadership Southlake
class, sponsored jointly by the Southlake Chamber of Commerce and the City of Southlake,
had as its advocacy project a Southlake Library Project. The action plan set out in the
Southlake Library Project included establishing a non - profit organization called Friends of the
Southlake Library, and developing an interlocal agreement between Southlake and Grapevine
to establish an "official" relationship between the two cities for library services until such time
that Southlake could build a separate facility. A "Friends of the Southlake Library" was
created, and in addition to doing research on the subject of the creation of library, FOSL
began raising funds to go toward a library. City staff initiated discussion with the City of
Grapevine about a proposed agreement for interlocal cooperation with Southlake and
Grapevine to provide library service.
As a result of the Leadership Southlake advocacy report, the City Council, in October 1990,
appointed a library committee to develop a proposal for an interlocal agreement between
Southlake and Grapevine, and to make a recommendation on a Southlake library facility. In
April, 1990, the City had received a proposal from the City of Grapevine in which Grapevine
proposed to provide library service to the tri -city Grapevine, Colleyville, and Southlake area.
This proposal was turned over to the Southlake Library Committee and the Friends of the
Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
Resolution No. 98 -11, Library
Page 2
Southlake Library for review and comment. The Library Committee (working with FOSL)
completed its work and submitted a recommendation to City Council in May, 1991. Among
its recommendations were:
• negotiation of an interlocal agreement with Grapevine, along the lines set out in the
proposal submitted by Grapevine
• continue using the Grapevine Public Library until Southlake can build its own, with the
plan of being�a full participant in a regional library system of independent city libraries,
sharing resources.
At the same time, FOSL made a request that the City begin establishing a collection of books
to prepare for the time when our own library would be established. To do this, FOSL worked
through the Grapevine Public Library staff and City of Southlake staff to create the interlocal
agreement between the two cities whereby the City of Southlake would annually fund a
purchase of books by the City of Grapevine, to be held in the Grapevine Public Library
collection for use by the patrons of the Grapevine Library, but which would someday be used
to start a Southlake Public Library collection. This contract was executed by the two cities in
May, 1991.
Tri -City Library Facility
In January, 1996, the Cities of Colleyville, Grapevine, and Southlake agreed to jointly fund a
consultant's report to consider the possibility of a tri -city library facility. This study effort
was the result of a series of discussions between the city managers of the three communities,
discussions initiated due to the following:
• the Grapevine Public Library is at capacity and in need of immediate expansion by the City
of Grapevine
• the City of Colleyville has funds available for the construction of a Colleyville Public
Library
• the report of the 1991 Southlake Library Committee identified 1997/1998 as the timeframe
to provide full library services and facility for the citizens of Southlake.
In July, 1996, the Southlake City Council appointed another Library Committee to make a
recommendation on the feasibility of a tri -city library facility. The 1996 committee included
several members from the 1991 committee.
The consultant presented a report on a tri -city library to the city managers, and it was
presented to the Southlake Library Committee, in August 1996. The Library Committee met
with the consultant, and each of the City Managers during the course of its work. In
February, 1997, the Library Committee made a recommendation to the City Council that
Southlake build a "stand- alone" facility rather than a tri -city.
Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
Resolution No. 98 -11, Library
Page 3
Following the recommendation of the Southlake Library Committee to the City Council, the
issue of the tri -city library was set aside as a request of other overriding issues in each of the
three communities. By late 1997, however, the issue of library services again was prominent
in discussions with the three city staffs. As a courtesy to the other two cities, and in the effort
to assure that no significant factors were overlooked, the Southlake City Manager's office
continued to research the library issue.
Last City Council meeting, February 3, an overview of the City Manager's recommendation
was presented to City Council in work session.
Discussion
The research and discussion during the last twenty four months concerning the tri -city library
was a worthwhile endeavor. The merits of a tri -city library are significant: the benefit of
scale, having the possibility of cost savings in construction, operation, and maintenance. The
merits of separate library facilities also have merit. The consultant's report on the tri -city
library (pg. 36) speaks to the issue of the public library as a service organization, identifying
the library as a special place that complements all other institutions in the community. The
City of Grapevine is (rightfully so) very proud of its library. The Grapevine public library
dates back to 1923 when it was organized as a part of the Tarrant County Library. For 17
years the Grapevine Library operated as a branch of the Fort Worth Public Library. It has
been a "stand- alone" library ever since. But it has much more to offer than just a 75 year
history. The same factors that make the Grapevine Public Library a special place to the people
of Grapevine are at play in Southlake. Every report or study conducted by Southlake, from
the 1989 report by Leadership Southlake, to the report of the 1991 Southlake Library
Committee, to the report of the 1996 Southlake Library Committee, has focused on the desire
to have our own special place.
Service level standards, even the entire focus of library services, can differ from city -to -city
and from year -to -year. Library services have different priorities in various communities.
Libraries take on the "sense" of the community. Place becomes important. In the ideal
setting, those in Southlake who want their own "place" are no different than those in
Grapevine who want the same. The independent Southlake library would ensure the level of
service desired by our residents (within their ability and willingness to pay), ensure more
influence on the method by which the library if operated, and contribute to the sense of
community and civic pride in Southlake. These are all factors which have been discussed.
Recommendation
In an attempt to provide the economies of scale offered by a tri -city library facility, and to
provide for our own special place, one needs to only look again at the original 1990 proposal
submitted to Southlake by the Grapevine Public Library. (Copy attached.) Southlake should
continue to view itself as a member of the Grapevine Library System, but rather than look at
building a new tri -city library facility, refocus on the tri -city library service. Southlake should
Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
Resolution No. 98 -11, Library
Page 4
recognize that the Grapevine Library is the key component in the tri -city library system, and
take steps to assure the financial integrity of the system by contributing a fair -share operating
cost at this time, and to continue to support the tri -city system following the eventual building
of our own facility. (Although the 1990 proposal missed in its "Possible Time Line," the
concept is still viable.)
The attached City of Southlake Resolution No. 98 -11 would authorize the City Manager to
work with the City Managers of Colleyville and Grapevine to develop an interlocal agreement
for the development of a three -city library system which would allow Southlake to eventually
build its own separate library facility. It would be our assumption that this would probably
result in expansion of the current Grapevine Library facility, not the construction of a new
facility elsewhere; however, the latter possibility would not be ruled out.
It is anticipated that our cost for participation in a three -city system will greatly increase our
annual contribution to Grapevine, which has heretofore been based only on the existing
interlocal agreement in which we pay for the purchase of books.
DI /kb
° j o I ° ° 0 1 0 0 oo a o) rn o
EA I O o 0 0 co N ui m
Io I 1I- v o c I. ch o a
N o I (0 �t co N
0
a o N I (Y) CO a)
N N I O; I O O O
cv Iu INI M '
1
1— ! 1 !
0 0! j O 0 0 0 N- N.
O 1 O ,0 O co , a)
EA O I o o o o) r' N
0
U) l 0 - O N co 0 0
o Q I0 N CO c�)
N O 1 , et
I v 1.6
O
0
0 (N I to : r- CO
Ito! r
EA 1T ,-
1 1
1
� EA EA EA EA EA EA EA
O I o
0 0 o 0 0 0 o r� O
C o EA O � O O 0 ,- 0 !0 O O C) O N
7' O Q I O N to L 0
a H N O 1 c� CO
o f
E O ` N LO; N N
W Eo E A
-a > 1- I
a
O d EA 1 EA EA EA EA EA EA
Y -) CD
IC d CL CO
N X
oa ;'a
F. o
� cn
O C
�+ • 0) g
C E: C Z
V U' LL 10
0 c
O C Cr) 1
N ▪ .0 C 0)
= 0 X
_ "C"' T 0. I 7
C E 1rn
O O"
Q Xj 1� o o
O 1 O as
T c (0 m
NI 1 O EA =
N
X
E C 0
O 1 (0 O C 4)
L }, 0 d
o I 1 C _
• I L E
-I
0 X . ( ca
4) a) ' 1 >, A a)
� 1 I 11 _ n 't 0
< O w 2 C > 0. -
X �; > C O
f9 >+! O > 0 0 _O O L (1) Q
H t I O. (0
o! rn y E T to
a) 0 , 1 E ca X C z °c
O a 1 O L O O CD ca
a) N ! i O N +. 0
70 a) o V (0 N
0 a
al 1 c
O f > > O N O x C
1 H HI IZ <1 cC r[ H‹
//4 A
City of Southiake, Texas —
MEMORANDUM
February 6, 1998
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Ron Harper, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Traffic Management Study - F.M. 1709
Over the past several months, staff has had the city's traffic consultants conduct studies
on the future management opportunities for F.M. 1709. We have apprised City Council
of the results of these studies during the June retreat, budget briefings and normal Council
Meeting updates. This is an opportunity to combine and summarize the findings to date,
to layout the next steps, and to obtain proper direction and consensus from the City
Council.
The studies and issues that need to be discussed include:
1. TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION STUDY
2. MEDIAN STUDY
3. THIRD -LANE STRIPING
4. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
5. DECELERATION LANES
6. VILLAGE EAST CIRCULATION STUDY
1. TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION STUDY
HDR Engineering was retained to perform a F.M. 1709 Traffic Signal Study. Their
report was delivered to the city on August 8, 1997. This report confirmed staff's
opinion that the signals along F.M. 1709 should and could be coordinated by means
of a centralized computer system. (A copy of the study is attached for your use.)
Staff is currently preparing a Request for Proposal for the design of this coordinated
system. Funding for this project was placed in the 1998 -1999 budget cycle.
Two traffic signal projects have been designed and submitted to TxDOT for approval:
F.M. 1709 at Shady Oaks and F.M. 1709 and Commerce St. Funding for these two
projects was included in the 1997 -1998 budget.
11B-2
CURTIS E. HAWK
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STUDY - F.M. 1709
FEBRUARY 6, 1998
PAGE 2
2. MEDIAN STUDY
HDR Engineering was asked to look at two specific areas on F.M. 1709 to determine
methods of controlling access to drives and roadway in high traffic areas: Woodland
Heights and Peytonville Ave.
The city used the HDR recommendations for the channelization done in the
Woodland Heights /Miron area. The recommendations for the traffic management at
Peytonville Ave. has resulted in a portion of the work to be done with the
development on the northeast corner. Funds for the engineering of the ultimate
redesign of this area were allocated in the 1997 -1998 budget, construction funds are
planned for 1998 -1999.
We have received a proposal from Lee Engineering to provide information on access
management and median design. The purpose of this study will be to identify
advantages and disadvantages of medians and to develop criteria for the location of
median breaks. There is very little technical guidance relative to the use of medians
except in areas subject to high volumes of accidents and to prevent cross traffic across
multiple lanes of traffic. The decision to install medians is often more of a policy
decision than an engineering decision.
3. THIRD -LANE STRIPING
Most of the traffic studies that have been received ovdr the past year show that the
addition of a third -lane on F.M. 1709 is warranted. Typical engineering guidelines
allocate 7,000 vehicles per day per lane for this type of roadway (both directions)
which is equilvant to 28,000 vpd. Recent studies have shown counts in excess of
30,000 vehicles per day and approaching 35,000 vehicles per day. Lee Engineering
has estimated that to convert the current left -lane to a through travel lane would cost
approximately 813,000 per mile. F.M. 1709 is approximately seven miles long for a
cost of 591,000. At this time it is unlikley that TxDOT will contribute funds.
4. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Two intersections have been identified for major improvements: Peytonville Ave.
and White Chapel Blvd. Peytonville Ave. was discussed in conjunction with the
median study. Funding for White Chapel Blvd. has been allocated in the 1997 -1998
budget and proposed for 1998 -1999; however, no engineering contract has been
awarded.
5. DECELERATION LANES
With the eventual expansion of F.M. 1709 to three travel lanes in each direction, the
city needs to address requiring developers to dedicate the necessary right -of -way and
1 18-3
CURTIS E. HAWK
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STUDY - F.M. 1709
FEBRUARY 6, 1998
PAGE 3
to construct deceleration lanes into their project. The need for these is obvious;
however, the spacing and frequency for the lanes is less clear. Staff feels that
deceleration lanes need to be required at almost all new public roads. Staff is also
working with out traffic consultants to establish criteria in detemining the best
locations other than public roads. Council will be consulted once the draft criteria
have been developed.
6. VILLAGE EAST CIRCULATION STUDY
Community Development has been spearheading this study. A memorandum from
Director Last is attached.
SUMMARY
Staff will expand on all the above items during the work session and will be seeking
further direction from Council.
Attachments
1 18-4
August 7. 1997
NIr. Robert R. Whitehead. P.E.
Director of Public Works
City of Southlake
667 North Carroll Avenue
Southlake. Texas 76092
Re: FM 1709 Traffic Signals. Geometrics and Medians Study
Dear Mr. Whitehead:
In accordance with our agreement for engineering services for the above- referenced
study, we are pleased to submit the attached Technical Memorandum, which documents
the results of the signal system evaluation. Based on the evaluation, it is recommended
that the traffic signals along FM 1709 be coordinated and that FM 1709 should be
restriped to provide three through lanes in each direction. Optimum locations for future
traffic signals along FM 1709 are also identified in the Technical Memorandum.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services to the City of Southlake. If you
have any questions, comments, or concerns regarding this transmittal, please contact me.
S incerely,
Att 07y
Larry V. Hoffman. P.E.
Senior Project Manager
Enclosure
RECEIVED
6,'.! l.3 3 8 1997
•
DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
HDR Engineering/ Inc. Suite 125 Telephone
12700 Hillcrest Road 972 960 -4000
Dallas, Texas Fax
Employee - owned 75230 -2096 972 960 -4471
118-5
Technical Memorandum
TO: Larry V. Hoffman. P.E.
HDR
FROM: Joseph T. Short, P.E.
Kelly Parma
Lee Engineering, Inc.
DATE: August 6, 1997
SUBJECT: FM 1709 Signal System Evaluation
Introduction
This memorandum presents the results of the evaluation of the signal system on FM 1709,
a five -lane East -West major arterial in Southlake, Texas. The section of FM 1709 evaluated
consisted of eight signalized intersections, bounded by the intersection of FM 1709 with Pearson
Lane on the West and Kimball Avenue on the East. Existing intersection lane configurations and
distances between signals for FM 1709, which had a posted speed of 45 mph, can be seen in Figure 1.
At the signalized intersections on FM 1709, opposing left turns from FM 1709 are leading
and are allowed during the protected phase only. All of the signals for the North -South cross streets
operate with split phasing except Kimball Avenue. The signal at Kimball Avenue allows the North -
South movements to operate simultaneously, providing only a permitted phase for left- turns.
Objectives
In evaluating the signal system on FM 1709, there were three objectives. The first objective
was to determine if signal coordination was needed along FM 1709. If signal coordination was
necessary, an optimized progression plan was to be developed for those intersections on FM 1709
during peak periods of the day (AM, noon, PM). The second objective was to identify locations for
future signalized intersections on FM 1709 with minimal impact on the signalized progression plan.
The final objective of this study was to investigate the necessity of a third through lane on FM 1709.
Analysis
The existing signal system on FM 1709 was evaluated by obtaining two types of data, 24-
hour volume counts and turning movement counts. Twenty-four hour volumes were obtained at the
following five locations on FM 1709:
• Between Pearson Lane and Davis Boulevard,
• Between Davis Boulevard and Peytonville Avenue,
• Between Southridge Lakes Parkway and White Chapel Boulevard,
11B-6
I
r
W N
E Z
u,
e _ O_ ■
0 O
ce r.
C 1
N � ,
J N J
..c 7 ^ Ili M 01 0 fn
<0 cl
o O z x
N ^ oo O r G1 •
,. N N N ^ V
M W n e V
n�g� 1
N N D 1
m
v
E m > rr r
t H
CS. < 11 .E ' �
Y
CD 1
7 V i - -,11.••
- ,III
8
M
= 1
G
-'rr`- , 1
N J _
C u 1
-°f a t i
m
v I
• c
Y 0
N ,
.0 N
U
I
J
I 1 1
V D0 -•,,,,..- 1
p 1 ,
3 � / ,
0
.1
o Q ,
a p 8 m
o : z
M
O Cif)
v > Q Si u Y 3 C
Y
O a \ Y 0 LL
�- 11� 1 LL
/ o Z z
Z Z Q
x
y . - 1 1 ^ F �
° Z z
g'
m
U
M J Q a
o= 1 � j Z o
X z
W
W
J tel
= Z
A`
O I- Q
1
W Z _
z = JII 1 1 QI
a
�
m
a 1 1
• Between White Chapel Boulevard and Carroll Avenue. and
• Between Kimball Avenue and State Highway 114.
These 24 -hour volume counts were used in performing a coupling. analysis of FM 1709. This
type of analysis is used in determining the need for traffic signal coordination. The equation used
to compute the coupling index is shown below:
I =V /L
where:
I = Coupling index,
V = Two -way peak hour volume on link (vehihr), and
L = Length of roadway section (ft).
According to the ITE Traffic Engineering Handbook, intersections with a coupling index of 0.5 or
greater during peak traffic periods should be coordinated. A coupling index between 0.3 and 0.5
indicates that signal coordination should be considered.
Turning movement counts were collected at the eight signalized intersections on FM 1709
during weekday AM, noon, and PM peak hour traffic periods. These turning movement counts and
other characteristics of the eight intersections were used as input for the computer software programs
in optimizing the signalized intersections. Signal phasing options were limited to the existing
phasing conditions. Additional efficiency could be gained by implementing alternate phasing
patterns at some intersections.
Two transportation software packages, Synchro 3 and PASSER II, were used in evaluating
the signal system on FM 1709. Both packages are microcomputer software packages used to model
and optimize traffic signal timings. Synchro 3 was used to manage the data of this study. while
PASSER II was used in selecting the optimal cycle length for each peak period. In PASSER II, the
cycle length that produces the maximum bandwidth efficiency is selected as the optimal cycle length.
The efficiency of the cycle is the average fraction of the cycle used for progression. The cycle length
selected should also minimize the arterial system delay.
One -way progression allows one direction of traffic to travel through the maximum number
of intersections without having to stop. It is used for either one -way streets or where large volumes.
of traffic exist in one direction of travel only. Because traffic in the other direction is not considered,
developing one -way progression is relatively easy. Two -way progression allows both directions of
traffic to travel through the maximum number of intersections without having to stop, which presents
more difficulties than one -way progression. Ideal signal progression would result in all vehicles
arriving on the green phase at each intersection of a coordinated signal system. Progression is
dependent on several factors, including cycle length, vehicle speed, and signal spacing. The signal
progression that is developed can change based on different peak periods of traffic (AM, noon, PM)
during the day.
F:1! 1 -09 Signal System Evaluation Page 3
118-8
The best progression can be achieved if signal spacing, is uniform. If signals are evenly
spaced throughout a system, maximum efficiency for the sig,nal system can result. If signals are
closely spaced or non - uniform, the amount of time available for motorists to travel uninterrupted
through a system is reduced, decreasing the efficiency of the coordinated sig,nal system.
Time -space diagrams are used to present the signal splits at each intersection and to show the
progression available through a coordinated signal system. Locations for future signals that have
minimal impact on the existing progression can be identified by reviewing these time -space
diagrams.
Traffic volumes obtained through the 24 -hour and turning movement counts were used in
analyzing the need for an additional through lane on FM 1709. The roadway was designed and built
with shoulders that can be restriped as through lanes. The existing through volumes on FM 1709
were compared to ideal, planning level capacity numbers to identify which sections of the road need
additional capacity.
