THE FLOWER MOUND TOWN COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2000 IN THE FLOWER MOUND TOWN HALL, LOCATED AT 2121 CROSS TIMBERS ROAD IN THE TOWN OF FLOWER MOUND, COUNTY OF DENTON, TEXAS AT 6:00 P.M.
The Town Council met in a special session with the following members present:
Lori DeLuca Mayor
Cindy Travis Mayor Pro Tem
Stephani Spruill Councilmember, Place I
Jim Cook Councilmember, Place II
Ted Baze Councilmember, Place III
Sara Wingard Councilmember, Place V
constituting a quorum with the following members of the Town Staff participating:
Van James Town Manager
Paula Lawrence Town Secretary
Terry Welch Town Attorney
Sam Paschal Director of Community Development
Bart Stevenson Director of Parks and Recreation
A. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor DeLuca called this portion of the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m.
B. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Father William Blewett gave the invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mayor DeLuca gave the ceremonial oath of office to new Councilmember for Place 2, Jim Cook.
Sandy Thurman, Executive Director of PediPlace
Ms. Thurman stated she was a candidate for County Commissioner Precinct 3, and presented her qualifications for that position.
C. REGULAR ITEMS
1. Public hearing (LDC-01-00) to consider approval of an amendment to Section 3.0 of the Land Development Code (Zoning District Regulations), contained within Chapter 12 of the Town's Code of Ordinances, to add a new Section 3.01.1 entitled "SMARTGrowth Management Plan". The proposed SMARTGrowth Management Plan is a community-based growth management strategy employing a zoning overlay to effectuate the community vision and values embodied in the Flower Mound Comprehensive Plan by translating them into "Threshold Zoning Criteria" to establish the character and quality of development desired within each of the Town's four land use planning districts. Emphasizing the character and quality of development, the SMARTGrowth Management Plan's overarching purpose is to preserve and enhance Flower Mound's community character and its quality of life.
Town Manager Van James presented the SMARTGrowth Management Plan Position Paper (the entire paper follows). He noted the Planning & Zoning Commission held a public hearing on February 10, 2000 on the SMARTGrowth Management Plan, and the Commission recommended approval of the Plan to the Town Council.
The SMARTGrowth Management Plan is a community-based growth management strategy employing a zoning overlay to effectuate the community vision and values embodied in the Flower Mound Comprehensive Plan by translating them into "Threshold Zoning Criteria" to establish the character and quality of development desired within each of the Town's four land use planning districts. Emphasizing the character and quality of development, the SMARTGrowth Management Plan's overarching purpose is to preserve and enhance Flower Mound's community character and its quality of life.
The SMARTGrowth Management Plan is necessary to mitigate the ill effects of rapid and intense urbanization caused by explosive population growth. These ill effects include, but are not limited to, the following:
· Overcrowding and congestion.
· Overburdened infrastructure, facilities and services.
· Overcrowded and inadequate educational facilities.
· "Scrape and build" development and resulting environmental degradation.
· Volatile fluctuations in real estate markets associated with boom-bust land development.
· Strip commercial development employing a short-term perspective relative to the quality, character and life cycle of uses and changing market conditions.
· Conflicting interaction or relationships between new and existing development and a resulting diminution of property values.
· Severely imbalanced and unhealthy property tax base resulting in a disproportionate tax burden being placed on homeowners (note: based upon the 1999 appraisal roll from the Denton Central Appraisal District, residential development comprises 89.9% of the Town's tax base).
· Destruction of natural landforms and associated natural and ecological resources, including important plant and wildlife habitat.
· Loss of open space, agricultural land and scenic vistas.
· Degradation in the quality of the community's natural and built environments resulting in a loss of community character or sense of place (i.e., "placelessness").
The following facts testify to the rapid and intense urbanization of Flower Mound during the ten-year period from 1990 to 2000.
· The Town's population has grown from 15,527 to 51,300, a total population increase of 35,773 or 230.4%.
· The average number of residential building permits issued annually is 1,170.
· The average annual increase in population is 3,577.
· The average annual growth rate is 12.8%.
· The U.S. Census Bureau has identified Flower Mound as the nation's tenth fastest growing community within its population category.
Historical development patterns since 1990 evidence the fact that the development pressures associated with Flower Mound's rapid and intense urbanization will ultimately consume and destroy many of the community's irreplaceable natural and cultural resources, and the community character and quality of life derived therefrom, unless the Town acts to preserve and protect them.
The objectives of the SMARTGrowth Management Plan are to:
· Mitigate the ill effects of rapid and intense urbanization in Flower Mound.
· Protect the open lands, natural landforms, agricultural landscapes and scenic vistas that create and define Flower Mound's unique community character and quality of life.
· Protect the natural, scenic and ecological resources that are essential elements of Flower Mound's community character and which provide irreplaceable plant and wildlife habitat.
· Ensure that development is respective of and appropriately integrated with the natural physical geography of the land in Flower Mound by requiring environmentally sensitive development techniques to eliminate "scrape and build" development.
· Promote a vigorous, diversified and regionally competitive economy.
· Foster a balanced tax base to ensure Flower Mound's long-term financial ability to respond to the service demands of both new and existing development without placing a disproportionate tax burden on homeowners.
· Ensure that new development produces positive fiscal impacts to allow Flower Mound to maintain a tax structure conducive to both home ownership and economic development, while providing the highest level of service to residents and businesses.
· Ensure that adequate facilities exist to provide both existing and future student populations with optimal learning opportunities as an essential element of a quality living environment and a family-friendly community.
· Ensure that the character and quality of Flower Mound's built environment, relative to commercial development, contribute to desired community character objectives and foster a positive relationship between the taxable value of real property and the corresponding cost of municipal services.
· Ensure that the character and quality of Flower Mound's built environment, relative to residential development, contribute to desired community character objectives and integrate with surrounding natural landscapes.
· Provide adequate availability and access to park lands and recreational opportunities for residents of all ages to maintain and nurture a quality living environment and a family-friendly community.
· Avoid conflicting interaction and/or relationships between new and existing development and a resulting diminution of property values.
· Protect existing farmland and agricultural operations from conflict with new residential development.
· Provide adequate public infrastructure, facilities and services to serve the demands created by new development without degrading or diminishing service levels to existing development.
· Establish a development framework for Flower Mound that is respective of private property rights, while encouraging them to be used responsibly for the benefit of the entire community.
· Implement a long-term strategy of sustainable development that embodies the community's vision and values; achieves both community character and economic development objectives; and considers the social, environmental and fiscal impacts of land development.
· Preserve and enhance Flower Mound's distinctive community character and quality of life by ensuring that its natural and built environments are consistent with the community vision and values embodied in the Flower Mound Comprehensive Plan.
Adopted January 11, 1999, the Town's SMARTGrowth Program is a strategic initiative to manage both the rate and character of development in Flower Mound, with the "SMARTGrowth" acronym representing "Strategically Managed And Responsible Town Growth." While the term "smart growth" is often used synonymously with "sustainable growth," which generally encompasses growth that does not damage or deplete the natural environment nor contribute to urban sprawl, SMARTGrowth in Flower Mound is a broader concept that speaks to our community vision and values and other intangible aspects of our quality of life.
In the Flower Mound context, SMARTGrowth certainly encompasses sustainability, but it also means:
· Growth that is served with adequate public infrastructure, facilities and services.
· Economic development consistent with community character objectives.
· Growth that is benign rather than cancerous (i.e., does not consume or feed upon itself).
· Growth that enhances, rather than impairs, quality of life.
· Growth that encourages and sustains neighborhoods and a sense of place.
· Growth that respects and preserves open lands and natural landscapes and that recognizes and capitalizes on the tremendous natural, scenic, economic and social values inherent in our natural environment.
· Growth that not only respects and preserves the natural environment, but also enhances the quality of the built environment, for community character or sense of place is defined by the quality and character of both the natural and built environments.
With these values in mind, the SMARTGrowth Program was adopted in response to rapid and intense urbanization caused by explosive population growth and its impacts upon the Town's water, wastewater and transportation infrastructure. The SMARTGrowth Program is comprised of four (4) components:
1. The ongoing update of the Town's Comprehensive Plan, which itself consists of 18 component plans and is scheduled to be completed in April 2000.
2. A temporary moratorium on residential master plan amendments, zoning amendments and development plans, which was repealed in conjunction with the adoption of the SMARTGrowth Management Plan.
3. Certain amendments to the Town's building code to preclude the "banking" or stockpiling of residential building permits in response to the temporary moratorium and the announced possibility of a growth management plan.
4. The potential adoption of a growth management plan to maintain a defined "threshold" level of service, while accommodating reasonable and sustainable development.
In the context of these four (4) components, the SMARTGrowth Management Plan is the fourth and most crucial component of the SMARTGrowth Program, as it is the culmination of the initiative begun January 11, 1999. As such, the SMARTGrowth Management Plan implements a long-term growth management strategy of sustainable development that embraces the community's vision and values; achieves both community character and economic development objectives; and considers the social, environmental and fiscal impacts of land development.
As a growth management plan based upon the community vision and values embodied in the Flower Mound Comprehensive Plan, and utilizing Threshold Zoning Criteria to emphasize the character and quality of development, the SMARTGrowth Management Plan provides an effective and critical nexus not only between the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code, but also the Town's SMARTGrowth Program. This crucial nexus will ensure that the Town's Comprehensive Plan, its Land Development Code and the SMARTGrowth Program operate in concert to preserve and enhance Flower Mound's community character and its quality of life, as portrayed in the following illustration:
VI. HOW DOES THE SMARTGROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN INTEGRATE INTO THE TOWN'S DEVELOPMENT PROCESS?
As illustrated in the previous section, the SMARTGrowth Management Plan establishes a crucial nexus between the Town's Comprehensive Plan, its Land Development Code and the SMARTGrowth Program. One of the more significant aspects of this nexus relative to the Town's development process is the linkage that the SMARTGrowth Management Plan forges between the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code. This linkage is significant because it eliminates a major disconnect in the traditional development process that occurs between the analyses required to evaluate Comprehensive Plan amendments and zoning amendments, each of which has a different focus and occurs within differing planning and time contexts.
In relation to zoning amendments, the focus of the traditional zoning analysis is twofold: (1) the specific development proposal's compliance with the use and dimensional regulations of the zoning district in which the proposed project would be located and (2) its projected impact upon adjacent properties. Subsequently, the context of the planning analysis is the neighborhood within which the proposed development project would be located, with the focus of the analysis being limited to site-specific impacts related to the project itself or the immediately surrounding area.
On the other hand, the focus of the analysis required for a Comprehensive Plan amendment is much broader and more complex, addressing such community-wide issues as the adequacy of public infrastructure, facilities and services; impacts upon the community's economic base; environmental quality; and community character and quality of life objectives. Therefore, the planning context for a Comprehensive Plan amendment is the community, not the neighborhood, and, in some instances, may even be the larger regional community of which Flower Mound is a member and its influences and impacts upon the community.
Not only do the analyses traditionally required for the Comprehensive Plan and zoning amendments vastly differ in terms of their planning contexts and foci; they also apply different time contexts to the analysis that is performed. For example, the traditional zoning analysis occurs in conjunction with each proposed development project and, for the most part, applies a present-oriented time context. Whereas, the analysis associated with the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan applies a future-oriented time context and typically occurs only once every five years (in some communities, every ten years), unless the specific development proposal itself necessitates an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan.
The major disconnect that exists in the traditional development process is attributable not only to the differing foci of the analyses performed for Comprehensive Plan and zoning amendments, and the differing planning and time contexts that are applicable to each type of analysis, but also to the fundamental lack of linkage between the two differing types of analyses in most development processes. It is precisely this lack of linkage that makes it possible for a proposed development project to be analyzed only in the context of neighborhood impacts, while community impacts are all but ignored.
The Threshold Zoning analysis required by the SMARTGrowth Management Plan eliminates this disconnect by ensuring that each proposed development project is also evaluated within the context of its impacts upon the community, with the analysis focusing on issues of community-wide concern identified in the Comprehensive Plan, such as those previously identified. In terms of its integration into the Town's land development process, the SMARTGrowth Management Plan forms a bridge or linkage between the Comprehensive Plan and the site or project-specific zoning regulations in the Land Development Code, essentially creating a project-specific analysis within the context of community impacts.
In relation to its applicability to specific development proposals or applications, the Threshold Zoning analysis required by the SMARTGrowth Management Plan will apply to all applications for zoning amendments, development plans and/or site plans filed after February 17, 2000, the date of the Plan's adoption by the Town Council. Relative to process, the Threshold Zoning analysis will occur in conjunction with the traditional zoning analysis if the development proposed necessitates a zoning amendment. If the underlying zoning does not need to be amended, the Threshold Zoning analysis will occur prior to consideration of any applications for residential development plans or non-residential site plans.
For three primary reasons, the SMARTGrowth Management Plan will have an extremely beneficial impact on the Town's economic development efforts. First, it ensures adequate infrastructure capacity to accommodate continued economic development by reserving capacity in the Town's water and wastewater systems for economic development purposes.
Second, the quality of non-residential development that has occurred since the adoption of the SMARTGrowth Program testifies to the fact that quality does indeed beget quality. In this regard, the SMARTGrowth Management Plan promotes non-residential development that positively contributes to the achievement of the Town's community character and quality of life objectives and, in so doing, ensures that Flower Mound becomes an even more desirable place to do business.
Third, by emphasizing the character and quality of development, the SMARTGrowth Management Plan allows Flower Mound to maintain a positive relationship between the taxable value of real property and the corresponding cost of municipal services, enabling the Town to maintain a tax structure conducive to economic development.
In the SMARTGrowth Management Plan, all of these factors coalesce to create a vigorous, diversified and regionally competitive economy for Flower Mound.
Threshold Zoning Criteria effectuate the community vision and values embodied in the Flower Mound Comprehensive Plan by translating them into constitutive zoning criteria to evaluate the community-wide impacts of development applications and projects for the purpose of ensuring that development occurs in a manner that contributes to the accomplishment of community character and quality of life objectives. There are three general types of Threshold Zoning Criteria used in the SMARTGrowth Management Plan:
· Performance-based criteria relative to the adequacy of public service levels.
· Per unit of population criteria relative to the adequacy of public facilities.
· Values-based, qualitative criteria relative to community character and quality of life objectives.
The Threshold Zoning Criteria are also grouped into seven general categories, as follows: adequate public infrastructure, adequate public facilities, adequate public services, economic development, fiscal impact, environmental quality, and community character. The various Threshold Zoning Criteria are also applied in three different ways to the evaluation of specific development applications and projects. In this regard, the Threshold Zoning Criteria are designated either absolute, relative or incentive in their application, as explained below:
· Absolute criteria require complete compliance at the time a development application or project is evaluated, with the failure to comply resulting in the denial of same until such time as complete compliance is or can be attained, as defined in the applicable criterion.
· Relative criteria pertain to either complex or values-based, qualitative development impacts for which absolute criteria are inappropriate. While the failure to attain complete compliance with such criteria will result in the denial of a development application or project, mitigation measures may be proposed by the development applicant and may be considered in evaluating whether compliance is or can be attained, provided such mitigation measures are embodied in a development agreement.
· Incentive criteria are policy-related, incentive-based criteria (rather than regulatory criteria) that are intended to encourage or incentify specific types of development. These criteria will be considered and applied on a project-by-project basis, are discretionary with the Town and will be approved by the Town Council only after community input and public hearing.
