Loading...
1995-08-01CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS 667 NORTH CARROLL AVENUE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 1, 1995 MINUTES COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENTS: Mayor Gary Fickes; Mayor Pro Tem Andy Wambsganss; Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Pamela Muller. Members: Sally Hall, Michael Richarme, Ron Maness, and W. Ralph Evans. STAFF PRESENT: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager; Shana Yelverton, Assistant City Manager; Kevin Hugman, Assistant to the City Manager; Greg Last, Director of Community Development; Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Works; Ron Harper, City Engineer; Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator; Analeslie Muncy, City Attorney; and, Sandra L. LeGrand, City Secretary. INVOCATION: Councilmember W. Ralph Evans. WORK SESSION: The work session was held where agenda items for tonight's meeting were discussed by Council and staff. The Regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Gary Fickes. Agenda Item #2-A. Executive Session Mayor Fickes advised the audience that Council would be going into executive session pursuant to Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, Sections 551.071,551.072, 551.074, 551.076 of the Open Meetings Act, to seek the advice of the City Attorney with respect to pending and contemplated litigations, to discuss the purchase, exchange, lease or sale of real property and to consider the appointment and evaluation of public officials, and regarding the deployment of specific occasions for implementation of security personnel or devises. Council adjourned into executive session at 7:05 p.m. Council returned to open session at 8:05 p.m. A_~enda Item #2-B. Action Necessa~_/Executive Session Motion was made to authorize the City staff to hire a MYI appraiser for the water tower site in the southern portion of the city that has been discussed. Motion: Richarme Second: Wambsganss Ayes: Richarme, Wambsganss, Hall, Evans, Maness, Muller Nays: None Regular City Council Meeting Minutes August 1, 1995 Page 2 Abstention: Fickes Approved: 6-0-1 Agenda Item #3. Approval of the Minutes of the July 18. 1995 City_ Council Meeting (Continued on July 25. 19951 Motion was made to approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting held on July 18, 1995 and continued July 25, 1995. Motion: Muller Second: Richarme Ayes: Muller, Richarme, Wambsganss, Hall, Maness, Fickes Nays: None Abstention: Evans Approved: 6-0-1 Agenda Item #4-A. Mayor's Report Mayor Fickes announced that Fiscal Year 1995-96 Annual Budget Work Sessions will be held on August 8, August 16, and August 17, 1995 at City Hall. The public is invited to attend. Mayor Fickes announced the City Manager filed the proposed budget with the City Secretary on August 1, 1995, as provided for in the City Charter. Agenda Item #4-B. City Manager's Re_nort No comments were made during this item. Agenda Item #4-C. SPIN Report No comments were made during this item. Agenda Item #5. Consent Agenda Mayor Fickes announced the Consent Agenda would consist of the following items: 5-A. Interlocal Agreement with Westlake for sewer services. 5-B. Interlocal Agreement with Town of Trophy Club for the road extension onto T.W. King. Motion was made to approve the Consent Agenda consisting of items #5-A, and #5-B. Motion: Richarme Second: Muller Regular City Council Meeting Minutes August 1, 1995 page three ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CONSENT ITEMS The Interlocal Agreement with Westlake for sewer services, provides for participation by the Town of Westlake in the use of, the N-1 sewer line and in the cost of the construction, operation and maintenance of the N-1 sewer line. The drainage basin for the N-1 Sewer line is mostly in Southlake (49.5%) and Westlake (45.8%), with a small portion in Keller (4.7%). With this agreement, the portion of the Town of Westlake, not in the MUD, will receive sewer services and pay pro rata share of the cost thereof. This is the line which will be constructed by the developer of the Coventry subdivision. With this agreement, the Town of Westlake will assist in obtaining the necessary easements in Westlake. The Interlocal Agreement with Town of Trophy Club for Road extension onto T.W. King provides that Trophy Club will be allowed to connect Trophy Wood Drive to T.W. King, and Trophy Club shall: meet Southlake's standards at the intersection; provide proper signage at the intersection, and any future signal installation at the intersection; provide a turn lane on and overlay T.W. King between Trophy Wood and Kirkwood; participate in any needed signalization at Kirkwood and S.H. 114. Agenda Item #6. Public Forum No comments were made during the public