Results
Table 1 on the following page shows the results of the coupling analysis performed along FM
1709. Twenty-four hour tube counts were not collected between each intersection. For these cases,
which are indicated by an asterisk in the table, volumes between the intersections were estimated
based on the turning movement counts and volumes of the adjacent links.
From the results in Table 1, the following segments of the FM 1709 section evaluated should
definitely be coordinated during each of the peak time periods, unless otherwise specified:
• Between Davis Boulevard and Southridge Lakes Parkway,
• Between White Chapel Boulevard and Carroll Avenue (PM only), and
• Between Carroll Avenue and Kimball Avenue.
These segments were located near the West and East boundaries of the FM 1709 section. All but
one of the remaining links (between Pearson Lane and Davis Boulevard in the noon peak) had a
coupling index between 0.3 and 0.5, indicating that these intersections should be considered for
coordination. Based on these results, all signalized intersections on this section of FM 1709 were
included for coordination.
The results of the computer analysis indicated that for the AM and noon peak periods, a cycle
length of 85 seconds would produce the widest progression band at the shortest cycle. A cycle length
of 125 seconds resulted from the analysis for the PM peak period. The resulting, cycle lengths and
progression bands developed using PASSER II and Synchro 3 can be seen in Table 2.
For each of these cycle lengths, the splits and the offsets change to account for the variation
in volumes that occur at different times during the day. The recommended splits for each peak
period can be seen in the corresponding time -space diagram in Figures 2. to 4. Although all of the
F.t! 1 - 09 Signal System Evaluation Page 4
11B-9
Table 1. Cou I lino Indices for FM 1709
Length Coupling Index
Intersection
(feet) AM NOON PM
Pearson Lane
5100 0.34 0.27 0.39
Davis Boulevard
3400 0.68 0.55 0.77
Peytonville Avenue
1700 1.41 * 1.18 * 1.65 *
Southridge Lakes Parkway
6300 0.39 0.34 0.48
4 I
White Chapel Boulevard
5200 0.48 0.39 0.54
Carroll Avenue
3500 0.67 * 0.56 * 0.79 *
Village Center
1700 1.37 * 1.16 * 1.62 *
Kimball Avenue
*Volumes estimated from adjacent Link volumes and turning movement counts
Table 2. Cycle Lengths and Progression Bandwidths
y g Pro esston Bandwidth sec
Peak Period
Cycle Length (sec)
(sec) EB WB
AM 85 37 7
Noon 85 22 20
PM 125 20 49
FM 1 -09 Signal System Evaluation Page 5
118-10
signalized intersections have pedestrian buttons. these recommended timing. plans were developed
under the assumption that few pedestrians use FM 1709. Therefore. these timing. plans may not
provide adequate time for pedestrians to cross the street. If pedestrian timings had been provided,
longer cycles and less efficient operation would result. While the timing plans will be interrupted
when a pedestrian button is pushed, the timing plans will resume normal operation within a few
cycles.
Locations of future traffic signals which have minimal impact on the existing progression
were determined by examining the time -space diagrams in Figures 2 to 4. The location of planned
and existing unsig.nalized intersections was considered in identifying, these locations. Traffic signals
should only be placed between intersections that have minimal impact, if any, on progression and
have adequate spacing available for the additional signal. The four locations on FM 1 709 which
meet these criteria are designated by a letter (A, B, C, D) at the bottom of the time -space diagrams.
These signal locations should have minimal effects on the current signal progression on
FM 1709. Two -way signal progression may be impacted in the PM peak period by locations A, C,
and D. Improvements could allow the current two -way progression to remain or be improved in all
peaks. Improvements include changing the split phasing that currently exists on most of the cross
streets to concurrent phasing. Using lead -lag phasing for traffic on FM 1709 could also produce
wider progression bands.
For planning purposes, an arterial street such as FM 1709 has a capacity of approximately
800 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl). Results of the progression plan indicated that several of the
through movements were operating with volume -to- capacity ratios greater than 1.0. As a result, high
delays occur and poor level -of- service is provided at these intersections. Table 3 presents the peak
directional through volumes per lane for each intersection on FM 1709. Many of these existing
volumes are close to or exceed the 800 vphpl capacity.
Table 3. Through Volumes on FM 1709
Through Volumes (vphpl)
Intersection
EB - AM I WB -PM
Pearson Lane 590 570
Davis Boulevard 569 494
Peytonville Avenue 846 833
Southridge Lakes Parkway 778 596
White Chapel Boulevard 913 851
Carroll Avenue 972 ' 846
Village Center 932 i 890
Kimball Avenue 688 766
F.t! 1 -0 Signal Jrst'm Evaluation Page 9
118-11
....7: - - 6 = -T E r a:".:3=L kl - .",'_. ,:j -_-__ ,::::::{g __ -- ,Zili7 -17: M - --.--- - . marmi
0
v T A - ° 39I11 s
o u �- I o Y1
o i "
a o
, - Y
o P,N g
O
I n
U
r.E_ .E i '�"'=. =:`a aw; / r _l . a<ti _ i -- 3;,,
11 . 0 3 , 1 A:„ 0
o U
IL I
_} _ =-( — ki Q `�w
' w� 11
113 � 11 :;'.1=7 .� :. ♦ - — ,on • 1OA18 V1
_ .�' 1 ' � i.e..Q� ` w.ww�. � OZn a • __ - _ l3dYN7 ,31 ,,
311H,,, O �-��
— II
E
v Ll t
J p ,
m
' :o V
� a.
$ m W N ,_
Y V
v Q C Y
J Q. o
. ....S.I..o e.wow..�r .ww iia� w _ _ -- o • S3�Y N
u 3901tlH1tOS
o
f [.����.'`, ..»u Q��a •K.�wm.�, ,..�.. .....�.. �.�cc�. - _ o 'any ri ..gym....= s.= u — ,
3l liANOLt7d j
S
,All 0
...,
.�. w.�• '• o Bf o l 113
. El.. ����Ci�R• I�J�e. w� •���1�E',.Iw — o
� � =w.= ..w�....am� � ....Raw.� em �e...��.�r�..rmw�r ] ...� � hCw�Jl... - ' 0A18 S
1
0o Q gfi
' = a �.. �� ���c ._ — 0 SM
0 0 0 0 °a s' • _
r o om r . o - = - i
� (spuons) 3Y111 _ ' l E'S" °
17-31.:P: 1
Miar
11 8-12
° 0 3AY
•
ti vww� e< .1" rn s "M • ler -- 'j" H lltl8Y11)1
I
0
g o c �
F. El r-...
I
wa<. -� m: •cv��aa�cs. •�� �• 2131N30 N3J o
i_ _: � . �. ■� ,n a ♦ — �.. .» wwww' _._ r � . _ - -- N 35Y-111A g I I / . =,.'.: C
II n
a we _ a •clwiwwo .m�. wwa tsr�wwwo�iw ,:,15,s,,‘,./ , •• � — ° ..— - o 3Atl
I • -
I 0 c: IAA .__. 13ONNVJ
o U U
W W
w stev��wrr> �v.wmron zterel■.o.�� ��� •aa ww nt .e.�v�nr ∎1 me -- ° OAl9
�� �� v�wr1� ���.rhmmv�as ■�i��wccitaaav � � • � e3.r� wsww�ww w� a $ l3dYHJ �, I I
311HM U
W
u O
L.
' O
v N v
0 0 W U ~
• m vi Y C a
, 11 d r
ASA e o Q G —
J V) 0
A 4 _ N
(r) ,.
o A tlMBBtld
w jimew
■■ .o: •wwwcwww� �rl■ww■�wimmizi . •ear m�� •a — e sew+ - S3Atl1
0
�■ •owww�e�w■w •vw �.www■�� sw�w�vwss���rri swu■■�■ ° 3001NH100S N I
o rn 1.) l d
.,U =.�,.a aaa�e� wwwv , �reeesa�vw�oe,•�� �n _ __ °o • 3Atl -- � .ice -.vi .erac7aaw■� wwro -�.w .. .�ri ■�. wwr 4� _ �. ;, 3111AN01A3d
z
z
0
0
®C` a �� ■■, ilawE]•► mar - . , .� . r. .. . o A18 SI i)
�� �ia�wa�w.o�°■■��.��n��i�i�.���. �■��. � ��i�i i F , 'OAIB SIAYO
Dg
e:�,�a n e<�� ■ m: �..w■r• -- AL — -_ 3NY1
._ ?> & � "_A■'Zv=ar 1:1 liar m . � va1�'' 6 _ _ " ° NOSSY3d
o 0 0 .°°n a e o t 7
v •1 n
� (spuooes) 31YI1 i
j__J
118-13
ny,•u enl 'AI e.• "s bM :A8 P••edh PM , Per 1! M q - 'N e••!•4 v/N aea5 ZO1[371 :•N *Ill 16 -01-1 _ •1e0 J
I 1 I I I I I I 1 °
J
o ,,,
I 3 5
I _ Xi
\ I Xi
1 / 1 a C
1= 2 Ct
I / I
1 I�
acs; + t• 1 , 1 "w;a:`1 '3Atl - _.. - --
. :- 1 / I 1 N
1
■
1 o
Alilih, U
M. . «» ° ante � to
fr
- 311HM
N ii
LL
v
4 0
s > Q' m
J O o
V J
1 . m UJ
i c Q V Y
J O
= d
F-
N
D C ) C N
`•• J O E
W '
4 .7
i=
°.-. AYMHatld
. , :,::1, :..,... ..r.. . 2"I w`av� .���,. ..M, K,1"1 t.;s ..
l' . • 3Atl IL
., ... �..x. .��_ � ,. � >m�..v ....vr .�a,� �. w..� �.. :..� .,.,1.��,.., ..,,.,. I � 3 l3IANO l A3d
. . \ w i I m
I
°
n
1
r'''''`.1 �`� < ' ut a.\ :1 ;�1 . R:`,;`:',:,;\:-::- a +cam `,K's.:';`,,':`,: °° (8£61Y13)
I
I
o Q
o
a=
, ...............o ,• «,
NOS Yid
I I I I i
� (spuo39s) 3RI1 -
., ..,∎,,i1 I zt
11B-14
, q 'I.IJ •,•t :Jl .•.n PIS b•r At 0...dM t w•r *I WA.N) - :p irl. !/H :•o 5 COWJJ , •N •IIJ t6 -112 -( •Ral
Recommendations
Based on this evaluation of the signal system on FM 1709 between Pearson Lane and
Kimball Avenue, it was determined that signal coordination was necessary. Therefore, the following
recommendations are made:
• All of the signalized intersections between Pearson Lane and Kimball Avenue should
be coordinated.
• An 85 second cycle should be used for the AM and noon peak periods.
• A 125 second cycle should be used for the PM peak period.
• The splits recommended in the time -space diagrams in Figures 2 to 4 should be used
to coordinate the signal system on FM 1709.
• Consider changing existing split phasing to concurrent phasing for the following
cross streets, that either have exclusive left turn lanes on the cross - street or adequate
pavement width for an exclusive left turn lane, to increase the time available for
through movements on FM 1709:
► Peytonville Avenue
► Southridge Lakes Parkway
• All of the other intersections along FM 1709, except Davis Boulevard, do not have
exclusive left turn lanes on the cross - street. These intersections and the Davis
Boulevard intersection should be carefully studied before considering concurrent
phasing.
• Efforts should be made to provide concurrent phasing on the cross streets at future
signal locations.
• Pedestrian buttons should be provided at future signal locations.
Based on the evaluation of the through capacity and volumes on FM 1709, restriping the
existing shoulder to provide a third through lane is recommended along the following sections:
• From Davis Boulevard to SH 114 in the eastbound direction, and
• From Kimball Avenue to Davis Boulevard in the westbound direction.
Based on a review of the time -space diagrams and the resulting progression, locations
on FM 1709 where future signals will not impede the proposed progression are indicated with letters
at the bottom of the time -space diagrams. These locations, and their approximate optimal distances
include:
• A - Between Pearson Lane and Davis Boulevard
(2800-3100 feet East of Pearson Lane)
• B - Intersection with Shady Oaks Drive
(3700 feet East of Southridge Lakes Parkway)
• C - Intersection with Byron Nelson Parkway
(2500 feet East of White Chapel Boulevard)
• D - Between Carroll Avenue and Village Center
(1600 -2000 feet East of Carroll Avenue)
FA! 1 '09 Signal Scstem Evaluation Page 10
11B-15
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
February 10, 1998
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Karen P. Gandy, Zoning Administrator
SUBJECT: Discussion Item, Ordinance No. 480 -DD, Pitched Roof Regulations for Corridor
Overlay Zone
Attached please find a copy of Councilmember Fawks' memorandum and Ordinance Request form that
asked that this item be placed on the Council's August 5th agenda for discussion. Also attached is a copy
of Bedford's "CSED, "Cheek - Sparger Entrance District that he references in his memo. This overlay
district encompasses land along Cheek - Sparger Road from S.H. 121 on the east to Westpark Lane on the
west.
Note particularly paragraphs (g) and (h) of Section 24b.7, Development Standards. These paragraphs
address roof design standards. Structures which are 5,000 s.f. or less are required to be constructed with
a pitched roof. Those structures greater than 5,000 s.f. must provide mechanical screening which simulates
a sloping gabled roof.
Should you have questions regarding this item, please call Councilmember Fawks at 424 -1999 or me at
481 -5581, extension 743.
KPG
enc Memorandum from Councilmember Fawks
Ordinance Request Form
Bedford's "CSED" Ordinance
REQUEST FORM - Ordinances & Other Projects
Please fill out the following information related to your request. A disk copy of this form can be provided
to allow you to insert your comments in typed form. Contact Kim Bush in the City Manager's office at
(817) 481 -5581, ext 702.
SHORT TITLE: PITCHED ROOF REGULATIONS
TYPE OF PROJECT:
Ordinance: New Ordinance , Minor Revision , Major Revision
Master Plan Component: New Item , Minor Revision , Major Revision
Project: New Project , Minor Revision , Major Revision
REQUESTED BY: Gary Fawks Date of Request: 7/30/97
Citizen CC Yes P &Z ZBA PB SPIN Staff
Other Board or Group:
Outline problem, concern or opportunity. (Do not define solution)
1.
7
.3.
List any potential considerations. (Do not define solution)
1.
7
.3.
General Comments:
1. Council has repeatedly expressed concerns regarding flat and built up roofs on development within
the Corridor Overlay Zone.
2. On two occasions we have discussed including pitch roof requirements in our ordinances (assisted
care and gas stations at P &Z).
3. The Council had concerns regarding the current requirements for mechanical screening on
rooftops which allow boxes or panels to be used as a screening device (reference Wendy's at 1709
& Davis).
List any references to be reviewed (other cities, etc.) or any documents attached to this request.
a. City of Bedford Overlay Regulations
b.
L: \WP- FILES\ PROJECTS\ PRIORITY \PROD- REQ.FRM \Ph' " July 30, 1997 Page 1 of _
7ul -31 -97 O9:26A 817 421 2653 P.01
Me mo
..
1I CURTIS HAWK
F,vwa GARY FAWKS
CCe SANDY LeGRAND
Deem July 31, 1997
Reg PITCHED ROOF REGULATIONS
I understand that during discussion of the `Gas Station Ordinance' at the Planning and Zoning
meeting last night the issue of pitched roof requirements was again raised. As you will recall this was
also an issue as we debated the Assisted Care Ordnance. and I believe that many of the same
concerns have been raised by the attorneys.
It is my belief that most or all of the Counulmernbers feel we need to address this Issue, and I would
request that this be placed on our August 5 ' agenda as a discussion item. l would also lace for you to
provide each Counalmember In the packet with a copy of the Bedford Cheek Sponger Oveertay
Regulations ( Sandy was at* to get a copy for me last month from their City Secretary office). I
believe this will be helpful beckgrwmd information.
1 am also forwarding a copy of the memo I faxed to Community Development regarding impervious
Coverage, l do not believe I previously faxed you a copy.
6py it io A
• Page 1
S-g7 -195? 1 ?:0 ?.02
LL
SCTI08 24b, 'CSED' CU-EX- SPARGER ENTRANCE D:S:RZC:
24b.1 PURPOSE: The CSED cheek - Sparger Entrance Diatrict overlay is established to encourage
the uniform and consistent development of the Cheek - Sparger Road corridor at the
entrance to the City of Bedford. In addition to the requirements of the underlying
district the following additional regulations are provided.
24b.2 BOUNDARY Or AREAS This area is designated as all of those lots, tracts, and parcels of
land situated within the City of Bedford, Tarrant County, Texas described as follow:
propertiea abutting Cheek- Sparger from Highway 121 to xoodpark Lane and being Tracts
482, 191, 4528, 485, 5, 5D, Lot 1 Block 1 !Bain Street Addition; a portion of 58 of the
8.8.8. and C.R.R. Co. survey A -204 lots 3, 4, and 5 block 1 Mal -Mart Addition. In
addition the right -of -way of Cheek - Sparger Road from Highway 121 on the east, to
Moodpa.-k Lane on the vest (See Attached Exhibit).
24b.3 GSZ REGULATIONS: In the CSED Cheek - Sparger Entrance District overlay, no building or
land shall be used and no building shall hereafter be erected, constructed,
reconstructed or altered except for one or more of the uses listed for the underlying
districts is Section 6, Schedule of Permitted Principal Uses. Accessory uses as
pe=sitted in the umderlying district shall also be permitted.
24b.4 SLIGHT AND AREA REGULATIONS: In addition to the requirements of Section 25, Height
sod Arid Regulations the following will apply;
a. war-- height thirty-five (35) feet
b. Minimum front yard measured from back of curb shall be forty (40) feet.
24b.5 PARXI?1C RLGUUTIONS: See Section 26, Parking and Loading Regulations.