In applying the absolute and relative Threshold Zoning Criteria to a specific development application or project, a "pass-fail" evaluation is utilized to determine compliance not only with each criterion, but also compliance with all of the absolute and relative Threshold Zoning Criteria collectively. In other words, for a development application or project to attain compliance with the SMARTGrowth Management Plan (ensuring that it contributes to community character and quality of life objectives), it must be evaluated as "passing" or complying with each and every absolute and relative Threshold Zoning Criterion. Otherwise, it will "fail" and be denied until such time as compliance is or can be attained. The actual Threshold Zoning Criteria follow.
· For a development application or project to be approved, the Town must not have exceeded nor be projected to exceed 90.0% of its treated water supply, based upon its then available treated water supply plus any additional supply programmed for commencement of construction within the then current or the next fiscal year of the Town's Capital Improvement Program, with the remaining 10.0% of supply being reserved for future economic development, institutional or civic uses. The purpose of this criterion is to provide adequate public infrastructure to serve the demands created by new development without degrading or diminishing service levels to existing development, while also fostering a balanced tax base through economic development to ensure Flower Mound's long-term financial ability to respond to the service demands of both new and existing development without placing a disproportionate tax burden on homeowners. Application: Absolute.
· For a development application or project to be approved, the Town must not have exceeded nor be projected to exceed 90.0% of its rated water pumping capacity in any pressure plane during peak-hour demand with the largest pump at each pump station out-of-service, based upon the then available rated pumping capacity and contributed capacity from then available elevated storage and any additional pumping capacity or contributed elevated storage capacity programmed for commencement of construction within the then current or the next fiscal year of the Town's Capital Improvement Program, with the remaining 10.0% of rated pumping capacity being reserved for future economic development, institutional or civic uses. The purpose of this criterion is to provide adequate public infrastructure to serve the demands created by new development without degrading or diminishing service levels to existing development, while also fostering a balanced tax base through economic development to ensure Flower Mound's long-term financial ability to respond to the service demands of both new and existing development without placing a disproportionate tax burden on homeowners. Application: Absolute.
· For a development application or project to be approved, the Town must not have exceeded nor be projected to exceed 90.0% of its wastewater treatment capacity, based upon its then available treatment capacity and any additional treatment capacity programmed for commencement of construction within the then current or the next fiscal year of the Town's Capital Improvement Program, with the remaining 10.0% of wastewater treatment capacity being reserved for future economic development, institutional or civic uses. This criterion is not applicable if a proposed development's wastewater flows will not be treated by the Town's wastewater treatment plant or the Trinity River Authority's Denton Creek Regional Wastewater System. The purpose of this criterion is to provide adequate public infrastructure to serve the demands created by new development without degrading or diminishing service levels to existing development, while also fostering a balanced tax base through economic development to ensure Flower Mound's long-term financial ability to respond to the service demands of both new and existing development without placing a disproportionate tax burden on homeowners. Application: Absolute.
· For a development application or project to be approved, the Town must not have exceeded nor be projected to exceed 90.0% of the rated pumping capacity of any lift station serving the proposed development during the design storm event with the largest pump at each lift station out-of-service and without considering wastewater interceptor capacity, based upon the then available rated pumping capacity of each lift station and any additional pumping capacity programmed for commencement of construction within the then current or the next fiscal year of the Town's Capital Improvement Program, with the remaining 10.0% of rated pumping capacity of each lift station being reserved for future economic development, institutional or civic uses. This criterion is not applicable if a proposed development will not be connected to the Town's wastewater collection system. The purpose of this criterion is to provide adequate public infrastructure to serve the demands created by new development without degrading or diminishing service levels to existing development, while also fostering a balanced tax base through economic development to ensure Flower Mound's long-term financial ability to respond to the service demands of both new and existing development without placing a disproportionate tax burden on homeowners. Application: Absolute.
· For a development application or project to be approved, the Town must not have exceeded nor be projected to exceed 90.0% of the maximum capacity at any location or point on any major wastewater interceptor serving the proposed development and identified in the Town's Wastewater Master Plan during the design storm event, without surcharging any manhole, based upon the then available maximum capacity of each major interceptor and any additional interceptor capacity programmed for commencement of construction within the then current or the next fiscal year of the Town's Capital Improvement Program, with the remaining 10.0% of wastewater interceptor capacity being reserved for future economic development, institutional or civic uses. This criterion is not applicable if a proposed development will not be connected to the Town's wastewater collection system. The purpose of this criterion is to provide adequate public infrastructure to serve the demands created by new development without degrading or diminishing service levels to existing development, while also fostering a balanced tax base through economic development to ensure Flower Mound's long-term financial ability to respond to the service demands of both new and existing development without placing a disproportionate tax burden on homeowners. Application: Absolute.
· For a development application or project to be approved, the Level of Service (LOS) on any Town arterial or collector link located within the same transportation service area as the proposed development, or within any contiguous transportation service area, cannot then currently nor be projected to be worse than LOS "C" during peak-hour demand, based upon the then available traffic capacity of each such link and any capacity improvements programmed for commencement of construction within the then current or the next fiscal year of the Town's Capital Improvement Program. Retail and commercial development generating 255 or fewer trips per hour during the peak-hour is exempt from this criterion, as are economic development, institutional and civic uses. The purpose of this criterion is to provide adequate public infrastructure to serve the demands created by new development without degrading or diminishing service levels to existing development, while also fostering a balanced tax base through economic development to ensure Flower Mound's long-term financial ability to respond to the service demands of both new and existing development without placing a disproportionate tax burden on homeowners. Application: Absolute.
· For a development application or project to be approved, the Level of Service (LOS) on any Town arterial or collector intersection located within the same transportation service area as the proposed development, or within any contiguous transportation service area, cannot then currently nor be projected to be worse than LOS "C" during peak-hour demand, based upon the then available traffic capacity of each such intersection and any capacity improvements programmed for commencement of construction within the then current or the next fiscal year of the Town's Capital Improvement Program. Retail and commercial development generating 255 or fewer trips per hour during the peak-hour is exempt from this criterion, as are economic development, institutional and civic uses. The purpose of this criterion is to provide adequate public infrastructure to serve the demands created by new development without degrading or diminishing service levels to existing development, while also fostering a balanced tax base through economic development to ensure Flower Mound's long-term financial ability to respond to the service demands of both new and existing development without placing a disproportionate tax burden on homeowners. Application: Absolute.
· For a development application or project to be approved, the Level of Service (LOS) on any State arterial link located within the same transportation service area as the proposed development, or within any contiguous transportation service area, cannot then currently nor be projected to be worse than LOS "C" during peak-hour demand, based upon the then available traffic capacity of each such link and any capacity improvements for which the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has awarded a construction contract and issued notice to proceed with the construction thereof. Retail and commercial development generating 255 or fewer trips per hour during the peak-hour is exempt from this criterion, as are economic development, institutional and civic uses. The purpose of this criterion is to provide adequate public infrastructure to serve the demands created by new development without degrading or diminishing service levels to existing development, while also fostering a balanced tax base through economic development to ensure Flower Mound's long-term financial ability to respond to the service demands of both new and existing development without placing a disproportionate tax burden on homeowners. Application: Absolute.
· For a development application or project to be approved, the Level of Service (LOS) on any State arterial intersection located within the same transportation service area as the proposed development, or within any contiguous transportation service area, cannot then currently nor be projected to be worse than LOS "D" during peak-hour demand, based upon the then available traffic capacity of each such intersection and any capacity improvements for which the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has awarded a construction contract and issued notice to proceed with the construction thereof. Retail and commercial development generating 255 or fewer trips per hour during the peak hour is exempt from this criterion, as are economic development, institutional and civic uses. The purpose of this criterion is to provide adequate public infrastructure to serve the demands created by new development without degrading or diminishing service levels to existing development, while also fostering a balanced tax base through economic development to ensure Flower Mound's long-term financial ability to respond to the service demands of both new and existing development without placing a disproportionate tax burden on homeowners. Application: Absolute.
· During the twelve-month period immediately following the adoption of the SMARTGrowth Management Plan, for a development application or project to be approved, the combined amount of community and neighborhood park land available Town-wide must be equal to or greater than 7.75 acres per 1,000 population, based upon the then available community and neighborhood park land and any such park land programmed for acquisition during the then current or the next fiscal year of the Town's Capital Improvement Program. During the subsequent twelve-month period, for a development application or project to be approved, the combined amount of community and neighborhood park land available Town-wide must be equal to or greater than 8.37 acres per 1,000 population, based upon the then available community and neighborhood park land and any such park land programmed for acquisition during the then current or the next fiscal year of the Town's Capital Improvement Program. Thereafter, for a development application or project to be approved, the combined amount of community and neighborhood park land available Town-wide must be equal to or greater than 9.00 acres per 1,000 population, based upon the then available community and neighborhood park land and any such park land programmed for acquisition during the then current or the next fiscal year of the Town's Capital Improvement Program. The purpose of this criterion is to provide adequate availability and access to park lands and recreational opportunities for residents of all ages and to maintain and nurture a quality living environment and a family-friendly community. Application: Relative.
· For a development application or project to be approved, written certification must be provided from the applicable public school district that all public elementary, middle and high schools located within the Town's corporate limits that will receive student population as a result of the proposed development have not exceeded nor are projected to exceed 110.0% of their respective programmed student capacity, based upon each public school's then available programmed capacity (without consideration of any capacity created by the use of portable or modular classrooms), any additional capacity programmed for commencement of construction within the then current or the next fiscal year of the applicable school district's capital improvement program, and any realignment of attendance zones planned to occur in the next school year of the applicable school district. The purpose of this criterion is to ensure that adequate facilities exist to provide both existing and future student populations with optimal learning opportunities as an essential element of a quality living environment and a family-friendly community. Application: Absolute.
· For a development application or project to be approved, the Police Department's average response times to calls for the twelve-month period previous to the date of the application must not then currently nor be then projected to be more than 4.5 minutes for Priority 1 (emergency) calls, 5.5 minutes for Priority 2 (urgent) calls, and/or 10.0 minutes for Priority 3 (service) calls, based upon then existing response times to such calls and any projected improvements to said response times due to personnel and/or equipment additions programmed for acquisition within the Town's annual operating budget for the then current fiscal year. The purpose of this criterion is to protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring the provision of adequate police services to serve the demands created by new development without degrading or diminishing service levels to existing development. Application: Relative.
· For a development application or project to be approved, the Fire Department's average response times to fire calls for the twelve-month period previous to the date of the application must not then currently nor be then projected to be more than 6.5 minutes for Priority 1 (emergency) calls and/or 13.0 minutes for Priority 3 (service) calls, based upon then existing response times to such calls and any projected improvements to said response times due to personnel and/or equipment additions programmed for acquisition within the Town's annual operating budget for the then current fiscal year. The purpose of this criterion is to protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring the provision of adequate fire services to serve the demands created by new development without degrading or diminishing service levels to existing development. Application: Relative.
· For a development application or project to be approved, the Fire Department's average response times to emergency medical calls for the twelve-month period previous to the date of the application must not then currently nor be then projected to be more than 6.5 minutes for Priority 1 (emergency) calls and/or 13.0 minutes for Priority 3 (service) calls, based upon then existing response times to such calls and any projected improvements to said response times due to personnel and/or equipment additions programmed for acquisition within the Town's annual operating budget for the then current fiscal year. The purpose of this criterion is to protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring the provision of adequate emergency medical services to serve the demands created by new development without degrading or diminishing service levels to existing development. Application: Relative.
· New private capital investment (exclusive of land values) exceeding $10.0 million and related to targeted commercial and industrial uses will be considered for economic development incentives. Targeted uses include corporate campus and/or business office park development; hospitality and/or resort uses; business uses related to the telecommunications industry; clean manufacturing uses related to the telecommunications industry and/or, electronic components; and logistical warehousing and distribution uses related to the telecommunications industry, electronic components or other high-value products. Such incentives will be considered and negotiated on a project-by-project basis commensurate with the quality and character of the development and the extent to which it contributes to the accomplishment of community character and quality of life objectives. Incentives will be approved by the Town Council only after community input and public hearing and may include, but are not limited to: expedited development review, permit fee waivers, infrastructure assistance, public-private partnerships, and performance-based tax abatements (with give-back provisions in the event of non-performance). The purpose of this criterion is to promote a vigorous, diversified and regionally competitive economy, while creating a balanced tax base to ensure Flower Mound's long-term financial ability to respond to the service demands of both new and existing development without placing a disproportionate tax burden on homeowners. Application: Incentive.
· Until such time as residential development bears a tax burden no greater than 75.0% of the Town's taxable valuation or tax base, as determined by the Denton Central Appraisal District, for a new residential development application or project to be approved, the ad valorem and sales tax revenues projected to be derived from the development during the ten-year period following the projected acceptance of the development's public improvements must be equal to or greater than the Town's corresponding projected cost of providing municipal services to the development during the same ten-year period. This criterion is in response to the existing, unhealthy imbalance in the Town's tax base between residential and non-residential development, with the purpose of this criterion being to ensure that new residential development does not produce negative fiscal impacts while the existing imbalance is so severe, allowing Flower Mound to maintain a tax structure conducive to both home ownership and economic development and to continue to provide the highest level of service to its residents and businesses. Application: Relative.
· For a development application or project to be approved, the projected velocity and volume of surface run-off must not exceed pre-development conditions, with any additional run-off projected to be generated by development being retained on-site and absorbed, evaporated and/or released from the development at a rate not exceeding the pre-development rate of release. Proposed mitigation measures shall not create a tailwater elevation that will cause the upstream velocity or volume of surface run-off to be less than pre-development conditions. Erosion control and pollution prevention plans shall be adequate to prevent erosional and depositional features such as gullies and accumulations of silt attributable to site development, with such adequacy being determined by the Town. The purpose of this criterion is to mitigate the ill effects of increases in velocity and volume of surface run-off on downstream property owners as a result of rapid and intense urbanization, while preventing the flooding of upstream properties. Application: Absolute.
· For a development application or project to be approved, appropriate professional delineation certification must be provided relative to the existence of any jurisdictional wetlands and/or waters of the United States, as such jurisdictional areas are defined at the time of development application by the federal Clean Water Act and the standards and guidelines in use by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. If such wetlands and/or waters are determined to exist, assurance or proof of compliance acceptable to the Town must be provided relative to all federal regulations pertaining to the protection and mitigation of such jurisdictional areas. The Town reserves the right to require the protection and preservation of any or all jurisdictional areas determined to exist and to deny proposed mitigation measures. The purpose of this criterion is to protect the natural, scenic and ecological resources that are essential elements of Flower Mound's community character and which provide irreplaceable plant and wildlife habitat. Application: Absolute.
