The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-10-03 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS ?"-' 667 NORTH CARROLL AVENUE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 3, 1995 IVIINUTES COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Gary Fickes; Mayor Pro Tem Andy Wambsganss. Members: Sally Hall, W. Ralph Evans, Ron Maness, and Michael Richarme. COUNCIL MEMBER ABSENT: Pamela Muller CITY STAFF PRESENT: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager; Assistant City Manager, Shana Yelverton; Director of Finance, LouAnn Heath; Director of Public Works, Bob Whitehead; Director of Community Development, Greg Last; Zoning Administrator, Karen Gandy; Assistant to the City Manager, Kevin Hugman; City Attorney, Wayne K. Olson; and, Sandra L. LeGrand, City Secretary. INVOCATION: Council member 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 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Fickes, who announced that during agenda item #8-A, Solana PUD request, the applicant, Tom Allen, has announced that they are amending their request for PUD by deleting Product C and D which is duplex and apartments. Agenda item #2-A. Executive Session Mayor Gary 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 litigation, and 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 for executive session at 7:05 p.m. Council returned to open session at 7:35 p.m. Agenda Item #2-B, Action Necessary/Executive Session Motion was made to authorize the City Manager to proceed with the condemnation of utility easement as discussed in executive session. Agenda Item #2-B. Continued Motion: Wambsganss Second: Richarme Ayes: Wambsganss, Hall, Evans, Maness, Richarme, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 6-0 vote Agenda Item #3, Minutes of the Regular City Council Meetim, September 19. 1995 Motion was made to approve the Minutes of the regular City Council meeting held on September 19 and continued on September 26, 1995. Motion: Richarme Second: Hall Ayes: Richarme, Hall, Evans, Maness, Wambsganss, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 6-0 vote Agenda Item #4-A. Mayor's Report Mayor Fickes informed the audience that a number of council members, Ralph Evans, Michael Richarme, Pamela Muller, Andy Wambsganss and others went to Austin and met the Texas Highway Commission last week. A presentation was made concerning improvements, primarily asking for an interchange at Kimball Avenue and SH 114. The purpose was to continue to go before the Commission, and hopefully, they will provide some funding for this project. Council has been going before the Commission since 1987. Agenda Item #4-B. City Mana~,er's Renort No report made at this time. Agenda Item #4-C. SPIN Renort No report made at this time. The consent agenda consisted of the following items: Regular City Council Meeting Minutes October 3, 1995 Page 3 Consent Agenda Continued #5-A. Resolution No. 95-27, Abandonment of an easement between Lots 39 and 40 SouthRidge Lakes. #5-B. Resolution No. 95-39, setting the Public Hearing date to discuss proposed Land Use Assumptions for Southlake Impact Fee Study. #5-C. Resolution No. 95-40, appointments to Southlake Youth Advisory Council (SYAC). Motion was made to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Motion: Wambsganss Second: Richarme Ayes: Wambsganss, Richarme, Maness, Hall, Evans, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 6-0 vote ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CONSENT ITEMS #5-A. Resolution No. 95-27, releasing an easement between Lot 39 and 40, Block 3, SouthRidge Lakes Phase III, Section One was approved. Mr. Richard Morgan, Lot 39 and Scan Brennan of Lot 40, have requested that the 15-foot easement between their properties be released by the City of Southlake. Standard operating procedure requires property owners to request in writing the release of an easement, pay a $150 fee to have the City release an easement and also obtain the services of a public surveyor to draw the easement description. #5-B. Resolution No. 95-39, setting the public heating date to discuss Land Use Assumptions for Southlake's Impact Fee Study. The City Council recently appointed a Capital Improvements Advisory Committee and has hired planning/engineering/financial consultants to complete a study to update water and wastewater impact fees and to adopt roadway impact fees. The first public heating date is scheduled for November 7, 1995. #5-C. Resolution No. 95-40, recommends the appointment of representatives to the Southlake Youth Advisory Commission. Criteria considered includes: past involvement in the program, attendance at meetings, input from the high school and middle school, and a written application. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes October 3, 1995 Page 4 A~,enda Item #6, Public Forum E.D. Rankin, 1304 Plantation, Southlake. Mr. Rankin referenced the petition he presented during the last meeting regarding the Solana request and tonight presented another forty-four (44) names for the same petition. Now, he is not worried about high density apartments, but is concerned with the request for high density housing. He expressed concern with the number of children that this high density housing will bring into the Carroll School District. Another reason to object, according to Rankin, is removing commercial property from the current tax roll. Council has an obligation to the residents. This request could be rejected for public safety reasons. Council member Hall responded to Mr. Rankin by naming the current residential PUD Developments, noting this density is the same as those. The IBM/MTP property was zoned in 1985. Hall commented on traditional zoning with residential zoning at 2.18 units per acre. Mr. Rankin asked Mrs. Hall to stay with her platform when she ran for a place on the City Council. Public Hearing Closed. Agenda Item #7-A, Ordinance No. 480-181, 2nd reading (ZA 95-79). Ordinance No. 480-181, 2nd reading, (ZA 95-79), Rezoning and Concept Plan for Greenlee Business Park, being 6.715 acres situated in the John A. Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 529, legally described as the northern portion of Lot 7R and all of Lot 8, Block 1, Greenlee Business Park, Phase I, and being revised to Lot 8R, Block 1, Greenlee Business Park, Phase I. Current zoning is "I-1" Light Industrial Zoning District. Requested zoning is "SF-20A" Single Family Residential District. Owners: David and Beverly Thorne and ELFM Corporation. Applicant: Terra Land Development Company. