Item 7B Property Owner ResponsesCase No. Attachment D
ZA17-015 Page 1
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS MAP & RESPONSES
SPO # Owner Zoning Physical Address Acreage Response
1. 321 SOUTHLAKE BLVD REAL ESTATE O1 301 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.128 NR
2. ATCC INVESTMENTS LLC O1 301 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.272 NR
3. BICENTENNIAL FIN CENTER LP SP2 250 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 1.166 NR
4. FIRST AMERICAN SAVINGS BANC SP2 222 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 1.168 NR
5. FIRST FINANCIAL BANK O1 151 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 1.619 F
6. HOFFMAN, HOLLY L SF20A 100 LONDONBERRY TER 0.909 O
7. IMAN, ASHER S O1 301 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.160 O
8. KESTER, PAIGE A SF20A 116 LONDONBERRY TER 0.482 O
9. LECHLER, GLORIA ETAL O1 130 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 7.345 F
10. LECHLER, GLORIA ETAL O1 0 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 0.223 F
11. LUTHY, ROBERT E SF20A 104 LONDONBERRY TER 0.460 O
12. MAHALO INVESTMENTS LLC O1 301 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.343 NR
13. MAHALO INVESTMENTS LLC O1 301 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 1.628 NR
14. MURPHY, TYLER C SF20A 108 LONDONBERRY TER 0.478 O
15. NMEM LTD SP1 190 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 0.950 F
16. O'DONNELL, PETER SF20A 120 LONDONBERRY TER 0.472 O
17. PARKHILL & WRIGHT LLC O1 301 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.136 NR
18. SOUTHLAKE, CITY OF CS 300 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 10.292 NR
19. STEDKE REVOCABLE TRUST* SF20A 112 LONDONBERRY TER 0.493 O
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-015 Page 2
(DRAKE, KURT L & JILL D)
20. SUNTREE STATION LLC SP2 110 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.903 NR
21. SUNTREE STATION LLC SP2 100 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 7.735 NR
22. TY SHAFER DDS PA O1 301 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.259 F
23. Superintendent of Carroll ISD NR
24. Superintendent of Grapevine
Colleyville ISD NR
25. Superintendent of Northwest ISD NR
26. Superintendent of Keller ISD NR
*owner per adopted 2016 tax roll
Responses: F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response
Notices Sent: Twenty-Two (22)
Responses Received: Seven (7) Opposed; Four (4) In Favor
Link to Surrounding Property Owner Responses
Notification Response Form
ZA17-015
Meeting Date: March 9, 2017 at 6:30 PM
PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY
BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING.
Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby
in favor of opposed to undecided about
(circle or underline one)
the proposed Zoning Change and Site Plan referenced above.
Space for comments regarding your position:
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Signature: _______________________________________ Date: ______
Additional Signature: _______________________________ Date: ______
Printed Name(s): _____________________________________________
Must be property owner(s) whose name(s) are printed at top. Otherwise contact the Planning Department. One form per property.
Phone Number (optional): ______________________________________
Direct questions and mail responses to:
City of Southlake
Planning & Development Services
Notification Response
1400 Main St; Ste 310
Southlake, TX 76092
Phone: (817)748-8621
Fax: (817)748-8077
March 9, 2017
I oppose this because it will create too much traffic and the local homes will lose value.
Darlene Butscher
213-712-0768
ZA17-015 Comments by Paige and Lori Kester 116 Londonberry Terrace 3/8/2017
We appreciate the City of Southlake trying to accommodate any land owner’s application to rezone their
property however this is a clear case where the city should deny the request.
When a zoning plan has been in place as long as this one has (30 years!), the land on all sides of the
property have been developed to that zoning plan, where the zoning change requested would eliminate
60+% of the city’s designed transition buffer, where the site plan application significantly changes the
land use, and the adjacent family neighborhood is unanimously opposed, it is incumbent upon the city
to only to allow the change for a compelling reason that benefits the city at large (hospital/fire/police,
school, safety, traffic, or such) or to deny the change. In this case the change is not for a compelling city
reason but for a drive thru Starbucks.
If the site plan changed the land use from “General Day Use Offices” to “Light Commercial – no
restaurants” I could understand the city’s action to approve the change over the adjacent families
objections. If the application was for light use restaurants (like Subway) or even high end dine-in
restaurants I would hope the city would see this as too large a change from the current land use. But it
would a blatant disregard of the citizens for the city to approve a site plan for a drive thru restaurant
next to an established residential neighborhood under these circumstances.
Our concerns are quality of life: noise, smells, and safety while we live here, and alternatively, being
harmed financially by loss of property value if we chose to move from this neighborhood after the city
allowed the site plan. Noise is a significant concern as the current zoning would only result in Mon-Sat
day use. Light commercial turns into 7day a week 8AM-9PM with medium traffic (25minute visits). But
a drive thru restaurant will be 6AM to 11PM 7 days a week with 3 minute visits, several cars idling in line
constantly and an outside ordering box, garbage and delivery trucks, etc. Smell is a concern with the
restaurants and patio seating. Safety is a concern with restaurant sanitation (i.e. rodents), increased
traffic, and the types of businesses. Traffic on White’s Chapel heading north is already a problem; a
drive thru Starbucks is going to greatly worsen that situation especially in the mornings.
As the HOA President, I represent the 23 families that have built their lives in this community which was
planned over 15 years ago! I and most (if not all) of my neighbors checked the zoning of the
undeveloped land as part of our due diligence in purchasing our homes. We relied on the city’s zoning
and trust you will keep the zoning to an appropriate use. We are unanimous against this site plan!
This site plan was before the City Council on November 1st, 2016. The applicant was directed by the
mayor to seriously consider not proceeding after hearing from the council and after hearing from a large
and vocal public opposed to the site plan. The application was withdrawn but now has returned. I think
it is important to point out that the land developer has not reached out to the residents. They have not
asked for concerns or recommendations that would make their site plan more acceptable.
Please consider this. If you asked every citizen in Southlake, “If you lived next to this undeveloped
property, and under these circumstances, would you support or oppose the site plan application?” I am
certain you would expect nearly unanimous opposition. If you asked every citizen in Southlake, “You
don’t live next to this property, but knowing the circumstances, would you support or oppose the site
plan being changed next to your fellow citizens?” I put forth you would still expect a large majority of
opposition. Please let our representative form of government work and oppose the site plan on behalf
of the citizens you represent.
Attached is a petition of all 23 home owners that oppose the site plan.
I am willing to discuss site plan modifications that might bring the sides closer together. We certainly
would not support a drive thru restaurant in any scenario but perhaps a stone wall like our HOA built on
our east boundary being built on the north side would address some quality of life concerns.
Thank you for your service to our city and representing the citizens of Southlake in this matter.
Sincerely,
Paige Kester