· For a development application or project to be approved for development in either the Cross Timbers Conservation Development District or the Cross Timbers Protection Area, a professionally prepared Habitat Protection Plan, prepared by a wildlife biologist or other qualified individual or firm, must be submitted for the protection of habitat and wildlife values. At a minimum, said plan shall identify: the principal species present within the proposed development area; any species within the proposed development area that are designated by any state or federal agency as "protected," "threatened" or "endangered"; critical habitat for any such protected, threatened or endangered species; the species which will be used as "indicators" in the Habitat Protection Plan; all existing wildlife habitat elements, including sources of water, vegetative cover, movement routes and wildlife use area; proposed measures acceptable to the Town to minimize land disturbance and the modification of natural landforms in order to maximize the retention of large stands of trees or habitat patches greater than one acre in area; proposed measures acceptable to the Town to provide for the movement of wildlife through or around developed areas by the connection of large stands of trees and habitat patches; and proposed measures acceptable to the Town to inform and educate future residents of the development relative to the development's habitat protection features and how to properly maintain said features in the long-term. The purpose of this criterion is to protect the natural, scenic and ecological resources that are essential elements of Flower Mound's community character and which provide irreplaceable plant and wildlife habitat. Application: Absolute.
· For a development application or project to be approved for retail or commercial uses, the proposed buildings must be individually designed and planned to create structures that comply with the Town's adopted architectural guidelines or standards, as they exist on the date of development application. The purpose of this criterion is twofold: (1) to ensure that the character and quality of retail and commercial development contributes to desired community character objectives and (2) to preclude the design and construction of buildings for which the tenants and/or uses are readily recognizable solely by the buildings' architectural elevations, colors, materials, other architectural elements and/or the arrangement thereof. Application: Absolute.
· For a development application or project to be approved, all utility distribution facilities must be designed to be placed underground, including the land-wire distribution facilities of electrical, cable, telephone and telecommunications providers. The purpose of this criterion is to ensure that the character and quality of Flower Mound's built environment contribute to desired community character objectives and to maintain or enhance property values. Application: Absolute.
· For a development application or project to be approved, existing access to public trailheads or other public recreational areas on public lands must be maintained. The access provided may be restricted to pedestrian, bicycle and/or equestrian uses. The purpose of this criterion is to provide adequate availability and access to park lands and recreational opportunities for residents of all ages to maintain and nurture a quality living environment and a family-friendly community. Application: Absolute.
· For a development application or project to be approved in the Cross Timbers Conservation Development District, it must not propose urban residential development. Urban residential development is defined as residential development containing residential lots of less than two acres in area, exclusive of smaller lot sizes approved by the Town in conjunction with a conservation development. The purpose of this criterion is to mitigate the ill effects of rapid and intense urbanization in Flower Mound by protecting the open lands, natural landforms, agricultural landscapes and scenic vistas that create and define Flower Mound's unique community character and quality of life. Application: Absolute.
· For a development application or project to be approved, it must not propose development on any existing topographical slopes of 12.0% or greater, nor propose to alter any existing topographical slopes that are less than 12.0% but equal to or greater than 5.0% (other than within five feet of the footprint of the proposed structure or structures). The purpose of this criterion is to ensure that development is respective of and appropriately integrated with the natural physical geography of the land in Flower Mound by requiring environmentally sensitive development techniques to eliminate "scrape and build" development. Application: Absolute.
· For a development application or project to be approved, it must not propose to eliminate, or to alter or discontinue recharge flows to, existing impoundments of water with a surface area capacity of one-half acre or more (regardless of whether such impoundments are naturally occurring or constructed). All such impoundments shall be integrated into the proposed development and addressed in the development's Habitat Protection Plan, which shall at a minimum include such enhancements and restoration as are necessary to provide or maintain reasonable wildlife habitat, to improve the aesthetic quality in areas of shoreline transition and to stabilize shoreline areas subject to erosion. The purpose of this criterion is to protect the natural, scenic and ecological resources that are essential elements of Flower Mound's community character and that provide irreplaceable plant and wildlife habitat. Application: Absolute.
· For a residential development application or project proposing development adjacent to existing agricultural operations or uses to be approved, an agricultural resource management easement must be recorded acknowledging the existence of such agricultural operations or uses, waiving all common law rights to object to necessary and customary agricultural management activities associated with such agricultural operations or uses legally conducted on adjacent lands, and granting an easement to adjacent property owners to continue such agricultural operations or uses. Said easement shall be recorded on the face of the record plat of the development, and no building permit for a residence on any lot in the development shall be issued until a substantially identical easement has been lawfully recorded by the property owner. The purpose of this criterion is to protect existing agricultural operations and uses (which create and define Flower Mound's unique community character and quality of life) from future conflict with new residential development. Application: Absolute.
· For a development application or project to be approved, the proposed development must occur in patterns that minimize the visual impacts of the development in relation to scenic corridors or vistas as viewed from arterial or collector thoroughfares. Conservation development employing clustering techniques that place development away from direct view from such thoroughfares shall be determined to comply with this threshold criterion. The purpose of this criterion is to integrate residential development in the Cross Timbers Conservation Development District with the surrounding natural landscapes in a manner that protects the open lands, natural landforms, agricultural landscapes and scenic vistas that create and define Flower Mound's unique community character and quality of life. Application: Relative.
· Conservation development will be considered for conservation incentives commensurate with the quality and character of the open or natural lands to be placed within a conservation easement or otherwise conserved and the extent to which the conserved land contributes to the preservation of the Cross Timbers Conservation Development District's country character, including its open, natural, scenic and ecological values. Incentives will be considered on a project-by-project basis and will be approved by the Town Council only after community input and public hearing. Such incentives may include but are not limited to: expedited development review, permit fee waivers, reduced street infrastructure requirements, reduced park land dedication requirements, and reduction of monetary assessments relative to agricultural rollback taxes. The purpose of this criterion is to protect the open lands, natural landscapes and ecological resources that create and define Flower Mound's unique community character and which are essential to the accomplishment of community character, quality of life and economic development objectives. Application: Incentive.
This section provides definitions for certain general and technical terms used in the SMARTGrowth Management Plan and also establishes the required methods for calculating capacity and demand for those Threshold Zoning Criteria that require such calculations. In this regard, the following words have the meanings ascribed to them below, unless the context in which they are used clearly indicates otherwise.
DEFINITIONS
Agricultural resource management easement: an easement granted to the benefit of adjacent property owners and recorded on the face of a record plat and/or recorded in conjunction with a building permit for the purpose of acknowledging the existence of agricultural operations and uses on adjacent lands and waiving common law rights to object to necessary and customary agricultural management activities legally conducted in association with such agricultural operations and uses.
Arterial: A thoroughfare as defined and identified on the Town's adopted Thoroughfare Master Plan.
Background traffic volumes: for the study year, the set of daily and peak-hour traffic volumes projected to exist in the study area (including projected traffic volumes from 75.0% of the lot inventory in the study area) prior to the addition of project traffic.
Civic uses: land and/or facilities owned and operated by the Town of Flower Mound, including public works projects.
Collector: a thoroughfare as defined and identified on the Town's adopted Thoroughfare Master Plan.
Conservation Development: a residential development project in which dwelling units are clustered on smaller lots than would otherwise be allowed within tracts of land zoned "A," Agricultural District, for the purpose of preserving open or natural lands as an integral component of the development (the net density of development shall remain one unit per two acres). Conserved lands shall be placed in a conservation easement.
Conservation Easement: a voluntary and permanent deed restriction which limits the development and/or subdivision of property for the purposes of protecting conservation values in the land. The easement is a recorded restriction, applies to and binds all subsequent owners, and may be held by either (1) a non-profit entity or organization that manages open space, such as a land trust or other qualified entity, pursuant to Section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, or (2) a governmental entity.
Contributed capacity from elevated water storage: the rate of flow required to drain 75.0% of available elevated water storage in an eight-hour period, with the remaining 25.0% of storage capacity being reserved for fire protection.
Design Storm: a storm equivalent to a five-year recurrence interval and a one-hour duration rain event.
Development application or project: any application or project for the development of land that requires the submission of a zoning amendment, development plan and/or site plan.
Economic development uses: corporate campus and/or business office park development; hospitality and/or resort uses; business uses related to the telecommunications industry; clean manufacturing uses related to the telecommunications industry and/or electronic components; and logistical warehousing and distribution uses related to the telecommunications industry, electronic components or other high-value products.
Existing lot: a lot for which a building permit has been issued, regardless of whether the structure or structures on the lot are occupied.
HCM: the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board.
Institutional uses: land and/or facilities owned and operated by the federal government, the state government, the county government, a political subdivision of the state or a church, including public works projects.
Intersection: the juncture of two or more thoroughfares.
Land use planning districts: the four land use planning districts identified on the Town's adopted Land Use Plan map, which include the Lakeside Business District, the Long Prairie District, the Cross Timbers Conservation Development District and the Denton Creek District.
Level of Service (LOS): the measure of the quality of transportation facilities and expressed as a grade of A,B,C,D,E or F, with the grade being determined by the techniques described in the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board.
Link: the portion of a thoroughfare between two intersections.
Lot inventory: all residential lots which exist by virtue of a development plan approved by the Town and for which a building permit has not been issued.
Priority 1 calls: as defined in the databases maintained by the Town's Police, Fire and Emergency Medical Services.
Priority 2 calls: as defined in the databases maintained by the Town's Police, Fire and Emergency Medical Services.
Priority 3 calls: as defined in the databases maintained by the Town's Police, Fire and Emergency Medical Services.
Programmed capacity improvements: capital infrastructure capacity improvements programmed for commencement of construction within the then current or the next fiscal year of the Town's adopted Five-Year Capital Improvement Program.
Project Traffic: for the determination of adequate transportation infrastructure, project traffic is the projected traffic volumes from the proposed development based on trip rates identified in the Trip Generation Manual and is distributed and assigned to the study area based on projected conditions for the build-out year.
Proposed development: any application or project for the development of land that requires the submission of a zoning amendment, development plan and/or site plan.
Response times: the time that elapses between the time a call for police, fire or emergency service is received and the time the responding unit arrives at the scene or the location from which the call originated.
Study area: for the determination of adequate transportation infrastructure, the study area consists of the transportation service area in which the proposed development is located and all contiguous transportation service areas.
Study year: for the determination of adequate transportation infrastructure, the study year is the initial calendar year in which project traffic is expected to occur.
Tailwater elevation: the water surface elevation above the flow line of a drainage facility at the upstream property line.
TNRCC: the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission.
Threshold Zoning Criteria: constitutive zoning criteria to evaluate the community-wide impacts of proposed development applications and projects for the purpose of ensuring that development occurs in a manner that contributes to the attainment of community character and quality of life objectives.
Topographical slopes: the vertical elevation change in a landform divided by the horizontal distance covered within the slope (the percentage of slope should not be confused with the angle of the slope related to the horizontal plane).
Traffic capacity: the maximum number of vehicles that a given transportation facility is designed to serve at an established Level of Service (LOS).
Transportation service area: the service areas defined in the Town's adopted Roadway Impact Fee Ordinance.
Trip Generation Manual: the latest edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Urban residential development: residential lots of less than two acres in area, exclusive of smaller lot sizes approved in conjunction with a conservation development.
Wetlands: jurisdictional wetlands as defined by the federal Clean Water Act and the standards and guidelines in use by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, including the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
METHODOLOGIES
Water Supply
Total available supply shall be the sum of contracted and available treated water supply from Dallas Water Utilities, contracted and available treated water supply from the Upper Trinity Regional Water District, and any treated water supply projected to be available from programmed capacity improvements. Net available supply shall be equal to total available supply less 10.0% to be reserved for economic development, institutional or civic uses.
Total projected demand shall be the sum of projected maximum day demand (MDD) for all existing lots, projected MDD for 75.0% of the lot inventory, and projected MDD for the proposed development. For proposed development to be approved, total projected demand must not exceed net available supply.
Water Pumping Capacity
Total available pumping capacity shall be determined on the basis of individual pressure planes and shall be the sum of the rated name plate pumping capacity of each pump station (in MGD) with the largest pump out of service at each station, any pumping capacity projected to be available from programmed capacity improvements, and contributed capacity from elevated storage. Net available pumping capacity shall be equal to total available pumping capacity less 10.0% to be reserved for economic development, institutional or civic uses.
Total projected demand shall be the sum of projected peak-hour demand (in MGD) for all existing lots, projected peak-hour demand (in MGD) for 75.0% of the lot inventory, and projected peak-hour demand for the proposed development. For proposed development to be approved, total projected demand must not exceed net available pumping capacity.
Wastewater Treatment Capacity
Total available treatment capacity for the Town's wastewater treatment plant shall be the sum of the TNRCC permitted discharge flow (in MGD) from the treatment plant and any treatment capacity projected to be available from programmed capacity improvements. Net available treatment capacity shall be equal to total available treatment capacity less 10.0% to be reserved for economic development, institutional or civic uses.
Total projected demand for areas served by the Town's wastewater treatment plant shall be the sum of projected wastewater flows for all existing lots, projected wastewater flows for 75.0% of the lot inventory, and projected wastewater flows for the proposed development. For proposed development to be approved, total projected demand must not exceed net available treatment capacity.
Total available treatment capacity for the Denton Creek District, as defined in the adopted Land Use Plan, shall be the sum of contracted and available treatment capacity from the Trinity River Authority's Denton Creek Regional Wastewater System and any treatment capacity projected to be available from programmed capacity improvements. Net available treatment capacity for the Denton Creek District shall be equal to total treatment capacity less 10.0% to be reserved for economic development, institutional or civic uses.
Total projected demand for areas within the Denton Creek District shall be the sum of projected wastewater flows for all existing lots and uses within the District, projected wastewater flows for 75.0% of the lot inventory within the District, and projected wastewater flows for the proposed development. For proposed development to be approved, total projected demand must not exceed net available treatment capacity.
Wastewater Lift Station Pumping Capacity
Total available lift station pumping capacity shall be the sum of the rated name plate pumping capacity of each lift station serving the proposed development with the largest pump out of service and any pumping capacity projected to be available from programmed capacity improvements. Net available lift station pumping capacity shall be equal to total available lift station pumping capacity less 10.0% to be reserved for economic development, institutional or civic uses.
Total projected demand shall be determined on the basis of a design storm and shall be the sum of projected wastewater flows for all existing lots served by each lift station serving the proposed development, projected wastewater flows for 75.0% of the lot inventory that will be served by each lift station serving the proposed development, and projected wastewater flows for the proposed development. For proposed development to be approved, total projected demand must not exceed net available lift station pumping capacity.
Wastewater Interceptor Capacity
Total available wastewater interceptor capacity shall be the sum of the maximum capacity of each major interceptor serving the proposed development (as such capacity is defined in the Town's adopted Wastewater Master Plan for each interceptor segment) and any interceptor capacity projected to be available from programmed capacity improvements. Net available wastewater interceptor capacity shall be equal to total available wastewater interceptor capacity less 10.0% to be reserved for economic development, institutional or civic uses.
Total projected demand shall be determined on the basis of a design storm and shall be the sum of projected wastewater flows for all existing lots served by each major interceptor serving the proposed development, projected wastewater flows for 75.0% of the lot inventory that will be served by each major interceptor serving the proposed development, and projected wastewater flows for the proposed development. For proposed development to be approved, total projected demand must not exceed net available wastewater interceptor capacity.
Transportation
The determination of adequate transportation infrastructure shall be based on the projected Level of Service (LOS) for four categories of transportation facilities within the study area for the proposed development. The four categories of transportation facilities and the LOS criterion for each are as follows:
· Town Arterial and Collector Links: LOS "C"
· Town Arterial and Collector Intersections: LOS "C"
· State Arterial Links: LOS "C"
· State Arterial Intersections: LOS "D"
The LOS shall be determined for each such facility in the study area based upon its projected transportation capacity and projected transportation demand in the study year. Projected transportation capacity shall include programmed capacity improvements and any traffic capacity projected to be available from capacity improvements for which the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has awarded a construction contract and issued notice to proceed with the construction thereof. Projected transportation demand shall include background traffic volumes and project traffic. For proposed development to be approved, the projected LOS on any such transportation facility in the study year must not be worse than the established LOS criterion for the applicable category of transportation facilities.
