Item 7ACase No.
ZA17-064
S T A F F R E P O R T
November 28, 2017
CASE NO: ZA17-064
PROJECT: Zoning Change and Development Plan for Stony Brook
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY: Dolce Investments, LLC is requesting 1st Reading approval of a Zoning Change
and Development Plan for Stony Brook (formerly known as Stone Trail and Holmes
Builders) on property described as Tracts 5A, 5C1, 5B, 5A3, and 5A2, Jesse G.
Allen Survey, Abstract No. 18, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and Lots
5B and 5A (5A and 5B being portions of Lo t 5), Brock Addition, an addition to the
City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and located at 2607, 2621, 2631, 2641,
and 2651 W. Southlake Blvd. and 400 and 410 Brock Dr., Southlake,
Texas. Current Zoning: “AG” Agricultural District and “SF-1A” Single Family
Residential District. Proposed Zoning: “R-PUD” Residential Planned Unit
Development District. SPIN Neighborhood #11.
DETAILS: This project is located south of W. Southlake Blvd. and south and west of Brock Dr.
Lakeside Presbyterian Church is to the west and the Siena subdivision is to the
south.
The applicant is requesting 1st Reading approval of a Zoning Change and
Development Plan from “AG” Agricultural District and “SF-1A” Single Family
Residential District to “R-PUD” Residential Planned Unit Development District for
Stony Brook, which includes 59 residential lots and 10 open space lots on
approximately 34.73 acres. The subdivision is proposed as a gated community with
private streets. There are two proposed vehicular points of acc ess into the
subdivision. The entrance to the community is on W. Southlake Blvd. with an
emergency only access gate at the southern connection to Naples Dr. The
proposed gross density and net density is 1.70 units per acre. The percentage of
open space proposed in the subdivision is approximately 26.0% of the gross area.
Homes in the west and central portion of the development are proposed to have a
9’ side yard setback on one side of the lot and a 1’ setback on the other side of the
lot that will function as zero lot line homes, but in this case, a usability easement is
provided on what would be the zero lot line side of the house (designated with an
arrow on the Development Plan). A maintenance, drainage and overhang
easement must be provided on the lot adjacent to the 1’ setback. Please see the
“R-PUD” Regulations for a definition of the usability easem ent.
Department of Planning & Development Services
Case No.
ZA17-064
The Site Data for the proposed subdivision is summarized in the chart below:
Site Data Summary for “R-PUD” Zoning
Existing Zoning “AG” and “SF-1A”
Proposed Zoning “R-PUD”
Land Use Designation
Medium Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Floodplain
Gross/Net Acreage 34.73
Residential Lots 59
Gross/Net Density 1.70 du/ac.
Open Space % 26.0%
Lot Area Range 8,556 s.f. to 31,634 s.f.
Average Lot Area 15,058 s.f.
A comparison of the proposed “R-PUD” regulations to the “SF-20A” Single
Family Residential District base zoning is below:
Regulation “SF-20A” “SF-1A” “R-PUD” Regulations
Max. Height 35’ and 2½ stories 35’ and 2½ stories 35’ and 2½ stories
Front Yard 35’ 40’ 20’ and 25’
Side Yard 15’ 20’ 1’ and 9’ (villa lots)
7’
Rear Yard 40’
(35’ on cul-de-sac) 40’ 15’ or 30’
10’ adj. to alley
Max. Lot Coverage 30% 20% 40% and 50%
Min. Lot Area 20,000 s.f. 43,560 s.f. 8,300
Min. Lot Width 100’ 100’ 52.9’
Min. Lot Depth 125’ 125’ 100’
Min. Floor Area 1,800 s.f. 2,000 s.f. 2,600 s.f.
Max. Gross Density 2.18 du/ac. 1.0 du/ac. 1.70 du/ac.
The following three modifications to Subdivision Ord. No. 483 are requested :
1) Subdivision Ordinance No. 48 3, as amended, Section 5.04 does not permit
private streets in new subdivisions in which less than 75% of the lots contain
homeowner occupied structures. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow
a gated community with private streets with the initial development.
2) Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, as amended, Section 5.03.I - Generally, a
maximum number of twenty (20) dwelling units should be permitted on a cul-de-
sac street permanently designed as such. Additionally, the length of the Cul -de-
Sac should not exceed 1,000 feet or be less than 150 feet in length. However,
Case No.
ZA17-064
density of development, topography, lot sizes and other significant factors will be
weighed in determining the length of a cul-de-sac street.
3) Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, as amended, Section 5.03.K states that dead
end streets shall be permitted only where a future extension or connection is to
be made. The applicant is requesting a gated emergency only access instead of
a full connection to the street stub from the Siena subdivision to the south.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the item at their
October 19, 2017 meeting. The motion recommended not granting Variance No. 3
to allow a gated emergency only access instead of a full connection to the street
stub from the Siena subdivision to the south.
P&Z conditions in the motion for approval at
their 10/19 meeting Applicant’s Response
Specifically not granting variance No. 3 related to
gated emergency access only on the southern side
of the site.
The applicant is proposing a gated emergency
access only on the southern side of the site.
Include an alternative that does not include
alleyways.
The applicant is presenting the Development
Plan options with and without alleyways that
were previously presented, but prefers the
option with the alleyways.
Provide alternative Development Plans relative to
access to the site for Council’s consideration.
The applicant submitted a revised easement
plan across the property to the east to provide
access to Davis Blvd. after meeting with the
owner of that property.
ACTION NEEDED: Consider 1st Reading approval of a Zoning Change and Development Plan
ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information
(B) Vicinity Map
(C) Revised Development Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated October
19, 2017
(D) Surrounding Property Owners Map and Responses
(E) Ordinance Nos. 480-730
Full Size Plans (for Commission and Council members only)
Link to PowerPoint Presentation
Link to R-PUD Regulations
Link to Plans
Page 2 - Development Plan
Pages 3-7 - Civil Plans
Page 8 - Pedestrian Access Plan
Page 9 - Fencing Plan
Page 10 - Mailbox Kiosk Plan
Page 11 - Tree Conservation Analysis
Page 12 - Easement Exhibit
Page 13 - Masonry Mailbox Kiosk Exhibit
Page 14 - Lot Layout Exhibit without Alley
Pages 15-16 - Entry Exhibits
Link to Corridor Planning Committee Report
Link to SPIN meeting Report
Case No.
