Loading...
Item 6B - Staff Report Case No. ZA26-0040 Department of Planning & Development Services S T A F F R E P O R T July 27, 2026 CASE NO: ZA26-0040 PROJECT: Revised Concept Plan for Bridlegate at 4000 N. White Chapel Boulevard EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Frank Viola is requesting approval of a revised Concept Plan for Bridlegate on property described as Lot 2R, R.D. Price No. 992 Addition and located at 4000 N. White Chapel Boulevard. Current Zoning: “SF-1A” Single Family Residential District. Applicant and Property Owner: Frank Viola, Viola Custom Homes. SPIN Neighborhood #1. DETAILS: The purpose of this request is to seek approval for a revised concept plan for an eight-lot single-family residential subdivision on approximately 9.5 acres located on the south side of W. Bob Jones Road, west of N. White Chapel Boulevard. The property is currently zoned “SF-1A” Single Family Residential District; therefore, no zoning change is required. The proposed eight-lot concept plan would replace the previously approved one-lot concept plan. Under the prior approval (ZA14-093), portions of two tracts were combined with an existing platted lot to create one larger lot, designated as Lot 2R. That approval also included a variance allowing Lot 2R to be a double-fronted residential lot with frontage on both N. White Chapel Boulevard and W. Bob Jones Road. The proposed Bridlegate subdivision includes eight residential lots ranging in size from approximately 43,560 square feet (1.0 acre) to 66,210 square feet (1.52 acres). Lots 1 through 5 will have access from the subdivision's proposed private street. Lot 6 is requested to have direct access to W. Bob Jones Road, while Lots 7 and 8 will have access from N. White Chapel Boulevard. Lots 6 and 8 are proposed to contain detention/retention facilities with optional ponds on Lot 1 and Lot 7. Variances are requested for the private street and for direct access to W. Bob Jones Road for Lot 6. The applicant has indicated that, should City Council not approve the proposed private street, the development could be revised to provide a public street that is in accordance with City standards. This alternative would eliminate the proposed gates and guardhouse, and the median shown on the site plan would be converted to an open space lot to be owned and maintained by the subdivision's homeowner’s association (HOA). The proposed Site Data Summary table is shown below: Item 6B Case No. ZA26-0040 Site Data Summary Existing Zoning SF-1A Existing Land Use Low Density Residential Number of Residential Lots 8 Gross Acreage 9.5 VARIANCES REQUESTED: A private street is proposed with gate access. Accordingly, the applicant is requesting a variance to Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, as amended, 5.04, which does not permit private streets in new subdivisions in which less than 75% of the lots contain homeowner occupied structures to allow a gated community with private streets with the initial development. Per Driveway Ordinance No. 634, Section 5.3(c), a residential driveway off a collector street is not permitted when there is access to a residential street. The applicant is requesting a variance for Lot 6 to allow for driveway access onto W. Bob Jones Road. ACTION NEEDED: 1) Conduct a Public Hearing 2) Consider Approval of a Revised Concept Plan ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information (B) Vicinity Map (C) Concept Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated July 27, 2026 (D) Surrounding Property Owners Map PowerPoint Presentation Narrative Plans Drainage Plans Public Street Option Surrounding Property Response Applicant Adjacent Property Opinion Survey Corridor Planning Committee Report SPIN Report STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough (817) 748-8072 Cyndi Cheng (817) 748-8269 Case No. Attachment A ZA26-0040 Page 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNER: Frank Viola APPLICANT: Frank Viola PROPERTY SITUATION: 4000 N. White Chapel Blvd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2R, R.D. Price No. 992 Addition LAND USE CATEGORY: Low Density Residential CURRENT ZONING: “SF-1A” Single Family Residential District HISTORY: - The property was annexed into the City in 1988. - The existing residential home was built in 1999. - On March 5, 2002, City Council approved a zoning change from “RE” Single Family Residential Estate District to “SF-1A” Single Family Residential District (ZA01-138). - The existing accessory structure was built in 2010. The barn was approved by SEU through the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA). - On September 16, 2014, City Council approved a Zoning Change and Concept Plan (ZA14-093), running concurrently with a Preliminary Plat and Plat Revision, to combine the unplatted Tract 14 and a portion of Tract 15, which totaled approximately 4.6 acres, with Lot 2, R.D. Price No. 992 Addition, to create one lot approximately 9.562 acres in