forum. Aeenda Item #10-A. ReQuest for Readerboard Sion for Carroll Baotist Church Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Works, led the discussion regarding the request for a readerboard sign for Carroll Baptist Church, noting this is a conditional permit, according to the current sign ordinance. The permit is to construct a monument sign with two lines of changeable copy. Eli Melton, 1680 Brumlow Avenue, Southlake. Mr. Melton was present to represent the Carroll Baptist Church. Motion was made to approve the request for a readerboard sign for Carroll Baptist Church. Motion: Richarme Second: Wambsganss Ayes: Richarme, Wambsganss, Hall, Evans, Maness, Muller, Fickes Regular City Council Meeting Minutes August 1, 1995 Page 4 Motion was made to approve the request for a readerboard sign for Carroll Baptist Chumh. Motion: Richarme Second: Wambsganss Ayes: Richarme, Wambsganss, Hall, Evans, Maness, Muller, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 7-0 vote Agenda Item #7-A. Ordinance No. 480-S. 2nd Reading. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance No. 480 Providing for Special Development Re~mdations within a Corridor Overlay Zone along S.H.114. F.M.1709 and F.M. 1938. Greg Last, Director of Community Development, presented draft No. 7 of Ordinance No. 480-S (Corridor Overlay Zone) as approved by Council on the first reading. The recommendations of the ftrst reading have been incorporated into this draft. Mr. Last also attached a graphic depiction of the various articulation alternatives that have been discussed. Last noted he has added an Exhibit 43-D to the ordinance showing some possible building/parking area configurations with his understanding of how the parking percentages would be evaluated based on the proposed language. Public Hearing: Bill Kemp, 400 SouthRidge Lake, Southlake. Mr. Kemp referenced his letter to Council dated July 30, 1995, making several points, including: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Horizonal Articulation: 3 to 1 articulation is an acceptable compromise, 4-1 is not acceptable. Location of Parking: avoid the "sea of cars" look. Bufferyards: 25' on S.H.114 and 20' on F.M. 1709. 30' bufferyards on both roadways. Landscaping: landscaping of the new Wal-Mart complies. He proposes the landscaping be spaced. Containment of Pad Sites: Limit the number of pad sites at intersections. A copy of the letter from Mr. Kemp is included with the minutes of this meeting. Rick Wilhelm, 1330 Woodbrook Avenue, Cross Timber Hills, Southlake. Mr. Wilhelm commented he currently serves on the Economic Development Committee, Joint Utilization Board and is a taxpayer in Southiake. Wilhelm stated the City Council sets the goals and they continue to go higher and higher. This is a swinging door and it may hit you if not careful!! He stated he doesn't mind tough and fair retail, but from an Economic Development standpoint, the Economic Development climate is important to the City. Southlake is a fair city and you get a fair hearing. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes August 1, 1995 Page 5 Joint Utilization and Economic Development both depend on sales tax and our sales tax is going down. Having retail businesses in Southlake and decreasing taxes is appealing to him. He noted what happens tonight will have a far reaching impact. Juergen Stnmck, 200 North Carroll Avenue, Southlake. Mr. Stmnck stated he has great difficulty in understanding the purpose of the study; why the corridor would be defined as an area basically 100' both sides of F.M. 1709 and Davis Blvd. It strikes him that any resident living 800' or 900' or 1,000' away from the corridors should be treated with the same respect as those who live 100' or 200' away from the corridors. Anyone living near corridors should be given consideration. He stated he feels anyone living in the City of Southlake who is going to be surrounded or adjacent to a Corridor, should be given the same kind of treatment as those living near the corridors. Stmnck stated he is not talking about his property or of a personal interest -- his property is protected. David McMahan, 1335 Hidden Glen, Southlake. Mr. McMahan stated he has three areas to address: 1) he encourages the City Council to adopt the option of landscaping in front as opposed to quadrant landscaping; 2) articulation: he is trying to come up with a definition as it has lost its meaning. Taking into consideration landscaping requirements, materials, etc., it could cost up to 30% more, including construction, interest, etc. He asked Council to keep in mind the small tenants-- go back to the Planning and Zoning recommendation; 3) pad sites: a major problem. No one wants individual lots up and down F.M. 1709. Them are many land pieces who could lose if we