ZA17-064
STAFF CONTACT: Ken Baker (817) 748-8067
Richard Schell (817) 748-8602
Case No. Attachment A
ZA17-064 Page 1
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
OWNER: Margaret J. Haney and Estate of E. I. Wiesman and Glenda Wiesman
APPLICANT: Dolce Investments, LLC
PROPERTY SITUATION: 2607, 2621, 2631, 2641, and 2651 W. Southl ake Blvd. and 400 and 410
Brock Dr.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Tracts 5A, 5C1, 5B, 5A3, and 5A2, Jesse G. Allen Survey, Abstract No. 18
and Lots 5B and 5A (5A and 5B being portions of Lot 5), Brock Addition
LAND USE CATEGORY: Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential, 100-Year Floodplain
CURRENT ZONING: “AG” Agricultural District and “SF-1A” Single Family Residential District
PROPOSED ZONING: “R-PUD” Residential Planned Unit Development District.
HISTORY: - The property was annexed into the City in 1956 and given the “AG”
Agricultural District zoning designation.
- A Plat Showing for Brock Addition was filed November 8, 1967.
- The “SF-1A” Single Family Residential District zoning was placed on the
Brock Addition property with the adoption of Ordinance No. 480 and the
Official Zoning Map in September of 1989.
- A Plat Revision for Lots 1R and 3R, Brock Addition was approved
September 2, 1997 and filed November 21, 1997.
- A Zoning Change and Development Plan (ZA15 -125) for Stone Trail
Estates from “AG” Agricultural District and “SF -1A” Single Family
Residential District to “R-PUD” Residential Planned Unit Development for
Stone Trail Estates to develop 61 residential lots and 12 open space lots on
approximately 36.03 acres and the associated Preliminary Plat (ZA15-153)
were denied by City Council on August 2, 2016.
SOUTHLAKE 2030 PLAN: Consolidated Future Land Use Plan
The majority of the site is designated “Medium Density Residential”, which
is suitable for any single-family detached residential development.
Approximately 6.79 acres of the proposed development that is currently in
the Brock Addition has a Low Density Residential designation in the 2030
Land Use Plan. The six (6) lots shown in that portion of the proposed
subdivision comply with the Low Density Residential designation, which
requires a net density of one or fewer dwelling units per acre .
Medium Density Residential:
The purpose of the Medium Density Residential land use category is to
promote a neighborhood setting primarily comprised of single family
detached houses.
Definition: The Medium Density Residential category is suitable for any
single-family detached residential development. Other suitable activities are
Case No. Attachment A
ZA17-064 Page 2
those permitted in the Public Parks/Open Space and Public/Semi-Public
categories previously discussed.
Low Density Residenital:
The purpose of the Low Density Residential land use category is to provide
for and to protect low intensity detached single -family residential
development that promotes the openness and rural character of Southlake.
Definition: The Low Density Residential category is for detached single-
family residential development at a net density of one or fewer dwelling
units per acre. Net density is the number of dwelling units per net acre,
which excludes acreage in all public rights-of-way. Other suitable activities
are those permitted in the Public Parks / Open Space and Public / Semi-
Public categories described previously. The Low Density Residential
category encourages the openness and rur al character of the City of
Southlake.
Floodplain
The Floodplain category illustrates areas designated by the August 1995
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps as being in the
100-year floodplain. The “floodplain” is an expanse of natural vegeta tion
and wildlife, and should be preserved as natural open area. Within the
floodplain is “floodway” that must be kept free of encroachment in order that
the 100-year flood may be carried without harmful increases in the height of
flood waters. Although it is not to be encouraged, the portion of the
floodplain not in the floodway may be reclaimed for development under
certain circumstances if in accordance with FEMA regulations. The
designated land use for areas of reclaimed floodplain is that of the
immediately adjacent land use category. This designation may also include
environmentally sensitive areas, habitats, or wetlands that may not be in
FEMA identified floodplains.
Mobility & Master Thoroughfare Plan
The Mobility and Master Thoroughfare Plan shows W. Southlake Blvd. to
be a Farm-to-Market road with 130’ of right of way. Adequate right of way is
shown to be dedicated on the plans.
Pathways Master Plan & Sidewalk Plan
The Pathways Master Plan shows the existing 8’ multi-use trail along the
south side of Southlake Blvd. and a future ≥8’ multi-use trail extending from
W. Southlake Blvd. to Union church Rd. through the floodplain.
Major Corridors Urban Design Plan
The property is in the “Estate Residential” zone in the Major Corridors
Urban Design Plan. The following recommendations pertain to the “Estate
Residential” zone in the plan.
Case No. Attachment A
ZA17-064 Page 3
TRANSPORTATION
ASSESSMENT: Area Road Network and Conditions
The proposed “R-PUD” zoning request has one main entrance onto W.
Southlake Blvd. An emergency only access gate is proposed at the Naples
Dr. connection to the south.
W. Southlake Blvd.
(between Davis Blvd. & S. Pearson Ln.)
24hr East Bound (18,836) West Bound (18,766)
AM Peak AM (2,075)
7:00 AM – 8:00 AM
Peak AM (1,110)
11:30 AM – 12:30 PM
PM Peak PM (1,137)
5:45 PM– 6:45 PM
Peak PM (2,122)
5:00 PM – 6:00 PM
Traffic Impact
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was not required for this development.