24b.6 LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS: In addition to the requirements of Section 30, Landscaping
Requirements the following will apply:
a. A twenty (20) foot landscape buffer measured from back of curb along Cheek -
Sparger and the Highway 121 Frontage Road must be provided. This buffer shall
contain trees of three (3) inch caliper and twelve (12) feet in height planted on
thirty (30) foot centers. Landscape baffer trees shall be trees identified as
Desirable Trees in The City of Bedford Subdivision Regulations Article 7, Tree
:ZCrION 24b. "'CSED' CEZL1C- SPARGLR =M CC DISTRICT Page 21b-1
11 -14
JLL -07 9 11 :e P.03 7
Preservation Ordinance. Additionally, shrubs, buts, or a combination thereof,
shall be provided between the trees such that a screen of a minimum of three (3)
feet in height shall screen the parking areas (See attached Cra `ic).
b. A landscape maintenance agreement shall be signed by the applicant /owner for
maintenance of all landscape areas within the development. (see attached
24b.7 D ;Ap! ENT STANDARDS: All development located in the CSED Cheek - Spurges Entrance
District overlay shall ccoply with the following development standards.
a. Walkways shall be provided along both sides of Cheek- Spa.-ger Road. Walkways
shall be placed in a meandering pattern within the twenty (20) foot landscape
buffer (See attached graphic). The width of these walkways s*.11 be • minims of
four (4) feet. When located closer than four and one -half (4.5) feet tram back
of crib, the minimcm width shall be five (5) feat. All walkways meat maintain a
distance of for (4) feet from the back of the curb.
b. A six (6) foot patterned con„zete / pave-stone walkway of uniform color and style
throag.cut the district shall be provided at all street and drive crossings. The
walkway shall be aligned with sidewalk locations at the intersections of street
and drive crossings.
c. All building frontage exteriors shall be constructed of a minimum of seventy -five
(75) percent masonry material, exclusive of windows and doors including the area
above the first floor ceiling plate line. All building side or rear exteriors
shall be constructed of a mini of seventy (70) percent masonry material,
exclusive of windows and doors, including the area above the first floor ceiling
plate line. In no case shall more than fifty (50) percent of each exterior wall
be constructed of glans material. masonry material shall include 4" by a"
modular bricks, decorative block, split face atone construction, or natural
stone. Masonry materials shall be of earth tones and shell be submitted to the
Planning and zoning Caesaission for recommendation and to the City Council for
approval.
d. All ground mounted equipment shall be screened from view with masonry
constrrction similar to the primary structure. All roof mounted equipment shall
be as indicated in 24b.7.g.
e. All sigaege located along Cheek - Spurge= Road shall be ground mounted monument
style Jignage. No neon signs will be permitted. The maximum height shall be six
(6) feet, including structure and sign. The maximum square footage shall be
fifty (50) equate feet. The structure of the sign shall be constructed of
similar masonry material as the primary structure. Pole signs, meeting the
SECTION 24b, ' CBZZX- SPARGE t Etf:'R).Z E DISTRICT Page 24.b-2
C2D'
L-07 -1997 17 : Z8 P . 84
JU
req..!- :meats of the City of Bedford Sign Ordinance. shall be permitted ca any lot
that fronta on the frontage road of Highway 121.
f. Amy canopy system mist provide eoimens cost, -voted of similar mastery material as
the primary structure.
g. On structures greater than 5,000 square feet, mechanical roof screens shall be
constricted to simulate a sloping gabled roof, and shall be constructed of batten
or standing seam metal, slate, or tile, and shall be consistent throughout the
district. Such roof screens shall screen all mechanical equipment from view from
any public right -of -way. Line of sight drawings will be required to illustrate
that adequate screening is provided.
h. On structures 5,000 square feet or less, pitched roof construction will be
required. No flat or built up roof construction shall be permitted.
i. Exterior lighting in parking Iota shall be uniform in type and material
throughout the district. Exterior lighting located along the pedestrian walkway
located within the twenty (20) foot landscape buffer shall be provided.
Construction material for light fixtures along the pedestrian walkway shell
utilise decorative type poles and fixtures. (See attached diagram). The
developer shall provide a lighting plan and photometric analysis to ensure
adsgt:ate lighting.
24b.e SITE PZ 4R+ all Zoning Districts underlying the 'CSZD' Cheek- Spa-rger Entrance District
meat' have a City Council approved site plan - before a building permit vill be issued.
Such site plan must be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to
presentation of the site plan to the City Council for approval. Such site plan taut
mget the requirements for site plans, which are detailed in Section 28 Site Plan
Requirements of this Ordinance. In addition, a color schedule shall be submitted
showing the colors to be used for all improvements proposed on the site, including
buildings, siguage, light fixtures, accessory structures etc. Color rendering may be
provided to illustrate the color schedule.
24b.9 PROCEDURZ: The City Council, by an affirmative vote, nay coats after public hearing
and proper notice to all parties effected, and after recommendations from the Planning
and Zoning Commission, may approve requests for amendnents to section 24b to avoid
=necessary difficulty in the proposed development.
SECTION 24b, 'CSED" CH =C- SPARGER L't1RA19GZ D :STRICT Page 24b
11 n I_
•
JU_-07 -1997 17 =t;, P.05
t
t a:)"
C
s
E
' i
•
i h`i* k T e,�� r, 0
S >'
_ ctS
0
1 111
Q?
6Q w C
i r- 1 6 4
CIw
w
S
ctS
I
Ili . )10141111111, 0
6
Zi F >..
L
d�
ti s 4 a
U
V
U
•
SECTON 24 b,'CSE ' C HEEK - SPPFICIER ENr ANCEDETFICT Page 24b -4
Ii(1 -
JUL-07 -1997 17:29 P.06
"Pffir
w imp
`" •► 'O.ZVARR' TREE ler
TRIMS
„ _ , � 90' APART
1 CALMER, 12' 1
� j _ r_C /�
TO SCREEN PARKIN& BERM
w - IV TO I"Ei114T OF 3' (2 bAL. MP 10' •OR•
G8 FOR
6ROINC7 COVER
. !teA4G_
Typical Section Through Landscape Buffer
•
A
Ap p roximateiy
36 fiches
Approxinvadely
15 teat
Note: Lighting Standards for poles and
fbct ures shall be simitar in nature with
appurtenances constructed at the
Bedford Od School protect. Comparables
shall be submitted with site plan application
for approval.
Typical Lighting Standards or Comparables
SECTION 24b,'CSED' CHIC- SPARGER ENTRANCE DISTRICT 24b
li n _Q.
SUL -0'7 -1997 17: es P . 0'7
Maintenance Agreement
for
The "CSED" Cheek- Sparger Entrance District Landscape Arms
In compliance with Section 24b. "CSED" Cheek- Sparger Entrance District Subsection 24b. 6 Landscaping
Regulations b. this landscape maintenance agreement. acknowledged by the owners of record and approved by the
City shall be signed by the applicant 1 owner for maintenance of all landscape seas within any development located
within the area known as the "CSED° Cheek- Sparer Entrance District more specifically identified in Subsection
24b. 2 Boundary of Area. This ageemeat shall be banding on all patties having or acquiring any right or interest in
the property desc-ibed above.
Artide I
Definitions
(a) " City" shall mean the City of Bedford
(b) "Landscaped Area" is that are that is required to be landscaped as defined in Subsection 246.6 Landscape
Regulations a. It includes all landscaping Located bade of curb in the interior of the dcvdopmmt-
(c) "Lot" shall mean each of the tracts lying within the the area known as "CSED Check:- Sparger Entrance
District mere specifically described in Subsection 24b.2 Boundary of Area.
(d) "Maintenance" shall include maintenance of sidewalks, lighting systcn s, and sprinkler systems. and the are
of trees, shrubs, grass and all other live plant material.
(e) "Owner' shall mean every person or entity who is a record owner of a fee or undivided fee interest in any
lot.
(I) "Property" shall mean those tracts or lots described in Subsection 24b2 Boundary of Area.
Article II
Maintenance of Property
Section 1. Owner Oblisatioas
Each Owner shall, at his sole cost and expense, maintain and repair his Lot and the improvements situated
thereon. keeping the same in good 000dition and repair.
Section 2. Fnforeement by City
In the event that any Owner shall fail to maintain and repair his lot, the City. in addition to all other remedies
available to it. shall have the right, through its agents and employees. following written notice and appeal, to
enter upon said Lot and to repair. maintain. and restore the Lot. The cost of such maintenance shall be recovered
by means of mechanic lien filed in behalf of the City.
Sr 24b, "CSZD" CHLLR -SPARE E2rrP.A1 Z DISTRICT Page 24b-6
,TtM
i
I n_0
SUL -07 -10 7 17 :a9 P.08
Article W
Maintenance of Lan Area
Section 1. lnrxtivCrnent3 to Lands ed Area
Upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. the Owner of each tract shall accept the responsibility for the
improvements and maintenance of the Landscaped Area, Improvements to the Landscaped Area shall be
completed wi thin six (6) months from the issuance date of the certificate of occupancy.
Section 2. Maintenance Fun
(a) The Owners shall establish and maintain an adequate maintenance fund for the periodic maintenance, repair
and replacement of itaprovetnents to the Landscaped Area.
(b) The minimum fund balance shall be equal to the estimated amount necessary to sustain proper maintenance
for three (3) months. This estimated balance shall be adjusted annually as additional Landscaped Area is
improved.
(c) The fund shall be plied in escrow with the aty and in the event that the need for maintenance is caused by
the wilful or negligent act of an owner. the City shall cause such maintenance to be performed and such
expense shall be deducted from the fund balance.
(d) The City shall notify the Owners of all deductions form the fund and the Owners shall make necessary
arrangements for securing its minimum balance.
• Signature - Owner of Property Date
Signature - City of Bedford Date
Stan of Teas:
County of
Before the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for County. Texas on this day
personally appeared, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to
the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and considcrattoas
therein expressed
Given undo my hand and sd of once this the day of 1997.
Notary Public in and for the state of Tocaa
My commisnon expires: •
SL 2021 24b, `CSLD^ CLLR -SPQR LFPFAZCL DISTRICT Dag, 24b-7
TOTAL P.08
HC -1°
CITY - INITIATED REZONING SUGGESTED BY COUNCILMEMBER MULLER
Number Location Current Proposed 1997 Land Use
Zoning Zoning Plan
Recommendation
1 N side 1709, E of C -3 0 -1 Office Commercial
Peytonville
2 N side 1709, W of C -2 0 -1 Office Commercial
Diamond Circle
3 N side 1709, E of C -1 0 -1 Office Commercial
Diamond Circle
4 S side 1709, E of Lake C -2 0-1/SF-20 Office Commercial
Crest & Med.Density
(Lam/Reutlinger property) Residential
5 S side 1709, E of B -1 0 -1 Office Commercial
Miron
6 S side 1709, E of C -1 0 -1 Office Commercial
Westwood
7 S. Continental, E of R -PUD 0 -1 Office Commercial
White Chapel with C -2
(Timarron sign comer)
8 S. Continental, W of C -1 0 -1 Office Commercial
White Chapel
11-
\ : MINNIE:
•- 1..... a
:
I ' sae " 111 •1* L 12
wit in N hi. 11111 laiiiiiiin
`7 Unto! IN. " 4 EilM
K
1011 011111
also ;a
t:"15111112
\ s.. mis 9.1111•■•••
alrilltitillili , ._,/r
mi. t
/11111M1111h1f11110 , au , 1.) t illi.111111 1
LC ILO 34A3dY80 a 1 1 a ii,st. .
i Illitilsik -% - , „ 1131,
L
I 1
_.,.0111 I 1 Mr l t
t rr I . k Mi
' 11
, , ! I 111111r
III.
r 1 i a 71111111111:1
1 --100 i 1. .... ,
• ' . 11:11011111 • • _, -
Imre= ,. I ZBEINNIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11
_,_ • .'";.,, . galtligli 11114111•111/11 • 1 r - l i Litliis
..^ 11111ffilhmini
, t , , A : iii■-■
- - - 7-, ,.,. A. ' . • lia
IIIN 421.1■24.2. ME
■ • m om M 9
, r' 7d17:9 4, kill:alibi-pm t ---
_
.
L , 1I . , , •,......... .rio.1.111,....ta iiiiI .,.
i /i/ 1 , . .....,...
- I 11 i i II ' v .
- , ,N . 'INFAWE , ; j =In zrwl; 1 Ili:. • Iv
. 3
Wit
/ 7 - -----.........1 , ;4
^ • 0 ' 1 . m4 .%; m• I I
4. 1 14 5
•
• • I M ni= as ( 9 ila
, 1 •to i pi ..:;" • - - ' i S usi LI gisno.... _own
. " i i: lit - VI . '' 1 • ....1 I era .- iii
L 'I C 5 ' ' ' MMIM: Far 1
iiiinwliqVII: V ■t.'i IIIIIIIIii I I
: t L ai lea glom-
1! 1 Cf) .■,_•&11611:1112 • : pg.,1 ma
ON' !ma .s.• 1.1 $$$$$ 11141 AI%
L----42 q ".41. - 112 - 4= tlyS
Alse..1111
.... - I i i P . 466 :01 . 4 2 L j . 5 • •
- --I , , , : . '..''.. All. ". ' ''. - '146k, lot „ •
=•=7.). 3= ; I ; 2 ..... -4 1 ”4,44•0 .
- fi b 111171 dir , k IRTA,51:7 Aril T. •._ ::441 iiir
I / ' 1 lir 17:= . td 1 1 : • '' 1 i re:
10,k;t4 41,2 r z ix*?
1 kg • .. ._._ nu n - -r-- - \ 411: Erg A
N -..-- .--- .0.1-- lisPI p" Irtity„,,,...
..... .4_ . ,, „. 1111.--.,via 1/111 #
1 , - ,>.■ It ---' IC' .4 .111 ' ISIZI , '‘.
dr
'. 1. 9111 1 "MI.C . C ., ■ -. AUL:C.
111..
'I' I. -1 "... - _11 ,,,
" -,--- -.. mi,. , It lial 4A
4 ..
..„,,. dop, 4.
irs•Fnii n le • logil
ger•Imeti Ulu (44...041 Yls
---4 -iti l I ___; , i . Hi NONICs1
1=1,1 11111 ilivair
1,4,7/, 1
" Mao-
I-, -- ---' PTUCI W: L 1 IFi
1 "'" 01111111111...
I )(1. ■ altill4111%1 h Acj AddllIV - I ' Li tail P411: 1
r,_4,, l'•- . _ 0 f - i 111111 ' 'airtilliEN aillEariltratt -I-
,4... 41 1.1i?-14 • l : 1 7 6 Z, 1 1 . p-
i , ,.., i
_-- 1 . 11 i ! Iii / ■.:'. '1114:11114 . rill I ir •
-, tzi J--- , - La
• .... -• midis. &was .1_
floc ri mole in n MO:, ■
.. ' —i ' ! ' 1 ji I, i { jl, 1 , ' INIMINIIIIIIR Ur ta i ktre il ar, _ ISO *OW". : 1:414 ii ) 00
is rim..,0 A ng Arrru,.44.- ,. ,,,, 4,142.0ts /
a k 0411 vk ir ----- , , l .. tu,..,i: ,..; •- ...1:' . , 4
- /11"
:,..,,ce:.-„, --„,---.,,
1e.:T u 11 num 1.■ wall ,„, imp . ' s : • /
I II 6 def.11 n ,_ 01 4 j
- 1 - ' Ai T 1 % --- , - tot %.1.11- --: • -' * S. sjirtisV. ijA tr$1.:V '."
, 1 , PI ou • i — Ali A • / 2 %Val r 15 olittir-r4 . 1BSIZT #
• , 1 11 ' ' tf I rrim." 1 iksiefirl 6',...-f_ -11.1.
...,.. , - g . ... : •,!.,14-0
__,-- — IP" ' '','“ II 1 ss vo • / fr, Jay, .,.im g ..• t• 1108 * CU .111 .."2 apitipl .g. ,
' ' k-,FF-0 Milffla ' . MIA . ter. 'We / teill= .7 . 0$ torl$6,1V$4110.18 rip&watas..... leasS,
/1 - '1- --- .,. K U I • : 1111110144t 41 :440,$** vs. •tfal‘:1:1,,
- - - -,' ' NUS - " 7■81, ., di ofst■ Ira an
1 '...rei l i:::::::ZONAROP
• ' 4 : ,
IV ;:, 4„. in,, ara ....4 woo= &F e tip . mum usinte0
■ ore # 7. - 7,,,er.•3 et4 111.1.was aping se.;_aln = ■ •••/41. 4 1*
- -,
-4 ‘ . / ..„../..- , ME : • tli= newt ,,,. . +an MIIIII• arra .. ro'••••
..;,:‹ . ig lu ,, ,. r.-,... , - „lir, RNA; 2 sc I g ;la am.; ..3..a IA At■
n..: ''
n e 2 w - 1-, / -,,,- .
, L■ . , _. is. critat a
, ' -,00•.... _ 4 5 i ...
oil, il nl
An =-4-
.a. ul" LSO* nil ,U.I3 3TIN3T100
,, mi MIMI. ' .49inoulte 11, Nu unialuntim • . • I , k • r
2 „..;:ji :•--- lion. pan spwrip
F tarso IIIIIIII
L----A-,-1 . _. , ,..0_ 1 11Eso mm illt 0 I
i r , , . , , Ill tAVII■ ." kins'
k I • ,,,
. 1 141 1• L:wat•es ..s , ,.•4..., soma 111111111•11./. OSA, ...
-. "--if
IV AI 1 1 ' '11.'111111111a■gil % • ts tar 't
■4.0ugu 0 • Au ,7______ =liana. ...„,..6 c
,. ..4.....„1.2
1 ri doer 1 illipir . . ...._.
, 1 r manii
um , I Ibilatini -..•.- - wili " fki ril,
II=
' IMMKE Ems ••• i I 1111% EM , it II tm...1 ..mesal■ -
. In; -9,1331 "ll 1.11111
Nom - 6111 ' 1 ' 1 - •'- . - "...., vim , ' ',11 - - =I
1.7411011111p ion I a
• I L ft .
.....gli..._
I. ...e.
_
5 n,.... ----- nit
_ •yi. , I --_- - E I 1 __[__ _
..■.
,- ,•
•C ===-1 1_1 i "--17 .1
1 i •
1 IMillialu _ • - : • _-11-
4 Mil 1111111The• - *3M c,
t ifi
_
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
February 12, 1998
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Karen P. Gandy, Zoning Administrator
SUBJECT: Discussion Item, Ordinance No. 480 -BB, Maximum Lot Coverage and Maximum
Impervious Coverage
Attached you will find Ordinance No. 480 -BB as recommended by the work group, comprised of
Councilmember Fawks, Commissioner Creighton, and Commissioner Edmondson. It is my understanding
that the work group's objective was to maintain natural areas and open spaces in an effort 1) to lessen the
impacts of parking areas, 2) to increase the survivability of existing native trees by keeping the critical root
zone open for water and gas exchange, and 3) to lessen the impact of drainage run -off.
Note that no changes have been made to Ordinance 480 -BB since our last discussion with the exception
of three additional Whereas As clauses were added at the suggestion of the City Attorney. Attached is a
copy of his letter. Please recall three (3) definitions which are pertinent to this discussion:
"IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE - the combined area occupied by all principal and accessory buildings,
structures, and paved parking, sidewalks, and driveway areas. (As approved with the adoption of Ordinance No. 480 -Y)
LOT COVERAGE - the percentage of the total area of a lot occupied by the base (first story or floor) of
buildings located on the lot.
OPEN SPACE - an area of a lot either left in a natural state or receiving permeable vegetative landscape
treatment (e.g., ponds and lakes, either natural or manmade, and water features, grass, shrubs, flowers,
trees, ground cover, etc.) (As approved with the adoption of Ordinance No. 480 -Y)"
Section 1 establishes the maximum impervious coverage requirement of 40% of the total lot area in the
"MF -1," Two Family Residential District.
Section 2 changes the maximum lot coverage requirement in the "MF -2," Multiple Family Residential
District from 50% to 40% and also establishes the maximum impervious coverage requirement of 50% of
the total lot area.
Section 3 changes the maximum lot coverage requirement in the "C -3," General Commercial District from
60% to 50% and also establishes the maximum impervious coverage requirement of 65% of the total lot
area.
Section 4 changes the maximum lot coverage requirement in the `B - 1," Business Service Park District and
the "B -2" Commercial Manufacturing District from being determined by the Commission and Council
during Concept Plan review to 50 %.
City of Southlake, Texas
Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
February 12, 1998
Page Two
Section 5 establishes both the maximum lot coverage requirement of 50% and the maximum impervious
coverage requirement of 65% of the total lot area in the "HC," Hotel District. Currently, the only
development standards in place in the "HC" District are the height and yard requirements.
Section 6 establishes the maximum impervious coverage requirement of 65% of the total lot area for the
"CS," Community Service District, "0-1," Office District, "C -1," Neighborhood Commercial District,
"C -2," Local Retail Commercial District, `B -1," Business Service Park District and the "B -2" Commercial
Manufacturing District.