Park Land
Total available community and neighborhood park land shall be the sum of all such park land owned by the Town at the time of development application and any such park land programmed for acquisition during the then current or the next fiscal year of the Town's Capital Improvement Program.
Total projected demand for community and neighborhood park land shall be the sum of projected existing population at the time of development application, projected population for 100.0% of the lot inventory, and projected population for the proposed development (with all population projections using the North Central Texas Council of Government's population multiplier for Flower Mound). For development to be approved, the total available community and neighborhood park land relative to projected demand for same expressed in acres per 1,000 population must be equal to or greater than the standards established in the Park Land Threshold Zoning Criterion.
Fiscal Impact
The fiscal analysis required by the Fiscal Impact Threshold Zoning Criterion is performed by a consultant retained by the Town for such purpose.
Miscellaneous
· All costs incurred by the Town to perform a traffic impact analysis and/or a fiscal impact analysis to evaluate a proposed development in relation to its compliance with the Transportation and Fiscal Impact Threshold Zoning Criterion are paid by the development applicant. Said applicant shall deposit the estimated cost to perform such analyses with the Town prior to said analyses being performed. If the actual cost of the analysis is more than the estimated cost for same, the applicant shall pay the additional sum to the Town prior to the analysis being considered complete. Should the actual cost of an analysis be less than the anticipated cost for same, the Town will reimburse the applicant the difference between the estimated and actual cost of the analysis.
· Any analytical techniques, procedures or methodologies necessary to calculate capacity and demand for the Threshold Zoning Criteria that require such calculations, and not specifically defined or described herein, are performed in accordance with one or more of the following, as applicable:
- The analytical techniques, procedures or methodologies utilized in the Town's adopted Land Use Plan, Water Master Plan, Wastewater Master Plan, or Thoroughfare Master Plan, as applicable.
- The analytical techniques, procedures or methodologies established in the Town's Land Development Code for the performance of a traffic impact analysis.
- The Town's Engineering Design Criteria and Construction Standards.
- TNRCC design criteria and standards.
- If none of the above are applicable, in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices as determined by the Town Engineer.
X. WHAT IS THE SMARTGROWTH COMMISSION?
Organization
In conjunction with the adoption of the SMARTGrowth Management Plan, an advisory board known as the "SMARTGrowth Commission" was created. The membership of the Commission consists of the following:
· The seven (7) regular members of the Town's Planning and Zoning Commission, who shall serve on the SMARTGrowth Commission during their term of office on the Planning and Zoning Commission.
· The two (2) alternate members of the Town's Planning and Zoning Commission, who shall serve on the SMARTGrowth Commission during their term of office on the Planning and Zoning Commission.
· One (1) representative of the real estate industry appointed by a majority vote of the Town Council to serve a three-year term beginning January 1, 2000.
· One (1) representative of the development industry appointed by a majority vote of the Town Council to serve a three-year term beginning January 1, 2000.
· The Town Manager, Town Attorney, Director of Community Development and Planning and Zoning Manager shall serve as ex-officio members of the SMARTGrowth Commission.
· The chairperson and vice-chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commission shall serve as the chairperson and vice-chairperson, respectively, of the SMARTGrowth Commission.
· A majority of the Commission shall constitute a quorum to do business and the affirmative vote of the majority of those attending shall be necessary to pass any motion.
· The Commission shall establish rules and procedures to govern its operation. In the event a question over procedures arises, Robert's Rules of Order shall prevail.
· The chairperson shall preside over meetings and shall have a vote in all matters before the Commission. In the absence of the chairperson, the vice-chairperson shall assume the duties of the chairperson.
· The Director of Community Development shall assign a staff member to serve as liaison to the Commission, which staff member shall be responsible for the recording of minutes of all Commission meetings.
Powers and Duties
The SMARTGrowth Commission has the following powers and duties:
· To conduct an annual review of the effectiveness of the SMARTGrowth Management Plan in achieving its stated objectives.
· To determine annually whether compliance with the Threshold Zoning Criteria has been maintained by all development applications and projects approved during the prior twelve-month period.
· To determine annually whether compliance with the Threshold Zoning Criteria is likely to be maintained in the future, based on short-range (one-to-two years) and mid-range (three-to-five years) forecasts.
· To review annually whether each Threshold Zoning Criterion is appropriate for its stated purpose.
· To determine annually whether any new Threshold Zoning Criteria should be considered for adoption.
· To determine annually whether any Threshold Zoning Criteria should be deleted or amended in relation to the Threshold Zoning analysis.
· To conduct public hearings and meetings as necessary to obtain the requisite public comment and input to perform the powers and duties described herein.
· To perform the duties and responsibilities of the capital improvements advisory committee required by Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code pertaining to the assessment and collection of impact fees.
· To perform all other powers and duties as may be conferred by the Town Council.
XI. OTHER RELATED AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
Several related Land Development Code amendments were adopted in conjunction with the SMARTGrowth Management Plan, as they operate in concert with the Plan and had to be adopted prior to the repeal of the temporary moratorium on residential master plan amendments, zoning amendments and development plans. These related amendments include the following:
· Amendments to the Town's agricultural zoning district regulations to provide for a conservation development alternative.
· Amendments to the Town's tree preservation requirements.
· Amendments to the Town's park land dedication requirements.
· Amendments to the Town's use regulations relative to single-tenant retail uses.
XII. OVERVIEW OF AMENDMENTS TO AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT.
The amendments to the Town's Agricultural Zoning District:
· Provide for a Conservation Development option under the agricultural zoning district classification.
· Provide for the calculation of density on the basis of one unit per two acres, which complies with the existing rural land use designation and corresponding agricultural zoning district classification.
· Provide for a minimum lot size of one acre with conservation development, with the remaining acreage to be preserved.
· Require a minimum of 50% of the gross land area proposed for development to be conserved.
· Require that all conserved land be placed in a conservation easement.
· Create incentives for Conservation Development, consistent with the Conservation Development Threshold Zoning Criteria (e.g. expedited development review, permit fee waivers, reduced street infrastructure requirements, reduced park land dedication requirements, and reduction of monetary assessments relative to agricultural rollback taxes).
XIII. OVERVIEW OF AMENDMENTS TO TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS.
· Create the position of tree preservation and enforcement officer.
· Create a "Majestic Tree" designation, which will include any protected tree with a caliper width equal to or greater than 75% of the caliper width of the largest tree of the same specie listed in the most recent edition of the Big Tree Registry published by the Texas Forest Service.
· Require public hearings before the Tree Board and Town Council for applications for Tree Removal Permits for Specimen, Majestic or Historic Trees, and for Protected Trees in the Cross Timbers Protection Area.
· Extend the same protections provided for Specimen and Majestic Trees to Protected Trees in both the Cross Timbers Conservation Development Area and Cross Timbers Protection Area.
· Require mitigation for the removal of all protected tree designations, even with a Tree Removal Permit. Such mitigation will consist of either replacement trees or mitigation fees, with the mitigation varying with the type of protected trees removed. For example, Protected Trees are proposed to be replaced based upon a caliper width ratio of 1.5 to 1, Specimen Trees are proposed to be replaced at a caliper width ratio of 2.0 to 1.0 and Majestic or Historic Trees are proposed to be replaced at a caliper width ratio of 2.5 to 1.0.
· Substantially increase the administrative penalties for the unauthorized removal of protected tree designations. The monetary penalty for the unauthorized removal of a Protected Tree is increased from $100.00 per caliper inch to $250.00 per caliper inch, removal of a Specimen Tree remains set at $500.00 per caliper inch, and the penalty for the unauthorized removal of a Majestic or Historic Tree is set at $750.00 per caliper inch. The penalty for removal of Specimen and Historic Trees had previously been set at $500.00 per caliper inch. Ratios for caliper inch of trees removed to caliper inch of replacement trees provided in the event of an unauthorized removal increases as follows: Protected Trees increase from 2 to 1, to 5 to 1; Specimen Trees remain at 10 to 1; Majestic or Historic Trees increase from 10 to 1, to 15 to 1.
· Allow monetary penalties and mitigation fees to be used for tree preservation, tree planting and/or enforcement purposes.
· Prevent Tree Removal permits for trees on 1.0-acre lots or larger from being obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit.
· Require application for Tree Removal Permits to be completed and signed by a registered arborist or landscape architect.
· Require the application for a Tree Removal Permit to contain the following information for all trees proposed for removal: trunk location, drip line, caliper width, height, reproducible color photograph, approximate age, common name, and natural and proposed grade elevations at each trunk location.
· Require on-site signage to notify the general public that a Tree Removal Permit has been applied for relative to the subject lot or tract.
· Require the submission of a revised Tree Survey upon submittal of a request for acceptance of public improvements for a project or subdivision.
XIV. OVERVIEW OF AMENDMENTS TO USE REGULATIONS FOR SINGLE-TENANT RETAIL USES.
These amendments to the Town's Land Development Code establish a new single-tenant use, which is a permitted use-by-right or a use allowed by specific use permit according to the following use schedule:
R1 R2 C1 C2 I1 I2 PD
Retail, single tenant P P P P P P P
less than 25,000 square feet
Retail, single tenant S P P P P P P
less than 50,000 square feet
Retail, single tenant _ S P P P P P
less than 75,000 square feet
Retail, single tenant _ _ S P P P P
less than 100,000 square feet
Retail, single tenant _ _ _ S S S S
100,000 square feet or more
XV. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
For additional information regarding the Flower Mound SMARTGrowth Management Plan, please contact the following:
Van James Tracy Knierim
Town Manager Assistant to the Town Manager
Town of Flower Mound Town of Flower Mound
2121 Cross Timbers Road 2121 Cross Timbers Road
Flower Mound, TX 75028 Flower Mound, TX 75028
Phone: 972.874.6000 Phone: 972.874.6000
Fax: 972.539.3385 Fax: 972.539.3385
e-mail: vjames@flower-mound.com e-mail: tknierim@flower-mound.com
Terry Welch
Town Attorney
Bickerstaff, Heath, Smiley, Pollan, Kever & McDaniel
3000 Bank One Center
1717 Main Street
Dallas, TX 75201-4335
Phone: 214.753.0202
Fax: 214.753.0200
e-mail: twelch@bickerstaff.com
Town Manager James read the following memo from Dr. Clayton Downing, Superintendent of the Lewisville Independent School District, dated February 17, 2000:
"This is advise that I have received the portion of your Smart Growth proposal which deals with the school district, and I see no problem with it.
I believe it will encourage developers to approach us to discuss facility needs that will be generated by their proposed development. This would certainly assist the school district by not having to add portable classrooms until adequate facilities could be built."
Regarding fiscal impact, Town Manager James read a memo from Elizabeth Morris, Insight Research Corporation, dated February 17, 2000, as follows:
"Thank you for the opportunity to continue to provide economic analysis services under our Master Services Agreement. We have prepared economic and tax revenue cost/benefit models for the 380 Agreement task which will be readily adapted to continuing support of the conservation development approaches now under consideration.
These types of analyses are currently being done in increasing numbers on a project-by-project basis in the United States as analytical techniques keep pace with master zoning policy issues. At this time, I would estimate that 10% of U.S. communities routinely do some sort of analysis, either internally or with a service bureau such as ourselves.
The following information is now included in the cost/benefit analysis, with modifications being available at the Town's direction:
· Benefits criteria include project size, lot or acreage size, development timing, rollback capture, capital investments (taxable and non-taxable) in land, building improvements, equipment and inventories, employment or residential impact, assessed values, fee and permit income, sales taxes apportioned by point-of-wale and residency and impact of operating budgets.
· Cost criteria include municipal service costs per capita for both new employees and new residents, required infrastructure investments, and any other city expenses incurred for each project.
At this time, cost will be based on the hourly rate as specified under our service agreement with a typical cost per project average likely to be $2,500 based on the project's size and complexity. We look forward to developing a customized reporting format to meet your needs."
Richard Roddewig, JD, MAI, CRE, President of Clarion Associates
Mr. Roddewig stated he had been asked to prepare an economic analysis of the proposed Cross Timbers Conservation Development District concept. He noted Clarion Associates was a national real estate economics and land use and zoning consulting firm with affiliated offices in Philadelphia, Cincinnatti, Chicago and Denver. He noted that he was assisted by Ronald Casper, MAI, of their Chicago office. Additionally, Lee Head of Alan Plummer Associates, Inc., engineers, provided assistance to Clarion in the analysis of subdivision improvement costs.
Mr. Roddewig stated he was asked to analyze the economic impact on property owners and focus on proposed density changes. He stated he had compared cluster developments to traditional developments. Clarion's economic analysis compared the revenues generated by, and development costs associated with, the following development scenarios on a hypothetical (but "typical") 100 acre parcel of undeveloped land in the Cross Timbers planning area.
· Current Agricultural Zoning - Gross Density of 2.0 DU/Acre.
· Traditional One-Acre Zoning - No Clustering - Gross Density of 1.0 DU/Acre.
· One-Acre Zoning - Clustered - Lots clustered on 50 acres with 50 acres dedicated to permanent open space.
· One-Acre Zoning - Clustered with reduced internal road construction standards - lots clustered on 50 acres with 50 acres dedicated to permanent open space. Internal roads - 22 ft. asphalt ROW (rather than 24 ft. concrete ROW).
Mr. Roddewig stated that by using the "discounted cash flow" modeling technique (also called the "subdivision development" or "land residual" approach), Clarion Associates reduced all of the development revenues and costs to a present value for purposes of comparison. Gross revenues were calculated based upon Clarion's analysis of the Flower Mound marketplace to determine relative prices that would typically be paid by homebuilders for lots of various sizes. He noted that discounted cash flow modeling was a real estate analytical tool used by developers and major real estate companies, adding that it could be used to determine the appropriate current price to pay for land. Mr. Roddewig stated it was based upon specific assumptions about a proposed development project and allowed for a comparison of appropriate land prices for various types of projects.