Use Units Vtpd* AM-
IN
AM-
OUT
PM-
IN
PM-
OUT
ITE Code (210) 59 565 12 34 39 22
Case No. Attachment A
ZA17-064 Page 4
* Vehicle Trips Per Day
* AM-In, AM-Out, PM-In and PM-Out are peak hour generators on a weekday
* Based on the ITE: Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition
The City Engineer has provided the following comments:
From a mobility perspective, it would be preferred to have a second, full
access point into this subdivision. The current proposal to force all 57 lots
to a right-in/right-out drive on FM 1709 is less than ideal and will only result
in more congestion. We do not believe that TxDOT is likely to permit a
hooded left median opening on FM 1709, which will certainly result in u-turn
movements at the existing openings creating a safety concern. The
preferred connection would be to Naples Drive, which was stubbed out
from the Siena subdivision and planned for future extension. This
connection would give the residents access to traffic signals at Davis,
Watermere, or Pearson for a much safer scenario to head west on FM
1709 if desired. The next best option would be to extend access and
connect to Brock Drive. While this would not provide access to a signal, it
would give full access to FM 1709 to go east or west as well as allow for
safe entrance for westbound traffic. The final option would be a plan for
future connection directly to Davis Boulevard. This connection should be
planned to line up with a future median opening on Davis, preferably line up
with Sunset Way, allowing full access for north and south movements. This
is also the least likely since this extension would require the crossing of the
flood plain which will likely be cost prohibitive and is not currently planned
as a capital improvement project.
TREE PRESERVATION: The site is subject to the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585 -D
since the property is being rezoned.
There is approximately 43.1% existing tree cover on the site, of which,
approximately 50.9% is proposed to be preserved. A standard zoning
district would require that a minimum 50% of existing tree cover be
preserved.
For property sought to be zoned for the Downtown zoning district or a
planned development zoning district, including an S-P-1 Site Plan, S-P-
2 Site Plan, Transition, Rural Conservation, Planned Unit Development,
or Employment Center zoning district, the City Council shall consider
the application for a Conservation Analysis or Plan in conjunction with
the corresponding development application.
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the application and
make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the
application. The City Council shall approve the Plan or Analysis if the
Council finds that the Plan or Analysis provides for the:
i. placement of building pads, parking areas, driveways, streets,
and utility easements so as to maximize the preservation of
environmental features of the property including mature tree
stands, natural creeks and ponds, and significant grades;
ii. maximizes the preservation of tree cover preservation areas
indicated on the Environmental Resource Protection Map;
Case No. Attachment A
ZA17-064 Page 5
iii. maximizes the preservation of existing tree stands with the
potential to buffer residential areas from the noise, glare, and
visual effects of nonresidential uses;
iv. maximizes the preservation of existing trees, if any, adjoining a
natural or man-made drainage creek;
v. maximizes the preservation of existing protected trees along
rural roadways and other streets as identified and prioritized in
the Street Typology designation; and
vi. mitigation of altered trees through proposed tree
replacement procedures pursuant to this Ordinance.
UTILITIES: The property proposes to connect to an existing 12” water line in W.
Southlake Blvd. to the north and to an existing 8” water line in Naples Dr. to
the south. Sanitary sewer for the development is proposed to connect to an
existing 8” sewer line in Naples Dr to the south.
DRAINAGE: Drainage on the property is generally north to south and east to the creek
that runs through the southeast portion of the property.
CITIZEN INPUT: The following meetings were held to discuss the development:
A SPIN meeting was held for this project on September 12, 2017.
Link to September 12, 2017 SPIN Report
A 2035 Corridor Planning Committee meeting was held on August 7, 2017.
Link to Corridor Planning Committee Report
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION: October 5, 2017; A motion to table the item to the October 19, 2017
meeting was approved (6-0).
October 19, 2017; Approved (4-2) subject to the Staff Report dated October
19, 2017; further subject to the Development Plan Review Summary No. 4
dated October 19, 2017;
Granting the variance No. 1 related to a gated community on the
northern end and variance No. 2 on the length of the cul-de-sac
street; specifically not granting variance No. 3 related to gated
emergency access only on the southern side of the site.
Noting the applicant’s willingness to also include in their application
with respect to alleyways an alternative that does not include
alleyways in the Site Plan.
Noting the applicant’s willingness to provide alternative Site Plans
relative to access to the site for Council’s consideration.
Chairman Forman and Commissioner Panahy voted no on the motion after
voicing concerns regarding the traffic impact on the Siena neighborhood to
the south if the street connection was a full access street and not
emergency access only.
STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Revised Development Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated
October 19, 2017.
Subdivision Ord. No. 483, as amended, Section 9.01 regarding
Case No. Attachment A
ZA17-064 Page 6
modifications and variations is below:
Section 9.01 Modifications and Variations:
A. Compliance: Where the Council finds that compliance with these
regulations would cause unusual hardship or extraordinary difficulties
because of exceptional and unique conditions of access, location,
shape, size, drainage, or other physical features of the site, the
requirements may be modified to mitigate the hardship, provided that
the public interest is protected and the development is in keeping with
the general spirit and intent of this ordinance.
1. This section shall not be interpreted to permit the deve lopment of
land which is inherently unsuitable for the use proposed.
2. Any modification will not have the effect of preventing the orderly
subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the
provisions of this ordinance.
B. Discretion of Council: At the discretion of the Council, the normal
standards and requirements of this ordinance may also be modified in
the case of a Planned Unit Development. Such departures from the
standards specified may be made only when the Council finds that the
plan provides for convenience and safe access, adequate space for
recreation, and provision for light and air, and offers all essential utility
services and necessary public and other facilities, and is in
conformance with all provisions of the City Code whic h specifically
apply to Planned Unit Development.
Case No. Attachment B
ZA17-064 Page 1
Case No. Attachment C
ZA17-064 Page 1
REVISED EVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY
Case No.: ZA17-064 Review No.: Four Date of Review: 10/19/17
Project Name: Development Plan – Stony Brook
APPLICANT: Terry Holmes Engineer: Jimmy Fechter
Dolce Investments, LLC Adams Engineering
225 E. State Hwy. 121, Suite 120 8951 Cypress Waters Blvd. Suite 150
Coppell, TX 75019 Dallas, TX 75019
Phone: (214) 488-5200 Phone: (817) 328-3215
E-mail: terry@theholmesbuilders.com E-mail: jimmy.fechter@adams-engineering.com
CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON
10/11/17 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY
MADE CONDITIONS OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED B Y THE CITY
COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE
CONTACT RICHARD SCHELL AT (817) 748 -8602.