don't keep this in mind. Again, he expressed concern for the small land owner. Charles Fechtel, 66121 Stickter, Dallas. Mr. Fechtel stated he lives in Dallas, however, he is part owner of 1216 Southlake Blvd., the Fechtel Farm. As a landowner, they would like to see the best thing for Southlake. The City of Southlake is on a good course. He feels we are "tweeking" a plan. Mr. Fechtel suggested Council look at the plan we have and not change it too much. If the Plan is too tight, then the long term landowners will miss out. Mr. Fechtel said to City Council, "Don't overly restrict!" Public Hearing closed. Mayor Fickes commented we have an ordinance, approved at the last meeting as a First Reading. We have the makings of a good ordinance that will provide a building environment that would put Southlake at a higher level. It needs to work. That was the goal that began sixteen months ago. Councilmember Richarme stated we have something the City Attorneys' have given us. Can we all agree that we should include Alternate #1, which refers to variance procedures from the corridor overlay zone; and to incorporate the corrections as presented by Director of Community Development, Greg Last. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes August 1, 1995 Page 6 Councilmember Muller stated quality builds quality-- setting nigh standards brings high standards. She has only the best interest of the City at heart. Council reviewed the ordinance, discussing set backs, bufferyards, parking lot requirements, articulation and pad sites. Mayor Fickes asked the City Attorney if there is a time frame when the City can change zoning if something isn't done on the property and there is no obvious action on the property. City Attorney, Analeslie Muncy, commented when someone comes in for zoning and is pursing the development of that property, that is considered an ongoing zoning. When someone comes in for zoning and we never see them again for several years, that is not an ongoing zoning. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480-S, 2nd reading, amendments to the Zoning Ordinance No. 480, draft #7, dated 6-28-95, with four changes to that draft: 1) we incorporate the variance alternate #1 as provided this evening by the City Attorney; 2) incorporate the Director of Community Development's administrative changes as provided this evening, dated 8- 1-95, numbers 1 & 2; 3) that we change the articulation to 3-1 on all sides, eliminating the reference to 2-1 relative to residential property; 4) increase the parking lot impact from 10-15-20 square feet to 13-18-23 square feet. Motion: Richarme Second: Evans Councilmember Muller commented that she has been looking over the corridor overlay zone. The Village Center concept has been talked about for as long as she has lived here. This has been the area considered to be the center of town. She would like to propose this area be divided into Village Center West (Kimball to Carroll Avenue) and East (from Kimball to SH 114). Village Center West has larger parcels of land and we may want a higher criteria on these tracts. (the motion stands as made) Mayor Fickes read the caption of the ordinance. Ayes: Richarme, Wambsganss, Evans, Maness, Fickes Nays: Muller, Hall Approved: 5-2 vote Council adjourned for recess at 10:30 p.m. Council returned to open session at 10:45 Councilmember Wambsganss left the meeting as he was ill. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes August 1, 1995 Page 7 Agenda Item #7-B. Corridor Study for S.H. 114. F.M.1709 and F.M. 1938. Urban Desion Guidelines and Land Use Recommendations. Greg Last, Director of Community Development, presented Draft #4, Urban Design Guidelines and Land Use Recommendations, dated June 23, 1995, noting no changes have been made to the draft since Council last reviewed them. The Study addresses many of the City projects having to do with the signage, signals at intersections, abutments at bridges, and a lot of the landscape treatments to entry portals. A copy of the proposed Guidelines and Land Use Recommendations is included in the minutes of this meeting. Motion was made to approve the Urban Design Guidelines and Land Use Recommendations, Draft #4, dated June 23, 1995, and to incorporate the discussion of the East Village Center and West Village Center. Motion: Richarme Second: Hall Ayes: Richarme, Hall, Evans, Maness, Muller, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 6-0 vote Agenda Item #8-A. Ordinance No. 480-178. 1st reading ZA 95-69 Ordinance No. 480-178, 1st reading (ZA 95-69), Zoning for 5.035 acres situated in the Francis Throop Survey, Abstract No. 1511, Tracts 5D1A and 3A. Current zoning is "AG" Agricultural, with a requested zoning of "SF-1A" Single-Family Residential District. Owner: Carl R. Unmh; Applicant: PIMA Properties, Inc. SPIN Neighborhood #4. Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator, commented that fourteen (14) notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area and three written responses have been received from within the 200' notification area, including: Elizabeth Higgin, 1496 Dover Road, in favor; W.P. Hogue, 1507 East Dove Road, in favor; Crawford C. Hall, 1497 E. Dove Road, in favor. Ms. Gandy commented that no plat has been submitted for this property, therefore, staff does not know if the property will be subdivided prior to development. David McMahan, 1335 Hidden Glen, Southlake. Mr. McMahan addressed drainage and the low area and the process that will have to be addressed prior to building a residence. He noted the one (1) bedroom home is still located on the property. It was noted the property can be tied into existing sewer as the lift station is located across the street. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480-178, 1st reading. Motion: Richarme Second: Evans Regular City Council Meeting Minutes August 1, 1995 Page 8 Mayor Fickes read the caption to the ordinance. Ayes: Richarme, Evans, Hall, Maness, Muller, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 6-0 vote Agenda Item #8-B. Ordinance No. 646. 1st Reading. Amending Ordinance No. 515 an Ordinance Establishing the Park and Recreation Board. Including_ Park Rules and Creation of a Junior Park and Recreation Board. Shana Yelverton, Assistant City Manager, presented Ordinance No. 646, stating over the past year, the Park and Recreation Board as been reviewing and considering changes to Ordinance No. 515, which establishes parks niles and the Park Board. The Park and Recreation Board also considered a recommendation from the Southlake Youth Advisory Commission to establish a Junior Park Board. Councilmember Richarme asked Ms. Yelverton if there had been discussions with the School Board relative to the changes, specifically with the incorporation of school properties into park designation. Ms. Yelverton commented this is a recommendation of the Joint Utilization Committee. Councilmember Richarme stated he feels it appropriate that this agreement be approved by the School Board prior to action by the City Council. Curtis Hawk stated he feels the School Board is aware of why we entered into the joint use agreement. We have a list of properties that have been enumerated and that the School Board has agreed to this. A discussion was also held regarding the meeting dates for the Park Board. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 646, 1st reading. Motion: Maness Second: Evans Mayor Fickes read the caption of the ordinance changing the word "junior" to the word "youth." Ayes: Maness, Evans, Hall, Muller, Richarme, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 6-0 vote Agenda Item #10-B. Developer Agreement to Park Place Addition Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Works, presented the Developer Agreement for Park Place Regular City Council Meeting Minutes August 1, 1995 Page 9 Addition, noting the usual requirements for performance and payment bonds, cash escrow, and letters of credit are included. Most of this agreement is in standard form, however, there are several items that are noteworthy. The following items with the Agreement require Council attention: Page 9, paragraph B. OaI~zSII[DRAII~O~: states that Developer will pay the shared expense of two culverts located in West Continental, which is $7,670.90. The cost calculation for these structures is attached. Page 9, paragraph D. PARK FEES: Developer agrees to pay park fees in the amount of $19,500 (39 lots at $500 each). Page 10, paragraph D. STREET ACCESS FEES: Developer has requested that in lieu of paying the Perimeter Street Fees, the individual home builders will be required to pay the Street Impact Fees that will be implemented. The Developer further states that the builders will be required to pay the fee at the time of building permit application, thereby, waiving the normal one-year grace period. Mayor Fickes asked if we need anything added to our Developer Agreement relating to subcontractor giving lien-releases to the contractor prior to payment. City Attorney, Analeslie Muncy, stated if we eliminate cash or letters of credit and require Payment Bonds, it would protect the city. Councilmember Hall asked for the good-neighbor policy to be used in providing for erosion control and drainage down stream. Bobby Harrell stated he has planned all along to provide for erosion control down stream. Motion was made to approve the Developer Agreement for Park Place Addition with two modifications: the addition of a requirement for the contractor-subcontractor lien in conjunction with the lien-release; and, modification to