Mr. Roddewig stated the inputs to Clarion's Cross Timbers Conservation Development District Model included:
· Based upon Flower Mound Market Data
· Critical Model Inputs
· Number of lots and lot prices
· Number of lot sales per year
· Marketing and selling costs
· Appropriate land development fee and profit
· Legal and planning costs and approvals
· Property taxes payable during development
· Subdivision improvements and engineering costs
· Construction financing
· Revenues/expenses each year discounted to present value
· Discount rate based upon market (risk and return)
The scenarios compared in the model were as follows:
Current Ag zoning 2.0 DU/Acre 48
Clustered one-acre zoning Lots on 50 acres and 47
50 acres open space
Clustered one-acre zoning Lots on 50 acres and 47
(reduced internal road 50 acres open space
design standards)
Traditional one-acre zoning 1.0 DU/Acre 96
(no clustering)
Assumptions on wastewater treatment were as follows:
Current Ag zoning Individual on-site No
Clustered one-acre zoning Central on-site Yes
Spray/Aerobic
Clustered one-acre zoning Central on-site Yes
(reduced internal road Spray/Aerobic
design standards)
Traditional one-acre zoning Central off-site Yes
(no clustering) Sewer Plan
On-site lines/lateral
Off-site impact fee No
The present values per acres that resulted from the discounted cash flow modeling analysis were as follows:
Development Acres: Acres: Acres: Total Lots-
Scenario (100 AC) DU's Streets Open Streets Present Value/
Acre
2.0 acre lots 96.25 AC 3.78 AC None 48 lots-$13,441/acre
1.0 acre lots 47.3 AC 2.23 AC 50.47 AC 47 lots-$14,035/acre
Clustered (24' concrete
streets w/no price premium)
1.0 acre lots 47.68 AC 1.85 AC 50.47 AC 47 lots-$17,126/acre
Clustered (22' asphalt
streets w/no price premium)
1.0 acre lots 47.68 AC 1.85 AC 50.47 AC 47 lots-$18,637/acre
Clustered (22' asphalt
streets w/5% price premium)
1.0 acre lots 96.02 AC 4.01 AC None 96 lots-$19,614/acre
Conclusions from discounted cash flow modeling included the following:
· Land value for cluster development is higher than traditional 2 acre density
· Cluster incentive enhances land prices
· Clustered open space amenity can increase lot prices by at least 5%
· Cluster concept is not a down-zoning
· Cluster enhancement actually greater than shows on-site system cost
· Cost savings from asphalt roads - partly offset by reduced lot prices
· Traditional 1 acre lot value does not consider sewer extension impact fees
Other incentives regarding the economic value included:
· Waiver of permit fees - $2,322
· Waiver of inspection fee - $28,900
· Waiver of up to 50% of park land dedication fee - $19,750
· Expedited development approval - $60,000
· Property tax agriculture relief rollback - $18,000
Total potential incentive package - $128,972
Mr. Roddewig noted the impact of other incentives:
· Total economic value of additional incentives - $128,972
· Equates to additional price per acre that can be paid in land cost - $1,290
· Present land price adjusted for additional value of incentives - $19,927/acre
· Exceeds land price for 96 1-acre lot development - $19,614/acre
Mr. Roddewig stated the assumptions did not include a potential income tax savings related to a conservation easement.
Judy Byerley, 4100 Fairway Drive, Flower Mound
Ms. Byerley asked why the Town was proposing a 3-year phase-in for parkland. She asked why it was less than the national standard of 10.5 acres per 1,000 population.
Town Manager James stated the standard of 7.75 acres per 1,000 population represented the current level of service of the parkland that was available in the Town. The Town would increase the standard over the next 3 years with a goal of the 10.5 per 1,000 population. He stated the Town planned to do this gradually, and that it corresponded with anticipated parkland acquisition and with the Town's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). He noted the new criteria in the proposed parkland dedication ordinance did correlate to the national standard.
Paul Stone, 709 Lake Bluff Drive, Flower Mound
Mr. Stone asked if the Town would permit applicants to move forward with applications should they not meet the threshold zoning criteria. He asked if the Town had abandoned the requirements for the scenic corridor on FM 1171 and FM 2499. Mr. Stone asked what vehicle the Council would use to approve the channelization of natural areas. He asked if it would be at the time of zoning or platting or if a permit would be issued. Mr. Stone stated he objected to concrete pilot channels, as it seemed contrary to the Town keeping with the natural environment.
Town Manager James stated if the application was denied by staff, an applicant could move forward at their own risk. He stated the applicant could still proceed forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission, but they would receive a recommendation of denial from staff. Council would have the final decision. Town Manager James stated the scenic corridor was actually part of the Urban Design Plan to be considered by April 2000. He noted that all of the Town's planning documents discouraged major channelization. Natural drainage courses would be left in a natural state. In certain circumstances and due to community objectives, some issues would come before Town Council, and this would happen at the development plan approval stage. Regarding concrete pilot channels, Town Manager James stated they may be required in relation to constructing manmade drainage structures, not natural waterways. He noted that a good example would be the drainage behind Winn Dixie.
Joe Freeman, 4424 Glen Oaks Drive, Flower Mound
Mr. Freeman stated he still had questions about the administrative costs. He asked how much in additional fees would be involved. He asked if the Council would consider a rebuttal to their latest proposal by a member of the development community. In the area of mitigation, he stated that he felt like a victim already. He asked what the Town would do to mitigate the impact of improvements to FM 1171. He asked if the Town would consider mitigation for damage to trees to accommodate the Tour 18 waterline.
Town Manager James commented that rough estimates of the fees (depending on the size of the tract and other variables), could be as follows: $3,000-$5,000 for the traffic impact analysis, $5,000 - $10,000 for the habitat protection plan. An estimated total could be $20,000.
Mayor DeLuca asked if there was someone who was prepared to bring forth a rebuttal to the financial benefits proposed for the Conservation Development District concept.
Mr. Freeman commented there was no one present to make the rebuttal.
Mayor DeLuca commented the Council was always willing to listen to other information, and would be flexible and see where the plan needed to be improved.
Town Manager James stated that the purpose of the public hearings was to provide opportunities for public input, and he noted the format accommodated an organized opposition. However, the Town had no such notice of anyone wishing to do so. In relation to the FM 1171 widening project, Town Manager James stated that FM 1171 was a state roadway and under the sole jurisdiction of the state of Texas. The Town had no means to give mitigation. He noted there were exceptions to projects performed by the Town or other public entities. Regarding the Tour 18 waterline, he stated this was not relative to the discussion, but he would anticipate that the Town would not consider any mitigation.
Paul Caduro, 5816 West Plano Parkway, Plano
Mr. Caduro asked where the assumptions stopped. Regarding wetland mitigation, he noted that the Corps of Engineers had the final authority to decide on wetland destruction. He asked what criteria would be used when being approved by the Corps of Engineers.
Town Manager James commented that some of the costs were not included in the economic analysis.
Mr. Roddewig stated that the model included $50,000 in costs for subdivision approval other than the actual engineering costs for platting, etc. In terms of additional costs (estimated earlier at $20,000) there was an additional park land dedication fee.
Town Manager James noted that the park land dedication fee was not an incentive.
Mayor DeLuca noted there were significant advantages of a conservation easement.
Town Manager James stated the Town was reserving the right to require the preservation or protection of any wetlands that may be present. He noted it would depend on whether or not it provided a critical habitat or some other type(s) of values. He stated that generally the Corps of Engineers allowed wetlands to be mitigated if they could be mitigated. Town Manager James stated that 150% of constructed wetlands did not have as much natural value as natural wetlands.
Alice Pridmore, 4012 Quail Run, Flower Mound
Ms. Pridmore asked for the cost per acre and for a finished home site in a cluster arrangement that had 50 acres of park area, in a 1-acre scenario versus a 2-acre scenario.
Mr. Roddewig responded that using the hypothetical 100 acres, the potential price for a 2-acre lot would be $100,000. For 1-acre lots the prices were as follows:
· Clustered - $90,000 (concrete streets, no open space proximity premium)
· Clustered - $87,000 (asphalt streets, no open space proximity premium)
· Clustered - $91,350 (asphalt streets, 5% open space proximity premium)
· Non-clustered - $90,000
Mayor DeLuca commented that with the adoption of the Land Use Plan in September 1999, there was a wide variety of housing in Flower Mound - multi-family to large ranches. She noted that the area in the Cross Timbers Conservation Development District had been designated on the Land Use Plan as 2-acre lots since 1994. The Town was simply offering the option to build cluster developments and have land left over. The property owners would also have the opportunity to have great values on their properties.
Art McDevitt, 1512 Orchid Court, Flower Mound
Mr. McDevitt noted that regarding the fiscal impact portion, it looked like development had to pay for itself between the sales taxes and real estate taxes. Based on the current tax rate, he asked what the price of a home would need to be to offset the cost of Town services.
Town Manager James anticipated that the cost would be approximately $125,000, taking into consideration the sales tax revenues that would offset that.
Mayor DeLuca commented that Flower Mound had many homeowners shouldering the heavy burden of the tax base, as the residential tax base was currently at an estimated 89%. She noted the Town was trying to balance that with more commercial development.
Town Manager James noted that the analysis would include projected sales tax revenues.
In Opposition
Joe Freeman, 4424 Glen Oaks, Flower Mound
Mr. Freeman stated he was concerned that the Plan was moving too fast. He was concerned with the added administrative costs, and felt there should be ways to streamline that and reduce the costs by making exceptions for small developments. He was concerned with the absolute discretion to turn down projects regarding the habitat protection issue. He noted there was too heavy a burden placed on property owners in the Cross Timbers area. He felt there would be an open view of his house with the removal of trees. Mr. Freeman stated cluster development and equestrian issues did not go hand in hand. He noted it was wonderful that the Town would ask for participation in a formal way of the development community. He suggested appointing a committee and let them assist in preparing legislation, not monitor how effective it is.
Paul Caduro, Home and Apartment Builders Association of Greater Dallas
Mr. Caduro stated he was speaking on behalf of the businesses that would be affected by the Plan, noting he was in favor of some of the conservation plans. Mr. Caduro stated that 62,900 jobs were created in the DFW area last year, placing the DFW area as 5th on the job creation list in the country. He was not in favor of layers of restrictions that would keep raising the cost of housing. Mr. Caduro stated the HBA's smart growth ideas involved removing barriers to allow for innovative land use planning techniques to be used in building mixed use developments, timely utilization of the impact fees paid by home buyers to the Town ($21 million paid over the last 9 years for the purpose of building infrastructure), and involved a process for reviewing site specific land development applications that would be reasonable and predictable. Mr. Caduro stated the HBA did respect the community-based decision. He stated there were many uncertainties in the Plan, not only involving the capacity calculations, the fiscal impact calculations and level of service calculations, but more importantly, there were questions about how this Plan would achieve the goals stated as to why the Plan was necessary in the first place. He asked how the Plan would address the volatile fluctuations in the real estate process, and how it would resolve the conflicting interaction or relationships between new and existing developments and the resulting diminution of property values. Mr. Caduro asked where these conflicts were and which property values had been de-valued. Mr. Caduro stated that the Town claimed that the Plan would allow Flower Mound to maintain a positive relationship between the tax value of real property and the corresponding costs of Town services, enabling the Town to maintain a tax structure conducive to economic development. He stated that tax abatements and other incentives would be offered to attract economic development, and he asked how that positive relationship would be maintained. He stated not one Planning & Zoning Commission member questioned the content and implementation of the Plan before passing it at their meeting on February 10, 2000. He guessed that the development fees had been roughly calculated, but for homebuilders a new parkland development fee was being proposed and parkland dedication fee would be increased. He stated the Plan required the services of a licensed arborist even after all the trees on a development had been identified during the development process. He noted those factors alone would add approximately $2,000 to the price of a home. The new impact fees that would soon be established after the Plan was passed, would not be reduced. Mr. Caduro stated that other communities had clearly stated their goals and made them easy to be achieved, and he encouraged the Council to do so. Mr. Caduro stated that if the Conservation District area was so environmentally sensitive, so ecologically fragile, and so cherished by the Town that it requires this much government restriction and regulation, the Town should feel compelled to put a bond before the voters and purchase the land outright to protect it for everyone, not just those that can afford to live on two-acre lots in that development.
In Support
Marsha Gavitt, 6501 Meadowcrest Lane, Flower Mound
Ms. Gavitt stated she supported the plan and believed it was very comprehensive. She stated it was not anti-business or anti-development. She referred to other cluster developments throughout the United States, and noted that the HBA was on the record of supporting them.
John Parkinson, 3028 Dumas Court, Flower Mound
Mr. Parkinson thanked the Town for the efforts on this process. He noted it was necessary because citizens do not realize that the Council, as elected representatives, must look out for the benefit of the Town as a whole. He stated the Council was responsible for things and services citizens took for granted. He felt the SMARTGrowth Program had attempted to address all the concerns, and was in full support of the Plan because it looked at each issue in order to let development happen. He felt this was something the Town could be proud of and thanked the Council and staff for their work.
Douglas Gordon, 3920 Saturn, Flower Mound
Mr. Gordon submitted a card in favor of the SMARTGrowth Management Plan.
Rich Decker 1604 Mosshaven Circle
Mr. Decker submitted a card in favor of the SMARTGrowth Management Plan.
Sherilynn Magee, 3220 Miracle Lane, Flower Mound
Ms. Magee stated she had participated in the focus group meetings and attended several public meetings. She stated it was ironic that most of the people opposed to the Plan wanted controlled growth several years ago. She referenced an article in the Wall Street Journal that characterized the Town's plan as just plain smart.
Kim McCracken, 4112 Thoreau Circle, Flower Mound
Ms. McCracken stated the Plan would protect the quality of life and indirectly protect property values. She felt that the implementation of the Plan would have a positive impact on the Town. She referenced a flyer describing a similar development in Minnesota, and the market response was extraordinary. She noted that with new architectural standards, Flower Mound would be the place to live.
Father William and Margo Blewett, 6512 Country Oaks, Flower Mound
Father Blewett and Margo Blewett submitted a card in support of the Plan.
Patsy Mizeur, 1821 Castle Court, Flower Mound
Ms. Mizeur stated she was representing Flower Mound Voters for Conservative Spending, and she read an article from the Wall Street Journal (December 29, 1999) regarding the Town's SMARTGrowth Plan. She stated her group agreed with the article. She stated the Town's economic tax base had a chance to expand. Ms. Mizeur applauded the Town's efforts.
Barbara Van Laeken, 1801 Woodland Blvd., Flower Mound
Ms. Van Laeken submitted a card in support of the Plan.
Sandy Thurman, 1232 Courtney Lane, Lewisville
Ms. Thurman submitted a card in support of the Plan.
Gene Keefer, 4020 Saturn, Flower Mound
Mr. Keefer congratulated the Council and the concept development team, noting that the only negatives he had heard were from developers. He stated the Plan was sound. Mr. Keefer stated most people moved to Flower Mound for the small town atmosphere and quality of life. He urged the Council to approve the plan.
John Harrison, 1917 Foxborough Trail, Flower Mound
Mr. Harrison stated he was speaking on behalf of Voters United to Preserve Flower Mound. He stated the Plan ensured there would always be adequate water and sewer service, and ensured that the infrastructure would not get behind again. He stated the Plan ensured adequate police and fire services, and better parks and open space. Mr. Harrison stated the Town had taken bold and innovative steps after a decade of uncontrolled growth. He noted that some people would say this was a revolutionary idea, but the country was built on revolutionary ideas. He urged the development community to join with the Town, and asked the Mayor and Council to adopt the SMARTGrowth Management Plan.
Marilyn Jenkins, 6716 Raintree Place, Flower Mound
Ms. Jenkins commended the Council, staff and consultants for their dedicated efforts in the formulation of the SMARTGrowth Management Plan. She noted the Mayor and Council were volunteers and spent much time on this project. She asked the Council to approve the Plan.
Karen Kinney, 2613 Lambda Lane, Flower Mound
Ms. Kinney stated she supported the Plan. She moved to Flower Mound for the community character and quality of life, and she felt the Plan would continue these qualities. She urged the Council to adopt the Plan.
Tim Thomas, 2616 Lambda Lane, Flower Mound
Mr. Thomas stated he was president of The Forums Homeowners Association, and the association supported the SMARTGrowth Management Plan.
