Loading...
1990-11-13 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 667 N. Carroll Avenue SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 13, 1990 7:00 p.m. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Betty Ralph Evans, Jerry Farrier, Rick Wilhelm, and, after agenda item #4). Springer. Sally Hall Members: (arrived ABSENT: Mayor Gary Fickes. CITY STAFF PRESENT: Curtis Hawk, City Manager; Michael Barnes, Director of Public Works; Billy Campbell, Police Chief; Don Wilson, Fire Chief; Wayne Olson, City Attorney; and, Sandra L. LeGrand, City Secretary. INVOCATION: Councilmember Ralph Evans The Special City Council Meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Betty Springer. Agenda Item #2, Temporary Sign Permit, Christ Our King Church The City Manger introduced the request from Christ Our King Church for a temporary portable sign permit under Section II G of our sign ordinance No. 350. James Coker, was present in behalf of the Pastor David Whitington, who was ill. Mr. Coker stated that the church wishes to advertise for their annual Con~munity Thanksgiving Eve service to be held on November 21, 1990. Motion was made to approve the request for a temporary sign as allowed for in Ordinance No. 350. Motion: Wilhelm Second: Evans Ayes: Wilhelm, Evans, Farrier, Springer Nays: None Approved: 4-0 vote seven ( 7 ) day Christ Our King Church invited Councilmembers and their families to attend the services. Agenda Item #3, Request Permission to Advertise for Vehicles for Department of Public Safety Director of Public Safety, Chief Billy Campbell, asked permission to advertise for bids for a police vehicle, which will be used for administrative personnel for the department. He stated that the specifications will include a full sized car. The patrol units will be bid through the Houston-Galveston Area Councils, which the city has an agreement with. City Council Minutes November 13, 1990 page two Agenda Item 93, Continued Chief Campbell also asked permission to advertise for bids Grass Fire Fighting Unit. for a Councilmember Farrier ascertained the use of the "old" grass unit. Fire Chief Don Wilson indicated that the old brush truck will be kept in operation to do "clean-up" and "major responses". It will not be required to stay in a garage. Motion was made to grant permission to advertise Department Vehicle and a Grass Fire Fighting Unit. Motion: Farrier Second: Wilhelm Ayes: Farrier, Wilhelm, Springer, Evans Nays: None Approved: 4-0 vote for a Police Agenda Item #4, Changing Date for 1st January, City Council Meeting The City Manager explained that the City Charter in Section 2.09 provides that regular meetings shall be held on the first and third Tuesday evenings, unless such dates fall on a regularly observed City Holiday. The first Tuesday in January is January 1, which is a regular City holiday. He asked Council to consider an alternative date. Motion was made to change the 1st meeting January 2, 1991. Motion: Evans Second: Farrier Ayes: Evans, Farrier, Springer, Wilhelm Nays: None Approved: 4-0 vote in January, 1991, to Councilmember Sally Hall arrived at this time. Agenda Item ~5, Executive Session Mayor Pro Tem Springer announced pursuant to the Open Meetings Law, Article 6252-17 V.T.A.S. Section 2(e) 2(f) 2(g), that City Council will go into executive session at this time. Council convened in closed session at 7:45 p.m. Council returned to open session at 8:20 p.m. City Council Minutes November 13, 1990 page three Agenda Item 96, Action Necessary/Litigations Motion was made to authorize the City Attorney to move the settlement for the Jerry W. Crowder v. City of suit, under the terms as discussed in executive session. Motion: Wilhelm Second: Hall Ayes: Wilhelm, Hall, Springer, Evans, Farrier Nays: None Approved: 5-0 vote forward with Southlake law Agenda Item #7, Action Necessary/Personnel Matters No action is necessary as the result of the executive session in regards to personnel matters, including Board and Commissions. Mayor Pro Tem Springer announced that Jim Devine, a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission has resigned. She asked the City Secretary to advertise for applicants to this board. This item is to go on the Council agenda for the 1st meeting in December. Agenda Item #8, Action Necessary/Land Acquisition. No action is necessary as the result of the executive session in regards to land acquisition. Agenda Item #9, Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Motion: Hall Second: Evans Ayes: Hall, Evans, Springer, Farrier, wilhelm Nays: None Approved: 5-0 vote ,,~%-'~ ~.... .......... ~ -...