1. A Preliminary Plat that conforms to the R-PUD district zoning must be processed and approved
and then a Final Plat (or Plat Revision) processed and recorded prior to the conveyance of any
lots or the issuance of any building permits. Portions of the property are already platted in the
Brock Addition, so a Plat Revision must be processed and recorded in place of a Final Plat or a
Plat Vacation must be processed and recorded prior to approval and recording of a Final Plat.
2. Please be aware that all plans and exhibits submitted with an application for an “R-PUD”
Residential Planned Unit Development District zoning are approved as p art of the “R-PUD”
zoning ordinance and that changes to the plans after Council approval will require re -approval
of an “R-PUD” Zoning Change and Development Plan.
3. The driveway for Lot 4, Brock Addition (Harold McCall property) is located in Lot 5B, Broc k
Addition, which is part of the property being developed. The applicant has indicated on the
Development Plan that the property containing the driveway will be deeded over to the owner
of Lot 4, Brock Addition. A Plat Revision or an Amended Plat must be p rocessed and recorded
to convey the property to the owner of Lot 4, Brock Addition. Please revise the boundary of the
zoning request to remove the portion of the property that is to be deeded over. The zoning
must remain “SF-1A” Single Family Residential District on that property.
4. Clearly show, label and dimension the width of any easements on or adjacent to the site. The
extents of the existing easements are not clear. There is a 30’ road access easement and a 15’
utility easement across Lot 5, Brock A ddition.
5. Please make the following changes to the R-PUD regulations:
a. Verify the lot depth for Lot 15, Block 1 per the definition of lot depth in Ord. No. 480,
Section 4. The depth appears to be approximately 100’.
6. Provide elevation exhibits of the stone and stucco walls and the iron fence.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA17-064 Page 2
7. Approval of a modification to the Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, Section 5.04 requirement by
the City Council will be required to allow private streets in a new subdivision. A request for a
modification has been submitted.
8. Dead-end streets are permitted only where future connection is to be made (Subdivision
Ordinance No. 483, Section 5.03.K). City Council approval of a variance is required to allow
emergency access only at the southern entrance instead of a full con nection to the street stub
from the Siena subdivision to the south. A request for a modification to the Subdivision
Ordinance has been submitted.
9. A maximum of 20 dwelling units is generally allowed on a cul-de-sac street, which is defined as
that street or part of a street having one common entry and exit and no other entry and/or exit
(Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, Section 5.03.I) Approval of an R -PUD regulation to allow one
entry/exit by City Council is required to allow the southern connection to be a n emergency
access only.
10. Per the City of Southlake Driveway Ordinance No. 634, a deceleration lane is required if the
site peak period ingress movement is greater than 40 veh/ hr. The TIA threshold worksheet
shows 61.2 trips in the design hour. If a deceleration lane is required, a shorter deceleration
lane than TxDOT requirements may be required due to the geographical challenges with
respect to the distance to the adjacent western church driveway. This requirement will be
contingent on TxDOT’s willingness to amend their access requirement.
Tree Conservation/Landscape Review
E-mail: kmartin@ci.southlake.tx.us
Keith Martin
Landscape Administrator
Phone: (817) 748-8229
TREE CONSERVATION COMMENTS:
1. Ensure that trees which are shown to be preserved are not within potential house pad areas.
* A Tree Conservation Analysis was submitted. The existing tree cover is shown to be 43.1% and
under straight zoning a minimum 50% of the existing tree cover is required to be preserved. The
applicant is proposing to preserve 50.90% of the existing tree cover so the existing tree cover
preservation would comply with the existing tree cover preservation requirements.
Except as provided by subsection 7.2.b. of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, a Tree Conservation
Analysis or Tree Conservation Plan shall be approved if it will preserve existing tree cover in
accordance with the percentage requirements established by Table 2.0. If the property has
previously received a tree permit related to development, the percenta ge of existing tree cover at
the time the first such permit was issued shall be used to calculate the minimum existing tree cover
that must be preserved under this section.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA17-064 Page 3
Table 2.0 – Existing Tree Cover Preservation Requirements
Percentage of existing tree cover on
the entire site
Minimum percentage of the
existing tree cover to be
preserved*
0% – 20% 70%
20.1 – 40% 60%
40.1% - 60% 50%
60.1% - 80% 40%
80.1% - 100% 30%
*The minimum percentage of existing tree cover to be preserved shall exclude an y area in
public rights-of-way as approved by City Council.
For property sought to be zoned for the Downtown zoning district or a planned development zoning
district, including an S-P-1 Site Plan, S-P-2 Site Plan, Transition, Rural Conservation, Planned Unit
Development, or Employment Center zoning district, the City Council shall consider the application
for a Conservation Analysis or Plan in conjunction with the corresponding development application
(as established in Table 1.0). The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the application
and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the application. The City Council shall
approve the Plan or Analysis if the Council finds that the Plan or Analysis provides for the:
i. placement of building pads, parking areas, driveways, streets, and utility easements so as
to maximize the preservation of environmental features of the property including mature
tree stands, natural creeks and ponds, and significant grades;
ii. maximizes the preservation of tree cover preservation areas indicated on the
Environmental Resource Protection Map;
iii. maximizes the preservation of existing tree stands with the potential to buffer residential
areas from the noise, glare, and visual effects of nonresidential uses;
iv. maximizes the preservation of existing trees, if any, adjoining a natural or man -made
drainage creek;
v. maximizes the preservation of existing protected trees along rural roadways and other
streets as identified and prioritized in the Street Typo logy designation; and
vi. mitigation of altered trees through proposed tree replacement procedures pursuant to this
Ordinance.
