Item 6C
Department of Planning & Development Services
S T A F F R E P O R T
June 10, 2009
CASE NO: ZA09-013
PROJECT: Statham/Eddins Residential
REQUEST:
Zoning Change & Development Planfrom “SF-1A” Single Family Residential and “R-
PUD” Residential Planned Unit Development to “R-PUD” Residential Planned Unit
Development for the construction of two (2) residential lots on approximately 5.05
acres located at 2988, 3000, and 3010 Burney Ln.
The purpose of this request is to amend the boundary of the existing “R-PUD” zoning
district, which allows for two (2) residential lots on 4.03 acres. The applicant wishes to
incorporate into the PUD another 1.02 acres adjacent to the south. Three (3) existing
lots are being reduced to two (2) lots by this request.
The following information and changes were requested of the applicant by City Council
at this item’s first reading on June 2, 2009.
Information / Change Requested Applicant’s Response
All septic fields were pulled up closer to the
house and are shown to be outside the 574’
1. Move the septic fields closer to the home
contour elevation, 2-feet above the Flowage
Easement of Lake Grapevine
The building envelope was reduced 6,310
2. Look at reducing the building envelope
sq. ft. from 27,000 sq. ft. to 23,690 sq. ft.
The Tree Preservation Area has been
increased from 23% to 29%. Specific area
3. Expand the Tree Preservation Area
and percentage calculations will be
presented at City Council on June 16.
4. Address pool discharge/draining in Applicant has provided a PUD regulation
development regulations that addresses pool draining
5. Provide information to Council on pool Applicant intends to address Council with
backwash his findings
The 5’ fence is now shown on Lot 2R and
6. Provide for the location of the fencing the development regulation regarding
fencing has been revised.
7. Review the maximum lot coverage in Maximum lot coverage regulation of has
development regulations been reduced from 20% to 14%.
8. Clarify the height limitation in the The height regulation request was reduced
development regulations (P&Z request) from 55’ to 45’
Case No.
ZA09-013
Pursuant to City Council’s request, staff will be presenting two comparative analyses at
the City Council meeting on June 16:
1. An analysis comparing the previous plan to the revised plan with respect to Tree
Preservation Easement locations, area and percentage calculations.
2. An analysis comparing how the 5 acres could develop under the existing R-PUD
and SF-1A zoning to the proposed development plan
ACTION NEEDED: 1) Conduct a public hearing
nd
2) Consider 2 reading approval of the Zoning Change & Development Plan
ATTACHMENTS:
(A) Background Information
(B) Vicinity Map
(C) Plans and Support Information
(D) Review Summary No. 3, dated June 10, 2009
(E) Surrounding Property Owners Map
(F) Surrounding Property Owners Responses
(G) Ordinance No. 480-510a
for Commission and Council Members Only
(H) Full Size Plans ()
STAFF CONTACT:
Ken Baker (817)748-8067
Clayton Comstock (817)748-8269
Case No.
ZA09-013
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Jerry Statham & Ron Eddins
PROPERTY SITUATION:
2988, 3000, and 3010 Burney Lane
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lots 1 & 2, R.D. Price No. 1207 Addition and Tract 7, Rees D. Price Survey,
Abstract No. 1207
LAND USE CATEGORY:
Low Density Residential
CURRENT ZONING:
“SF-1A” Single Family Residential & “R-PUD” Residential Planned Unit
Development
REQUESTED ZONING:
“R-PUD” Residential Planned Unit Development
HISTORY:
June 16, 1992; City Council approved (7-0) a plat for the southernmost portion
of this request (Case ZA92-022). That plat was never recorded with Tarrant
County Clerk.
July 7, 1992; City Council approved (4-0) Ordinance No. 480-71, Case ZA92-
021, changing the zoning on Tract 7, Rees D. Price Survey, Abstract No. 1207
from “AG” Agricultural District to “SF-1A” Single Family Residential District.
January 16, 2007; City Council approved Ordinance No. 480-510, Case ZA06-
042, Zoning Change & Development Plan for 4.03 acres.
October 16, 2007; City Council approved a Plat Showing for two lots (Case
ZA07-116)
December 3, 2007; a Plat Showing for two (2) lots was filed in the Plat Records
of Tarrant County Texas.