~%~- % Mayor Pro T~ Betty SpOnger ATTEST: ~: 'gandra L. LeGfaW~.- City Secretary COUNCIL WORK SESSION FOLLOWING SPECIAL MEETING Committee #1, formed to review Charter amendments for the Special Election to be held on January 19, 1991, met in discussion. Members present include: Betty Springer, Rick Wilhelm, Ralph Evans. do lLe„ OFFICE OF CITY SECRETARY Ota _����. 2221 E. SOUTHLAKE BLVD. • SOUTHLAKE, TX 78092 • (817) 481 -8691 • DAVID E. WHITINGTON, PASTOR MORRIS FORMAN, ASSOCIATE PASTOR nber 6, 1990 S andy LeGrand v ".ty of Southlake wizik-667 N Carroll Ave. Southlake, TX 76092 Dear Ms. LeGrand: On November 14th, Christ Our King Church wishes to set up a portable sign to announce a Community Thanksgiving Eve service for November 21st at 7:00 p.m. We understand that our city has made provision for nonprofit organizations to be able to display a sign for seven days with approval from the City. We are requesting that approval. I understand that November 13th is the first available time to be placed on the agenda. giu We appreciate your help in this matter. Please advise what other steps we need to take in order to comply with existing regulations. `* Sincerely, 4 Cheli D. Myers Secretary 4 CDM 4 a 4 4 11 CITY OF SOUTHLARE SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS PERMIT APPLICATION Pi DATE SIGN OWNER' S NAME : d'44 c� ADDRESS zzz! let c / �/ 4 /4..1Ce , 7 �` 740 9� TELEPHONE 1/7 `rz,/ - 4-49/ 9/ TEXAS STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT LICENSE NUMBER 4i/1 LOCATION WHERE SIGN WILL BE INSTALLED: Zz Z . C564 -dkke 11/1/4 /a04/ 1 DESCRIPTION OF SIGN: /Or 7 --i 74 k i." c51 r, h 4:: AREA: LENGTH a Y6C WIDTH HEIGHT SUPPORT NO. of SIDES SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT o � 1 � � - TELEPHONE NO. //7 i /- , ' r i s : 7 1 / " 3.5 7 5 ************************************ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** APPLICATION APPROVED BY: DATE: PERMIT FEE ZONING OF LOCATION: PERMIT NUMBER: 6 RECEIPT NUMBER 411 / W 13, 1990 Memo to Mayor Fickes and Council Members re: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INPUT TO REVIEW OF COS ORD # 480 1. The attached memo (11/8/90) was presented to P &Z on the same date as the board's initial input to the review and revision process. Those items not covered in the 11/8 meeting will be taken up at P &Z's next session, and the board will again have representation at the meeting. 4 2. Following the meeting, the P &Z chairman and I briefly discussed several areas of mutual interest and concern. They are presented here to inform the council of our desire to establish a communication bridge between the P &Z, Council and board which will serve to keep the three entities current on areas under consideration by one which may affect related matters in another. a. Procedural defects (my words) in board of adjustment review of building permits for petroleum operations which have ,• previously been granted special exception use (see pp 6, att'd). b. Conflicting references and uncertain authorities regarding variances and special exception conditions in the matter of outside storage (see pp 5, att'd) c. A suggestion that the city staff be encouraged to keep the chairs of both P &Z and the board informed of areas of common interest and concern, most notably in regard to review of ordinance provisions in need of clarification or revision. 