* Please be aware that all existing trees shown to be preserved on the City Council approved Tree
Conservation Plan must be preserved and protected during all phases and construction of the
development. Alteration or removal of any of the existing trees shown to be preserved on the
approved Tree Conservation Plan is a violation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance and the zoning
as approved by the Southlake City Council. Please ensure that the layout of all structures,
easements, utilities, structures grading, and any other structure proposed to be constructed do not
conflict with existing trees intended to be preserved.
LANDSCAPE COMMENTS:
1. A 20’ – L type bufferyard is required to be provided along the north property line adjacent to W.
Southlake Blvd. Correct the bufferyard summary chart to show the provided plantings for the Type
L bufferyard and correct the length of the buff eryard.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA17-064 Page 4
* Indicates informational comment.
# Indicates required items comment.
Public Works/Engineering Review
Alex Ayala, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Phone: (817) 748-8274
E-mail: aayala@ci.southlake.tx.us
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. This review is preliminary. Additional requirements may be necessary with the review of civil
construction plans.
2. Show sidewalks on both sides of the main street entrance. Sidewalks are required on both sides
of public streets.
3. Construction within FM 1709/right of way shall require a permit from TxDOT. Approval is required
before beginning construction.
4. Lot 12, Block 1 is encumbered by 15’ sanitary sewer easement along northern property line.
Encroachment agreement shall be required with building permit.
5. Label street widths on Site Plan. Residential streets shall be constructed to 31’ B -B. All curb
returns shall be 30’ minimum. Fire lane radii shall be 30’ minimum.
6. Public walking trails located within floodplain must be ADA compliant. Decomposed granite is not
a suitable material meeting ADA requirements. Alterations to natural ground to meet ADA grades
within floodplain will require a LOMR. City of Southlake will not accept walking trails not meeting
ADA requirements. Further review will be required during civil construction plan review.
* Street intersections shall comply with TDLR/ADA accessibility standards.
* Sight distances shall comply with AASHTO guidelines on adjacent collectors and arterials.
* Sidewalk widths shall conform to the Southlake Pathways Plan.
* Use the City of Southlake GPS monuments whenever possible. Monument locations can be
found in the City of Southlake website:
http://www.cityofsouthlake.com/index.aspx?NID=266
DRAINAGE COMMENTS:
7. Public walking trails located within floodplain must be ADA compliant. Decomposed granite is not
a suitable material meeting ADA requirements. Alterations to natural ground to meet ADA grades
within floodplain will require a LOMR. Further review will be required during civil construction plan
review.
1. Documentation supporting and certifying that detention is not necessary will be required prior to
approval of construction plans.
2. Timing study maybe required with the submittal of civil construction plans.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA17-064 Page 5
3. Label Stream BB-9 and include FIRM panel number and effective date for the floodplain. Show
effective floodway and BFE cross sections.
4. Reclamation or fill within any portion of the effective floodplain will require hydraulic modeling and a
LOMR. LOMR shall be obtained prior to acceptance of the subdivision and placing homes near
floodplain.
5. Storm drain inlets are required at intersecting streets.
6. Turn off development plan on Pre-developed Drainage Area Map.
7. Post-development Drainage Area Map does not account for offsite drainage areas.
* Calculations will be required to verify capacity of proposed curb inlets.
* Storm sewers collecting runoff from public streets shall be RCP and constructed t o City
standards. The proposed flume will not be allowed.
* Property drains into a Critical Drainage Structure #18 and requires a fee to be paid prior to
beginning construction ($212.61/AC).
* Discharge of post development runoff must have no adverse impact on downstream properties
and meet the provisions of Ordinance No. 605.
EASEMENTS:
1. Provide all necessary easements for water, sanitary sewer and drainage. Easements shall be 15’
minimum and located on one lot – not centered on the property line. A 20’ easement is required if
both storm sewer and sanitary sewer will be located within the easement.
2. Provide corner clips at the intersection of Southlake Blvd and proposed street. Corner clips shall
be shown on the plat. Refer to Ordinance No. 483.
* Verify if easement of water/sanitary sewer/storm sewer crossing the site is in an easement.
* Water and sanitary sewer cannot cross property lines without being in an easement or right of
way. All waterlines, sanitary sewer and storm sewer in easeme nts or right of ways must be
constructed to City standards.
WATER AND SEWER COMMENTS:
1. Minimum size of public water and sanitary sewer mains is 8”.
2. Single family residential developments require fire hydrant spacing of 400’ maximum hose -lay
length for non-sprinkled residences or 600’ for sprinkled residences.
3. Proposed sanitary sewer shall be located in the parkway, not under pavements, except at
crossings.
* Water lines cannot cross property lines without being in an easement or right of way.
* The size of the water service tap must match the size of the meter. There are no reducers
allowed before the meter on the public side. A one inch meter must have a one inch tap, etc.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA17-064 Page 6
* Water meters and fire hydrants shall be located in an easement or rig ht of way.
* Fire lines shall be separate from service lines.
INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS:
* Submit 22”x34” civil construction plans and a completed Construction Plan Checklist directly to
the Public Works Administration Department for review. Please allow 15 business days for
review. The plans shall conform to the most recent construction plan checklist, standard
details and general notes which are located on the City’s website:
http://www.cityofsouthlake.com/PublicWorks/engineeringdesign.asp
* Provide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan per TXR150000. The plan must include all required
elements in Part III, Section F of the permit. The City of Southlake especially reviews Part III,
Section F, (1) (g), Maps. The review is for completeness of a plan to prevent pollution (especially
sediment) to the Separate Storm Sewer System. It is highly recommended the project manager
provide a series of maps for complex projects, including one map showing controls during mass
grading and infrastructure, one map showing controls during vertical construction, and one map
showing final stabilization (may be but not always equitable to the landscape plan). Please include
timelines in relation to the project activities for installation and removal of controls. SWPPP shall
be submitted by second review of the civil construction plans.
* Submit with Civil Construction Plans a Retaining Wall Layout sheet. Retaining walls greater than
4-feet including the footing shall require structural plans prepared by a registered engineer in the
State of Texas. Retaining walls shall require a permit from the Building Inspections Department
prior to construction.
* Submit with Civil Construction Plans a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan which outlines
pre-construction, construction and post-construction erosion control measures.
