Item 9A - Southlake City Council Report from applicantContents
City Variance Considerations................................................................................. I
Conclusion......................................................................................................3
Facts
OWNER: Ryan E. Peabody, Tyler R. Peabody
REQUEST: Approval of a Plat Revision for Lots 11R1 and 11112, O.W.
Knight No. 899 Addition to divide one approximately 3.077 acre
residential lot into two residential lots that meet the
requirements of the "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District
zoning
LOCATION: 325 Pine Dr.
Abstract
Lots located at 315 and 325 Pine Drive are owned by the Peabody family, and are fenced with one
contiguous fence line around the entire 4.3 acres. The specific lot herein addressed is located at
325 Pine Drive. It is this lot that the applicant seeks to re -plat into two separate lots; 2.3 and 1 acre
respectively. The variance being requested is with regards to one of the two split lots not having
direct access to a public roadway. This report contains concerns from the City of Southlake and
Neighbors. These concerns were compiled from feedback received in the Corridors Planning
Committee meeting, the Southlake SPIN meeting, Planning & Zoning meeting and from over 20
individual meetings with City staff, City Board or Council members, and Neighbors, all of which
are directly involved or directly affected by this request. Each of these concerns are addressed and
solutions presented for Southlake City Council consideration for approval.
City Variance Considerations
Does this create a flag lot?
a. A flag lot creates a property shaped like a flag on a flag pole. In the alternative this
proposed lot creates a rectangular shape with no flag pole, as shown in the
submitted plat drawing. As addressed below, an easement is the preferred solution
so that no new flag lot is created.
b. No variance is requested.
2. Does the new plat have access to the public roadway?
a. This is a single variance request with regards to public roadway access. This lot
would not have an adjacent border with a public roadway. With this problem comes
a solution, which is to utilize a private easement, one of the most commonly used
tools with regards to property.
Page 1 of 3
b. Uniquely, the adjacent 315 property is owned by the family of the applicant. As
such, an access easement will be granted.
c. The easement being referenced is an "access easement," and is the most common
easement in use. Every utility company and city utilizes thousands of these
easements when establishing utility lines, roadways and access to property situated
in the same manner as this. Further, this easement will "run with the land," which
means that this solution will remain as permanent solution into the future.
d. Recommendation to Council is to require: `Building approval must obtain an
access easement from property located at 315 Pine Drive to public roadway.'
3. Would a new house build have access for fire services?
a. Any development approval must comply with fire access regulations
i. Note that there is one left turn and one right turn with regards to access to
the proposed plat. Both turns will maintain the proper turning radius for a
fire engine, per the regulation.
ii. A location for a fire engine to turn around will be submitted along with any
development, per the regulation.
b. No variance is requested.
4. Does this approval create an unwanted precedent?
a. A precedent, wanted or unwanted by the City, is a decision made now that will
affect future decisions according to a specific fact pattern. A decision that is made
based on a very unique set of facts would not set a precedent because it is so rare
or uncommon that the likelihood of those facts being duplicated is statistically
insignificant or not relevant. Such is the case here.
i. Unique fact of this case are as follows:
1. Two plats are currently owned by the same family. This is not part
of a contingent sale agreement.
2. Any required easements will be granted by the same, in advance of
development.
3. The public roadway access point will not be changed. No new
ingress and egress points will be established.
4. This is not being submitted by a commercial developer with the
intent of creating a neighborhood.
5. Restrictive covenants or requirements may be established.
5. Proper Zoning
a. This property is currently zoned "SF -IA" Single Family Residential District and
would remain the same.
b. No variance is requested.
6. Lot Size
a. Proposed lot would be in excess of one acre, exceeding the city's desired minimum.
This lot size also meets or exceeds the size of 53% of the lots within the 200-foot
notification radius. The remaining 2-acre lot meets or exceeds the size of 92% of
the lots within the 200-foot notification radius.
Page 2 of 3
Conclusion
This is a commonsense approach because the City code currently allows that a house may be built
at this exact location under the current city code without any variance approvals needed as an "an
accessory structure." Permitting this property to be platted from one into two would in no way
change the design or plan of this development. Rather, it would simply provide a way for the
residence to have its own address, its own property tax number and its own family registration
with the school district, all of which is the specific and intended use of this property. Approving
this narrowly tailored variance would not set any unwanted precedents due to the unique list of
five qualities of which the City could reasonably expect would not be duplicated. An approval
would render both a good solution for a Southlake family and remain consistent with the objectives
of the City at the same time.
Page 3 of 3