Willard Baker, 6440 Cliffbrook, Dallas, 75240
Mr. Baker stated he was a land developer and had spent much time studying the plan. He noted the Open Space Symposium was an excellent program. Mr. Baker stated that each piece of property was unique in the Town. To take a standard rigid rule and apply it to all properties would not work, however he felt the Town had allowed enough latitude to plan to develop a piece of property. He noted it allowed staff to have flexibility as they had to follow the ordinance to the letter of the law.
David Mallett, 3530 High Road, Flower Mound
Mr. Mallett stated that the population at buildout for the Cross Timbers area was projected at 13,000. He noted that a good indication of the Council pleasing the citizens was that the voters elected the Council and kept re-electing them. He noted the opposition was not so vociferous, and that Mr. Freeman's opposition was loyal opposition. He stated that many citizens saw that this was an outstanding Plan and well thought out. He urged the Council to adopt the Plan.
Andrew Rothfield, 3400 Culwell Street, Flower Mound
Mr. Rothfield stated the Council had done a great job. He stated the Council listened, allowed for input and came back with something positive. Mr. Rothfield stated the Lakeside Business District would allow for exciting things in the Town. He urged the Council to pass the Plan and ensure the future of Flower Mound.
Theresa Stinson, 2613 Argos, Flower Mound
Ms. Stinson submitted a card in support of the Plan.
Nick Hollingshad, 7600 Emerson Lane, Flower Mound
Mr. Hollingshad reminded everyone that the process had been going on for over a year and the Town had received input from many people. He stated he voted for the Council because he trusted them to get the Town to this point. Mr. Hollingshad stated he was a member of the Planning & Zoning Commission and had spent much time over the past year with the Master Plan process. He took issue with Mr. Caduro's statement about the Commission. He thanked the Council and staff for their time and efforts.
Mayor DeLuca noted that each Planning & Zoning Commissioner spent a great deal of time on the Plan.
Dennis McKaige, 3400 North Drive, Flower Mound
Mr. McKaige stated the Plan put the citizens and neighborhoods in the Town first. Rather than impose a debatable building permit cap, this Plan took into consideration water, sewer, traffic and schools. Mr. McKaige stated the Plan made sure services were not degraded. He noted the economic development incentive system would be public hearing based. Mr. McKaige stated the Plan provided protections against runaway municipal costs, and contained wetlands and habitat initiatives. He fully supported the Plan and urged Council to adopt it.
Alysa Sawka, 2904 Sagebrush Drive, Flower Mound
Ms. Sawka was in admiration of the Council spending the many hours planning the Town. She noted there would be rules, but they would be good rules. She referenced subdivisions in Scottsdale, Arizona, and encouraged the large landowners to see that the changes would be beneficial to them.
Deborah Sardone, 2616 Gamma Road, Flower Mound
Ms. Sardone expressed support of the "big box" ordinance and the SMARTGrowth Management Plan. She stated she was not in favor of a Target store near her neighborhood, and urged the Council to pass the Plan.
Rosemary Gordon, 3920 Saturn Street, Flower Mound
Ms. Gordon submitted a card in support of the Plan.
Steve Pace, 7612 Emerson, Flower Mound
Mr. Pace submitted a card in support of the Plan.
Margaret Goldau, 3001 Sagebrush, Flower Mound
Ms. Goldau stated she was representing the Coalition of Voters for Better Safer Roads, and she urged the Council to approve the Plan. She stated the Plan would preserve the quality of life and improve the transportation system. She stated her group supported the recently approved Thoroughfare Plan. Ms. Goldau stated the Plan would be the mechanism for balanced growth in the Town. She was in favor of the open space and conservation plans, as they would enhance property values and encourage business development. She encouraged the approval of the Plan.
Paul and Adele Heeschen, 1932 Pin Oak, Flower Mound
Mr. and Mrs. Heeschen submitted a card in favor of the Plan.
Joann Larabee, 2812 Poplar Drive, Flower Mound
Ms. Larabee submitted a card in favor of the Plan.
Scott Parsinon, 2500 Sycamore Lane, Flower Mound
Mr. Parsinon submitted a card in favor of the Plan.
Gene and Judy Byerley, 4100 Fairway Drive, Flower Mound
Mr. and Mrs. Byerley submitted a card in favor of the Plan.
David Tam Ph.D., 732 Teakwood Drive, Flower Mound
Dr. Tam commended the Mayor and Council for their efforts to have the vision to preserve Flower Mound and for having the public input process. He stated he had participated in the focus groups and the group had come to a consensus. He noted it was everyone's responsibility to preserve the natural beauty and landscape of the Town. Dr. Tam stated "tomorrow will only be here if we act responsibly today".
Sydney Bentz, 3305 Sunnyview Lane, Flower Mound
Ms. Bentz stated that everyone had an expectation of a level of service, and the Town had to plan better and smarter. She stated the SMARTGrowth Management Plan protected the current and future residents, and she was in support.
Roxanne Keefer, 4020 Saturn, Flower Mound
Ms. Keefer urged the Council to pass the SMARTGrowth Management Plan. She was in favor of the "big box" ordinance.
George Jenkins, 6716 Raintree Place, Flower Mound
Mr. Jenkins thanked the Council and staff for their work, efforts, courage and dedication. He noted he moved to Flower Mound for the natural beauty, and referenced the Town's logo.
Rick Hoffman, 4028 Saturn Street, Flower Mound
Mr. Hoffman supported the Plan, and stated he was glad the plan was flexible and could be changed if needed.
Bob Buckheit, 4205 Blue Grass Drive, Flower Mound
Mr. Buckheit submitted a card in support of the Plan.
Marsha Casteen, 2216 Timbercreek Trail, Flower Mound
Ms. Casteen stated she was in support of the Plan. She noted people were thrilled to come to Flower Mound, and she thanked the Council for what they were doing for the community.
Bruce Dubberley, 4017 Dendron, Flower Mound
Mr. Dubberley submitted a card in support of the Plan.
Martha Zuspan, 4013 Dendron, Flower Mound
Ms. Zuspan stated she was in favor of the Plan and the "big box" ordinance.
Tom Rahrig, 2609 Gamma Road, Flower Mound
Mr. Rahrig stated he fully supported the Plan and the "big box" ordinance. He added he wanted to keep the natural beauty along FM 1171.
Jon Hazel, 3216 Ridgecrest Drive, Flower Mound
Mr. Hazel spoke in favor of the SMARTGrowth Management Plan. He stated he moved to Garland in 1980 when it was flourishing. He moved to Flower Mound in 1990 and saw similar things beginning to happen. He noted there was nothing remarkable about the land that was left in Garland and Flower Mound had so much potential. Mr. Hazel stated Mayor DeLuca changed history by getting so many people involved years ago and by listening. He expressed thanks to the Mayor, Council, staff and citizens who had participated.
Joe Freeman, 4424 Glen Oaks, Flower Mound
Mr. Freeman stated he was in favor of lifting the moratorium and in increased park dedication fees.
Tom Craig, 2604 Gamma, Flower Mound
Mr. Craig supported the Plan and stated it was intelligent, all-encompassing and well thought out. He stated it would lay out the long term future for the growth of the Town.
Mike Hadley, 4009 Saturn, Flower Mound
Mr. Hadley stated that for the last two elections he had looked at the candidates that would support a SMARTGrowth Plan, and those candidates won overwhelmingly. He supported the Plan.
Peter Marquart, 2601 Argos Way, Flower Mound
Mr. Marquart was in favor of the Plan and stated it would keep the Town the way he wanted it.
Glenn Grace, 4008 Dendron, Flower Mound
Mr. Grace stated he was in support of the Plan. He felt it would give the Town character, and that the rules were needed and would be helpful.
Nancy Lee Hadley, 4009 Saturn, Flower Mound
Ms. Hadley spoke in favor of adopting the Plan. She noted her primary interest was with the issue of her property being surrounded by undeveloped land. She felt the Council was doing the right thing.
John Davis, Texas Parks and Wildlife Urban Biologist
Mr. Davis stated it made him happy to see a town do something right and he added he would like to be a part of the process. Mr. Davis stated he was a specialist dealing with urban wildlife habitats, and he could predict what would happen with wildlife during the development of land. Mr. Davis gave a brief presentation on natural habitats and how traditional development did not work when it came to wildlife. He commended the Town on the SMARTGrowth Management Plan.
Mayor DeLuca stated the Town had received 118 e-mails, faxes, letters and phone calls in support of the SMARTGrowth Management Plan. She read the following names into the record:
Stanton Allen, Flower Mound
Anthony Andueza, 2501 Clear Ridge Lane, Flower Mound
Sharon and Gary Appelman, 2013 Breaker Lane, Flower Mound
Pat Axelson, Flower Mound
Edward A. Barrows, 2624 Gentle Drive, Flower Mound
Tom Bennett, 2700 Lakeridge, Flower Mound
Brian & Kathy Bettis, 2889 Sagebrush, Flower Mound
Erich and Jennifer Blumberg, Flower Mound
Ann Marie Buckley, 3151 Almond Drive, Flower Mound
Tena Burley, 4604 Largo Drive, Flower Mound
Bill Carolan, Flower Mound
Tom Cawthon, former Councilmember
Russell and Cathleen Chase, 1777 Timber Creek Road, #2026, Flower Mound
Pamela Clark, Flower Mound
Walter and Karen Colquitt, 3112 Hartford Drive, Flower Mound
Jeanette A. Craig, 2604 Gamma, Flower Mound
Lowell and Christa Davidson, 1129 Sugarberry Lane, Flower Mound
Jane Eaton, 4112 Fairway, Flower Mound
James G. Emerich, 2604 Surrey Woods Road, Flower Mound
Chuck Freeny, 2604 Argos Way, Flower Mound
Mark and Vicki Fulfer, 3638 Green Meadow, Flower Mound
Bill Garcia, 3031 Sagebrush, Flower Mound
Robert F. Gavitt, 4805 Neptune Court, Flower Mound
Tom and Renda Goss, 6909 Wind Swept Court, Flower Mound
Frank Govednik, 2606 Greentree, Flower Mound
Randy and Michele Haberman, 5125 Heather Court, Flower Mound
Julie Hanley, Valley View Lane, Flower Mound
Marty Harrison, 1917 Foxborough Trail, Flower Mound
Jon Hazel, Flower Mound
Doug Head, 1777 Timbercreek, Apt. 1612, Flower Mound
Traci Head, 1777 Timbercreek, Apt. 1612, Flower Mound
Paul Hergert, 2713 Silver Maple Court, Flower Mound
Frank and Dawn Heverly, Flower Mound
Lynda and Harold Hill, 3313 Sunnyview Lane, Flower Mound
Michael and Beverly Hilmes, 6403 Meadowcrest Lane, Flower Mound
Gwen Holladay, 2713 Silver Maple Court, Flower Mound
Jim & Patricia Holmes, 6408 Hillcrest Road, Flower Mound
W. Logan Holmes, Flower Mound
Kristina Ireland, 3217 Oak Meadow, Flower Mound
Linda Jacobs, 1621 Holly Place, Flower Mound
Gordon B. Jones, 3609 Gallop Court, Flower Mound
David and Judy Jordan, Flower Mound
Steve and Debbie Kaiser, Flower Mound
Joanne Lantz, Flower Mound
Jackie and Steven Larson, 4213 Calloway Court, Flower Mound
Julie Levine, Flower Mound
Gayle Loeffler, Flower Mound
Edward T. Luttenberger, 3500 Pecan Park Drive, Flower Mound
Ida and Scott McManis, 5304 Chinn Chapel Road, Flower Mound
Matt Michel, 1125 Sugarberry Lane, Flower Mound
Kathy Miller, 1108 Sugarberry Lane, Flower Mound
Michael S. Miller, 4116 Fairway Drive, Flower Mound
Melody Moore, Flower Mound
Steve and Diana Morey, 4100 Bordeaux Way, Flower Mound
Tony Morrow, 6809 Ferndale, Flower Mound
Norman and Sharon Orthwein, 3912 Hidden Trail, Flower Mound
Ted Osowski, Flower Mound
Carol Otto, Flower Mound
Ellen Pourzan, 8712 Doral Court, Flower Mound
David R. Reese, Flower Mound
Brian Rennie, 1521 Redwood Crest Lane, Flower Mound
Bill Rhodes, 1513 San Jacinto Drive, Flower Mound
Scott and Christina Robertson, 6107 Plantation Lane, Flower Mound
Lynda Rogers, 2817 Sun Meadow Drive, Flower Mound
Lockwood Scoggin, Jr., 6500 Hillcrest Road, Flower Mound
Michael G. Shane, Flower Mound
R. David Shoulders, 3200 Hartford, Flower Mound
Sue and Gary Simpson, 4308 Saddle Ridge Trail, Flower Mound
Michael Smaney, 3304 Preakness, Flower Mound
David and Jessica Smith, Flower Mound
James Smith, Flower Mound
Wade and Elizabeth Solomon, Flower Mound
Sallie Strange, 7300 Bolo Lane, Flower Mound
Steve Stum, 9121 Shawnee, Flower Mound
James S. Tegner, 3667 High Road, Flower Mound
Jim and Rebecca Thompson, Flower Mound
Tim Trotter, 3308 Camden Drive, Flower Mound
Joe and Joanne Vitalone, 4800 Schooner Court, Flower Mound
Michael Waite, 2205 Squires Drive, Flower Mound
Phillip and Anna White, Flower Mound
Jim Wilson, 1801 Foxborough Trail, Flower Mound
Rodney and Diane Wilson, Flower Mound
Jerry and Martha Wood, 1405 San Jacinto, Flower Mound
Chris Wright, 1064 Colony Street, Flower Mound
Dohrman and Elizabeth Wright, 2013 Skelton, Flower Mound
Mayor Deluca noted that Andre Gerault had telephoned to express his support for the Plan. She noted that 61 people spoke in support or turned in cards, for a total of 179 residents who supported the Plan during the public hearing.
Staff Comments None
Close Public Hearing
Council Deliberation
Councilmember Wingard stated she was honored to be elected to be a representative in a caring community. She stated the SMARTGrowth Management Plan was designed for the residents today. Life would also be better for future citizens because they would join in the enthusiasm. She stated she took exception to a comment by Paul Caduro regarding that the Conservation Development District was for the benefit of rich people. She stated she and her husband both worked and in 1996 they bought property and built their home. She noted the total cost was less than many advertised prices in the Wellington subdivision. She stated the proposals for the Conservation Development District would benefit the residents, and open space benefitted everyone. Councilmember Wingard stated the people were charged by God to be good stewards of the earth, and she was pleased and proud to be a part of something that was different from "scrape and build". She added she was proud of the provisions for open space and habitat protection, and she looked forward to the day when Flower Mound would be noted as a benchmark for other towns.
Mayor DeLuca noted that the only negative comment to the Plan was that it was too fast. She stated it had been anything but fast, as it had been a year-long process with almost 100 meetings, including several at large venues. She stated she could not think of anything else that had had more time devoted to it. This process had the most community input and involvement. Mayor DeLuca stated there had been discussions of added cost, however those costs would be offset by the increase in economic benefits. She stated that most of the complaints had been from owners that wanted to double the density on their property. She stated the new Land Use Plan and the SMARTGrowth Management Plan actually gave the landowners more options. She stated there was no question in her mind that there were benefits of living in a master planned community. These landowners had also benefited from living in a master planned community and their property values had increased. However now that it was time for them to develop, they didn't want the rules to apply to them. She noted that most property values had increased. She stated that the moratorium did not mean "no business", and she added that "Quality Begets Quality".