4 d. Continuing the present practice of submitting requests for special exception use to the Board of Adjustment as opposed to returning this workload to the Council. I recommend this, as the board finds no problem with the workload or with its own ability to competently review the requests. However, apparently some uncertainty about this has arisen out of previous discussion with the staff and city attorney about the petroleum operations question (above). The board will formalize its recommendations to P &Z and the Council prior to the next P &Z meeting. e. A suggestion that one member each from P &Z and the board form a joint commttee for continuing review of COS 480 and related ordinances, to the purpose that periodic recommendations for change may be presented to the Council with the indorsement of both the board and the P &Z. 4. These are only points of discussion at this time, and are not presented here as recommended by either party; but you should know that both parties agree to the need for increased communication. Sincerely, Board of Adjustment memo 110/90 F Arthur Sorenson, i � r� , ur orenson Chairman To Board Members Re: PROPOSED CHANGES TO COS ORD 480 Cy; Mayor Fickes, Council Members, Planning & Zoning Commissioners, City Manager Hawk, Public Works Director Barnes, City Attorney Taylor, Zoning Administrator Gandy, Board Secretary Bryson. Gentlemen: 1. As you know, the city is currently reviewing the zoning and subdivision ordinances (COS Ord 480 and 483, respectively) with an eye to update and correction where required. a. The Board of Adjustment has been invited to join the process, particularly in areas where the board has seen need for additional definition or clarification in COS 480. Commissioner Tate has suggested we be represented at the Nov 8 meeting for this purpose. He also indicated interest in an on-going relationship between the two entities for this and related purposes. b. The balance of this memo reviews several, but not all, changes proposed to date by the Planning and Zoning Commission which seem °~ of most immediate interest to our board (para 2) and then outlines added items for your consideration as board input to the commission's review (para 3). * 2. The Planning and Zoning Commission as the entity responsible to the city council for these regulations, will consider recommended changes as agenda items 14 and 15 on their Thursday, Nov 8 meeting. Proposed changes of most direct interest are extracted below, with parenthetical comment ' ( [...]/) added by me for brevity m where appropriate to our review. Section Recommendation 4.2 Seek City Attorney's definition of following terms: Accessory Building Accessory Use Developed Change Lot Measurement (Width) definition to mean the distance between the side property lines measured at the front building lines. Change definition of Reversed Frontage Lots to reaJ; ... 'is a [corner] lot which has setback lines on both streets equal to the front setback line as required by the Zoning Ordinance unless unless such lots align 1 * Section Recommendation 4.2 (cont'd) back-to-back with another lot which would allow both � 440, lots to show a side yard setback along the side street.' a Change definition of open space [city attorney def/n?] Add definition: Specific Use Permit ... 'a permit recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and authorized by the City Council for the use of land or structure[s] in accordance to [with] the provisions in [oO Section 45.' 6.8 Substitute 'specific' for 'special' use permit in both h in this �i paragraphs o section. [Also change title line to read 'SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 4 AND SPECIFIC USES: NOT CONFORMING USES'] 4 29.2 Leave Modular/Prefabricated housing as is. [Does the wording of this section preclude residences of conventional construction (29.1 implies not); if not, does 29.5 apply to conventional construction? ~ And if not, what development regulation criteria do apply to conventional construction in an MH District?; A 4 30.3 Residential P.U.D. with less than fifty (50) acres to be added to Special Exception Use section. 4 ** A recommendation that all Special Exception Use requests go to P&Z and the City Council. Recommended by Chairman Wright concurred by Messrs Tate and Samartin, opposed by Mrs Payne and Mr Luce. � [Pm not privy to the rationale leading up to this motion, but it may be an understandable response to our concerns over the mechanics of re-review in petroleum operations special exception use. More on this below in para 2.l 34,1(f) Pools:Refemna Ordinances 344 & 481 for fencing requirements. At the top of page 24-3 add the following phrase: '... nor be located any clusa than °w five feet (5') to another structure.