Section 7 establishes the maximum impervious coverage requirement of 70% of the total lot area for the
"C -4," Arterial Mall Commercial District, "I -1," Light Industrial District, and "I -2," Heavy Industrial
District.
Section 8 deletes the maximum impervious coverage provision in the specific use permit ( "SUP ")
requirements for personal care facilities recently established in 480 -Y. With the adoption of Ordinance
No. 480 -BB, each personal care facility would then have to comply with the underlying zoning district
requirement as set forth in this ordinance revision.
Section 9 amends "Appendix A, Schedule of District Regulations" to reflect the changes to the maximum
lot coverage requirements and creates a new column for the new maximum impervious coverage
requirements.
Sections 10 - 16 are the standard boilerplate included in all ordinances.
Please place this item on the Council's February 17, 1998 agenda for their discussion and direction in
forwarding the amendment to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and consideration. Should
you have questions regarding the ordinance amendment, please call Councilmember Fawks (424- 1999),
Commissioner Creighton (488- 1390), Commissioner Edmondson (488 -3144) or me at 481 -5581,
extension 70)4-
KPG
enc City Attorney's Letter
Ordinance No. 480 -BB
Chart-- Summary of Proposed Changes
City Comparison
Ordinance Request Form
Councilmember Fawks' Memorandum
Work Group Recommendations
L: \CITYDOCS \ORD\ DRAFT\ ZONING \480BBMEM.4 '� 2
FEB- 09 -199e 13:58 LAW FIRM 817 332 4740 P.14/20
TAYLOR, OLSON, AUHINS, SRALLA & ELAM, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 T1IROCKNIORTON STREET TELEPHONE (81 332.2580
0 BANK ONE TOWER FAX (817) 332 -4740
A RT WORTH. TEXAS 76102 -3821
•
WAYNE K. OLSON
February 9, 1998 RECD F c 3 0 9 1998
VIA FAX AND REGULAR MAIL
Ms. Karen Gandy
City of Southlake
1725 E. 1709
Southlake, Texas 76092
RE: Ordinance No. 480 -BB (Impervious Coverage)
Dear Karen:
Per your request, I have reviewed the draft Ordinance No. 480 -BB. I am attaching a copy
of this ordinance with my handwritten revisions. I would also like to make the following comments:
I noticed that the provisions relating to maximum lot coverage were tied to a percentage of
the "lot arca" whereas, as the maximum impervious coverage is tied to a percentage "total lot area ".
Was this intended? We nccd to make sure that these terms are adequately defined so as to avoid
confusion during the review and permitting process.
Finally, and most importantly, 1 recommend that the purpose and intent of the ordinance be
spelled out either in a separate section or in some additional whereas clauses. I have to admit that
1 am not clear on what the purpose of the maximum impervious coverage regulation is. Is it
drainage? Is it landscaping? Or, is there some other public health or safety reason why the city feels
this is a necessary ordinance? I would recommend spelling out the basis for the ordinance and tying
the purpose of the ordinance to specific studies, findings, philosophies, etc. that are accepted in the
industry. Also, before the proposed ordinance is adopted, the city should compare the requirements
in the ordinance to existing developments in the city to determine whether the ordinance will allow
for the reasonable development of different types of uses.
If you have any questions regarding my comments, please let me know.
Very truly yours,
Wayne K. Olson
WKO/kb
HALIBRARYISouthtake \LEITERS\udy.o 17. wpd
February 6, 1998
Post - attorney Mtg.
1 ORDINANCE NO. 480-CC
2
3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 480, AS
4 AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE
5 OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, CREATING
6 RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY DEVELOPMENT
7 REGULATIONS FOR NON -SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
8 DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN FOUR HUNDRED (400) FEET
9 OF PROPERTIES ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
10 OR DESIGNATED LOW OR MEDIUM DENSITY
11 RESIDENTIAL ON THE CITY LAND USE PLAN;
12 PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE
13 CUMULATIVE OF ALL ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A
14 SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY
15 FOR VIOLATIONS HEREOF; PROVIDING A SAVINGS
16 CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN PAMPHLET
17 FORM; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL
18 NEWSPAPER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
19
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
22 9 of the Local Government Code; and
23
24 WHEREAS, the City of Southlake has heretofore adopted Ordinance No. 480, as amended,
25 as the zoning ordinance of the city; and
26
27 WHEREAS, the City of Southlake has historically developed as a residential community
28 which is particularly suited for the development of a quality residential lifestyle which is separated
29 from non - single family residential developments which might adversely impact said residential
30 neighborhoods; and
31
32 WHEREAS, several existing and planned residential neighborhoods are located adjacent to
33 properties which are developing or will be developed for business and commercial use; and
34
35 WHEREAS, the city council of the City of Southlake recognizes the vital importance of
36 residential neighborhoods and the need to preserve and protect residential neighborhoods from the
37 adverse effects of adjoining non - single family residential uses; and
38
39 WHEREAS, the city council desires to protect and enhance the attractiveness of the city to
40 visitors; to promote and stimulate the economy; to ensure the harmonious, orderly and efficient
1 growth and development of the city; to preserve property and property values; and to maintain a
generally harmonious outward appearance of both single family residential and non - single family
"r3 residential structures which are compatible and complementary; and
L: ICITYDOCSIORDIDRAF7IZONING \480 -CCI. RED
116 t
parking areas; and
WHEREAS, the city adopts these regulations' to ensure a desired level of groundwater
recharge and to reduce the impacts of surface drainage run-off; 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 16.5 of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by adding a new paragraph (k),
Maximum Impervious Coverage, to read as follows:
"Maximum Impervious Coverage: The maximum impervious coverage shall not
exceed forty (40 %) percent of the total lot area."
SECTION 2.
Section 17.5 of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by revising paragraph "e,"
Maximum Lot Coverage, and by adding a new paragraph "1," Maximum Impervious Coverage, to
read as follows:
"e. Maximum Lot Coverage: All buildings or structures shall have a maximum
lot coverage not exceeding forty (40 %) percent of the total lot area.
1. Maximum Impervious Coverage: The maximum impervious coverage shall
not exceed fifty (50 %) percent of the total lot area."
SECTION 3.
Section 22.5 of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by revising paragraph "e,"
Maximum Lot Coverage, and by adding a new paragraph "1," Maximum Impervious Coverage, to
read as follows:
L. \CITYDOCS \ORD\DR AF \ZONING\480BB -2. RED 2
rr
"e. Maximum Lot Coverage: All buildings or structures shall have a maximum
lot coverage not exceeding fifty (50 %) percent of the total lot area.
1. Maximum Impervious Coverage: The maximum impervious coverage shall not
exceed sixty -five (65 %) percent of the total lot area."
SECTION 4.
Sections 24.5 and 25.5 of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, are hereby amended by revising
paragraphs "e," respectively to read as follows:
"e. Maximum Lot Coverage: All buildings or structures shall have a maximum lot
coverage not exceeding fifty (50 %) percent of the total lot area."
SECTION 5.
Section 28.5 of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by adding the following
paragraphs, "e" and "f," establishing maximum lot coverage and maximum impervious coverage to
read as follows:
"e. Maximum Lot Coverage: All buildings or structures shall have a maximum
lot coverage not exceeding fifty (50 %) percent of the total lot area.
f. Maximum Impervious Coverage: The maximum impervious coverage shall
not exceed sixty -five (65 %) percent of the total lot area."
SECTION 6.
Sections 8.5(0, 18.5(i), 20.5 (1), 21.5(1), 24.5(p), and 25.5(i) of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, are
hereby added to establish a maximum impervious coverage requirement to read as follows:
"Maximum Impervious Coverage: The maximum impervious coverage shall not
exceed sixty -five (65 %) percent of the total lot area."
SECTION 7.
Sections 23.5(o), 26.5(1), and 27.5 (1), of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, are hereby added to
establish a maximum impervious coverage requirement to read as follows:
"Maximum Impervious Coverage: The maximum impervious coverage shall not
L:\ CITYDOCS \ORD\DR?.FTZONING \4SOBB -2. RED 3
exceed seventy (70 %) percent of the total lot area."
SECTION 8.
Section 45.9 (f), "SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONAL CARE FACILITIES," of
Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by deleting paragraph "9," Impervious
Coverage.
SECTION 9.
"APPENDIX A, Schedule of District Regulations" of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby
amended by revising Maximum Lot Coverage and by adding Maximum Impervious Coverage as
amended herein.
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.
• SECTION 12.
Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply
L.' CITYDOCS \ORD\DRAFTZOMNG \480BB -2.RED 4
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
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.
L. \CITYDOCS \ORD\DRAF ZONING \480BB -2 RED 5
SECTION 16.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as
required by law, and it is so ordained.
PASSED AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING ON THIS DAY OF
,1998.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
PASSED AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING ON THIS DAY OF
,1998.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
EFFECTIVE:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
CITY ATTORNEY
L:\ CITYDOCS \ORD\DR4FI\ZONING \480BB -2.RED 6
W-9
Summary of Proposed Changes
Zoning District Maximum Lot Proposed Impervious Landscaping Area
Coverage Coverage '> Requirement
(% Bldg. Footprint (% Per Total Lot (Per Floor Area*)
Per Total Lot Area) Area) (Landscape Ord. f )
CS 50% 65% 30%
MF -I 30% 40% No Req't
MF -2 30% 40% 50% 50%
0-1 50% 65% 50%
C -1 50% 65% 50%
C -2 50% 65% 50%
C -3 60%50% 65% 50%
C -4 60% 70% 20%
B-1 P&Z / Anal_ isitt 65% 30%
time of Site Plan 50%
B -2 P&ZICC Analy3i3 at 65% 20%
time of Sitc Plan 50%
I -1 50% 70% 20% (Bldg. < 10,000 .r f)
10% (Bldg. z 10,000sf.
•
1 -2 50% 70% 20% (Bldg.< 10,000
s.f)
10% (Bldg. $ 10,000
s..f)
HC Per Concept Plan at 65% 50%
50%
* Interior landscape area (excluding bufferyards) is based on the greater of the square footage
of either the first floor of the building or any single floor above. For buildings greater than
20,000 square feet, the landscape area is determined by multiplying the building's width by
a depth of 60 feet.
t Landscape Ordinance Planting Requirements
- 1 Canopy Tree per 600 square feet
- 1 Accent Tree per 300 square feet
- 1 Shrub per 60 square feet
- Ground cover - 10% of required landscape area
L:\CITYDOCS\ORD\DRAFT\ZONING\480BB.CH3
ORDINANCE REQUEST FORM
Please till out the following information related to your request for consideration of a new ordinance or
revision to an existing. ordinance. A disk copy of this form can be provided to allow you to insert your
comments in typed form. Contact Kim Bush in the City Manager's office at (817) 481 -5581, ext 702.
SHORT TITLE: Zoning Ordinance - Impervious Covera }e Regulations
TYPE OF PROJECT:
Ordinance: New Ordinance , Minor Revision , Major Revision
Master Plan Component: New Item , Minor Revision , Major Revision
Project: New Project , Minor Revision , Major Revision
REQUESTED BY: Scott Martin/Bill Kemp/Gary Fawks Date of Request: 7/30/97
Citizen CC Yes P &Z ZBA X PB SPIN Staff
Other Board or Group:
Outline problem, concern or opportunity. (Do not define solution)
1. Run -off control / mitigation to lessen drainage impacts.
2. To lessen erosion of natural stream beds
Although the landscape ordinance sets minimum parameters for landscape areas, no current
regulations address overall total impervious coverage allowed.
List any potential considerations. (Do not define solution)
1. Will lessen financial demands to "concrete over' our natural stream beds.
?. Will help maintain our existing native trees through keeping their critical root zone open for water
vas exchange.
3. The Committee attempted to be mindful the maximum building coverage allowed as we drafted
these proposed requirements, however the reality of the situation is that rarely if ever is the
maximum lot coverage ever achieved, therefore it may be very realistic to decrease the maximum
allowed impervious coverage in many districts.
General Comments:
Southlake citizens do not want to live amongst a "sea of parking" as is allowed in most other
communities.
List any references to be reviewed (other cities, etc.) or any documents attached to this request.
a. Draft ordinance prepared by Karen Gandy based on vvorkg.roup recommendations.
1(E—ff
PROJECTS' PR[OR[Tl "PROJ- REQ.FR>f "\I° ( "'DE) July 30. [99" Page [ of 1
Memorandum
Dolma 07103197
Tae Karen Gandy
CQ C. Hawk, G. Last, D. Edmondson, A. Creighton
Rem Gary Fawks
RE Impervious Coverage Regulations
In an effort to help address the numerous challenges related to drainage and runoff that face our
community, and in aocadance with the City Council priority list, our worts group has prepared the
attached list of proposed impervious coverage regulations for each zoning district.
We believe that the be way to handle this will be to amend each of the zoning district's development
regulations as opposed to creating a new ordinance. Please note there is one recommended change
to the maximum building coverage (in the C3 District). The definition of impervious coverage that you
used In 480-Y would appear to be appropriate for these reputations as well. 1 do believe we will need to
repeal the percentage included in 480 - Y as a part of this action so it may be governed by :the
underlying zoning district.
Please have these dratted into ordinance form and placed on the Council agenda for Juty 15, 1997 as
a dscvs on item. This will allow the Council the opportunity to discuss the concept of these changes
prior to sending the ordinance to P&Z, and hopefully thereby expedite the process. Please contact me
if you have any Questions or comments. I will be in town through July 8 if we need to discuss this any
further next week.
REVD JUL 0 71997
•
IV? WV) "„ 11e-12_
Impervious Coverage Regulations
Proposed Coverage
Limits
District Bldg Cover imp Cover
0 -1 50% 65%
0 -2 50% 65%
C -1 50% 65%
C -2 50% 65%
C -3 50% 65%
C-4 80% 70%
B -1 50% 65%
B -2 50% 65%
1 -1 50% 70%
1 -2 50% 70%
HC 50% 65%
MF1 30% 40%
MF2 40% 50%
CS 50% 65%
ttE -t
.......................
I ...........
...
.n o
o .n
0. 63
111111.111,:lill U = C
O - p
cz/ 63
i:ii L
34 :ii :
:o::;: .D O N
ciUiii E ti p. N
ri.:::::: :::::..A...... 0 = c) t
" ca
R« ii:i � y O y CL 0.
:; i i i :i �i i%
' U Sr i " 0 0
::;::`irk:; :" an U U ' ' ....
... y a
;''''''''S�'ef.t{';';'; 0 v, _ a�
0
114g1:::::::::::::::::::::: bo sbp
y cA «s ' . .
N N N N N N y N N
3 °' b
a)
ip ' i :: :: LtL 0A C \ O
j N . .N., V" y L A � -a .7. cti : ' ''` > U 'C1 D. Q Q O
. o v
cC 3 i vi 7
, :45: ::
as::: an g 3 - o
L a.)
: :::: : : : ;]44::::: i O W U U U i L - F i j N cC Q a.
: ` E :: : : :.: � O R > U v, .0 0 0.0 cz L O L O .
: s'ii: ::: :3 O m, k . to = • Q E R
'"'!#ii:� :: y 'O W a) . 0 . v, ' C '6 •b ❑ • V1 �, a >' +
L w i 0 0 N 'v '� •.E 'E - o G. Cq X x c--;
# i i i : E' ? i ?
O C .C C b . .b C C ., y y 4, c, a) a) U U
= al 0. V, • � cup L L L c • bA - ti y 0
a h�.0 . 0 v, 'O p 0 O O 0 O a)) > C 0 b - 0 r
' !� g; �� ' : - > i ii : i:
ii:: :: :: : N ,� C w c t 0 0 0 ti) W c1 y 0 0 _O C c i 0 C
Z
: :: : > ._ 0 .14 0. \° " o- -0 O
o a) U • O o 0 0 0 0 0 o o o f o o .
U .5 N a. t/1 w Z v, W Q ..a c C y ❑ C v,
E
. 74 ' � a -o n
ca c o
#: ▪ > °
: Z 3 ,= 0 a , a E
., ;;ra ::; a. E
: :' w Y i E U an 8 a Z a.) U cu
W U o ° '" A W E o U o
Q
O a: Z 0 U E- : x a A a 0 . U U o 0
:: i :ii::i::::i::i::i::iii::;::i::: :::iii::::;:5:: iii::: isY: �ii ;::::;:;::i::ii ::i:;:i:; : : ...: ..:: "i: � -`�: •� •:: ��: :: i: ii :i:i;: i:: i:s :ii:i::::i;::i::: :ii�:i <iiii:i::::i::;i: .: ...:..............
i ( €
f::]......::].i.:::::: ....g:::-..::.:::: tj) >,
U
_ c
T3
c c
a) • Q) j y i-� a)
O
c
B
U
L O U ti 4=. &, L o
1,
w Q c> Y c .= ' n o
.... . y
L = c c o E v E.' `/ U cti
co 4. c •Y .b O O U c G.
0 c — t.0 c 0 a) > bA
ZT4 6) a) v 0 ,,, y c z a) c
::.;: O c.0 a) co b al , U , c a) -O -
L.I:Z: :::: > L. 3 . .$ cC a U X
cC O N N CL
r.::
iiii: 'z:i:'
Q::::: ac 8.N a , E E . X Y
-o
ca
::: rC c o. a - a c ° ." o o U
mc
::....;...i....;..0]:::; a� a) 3 a o o L c c ',r). °A aci c0 ° a Y 4) I) a I.) c ics ^
: < : ::: :: c L) E
z Q , , . ' a) o . a c Q Q a `' • ...::::::;Z:::::•:. > ; o 0 &) U U > v
I)
.. O 0 , ^ .. Y a
C t .' 00 0 O O c,_, a., 00 w .0 . U n O N w t �.
ir!!1 # ; f iiiii tr: . O -, v cz - O s i ' y ate+ . E 4N 0 to
>[
i :".a E z L c 0 , a) ac) a) -0 -0 .0 E o E E a u "b
°° c o . � � a i w � L 51 . .� .� a) � 2 � � r, a
p.:::::::-.:::::::::::::::::::::::ii:iiii$ a) E a) O h K. C3. a a) a) U = c0 '
a) a) a) a) ,> a) ^ C U V a) L c.- c -o L N ' -
m O O
O a)
N a) a) a) N O N
a)
a)
v:i),v::: { :::iiy t'1 E U U S]. U U U c4 Y U Y c... („) .11, a)
� , x ,
0 X GL - Q `/ O X X X VI S.' 1. cC a) X
OD
y O c Q) y iflfl 4) N HU w > a) O H O > o O IL. Y • cC O c c U c c O 1 „ o
: :: :: ::::r,.:` < : :: a. cC ., y it, ct c .b a a) ) . .. ccS cc! cC S] v1 .., A E ca O O O
.;; .:.;:.;,... :..:. �, H 5 v) cn E & n cC ._°. E - - ' '' C U z .7 00
'11011
N O .D
_ a)
O $ .' ' cC a) 11
- cl O O U
a) EU
lai■4:
.: ; a)
s il.� a) o - 0
.1;:.".:.;:'........., .: ::::::::: . > v a) E O ca
i> . ..... . .. .. . .. cc o U o
1
E > :::::::::::64:
Vi i«:
L Q L ....