Mayor DeLuca stated the Town waited for good development to come along, and the Council did not want FM 1171 to look like it does in Lewisville all the way to I 35-W. She noted that Flower Mound did not have large pole signs, and the Town had community character. She stated Flower Mound did not have to look like every other place. She recalled that Steven Small, a speaker at the Open Space Symposium, had quoted that "asphalt truly was the last crop". Mayor DeLuca stated Flower Mound was only 44% developed, and the community had the opportunity to make a difference. She stated the Conservation Development District proposal was not a government program to buy land, and it would not be taking away rights from developers and landowners. She added the property owners would actually make more money. Mayor DeLuca stated the Council's obligation was to represent the people of Flower Mound. She noted that Willard Baker had stated he was willing to try this type of development. She added it was not a no-growth plan. Mayor DeLuca stated the current population of Flower Mound was 51,300 and was expected to be 92,000, and that was hardly "no-growth". The Town needed to have the ability to accommodate the growth.
Mayor DeLuca stated comments had been made about landowners wanting to double the density on their land - 3,000 households would be another 15,000 people. Contrary to threats of litigation, she stated no one sued the Town over the moratorium or the SMARTGrowth Program. She stated two landowners and investors sued because of the density of their property. The HBA sued and requested an opinion from the Attorney General, who ultimately ruled in favor of the Town. Mayor DeLuca stated the secret was out - people all over the world wanted to come to Flower Mound.
Councilmember Baze stated the Council was first introduced to the Plan last January, and when the Mayor and Town Manager both agreed that it was the best thing for the citizens, he agreed with them. She stated they had done a superior job in leading the project. Councilmember Baze thanked Paul Caduro for attending all the meetings. He hoped people would look back and always be proud of the action taken by the Town.
Councilmember Spruill stated she valued the people who came to the meeting and sent their thoughts. She added she liked to be in touch with the citizens and had called many citizens to see what they thought.
Councilmember Cook stated this was democracy at work. He added that it meant so much to a governing body to have support and help in making decisions for the community. Councilmember Cook stated that the current members of Council had won the past election with 75% of the vote, and they wanted to do what the community wanted to be done. Councilmember Cook stated the SMARTGrowth Management Plan seemed to be a very good plan, and the community needed to give it the chance to work. He stated that years from now the citizens would be grateful for the foresight and courage shown to create a great place to live.
Mayor Pro Tem Travis thanked the members of the concept, development and implementation teams and staff for doing an incredible job. She thanked the citizens who provided input. Mayor Pro Tem Travis stated the Plan represented the majority of the citizens as a whole, and she noted that changes may be needed in the future, and they would be addressed.
Mayor DeLuca stated that in fairness to developers, she commended developers like Willard Baker who had stepped forward stating he would develop a conservation development district. She commended Paul Caduro stating he had always conducted himself in a humorous and professional manner.
Councilmember Baze made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 10-00 amending Section 3.00 of the Land Development Code (Zoning District Regulations), contained within Chapter 12 of the Town's Code of Ordinances, to add a new Section 3.01.1 entitled "SMARTGrowth Management Plan", and Councilmember Spruill seconded the motion. The ordinance caption reads as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF FLOWER MOUND, TEXAS, CREATING A NEW SECTION 3.01.1 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ENTITLED "SMARTGrowth MANAGEMENT PLAN"' MAKING FINDINGS; PROVIDING PURPOSES, OBJECTIVES, DEFINITIONS AND METHODOLOGIES; CREATING A SMARTGrowth COMMISSION; ESTABLISHING THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE SMARTGrowth COMMISSION; ESTABLISHING THRESHOLD ZONING ANALYSIS, CRITERIA AND APPLICATION OF SAME; REPEALING ALL CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Vote on the Motion
AYES: Travis, Cook, Baze, Wingard, Spruill
NAYS: None
The Council took a break between 10:15 p.m. and 11:12 p.m.
2. Public hearing (LDC-02-00) to consider approval of an amendment repealing Section 3.08 A. Agricultural District of the Land Development Code, contained in Chapter 12 of the Town's Code of Ordinances, in its entirety, and adopting a new Section 3.08 A. Agricultural District to amend the Town of Flower Mound's agricultural zoning district regulations to provide for a conservation development alternative.
Town Manager Van James referred to Page 2-9 of the agenda packets dealing with Section (n) Conservation Development Option and Standards. He noted this was a modification from the proposed ordinance that was presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Conservation development was now defined in a way that ensured it was an option that was available - not only within the Conservation Development District, but also in relation to any agriculturally zoned properties throughout the Town. He referred to Page 2-12 of the packet, subpart b. and stated this provided that in conjunction with conservation development, a development agreement would be entered into between the Town and the developer to set forth any specific development standards or any other applicable conditions for the conservation development district. It would provide the Town and the developer the flexibility to respond to any unusual circumstances. Town Manager James stated that the analysis performed by Clarion Associates was done in anticipation of the adoption of the conservation development district option in relation to the agricultural zoning district.
Paul Caduro, HBA
Mr. Caduro asked if someone could actually clear their land and farm it if they had agricultural zoning.
Town Manager James stated the ordinance applied no restrictions to agricultural activities on agriculturally zoned properties.
Jon Hazel
Mr. Hazel stated that at the Open Space Symposium last Saturday, he heard that a 5 acre threshold would trigger certain studies to be done.
Town Manager James commented this was in conjunction with the SMARTGrowth Management Plan and some of the habitat protection plans or other analyses that would be required to be done. He stated if a proposed development was less than 5 acres or being subdivided into less than 5 lots, a development plan would not be required and would not trigger the SMARTGrowth Management Plan.
In Opposition None
In Support
Mayor DeLuca noted that Nick Hollingshad, Marilyn Jenkins, and Scott and Christina Robertson had submitted cards in support of this item.
Staff Comments None
Close Public Hearing
Council Deliberation
Mayor Pro Tem Travis asked about a scenario where someone had 100 acres with beautiful trees and wanted to clear it and plant wheat. She asked if there was a provision to eliminate them from building houses on the property at a later date.
Town Manager James responded that permits would be required in order to remove trees on the agricultural property. If the land was clear cut for ag purposes, applications for a zoning change could not be filed for 5 years.
Mayor Pro Tem Travis asked if 5 years was a good time frame to make it worth the loss of the trees.
Town Manager James responded that under a typical development scenario, a 5 year period is a typical deterrent. Staff felt it was unlikely that a developer would clear the property without having a client in mind, and he noted the timeframe was originally set at 12 months in the Code.
Mayor Pro Tem Travis made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 11-00 repealing Section 3.08 A, Agricultural District of the Land Development Code, contained in Chapter 12 of the Town's Code of Ordinances, in its entirety, and adopting a new Section 3.08 A, Agricultural District to amend the Town of Flower Mound's agricultural zoning district regulations to provide for a conservation development alternative, and Councilmember Wingard seconded the motion. The ordinance caption reads as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF FLOWER MOUND, TEXAS, REPEALING SECTION 3.08 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 12, OF THE TOWN'S CODE OF ORDINANCES IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADOPTING A NEW SECTION 3.08 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 12, OF THE TOWN'S CODE OF ORDINANCES TO REPLACE SAID SECTION THEREOF; ADOPTING FINDINGS RELATIVE THERETO; CONTAINING OTHER INCIDENTAL AND ALL RELATED MATTERS; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Vote on the Motion
AYES: Spruill, Wingard, Baze, Cook, Travis
NAYS: None
3. Public hearing (LDC-03-00) to consider approval of an amendment repealing Sections 5.08 Tree Preservation and Section 6.15 Tree Permits, of the Land Development Code, contained in Chapter 12 of the Town's Code of Ordinances, in their entirety, and adopting a new Section 5.08 Tree Preservation and Section 6.15 Tree Permits; and to consider amending Section 6.04(b) Record Plat Submittal Requirements, Section 6.06(i) As-Built Plans; and Section 6.09(c)(9) Application Requirements of the Land Development Code, contained in Chapter 12 of the Town's Code of Ordinances modifying the Town of Flower Mound's tree protection and preservation requirements. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request by a vote of 6-0 at its February 10, 2000 meeting).
Director of Community Development Sam Paschal identified the major changes regarding tree preservation:
· Create the position of tree preservation and enforcement officer.
· Create a "Majestic Tree" designation, which will include any protected tree with a caliper width equal to or greater than 75% of the caliper width of the largest tree of the same specie listed in the most recent edition of the Big Tree Registry published by the Texas Forest Service.
· Require public hearings before the Tree Board and Town Council for applications for Tree Removal Permits for Specimen, Majestic or Historic Trees, and for Protected Trees in the Cross Timbers Protection Area.
· Extend the same protections provided for Specimen and Majestic Trees to Protected Trees in both the Cross Timbers Conservation Development Area and Cross Timbers Protection Area.
· Require mitigation for the removal of all protected tree designations, even with a Tree Removal Permit. Such mitigation will consist of either replacement trees or mitigation fees, with the mitigation varying with the type of protected trees removed. For example, Protected Trees are proposed to be replaced based upon a caliper width ratio of 1.5 to 1, Specimen Trees are proposed to be replaced at a caliper width ratio of 2.0 to 1.0 and Majestic or Historic Trees are proposed to be replaced at a caliper width ratio of 2.5 to 1.0.
· Substantially increase the administrative penalties for the unauthorized removal of protected tree designations. The monetary penalty for the unauthorized removal of a Protected Tree is increased from $100.00 per caliper inch to $250.00 per caliper inch, removal of a Specimen Tree remains set at $500.00 per caliper inch, and the penalty for the unauthorized removal of a Majestic or Historic Tree is set at $750.00 per caliper inch. The penalty for removal of Specimen and Historic Trees had previously been set at $500.00 per caliper inch. Ratios for caliper inch of trees removed to caliper inch of replacement trees provided in the event of an unauthorized removal increases as follows: Protected Trees increase from 2 to 1, to 5 to 1; Specimen Trees remain at 10 to 1; Majestic or Historic Trees increase from 10 to 1, to 15 to 1.
· Allow monetary penalties and mitigation fees to be used for tree preservation, tree planting and/or enforcement purposes.
· Prevent Tree Removal permits for trees on 1.0-acre lots or larger from being obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit.
· Require application for Tree Removal Permits to be completed and signed by a registered arborist or landscape architect.
· Require the application for a Tree Removal Permit to contain the following information for all trees proposed for removal: trunk location, drip line, caliper width, height, reproducible color photograph, approximate age, common name, and natural and proposed grade elevations at each trunk location.
· Require on-site signage to notify the general public that a Tree Removal Permit has been applied for relative to the subject lot or tract.
· Require the submission of a revised Tree Survey upon submittal of a request for acceptance of public improvements for a project or subdivision.
Mr. Paschal stated that staff was suggesting removing the Eastern Red Cedar from the Protected Tree List. Another change would be requiring a tree survey in the agriculture zoning district. Mr. Paschal read the wording from the proposed ordinance as follows:
(c) Special Provisions for A, Agricultural Districts. Notwithstanding anything contained in this chapter to the contrary, for tracts zoned A, Agricultural District, the tree survey requirements contained herein shall be limited in their application to proposed rights-of-way, easements and an area equal to twenty feet (20') on any side of such rights-of-way and easements, provided the applicant executes a development agreement with the Town that all trees on the tract and outside of such aforementioned areas, for the purposes of said agreement, protected trees (regardless of their species or caliper width) and that the unauthorized removal of such trees shall result in the revocation of any previously approved development plan and record plat for a sixty (60) month period.
Paul Caduro, HBA
Mr. Caduro wished the Town luck with the plans that were going forward at this meeting, and he looked forward to working with the Town to help make any necessary changes, when needed. He asked for clarification of not being able to get a tree removal permit until after the building permit is secured. He asked how someone could get the building permit to accommodate the pad site not knowing if trees needed to be removed. If the tree removal permit was denied, would they have to pay for a new building permit.
Mr. Paschal responded that when an applicant comes forward, they would have to have a tree survey and the pad superimposed over the survey. He stated this would not deny them the opportunity to obtain a building permit.
David Tam, Ph.D.
Dr. Tam asked about the situation where a 400 year old tree might be quite small. He felt the small trees were natural treasures. He asked if there was any provision to preserve the age of the tree as opposed to caliper size.
Mayor DeLuca stated the trees were specified as Protected, Specimen, Majestic and Historic based on the caliper inch compared to the largest size of that particular species listed in the Big Tree Registry.
Mr. Paschal stated the Council would be able to identify Historic Trees, and an applicant would have to identify the age of the tree.
John Todd, 5600 Wichita Trail, Flower Mound
Mr. Todd stated there were many old trees in Flower Mound.
Jon Hazel, 3216 Ridgecrest, Flower Mound
Mr. Hazel asked if for clarification regarding tree protection issues. If trees are damaged during the construction process, he asked who the Town would seek damages against.
Mr. Paschal stated the Town would continue with the requirement for the 4-foot plastic fencing protection around the drip line of Protected Trees. For Specimen, Historic and Majestic Trees, the Town would require the erection of chain link fencing around those trees. He noted the responsibility of the Town was to seek prosecution against the developer.
Mr. Hazel asked if the Town would go after the holder of the building permit.
Mr. Paschal stated that the person who holds the building permit was the liable party.
In Opposition None
In Support
Paul Stone, 709 Lake Bluff Drive, Flower Mound
Mr. Stone stated he was pleased with the proposed changes to the Tree Ordinance. He was surprised that previously there was no replacement provision for the removal of trees. He was in support of the ordinance.
Jon Hazel, 3216 Ridgecrest Drive, Flower Mound
Mr. Hazel felt this ordinance had "teeth" and thanked the Council for their support on this ordinance.
Mayor DeLuca stated Scott and Christina Robertson, Nick Hollingshad, Marilyn Jenkins and Bob Buckheit had submitted cards in support of this item.
Staff Comments None
Close Public Hearing
Council Deliberation
Mayor DeLuca asked if the Eastern Red Cedar had been removed from the Protected Tree List.
Town Manager James stated that staff recommended removing it.
Mayor DeLuca commented that Silverwing planned to plant 4,000 trees in their new development and noted that other trees may have to be taken out. She asked if there was anything that would address those issues.
Town Manager James stated there would be no mitigation measures and a tree survey would be required.
Councilmember Wingard thanked the members of the Tree Board for their work on the proposed ordinance.