` 2 . ` Section Recommendation /~~ � N*60 43 Incorporate COS Ord 479 (Airport Compatible Land Use) into [this section], 44.l2(n) Add: Guest Houses [to servant & family quarters as permitted uses]. Change inhabitable square footage to not greater than [that of] the principle dwelling./ [Should 4.2 definition (pp 4-15) of servant/family quarters also reflect this change?] 44.12(tt) Add: `CS' to outside storage [districts]. ° 44.12(vv) Add [new]: Accessory buildings in front yard allowed in SF-1A SF-1B, RE districts. 44.12(ow) Add [new]: in-home day care per state regulations allowed in RE and [all present SF districts]. 44.12(xx) Add [new]: In-home swimming lessons allowed in RE and [all present SF districts]. m 666= 45.6(b) Change [distance requirement for alcoholic beverage use from church, public school or hospital] to read same as the state statute. = 3. Board members will appreciate that several of the P&Z agenda items will clarify points also raised during board proceedings, and we are indebted to the P&Z and staff for a good job of review. Some additional ~ items perhaps not routinely encountered in P&Z deliberations, are offered below as input from the board. Section Recommendation . 11 Discussion: These sections deal with the SF-coded districts, and the concern here relates to apparent disparity between development regulation dimensions in these districts. The disparity appears in two sets of criteria: lot width, and permitted area for accessory buildings. Lot width for one-acre districts (SF-\A is a minimum of 100'. The same is required of SF-30 and of SF-20A & SF-20B. 3 ° - - - - Current definition of it width (pp 4-11) is permissive of compliance with the 100' requirement for 4 =40^ most irregularly-shaped lots such as are common in ml-de-sacs, as it is measured as a mean width. 4 However, the change in definition proposed in para 2 above (4.2, Lot Measurement, etc.) may impose unduly strict limits on irregularly-shaped lots of less than 4 1 acre, and particularly on those in SF-20 districts. Since l am not familiar with the original rationale behind uniform lot width in these districts, this 4 point is raised only in observation and without specific recommendation for change. ° * Accessory building area disparities, the second criteria in this discussion, appear to require adjustment in that the ratios based on 500' per acre seem unwantedly disoiminatory. The following 4 examples illustrate the application of these criteria to a special exception use request for a detached garage in SF-1 SF-30 and SF-20 districts. m SF-1: 1 sq ft per acre allowed. Enough mom ° for a 22' x 46' building. 3 cars, a tack room Aft and 3 horses. No problem here. SF-30; 750 sq ft per acre allowed. 30 sq ft equals .6887 acre. A 516 sq ft, 23' x 22' 4 bulding: two CadUlacs. No real problem here either, unless you'd also want room for a riding lawnmower and some garden tools. * SF-20; 500 sq ft per acre allowed. 20.000 sq ft o equals .4591 acre. A 230 sq ft, 10' x 22' 4 building. Maybe enough for a Ford Pinto and a bicycle, if you hang the bike from the ceiling. RECOMMEND: (based on the assumption that redefinition ^ of accessory buildings (4.2, above) will separate the family/servant/guest house square footage criteria from other accessory buildings/uses) ° For SF-1 districts no change. For SF-30 1 sq ft of building per acre. On ~ a 30,000 sq ft lot this would he 661 sq ft. A ° maximum of 750 sq ft might be considered for the extra-large lots in the district. 4 For SF-20 1 sq ft of building per acre On 4 w ° a 20,000 sq ft lot, this would be 459 sq ft. A maximum of 500 sq ft might be appropriate for larger lots in the district. The recommended changes would make for a more equitable code by eliminating the need for special exception applications for ordinary, necessary and reasonable accessory building construction in the more intensive residential districts. The changes would also foster more attractive more useable, am6 w tax-base valuable accessory buldings in the SF-30 and SF-20 districts. 44.12(tt) Outside Storage is permitted only in 1-2 districts and, by special exception, in l-L (Note the P&Z recommendation for inclusion of CS districts by special exception at para 2, item 44.12(tt) above). The board has had some difficulty with the apparently circular reference loop in regard to sections 38 (Out- side Storage); 39 (Screening); 40 (Site Plans); and 42 (Bufferyards). The considerations involved can't be addressed in a few paragraphs so I'll just list the main points of discussion. 