-. L
y c 0 0 ., c O 4-. 0 L O R U
C. °o^ o E E a a) a n fl n r'
L x
a,
X a X c X O c O t43 ri
•c >, o
a a) a ° a te a) cu eu 0..) o °' .n U
.1:, N c a) c.) 0.. a) a) a) U a) a) e}• yj c y . :
y U 0 0 7 Y 0 0 0 U U 0
X L X y c X X X c C
`j�/�';�'j'3 v v a) a) a) a) L CA L
N N U Y 7 a) c a) z
���] - c 0 c .- S1 c c c c c c c 0 O O o
C� _ L
cC c� cC C. O 6 74 ,d 7,4 ca 73 3 cC O .D O
a
E A
, x a o A
<:> L o b is
: + C N C 41) CL Y (� 0 , 0 c 0 . 0 O
;::::C ::::: 0 c 0 O 0 - > L cl <: <: 0 : y b CI LI a;w Y c c ID e Z E o
:v� ::: 3 c O :I.! c 0 O
?:..«.:. ?:. -C 4. a C L c Y . c+ N W
el) E la
# [ <' .to U o pr U
k") a U Y c0 °' E a a c . a U F
E - L C _ o - 0.) - CU U
' U E Q t.-.,. p u c : - a n U i u cu W O w O w a
>: x o a cs. U .-. x E a F ab a U a Q a. O U O
U = O = Q = U o _ Q _
4 : >< = ::;::.:: ?:.;:• : ?::.?:<:;•::.:: <:.:'. • ; ? ?:. ?. ?. ?:.::: •::::<:.....:....::::: :;::::::<:::: ::::::::::::: i::;::::: :::::::a: ;::;:;:i;:::: iii: ::C ::: ::<:::::z::: :::::::: ;;;: 2N« C;:: s::: ::::::::::::::;:::::::::>ii:::: i:::::r :: ::: ::>:> ?:::::a
' '' ;'=r
:::: r • :: _ :::: ::.::; :::
v •v 'v -v -v j1 Vf Vl Vl N > H 0 VI VI ° N N 0 0 L - 5 v - v °- -v -v 'v -v v 'v 'v 'v 'v
`4, o o C N c3 c3 c3 c3 c3 c3 c3 N c3 c3 c3 c3 c3
:::::::::::::::: "C O O O t t ' t '+ a+ t 0 a+ a+ a+ t+ 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O • O
;;.: :<; : ««> ::'>:::: a` — t` z z z z z z z z z z Z Z Z Z
liti IIIIIIOIII H
//1�yI� t O O
'4' :? :z:::;'
.;. i O y i
a+ O
<::::::::::' . O . M
[[`' 0 N u N
� N `+, N.. b0
tE': i::: >::;: O
! ,n O s . s �
fib; ::::: :: i i .
i : : n0 b0 Ili
01
4].::: ❑
1:11Z. i iiiAiiii -0 0 U N
O 73
::::::.4: y 0 CU CU
'`:: 0 I.N., O p
(� a
• U V in
N G. • � O
g �: . ; 7 b t0 C 0 N 4. +- n
:'it iii ` i` i j' y 0 L 0 0 LU
0 0 3 ^" 0 0 0 0 o N S.. = 0 0 0 0 o Z
o 0 0 0 U v i \ \ S.• 0 0 0 0 O a \ \ \ o
o � o Le-1 tn o Z U .5 0 , r - > ° 00 0 0 = 3 ° c ° °
U _
c v)
A
o a o 1... - 0 c= 0 ,, 6* A
T U C o O O O ce
''> c3 a O N v 'O O Q4 U C0 v,-
2 F * ' w O F w O H • N 3 C S. bO � ' u, N N b0 U p.. z U a. w O z= _ - U .. t 4. z c c7 a O ,-.1 6 u
U y w U o O z x t-- U a A cc as U o�
I(C-1(0
::::: ]:::::::::•.'•.::::::::..::'•':
' " :11:::::Iii, ', ..:!..i . :! . . ii
> : e:::
:;:
:::::P:::::::::::::::::::
: ::: ::::;':-: ate) a.) b U 0 a te ) 0 a te ) b a� � a> a te )
col V) •> U >
N N a) N a) ) a) a) N a> N a) a) 0
.ii::::;:::::;:::::;:;:;:' :::;;::::: iii 'C b 'C a ' -o 'C 'C 'o -o a' •C b -o b -o
0 3 RS a) cC d3 cd R cC a) «S ce3 «S cd 43
O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
:::::::<::>: ><_:::: >: Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
: ::-.;..i.i.:::.:.:.
Mtg. 1 iiiii
o .d - o az
v b
4. � Q
` `':::' cQ ++ O ) C
C O —
74 0 0 `a cc ai . a)
cS w ? ,.. o cu E
'. ::f:-: i::: .: ca V ice
. ..
1 • w.0 V1
:::.. :,.: <. : : i: : a . O C w a) cr
0 4.
L
Mt C O • E
U a>
rn aU 0 L 0
.:::::::iitAi:8::::::8::::'.ii: C., .1.; +9, rn " ` `> r c 4 ° 4= 0 c a)
0 0 0 3 0 0 o e o 0 0 U o z
e' o U o o .'2 O b e
. 0 o J o o �0 0 0 0 0 Y o 0 a Z 0 v x
U _
'o U 0 Z.3 A
: ca o o r :. cA °) 0
C cr cc w 0 E g
ao 8 4.) 24 a) 4 0 o z
Z x O Z 0
— U
<: :> a) X E w c 0 0 L F- a)
an 01) a) o oA y
x Q C, a z 0 a U U O, g i
as Z 9 p F
i
a ) -
:-: r-i a U O La -, — N U O W � 7 w N b O U r]
z Q c7U O 0 — U 0 0 v A . 0 O 0 GC
::::i :� :i i : :^- J O:: ; : ::: f ?:::' ii:iiii::::: :::: iiii::ii : :: 2i :: ?::: ' KV71 i::> ::'2'i 2: `: < :2Y i::::::: ?"''
.:. ;::::::::.:::.: :::.:;.::. : : ::
::::>::i:;;::i::;::;::;: : ::: i ::::;:: ; :::::>: ii::::2
I (C-11
CO O
a) a) •a. C
: ,.. i i i i ii i i ill"; i = : r: C N + O y N-
L t Y O G - t om .. � O C.
VI 4) bi c3 N CA. a) b0 CO
...• .a O . 0 O s O .5 O
:: O . v >, L1 0. - C = C A co C
:: c3 O 5 of 'C7
::::4: c3 0 0 0 p «s a) 0 0 0
: :i::::0::> s bA [ ...= -O rn by O
:::::::41.g :: r, of C c3 C '�
............
y C O O
:>: : ::: :: :FMS:: c.. L- c3 s, tz
�.. TJ � w O �
: �
: r^5 : ::: W ' _' c3 � ' W c3
::: : ::: y .se U . E 0 r , .....1 ).E 5
i$3 ` `i: iiir �'`' a) N 'C7 ' . 7)
�/.� ::.: . - c. a) V, L3 — s. a ) ) -
%' iiiii :: c3 V 5 .a c3 U 0 b
:i:0?i is i ' % `'`' 0 C t. b .5 cl 3 -. a) 0 b .5 '
ii iiijlM :];i ii::: i a i" a) c3 c3 a) 1:1 ", a) c3 c3 a)
: yE: . 0- . -C a 1.. Y
:'"',:::: >:::':::cti:`` o .1J 0 . -° .. 0 0 ° 'ti —
:' » :: : :: :: c a. eu 5 c a cl a a) u
c w. U F .0 ... w U = y +r
• . .... ................... O v .. O U �, ^N d
C
° � F 7 a 1,...), v ` - o `o o u.
-o •
a1 0 -
a o -ti i3 i3 - O' 0 0 0 0 0
>. <'::: >: ?< 3 U a .5 F U a .5 Z Z Z Z Z Z
U
a)
:. .. O • 0
4 a)
H�wwyy 4. w i3 D
�ii:i% ii: :iiiiii ii:c! O
a) O 0
Gi:::r n U C U 'O
> ;? 5 a) :.)
s `' o v
!� d: °
w
x ) bD c 0 E
a .5 c o to p
U
�3 = v
F .0 a 0
: O O U y
:2 ? <; :: >3`' 4.) o a) ti 0
Z
I:I ml
0 0 c'' > O O p > j c3 N Q
Z k, = 3 0
N
4) N
5 c3 c3 0
= a a) - a)
:::::::::::;::i0:::::::::::,:::,::::::::::: ' i.: O
: CC 4.
::: ::::: ' 73 T = 'O , -E, O
�5:::: E C C C t 0 c3 -O O ca 0
U .1:10 O U c) c.-. f- C :- .. k" O w C4 c U 5 U
? U W U .� Q O a z� F V "�
I «-Ig
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
February 12, 1998
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Karen P. Gandy, Zoning Administrator
SUBJECT: Discussion Item, Ordinance No. 480 - CC, Residential Adjacency Regulations
Attached is Ordinance No. 480 -CC which reflects the recommendations of the work group, comprised of
Councilmember Muller, Commissioner Edmondson and Commissioner Creighton. The work group's
objective was to preserve the quality of residential life and to protect property values within all existing
and future residential neighborhoods from developing non - single family residential uses within 400' of
any single family residential property. The regulations attempt to maintain a generally harmonious
outward appearance of non - single family residential structures adjacent to single family residential
properties.
The City Attorney has reviewed this draft and has recommended some changes which are redlined in the
attached draft. Any additional questions and concerns could be addressed in Executive Session.
Section 1 establishes that all non - single family residential districts within 400' of zoned single family
residential properties or planned low or medium density residential properties would have to comply with
additional development standards as set forth in a new section of the ordinance entitled, Residential
Adjacency Regulations.
Section 2 sets forth the objectives of the new standards and provides for the following:
• Definitions, specific to this new section of the ordinance;
• Site plan approval by the Commission and Council for all non - single family residential properties
within the 400' area adjacent to any existing or proposed single family residential property; and
• Regulations addressing exterior finish, height, exterior lighting, waste disposal, roof design, screening
for mechanical equipment and special requirements if located on a corner lot with frontage on a
residential street (e.g., setbacks, window and door design, lot coverage).
Note that a variance and appeal section is also provided which is similar to the provisions in the
corridor overlay zone.
Sections 3 - 9 are the standard boilerplate included in all ordinances.
Please place this item on the Council's February 17, 1998 agenda for their discussion and direction in
forwarding the amendment to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and consideration. Should
you have questions regarding the ordinance amendment, please call Councilmember Muller (481- 6644),
Commissioner Creighton (488 - 1390), Commissioner Edmondson (488 -3144) or me at 481 -5581,
extension 743.
<«' -i
City of Southlake, Texas
Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
'ebruary 12, 1998
Page Two
enc Ordinance No. 480 -CC
Advocacy Form
Comparison Chart (Corridor Overlay, Original Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, Ordinance
480 -CC Requirements)
Original Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance (480 -Q, Draft 9b)
Response Letters
� I
I �
j I
1 ( -Z
PROJECT ADVOCACY FORM
Please fill out the following information related to your request for consideration of a project, ordinance
or revision to an existing ordinance. A disk copy of this form can be provided to allow you to insert your
comments in typed form. Contact Kim Bush in the City Manager's office at (817) 481 -5581, ext 702.
SHORT TITLE: Residential Adjacency Standards
TYPE OF PROJECT:
Ordinance: New , Minor Revision , Major Revision X* .
Master Plan Component: New , Minor Revision , Major Revision
Project: New , Minor Revision , Major Revision
Other:
* Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance No. 480 -Q
REQUESTED BY: Councilperson Muller
CC X , P &Z , BA. , PB , STAFF , OTHER:
DATE OF REQUEST: 11/96 DATE RECEIVED: 11/96 BY: Comm.Dev.
Outline problem, concern or opportunity. (Do not define solution)
1. Preservation of property values and quality of life for single family residential properties not
protected by the Corridor Overlay Zone regulations.
List any potential considerations. (Do not define solution)
1. Height/setback standards
2. Roof and window design similar to residential
3. Masonry materials
4. Screening and landscaping
General Comments:
1. Use Ordinance No. 480 -Q, Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, as a starting point
List any references to be reviewed (other cities, etc.) or any documents attached to this request:
A RES ADJ.WPD Form Date: February 13. 1998 11 `
February 6, 1998
Post - attorney Mtg.
1 ORDINANCE NO. 480 -CC
2
3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 480, AS
4 AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE
5 OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, CREATING
6 RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY DEVELOPMENT
7 REGULATIONS FOR NON - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
8 DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN FOUR HUNDRED (400) FEET
9 OF PROPERTIES ZONED SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
10 OR DESIGNATED LOW OR MEDIUM DENSITY
11 RESIDENTIAL ON THE CITY LAND USE PLAN;
12 PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE
13 CUMULATIVE OF ALL ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A
14 SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY
15 FOR VIOLATIONS HEREOF; PROVIDING A SAVINGS
16 CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN PAMPHLET
17 FORM; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL
18 NEWSPAPER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
19
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
22 9 of the Local Government Code; and
23
24 WHEREAS, the City of Southlake has heretofore adopted Ordinance No. 480, as amended.
25 as the zoning ordinance of the city; and
26
27 WHEREAS, the City of Southlake has historically developed as a residential community
28 which is particularly suited for the development of a quality residential lifestyle which is separated
29 from non - single family residential developments which might adversely impact said residential
30 neighborhoods; and
31
32 WHEREAS, several existing and planned residential neighborhoods are located adjacent to
33 properties which are developing or will be developed for business and commercial use; and
34
35 WHEREAS, the city council of the City of Southlake recognizes the vital importance of
36 residential neighborhoods and the need to preserve and protect residential neighborhoods from the
37 adverse effects of adjoining non - single family residential uses; and
38
39 WHEREAS, the city council desires to protect and enhance the attractiveness of the city to
40 visitors; to promote and stimulate the economy; to ensure the harmonious, orderly and efficient
growth and development of the city; to preserve property and property values; and to maintain a
generally harmonious outward appearance of both single family residential and non - single family
43 residential structures which are compatible and complementary; and
L: ICITYDOCSIORDIDRAF7IZONINGI480 -CCI. RED
February 6, 1998
Post - attorney Mtg.
1 WHEREAS, the city council desires to adopt this ordinance for the purpose of preserving
2 and protecting the quality of residential life of existing and future residential neighborhoods by
3 adopting reasonable regulations that will promote non - single family residential development that is
4 compatible and complementary with adjoining single family residential properties.
5
6 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
7 OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS:
8
9 SECTION 1.
10
11 Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by adding new sections 8.6, 16.6, 17.6,
'1"? 18.6, 19.4, 20.6, 21.6, 22.6, 23.6, 24.6, 25.6, 26.6, 27.6, 28.6, 29.6, 30.6, 31.4 and 32.4 each
13 respectively to read as follows, and by renumbering the remaining sections accordingly:
14
15 "ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PROPERTIES LYING
16 WITHIN FOUR HUNDRED FEET (400') OF PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE
17 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OR DESIGNATED AS LOW OR MEDIUM DENSITY
18 RESIDENTIAL ON THE CITY LAND USE PLAN" - In addition to the
1 development regulations applicable to this district, the development regulations
established in Section 37 of this ordinance, shall also apply.
21
22 SECTION 2.
23
24 Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by adding new Section 37, to read as
25 follows:
26
27 "SECTION 37
28 RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REGULATIONS
29
30 37.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT - In order to preserve and protect significant
31 architectural and cultural attributcs of the integrity of residential
32 neighborhoods within the City of Southlake, and in an effort to support the
33 quiet enjoyment of single family residential properties and to maintain
34 property values, the City has determined that it is necessary and appropriate
35
:
36
40 stringent requirements shall apply. When any requirements in this section
are in conflict with the requirements of the underlying zoning district, the
more stringent requirements shall apply."
PAGE 2 L: ICITYDOCSIORDIDRAF7IZONI NG\480- CCI.RED
February 6, 1998
Post - attorney Mtg.
1 37.2 DEFINITIONS - The following definitions shall be applicable to this section.
3
4
5 products of human thought and action characteristic of a population or
6 community.
7
8 Control Distance: Means the area within 400' of the developing non - single
9 family residential use. This distance is measured from the property line of the
10 developing tract to the property line of either the zoned single family
- 11 residential property or the designated low or medium density residential
12 property as shown on the City Land Use Plan.
13
14
16 - • • , -: • - - - _ • -- :: ,- :::. - : - - - :,- , .
17
18 "cultural attributes" necessarily includes "arc : . • : • : • .
characteristics or beliefs of people who may reside in or frequent a particular
area.
2-)
23 Non - single family residential use: Means all nonresidential district uses as
24 well as two- family and multiple - family district uses.
25
26 Single Family Residential Property: Means any lot or tract of land with
27 single family residential zoning or any lot or tract of land designated as low
28 or medium density residential on the Land Use Plan.
29
30 Under Construction: Means that a valid building permit has been issued by
31 the City for construction of a single family residential dwelling.
32
33 Visible: Means that the object(s) being screened can be seen from single
34 family residential properties located within the control distance when viewed
35 at ground level along the street frontage of the residential property.
36
37 37.3 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: In addition to the development
38 regulations applicable to the underlying district, all developing non - single
39 family residential properties with single family residential properties located
40 within the control distance shall submit a site plan meeting the requirements
set forth in Section 40 of this ordinance. This site plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council and
PAGE 3 L: ICITYDOCSIORDIDR.- 1FTZONINGI480- CCI.RED
February 6, 1998
Post - attorney Mtg.
1 shall meet the following additional development regulations.
3 1. Exterior Finish: All structures shall have an exterior finish of brick or
4 natural stone covering a minimum of eighty percent (80 %) of the area
5 of each facade, excluding doors and windows.
6
7 2. Maximum Height: All structures shall meet the height /setback ratio as
8 set forth in Section 43.11 of this ordinance.
9
10 3. Exterior Lighting: Any exterior lighting shall meet the standards set
11 forth in Section 43.12 of this ordinance.
12
13 4. Trash Receptacles: No trash receptacles shall be allowed within fifty
14 feet (50') of single family residential property and shall be located and
15 screened in accordance with Section 43.9c.2.d of this ordinance.
16
17 5. Roof Requirements: The roof systems of all structures shall be of a
18 residential character and shall be constructed in the following manner:
19
a. Roof type (e.g., gabled, hipped, shed, e+ or other similar roof type
typical to residential construction within the City of Southlake);
22
23 b. Roof pitch (e.g., 6:12, 8:12, 10:12, ctc. or other similar roof pitch
24 typical to residential construction within the City of Southlake);
25
26 c. Roof material (e.g., composition shingles, slate, manmade slate, ctc.
27 or other similar product typical to residential construction within the
28 City of Southlake).
29
30 In the event that such a roof system would cause the height of the
31 structure to exceed the maximum height as permitted, or proves to be a
32 hardship, a mansard roof system (enclosed on all sides) may be utilized
33 provided that the mansard roof has a pitch between 6:12 and 10:12, a
34 minimum height of twenty -five feet (25'), and is clad with composition
35 shingles, slate or a manmade slate -like product.
36
37 6. Location: If the non - single family residential lot is located on the corner
38 lot which abuts the same residential street as single family residential
39 property and if any single family residential property is within the
40 control distance, the following shall be required:
a. Front and Side Yards: The rcgulatcd non - single family residential
PAGE 4 L:ICITYDOCSIORDIDRAFIIZOVING '480- CCI.RED
I (F -7
February 6, 1998
Post - attorney Mtg.
1 structure shall have front and side yards equivalent to the front and
2 side yards required for the single family residential property, but not
3 less than the front and side yards as required by the underlying
4 zoning district of the regulated non - single family residential
5 structure.