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes October 3, 1995 Page 5 Agenda Item #7-A. Continued Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy noted five (5) notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area and one (1) written response has been made, from South Kimball Avenue JV., c/o James F. Lunsford, in favor. Mrs. Gandy noted the applicant is purchasing all of Lot 8 and the northern portion of Lot 7R. They have submitted an amended plat for staff review, moving the common property line to the south to match the lot configuration shown on the concept plan. It is their intention to submit a plat revision of Greenlee Business Park and to incorporate the thirteen lots into the Cambridge Place Addition. Council member Hall commented that this is a piece of industrial land being changed to residential, with no impact on the school district. Is the audience telling Council to do it on one hand, and not to do it on the other hand? This is the general trend. Public Hearing: Doug Talbert, 110 Stonewood Court, Southlake. He does not have a question, but a comment, in that this is the first City Council meeting he has been to in Southlake, and stated, it is insulting to sit here and compare the two and say that changing the zoning from industrial to residential is the same as comparing commercial to residential. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480-181, 2nd reading, in lieu of the Concept Plan Review Summary dated 9-29-95, to include changing the set-back on g2 to 30 feet. Motion: Hall Second: Wambsganss Ayes: Hall, Wambsganss, Evans, Maness, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 5-0 vote Council member Richarme left the room and did not vote on this item. Agenda Item #8-A. Ordinance No. 480-179. 1st readine (ZA 95-73) Ordinance No. 480-179, 1st reading (ZA 95-73), Rezoning and Concept Plan for Solana (Residential), being 199.2 acres situated in the W. Medlin Survey, Abstract No. 1958, the IJ.P. Martin Survey, Abstract No. 1015, the James B. Martin Survey, Abstract No. 1134, being a Regular City Council Meeting Minutes October 3, 1995 Page 6 Agenda Item #8-A, Continued portion of Tract 1, and includes all of Lot 4, Block A, MTP/IBM Addition No. 1 as recorded in Volume 388-211, Page 68. P.R.T.C.T. and Cabinet G, Slide 208, P.R.D.C.T. Current zoning is "C-3" General Commercial District, "CS" Community Service District, and "P-U-D" Planned Unit Development District. Requested zoning is "R-P-U-D" Planned Unit Development. Owner: MTP-IBM Phase II & III Joint Venture. Applicant: Maguire Thomas Partners. The Zoning Administrator, Karen Gandy, stated twenty-four (24) notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area. Four (4) responses have been received from within the 200' notification area: W.P. Fletcher, 116 Sweet Street, in favor of single dwellings, but opposed to multiple dwellings; Bonnie B. Hays, 29325 N. White Chapel Blvd., okay if as proposed; J.W. Riemenschneider, P.O. Box 254, China Springs, Texas, opposed to Product C and D; Martin Schelling 601 N. Wall Street, Grapevine, in favor; Harold D. Kruckenberg, 1730 Hunter's Creek (outside the notification area), opposed. Seventy-two (72) written or phoned oppositions to multiple-family housing were received from persons outside the 200' notification area as of 9/27/95. Tom Allen, MTP, stated he wishes to amend the request continuing with Product Type A and B, omitting Product Type C & D. The Zoning Official was asked to define "mixed use." Mixed use is commercial and residential, but no industrial. Tonight Council will be considering Plan #4, and the Plan Review Summary dated September 29, 1995. Council member Hall stated the property was zoned in 1985, and mixed use has always permitted residential. Greg Last, Director of Community Development confirmed that mixed use has always permitted residential uses. Council member Hall stated the mixture of commercial with residential has never worked. Council has approved some of those in the past and they have come back to haunt them. She feels we should keep residential on the residential side of the divided boulevard and non-residential on the other side. Tom Allen, Maguire Thomas Partners, 9 Village Circle, Westlake. Mr. Allen confirmed that they wish to amend their request to delete Product Type C & D (apartments and duplexes). Mr. Allen stated they have been here for ten (10) years and don't plan to leave. The relationship between them and the City has been beneficial to both. To pursue this is not what they are all Regular City Council Meeting Minutes October 3, 1995 Page 7 Aeenda Item #8-A, Continued about. The right thing to do is drop the request for apartments and duplexes. Mr. Allen referenced all the meetings with SPIN groups. MTP/IBM brought the property into the City. They think there is an ability to bring high quality mixed use. This will allow people to walk to work or ride bikes to work. Their approach is a quality development. This land is not fully developed with infrastructure. They are very cognizant of the school issues. They have paid nineteen (19) million dollars to the CISD and with this development, it has a potential of bringing in another three million dollars per year. Councilmember Richarme asked, of the 199 acres of land, what percentage is open space? Greg Last answered, 21.1 acres or 11%. Mr. Allen stated they plan to leave the creek in its natural state. Councilmember Maness asked what is the average assessed value of a residential lot? Lots will sell from $65,000-$70,000 per lot with homes of from $350,000 to $375,000. Mr. Maness stated the City has been lucky with PUD Developments and with IBM they will be lucky again. At large, what does the community really get from this? Tom Allen replied the community does get top-of-the-line corporations. They put well-done mixed use projects in place. They provide amenities such as the health club. They want to offer the employees of these companies the right to live next door to where they work. Taxes will go up from the commercial for the city and school. They build streets; infrastructure. They have written checks to the State for 8 million dollars for SH 114. They feel they carry their own weight. Councilmember Maness stated we don't have schools today for this development, somewhere we need to stop. He noted he has no problem with the project. Councilmember Wambsganss stated the dollars this will provide is far greater than any other projects that have been done in Southlake. Councilmember Richarme stated the City has a 1.4 year inventory of lots on the ground at this time, this is low, Regular City Council Meeting Minutes October 3, 1995 Page 8 Agenda Item #8-A, Continued Tom Allen stated regarding their time frame, they plan to move forward quickly with Phase I. He noted they do not build an empty building. Until they have uses, they won't be building. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jackie Phillips, 1334 Woodbrook, Southlake. Ms. Phillips presented a petition with 162 signatures opposing the change of this property from commercial to residential. She had questions regarding density and zero lot lines. Ms. Phillips stated the citizens will take a major hit, m-wise in the schools. With 325 new kids added to the schools, we will have a short fall with educating kids until the commercial comes. She asked Council to not change the Master Plan. Council member Wambsganss commented that this project does match the Master Plan. Ed Rankin, 1304 Plantation, Southlake. Mr. Rankln stated the people in Los Colinas do not walk to work. He repeated he is not concerned with high density apartments at this time, but with high density housing, and is concerned with the number of children that this high density housing will bring into the school district. Jim Giffin, 3002 Briar Lane, Southlake. Mr. Giffin stated this issue is entirely about what type of product we, the citizens of Southlake, want in our city. He stated he views the job of the City Council as first and foremost to work for the voting residents of Southlake. Our school system is already being burdened with rampant growth in population without the commercial and industrial growth to provide offsetting tax revenue. We've grown approximately 20% each year for the last three years. Adding any type of high density housing only exacerbates an already difficult situation. He asked that Council just say no to any multi-family zoning in Southlake. We don't need it, and we don't want it. Dan Smith, 3459 Southlake Park Blvd., Southlake. Mr. Smith stated his house is 7/10 mile east of the property in question. His main concern is crowding of the school system. 254 houses in the development is 330 more kids. He expressed concerns with residential before the commercial. Toby Thomas, 4041 Hilltop, Southlake. Mr. Thomas stated he is opposed, not to Maguire Thomas, but to any high density in Southlake. He likes the rural setting and enjoys the horse Regular City Council Meeting Minutes October 3, 1995 Page 9 Aeenda Item #8-A. Continued farms around him. Dennis McGrath, 2403 North Carroll Avenue, Southlake. Mr. McGrath stated he commends Maguire Thomas for the number of hearings and public meetings they have had--other developers should take note!! He also commends Maguire Thomas for taking out the high density in Product Type C and D. He stated commercial at the southern end needs to be looked at. If commercial goes too deep, it allows for pockets, and someone will want to put in pockets of high density. For the north part of town, this will give a chance to support commercial. Martin Schelling, 2665 North White Chapel Blvd., Southlake. Mr. Schelling stated he lives directly across from the Maguire Thomas property. He is put out that people from the south are opposing this zoning change. He does not have a problem with commercial on the southern part of the plan. He gave building permit information for the past several years. He added, "you can ride a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink." Just because the City has 2,000 lots, does not mean we will have 2,000 homes. He supports housing backed up to North White Chapel Blvd. The best use for this property today is single family. They will put in infrastructure, build Kirkwood Blvd., and they will only get their share of permits. Judy McGregor, 2545 North White Chapel Blvd., Southlake. Ms. McGregor stated they were not opposed to multi-family zoning. The Thoroughfare Plan already planned for it. If they are allowed to put in residences, and they build Kirkwood Blvd., they will have the best of both worlds. No apartments, and we have IBM. Pat Maskzano, SouthRidge Lakes, Southlake. Mr. Maskzano stated he moved to Southlake for the quality of life for his family. He asked what is more important than education of the children. The schools are now over crowded, as are the parks. Councilmember Hall stated Council is under a lot of pressure in relationship to school growth. She appreciates those feelings, she feels them also. The interesting thing is that the State of Texas is ten years behind the way other states fund education. We are also impacted as new people come into Southlake and bring their children; they don't pay school taxes until the next year. Our School Board and City Council have gone down to Austin many times to discuss this. Impact fees for the first year will take care of the growth needs within this school district. Thirty other states have that fee but not Texas. What can City Regular City Council Meeting Minutes October 3, 1995 Page 10 Agenda Item #8-A. Continued Council do about that. We have done everything possible for a Council to do to educate a school district about the growth. In 1989 Council told the school district to expect this growth, exactly the percentage. They hired a consultant that told them differently; we told them 15-20% growth and the consultant told them 7-9%. Council has worked and worked to prepare the school district. The Mayor and Council had a school site for the district in the southern area and we had it for free, but it was refused by the School Board. A free piece of land, which at any point and time, they could have sold it and had tax dollars taken care of. She stated she realizes their concerns, but this City Council has done everything possible to work with the School District and the State. Mayor Fickes stated we build gymnasiums for the school, we build playgrounds, and supply land for them. We have done everything we can for the school district. That is an excellent effort by this City to meet the problems the school district has. Councilmember Hall stated here is a request from a company that has pumped in two million dollars per year into the school district, and has had no impact on it. Since 1985, Maguire Thomas has pumped 2 million dollars a year into the school district. Other developers have contributed nothing into the district. Mayor Fickes stated MTP/IBM has helped the City by purchasing an aerial fire truck, ambulance, elevated water tower, etc. Councilmember Hall stated MTP/IBM has been the responsible partner for the City for many years. Of the non-residential PUD, consisting of eighty-five acres, one third of that is solid forest. The entrance to our city, she noted, they are not going to cut it down. They will retain the rural entrance at their cost. I doubt we will get that from any other development. Councilmember Wambsganss stated the growth in Southlake is too fast- and it has been for several years. The issue here is, if we are going to make a stand to slow down or stop residential development, this is our worst case scenario. It is the developers who will facilitate the infrastructure for developing what is going to be the nicest piece of commercial property in Southlake. This property merits Council consideration and approval in its current form. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes October 3, 1995 Page 11 Agend~ Item #8-A. Continued Councilmember Richarme asked the City Attorney if our existing PUD regulations for residential PUDs allows a 10% commercial component. Does Council have the ability, within the ordinance, to specify the location of that commercial 10% or do we not have the authority. Councilmember Richarme asked for an executive session. Aeenda Item #2-A. Executive Session. Continued 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. Agenda item #2-B. Action Necessary/Executive Session No action is necessary as the result of the executive session. Agenda Item #8-A. Continued Councilmember Richarme expressed concern for the lack of retail on the southern portion of the project. Also he would like retail to front on Kirkwood only and not onto Dove Road. Tom Allen answered "yes" to taking the access off of Dove Road. Councilmember Richarme stated the City has a strong need for a fire hall site in that area of town. Is this something we can consider? Allen noted yes, it is something we can consider. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480-179, 1st reading (ZA 95-73), as amended eliminating the Product C and D; adding restriction that ancillary commercial uses to the south with the only access being Kirkwood; inserting the notation made to the motion in P&Z item //4, that bufferyards be deleted that are shown on the Concept Plan but establish bufferyard requirements at the Site Plan stage. Motion is subject to Concept Plan Review Summary #4, dated 9/29/95, deleting item #3. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes October 3, 1995 Page 12 Aeenda Item #8-A. Continued Motion: Wambsganss Second: Evans Mayor Fickes read the caption of the Ordinance. The following discussion was had before the Council voted on the motion. Richarme commented that before this item comes back for its 2nd Reading, he would like to find out from the people who expressed opposition to this plan, if what has been proposed and a motion made on tonight, fixes their concerns or not. If their concerns were over multi-tenant [multi-family] and now multi- tenant is gone, does that fix their concerns or are their concerns primarily on the change from commercial to residential? Richarme would like to clarify their concerns before this item is brought back for a second reading. Wambsganss stated he felt the citizens of Southlake should be proud of themselves tonight because they got something they wanted -- there was a substantial concession made -- and they should feel like they are going home with a win. Hall also commented that there had been numerous meetings over the last four weeks between the Council and Maguire Thomas, as well as those between Maguire Thomas and citizens, discussing this issue -- it did not come before Council blindly. Councilmember Richarme brought up another point he would like to find out about: the impact the proposal has on the school system. He said he had talked with five Board members during the last month, and all five were in favor of the plan as presented with multi-family units. He would like to find out how the School Board feels and have their feelings about the plan now. Council member Hall and Mayor Fickes said they had talked to them and that they had no problems with it. The motion was continued with the vote, being no further discussion. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes October 3, 1995 Page 13 Agenda Item #8-A. Continued Motion: Wambsganss Second: Evans Ayes: Hall, Evans, Richarme, Wambsganss, Fickes Nays: Maness Approved: 5-1 At this time, Mayor Fickes announced the following items would be continued at the next Tuesday night (October 17, 1995) "continuation" meeting. They are: 8.L - Preliminary Plat for Village Center 8. F - Site Plan for Office Complex -- off of Lakecrest, east of Timber Lakes The Mayor said there may be other items continued, depending on time restraints. Aeenda Item #8-B. Ordinance No. 480-180, ZA 95-74. 1st Reading Ordinance No. 480-179, 1st reading (ZA95-74), Rezoning and Concept Plan for Solana (Non- Residential), being 127.2 acres situated in the U.P. Martin Survey, Abstract No. 1015, being portions of Tracts IA1, lC, 2A, 2Al, 2A2, 2A5, 2A6, 2A7, and the James B. Martin Survey, Abstract No. 1134, being portions of Tracts 1 and lC. Current zoning is "C-3" General Commercial District, "CS" Community Service District, and "P.U.D." Planned Unit Development. "C-3" General Commercial District, "0-2" Office District. "HC" Hotel District, and "CS" Community Service District. Request zoning is "PUD". Owner: MTP-IBM Phase II & III Joint Venture. Applicant: Maguire Thomas Partners. SPIN Neighborhood #2. Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator, summarized the request. She mentioned the property will be bounded on the east by the proposed extension of Kirkwood Blvd. The Land Use Plan designates the area as "mixed use/flood plain." She commended three (3) notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area; no written responses have been received. There have been numerous phone calls addressing opposition to the multi-family request. At the August 3, 1995, P&Z Commission meeting, the applicants request to table was granted as was at the August 17, 1995 meeting. On September 7, the P&Z Commission did recommend approval of the project with a 4-2-1 vote, subject to staff's review comments dated September 1, 1995. P&Z did restrict the ancillary uses to approximately 6.7 acres as shown on the amended Concept Plan adjacent to Kirkwood. P&Z also had the applicant indicate the area that would not be Regular City Council Meeting Minutes October 3, 1995 Page 14 Agenda Item #8-B. Continued developed; left open in its natural state throughout the remainder of their project. P&Z also had the applicant commit to 8 units per acre on their multi-family use. The applicant has since that time, deleted that aspect of their proposal. At the September 19, 1995 City Council meeting, Council did accept the applicant's request to table until tonight's meeting. The council has the applicant's 4th submittal and staff review comments. Tom Allen, MTP/IBM, stated they wish to amend their request to delete all ancillary uses, making it totally non-residential. Mr. Allen stated they are looking to do a major office building on the property. NO PUBLIC COMMENTS Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480-180, 1st reading, subject to the Staff Review Summary dated September 29, 1995, deleting item #2, based on the applicant's amendment to do all commercial (no residential). Motion: Wambsganss Second: Richarme Mayor Fickes read the caption of the ordinance. Ayes: Wambsganss, Richarme, Evans, Hall, Maness, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 6-0 vote Council adjourned for recess at 10:35 p.m. Council returned to open session at 10:40 p.m. Agenda Item #8-C, Ordinance No. 480-182, 1st reading (ZA 95-83) Meadow Ridee Estates Ordinance No. 480-182, 1st reading, (ZA 95-83), Rezoning and Concept Plan for Meadow Ridge Estates, being 37.416 acres of land situated in the John A. Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 529, Tracts 1, lA, lC, iD, and 3A. Current zoning is "AG" Agricultural, with a requested zoning of "SF-20A" Single-Family Residential District. Owners: Mike and Ginger Jacobs, Dwaine Petty, and E.R.O. Development Company. Applicant: Biscoe Clark Company. SPIN Neighborhood #7. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes October 3, 1995 Page 15 Agenda Item #8-C. Continued The Zoning Administrator, Karen Gandy, stated that twenty-one (21) notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area and fifteen (15) responses have been received, including: Howard E. Cart Jr., 311 S. Kimball Avenue, opposed; Janice Mioller, 165 S. Kimball Avenue, opposed; Dennis Minder, 223 Eastwood Drive, opposed; George Thayer, 217 Eastwood Drive, opposed; Larry Faughn, 215 Eastwood, opposed; Michael Schroetke, 211 Eastwood Drive, opposed; Carlos Donfis, 213 Eastwood Drive, opposed; George and Confine Tuttle, 219 Eastwod Drive, and John Logan, 211 Eastwood, opposed. Darrell Faglie, 505 S. Kimball Avenue, in favor; Gary Fox, 4302 Heritage Avenue, Grapevine, in favor; Teresa Jane Thompson, 510 Azalea Drive, Grapevine, in favor; Jerry and Marg Forbus, 595 S. Kimball, in favor; Gerald Thompson, 1227 Terrace Drive, Grapevine, in favor; Jack Petty, 616 S. Kimball Avenue, Southake, in favor; Sally Ezell, 280 S. Kimball Avenuie, Southlake, undecided. Mrs. Gandy stated there is no longer a need for the super majority vote by Council because many of those opposing this action have changed their vote. Councilmember Maness asked Mr. Biscoe what he thinks he agreed to do to correct the drainage. Jim Biscoe, Biscoe Clark Company, 8300 Douglas, Dallas. Mr. Biscoe stated they have worked with the neighbors to resolve concerns, noting that the original application showed sixty-two (62) lots and at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting they agreed to one acre lots on the western boundary which left 58 lots. The lots that border Woodland Heights average one acre lots with the remainder of the lots at 20,000 square foot. Drainage is a big concern. They also agreed to provide a three-board rural type fence along the west side. Biscoe stated he will provide a detention pond to the north on Lot 29 and 30. The contractor will go onto the Minder property in Woodland Heights to do a cut which will make the water move. The property will deed restricted so that when a home is built, a fence will be built. Councilmember Hall noted a letter which was sent to property owners from Mr. Biscoe. Pattie Minder, 223 Eastwood Drive, Southlake. Mrs. Minder stated the property owners are in support and agreement with the things noted tonight. She did not understand what was meant by two (2) trees per lot. The property owner of Lot 13 also agreed to have her lot graded for drainage correction. She stated she would rather have houses than commercial next to her. Dona Schroetke, 211 Eastwood Drive, Southlake. Ms. Schroetke stated she recended her opposition and agreed to grading of their lots. She would like to have one more lot taken out behind her property. She wants to see screening and landscaping plan prior to the second reading. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes October 3, 1995 Page 16 Agenda Item #8-C. Continued Sonny James, 305 South Kimball Avenue, Southlake. Mr. James stated he lives across the street, east of this property. They have always opposed anything but residential. They are in favor of this addition. They are not concerned with the size of lots and houses; only the value of the homes. Daryl Fagley, 505 South Kimball Avenue, Southlake. Mr. Fagley stated they are in favor of this addition. Carlos Dorris, 213 Eastwood, Southlake. Mr. Dorris stated his concerns have been addressed. He referenced drainage, as a lot of water comes off Woodland Heights. He is in favor. Councilmember Richarme expresssed concerns with the Land Use Plan, stating this property was low density residential. He is concerend that the developer could turn around and sell the property after he gets approval. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480-182, 1st reading, subject to the third Plan Review Summary dated September 29, 1995, deleting items #1 and #2. Motion: Wambaganss Second: Maness Mayor Fickes read the caption of the ordinance. Ayes: Wamabsganss, Maness, Hall, Evans, Fickes Nays: Richarme Approved: 5-1 vote Aeenda Item #8-E. ZA 95-89, Plat Revision Commerce Business Park ZA 95-89, Plat Revision of lots 1R1 and 1R2, Block A, Commerce Business Park, legally described as a 1.5703 acre tract of land situated in the Thomas Easter Survey, Abstract No. 474, and being a revision of Lot 1, Block A, Commerce Business Park as shown on the Plat recorded in Volume 388-214, Page 60, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas. Current zoning is "I-1" Light Industrial District. Owner: Randy Pack; Applicant: Landes & Associates, Inc. SPIN #7. The Zoning Administrator, Karen Gandy, noted that three (3) notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area and no written responses have been received. Steve Anderson stated a dental office will front onto Commerce Street. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes October 3, 1995 Page 17 Agenda Item #8-E, Continued Motion was made to approve ZA 95-89, subject to the second Plat Review Summary dated September 29, 1995, deleting item #1. Motion: Wambsganss Second: Evans Ayes: Wambsganss, Evans, Hall, Maness, Richarme, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 6-0 vote Aeenda Item #8-G. ZA 95-85. Conceot Plan for Southlake Retail Center ZA 95-85, Concept Plan for Southlake Retail Center, being 3.351 acres situated in the W.R. Eaves Survey, Abstract No. 500, Tract 2B, and proposed Lots 1,2, and 3, W.R. Eaves No. 500 Addition. Current zoning is "C-2" Local Retail Commercial District. Owners/Applicants: DKV (Sutton) Partners II, L.P. Drews Realty Group, General Parners. SPIN #13. Karen Gandy, 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 was present to answer questions for Council. Motion was made to approve ZA 95-85, subject to the third Plan Review Summary dated September 29, 1995, deleting Items #1, #2, #3. Motion: Richarme Second: Evans Ayes: Richarme, Evans, Hall, Maness, Wambsganss, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 6-0 vote Aeenda Item #8-H, ZA 95-94, Site Plan for Scholtzsk¥'s ZA 95-94, Site Plan for Schlotzsky's, being proposed as Lot 1, W.R. Eaves No. 500 Addition, and being legally described as a portion of Tract 2B, 0.826 acres situated in the W.R. Eaves Survey, Abstract No. 500. Current zoning is "C-2" Local Retail Commercial District. Owner: Schlotsky's Inc., Applicant: Perspective Design, Inc. SPIN #13. Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator, commented that five (5) notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area and no written responses have been received. The applicant has met all the review comments in the Plat Review Summary No. 1 dated September 15, 1995, with the exception of those items addressed in the Plat Review Summary No. 2 dated Regular City Council Meeting Minutes October 3, 1995 Page 18 Agenda Item #S-H, Continued September 29, 1995. John Drews stated Schlotzsky's has worked very closely with them. John McNall, Schlotzsky's, stated he has no problems with the Plat Reviews Summary except for items #10-C and #11. Motion was made to approve ZA 95-94, subject to the Plat Review Summary No. 3 dated September 29, 1995, deleting items #10-C and # 11, also incorporating Blueline #A6. Motion: Richarme Second: Wambsganss Ayes: Richarme, Wambsganss, Hall, Evans, Maness, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 6-0 vote Aeenda Item #8-I. ZA 95-70, Plat Showing for Lots 1,2, and 3, W.R. Eaves No. 500 Addition. ZA 95-70, Plat Showing for Lots 1,2, and 3, W.R. Eaves No. 500 Addition, being 3.351 acres of land situated in the W.R. Eaves Survey, Abstract No. 500, Tract 2B. Current zoning is "C- 2" Local Retail Commercial District. Owner/Applicant: DKV (Sutton) Partners II L.P. Drews Realty Group, General Partners. SPIN #13. The Zoning Administrator noted that eight (8) notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area and no written responses have been received. A single lot Plat Showing for this tract was approved subject to the Plat Review Summary No. 1 dated February 1, 1994, but was never filed of record. It was noted by Greg Last, Director of Community Development, that a common access easement will be widened to 26' to be in compliance with the Driveway Ordinance. Motion was made to approve ZA 95-70, subject to the fifth Plat Review Summary dated September 29, 1995, subject to item #4 being in compliance with the Driveway Ordinance. Motion: Richarme Second: Maness Ayes: Richarme, Maness, Hall, Evans, Wambsganss, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 6-0 vote Regular City Council Meeting Minutes October 3, 1995 Page 19 Aeenda Item #8-J. Ordinance No. 480-184, Ist readine ZA 95-95 Ordinance No. 480-184, 1st reading (ZA 95-95), Rezoning for 3.678 acres situated in the J.G. Allen Survey, Abstract No. 18, Tract 6El. Current zoning is "AG" Agricultural, with a requested zoning of "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District. Owners/Applicants: Joseph and Kimiela Mortazavi. SPIN #15. Four (4) notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area and no written responses have been received according to Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator. Randy Sullivan, North Richland Hills, a representative of the applicant stated he is only building one house on the property. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480-184, 1st reading. Motion: Wambsganss Second: Hall Mayor Fickes read the caption of the ordinance. Ayes: Wambsganss, Hall, Evans, Maness, Richarme, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 6-0 vote Aeenda Item #8-K. ZA 95-96. Plat Showim, of Lots 7 & 8, J.G. Alien No. 18 Addition. ZA 95-96, Plat Showing of Lots 7 & 8, J.G. ALlen No. 18 Addition being 3.678 acres situated in the J.G. Allen Survey, Abstract No. 18, Tract 6El. Current zoning is "AG" Agricultural, with a requested zoning of "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District. Owners/Applicants: Joseph & Kimiela Mortazavi. SPIN #15. Four (4) written responses were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area and no written responses have been received. The applicant has met all the comments of the Plat Review Summary No. 1 dated September 15, 1995, with the exception of the items addressed in the Plat Review Summary No. 2 dated September 29, 1995. Motion was made to approve, subject to the second Plat Review Summary dated September 29, 1995. Motion: Second: Ayes: Nays: Maness Richarme Maness, Richarme, Wambsganss, Hall, Evans, Fickes None Approved: 6-0 vote Regular City Council Meeting Minutes October 3, 1995 Page 20 Agenda Item gl0-A, Variance Request for Driveway on Continental Blvd. Variance request to Ordinance No. 483-C, Section 501 (H)(i) by Terry Wilkirson for a driveway on Continental Blvd. Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Works, presented this item to Council, stating this section of the ordinance prohibits any driveway onto an arterial street; in this case, Continental Blvd. Councilmember Hall stated at the last meeting, this case was presented as a driveway for heavy equipment and it is going to be a driveway to his house. She stated it is very unsafe to come out of the driveway onto Continental Blvd. Motion was made to deny the request and comply with City ordinances. Motion: Hall Second: Richarme Ayes: Hall, Richarme, Maness Nays: Wambsganss, Evans, Fickes Tie Vote: 3-3 vote Motion was made to grant a variance on a condition that the City maintain a $1,000 in trust to the City, and that it satisfy the Public Works Director, and in the future it is deemed that this driveway creates a public health hazard, the money in escrow be used to remove the driveway. Motion: Wambsganss Second: Evans Ayes: Wambsganss, Evans, Fickes Nays: Hall, Maness, Richarme Tie Vote: 3-3- vote Motion was made to deny the driveway with a suggestion that the applicant remove the concrete and gate the opening for necessity for heavy equipment. Motion: Maness Second: Richarme Ayes: Hall, Maness, Richarme, Evans Nays: Wambsganss, Fickes Approved: 4-2 vote Regular City Council Meeting Minutes October 3, 1995 Page 21 Agenda Item//12. Adjournment Motion was made to continue this meeting on October 10, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. for the remaining items. The meeting ended at 12:50 a.m. Motion: Richarme Second: Wambsganss Ayes: Richarme, Wambganss, Hall, Evans, Maness, Fickes Nays: None - Approved: 6-0 vote ,, ' 'Sandra L. LeGrand City Secretary CONTINUATION OF REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF 10/3/1995 CONTINUED TO 10/10/1995 MINUTES COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Gary Fickes, Mayor Pro Tem Andy Wambsganss, Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Pamela Muller, Councilmember Sally Hall, Councilmember Michael Richarme, Councilmember Ron Maness, and Councilmember Ralph Evans. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Curtis E. Hawk, Assistant City Manager Shana Yelverton, Assistant to the City Manager Kevin Hugman, Director of Finance Lou Ann Heath, Director of Public Works Bob Whitehead, Director of Community Development Greg Last, Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy, City Engineer Ron Harper, and Acting City Secretary Kim Bush. INVOCATION: Councilmember Ralph Evans. The continuation of the Regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Gary Fickes. Public Forum. Several citizens requested to speak regarding the City's intentions for the pumhase of property on N. White Chapel for a public works facility. Mayor Fickes informed the audience that there was no agenda item addressing this issue, but he would open the public forum and allow three persons to address the Council on behalf of those in attendance. Mayor Fickes reassured the audience that no vote at tonight's meeting would take place in regards to this issue, and that the item would be placed on City Council's next agenda for October 17. John Richardson, 4637 Homestead, informed the Council of his concerns about the proposed public works facility to be built at N. White Chapel and Bob Jones Rd. Mr. Richardson stated the following for the record: (1) when he moved to his home he believed the area to be zoned one-acre residential; (2) he was part of the original group that worked to get this area annexed into the City to avoid an unsightly helicopter operation from locating in the area; and (3) he believes there are other alternatives for the City. Pam Rice, 455 Brooks Ct., thanked the Council for returning her calls. Ms. Rice commented that she wanted the Council to know that she and her neighbors were opposed to a public works facility being built in the area. She expressed concerns with this type of "industrial" use (1) deminishing property values; (2) being a nuisance due to excessive noise and lights; and, (3) creating unsafe roads because of truck traffic including rock haulers. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes October 10, 1995 Page 2 Don Osley, 4380 Saddle Ridge Rd., commented that he agreed with Mr. Richardson and Ms. Rice. He presented to the Council photographs depicting what he sees happening to the area if a public works facility is built. Emilia White, 455 Bob Jones Rd., expressed concern that the City would purchase the property before all the citizens have had a chance to express their concerns. Mayor Fickes assured the audience, again, that he signs on the purchase of property, and he will not sign any purchase contracts before addressing this issue as an agenda item. Agenda Item #8D. 1st Reading Ordinance No. 480-183. (ZA 95-88). Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy presented to the City Council Ordinance No. 480-183 a rezoning for 3.38 acres situated in the William H. Martin Survey, Abstract No. 1068, Tracts 2A3 & 2A3A1. Location: West side of the private street, Marantha Way. Current zoning is AG, with a requested zoning of SF-1B. Owner/Applicant is Lawrence L. Post. Ms. Gandy stated that five notices were sent to property owners within 200' and as of this date no written responses had been received. Mr. Post was present to answer questions of the City Council. He stated that he intended to build one single family home for himself. Councilmember Richarme expressed his concerns with this being a private, gravel street with no public access for ambulance service, etc. Mr. Post commented that he owned all the property originally and had made provisions for public right-of-way to be dedicated from each person who purchased a lot. He commented that he considered the road public--to be used by the City for whatever purpose. Director of Community Development Greg Last informed the City Council that as far as the records show, the road was never dedicated to the City. The property was annexed into the City in 1988, but there has been no dedication to the City or acceptance of the road by the City. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480-183 on 1st Reading. Motion: Second: Ayes: Nays: Approved: Maness Richarme Maness, Muller, Richarme, Fickes, Wambsganss, Hall, Evans none 7-0 Greg Last commented that the 2nd reading of the ordinance would not be until the City Council meeting on November 7 due to public notice requirement. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes October 10, 1995 Page 3 Agenda Item No. 8F. ZA 95-90. Site Plan for an Office Complex, Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy presented to the City Council ZA 95-90 a Site Plan for an Office Complex being Lot 6, Hiriam Grandberry No. 581 Addition, and being further described as 0.908 acres situated in the Hiriam Grandberry Survey, Abstract No. 581. Location: South side of Southlake Blvd., approximately 80' east of the entrance to Lake Crest Addition. Current zoning is O-1, office district. The owner/applicant is Dr. Timothy Huckabee. Ms. Gandy stated that ten notices were sent to property owners within 200' and as of this date one written response has been received from Mr. Dan Altena, 103 Springbrook Ct. Mr. Altena commented that if it was going to be O-1, they would request that a fence and appropriate landscaping be provided. Dr. Timothy Huckabee was present to answer questions of the Council. Councilmember Maness questioned why a drive could not be provided from the cul-de-sac to Lake Crest instead of having another access drive onto FM1709. Director of Community Development Greg Last explained that when we approved the Lake Crest plat, it was with the understanding that provisional access would only be accommodated if there was single family development on this parcel of land and not office or commercial or any other type of use. There is no right-of-way dedication between the Lake Crest entry and this property --it is a right-of-way reservation. Councilmember Richarme questioned which drive would be more safe. He was concerned with this drive being too close to the Lake Crest drive onto FM1709. Councilmember Wambsganss noted that the homeowners in Lake Crest addition expressed that they would be against any commercial development next to them if the traffic was routed through their subdivision. Councilmember Richarme suggested that the drive be moved further west on the property to allow for more distance between this drive and Lake Crest. Councilmember Richarme also commented on the building design standards that had been set by Dr. Ansohn's office on Southlake Blvd., and suggested that this level of design be followed by others. Motion was made to approved ZA 95-90 subject to staff's review letter of 9/29/95 changing item #3 by moving the driveway access further to the west on the property. Motion: Richarme Second: Maness Dr. Huckabee commented that he had a problem with trying to comply with the required landscape parking islands for the rear parking area. If he was to put in all that is required, it would leave him short on the number of required parking spaces, and he would have to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a variance. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes October 10, 1995 Page 4 Greg Last informed the Council that the P&Z Commission recommended approval waiving the requirement for the required landscape parking islands for the rear parking area (item #4). Council suggested that if the FM1709 drive was moved to the western most property line, the applicant would be able to provide two more parking spaces up front. The previous motion by Richarme and the second by Maness was withdrawn. Motion was made to approve ZA 95-90 Site Plan subject to the staff review letter of 9/29/95 changing item #3 to reflect relocating the common access to the western side and delete item #4 and provide two landscape islands in the rear parking lot and relocate the two displaced stalls to the front parking lot. Motion: Second: Ayes: Nays: Approved: Hall Wambsganss Maness, Muller, Richarme, Fickes, Wambsganss, Hall, Evans none 7-0 Agenda Item No. 8L. ZA 95-76. Preliminary Plat. Village Center. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy presented to the Council ZA 95-76, the preliminary plat for Village Center, Lots 1-6, Block 1, and Lots 1-7, Block 2 being 44.328 acres situated in the T. Mahan Survey, Abstract No. 1049 and being a portion of Tract 6 and also being Lot 3, Block 1 of the previously approved Preliminary Plat of Farrar Addition and all of Lot 1, Block 1, of the Farrar Addition; Current zoning is C-3, Commercial District; Owner is James Farrar, et.al.; the applicant is the Midland Development Group. Ms. Gandy stated that a revised plan was submitted this evening, 10/10/95. Staff has reviewed the revised plan and has noted the reduction of seven (7) lots in the pad site area. One written response has been received from Mary E. Zemrod in favor of the plat. Councilmember Hall questioned the location of the pipeline and how much property is required on either side of the line. Staff indicated that it is a 20' easement offsite to the west. Councilmember Richarme noticed that there was no driveway access to F.M. 1709 from the pad sites shown. Richarme questioned whether they could come back later and put driveways in. Councilmember Richarme commented that it appears there would be the opportunity for another major in/out driveway. Staff commented that the developers will be coming back to Council with a concept plan and a further site plan where driveway issues will be discussed. Mayor Fickes questioned the possibility of getting with the state highway department to configure a right turn only onto S.H.114 and eliminate any attempt to turn west bound on S.H. 114. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes October 10, 1995 Page 5 Donald Silverman, representative for the Midland Development Group, was present to answer questions of the Council. He stated that they would be agreeable with making that a right turn only onto to S.H. 114. They can position a triangle in the roadway so as to accomplish this. Mr. Silverman commented that there would be more driveways for truck traffic around the perimeter and maybe one or two more drives, although, it is their intent not to have any direct access driveways into any of the pad sites on F.M. 1709. They have discussed no left-hand turns at any of the drives except at the traffic signal drive. Councilmember Maness thanked the applicants for the willingness to be flexible and listen to the concerns of the Council and make some changes. He commented that he thought this was a lot better plan. Councilmember Evans questioned the location of the roadway and whether or not Council should consider again the possibility of aligning with Westwood. Council discussed the opposition expressed by the homeowners in Westwood to this alignment. Community Development Director Greg Last commented that item #1 (regarding minimum center line) of the staff review letter dated 10/10/1995 should be deleted. Mr. Last pointed out that this will not be an issue because it will go away with the S.H. 114 right-of-way taking. Motion was made to approve ZA 95-76 Preliminary Plat for Village Center subject to the Preliminary Plat Review Summary No. 4 dated 10/10/1995 deleting item #1. Motion: Second: Ayes: Nays: Approved: Wambsganss Evans Maness, Muller, Richarme, Fickes, Wambsganss, Hall, Evans none 7-0 Agenda Item No. 12. Meeting Adjourned. Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. ATTEST: '"'M~ City of Southlake, Texas CITY COUNCIL MEETING SIGN UP IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK DURING THE MEETING / 5 l NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE AGENDA HEM . " % �1- to , cc yaeirt . gui4 /33V Gv'UUi.70 v(2.io /L z7//' o 1 Sdo na / s Pi/4) rb. 4 /k-..)1‹.) A ` n L f Z / 3z la a /,� ✓'Q t, 1 G Cows w snf ° t - g FRAJ j- l! 2`J-03 .12° a e CE O ' A ,. ( ' /'/�, �•�*1 / 3 y Jri� TIfL-4 K e AZK / 4-3G.rc C // /74//1 x` 8 5W/6 f 4 C ,2 / f g ekt che//i GS /Y•G�'L� °�� 4 / City of Southlake, Texas " CITY COUNCIL MEETING SIGN UP IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK DURING THE MEETING DATE: / f iyc. 44411, /4 /9 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE AGENDA I'T'EM p 4TA .,f iri rah ; C-} o O tfING 5:41bLe kh °d( 264._cc r v)4, l S.Thvock,u-c-Cc . 12 k 6)1e, - Lu'L(fi WoITh t)to S S fJ (VAim r 4 ,4 .( /147C Or, ' 6� �' Presented to City Council during Public Forum on Septenber 19, 1995 No Multi - Family Zoning!! My name is Jim Giffin and I reside at 3002 Briar Lane, Southlake. I and many others came to Southlake to enjoy a country like setting of homes set well apart and send our children to one of the best public schools in the country. As of today, we are sending our children to one of the best schools in the country, but the living environment in the city is no longer what it was when I moved here. We now have stone and brick walls lining our streets so that it appears we are driving in a tunnel. PUD's with Zero lot lines have been approved. And now under consideration is a further degradation of the atmosphere I moved here for, multi family units. In other words APARTMENTS. This issue is not about the quality of development that is being proposed. McGuire Thomas has a history of building quality developments. This issue is entirely about what type of product we, the citizens of Southlake, want in our city. I view the job of the city council as first and foremost to work for the voting residents of Southlake. There is not currently any provision (to my knowledge at least) for apartment building in Southlake. That's the way the citizens of Southlake like it. If some developer cries that his development will not work without apartments, I say change the development NOT THE ZONING. With every surrounding town already having zoning allowing multi family development, I cannot see why Southlake needs this type of zoning. What does it bring to me the common resident that I need? With apartments readily available in surrounding towns only minutes away, no new businesses will need them. So what benefit do apartments provide to the residents of Southlake? I see none except to provide a reason for the walled and gated communities being developed. 1 Our school system is already being burdened with rampant growth in population without the commercial and industrial growth to provide offsetting tax revenue. We've grown approximately 20 % each year for the last three years. Adding any type of high density housing only exacerbates an already difficult situation. Once we have zoning for multi family in one place, it will develop other places. Just as the PUD zoning has done. First, a high quality, high dollar development is proposed to lure the city into creating a new zoning category; and then, the less than high dollar developments creep in once the zoning has been created. That will happen with multi family. It has happened everywhere else. The buyers and developers of land in Southlake knew when they bought their property what type of development our zoning provided for. History does repeat itself. Let's learn and benefit from the experience of others and not repeat the same mistakes. JUST SAY NO TO ANY MULTI FAMILY ZONING IN SOUTHLAKE. WE DON'T NEED IT AND WE DON'T WANT IT. If that message is not clear to you, I suggest that you owe it to the residents of Southlake to put this issue before them for a vote. Thank you for you time. September 19, 1995 # ## 2