* A geotechnical report will be required for all private and public roadways. The geotechnical
report shall include pavement design parameters for subgrade stabilization.
* A right of way permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Operations Department (817)
748-8082 to connect to the City’s sewer, water or storm sewer system.
* A Developer Agreement may be required for this development and may need to be approved
by the City Council prior to any construction of public infrastructure. Construction plans for
these improvements must be acceptable to Public Works prior to placing the Developer’s
Agreement on the City Council agenda for consideration.
* Any hazardous waste being discharged must be pretreated per Ordinance No. 836.
*=Denotes informational comment.
Fire Department Review
Kelly Clements
Assistant Fire Marshal
Phone: (817) 748-8671
E-mail: kclements@ci.southlake.tx.us
Case No. Attachment C
ZA17-064 Page 7
FIRE LANE COMMENTS:
The entry appears to be designed to accommodate gated access, if requested and approved by city
council, the gate must be equipped with an Opticom or KS -2 switch for opening the gate electronically,
as well as a means for manual opening.
Fire apparatus access needs to be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire
apparatus (A minimum of 85,000 lbs GVW). Fire access roads must be at least 31 ft. back of curb to
back of curb. (Standard street width) (Some streets appear to have medians, which would not provide
the approved widths)
Cul-de-Sacs must have 30 ft. inside turn radius and 50 foot radius (100 foot diameter) pavement,
unobstructed, for approved turnaround. (Plans do not indicate approved dimen sions) (Some cul-de-
sacs appear to have medians, which would not allow for approved unobstructed radius)
FIRE HYDRANT COMMENTS:
Hydrants required at maximum spacing for R -3 Occupancies is 400 feet for subdivisions with un-
sprinkled homes and 600 feet for subdivisions that are completely sprinkled. (Hydrants are over-
spaced at several locations, relocate and/or add hydrants as necessary to meet the requirements)
General Informational Comments
* Properties within Corridor Overlay Zone see Ord. 480 -S § 43.9.c.1(e) for design criteria. Zoning
Ordinance No. 480, Section 39.5(4) requires fences along W. Southlake Blvd. to comply with
the Architectural Fencing requirements of the Corridor Overlay District. (Section43.9(c)1(f),
which states “All architectural fencing which runs roughly parallel to the SH 114, Carroll
Ave.FM 1709, FM 1938, rights of way shall be constructed of the primary materials of the
building, wrought iron or living plant material. It shall not run in a straight line without being
offset by a minimum of 6 feet every 60 feet. It shall be located no closer to the right of way than
one half the width of the required bufferyard.
* Park Board comments or recommendations:
All applicants are required to appear before the Park Board to discuss park dedication issues if
requesting fee payments or fee credits. Please contact the Community Services Department at
(817) 748-8607 for further details.
* Land/park dedication requirements:
Residential developments must provide dedicated parks and/or open space at a ratio of one (1)
acre of park land for every forty (40) dwelling units.
If fee payment is approved by City Council in lieu of land dedication, residential park dedication
fees in the amount of $6250 per dwelling unit x 59 dwelling units = $368 ,750.00.
* No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan. A separate building permit is
required prior to construction of any signs.
* Any mechanical equipment must be screened of view from right-of-ways and residential
properties in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended.
* All lighting must comply with the Lighting Ordinance No. 693, as amended.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA17-064 Page 8
* All development must comply with the Drainage Ordinance No. 605 and the Erosion and Sediment
Control Ordinance No. 946, as amended.
* Development must comply with all requirements in Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 43,
Overlay Zones.
* The applicant should be aware that prior to issuance of a building permit a Plat must be
processed and filed in the County Plat Records, a fully corrected site plan, landscape plan,
irrigation plan, and building plans, must be submitted for approval and all required fees must be
paid. This may include but not be limited to the following fees: Park Fee, Perimeter Street
Fee, Water & Sewer Impact and Tap Fees, and related Permit Fees.
* In addition to the City of Southlake impact fees, please be aware that through the wholesale water
customer contract with the City of Fort Worth, all new water connections are required to pay the
City of Fort Worth impact fee. The City of Fort Worth impact fee assessment is based on the final
plat recordation date and building permit issuance. The applicant is encouraged to review the City
of Fort Worth's assessment and collection of Impact Fees Guide to de termine the fee amount.
* The proposed street connection on Southlake Blvd. requires TXDOT approval.