TRANSPORTATION
ASSESSMENT:
Master Thoroughfare Plan
The Master Thoroughfare Plan does not make any recommendations for
roadways adjacent to the proposed subdivision.
Existing Area Road Network and Conditions
The property has access onto Burney Lane through an existing private access
easement on an adjacent property.
Currently, Burney Lane is a 2-lane, undivided residential roadway. The
capacity of the existing roadways is approximately 8,400 vehicle trips per day.
Under this condition, the roadways would be considered to operate under a
level of service ‘D’. This development is notexpected to warrant expansion of
the existing roadway network. No plans for improvement in the near future
have been made for Burney Lane.
Traffic Impact
Case No. Attachment A
ZA09-013 Page 1
Use # Lots Vtpd* AM-AM-PM-PM-
IN OUT IN OUT
Number of Single-Family 2 20 1 2 2 1
Residential Lots
*Vehicle Trips Per Day
**The AM/PM times represent the number of vehicle trips generated during the peak travel times
on Burney Lane.
PATHWAYS
MASTER PLAN:
The Southlake Pathways Master Plan does not make any recommendations
adjacent to the site.
WATER & SEWER:
The site will be serviced by an 8” water line in Burney Lane through an existing
utility and common access easement. No wastewater facilities are available to
this property. As such, each lot will have an On-Site Sewage Facility (OSSF).
DRAINAGE ANALYSIS:
The property drains onto the Corps of Engineers property for Lake Grapevine.
Should a grading plan presented at the building permit stage show potential for
creating an adverse impact on adjacent properties, a drainage swale or other
drainage improvements may be required by staff to be located on the
southernmost property line.
TREE PRESERVATION:
The lots are completely covered by trees. 50,958 square feet, or 23.15%, of
the R-PUD area was previously proposed to be within Tree Preservation
Easements. That area/percentage has increased to an amount that will be
nd
presented to City Council at 2 Reading. The previously approved and
existing R-PUD regulations call for 23% of tree preservation easement.
P&Z ACTION:
May 21, 2009; Approved (5-0) noting that Letter ‘A’ of Development
Regulations will be returned to the original R-PUD height limitation of forty-five
feet (45’) while allowing the applicant the opportunity to construct an
observation tower not to exceed 300 square feet whose roof height shall not
exceed fifty-feet (50’) in height measured at the roof’s ridge; subject to Staff
Review Summary No. 2, dated May 15, 2009.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
June 2, 2009; Approved (4-3) subject to the applicant’s representations tonight;
accepting the applicant’s agreement to review the adjustment of the septic
fields and moving them closer to the home; accepting the applicant’s
willingness to look at areas where the building envelope can be reduced;
applicant to look at areas where the tree preservation areas can be expanded
and will submit those to staff in advance of the next meeting allowing sufficient
time for those documents to be reviewed by staff who will complete a
comparison of this layout versus two lots; accepting the applicant’s
commitment that if the pool is drained, they will consult with the City’s
environmental coordinator to ensure that any discharge will meet City
ordinance and State requirements and will also get back to City Council on the
requirements with respect to the pool backwash to determine how that will be
handled; accepting the applicant’s commitment that the placement of fencing
would not be cause for the removal of trees and he will review his fencing plan
and give Council a revised fencing plan that will pull the fence back from the
currently specified tree area and closer to the building envelope; accepting
applicant’s willingness to review lot coverage which will most likely be less that
14%; and subject to Development Review Summary No. 2, dated May 15,
2009.
Case No. Attachment A
ZA09-013 Page 2
STAFF COMMENTS:
Attached is Staff Review Summary No. 3, dated June 10, 2009
L:\Meetings\City Council\2009-06-16 CC Meeting\Packet\Item 6C.doc
Case No. Attachment A
ZA09-013 Page 3
Case No. Attachment B
ZA09-013 Page 1
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Case No. Attachment C
ZA09-013 Page 1
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Statham-Eddins R-PUD District
The Statham-Eddins R-PUD District will adhere to the uses and regulations of Section 11 of Zoning
Ordinance No. 480, as amended (“SF-1A” Single-Family Residential District) except for the following
changes:
Development Regulations – In this district, the following development regulations shall be applicable:
a. Height: No building or structure shall exceed forty-five (45) feet.