Mayor Pro Tem Travis made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 12-00 repealing Sections 5.09 "Tree Preservation" and 6.15 "Tree Permits," of the Land Development Code, contained in Chapter 12 of the Town's Code of Ordinances, in their entirety, and adopting a new Section 5.08 "Tree Preservation" and 6.15 "Tree Permits;" and to consider amending Section 6.04(b) "Record Plat Submittal Requirements," 6.06(I) "As-built plans;" and 6.09(c)(9) "Application Requirements" of the Land Development Code, contained in Chapter 12 of the Town's Code of Ordinances, modifying the Town of Flower Mound's tree protection and preservation requirements with the deletion of Eastern Red Cedar from the Protected Tree List, and Councilmember Wingard seconded the motion. The ordinance caption reads as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF FLOWER MOUND, TEXAS, REPEALING SECTIONS 5.08 AND 6.15 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 12, OF THE TOWN'S CODE OF ORDINANCES IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND ADOPTING NEW SECTION 5.08 AND 6.15 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 12, OF THE TOWN'S CODE OF ORDINANCES TO REPLACE SAID SECTIONS THEREOF; AMENDING SECTIONS 6.04(b), 6.06(i), AND 6.09(c)(9) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 12, OF THE TOWN'S CODE OF ORDINANCES; ADOPTING FINDINGS RELATIVE THERETO; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; REPEALING ALL CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Vote on the Motion
AYES: Travis, Cook, Baze, Wingard, Spruill
NAYS: None
4. Public hearing (LDC-04-00) to consider approval of an ordinance repealing Section 4.07 "Park Land Dedication" of the Land Development Code, contained in Chapter 12 of the Town's Code of Ordinances, in its entirety, and adopt a new Section 4.07 "Park Land Dedication", modifying the Town of Flower Mound's park land dedication requirements and standards.
Director of Parks and Recreation Bart Stevenson reviewed the significant changes regarding park land dedication as follows:
· The parkland requirement has increased from 2 acres per 100 units to 3.36 acres per 100 units. This figure is derived from the NRPA standard of 10.5 acres of parkland for each 1,000 population.
· Private parks and amenities will not be accepted or given credit towards meeting the Park Dedication Ordinance. The Town is not discouraging private parks or amenity centers, only no allowing credit toward public dedication requirements.
· Park dedication fees shall be determined by the fair market value of the land being developed. The Town will determine the fair market value of the property and calculate the fee using the amount of land otherwise to be dedicated to the Town. If the developer disagrees with the fair market value, he may at his cost, obtain an appraisal by a certified real estate appraiser mutually agreed upon by the Town. Mr. Stevenson noted that since the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, a clarification had been made to state that the Town may consider submitted information by the developer or subdivider in determining the fees in lieu of dedication.
· A new fee has been included in the ordinance called a Park Development Fee. This fee is determined using the cost of amenities of a typical 5-acre neighborhood park. This fee is imposed to ensure the residents of the new development not only receive land, but also a developed park. Amenities for a typical 5-acre neighborhood park costs $117,600. Using the parkland requirement of 3.36 acres per 100 units, 149 units comprise a 5-acre park. Dividing the cost of amenities by 149 units derives this fee. Therefore, the proportional park development fee is $789 per unit.
· Requirements set forth in the Park Dedication Ordinance must be complete prior to acceptance of public improvements.
· Parkland must be established with grass by the developer.
Councilmember Wingard asked if there could be a provision when residents might prefer passive parks.
Mr. Stevenson stated the Town would work with the developer to do that, but they would still be required to pay the park development fee.
Town Manager James stated if a developer was to propose a more natural area, they could make those recommendations and could be submitted with the development application.
Mayor DeLuca stated there would be possibilities for passive parks.
David Tam, Ph.D.
Dr. Tam asked if trails were included.
Mr. Stevenson stated there were no changes to the trail requirements.
Paul Caduro, HBA
Mr. Caduro asked about changing the fee to coincide with the fair market value of the land, and asked if that would be pre-developed land or post-developed land.
Mr. Stevenson stated the Town would use the value of the pre-developed land and the surrounding lands.
Town Manager James stated that to insure the flexibility of allowing for passive parks, language would be added to the proposed ordinance. He asked if any consideration had been given to revise the standard for multipurpose trails from 6 feet to 8 feet. He noted that 10 feet was becoming the norm.
Mr. Stevenson commented that nationally the standard was 12 feet, however 10 feet was typical.
Paul Stone, 709 Lake Bluff Drive, Flower Mound
Mr. Stone asked if Council would consider establishing a policy that trails would be established as rights-of-way as opposed to easements and the area in which trails would exist would be no less than 15 feet.
Town Manager James responded that this issue deserved some consideration and staff would look at the legal ramifications.
John Todd, 5600 Wichita Trail, Flower Mound
Mr. Todd did not think if was fair that multi use trails would not count toward park dedication.
In Opposition None
In Support
Paul Stone, 709 Lake Bluff Drive, Flower Mound
Mr. Stone thanked the Council for this ordinance, stating it clearly set good standards.
Jon Hazel, 3216 Ridgecrest, Flower Mound
Mr. Hazel gave an example of a passive park - Spring Lake Park. He felt park development fees could be used for a passive setting in the future. He stated a 5-acre park was a basic standard. He noted trail dedication was not being done now, and he did not want it counted toward park dedication. He supported the suggestion that trails be in dedicated right-of-way. He urged the Council's approval of the ordinance, and recommended 10 feet on the multi-purpose trails.
David Tam, Ph.D., 732 Teakwood, Flower Mound
Dr. Tam stated there should be a provision for passive parks. He suggested using another alternative to concrete for the trails. He was in support of the ordinance.
Mayor DeLuca stated Scott and Christina Robinson, Tim Trotter, Nick Hollingshad, Marilyn Jenkins and Bob Buckheit submitted cards in favor of this item.
Staff Comments None
Close Public Hearing
Council Deliberation
Mayor Pro Tem Travis agreed with 10 feet on the multipurpose trails. She stated the Town would take the right-of-way issue under consideration, and the trails/equestrian issues would remain as is.
Town Attorney Welch suggested adding a new subsection 9 to Page 8 of the proposed ordinance to read:
(9) Exceptions to the criteria contained in this subsection may be waived or modified by the Town Council after review and recommendation by the Park Board.
Councilmember Wingard asked about the asphalt consideration as opposed to concrete.
Mr. Stevenson stated the Town would have to spend a considerable amount of money to maintain asphalt trails over the years as opposed to concrete.
Councilmember Wingard made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 13-00 repealing Section 4.07 Park Land Dedication of the Land Development Code, contained in Chapter 12 of the Town's Code of Ordinances, in its entirety, and to adopt a new Section 4.07 Park Land Dedication, modifying the Town of Flower Mound's park land dedication requirements and standards, and to include wording for the multi-purpose trails to be increased from 8 feet to 10 feet in width and including the language read by the Town Attorney (above underlined wording) relative to modifying the parks requirements to provide for the possibility of passive parks, and Councilmember Spruill seconded the motion. The ordinance caption reads as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF FLOWER MOUND, TEXAS, REPEALING EXISTING SECTION 4.07 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 12, OF THE TOWN'S CODE OF ORDINANCES, IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADOPTING A NEW SECTION 4.07 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 12, OF THE TOWN'S CODE OF ORDINANCES TO REPLACE SAID SECTION THEREOF; ADOPTING FINDINGS RELATIVE THERETO; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; REPEALING ALL CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Vote on the Motion
AYES: Spruill, Wingard, Baze, Cook, Travis
NAYS: None
5. Public hearing (LDC-05-00) to consider approval of an amendment to Chapter 12 of the Code of Ordinances (Land Development Code), Sections 2.03 "Definition of Land Use Categories", 3.05 (c), "Schedule of use regulations", 3.18 "R-1, Retail District-1" relative to (b) Permitted uses and (c) Specific uses, 3.19 "R-2, Retail District-2" relative to (b) Permitted uses and (c) Specific uses, 3.20 "C-1, Commercial District-1" relative to (b) Permitted uses and (c) Specific uses, 3.21 "C-2, Commercial District-2" relative to (b) Permitted uses and (c) Specific uses, 3.22 "I-1, Industrial District-1" relative to (b) Permitted uses and (c) Specific uses, 3.23 "I-2, Industrial District-2" relative to (b) Permitted uses and (c) Specific uses, 3.26 "PD, Planned Development District" relative to (g) Permitted uses and (h) Specific uses, and 5.02 (d) "Off-Street parking and loading space requirement" to create a new land use category, specifically, Retail, single tenant and to consider adopting an ordinance providing for said amendment. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 6-0 at its February 10, 2000 meeting.)
Director of Community Development Sam Paschal stated this proposed ordinance would enhance the quality of life in the residential neighborhoods. He provided the following information:
These proposed amendments to the Town's Land Development Code will establish a new single-tenant use, which is a permitted use-by-right or a use allowed by specific use permit according to the following use schedule:
R1 R2 C1 C2 I1 I2 PD
Retail, single tenant P P P P P P P
less than 25,000 square feet
Retail, single tenant S P P P P P P
less than 50,000 square feet
Retail, single tenant _ S P P P P P
less than 75,000 square feet
Retail, single tenant _ _ S P P P P
less than 100,000 square feet
Retail, single tenant _ _ _ S S S S
100,000 square feet or more
Mr. Paschal read the definition of Retail, single tenant:
An establishment primarily occupied by a single tenant retail use that may include secondary accessory uses enclosed in a single building. Primary retail uses may include, but are not limited to, supermarkets, department stores, home improvement centers, discount centers, and automotive sales and service. Secondary accessory uses may include, but are not limited to, banks, video rental, restaurant, fast food, garden centers and automotive service uses.
Nancy Lee Hadley, 4009 Saturn, Flower Mound
Ms. Hadley asked how this would affect her neighborhood.
Mayor DeLuca stated the property near her home was zoned R-2 and would fall under the proposed ordinance.
In Opposition None
In Support
Mayor DeLuca stated she had received a card in support of this ordinance from Bruce McFarling.
Nancy Lee Hadley, 4009 Saturn, Flower Mound
Ms. Hadley spoke in favor of the ordinance.
Rick Hoffman, 4028 Saturn, Flower Mound
Mr. Hoffman asked for Council's approval of Item 5.
Mayor DeLuca stated the following citizens had submitted cards in support of this item: Marilyn Jenkins, Nick Hollingshad, Roxanne Keefer, Martha Zuspan, Douglas Head, Tracy Head, Scott and Christina Robertson.
Staff Comments None
Close Public Hearing
Council Deliberation
Mayor Pro Tem Travis made a motion to approve the proposed text amendment to Chapter 12 of the Code of Ordinances (Land Development Code), Sections 2.03 "Definition of Land Use Categories", 3.05 (c), "Schedule of use regulations", 3.18 "R-1 Retail District-1" relative to (b) Permitted uses and (c) Specific uses, 3.19 "R-2, Retail District-2" relative to (b) Permitted uses and (c) Specific uses, 3.20 "C-1, Commercial District-1" relative to (b) Permitted uses and (c) Specific uses, 3.21 "C-2, Commercial District-2" relative to (b) Permitted uses and (c) Specific uses, 3.22 "I-1, Industrial District-1" relative to (b) Permitted uses and (c) Specific uses, 3.23 "I-2, Industrial District-2" relative to (b) Permitted uses and (c) Specific uses, 3.26 "PD, Planned Development District" relative to (g) Permitted uses and (h) Specific uses, and 5.02 (d) "Off-Street parking and loading space requirement: to create a new land use category, specifically, Retail, single tenant and to adopt Ordinance No. 14-00 providing for said amendment, and Councilmember Spruill seconded the motion.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF FLOWER MOUND, TEXAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES (LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE), SECTIONS 2.03 "DEFINITION OF LAND USE CATEGORIES," 3.05 (C), "SCHEDULE OF USE REGULATIONS," 3.18 "R-1, RETAIL DISTRICT-1" RELATIVE TO (B) PERMITTED USES AND (C) SPECIFIC USES, 3.19 "R-2, RETAIL DISTRICT-2" RELATIVE TO (B) PERMITTED USES AND (C) SPECIFIC USES, 3.20 "C-1, COMMERCIAL DISTRICT-1" RELATIVE TO (B) PERMITTED USES AND (C) SPECIFIC USES, 3.21 "C-2, COMMERCIAL DISTRICT-2" RELATIVE TO (B) PERMITTED USES AND (C) SPECIFIC USES, 3.22, "I-1, INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT-1" RELATIVE TO (B) PERMITTED USES AND (C) SPECIFIC USES, 3.23 "I-2, INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT-2" RELATIVE TO (B) PERMITTED USES AND (C) SPECIFIC USES, 3.26 "PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT" RELATIVE TO (G) PERMITTED USES AND (H) SPECIFIC USES, AND 5.02 (D) "OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING SPACE REQUIREMENT"; TO CREATE A NEW LAND USE CATEGORY, SPECIFICALLY, RETAIL, SINGLE TENANT AND DEFINING SAME; REPEALING ALL CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, ORDERS OR RESOLUTIONS; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Vote on the Motion
AYES: Travis, Cook, Baze, Wingard, Spruill
NAYS: None
6. Consider approval of an ordinance repealing Section 8.00 of Chapter 3 of the Code of Ordinances in its entirety, and establishing a new Section 8.00 entitled "Engineering Design Criteria and Construction Standards Manual Adopted".
Town Engineer Mike Boles reviewed the proposed new engineering standards. He noted that Section 1 dealt with SMARTGrowth Management Plan requirements, and the data that would have to be submitted to determine if capacity and supply requirements would be met. He noted that applications would be considered in the order of receipt. A new technical requirement was added regarding the spacing for driveways - minimum 400 feet from intersections. A new minimum pavement thickness for asphalt was added. Another item was added which would allow fly ash as a substitute for cement under certain conditions. Standard details for bollards for park trails were included. He noted an amendment would have to be added to provide for the 10 foot trails (as previously approved). A section was added for a meter box for large establishments. He stated the Town was trying to discourage lift stations, and they would now need Council approval. Standard criteria would be established for lift stations. Pilot channels would be used to keep water off of adjacent properties. Regarding street lights, developers would be required to pay all costs for the lights.
Councilmember Wingard made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 15-00 repealing Section 8.00 of Chapter 3 of the Code of Ordinances in its entirety, and establishing a new Section 8.00 entitled "Engineering Design Criteria and Construction Standards Manual Adopted" and further moved that all applicable multi purpose trail standards be modified accordingly to reflect a 10 foot minimum width and that a new Appendix A diagram be adopted as reflected on the new attachment provided by the Town Engineer and the last sentence of Section V, subsection (c)(2) of the appendix be deleted, and Mayor Pro Tem Travis seconded the motion. The ordinance caption reads as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF FLOWER MOUND, TEXAS, REPEALING SECTION 8.00 "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS MANUAL ADOPTED" CHAPTER 3, OF THE TOWN'S CODE OF ORDINANCES IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND ADOPTING NEW SECTION 8.00 ENTITLED "ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS MANUAL ADOPTED"; ADOPTING FINDINGS RELATIVE THERETO; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; REPEALING ALL CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Vote on the Motion
AYES: Spruill, Wingard, Baze, Cook, Travis
NAYS: None
7. Consider approval of an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 2-99, which provided, in part, for the temporary suspension of the acceptance and filing of residential Master Plan amendments, residential zoning amendments and residential development plans.
Councilmember Baze made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 16-00 repealing Ordinance No. 2-99, and Councilmember Cook seconded the motion. The ordinance caption reads as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF FLOWER MOUND, TEXAS, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 2-99; MAKING FINDINGS; REPEALING ALL CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Vote on the Motion
AYES: Travis, Cook, Baze, Wingard, Spruill
NAYS: None
D. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Pro Tem Travis made a motion to adjourn at 12:51 a.m. on February 18, 2000, and Councilmember Wingard seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously.
TOWN OF FLOWER MOUND, TEXAS
__________________________________
LORI L. DELUCA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________________________
PAULA J. LAWRENCE, TOWN SECRETARY, CMC