* Denotes Informational Comment
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-064 Page 1
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS MAP & RESPONSES
SPO # Owner Zoning Physical Address Acreage Response
1 HALL, JERRY G SF1-A 102 JELLICO CIR 1.24 NR
2
WIESMAN, GLENDA (SANDRA
BAGWELL IN FAVOR) AG 2607 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.88
F
3
GLENDA WIESMAN TRUST
(SANDRA BAGWELL IN FAVOR) AG 2641 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.39
F
4 MCCALL, HAROLD L SF1-A 320 BROCK DR 1.33 U
5 LOWMAN, MIKE SF20A 711 PORTOFINO PL 0.47 O
6 FRANKS, NINA SF20A 700 VENICE AVE 0.47 O
7 BEENE, LORI DAMRON SF20A 719 PORTOFINO PL 0.46 O
8 FAZEN, MARK A SF20A 720 PORTOFINO PL 0.46 NR
9 HARIDAS, RAGHAVEN SF20A 701 VENICE AVE 0.46 NR
10 QUINN, WILLIAM AG 2435 MICHAEL DR 0.55 NR
11 C&T LAWNS LLC AG 2440 MICHAEL DR 1.13 NR
12 C&T LAWNS LLC AG 2425 MICHAEL DR 1.11 NR
13 SMYTH, HENRY C SP2 301 WATERMERE DR 6.37 NR
14 MULLENIX, DAVID W SF20A 701 PORTOFINO PL 0.59 NR
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-064 Page 2
15 SMYTH, HENRY C SP2 301 WATERMERE DR 8.90 NR
16 JOHNSON, GEORGE AG 2390 MICHAEL DR 1.13 NR
17
GLENDA WIESMAN TRUST
(SANDRA BAGWELL IN FAVOR) AG 2621 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 9.22
F
18
GLENDA WIESMAN TRUST
(SANDRA BAGWELL IN FAVOR) AG 2631 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 3.50
F
19 BYLER, JOHN R SF20A 705 PORTOFINO PL 0.46 NR
20 COMER, JACK SF20A 707 PORTOFINO PL 0.47 U
21 YOUNG, MICHAEL M SF20A 715 PORTOFINO PL 0.52 NR
22 QUINN, WILLIAM AG 2445 MICHAEL DR 0.57 NR
23 MURWAY, DEBBIE SF2 829 SIENA DR 2.37 NR
24 SOUTHLAKE CHURCH OF CHRIST CS 2417 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 9.82 NR
25
GLENDA WIESMAN TRUST
(SANDRA BAGWELL IN FAVOR) SF1-A 250 BROCK DR 1.53
F
26
GLENDA WIESMAN TRUST
(SANDRA BAGWELL IN FAVOR) AG 2651 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 13.18
F
27 LAKESIDE PRESBYTERAN CHURCH CS 2701 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 7.43 NR
28 NADO I LLC SP1 2530 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 1.92 NR
29 NADO I LLC SP1 2580 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 1.71 NR
30 BONOLA FAMILY LTD PRTNSHP SF1-A 2608 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 1.78 NR
31 TAK ENTERPRISES INC SP1 2419 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 1.06 NR
32 QUINONES, MICHAEL C SF1-A 105 BROCK DR 0.52 NR
33 VARGAS, PERRY W SF1-A 209 BROCK DR 1.05 O
34 HOWARD, EMMA L SF1-A 303 BROCK DR 1.09 O
35 PAPILLARD, MARJORIE S SF1-A 319 BROCK DR 0.65 F
36 PAPILLARD, MARJORIE A SF1-A 329 BROCK DR 0.69 F
37 KUELBS, GREGORY G RE5 500 DAVIS BLVD 5.57 NR
38 KUELBS, GREGORY G RE5 504 DAVIS BLVD 2.10 NR
39 HANEY, ARVEL W EST SF1-A 400 BROCK DR 4.73 F
40 HANEY, MARGARET SF1-A 410 BROCK DR 1.67 F
41 KUELBS, GREGORY G SF1-A 684 DAVIS BLVD 5.09 NR
42 CT PLUS 4 LLC AG 2420 MICHAEL DR 1.13 NR
43 QUINONES, MICHAEL C SF1-A 109 BROCK DR 0.57 NR
Responses: F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response
Notices Sent: Thirty-seven (37)
Responses Received: Eleven (11) - Attached
Case No. Attachment E
ZA17-064 Page 1
Case No. Attachment E
ZA17-064 Page 2
Case No. Attachment E
ZA17-064 Page 3
Case No. Attachment E
ZA17-064 Page 4
Case No. Attachment E
ZA17-064 Page 5
Case No. Attachment E
ZA17-064 Page 6
Case No. Attachment E
ZA17-064 Page 7
Case No. Attachment E
ZA17-064 Page 8
Case No. Attachment E
ZA17-064 Page 9
Case No. Attachment E
ZA17-064 Page 10
Case No. Attachment E
ZA17-064 Page 11
Case No. Attachment E
ZA17-064 Page 12
Case No. Attachment E
ZA17-064 Page 13
Case No. Attachment E
ZA17-064 Page 14
Case No. Attachment E
ZA17-064 Page 15
Case No. Attachment E
ZA17-064 Page 16
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS
ORDINANCE NO. 480-730
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 480, AS
AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS; GRANTING A ZONING
CHANGE ON A CERTAIN TRACT OR TRACTS OF LAND WITHIN
THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS BEING LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS TRACTS 5A, 5C1, 5B, 5A3, AND 5A2, JESSE G.
ALLEN SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 18, CITY OF SOUTHLAKE,
TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS AND LOTS 5B AND 5A (5A AND 5B
BEING PORTIONS OF LOT 5), BROCK ADDITION, AN ADDITION
TO THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
BEING APPROXIMATELY 34.73 ACRES, AND MORE FULLY AND
COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT “A” FROM “AG ”
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT AND “SF-1A” SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO “R-PUD” RESIDENTIAL PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, AS DEPICTED ON THE
APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN ATTACHED HERETO AND
INCORPORATED HEREIN AS EXHIBIT “B”, SUBJECT TO THE
SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS ORDINANCE;
CORRECTING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PRESERVING ALL
OTHER PORTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE;
DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, MORALS AND
GENERAL WELFARE DEMAND THE ZONING CHANGES AND
AMENDMENTS HEREIN MADE; PROVIDING THAT THIS
ORDINANCE SHALL BE CUMULATIVE OF ALL ORDINANCES;
PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A
PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS HEREOF; PROVIDING A SAVINGS
CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL
NEWSPAPER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Southlake, Texas is a home rule City acting under its Charter
adopted by the electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter
9 of the Texas Local Government Code; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code, the City has the
authority to adopt a comprehensive zoning ordinance and map regulating the location and use of
buildings, other structures and land for business, industrial, residential and other purposes, and
to amend said ordinance and map for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals
and general welfare, all in accordance with a comprehensive plan; and,
Case No. Attachment E
ZA17-064 Page 17
WHEREAS, the hereinafter described property is currently zoned as “AG” Agricultural
District and “SF-1A” Single Family Residential District under the City’s Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, a change in the zoning classification of said property was requested by a
person or corporation having a proprietary interest in said property; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, at a public hearing called by
the City Council did consider the following factors in making a determination as to whether these
changes should be granted or denied: safety of the motoring public and the pedestrians using
the facilities in the area immediately surrounding the sites; safety from fire hazards and
damages; noise producing elements and glare of the vehicular and stationary lights and ef fect of
such lights on established character of the neighborhood; location, lighting and types of signs
and relation of signs to traffic control and adjacent property; street size and adequacy of width
for traffic reasonably expected to be generated by the proposed use around the site and in the
immediate neighborhood; adequacy of parking as determined by requirements of this ordinance
for off-street parking facilities; location of ingress and egress points for parking and off -street
loading spaces, and protection of public health by surfacing on all parking areas to control dust;
effect on the promotion of health ad the general welfare; effect on light and air; effect on the
over-crowding of the land; effect on the concentration of population, and effect on transportation,
water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public facilities; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, further considered among
other things the character of the districts and their peculiar suitability for particula r uses and the
view to conserve the value of the buildings, and encourage the most appropriate use of the land
throughout this City; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that there is a
Case No. Attachment E
ZA17-064 Page 18
public necessity for the zoning changes, that the public demands them, that the public interest
clearly requires the amendments, and that the zoning changes do not unreasonably invade the
rights of those who bought or improved property with reference to the classification which existed
at the time their original investment was made; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that the changes
in zoning lessen the congestion in the streets, helps secure safety from fire, panic, and other
dangers, promotes the health and the general welfare, provides adequate light and air, prevents
the over-crowding of land, avoids undue concentration of population, and facilitates the adequate
provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, has determined that there is
a necessity and need for the changes in zoning and has also found and determined that there
has been a change in the conditions of the property surrounding and in close proximity to the
tract or tracts of land requested for a change since the tract or tracts of land were originally
classified and therefore feels that the respective changes in zoning classification for the tract or
tracts of land are needed, a re called for, and are in the best interest of the public at large, the
citizens of the city of Southlake, Texas, and helps promote the general health, safety and welfare
of the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS:
SECTION 1.