6
7 b. Window and Door Requirements: The window and door treatments
8 of all office structures shall be of a residential character and shall be
9 constructed in the following manner:
10
11 1. Windows (e.g., single -hung, double -hung, casement, awning,
12 etc. or other similar window treatment typical to residential
13 construction within the City of Southlake);
14
15 2. Doors (e.g., flush, paneled, french, etc. or other similar door
16 type typical to residential construction within the City of
17 Southlake)
18
19 c. Lot Coverage: The lot coverage shall be the same as, or less than,
the adjacent single family residential property.
22 7. Mechanical Equipment Screening: All buildings must be designed such
23 that no roof - mounted mechanical equipment (HVAC, etc.) or satellite
24 dishes in excess of eighteen inches (18 ") in height diameter shall be
25 visible (as defined herein). Ground - mounted mechanical equipment and
26 satellite dishes in excess of eighteen inches (18 ") in hcight diameter
27 shall be screened by a wooden or masonry fence or by landscaping
28 material to a height one foot higher than the object being screened.
29
30 37.4 VARIANCES AND APPEALS: At the time of review of any required
31 Concept Plan or Site Plan, the City Council may grant variances to the
32 development regulations set forth in this Section.
34 1. To receive a variance, the applicant must demonstrate the following:
35
36 a. A variance will reduce the impact of the project on surrounding
37 single family residential properties; or
38
39 b. A variance is necessary to assure compatibility with surrounding
40 developed properties; or.
2. The City Council may grant a variance by an affirmative vote of a
PAGE 5 L: ICITYDOCSIORDIDR4FTZO NLVG1480- CCLRED
I (F -$
February 6, 1998
Post - attorney Mtg.
1 majority of the City Council members present and voting on the matter.
2 In order to grant a variance, the City Council must determine that a
3 literal enforcement of the regulations will create an unnecessary
4 hardship or a practical difficulty for the applicant; that the situation
5 causing the unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty is unique to the
6 affected property; that the variance will not injure the use and permitted
7 development of adjacent properties; and that the granting of the
8 variance will be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of this
9 ordinance.
10
'1 1 3. If a variance application is denied by the City Council, no other variance
12 of like kind relating to the same project or proposed project shall be
13 considered or acted upon by the City Council for a period of six (6)
14 months subsequent to the denial.
15
16
17 SECTION 3.
`18
19 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.
23 SECTION 4.
?4
°25 It is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the phrases, clauses.
26 sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause.
27 sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid
28 judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect
29 any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance, since
30 the same would have been enacted by the City Council without the incorporation in this ordinance
31 of any such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section.
32
33 SECTION 5.
34
35 Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply
36 with or who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be fined not more
37 than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Each day that a violation if permitted to
38 exist shall constitute a separate offense.
39
40
SECTION 6.
PAGE 6 L: ICITYDOCSIORDIDR4F71ZONING1. 180 -CC/ RED
February 6, 1998
Post - attorney Mtg.
1
2 All rights and remedies of the City of Southlake are expressly saved as to any and all
3 violations of the provisions of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, or any other ordinances affecting
4 zoning which have accrued at the time of the effective date of this ordinance; and, as to such accrued
5 violations and all pending litigation, both civil and criminal, whether pending in court or not, under
6 such ordinances, same shall not be affected by this ordinance but may be prosecuted until final
7 disposition by the courts.
8
9 SECTION 7:
10
11 The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby authorized to publish this ordinance
12 in book or pamphlet form for general distribution among the public, and the operative provisions of
13 this ordinance as so published shall be admissible in evidence in all courts without further proof than
'14 the production thereof.
15
16
17 SECTION 8.
18
19 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
22 ordinance provides for the imposition of any penalty, fine or forfeiture for any violation of any of
23 its provisions, then the City Secretary shall additionally publish this ordinance or its caption and
24 penalty in the official City newspaper one time within ten days after passage of this ordinance. as
25 required by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake.
26
27 SECTION 9.
28
29 This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as
30 required by law, and it is so ordained.
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
al
PAGE 7 L: ICITYDOCSIORDIDR AF71ZONJNGI- 180-CCJ.RED
lIF -�a
February 6, 1998
Post - attorney Mtg.
1 PASSED AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING ON THIS DAY OF
2 , 1998.
3
4
5
6 MAYOR
7
8
9 ATTEST:
10
11
12
13 CITY SECRETARY
14
15
16 PASSED AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING ON THIS DAY OF
17 , 1998.
18
19
MAYOR
22
23
24 ATTEST:
25
26
27
28 CITY SECRETARY
29
30
31 EFFECTIVE:
32
33 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
34
35
36
37 CITY ATTORNEY
L: \CITYDOCS \ORD \DRAFT\ZONING \480- CCLRED PAGE 8
_o r, n y T O O t
5 w . y r
Ci O J y J y r VI > cc
:6,O `= c ° = o ) p'_ E r 0 i
Q1 y r ^n as O G" o � .-- `� 0- y
L. -O O z i_ O ' O
w f{3 ! >, - � •.+ p U , I; o zw ; w= z y y- nn 4,
o
N L C NO
_ y = _ .= O O 'O O O ci
� y q , ' � ¢ 3 � E > z a • < UZ vD
C3 y 0
i ..: : o
:+.t rw . .� ^ cC O
, y C U j • v O ir,
::::i : a?i: i i:f:Ei %ii =
: :: `ii ` ij .% :;iii:: :i — O U .. O .0 _ .in. ^ �• > Q p E U
::: >`<: ">s:: > :: >:: Q 3 a. Q U w
G O 2 p =..d
v — ry y LL
- cC ._ t Y y .9 p t
U ti y rn y U U U
U J . .'1 .a 71 6.1 CI t > ... J U y
k, > './ y L cc y r_ :n
y _ —
= y y c p
} _ . - — cA = m y a � , 7-. n ,- - - - y :- = ,
O = 3 _, p y V = "0 L o E x w y J
O rn y O
cri ij c _0 O ct .D O r j
c. L y y -. o — - '' = v c° n
: • o Q o E
,fm >; o y u o_ 0 0
y O ca a. Q v _ . ,a = .
' .
L r r O _ U
Q Z-' c C L,, O :- y ' �
+.� C. - U O — E - 0 • - .-, - p p c� O Y ,_
0o 2 L oN .> y Ew — n � c
'n C _
— = M � co O ...- 7 � U o c' - •
O y 3 74 °— E. r
r
>' ` Z
o x ct
3 ? w
w X
p c:
Y r y x, o 7 '— N C
U �.. = > — �
. fl C '
O O B O �'S)'
vi 4-,
O (--1 .;
- 37-, , r n - 4] u N
u
--.3 •
= C —
�� .-= u -• ▪ ° ° C
'° $P ,t) ti) y °—' — O
'' — = U c a�
� = — t a) .°
' N ,p L ... y O G 3
i O L I) L. 7 0 N
v r U X - U `� >` c°C U
cl C
— -a ° 0° Z n < C - C1 o
^� = i, r O N ' O = vi , E
C t s Q Rs C e 5.1 C b cn N •; a) C° C
cY L �' '° _ = a. 3 . o
p .0 y
i s ' :i .. r ii . ::: „: Y T N R U C
, v, v, 'p O L _
47 0 r±:;: C y 0 C : C O v I) 'b
^ V ' Q ct a. yr O A C °C
1Q 4] _
::v1:
Q ^ H o• —• in C w Z 3 0.. -0 C/) O t ci)
— w a) T C
p on :� [ an o o> o nn 0 -o .5 o a, C 0 7, R on
= a — •
— c o _ ° cc
'r ° a) p cil O t y a) L cs
v-— ° i o o a a a °° 3 U
Q r
U =
, • v ca — >, c r+.. O X C n i � - ^ �i O _ 0 , 0 0 V .
. ..r T .. % T O a) r, y .= C a) m a- C C
3 N 7, "
,'tl: C U
• a. C 2 C C F a) ti 'p U U
cG = .y O -p . O 0 C N O _. 4. rn >, 2 c i . .. R z. y
O J a. ?: , a) — • O •- C T a) '° cC ° ° 4.-. w .�
B o '- a. c''' v c am i. ° _. m S -; 3 = ° D °
T — v O 6) O
U C a o _ t) i
H _ N �. _0 t -. Ur«. vD— o c. v. Cc — c- - - Q o cn o
Q
c
4. tP '.
�: V W
L4
Z
q - w =
Q
x E-
W
F
11C,
.. . U ;- - o O '--.0
—
_ _
•. .. .. O t g y Y ..
p a L i r. U f ^�
c -
c s v) - cn . S4
E = N o c
ci c a - _ Y • / •
o = (-1 o- _
'.. ` a? o -° °° - o • �. .. .. 2 U •�"
cd �.. °� ca . U y
<y� : `� _ E b a ° ti 13 E c 9 c
L
o o o ai a
= 74 �+ •
• • o L �'
;:�y Ilk ,.; , ■ Z ° cd t v]
fi t ` ; .:. _
:::::::U. i' O c .0 . O a)
iii Sa:: i:::::::::::)..4::::::::::::::::-.....:::::.:::::-. 0) U — c 'O
. Z -• r ti °T y o
>e,:::: ::> ..tit::: >::: o T a t
:
.<:,..,1,4.....,:: .' 4 1.) o a Y o
:R; t. U p 0 Y O E a.
w L
a''i`s`:: ..:::::::::....N.::::::::::::::::::::: .' C) .L. , 4 - _ , O = CG
::..4.4 • U T U n rn ^ c . -" ) i O O CrS
Q O a) .:.. 0 0 > = > 0
C 1.),,-11.),., . O O c -O cc 'E - 'w •o
.
U O L O i. - U X U
.� a Q L U c c Z c c a Z a I U v> ccS
.Q ^ . n i E a ci (2 s u ..] a) iv E N cs •B `, p >` O U
U
4) .0 .- = "v E eA U U Q a. a Q c .n " C'' ti n
4
n L c E U C7 r- CO ` n o ,n ° A- °c
< N a) U > a) Q O vU^, 't1 0 a,. -O - 2 ^ Z U 1 ti) ^� Q 0 r 2= I y 0. O V N • O c2371.)=.",.,,,,,,..,-
0 .c
r
o Z M y �_
—Z-
:. . -
71- 00 U U p N T U c cu U C ccl E n a U o
N > U - U N
C `A
Q V .. U.5 E cC -o O '-•� a pp U cz$ U O C. U O O vi s i.
" C v) a) R Z o T D o >> v c = n U -o ti
y a i U .fl - ..7' U _ 0 0 . 0 y a p i °) _ y Q
U O
V 0 CC i S L a. L c i cC L Z
, ..,
. —• r : - a. Q N cn n a. ... M cG ~c in .—
is
Q
Q
�° : z 5 to
z
F ti W
U ° at
:: Qom. a
° W
? y
0
p Z 0
1I -IS'►
y v L N L -7
'',71.. cl — ^ -
cn ^ 0^ • 3 c u ti L -t
a) = c c o E b x a�
= e o - o c C l) 1 L cu
c v
E . _. ,– co O y L o • - f)
�:: -c, T C V C C/1 r/D U U N
^ E • ) L .. O n. 6." J • a) - 0
a .. � : O f � G 3 � VI O. P ti _ ` _
y :' :. 3 > A "7 -�' E + y . ' r te /I cs
... 1.: _ E L Vl = S . . to U C L L 0 •O y J
: N L .° a) •}.. -0 VI 0 O Vl >. ti.
:Q? >> O .- -0 Ll. C L O. L y ,:
: ^ - > co E c 'O E v J
.y N y
y1 rl. w 0 7 O U ,� R 4 L 'L7"�
L a b c E o y i a) V .0 c ; "-
� , — ti O L et U y ZS 4 . Z .. ; O
C�k a) O n 0 n O •B >, a) = a) >, cA ^ a) 7 a) -0 v _
: .Zi O e 0 - i L a) �. �- C = . - U "A
y .on . - o _ c Y a� Y > as E o ' E' E .^ , c = 5
C.Y Z N U Y U , a) U U - O c = N w ai 3
l`j. ` ' .:<.:. L J '.. d ?) L ' B Y t Y `,, to O a) 'di a. :..o n to , v
:: :< : :1Y ::;>s::* V •,-� y N VI L w Eb VI .= Lj. 0 L Lei �.. a) '�' •
tf- , a) -= w E fl y c >, a ) c a) _ a - i) 0 _ .... Q U a) cC rj CCi .- .::::::::::i4...-::::::: �- R cC • O L O a) E v] v) C 'O Y = y a) -. O T "O > ,_
, : ........ v, 2 n o o ,° c� ° ❑ a) R > _ - ^
. _: �: : ::.: 4 : E O E co O 'b G2 = c A CS L t'.' C 'O o'''' ' _ U .' c
.. :::::::::14.1,;•::::::.::::,47::::: " 9:: ; N U ' O � ' Z 4 : c . cC o O O -0 a) mo w. a) 0 • . - 0 U '••' 0 Y O ' O .�
.C::: c c ° 3 L o v, L 7,3 a _ a o. -O = 'O = •
.. 0 3 Zs > .� o
;.^ .:.... > L c !n "b %, , H p y r U b . ° w V a.. cC :J U d) y y N
Q ;� v, 7 v, , i - , i s... ca .� 7 • U Q ,.. cc, C a 'CSi to F, E so • v, L ,. , Y L = w.
»:a1.i:: : ::x. ::::::::::::. > > << o c v, -c ••3' o 2 E 7 a -,- :- _ U O ° R E E �° 5 2 y
' :' ''�►: y- r_ ._ ca E O L L . 3 v, Y 'B E E 5 O ',7, s O 5 ^ �L. 5 b -
>A1::w 0 a v E n �
•
. v, ° n E 3 5 a a) v v w '�
: � : : 0 V, V] L L 'b � L Vl U w
V
Q 1
';:t3 ...: :.::.: . :; -
L
Q
Q N v)
L
U z z
y
CA
L
L
L F H L 0.
w a) G
� ? z
o� w E
c�_ w • -
T. CG p a a
iV y O L
0 U E a
►] v
I(E-10
.c
_
7 - cj V U .T. L LO T
L- V
a c c ..)
y
J O O i Y v C w > • C U, O 2 w . c c m v T?,
' t c -c.- a nE c c Ti
: cs v • .� Y a y o au •
.to to
cs _ c R u ° v O c
4i y c c c° y v v° i U n z .
u N o o c E ti
3 L - o ca O • a, .a s
4 o O 5^ c U tii p Q o ��' . y .2,6) v n
b y '5
ccs >e
�.' Q v • U v C T w
c y t �. =n c ,-'L) w c ° Eh' = a. cu Q s it v �„
y • � % U'� ^ 4
, � ! � o' U V1 y a v •> c v c 'a.
q ♦ � }�
V , ^ L a U c = • O • . on U^ = .A L., 'y to
fit'.:;: C v C t• • O v y O c C
C . :... O E .9 ,� w C y ,- C
C C 2 7 O C CA
— 0 -0 C
',7- a. v
• o 0 o v
a. N
t
L. 6 C T
• a)
• vw vyi-0
a. v - o v U
Ct _ c
Q = T C
_ M
y 4: 'J C
O O
U
4t o U v s sr U
G y c _. 3 w
r . L - Ca c
I C:' 0
a) • c3 V Ca Czt
_ cn a. v1 N
z ¢ m -a
�y z
La
2
: Ca T
co
U ' y ° w
: :. to L
':ii d ' ' i
O
Z - Z
U
O
.ate 2c
1F-1-7
1 y y ro j v c L C
• L O ' •_ '
,.
• • . 0 ,..c;
• O O U N '7 a. F. J
. � .. G = . D 2.2 ..0
V - ' � • - C G
Q .. _ c� R n •g ^• T • Ct . 1 :
, f3 : O y C p cu
E? - '2' _ 0) 0 ) 0 ` T „
T L U 8 U _L N rn •
ti T 6) - G) = L
: 43 : ca
A.: O a1 • " Q) U y Q'
:::!.y:: ° L
:rat:: ; Z;:; ::: : >: Vp 'v
:
� V T
�. .fit O N
y L
'Sl, E.1 U 4a. 0)
i::i = ...:::::::: '..i. : i:i::i:;;:3; i y N C <
L
::?:.Q? :•-•:::::::•:-.A.6::::::::::::::::::::: of r. 'O
iii :: ''jj v Q
.+ 4. C .Y
. c bA_c O
0 y OL v�N
'L" '7.; 0.. v •
�-
:: t,-,• Y . cc 0 — •
l 0 L C 0 �.
cr — C a.+ 6) C
. v O L O
v, O
a
0
' c c mt C 'I.-:, • 0.) cn
T, Z. a) U a1
L
' 1) 'O = G .O T b 'O
U d o o '_'N U -0 Q
c z wCw�;>.w.1Z
d C wdvAdo - Ow
L1 = dwd ��-
`�.. n, dO�.ac
: UXUV CZpO
e d w w w. Z U Q cn
F.' r F>ZQZ vD
::5 7 E w`
U UC �.aw
O
zd� a3Q
V0 wW�w =
°'
Z< � a�QZW c:
x
U O C 7, Z.
' :''::::: :: Q --.
04 r Z U ' d' Z
Ua - C.) C) Z Wd,
Z ��GOwOFF��
ndUcT.• .aCnvA,C
( 1 F-18
DRAFT 9b
October 10, 1995
1 ORDINANCE NO. 480 -Q
3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 480, AS
4 AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE
5 OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, CREATING
6 NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION SPECIAL
7 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL
8 DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS;
9 PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE
10 CUMULATIVE OF ALL ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A
11 SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY
12 FOR VIOLATIONS HEREOF; PROVIDING A SAVINGS
13 CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN PAMPHLET
14 FORM; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL
15 NEWSPAPER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
16
17 WHEREAS, the City of Southlake, Texas, is a home rule city acting under its charter
18 adopted by the electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter
1° 9 of the Local Government Code; and
2 WHEREAS, the City of Southlake has heretofore adopted Ordinance No. 480, as amended,
22 as the zoning ordinance of the city; and
2-
_J
24 WHEREAS, the City of Southlake has historically developed as a residential community
25 which is particularly suited for the development of a quality residential lifestyle which is separated
26 from non - residential developments which might adversely impact said residential neighborhoods;
27 and
28
29 WHEREAS, several existing and planned residential neighborhoods are located adjacent to
30 properties which are developing or will be developed for business and commercial use; and
31
32 WHEREAS, the city council of the City of Southlake recognizes the vital importance of
33 residential neighborhoods and the need to preserve and protect residential neighborhoods from the
34 adverse effects of adjoining non - single family residential uses; and
35
36 WHEREAS, the city council desires to protect and enhance the attractiveness of the city to
37 visitors; to promote and stimulate the economy; to ensure the harmonious, orderly and efficient
38 growth and development of the city; to preserve property and property values; and to maintain a
39 generally harmonious outward appearance of both single family residential and non - single family
40 residential structures which are compatible and complementary; and
L: I C/TYDOCSIORD IDRA F71 NEIGHBOR I DFT9B. CLN
DRAFT 9b
October 10, 1995
1 WHEREAS, the city council desires to adopt this ordinance for the purpose of preserving
2 and protecting the quality of residential life of existing and future residential neighborhoods by
3 adopting reasonable regulations that will promote non - residential development that is compatible
4 and complementary with adjoining single family residential properties.