include a major sub and supplier list for any sub or supplier doing more than $1,000 business with this developer in this addition. Motion: Richarme Second: Hall Ayes: Richarme, Hall, Evans, Muller, Maness, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 6-0 vote Regular City Council Meeting Minutes August 1, 1995 Page 10 Agenda Item g9-A. Resolution No. 95-26. Appointment of a Vice-Chair of Board of Adjustments Motion was made to approve Resolution No. 95-26, naming Art Sorenson be appointed as Vice- Chair of the Board of Adjustments. Motion: Muller Second: Hall Mayor Fickes expressed concerns with Mr. Sorenson serving as Vice-Chair of this board, not because of performance on the board, but for other recent issues. Ayes: Muller, Maness, Hall Nays: Richarme, Evans, Fickes Motion failed: 3-3 vote Motion was made to approve Gary Fawks as Vice-Chairman of the Board of Adjustments. Motion: Maness Second: Richarme Ayes: Maness, Evans, Richarme, Fickes Nays: Hall Abstention: Muller Approved: 4-1-1 vote Agenda Item gg-B. Resolution No. 95-29. Appointment of a Member to the Economic Development Advisory Committee The City Manager, Curtis Hawk, explained the committee and suggested the committee consist of five (5) members. Councilmember Richarme explained what the Board does, stating the Board is a sounding board for Economic Development. Councilmember Hall stated she would like to see something come forward from Economic Development as it has cost the City alot funds over the past years. Motion was made to approve Resolution No. 95-29, naming Richard Kuhlman as a member of the Economic Development Advisory Committee. Motion: Richarme Second: Maness Ayes: Richarme, Maness, Muller, Hall, Evans, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 6-0 vote Regular City Council Meeting Minutes August 1, 1995 Page 11 Mayor Fickes asked that the record reflect that Richard Kuhlman does not reside in the City of Southlake. Agenda Item//12. Ad_iournment. The meeting was adjourned by Mayor Gary Fickes at 12:25 a.m. ATTEST: City of Southlake, Texas CITY COUNCIL MEETING SIGN UP IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK DURING THE MEETING DATE: NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE AGENDA ITEM '%1 >p 00 -f k V, dl -e L-0 4f .e > C U 1- r i 4 ;1 D ?kat- W tlkw 1330 INoca to vQck— r J t 20o1 ( 4 \ 1 2 1 2 0 4 l![6 c l ■Rve. PtkRN f 3 3 r /7 • deie4 0/ea et TEL No. Aug 1,95 16:22 No.015 P.02 VARIANCE PROCEDURES FOR CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE (ORDINANCE NO. 480-S) ALTERNATE 1. - Add a new Section 43.9b to read as follows and reletter existing Paragraph b. to c. h. Variances - At the time of review of any required Concept Plan or Site Plan, the city council may grant variances to the development regulations set forth in this Section. 1. To receive a variance, the applicant must demonstrate the following: (a) A variance will reduce the impact of the project on surrounding residential properties; (b) Compliance with this ordinance would impair the architectural design or creativity of the project; (c) A variance is necessary to assure compatibility with surrounding developed properties; or (d) The proposed construction is an addition to an existing project that does not meet the requirements of this ordinance. 2. The city council may grant a variance by an affirmative vote of a majority of the city council members present and voting on the matter. In order to grant a variance, the city council must determine that a literal enforcement of the regulations will create an unnecessary hardship or a practical difficulty for the applicant; that the situation causing the unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty is unique to the affected property and is not self imposed; that the variance will not injure and will be wholly compatible with the use and permitted development of adjacent properties; and that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of this ordinance. 3. If a variance application is denied by the city council, no other variance of like kind relating to the same project or proposed project shall be considered or acted upon by the city council for a period of six (6) months subsequent to the denial. \ Gies \.ta \ardinsne \vaeianoetns City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM August 1, 1995 TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager FROM: Greg Last, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Administrative omissions in the preparation of Draft No. 7 Dated 6/28/95 I noticed that I made two errors in the preparation of draft number 7. These are administrative and do not have an impact on the draft but I felt I should make you aware of them. 1. Exhibit 43 -C "Required Bufferyards" previously showed both the existing and the proposed bufferyards. I told the secretary to delete the proposed bufferyards rather than the existing so the table in draft 7 is incorrect. I have attached the correct version. No material changes have been made since the previous approvals. 