2003-02-20 City of Southlake
CITY COUNCIl. WORK SESSION
FEBRUARY 20, 2003
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Rick Stacy, Mayor Pro Tem W. Ralph Evans, Deputy Mayor Pro
Tern Greg Standerfer; Councilmembers: Carolyn Morris, Rex Potter, Keith Shankland, and Tom
Stephen.
CITY COUNCIL ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Billy Campbell, Planning Director Bruce Payne, Economic
Development Director Greg Last, Director of Public Safety Rick Black, Finance Director Sharen
Elam, Senior Planner Jayashree Narayana, Professional Standards Coordinator Robert Finn, and City
Secretary Lori Farwell.
Agenda Item No. 1, Call to order. The work session was called to order by Mayor Stacy at 6:50 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 2, Executive Session. None.
Agenda Item No. 3, Discussion of Downtown District Regulations and modifications to R-PUD Zoning:
Planning Director Paync reviewed the concerns that arose at the February 18 Council meeting. Council's
approval of Ordinance No. 480-RR removed the residential component from the NR-PUD which, in
turn, eliminated Cooper & Stebbins' ability to have brownstones in their current zoning district. Director
Payne said the City Attorney rescarched the following areas: Ordinance 480 to see if there was any
vesting provision and found there was none; Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code which
does not vest uses; Ordinance 480-RR text which contains no grandfather clause; and Council minutes
which did not reflcct Council's intention to protect pending applications.
Mayor Stacy polled Council to see if it was their intent to invalidate Cooper & Stebbins' current
application for brownstones under their NR-PUD district, and Council agreed it was not. They all felt
certain that il would be grandfathered.
Planning Director Payne continued by stating the City Attorney's conclusion is that NR-PUD options for
residential uses were closed on or about November 29, 2002. He stated Council now has two options: to
create the Downtown District (DT) or to amend 480-RR to add provisions stating the ordinance has no
effect on pending applications.
Council reviewed their remaining concerns regarding the creation of a DT district. They discussed
whcthcr or not to rcstrict rcsidcntial uscs in thc DT district by placing a numerical limitation or an area
limitation or Both.
Councilmember Potter reviewed his areas of concern: placing a geographic limitation to the DT district;
including language within the definitions of single-family residential attached and detached - which
will prevent the sub-dividing or sub-leasing of the individual residences; limiting the quantity of lofts;
limiting thc number of single family residential units; limiting the residential uses to the eastern l/3
portion of thc DT district; adding language to address residential articulation; adding language to limit
City Conncil Work Session Minutes, February 20, 2003, Page 1 of 2
residential to no more tban 10% oftbc DT district; open spacc; buffer yards; front yards; and impervious
coveragc limitation.
Brian Stebbins and Frank Bliss (Cooper & Stebbins) answered Council's questions.
Councilmember Morris said sbc would likc to look at having a minimum lot size with a minimum 15'
front yard and expressed her concern rcgarding the live/work units.
The ma:jority of Council agreed to allow a maximum of 115 residential units in the district.
Council agrecd that the single family units should be limited to an area east of Central Avenue.
Agenda Item No. 4, Adiournment. There being no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned
at 8:30 p.m.
ATTEST:
Lot/ A. Farwell, City Secretary
City Council Work Session Minutes, February 20, 2003, Page 2 of 2