5
6 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
7 OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS:
8
9 SECTION 1.
10
11 Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by adding new sections 8.6, 16.6, 17.6,
12 18.6, 19.4, 20.6, 21.6, 22.6, 23.6, 24.6, 25.6, 26.6, 27.6, 28.6, 29.6, 30.6, 31.4 and 32.4 each
13 respectively to read as follows, and by renumbering the remaining sections accordingly:
14
15 "ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR PROPERTIES LYING
16 WITHIN FOUR HUNDRED FEET (400') OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
17 PROPERTY" - In addition to the development regulations applicable to this district,
18 the development regulations established in Section 37 of this ordinance, shall also
1° apply.
2 I SECTION 2.
77
23 Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by adding new Section 37, to read as
24 follows:
25
26 SECTION 37
27 NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
28
29 37.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT - In order to preserve and protect significant
30 architectural and cultural attributes of the City of Southlake, the City has
31 determined that it is necessary and appropriate to adopt specialized
32 regulations to prevent any detrimental impact from the location of non - single
33 family residential uses in proximity to single family residential uses.
34
35 It is the intent of this Section that the development standards set forth herein
36 shall supersede any other provision established by this ordinance or other
37 ordinances, except that when conflicting requirements are found, the more
38 stringent requirements shall apply. However, the following exception shall
39 apply: Corridor Overlay Zone requirements found in Section 43 shall take
40 precedence if there are conflicting standards in this section.
PAGE 2 L: ICITYDOCSIORDIDRAFTLVEIGHBORIDFT9B .CL.V
DRAFT 9b
October 10, 1995
1 37.2 DEFINITIONS - The following definitions shall be applicable to this section.
3 Architectural Attributes: Means those physical features of buildings and
4 structures that are generally identified and described as being important
5 products of human thought and action characteristic of a population or
6 community.
7
8 Cultural Attributes. Means all of those physical features of an area that,
9 either independently or by virtue of their interrelationship, are generally
10 identified and described as being important products of human thought and
11 action characteristic of a population or community. Accordingly, the term
12 "cultural attributes" necessarily includes "architectural attributes" as that term
13 is defined in this section. The term "cultural attributes" does not refer to the
14 characteristics or beliefs of people who may reside in or frequent a particular
15 area.
16
17 Single Family Residential Property: Means any lot or tract of land upon
18 which a single family residential home exists or any lot or tract of land with
1° single family residential zoning or any lot or tract of land designated as low
or medium density residential on the Land Use Plan.
21
22 Under Construction: Means that a valid building permit has been issued by
23 the City for construction of a single family residential dwelling.
24
25 Visible: Means that the object(s) being screened can be seen from any
26 elevation equal to the grade which is defined as the lowest point of elevation
27 of the finished surface of the ground, paving or sidewalk when measured on
28 a line five feet (5') from the building.
29
30 37.3 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: In addition to the development
31 regulations applicable to the underlying district, the following additional
32 development regulations shall apply to all developing properties lying within
33 four hundred feet (400') of single family residential property measured from
34 the property line of the non - single family residential use, hereinafter known
35 as the "control distance."
36
37 1. Exterior Finish: All structures shall have an exterior finish of brick or
38 natural stone covering a minimum of eighty percent (80 %) of the area
39 of each facade, excluding doors and windows.
4()
2. Maximum Height: All structures shall not exceed the maximum height
permitted in the "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District.
PAGE 3 L: ICITYDOCSIORDIDRAFTINEIGHBORIDFT9B .CL.V
1(P21
DRAFT 9b
October 10, 1995
1
2 3. Exterior Lighting: The exterior lighting shall operate in such a manner
3 as to ensure that lighting patterns are directed onto the non - single family
4 residential property and do not directly project onto adjacent single
5 family residential property.
6
7 4. Trash Receptacles: No trash receptacles shall be allowed within fifty
8 feet (50') of single family residential property. Masonry screening
9 walls shall be constructed around all trash receptacles. Screening walls
10 shall be four -sided with an opaque gate and shall be a minimum height
11 of eight feet (8').
12
13 5. Performance Standards:
14
15 a. Waste Collection and Disposal: Developments shall ensure that the
16 disposal of and collection of solid waste, trash and other refuse into
17 trash receptacles or dumpsters does not occur between the hours of
18 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
1
b. Deliveries: Developments shall ensure that deliveries made by
2 vehicles exceeding 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (G.V.W.)
22 shall not be received nor dispatched between the hours of 10:00
23 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
24
25 6. Roof Requirements: The roof systems of all structures shall be of the
26 same type (e.g., gable, hip, shed) and the same pitch (e.g., 6:12, 8:12,
27 10:12), and clad of the same materials that are found on the majority of
28 single family residential properties lying within the control distance.
29 In the event that such a roof system would cause the height of the
30 structure to exceed the maximum height as permitted, a mansard roof
31 system may be utilized provided that the mansard roof is enclosed on all
32 sides and that the pitch, height and cladding of the mansard roof is
33 compatible with the roof systems on the majority of single family
34 residential properties within the control distance. On single -story
35 structures, the highest point of the mansard roof (using the measurement
36 method established by the currently adopted Uniform Building Code)
37 shall meet the height of the majority of single -story single family
38 dwellings within the control distance. On multiple story structures, the
39 highest point of the mansard roof (using the measurement method
40 established by the currently adopted Uniform Building Code) shall meet
the height of the majority of multiple story single family dwellings
within the control distance.
PAGE 4 L: ICITYDOCSIORDIDR .IF7INEIGHBORIDFT9B.CL.V
l P ZZ'
DRAFT 9b
October 10, 1995
1 a. Insufficient Comparisons Available: In the event that single family
2 residential property within the control distance contains fewer than
3 three (3) residences existing or under construction or in the event
4 that there is no majority of style of single family residential
5 property within the control distance, the roof systems of all
6 structures subject to this regulation shall be gable or hip with 6:12
7 minimum pitch and clad with composition shingles, slate or a man-
8 made slate -like product. In. the event that such a roof system
9 would cause the height of the structure to exceed the maximum
10 height as permitted, a mansard roof system (enclosed on all sides)
11 may be utilized provided that the mansard roof has a pitch between
12 6:12 and 10:12, a minimum height of twenty -five feet (25') and is
13 clad with composition shingles, slate or a man -made slate -like
14 product.
15
16 7. Location: If the structure to be regulated is located on the same street
17 as single family residential property and if single family residential
18 property is within the control distance, the following shall be required:
a. Front and Side Yards: The regulated structure shall have front and
2 i side yards equivalent to the front and side yards required for the
22 single family residential property, but not less than the front and
23 side yards as required by the underlying zoning district of the
24 regulated structure.
25
26 b. Parking Limitations: If the regulated structure is oriented the same
27 as the single family residential property, no vehicular parking shall
28 be permitted in the area which comprises the front yard of the non -
29 single family residential structure.
30
31 c. Display of Merchandise: If the regulated structure is oriented the
32 same as the single family residential property, the regulated
33 structure shall not display sales merchandise in windows visible
34 from single family residential properties.
35
36 d. Window and Door Requirements: All structures shall have
37 window (e.g., single -hung, double -hung, casement, awning...) and
38 door (e.g., flush, paneled, french...) structures similar to those that
39 are found on the majority of single family residential property lying
40 within the control distance.
PAGE 5 L: ICITYDOCSIORDDR4FTI VEIGHBORIDFT9B.CL.V
I F:23
DRAFT 9b
October 10, 1995
1 1. Insufficient Comparisons Available: In the event that single
2 family residential property within the control distance
3 contains fewer than three (3) residences existing or under
4 construction or in the event that there is no majority of style of
5 single family property within the control distance, window
6 structures shall be single -hung, double -hung, casement or
7 awning, and door structures shall be flush, paneled or french.
8
9 8. Mechanical Equipment Screening: All buildings must be designed such
10 that no roof - mounted mechanical equipment (HVAC, etc.) or satellite
11 dishes in excess of eighteen inches (18 ") in height shall be visible (as
12 defined herein). Ground- mounted mechanical equipment and satellite
13 dishes in excess of eighteen inches (18 ") in height shall be screened by
14 a wooden or masonry fence or by landscaping material to a height one
15 foot higher than the object being screened.
16
17 37.4 VARIANCES AND APPEALS: At the time of review of any required
18 Concept Plan or Site Plan, the City Council may grant variances to the
10 development regulations set forth in this Section.
2 i 1. To receive a variance, the applicant must demonstrate the following:
23 (a) A variance will reduce the impact of the project on surrounding
24 residential properties;
25
26 (b) Compliance with this ordinance would impair the architectural
27 design or creativity of the project;
28
29 (c) A variance is necessary to assure compatibility with surrounding
30 developed properties; or
31
32 (d) The proposed construction is an addition to an existing project that
33 does not meet the requirements of this ordinance.
34
35 2. The City Council may grant a variance by an affirmative vote of a
36 majority of the City Council members present and voting on the matter.
37 In order to grant a variance, the City Council must determine that a
38 literal enforcement of the regulations will create an unnecessary
39 hardship or a practical difficulty for the applicant; that the situation
40 causing the unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty is unique to the
affected property; that the variance will not injure and will be wholly
compatible with the use and permitted development of adjacent
PAGE 6 L: IC/ TYDOCSIORD !DRAFTLVEIGHBORIDFT9B.CL.V
DRAFT 9b
October 10, 1995
1 properties; and that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with
2 the spirit and purpose of this ordinance.
3
4 3. If a variance application is denied by the City Council, no other variance
5 of like kind relating to the same project or proposed project shall be
6 considered or acted upon by the City Council for a period of six (6)
7 months subsequent to the denial.
8
9 SECTION 3.
10
11 This ordinance shall be cumulative of all provisions of ordinances of the City of Southlake,
12 Texas, except where the provisions of this ordinance are in direct conflict with the provisions of such
13 ordinances, in which event the conflicting provisions of such ordinances are hereby repealed.
14
15 SECTION 4.
16
17 It is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the phrases, clauses,
18 sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause,
1 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
22 the same would have been enacted by the City Council without the incorporation in this ordinance
23 of any such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section.
24
25 SECTION 5.
26
27 Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply
28 with or who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be fined not more
29 than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Each day that a violation if permitted to
30 exist shall constitute a separate offense.
31
32 SECTION 6.
34 All rights and remedies of the City of Southlake are expressly saved as to any and all
35 violations of the provisions of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, or any other ordinances affecting
36 zoning which have accrued at the time of the effective date of this ordinance; and, as to such accrued
37 violations and all pending litigation, both civil and criminal, whether pending in court or not, under
38 such ordinances, same shall not be affected by this ordinance but may be prosecuted until final
39 disposition by the courts.
40
PAGE 7 L: I CITYDOCSIORD !DRAFTWEIGHBORIDFT9B.CL V"
11F-2C
DRAFT 9b
October 10, 1995
1 SECTION 7.
3 The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby authorized to publish this ordinance
4 in book or pamphlet form for general distribution among the public, and the operative provisions of
5 this ordinance as so published shall be admissible in evidence in all courts without further proof than
6 the production thereof.
7
8 SECTION 8.
9
10 The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to publish the proposed
11 ordinance or its caption and penalty together with a notice setting out the time and place for a public
12 hearing thereon at least ten (10) days before the second reading of this ordinance, and if this
13 ordinance provides for the imposition of any penalty, fine or forfeiture for any violation of any of
14 its provisions, then the City Secretary shall additionally publish this ordinance or its caption and
15 penalty in the official City newspaper one time within ten days after passage of this ordinance, as
16 required by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake.
17
18 SECTION 9.
19
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as
required by law, and it is so ordained.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 PASSED AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING ON THIS DAY OF
29 , 1996.
30
31
32
33 MAYOR
34
35
36 ATTEST:
37
38
39
40 CITY SECRETARY
PAGE 8 L: ICI TYDOCSIORDIDR4FTWEIGHBORIDFT9B .CIA
tIR -20
DRAFT 9b
October 10, 1995
1 PASSED AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING ON THIS DAY OF
2 , 1996.
3
4
5
6 MAYOR
7
8
9 ATTEST:
10
11
12
13 CITY SECRETARY
14
15
16 EFFECTIVE:
17
18 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
1
2 t
22 CITY ATTORNEY
L:\ CITYDOCS \ORD \DRAFT\NEIGHBOR \DFT9B.CLN PAGE 9
IiC ��
RESPONSES
RECEIVED
ON
NEIGHBORHOOD
PRESERVATION
ORDINANCE
I t F.-ZS
MUNSCH HARDT KOPF HARR & DINAN, P.C.
4000 Fountain Place
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202 -2790
(214) 855 -7500
Fax (214) 855 -7584
Writer's Direct Dial No.
(214) 855 -7552
•
MEMORANDUM •
TO: City Council of Southlake, Texas
FROM: Richard W. Wilhelm
DATE: October 16, 1995
•
SUBJECT: Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance
I have had an opportunity to review the proposed Ordinance from the viewpoint of a citizen,
advisor to the economic development efforts in our City, and as an attorney representing
numerous types of clients (including retail users), though I represent no one on this matter. I find
generally that the Ordinance has very little to do with preserving a neighborhood (for it can be a
"neighborhood" of one house which brings the additional requirements on potential users) and a lot
to do with someone's efforts to make this City into a homogeneous array of buildings - lacking any
ability to be innovative, different, unique or cost conscious.
My thoughts are grouped into two areas; overall and specific.
A. Overal l
1. All vacant property along 1709 appears to be affected. Significant strips of
land along Carroll and along the northern and southem sides of the Mobil and Maguire
Thomas tract are now also limited in their construction. It does not make any sense to have
a home, presently in a commercial area, affect the construction now, when after it is gone,
this Ordinance will not be applicable. Similarly, I fail to see how a project which is across
the street and behind significant landscape buffers also adversely affects the "preservation"
of the neighborhood.
2. This Ordinance sets as the standard for architectural compatibility throughout
.this City,. that of the home builder. An individual planning the design of a home and an
individual planning the design of a retail or office facility have some, but not many of the
same goals. This Ordinance mandates a city of homogeneity. The interesting result occurs,
of course, when the area is across from a group of mobile homes (like at the corner of Carroll
11 F —zee
City Council of Southlake, Texas
October 16, 1995
Page 2
and 114).
3. This Ordinance does not consider that the needs of a retail establishment
differ from those of a homeowner.
4. This Ordinance will require national chains or local franchisees to modify
"their look" to suit our City's particular ideas. I seriously doubt that these proven
establishments will significantly modify their plans to meet your desires - therefore, we lose
the opportunity to enjoy them.
5. The Ordinance eliminates or significantly limits architectural concepts.
6. This Ordinance fails to address the issue of non - conformity. What happens
if a building, now non - conforming because of the passage of this Ordinance, but still
conforming to the base zoning, is destroyed? Will the City require reconstruction pursuant
to the new standards? What happens if sufficient funds are not available because of
increased costs in meeting the Ordinance requirements?
7. This Ordinance gives no effect to the mitigation of the impact by uses
intervening between the residential property and the back of the 400 foot long conformity
zone.
8. This Ordinance requires that a home across from a larger, developing center
disrupts the continuity of a planned and designed area.
9. It appears that this is another way of obtaining that which you elected to
waive in the Corridor Ordinance.
B. Specific
1. How was the 400 foot distance determined? Is it an arbitrary number or is it
based on a factual study?
2. What happens if the land use is currently residential, but it is not zoned to
allow such uses? What happens if it is not residential, but there is a change to residential -
would nearby buildings be required to meet the Ordinance while existing buildings don't?
3. Section 37.3(1) conflicts with the masonry ordinance which now affects these
commercial buildings. Why should this be required when no homes are required to be 80%
masonry and why does it limit the choices from those given in the masonry ordinance?
(1F-30
City Council of Southlake, Texas
October 16, 1995
Page 3
4. In Sec. 37.3(2) why have'a height limitation? This is already covered by the
zoning ordinance - which controls in the event of a conflict? Given an adequate buffer and
proper zoning why should these limits be imposed? For example, why should a building
across 1709 froma residential property be limited in height by this Ordinance? Why should
a property which is buffered by (a) additional uses backing up to existing homes, and (b)
separated from those homes by a city street, be limited in height by this Ordinance?
} fo
5. Why is the trash receptacle so far firm the property line? Most
establishments, for parking and ease of pick -up, prefer the receptacles to be in corner areas.
6. An 8' masonry screening wall is a structure which will have a significant cost
for engineering and materials.
7. What if trash is picked up in the residential areas prior to or after the times
dictated in the Ordinance? Does the City's contract with the trash hauler have similar
prohibitions?
8. The roof requirements in Sec. 37.3(6) are expensive, vague and do not
contemplate the needs of a retail user. Who measures the pitch of the homes in the control
area; who defines what materials aie to be used (asphalt, concrete, tile, fiberglass, wood);
how long will this process take; where will the retail use place its HVAC and other
equipment since it cannot place them on a slanted roof?
9. The parking limitations in Sec. 7(b) will eliminate most retail and consumer
oriented businesses.
10. The "no visibility of merchandise" requirement in Sec. 7(c) will eliminate
most retail businesses. Those who do build, will be constructing a safe haven for crime for
many studies have shown that the more open and viewable a business is, the lower the crime
rate is.
11. Do the window and door requirements meet the UBC requirements? I find
few retail establishments which are constructed in this manner.
12. The variance procedure is non - existent because of the requirement for
hardship or unique practical difficulty. The City should be able to waive these requirements
for any reason - this is not an issue coming before the ZBA. which is govemed by a set of
rules and laws. The City has the power, at the time of the hearing, to make any exceptions
it wishes to the Ordinance.
i t�-31
City Council of Southlake, Texas
October 16, 1995
Page 4
Thank you for your time in allowing me'to comment. Regrettably, I feel that the concerns
of some taxpayers are washing away the rights of other taxpayers (those who own the lands directly
affected by this Ordinance) and significantly and materially limit this City's ability to attract new,
non residential taxpayers. To make it less attractive and more expensive to do business in Southlake
will have a profound, negative effect in the City's fiscal future.
Perhaps you believe that the architectural monotony will bring pleasing esthetic effects; but
the growth will slow and the tax bills will rise and we will have little sales tax strength to look to.
Then, the same people who demand this "tasteful' Ordinance, will vilify you because of the tax
increases.
Perhaps you feel that today's problems are best dealt with now with little or no regard for the
future of our City. The running of the City must be a balance between many demanding forces;
unfortunately I believe that this Ordinance, as written, tips that balance and will have damaging
effects for years to come.
•
U:\USR\RWILHELM\ORDIN.MEM
1 nvw:js 10/16/95
U F-3Z
STRASBURGER & PRICE, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AUSTIN
A flRT•CR5■I. INCLIO ■a0EESVO•A1 COX.o.AnosS
Su1TE 2900
900 CONOPESS Av ENUE
USTIN. TEAS 79701•32ee
SUITE 4300 (5 3600
90) MAIN STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75202 M2 STON
(214) 651 -4300 Su1TE 2eoo
■22) Me6INNC• STREET
NOUSTON. TEXAS 77010
TELECOPPER (214) 651 -4330 (713;051•S40o
W. EDWARD WALTS II, P.C. MEXICO CITY
(214) 651 -4510
£07C0 T•►ACXARO
MONTE PEIVO4JX VOVR 50.111. 111. MSO S
LOMAS OE CNAP-ILTEPCC
11000 NEXICO 0 .0' ..f1EXIC0
October 17, 1995 0 es
Ms. Karen Gandy VIA COURIER
City of Southlake
667 N. Carroll Avenue
Southlake, Texas 76092
Re: Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance
Dear Karen:
I have reviewed the proposed Ordinance 480 -Q which is being considered by
the City Council this evening and I have a question about the proposed ordinance.