That Ordinance No. 480, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Southlake,
Texas, passed on the 19th day of September, 1989, as originally adopted and amended, is
hereby amended so that the permitted uses in the herein after described areas be altered,
changed and amended as shown and described below:
Case No. Attachment E
ZA17-064 Page 19
Being described as Tracts 5A, 5C1, 5B, 5A3, and 5A2, Jesse G. Allen Survey,
Abstract No. 18, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and Lots 5B and 5A (5A
and 5B being portions of Lot 5), Brock Addition, an addition to the City of
Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas being approximately 34.73 acres, and more fully
and completely described in Exhibit “A” from “AG” Agricultural District and “SF-1A”
Single Family Residential District to “R-PUD” Residential Planned Unit
Development District as depicted on the approved Development Plan attached
hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “B”, and subject to the following
conditions:
1.
SECTION 2.
That the City Manager is hereby directed to correct the Official Zoning map of the City of
Southlake, Texas, to reflect the herein changes in zoning.
SECTION 3.
That in all other respects the use of the tract or tracts of land herein above described shall
be subject to all the applicable regulations contained in said Zoning Ordinance and all other
applicable and pertinent ordinances for the City of Southlake, Texas. All existing sections,
subsections, paragraphs, sentences, words, phrases and definitions of said Zoning Ordinance
are not amended hereby, but remain intact and are hereby ratified, verified, and affirmed.
SECTION 4.
That the zoning regulations and districts as herein established have been made in
accordance with the comprehensive plan for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals
and the general welfare of the community. They have been designed, with respect to both
present conditions and the conditions reasonably anticipated to exist in the foreseeable future; to
lessen congestion in the streets; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent over-crowding of
land; to avoid undue concentration of population; and to facilitate the adequate provision of
transportation, water, sewerage, drainage and surface water, parks and other commercial needs
and development of the comm unity. They have been made after a full and complete hearing
Case No. Attachment E
ZA17-064 Page 20
with reasonable consideration among other things of the character of the district and its peculiar
suitability for the particular uses and with a view of conserving the value of buildings and
encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the community.
SECTION 5.
That this ordinance shall be cumulative of all other ordinances of the City of Southlake,
Texas, affecting zoning and shall not repeal any of the provisions of said ordinances except in
those instances where provisions of those ordinances are in direct conflict with the provisions of
this ordinance.
SECTION 6.
That the terms and provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be severable and that
if the validity of the zoning affecting any portion of the tract or tracts of land described herein
shall be declared to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the zoning of the balance
of said tract or tracts of land described herein.
SECTION 7.
Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to
comply with or who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be
fined not more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Each day that a
violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense.
SECTION 8.
All rights and remedies of the City of Southlake are expressly saved as to any and all
violations of the provisions of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, or any other ordinances affecting
zoning which have accrued at the time of the effective date of this ordinance; and, as to such
accrued violations and all pending litigation, both civil and criminal, whether pending in court or
Case No. Attachment E
ZA17-064 Page 21
not, under such ordinances, same shall not be affected by this ordinance but may be prosecuted
until final disposition by the courts.
SECTION 9.
The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to publish the proposed
ordinance in its entirety on the City website together with a notice setting out the tim e and place
for a public hearing thereon at least ten (10) days before the second reading of this ordinance,
and it this ordinance provides for the imposition of any penalty, fine or forfeiture for any violation
of any of its provisions, then the City Secr etary shall additionally publish this ordinance in the
official City newspaper one time within ten (10) days after passage of this ordinance, as required
by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake.
SECTION 10.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication
as required by law, and it is so ordained.
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st reading the _____ day of _____, 2016.
_________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________
CITY SECRETARY
Case No. Attachment E
ZA17-064 Page 22
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the _____ day of _______, 2016.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________________
CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
_________________________________
CITY ATTORNEY
DATE:___________________________
ADOPTED:_______________________
EFFECTIVE:______________________
Case No. Attachment E
ZA17-064 Page 23
EXHIBIT “A”
Being described as Tracts 5A, 5C1, 5B, 5A3, and 5A2, Jesse G. Allen Survey, Abstract No.
18, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and Lots 5B and 5A (5A and 5B being portions
of Lot 5) Brock Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas
according to the plats recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 3899 and Volume 388 -44 (1967), Plat
Records, Tarrant County, Texas and being more particularly described as follows:
Reserved for Metes and Bounds Description
Case No. Attachment E
ZA17-064 Page 24
EXHIBIT “B”
Reserved for approved Development Plan