1. Section 38 applies. It in turn, requires compliance with 42. 38 also imposes the criteria of 39 for solid wall screening, but permits a Board of '**0' Adjustment 'waiver, by special exception' of this requirement if the storage abuts an AG district. a. Such special exception may be approved only as specifically authorized in 44.12 and in 'full and complete compliance' therewith, etc. b. But there is no specifically authorized special exception for screening requirements in this regard; and the only 'waiver' discussion in ch 44 relates to post-facto minor construction encroachments. 2. But 39.2.e) authorizes the board to grant variance or permit special exception to screening height criteria. a. Same question here on specifics of special exception, but a relatively minor point to the larger discussion; it doesn't allow elimination of the screening, or variance to anything but height. But the reference to variance is superfluous in any case- unless specifically prohibited by C0S 480, variance can be granted to any permitted use that meets the ^ ° , „ , . . ,...., "lo tests set out in ch 44. — ••~ b. 39.4.a) permits alternative screening �� *w options in all non-residential districts: but 39.4d retracts this permission for outside storage. 4ft 40 3. The board may approve variance to 42 bufbryard requirements. But 38 imposes a 'must he' criteria for 1101 bufferyards, and 44.12(tt) imposes a 'must mat 38' requirement. And the 42.10 - 42.11 provisions for 40 reducing the `first-use' bufferyard requirement on appears to he precluded by 38 & 39. mm 4. Finally 44.12(tt) requires a 'site plan'(40). No reference is made to industrial development site °* plan considerations such as those in 26 & 27; this 40 should be considered for revision. 40 only covers site plans for 8 primarily residential and 2\ mixed' "~ use applications. 411 CONCLUSION: We'll have a strong sense of deja-vu when we hear the city's application for outside storage. Ai wm RECOMMEND: A joint work session of P&Z and the board to fully discuss this matter possibly attended by ilk interested Coundlmembers to insure preservation of `w the council's intent in this regard. 44.12(pp) Petroleum Operations are required by 27.6 to submit a °w development site plan when applying for a building permit. But so are all other l-2 uses. And 27.4 says = 'any use accessory to an approved special exception 4 use shall be permitted without specific approval' as long as it meets the definition for accessory us. „. The board is very familiar with the intent of both P&Z 40 and Council in providing for continuing oversight of ~ new facilities and use compliance under sp°`idl exceptions granted for petroleum operations. I might 40 add that the board appreciates the wisdom of the council and P&Z in this matte, and fully supports , this um'Lept of continued review by the hoard. 4 However, the provisions of COS 480 do not, in my .. opinion, precisely fix the responsibility and procedure for the board's review of this use after the A initial special use exception is granted. ~ In this regard, we must not assume the conditions in A 27.4 extend specifically and uniquely to 27.6. l suggest another approach; change 27.4 to include a ~ 6 ° ~ „ . . ..' _ '. , . ftw requirement for the board to attach a condition to °~~ approval of 44.12(pp) use in the form of a mandatory ~ review of 27.6 building permit applications for �w� ' conformance to the original use granted. A o0:. determination by the board that the requested building _ permit was not in conformance with the approved use would result in denial of the permit: 60 This should clear up the structure of the process. . But there is one additional measure that would insure more thorough and competent review. The board would at welcome, and the Council may appreciate, a P&Z review ,, and recommendation to the board on all 1-2 building permits as an added layer of review. Certainly, the mi, experience and competence of P&Z members in these more complex areas of planning would be helpful to the -- quality of the total effort. w^ 0. Art Sorenson 488-4633 te. I*, _ W. ^ �:00' ° or. I* prop Mb ~ OW OW Mit OW Mit OP ilk .. 7 NO �e' MP UN _