size, designated as Lot 2R, and to approve a variance to allow a double-fronted residential lot. Approval of both plats was subject to approval of the Zoning Change and Concept Plan. - On September 16, 2014, City Council approved a Preliminary Plat for Lots 2R and 6, R.D. Price No. 992 Addition, as well as a Plat Revision for Lot 2R, including approval of a variance to allow a double fronted residential lot (ZA14-094 and ZA14-095). Approval of both plats was subject to approval of the associated Zoning Change and Concept Plan noted above. - The Plat Revision for the property was recorded on September 1, 2015. SOUTHLAKE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Consolidated Future Land Use Plan The future land use designation for the site is Low Density Residential. Case No. Attachment A ZA26-0040 Page 2 Low Density Residential Purpose: 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 rights‐of‐way, easement, and lots designated for public or private streets. Other suitable activities are those permitted in the Public Parks / Open Space and Public / Semi‐Public categories. The Low Density Residential category encourages the openness and rural character of the City of Southlake. Mobility & Master Thoroughfare Plan The Master Thoroughfare Plan designates N. White Chapel a 70-foot undivided two-lane collector (C2U) and W. Bob Jones Road is a 60-foot undivided two-lane collector (C2U). The Master Pathways Plan calls for a minimum 5-foot future sidewalk on N. White Chapel Boulevard an equestrian/hiking trail on W. Bob Jones Road. Equestrian/hike trails are pathways that may vary in width depending on site conditions and user needs. They are preferred to be natural surface for hiking and/or horseback riding but may be concrete or asphalt depending on site conditions. The adjacent development to the east (Rainey Court) provided a sidewalk. The proposed concept plan shows a sidewalk along W. Bob Jones Road and N. White Chapel Boulevard. In addition, sidewalks are required on both sides of public and private streets in residential neighborhoods. The proposed concept plan shows sidewalks along both sides of the internal street. TREE PRESERVATION: There is 13.1% of existing tree cover on the property and a minimum of 70% of the existing tree cover is required to be preserved. A total of 75.3% of the existing tree cover is proposed to be preserved, and 24.7% is proposed to be removed. UTILITIES: The property is served by a 12-inch water meter. There is a sewer tap extending from the 8-inch sewer line. DRAINAGE: A small portion of the site drains toward W. Bob Jones and toward the east to Rainey Court, with the majority of the side draining to the southeast toward N. White Chapel. The proposed development is proposing to capture a majority of the site within storm drain pipe routing the drainage flow to two detention ponds. One pond will be located on the south end of Lot 6 and the other along the N. White Chapel frontage of Lot 8. The preliminary design does not provide water surface elevations for the proposed ponds, however, the ponds will be required to be designed to follow Ordinance 605 and provide a minimum top of pond elevation to allow 1-foot of freeboard above the calculated water surface elevation. Case No. Attachment A ZA26-0040 Page 3 CITZEN INPUT: This item was heard by the Corridor Planning Committee on April 22, 2026. A SPIN meeting was held for this project on May 12, 2026. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION: May 21, 2026; Approved (5-0) subject to the Staff Report dated May 15, 2026 and Revised Concept Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated May 15, 2026, without the requested variances for a residential driveway off a collector street and a private street with gate access. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: June 16, 2026; Tabled (7-0) to the August 4, 2026 meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Revised Concept Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated July 27, 2026. Case No. Attachment B ZA26-0040 Page 4 Case No. Attachment C ZA26-0040 Page 5 REVISED CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA26-0040 Review No.: Four Date of Review: 07/27/26 Project Name: Revised Concept Plan for Bridlegate – 4000 N. White Chapel Blvd. APPLICANT: OWNER: Frank Viola (Same as Applicant) 192 Sam Bass Ridge Rd Southlake, TX 76092 CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 07/22/26 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT CYNDI CHENG AT (817) 748-8269. 1. All residential streets must be public streets. A variance to Subdivision Ordinance Article V for a private street is required. A variance has been requested. a. If private gated access, please follow Subdivision Ordinance Section 5.05 Private Street Standards in Residential Subdivisions: (As amended by Ord. No. 483-E) b. Add note that private streets to be maintained by HOA. c. If proposed as a private street, label private access easement, emergency easement, drainage and utility easement. 