2. I failed to modify draft 7 to include the "additional revision" as approved by Council on the first reading with regard to the wording of section 43.9.a concerning the requirements for Concept Plan and Site Plan review by Council. No changes have been made since the Council approval but we do need to include this in the motion for approval again. Sorry for the omissions. GL /gl enc. Exhibit 43 -C Required Bufferyards - (with corrected bufferyard designations) Memo dated 8/1/95 addressing revisions to Concept Plan and Site Plan requirements C: \W PF\ PROJECTS \CORRIDOR\MEMOS \CC2 -DR7. WPD EXHIBIT 43 -C REQUIRED BUFFERYARDS Zoning of S.H. 114 F.M. 1709 F.M. 1938 Developing Tract & E. R.O.W. Carroll between 1709 & 114 * AG * * RE G L Q SF -1A G L Q SF -1B G L Q SF -30 G L Q SF -20A G L Q SF -20B G L Q MH H N S MF -1 H N S MF -2 H N S CS J 0 R 0 -1 I M R 0 -2 I M R C -1 J 0 S C -2 J 0 S C -3 J 0 S C-4 J 0 S B -1 J 0 S B -2 J 0 S I -1 K P T I -2 K P T HC J 0 R * No bufferyard required G: \ORD \CORRIDOR \480.5 \DR7 6- 28.WPD 16 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM August 1, 1995 TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager FROM: Greg Last, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Additional Potential Revision to Ordinance 480 -S, Corridor Overlay Zone In reviewing the Corridor Ordinance over the weekend, I noticed another area in which we need to change the proposed wording. The concern is the processing of the Concept Plan or Site Plan. The way it is worded now would require an Ordinance, a public hearing at P /Z, and two readings at Council, the second being a public hearing. It is also not as clear as I would like that the P/Z and Council will look at all Concept Plans and Site Plans in the Corridor Overlay Zone. I would propose the following changes in the wording to more clearly explain the requirements. (Shown in redline /strikeout format) 43.9 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS - Except as follows, any development regulations set forth in the underlying zoning district shall be applicable. Zoning Ordinance No. 480 as amcndcd. All properties zoncd at the - - - ' • . : - : , - 1 • • ". . .' - - :6 - • - . • . ' :: : • - : •: - • •. • •'. r.. • :- : . -- ..: - . - r: : . • • Plan. The Conccpt Plan and Sitc Plan shall be proccsscd in accordance 1. Effect of Conccpt Plan: All subsequent site plans shall substantially • • is - . - , • - ; -, • ' -- , . - - .. • • • . - -- . - : • C:\WPRPROJECTS\CORRIDOR\MEMOSTC4-DR6. C ity of Southlake, Texas • • thc Corridor Ovcrlay Zenc Th Sitc Plan shal be p rc parcd and • as amcndcd. a Concep P lan an d Site Plan=Required - A n y app lican t for . zoni ng wi thin the Corr Ov erlay :Z a ne _must sub concurrent with their z oni n g applica a Concep whic meats the e f �S' 1io o r a. Site Pl an. ; whi ch m eets he requir en f Section 40 f th y Ordinanc 480 as p d All o es o n ed at t he effecti� ;dam li perk p , of th�s�ordinan w hich d of have a-- unc appr C o n cept PIan or S ite Plan on file with 'Alicia ha y ubini 4 �ce t o Pl r c Plan m eet i ng the abo irequ trements p no t he su bu it 1. o f; a u d per it request A,,Site'' P lan o }t be a ro b " c-0"#,-;•1).,,- il ri to ; ce of } Pp - .� `� a building permit :All ; Con cept Pla "and - v. h ear i n g ent for zoning chsnges a s °s` fo rth F.in ; Section 46 o Or din a iace � 4S a, as am ende d. ' The wording for this section is ve technica and h a s ma pr oc edu ral connota T redline version is my understanding of t intent of the Pla nning and Zo Commi just w more c an alt hough longer, i more clear p rocedu ra ll y. Please contact me if y ou have any questi G.. GL /gl cc: E. A Taylor, City A ttorney Wayne K. Olson, City Attorney C: \W P F\ PROJECTS \CO \MEM \CC4 -DR6. WILLIAM B. KEMP 400 SOUTHRIDGE LAKES PKWY. 1 SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS 76092 AN 0_1 (817) 329 -6015 l'L July 30, 1995 Councilmember Pamela Muller City Council City of Southlake 667 North Carroll Avenue Southlake, Texas 76092 Dear Ms. Muller: In connection with the corridor study, you have raised the issue of the dispersion of landscaping throughout parking lots. You commented that the parking lot of the new Walmart contains the expanse of parking that we are trying to avoid. You also have suggested that landscaping should be required near a commercial building. You have requested that I investigate alternatives that would enable Southlake to avoid this result in the future. You have advised me that the Walmart parking lot is in conformance with