Section 37.3 speaks of the ordinance being applicable to "all developing
,roperties ". Maguire /Thomas Partners - Westlake /Southlake Partnership may have
some lots in the commercial development which might be 5, 10, 15, 20 acres or
more in size. Assuming that the 400 foot "control distance" affected only a
portion of one of these lots, for example, if there was a 10 acre lot and the 400
foot control distance affected 1/2 an acre of this lot, then would the entire
ordinance with all of its restrictions apply to the remaining 9 1/2 acres or
would "all developing properties" apply only to the 1/2 acre within the control
distance. Obviously, if the neighborhood preservation ordinance applied to the
other 9 1/2 acres in my hypothetical, then, irrespective of the fact that the
property might be zoned to permit six story office buildings, the City could
arguably limit the height of any building to two stories on the remaining 9 1/2
acres and could require that the office building be constructed to look like a
single family residence.
If, on the other hand, the limitations and height and architectural
appearance apply to the structures within the control distance and not to the
remainder of the lot, then this should not generally pose a problem. We hope
this point can be clarified tonight.
Very truly yours,
WEW:jkf
F. Maureen Duffy, Esq. VIA TELECOPY
Mr. Tom Allen VIA TELECOPY
Mr. Tony Canonaco VIA TELECOPY
33517.1/SP3/JKF/1852/101795 1 ( 3 3
• 10117/d5 lUE 15:52 FU 817 430 8750 NAGUIRE T110.+1AS PARTNERS l4)002
Na o v iJ1ii CSrcic
Euitz 5C0
tiz'ie'laka TX 76262
817 420 -0303
October 17, 1995 VIA FAX
43
• Mr. Greg Last
Community Development Director
cr) CITY OF SOUTHL KE
667 N. Carroll Ave.
Southlake, Texas 75029
Re: Draft No. 9 of Ordinance 480-Q
Dear Greg.
As we discussed earlier, Solana's owners are concerned with the possible
inconsistency between provisions of the Corridor Overlay District and the
provisions of proposed Ordinance 480-Q, the Neighborhood Preservation
Ordinance.
The 114 Corridor Overlay District provides for basic setback requirements,
including substantial setbacks from residential property, extensive
development regulations which require high quality design, architecture and
construction, and a shared community goal of high• quality commercial
development along Highway 114 as it passes through Southlake. We have
supported the Overlay District as it evolved from the initial consultant
study through Ordinance passage.
It is possible that the language contained in Section 37.1, which appears to
exclude the Corridor Overlay Zone from these regulations, should give us
comfort regarding our future office building plans. However, we wish to
express our concern.
Proposed Ordinance 480 -Q would require that buildings located within 400
feet of residential properties be designed and constructed much like single
family homes on large lots. These type buildings would be inconsistent with.
the Class A, larger floor- plate, multi -story corporate buildings which we
contemplate for Solana and which the Corridor Overlay Zone contemplates
for the Highway 114 Corridor.
I 1 X31(
10/17/95 TUE 15:53 FAX 817 430 8750 MAGUIRE TU0 AS PARTNERS VI 003
Mr. Greg Last
October 17, 1995
Page 2
The separation of these corporate -style buildings from the proposed Solana
residential property has been a critical planning issue. The Planned use of
natural barriers, constructed eareening and generous buffer areas create
proper separation of these important property types.
In a separate Letter, Ed Waits has voiced another concern, that being +,he
possibility that this proposed ordinance could be interpreted to affect any
commercial lot (vs. commercial building) within 400 feet of residentially
zoned land.
In summary, we are concerned that, as currently written, proposed
Ordinance 480-Q could be interpreted to disallow buildings which would be
otherwise developable under 0 - 2 zoning, and which are planned (and
critically important, for Solana and Southlake.
I hope you will share these concerns with both the city staff and city
counsel as the Ordinance comes forward for consideration. We would urge,
at the least, a re -write to specifically exclude the Highway 114 Overlay
District from the proposed ordinance.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Richard H. Kuhlman
RHKfth
cc: Tom Allen
Tony Canonaco
WILLIAM B. KEMP
400 SOUTHRIDGE LAKES PKWY.
SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS 76092
(817) 329 -6015
December 10, 1995
City Council ! r `
City of Southlake
667 North Carroll Avenue DEC : 1 . 41995
Southlake, Texas 76092 U
�� 1
Dear Councilmembers:
I understand that you will be considering the neighborhood preservation
ordinance at a meeting to be held on December 14. I am providing the
following comments for your consideration at that meeting and subsequent
meetings on this important issue.
A comprehensive neighborhood preservation ordinance is essential if we are
to maintain the semi -rural character of Southlake that a clear majority of
citizens desires. This ordinance must not be watered down so as to represent
a "compromise" with the developers. The interests of the residents of
Southlake must be the primary objective.
The October 10, 1995 draft (Draft) states in section 37.1 that the Corridor
Overlay Ordinance requirements take precedence over the neighborhood
preservation ordinance. My recollection is that the Corridor Ordinance was
drafted so that properties a substantial distance from the ROW would be
subject to it. See section 43.5. This precedence provision may create
situations that I do not believe are desirable. For example, the flat roofed
building on Westwood near FM 1709 would be acceptable under the Corridor
Ordinance but would not be acceptable under the Draft. This building is
essentially part of a residential neighborhood and should have been required
to have a sloped, residential type roof. Its location, however, may cause it to
be subject to the Corridor Ordinance and not the neighborhood preservation
ordinance. This precedence issue should be further considered and its
implications fully understood and intended.
The definition of "visible" in section 37.2 of the Draft should be modified to
be more comprehensible. Possibly an example would be useful. It seems to
lack a frame of reference.
Section 37.3.2 of the Draft provides that the height of a building is limited to 2
1/2 stories or 35 feet. However, in the Corridor Ordinance a limit of as low as
llF 3�
Page 1
one story or 20 feet is contained in section 43.11. The height limitations of the
Draft should be at least as strict as the Corridor Ordinance.
Section 37.3.3 of the Draft contains restrictions on lighting. More objective
standards are set forth in the Corridor Ordinance at section 43.12(a). If the
Corridor Ordinance provisions are considered to be more strict that those in
the Draft, then the Draft should be modified to incorporate the Corridor
Ordinance standards.
Section 37.3.4 does not address the issue of trash receptacles in front or side
yards. I suspect that all the deed restrictions in Southlake subdivisions
prohibit trash receptacles in front or side yards. Should not similar
provisions be included in the Draft, if the purpose is to conform development
to residential standards?
•
Section 37.3.7(b) and (c) contain the phrase "If the regulated structure is
oriented the same as the single family residential property." There is no need
to limit the requirements of those provisions to that limited situation. The
impact on the neighborhood would be the same regardless of the commercial
building's orientation. This phrase should be deleted from both sections.
'Section 37.4(1)(b) provides that a variance can be obtained if the applicant
believes the ordinance would impair the architectural design or creativity of
the project. I don't understand why this provision is included. The very
purpose of an ordinance of this nature is to impose certain architectural
design standards. A variance should not be granted just because a developer
wants to do something different.
The March 31, 1995 draft (Prior Draft) of the neighborhood preservation
ordinance provided in section 37.4(A) that buildings subject to the ordinance
shall be subject to the same lot coverage requirements. This provision has
been deleted from the draft. Our objective is to assure that development next
to neighborhoods is harmonious and complementary with the residential
properties. Lot coverage requirements are a key element in achieving this
objective. The lot coverage requirement should be the same as that permitted
in the "SF -1A" Single Family Residential District.
The Draft fails to address several issues that were addressed in the Corridor
Ordinance. The facade articulation requirements do not apply. The point of
facade articulation in the Corridor Ordinance was that Southlake residences
are characterized by extensive facade articulation. This neighborhood
characteristic clearly should be included in a neighborhood preservation
ordinance.
The Draft fails to include any landscaping standards. Southlake residential
properties are also characterized by extensive landscaping. A neighborhood
1 I F37
Page 7
preservation ordinance should incorporate such requirements just as the
Corridor Ordinance did in the context of commercial development on major
roadways.
The Draft does not contain any provisions regarding noise abatement. This
issue was addressed in the Corridor Ordinance. The provisions of the
Corridor Ordinance should be analyzed to determine is they would be strict
• enough in a neighborhood preservation context and appropriate language
should be induded in the Draft.
Thank you for your efforts in considering this important ordinance. The long •
term effects of this ordinance canncti,be overemphasized. Failure to address
this issue adequately could be an important factor in Southlake becoming like
north Dallas.
Sincerely yours,
a. -
William D. Kemp
cc: Greg Last .
•
•
J
Ir -3g
Page 3
December 11, 1995 /M A
�- � R O ill
Mr. Greg Last
Community Development Director
City of Southlake
667 N. Carroll Ave
Southlake, TX 76029
RE: Ordinance Nei borhood preservation Ordinance
Dear Greg:
After reviewing the information you sent me regarding the referenced ordinance, I can
appreciate the effort and time the city staff, the planning and zoning commissioners and
concerned citizens of Southlake have spent on this document. As a member of the
"Corridor Overlay Ordinance" Task Force, I understand the time and committment it takes
to see a document of this nature evolve and can truly appreciate the intentions behind this
ordinance. As Manager of Development for one of Mobil Iand's most successful
residential developments, I'm also concerned with "preserving and protecting" the image
and values of a community, yet allowing it to grow successfully and evolve with time.
Regarding the actual contents of the ordinance, I feel that in general, the document will
greatly limit architectural creativity. Furthermore, it discourages quality users with unique
architectural styles from entering the city. Other items of concern are as follows: q
1. Requiring Existing Residential architectural styles (some 20 -30 years old) to
control "non residential" development of the 1990's and 2000's is very restrictive
and controlling.
2. The Control Distance of 400 feet is arbitrary and unclear as to how it will
be
measured. Furthermore, this requirement should not apply within the SH 114
corridor, because the separation issue was dealt with in the "Corridor Overlay
Ordinance ".
3. The Exterior Finish requirement of 80% coverage of brick or stone is excessive.
The existing masonry ordinance sufficiently addresses this issue.
4. The Maximum Height requirements are covered under the existing zoning
ordinances. Again, depending on the proximity of the residential property
controlling the "non- residential" development, this requirement could be very
confusing and restrictive.
1,11 n
�li
-2-
5. 'The Fffterior Lighting should not project onto the adjoining property ", concerns
me. Again, it depends on how proposed improvements and existing structures
are oriented; will cause much confusion.
6. Waste Collection and Disposal will be dictated by the user with some attempt
by the City to control. In some cases, businesses are cleaned at night after
working hours. How will this be dealt with?
7. The Roof Requirements are vague and do not consider the needs of the retail
user. I am concerned that homes built twenty and thirty years ago could be
controlling modern architecture Don't hinder the architect's /developer ability
to be creative and innovative.
Finally, as Chairman of the Timarron Architectural Review Committee, I
sympathize with the staff member who has to determine roof pitch, materials
and, ultimately, monitor this requirement. Most assuredly, additional staff will
be required for this purpose.
8. Under the Location Section (7), the requirements, as I interpret them, will
discourage retail and could force the developer to "side" or "back" the proposed
structure to the residential road. Furthermore, setback lines for large one to
four acre residential lots may be excessive for a small (half acre) non - residential
site. (Need to think this through more, or maybe I just don't understand!)
In summary, the original intent of those who felt the need to "preserve and protect
residential neighborhoods from the adverse effects of adjoining non - single family
residential uses ", appear to be creating a document that is not only difficult to understand
for those of us that are involved in the community, but sends a very negative message out
to those looking to come in. I truly believe that if the City Council feels a need to
"preserve and protect" their constituents' invesr*.nents, then simple modifications and use
of existing ordinances will suffice. "In this case more isn't better."
Sincerely,
.breve /t
�. f) .Steve Yetts, P.E.
Director of Development
cc R.L.Croteau 1 (F �Q
A.C. Freeman
Southlake Chamber of Commerce
ta P.O. Box 92668, Southlake, Texas 76092 EN
T� Metro (817) 481 -8200
Fax (817 329 -7497
th I�Ke
SOUTHLAKE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City of Southlake has proposed legislation to preserve and protect existing and
planned residential neighborhoods within the City entitled "Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance
Draft No. 9b;" and
WHEREAS, the proposed legislation is deemed restrictive and threatening by certain commercial
development concerns and individuals, not the least is they believe that the future commercial
attractiveness of the City of Southlake will be significantly and adversely impacted; and
WHEREAS, sufficient legislative and governmental review processes currently exist in the form
of the Corridor Overlay Zone requirements, Planning and Zoning Commission reviews and City
Council readings; and
WHEREAS, interpretation by prospective businesses of the conflicting and redundant
requirements of the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance and corridor Overlay Zone will be
difficult, with subsequent delays in new project development while attempting to comply, as well as
burdensome administrative impacts for the City of Southlake and Planning and Zoning
representatives; and
WHEREAS, the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance does not appear to understand or
differentiate between commercial/retail business interests and needs and residential interests by, in
fact, insisting upon a residential appearance and architectural perspective for commercial
development;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Southlake Chamber of Commerce strongly
supports and endorses high - quality commercial development in the City of Southlake, but opposes
the adoption of the proposed legislation of the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance for, among
other things:
1. The threat to future commercial development and consequent unfavorable impact to the future
fiscal well -being of the City of Southlake; and
2. The adoption of further restrictive requirements when sufficient legislation and review
processes already exist within the City of Southlake and Planning and Zoning Commission to
address the concerns that the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance purports to further protect.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Southlake Chamber will not support or endorse
revisions or rewriting of the proposed ordinance, believing it to be unnecessary to govern or control
future commercial /retail development.
Sout lake Chamber f 9. ncrcc President Date
I1 -c((
�f iIUtiAX11 111
DATE: January 21, 1996
TO: City Council of Southlake, Texas
FROM: Southlake Venture (comprising approximately 130 acres
bounded by Hwy 114, FM 1709 and Carroll Ave.)
RE: Proposed Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance
We have reviewed the draft Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance (Proposed Ordinance No.
480-0) (the 'NPO ') and have great reservation over a number of issues that arise from its
current drafting. By way of background, we have studied the City's existing zoning code,
analyzed the Corridor Overlay Study, and read reports and surveys compiled to date by the
City's Office of Economic Development. We believe that the NPO represents a departure from
the City's carefully considered actions of the past and urge that it be reconsidered. The reasons
for our concern are set forth below.
Southlake is quite clearly a city in transition - from its rural, chiefly residential roots to a much
more complex community in which limited non - residential development has not only become a
stated goal but is fast becoming a tax revenue based necessity. As with many such
communities, the transition is a difficult one, as competing concerns must be dealt with and a
balance struck between the needs and desires of the residential community and the commercial
requirements of non - residential development projects. Certainly, the City of Southlake does not
want to be in the position of having made the same sort of short- sighted planning mistakes that
can now be seen to have detrimentally affected certain other cities like it. However, in order to
successfully promote itself and attract desirable commercial uses, the City of Southlake must be
able to provide a consistent and logically based response to interested commercial uses as and
when they may arise. The City has thus far been very proactive in its response to these issues,
as evidenced by development of the Economic Development Strategic Plan (prepared for the
City by PHH Fantus Consulting; November, 1995 revision) (the "EDSP "), as well as its extensive
research and subsequent adoption in August, 1995 of the Southlake Corridor Study.
On the surface, the majority of the stated goals of the NPO, namely to protect and enhance the
attractiveness of the city to visitors; to promote and stimulate the economy; to ensure the
harmonious, orderly and efficient growth and development of the city; to preserve property and
property values ", would all seem to he very consistent with the stated objectives in the EDSP,
which include "effectively addressing the City's future economic development prospects with
regard to maximum benefit for the community as a whole...[and capitalizing] on community
assets within the context of established and use patterns, and market forces, with which all
communities must contend." However, it is the interpretation of the NPO's last goal - `to
maintain a generally harmonious outward appearance of both single family residential and non -
single family residential structures" that, in our mind, has been taken to an extreme and which,
as a result, makes the NPO unworkable as proposed. Indeed, many of the specific provisions
therein will send a largely negative message to the marketplace which will have the effect of
discouraging, if not effectively driving away, a significant amount of desirable commercial
development that could have otherwise occurred in Southlake. As broadly discussed in the
EDSP, a City originated disincentive like this will, in all likelihood, produce long term adverse
economic consequences. The net result of an unbalanced "preservation and protection" of
residential uses to the near complete exclusion of commercial uses will ultimately result in the
deterioration of the City's financial balance sheet. The costs of water, sewer, roads and other
basic needs are not able to be totally underwritten by the existing underlying property tax base,
v ith the result then being that residential taxes will have to rise. It is unlikely that this is what
was originally intended under the NPO.
Finally, it should also be noted that by originally granting commercial zoning to certain properties
within the City limits, the City acknowledged the appropriateness and the desirability of
commercial development in identified locations within Southlake. Property has since been
bought and sold on the realistic expectation that certain development could therefore occur
under normally accepted concepts of zoning and land use. The City's planning guidelines were
then further extended by the adoption of a more detailed Corridor Study. To now consider an
even further residential overlay that would apply to a very large portion of all commercially zoned
property within the City effectively denies the market that reasonable expectation.
We believe that the City's existing zoning, in conjunction with the now adopted Corridor Study,
goes a long way towards specifically defining the City's land use intentions (and restrictions). As
such, these enforceable planning instruments sufficiently fulfill the requirement of establishing a
clear planning direction for the City. It is our opinion that the City should take heed of its own
zoning and land use efforts to date, as well as the recommendations as set out in the EDSP,
and seriously consider the lasting negative impact that the NPO would have before proceeding
further.
2
( (C -tl
Nine Village Circle
Suite 500
Westlake TX 76262
317 430 -0303
January 23, 1996
E
Ms. Karen Gandy
bb4 p Zoning Administrator
•� cit CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
E"" r Q-+ 667 N. Carroll
Southlake, Texas 76092
Re: Proposed Ordinance 480 -Q
Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance
Dear Ms. Gandy:
The City of Southlake has adopted zoning ordinances, development
standards, land use plans and special overlay districts to help property
developers and property owners understand the high- quality development
environment which the City envisions for itself. Before urban sprawl and
elbow -to -elbow development has occurred, Southlake has enacted
standards which would allow the City to grow with planning and quality as
guides and expectations. These development standards and controls are
extremely thorough. Virtually the only additional "features" under proposed
Ordinance 480 -Q have to do with type of windows and pitch of roofs, purely
residential aesthetics. All other relevant design and development standards
exist within the City's existing ordinances.
The proposed Ordinance 480 -Q may be, for a very small portion of the land
in Southlake, an appropriate piece of legislation. For those few areas where
it might apply, it would represent "protection" to owners of single - family
homes in subdivisions where the physical access to such subdivisions is
flanked by land zoned for commercial use. Only under the circumstances
listed would this proposed ordinance have possible merit.
. � . 4 1 _ _ ') •
RAN
Ms. Karen Gandy
January 23, 1996
Page Two
Other elements of the City's zoning laws appear to have been carefully
considered with extensive public debate and study. My advice is (i) to
determine where the "problem" which caused this ordinance to be drafted
does occur or could occur and (ii) to rationally solve that problem. I suggest
that the high quality standards of the existing City laws be allowed to stand
and operate as they were originally intended.
Si cerely,
C(Ad
Richard H. Kuhlman
RHK/th