2. Plan indicates that access to Lot 6 will be from Bob Jones Road. Per Driveway Ordinance No. 634, Section 5.3(c), a residential driveway off a collector street is not permitted when there is access to a residential street. A variance has been requested. 3. Lots 7 and 8 - Driveways should not be in a drainage or utility easement or on any infrastructure. 4. Provide an exhibit that shows the ponds on the concept plan and confirm whether they are both detention and retention. Tree Conservation/Landscape Review Case No. ZA26-0040 Review No. One Dated: April 21, 2026 Number of Pages: 1_ Project Name: Bridlegate (Revised Concept Plan) Contact: Keith Martin Phone: (817) 748-8229 Fax: (817) 481-5713 ============================================================================= == The following comments are based on the review of plans received on April 13, 2026 . Comments designated with a number may be incorporated into the formal review to be considered by either the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council. Other items will not be addressed by either the P&Z or City Council. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact the department representative shown above and make modifications as required by the comment. Case No. Attachment C ZA26-0040 Page 6 ============================================================================= == TREE CONSERVATION COMNMENTS: * The submitted Tree Conservation Plan complies with the existing tree cover preservation requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-E. There is 13.1% of existing tree cover on the property and a minimum of 70% of the existing tree cover is required to be preserved. A total of 75.3% of the existing tree cover is proposed to be preserved, and 24.7% is proposed to be removed. 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 percentage 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. 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 any area in public rights-of-way as approved by City Council. * 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. * Indicates informational comment. # Indicates required items comment. E-mail: kmartin@ci.southlake.tx.us Keith Martin Landscape Administrator Phone: (817) 748-8229 Building Inspections Review Case No. Attachment C ZA26-0040 Page 7 No comments. Susan Hernandez Deputy Building Official Phone: (817) 748-8238 E-mail: shernandez@ci.southlake.tx.us Public Works/Engineering Review Review No. 3 Date: 7/10/2026 Case No. ZA26-0040 Zoning/Concept Plan Project Name: 4000 N. White Chapel Contact: Sandy Endy, P.E. Email: sendy@ci.southlake.tx.us Phone: (817) 748-8033 The following comments are based on the review of plans received on: 07/02/2026 It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact the department representative shown above and make modifications as required by the comment. GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. The proposed design will require private drainage easements to allow for cross lot drainage. 2. Complete the Traffic Threshold Sheet, more specifically Criteria 2 and 3. The resubmitted sheet changed N/A to No. While it is understood that Criteria’s 1-3 may not be met with this development, we will need the actual data entered into Criteria 2 and 3, rather than listing N/A or No. 3. Public Works will not permit driveways on top of their infrastructure (water/sewer), and manholes cannot be located within a driveway. Also, driveways cannot be located within a drainage easement. As currently shown the proposed driveways will be located within the drainage easements and partially within a utility easement. 4. Providing a residential driveway off a Collector street is not permitted when there is access to a residential street, per Driveway Ordinance No 634, Section 5.3c. Any deviation to this requirement would require that a variance be approved. 5. The proposed street was previously labeled as a separate lot since it was to be private, however, the revised submittal removed that label. If the streets are still proposed to be private, label as such. Staff Report – Drainage – A small portion of the site drains toward W. Bob Jones and toward the east to Rainey Court, with the majority of the side draining to the southeast toward N. White Chapel. The proposed development is proposing to capture a majority of the site within storm drain pipe routing the drainage flow to two detention ponds. One pond will be located on the south end of Lot 6 and the other along the N. White Chapel frontage of Lot 8. Sandra Endy, P.E. Development Engineer Case No. Attachment C ZA26-0040 Page 8 Phone: (817) 748-8033 E-mail: sendy@ci.southlake.tx.us Fire Department Review Case No. ZA26-0040 Review No. 1 Dated: 05/04/2026 Number of Pages: 1 Project Name: 4000 N White Chapel Contact: Lorenzo Chavez, Fire Marshal Phone: 817-748-8671 Fax: 817-748-8181 =========================================================================== The following comments are based on the review of plans received on 04/30/2026. Comments may be incorporated into the formal review to be considered by either the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact the department representative shown above and make modifications as required by the comment. =========================================================================== GENERAL COMMENTS: An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in all residential structures that exceed 6,000 square feet, excluding porches and patios. 