the present landscaping ordinance. The relevant part of the ordinance provides as follows: Each row of parking stalls shall provide the required landscape area, however, it shall be the applicant's right to place the islands near the buildings, throughout the parking, or at the end of the rows away from the building. Walmart apparently complied with the requirement by placing all the landscaping at the end of the rows away from the building. Given the concern of developers to maximize parking near the doors of a retail store, I would assume that most developers would adopt the same approach. I have heard Greg Last comment i31 several meetings that one of the objectives of our ordinance is to permit the creation of large landscaped areas which can be reasonably maintained rather than Page 1 require numerous small areas where the trees, etc. would not have a high survival rate. I agree that this is a desirable objective. I believe the existing ordinance (and the corridor ordinance) can be modified to achieve not only this objective but also the objective of forcing landscaping to be located toward the retail store. I have reviewed the landscaping ordinances that Greg Last provided to you. None of these ordinances contains language similar to the Southlake provision quoted above. Most of the ordinances contain specific provisions aimed at accomplishing the dispersion of landscaping. Three basic approaches are used: (1) Require that every parking space be no further than a certain distance from a landscaping island or tree; (2) require that a landscaping island be placed within every certain number of parking spaces; or (3) require that all landscaping be evenly distributed throughout the parking lot. Attached are the relevant provisions from various ordinances. After consulting with Mr. Scott Martin., who is an architect and who has designed retail sites, I suggest that a new section 43.9(b)(3)(g) be added to the draft ordinance (Draft #6) in order to address the issue of the expanse of parking: (g) Interior Parking: Planter islands shall be a minimum of 16 feet wide and 18 feet deep. Each parking island shall contain at least one Canopy Tree centered within the parking island. One island shall be located at the terminus of each individual row of parking. Planter islands shall be interspersed within each individual row of parking so that no parking space shall be located further than 55 feet from the trunk of a Canopy Tree. Planting islands shall be evenly distributed throughout the interior parking lot as determined by the Landscape Administrator. Landscaping in planter islands shall not count towards the total required interior landscape area. This draft provision assumes that each parking space is 18 feet deep. The collection of ordinances was not helpful with respect to the issue of landscaping near buildings. The present Southlake ordinance, however, provides a roadmap for dealing with this issue. The Southlake ordinance addresses the issue of the amount of planting between the building and the bufferyard. In order to address the Page 2 issue of landscaping near commerical buildings, I suggest that a new section 43.9(b)(3)(h) be added: (h) Location requirements: A minimum of 10% of all required plant material within the interior landscape areas shall be in the front of the building between the building and a distance of 10 feet from the building. This provision parallels the language of section 3.3(c) of the Landscape Ordinance. The selection of 10% is somewhat arbitrary and may not be the most appropriate number. It goes without saying that we need Greg Last to review these proposals and help us with them. I offer them only as the opinion of a concerned citizen who is not trained in urban design. I would be pleased to meet with you and Mr. Last to discuss these proposals. Perhaps we should review the landscape ordinance at some time in the future. It may be that the present city council would question some of its provisions. Sincerely yours, William B. Kemp Page 3 MAXIMUM DISTANCE FROM LANDSCAPING Addison. No required parking space may be located further than 50 feet from the trunk of a shade tree, or farther than 75 feet from two or more shade trees. Garland One (1) large tree or three (3) small /ornamental trees shall be provided for each ten (10) parking spaces and shall be located in such a manner that no parking space is further than one hundred (100) feet from a required tree. Fort Worth Such planting bed and tree must be located such that no parking space is greater than 70 feet radially from a tree. LANDSCAPING PER PARKING SPACES Grapevine Interior areas of parking lots shall contain planting islands located so as to best relieve the expanse of paving. Planter islands must be located no further apart than every