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. To facilitate emergency response, R-3 occupancies should be addressed on the street fronting the property. FIRE HYDRANT COMMENTS: Hydrants required at maximum spacing for R-3 Occupancies is 400 feet for subdivisions with un- sprinklered homes and 600 feet for subdivisions that are completely sprinklered. Hydrants are required at intersecting streets and at intermediate locations between at distances indicated above. (Add hydrant at the entrance from W. Bob Jones.) Hydrant needs to be located as close as possible to dead end area of cul-de-sac, FIRE LANE COMMENTS: Fire access roads in residential subdivision must be at least 31 ft. back of curb to back of curb. (Standard street width) Fire apparatus access requires a minimum 30 foot inside turn radius and a minimum 54 foot outside turn radius. Cul-de-Sacs must have 30 ft. inside turn radius and 50-foot radius (100-foot diameter) for approved turnaround. Lorenzo Chavez Case No. Attachment C ZA26-0040 Page 9 Fire Marshal Phone: (817) 748-8671 E-mail: lchavez@ci.southlake.tx.us Parks and Recreation Review Parks mows the ROW along the development on W Bob Jones Rd and White Chapel. Needs to be noted that once developed the city will remove those areas from ROW mowing per city ordinance of Property Maintenance. Junior Camacho Parks Manager Phone: (817) 748- 8357 E-mail: Jcamacho@ci.southlake.tx.us General Informational Comments * No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan. A separate building permit is required prior to construction of any signs. * Building permit(s) are required prior to commencement of any work. * All 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. * 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 determine the fee amount. Residential development or concept plan: • Contact USPS regarding mail delivery requirements and where delivery points should be located. * Denotes Informational Comment Case No. Attachment D ZA26-0040 Page 10 SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS MAP & RESPONSES SPO # Owner Zoning Physical Address Acreage Response 1 SETU, AMIYA & APARAJITA, RICHA SF1-A 4301 SADDLEBACK LN 0.30 NR 2 SADDLEBACK ACRES LP SF1-A 4306 SADDLEBACK LN 0.24 NR 3 SADDLEBACK ACRES LP SF1-A 4302 SADDLEBACK LN 0.05 NR 4 WHIPKEY, JENNIFER & STEVEN SF1-A 4300 SADDLEBACK LN 0.16 NR 5 SADDLEBACK ACRES LP SF1-A 4250 SADDLEBACK LN 0.40 NR 6 SADDLEBACK ACRES LP SF1-A 4251 SADDLEBACK LN 0.56 NR 7 PISANI, DEAN C & JACQUELINE S TRS D J PISANI FAMILY TRUST RE5 300 W BOB JONES RD 0.07 NR 8 PANTHER FORT WORTH 100 LLC SF1-A 4200 RAINEY CT 0.62 NR 9 EMMER, DANIEL P SF1-A 345 W BOB JONES RD 3.06 NR 10 PANTHER FORT WORTH 100 LLC SF1-A 4204 RAINEY CT 0.80 NR 11 MAYKUS CUSTOM HOMES INC SF1-A 4209 RAINEY CT 0.96 NR 12 SOUTHLAKE, CITY OF AG 0.98 NR 13 PANTHER FORT WORTH 100 LLC SF1-A 4208 RAINEY CT 0.98 NR 14 SOUTHLAKE, CITY OF AG 3901 N WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 0.66 NR 15 NAVARRO, ISRAEL SF1-A 100 KING RANCH RD 0.59 NR 16 BAKER, KIMBERLEY A & PATRICK A SF1-A 104 KING RANCH RD 0.68 NR 17 JOHNSON, DUSTIN & JENNIFER SF1-A 108 KING RANCH RD 0.70 NR Case No. Attachment D ZA26-0040 Page 11 18 PONUGOTI, PRAVEEN & PONNAMANANI, VASAVI SF1-A 300 KING RANCH RD 0.59 NR 19 INBAR, ELAD & ANNA REVOCABLE TRUST SF1-A 304 KING RANCH RD 0.48 NR 20 PHALEN, DAVID JOSEPH & CANNOVA-PHALEN, GINA LISA SF1-A 200 KING RANCH RD 0.73 NR 21 DUNCAN, PAUL B & COLE, JAMIE L TRS DUNCAN TRUST SF1-A 204 KING RANCH RD 0.66 NR 22 CARDINALI, ERIC & DEBORA SF1-A 208 KING RANCH RD 0.62 NR 23 VAZHAPPILLY, DONBOSCO A TR VAZHAPPILLY FAMILY TRUST SF1-A 308 KING RANCH RD 0.05 NR 24 MILANI, JOHN C & CHRISTEN AG 500 W BOB JONES RD 9.88 NR 25 CHEN, ERIC & KAISARINE SF1-A 4304 SADDLEBACK LN 0.95 NR 26 LEGACY LIMITED, LLC AG 4060 N WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 0.97 NR 27 SUPERINTENDENT OF CARROLL ISD NR 28 SUPERINTENDENT OF GRAPEVINE COLLEYVILLE ISD NR 29 SUPERINTENDENT OF NORTHWEST ISD NR 30 SUPERINTENDENT OF KELLER ISD NR 1000 MAHONE, MATTHEW J & LEIGH ANNE SF1-A 4000 N WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 9.50 Responses: F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response Notices Sent: Twenty-four (24) Written Responses Received: One (1) written response in favor outside of the 300’ buffer. One (1) written response in favor with no address. * One (1) person spoke in opposition at the June 16, 2026 City Council meeting.