twelve (12) parking spaces and at the terminus of all rows of parking. Such islands shall contain at least one (1) tree. . . . Interior planter islands shall have a minimum size of nine (9) by eighteen (18) feet. Keller Interior areas of parking lots shall contain planting islands located so as to best relieve the expanse of paving. Planter islands must be located no further apart than every twelve (12) parking spaces and at the terminus of all rows of parking. Such islands shall contain at least one (1) tree. . . . Interior planter islands shall have a minimum size of ten (10) by twenty (20) feet being at least the length of the parking space. Plano There shall be eight (8) square feet of interior landscaping for each parking space (189 square feet) or fraction thereof. There shall be one(1) shade tree for every fifteen (15) parking spaces or fraction thereof. Page 4 Arlington Required landscape islands shall not be separated by more than twenty (20) parking spaces. Colleyville Parking lots shall contain a minimum of one hundred forty (140) square feet of landscaped island per each eighteen (18) contiguous parking spaces required. This landscape island is to include one (1) three (3) inch caliper tree. EVEN DISTRIBUTION Euless All required islands, peninsulas and medians shall be more or less evenly distributed throughout such parking areas, respectively; Denton The required landscaped areas for parking lots shall be more or less evenly distributed throughout the parking lot, although adjustments may be approved by the department . . . College Station Landscaping must be reasonably dispersed throughout the development. COMBINATION McKinney In cases where large numbers of parking spaces exist, no more than 10 consecutive spaces shall be located without providing a landscape area a minimum of 100 square feet (see illustration) containing at least one large tree. Landscaping required by this section shall be distributed throughout the parking lot. Page 5 , POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS TO ORD. NO. 480 -S W. B. Kemp, 7 -30 -95 ts) HORIZONTAL ARTICULATION �O Amend section 43.9(b)(1)(c)(i) by deleting the language in Draft #6 and substituting instead the following: Horizontal Articulation: No building facade shall extend greater than three times the wall's height without having a minimum offset of 15% of the wall's height, and such offset shall continue for a minimum distance equal to at least 25% of the maximum length of either adjacet plane. LOCATION OF PARKING Amend section 43.9(b)(2) by adding to the language in Draft #6 a new subsection (c) and renumbering the remaining sections. The new subsection (c) shall read as follows: Location of Parking: With respect to properties adjacent to SH 114 or FM 1709, a maximum of 25% of the required parking shall be allowed between the front facade line of the primary buildings and the bufferyard. BUFFERYARD ON FM 1709 Amend section 43.9(b)(3)(b) by modifying Table Two to change each number in the column entitled "Width" to 30' with respect to Bufferyards G through P. CONTAINMENT OF PAD SITES Amend section 43.9(b) by adding to the language in Draft #6 a new section 43(b)(4) as follows: All properties in C -2, C -3 and C -4 districts adjacent to FM 1709 or SH 114 must have direct access to both FM 1709 and an arterial or to both the SH 114 service road and an arterial, and that arterial must continue across FM 1709 or the SH 114 service road, as the case may be. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS VIS -A -VIS PUBLIC PARKS Amend sections 43.9(b)(1)(a), (b), and (c) by adding to each of these subsections the phrase "or zoned CS" after the phrase "Land Use Plan." UNIFORM DISPERSION OF LANDSCAPING Amend section 43.9(b)(3) by adding to the language in Draft #6 a new section 43.9(b)(3)(g) as follows: Interior Parking: Planter islands shall be a minimum of 16 feet wide and 18 feet deep. Each parking island shall contain at least one Canopy Tree centered within the parking island. One island shall be located at the terminus of each individual row of parking. Planter islands shall be interspersed within each individual row of parking so that no parking space shall be located further than 55 feet from the trunk of a Canopy Tree. Planting islands shall be evenly distributed throughout the interior parking lot as determined by the Landscape Administrator. Landscaping in planter islands shall not count towards the total required interior landscape area. Amend section 43.9(b)(3) by adding to the language in Draft #6 a new section 43.9(b) (3) (h) as follows: Location requirements: A minimum of 10% of all required plant material within the interior landscape areas shall be in the front of the building between the building and a distance of 10 feet from the building.