b. Front Yard: The front yard shall be as shown on the approved Development Plan
c. Side Yard: Side yards shall be as shown on the approved Development Plan
d. Rear Yard: The rear yard shall be as shown on the approved Development Plan
e. Maximum Lot Coverage: All buildings or structures shall have a maximum lot coverage not
exceeding fourteen percent (14%) of the lot area, including all principal and accessory
structures.
f. Lot area: The minimum area of a lot shall be eighty-seven thousand nine hundred fifty-one
(87,951) square feet.
g. Lot Dimensions: Dimensions of lots shall be as shown on the approved Development Plan
h. Floor Area: The main residence shall contain a minimum of three thousand (3,000) square feet
of floor area.
i. Maximum Residential Density: The maximum number of dwelling unit per acre shall be 0.4.
j. Accessory Structure Standards shall adhere to the standards as defined in Section 11.5 of
Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended, except that the sum total of all accessory buildings on
the lot shall not exceed 1,000 square feet.
k. Tree Preservation – All trees within the property shall be saved except those located in the
designated building pad, driveways, proposed accessory structures/uses, and a 20’ buffer from
said areas. All attempts will be made to save trees, but some not within the designated Tree
Preservation Easements may be removed due to development conditions.
l. Tree Preservation Easements – Disturbance of areas within the tree preservation easements
shall be limited to small foot paths, drainage improvements, and franchise utility installation.
m. Access – Due to environmental considerations, all lots shall be permitted to front private access
easement rather than a public street and there shall be no sidewalks required. Access shall
meet the minimum fire department requirements.
n. Fencing – Fencing shall be restricted to a maximum of five (5) feet unless otherwise mandated
by any other city, state, or safety requirements and shall be wrought iron or a powder coating of
that style of fence. Said fencing shall not exceed the area depicted on the development plan,
shall not infringe upon the tree preservation easement, and fencing for enclosure of the
Case No. Attachment C
ZA09-013 Page 2
backyard/pool area shall not require removal of trees greater than 4” in diameter. Fencing shall
completely enclose the pool area. Fencing for any sport court use shall not exceed fourteen
(14) feet in height and shall be of a black- or green-coated chain link type.
o. On-Site Sewage Facility (OSSF) – OSSF systems shall be designed so that no septic field is
located within the Corps of Engineers Flowage Easement nor shall any aerobic system spray
directly into the elevation contour of 574-feet.
p. Swimming Pool / Spa – For any swimming pool design, the pool’s filtration system shall be
designed to ensure that no salt water will discharge onto the natural grade in order to protect
existing, natural vegetation. In the event the pool must be drained, an Environmental Engineer
shall be consulted in advance for sampling/testing of the pool water to ensure that draining the
pool will not have a detrimental impact on natural vegetation in the area due to the salt, chlorine
or other chemical content in the water. If the City of Southlake determines that the water will
likely have a detrimental impact on the natural vegetation in the area, the pool shall be drained
by use of a mobile pump truck or other mechanism to prevent drainage on the property.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA09-013 Page 3
SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY
ZA09-013Three06/10/09
Case No.: Review No.: Date of Review:
Zoning Change & Development Plan
Project Name: – 3000 & 3010 Burney Ln
OWNER/APPLICANT: SURVEYOR:
Ron Eddins Alan Ward Surveying Co.
3001 Native Oak Dr P.O. Box 7378
Flower Mound, TX 75022 Fort Worth, TX 76111
P: (214)448-6244 P: (817)834-0897
E: reddins@seglaw.com E: alsurvco@flash.net
CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 06/10/09 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 CLAYTON COMSTOCK AT (817) 748-8269.
1. Should the Zoning Change & Development Plan be approved by City Council, provide
staff with a plan and development regulations that fully reflect all the conditions of
approval, including but not limited to Tree Preservation area and percentage
calculations, exhibits presented to City Council, etc.
2. A grading plan is required for a new residential building permit. If that grading plan
shows a potential adverse impact of drainage on adjacent properties, a drainage swale
or other type of drainage improvements may be required by staff. Such improvements
should be located in a manner that minimized the impact on the Tree Preservation
Easements.
* A fully corrected plan that includes all associated support plans/documents and
conditions of approval is required before any ordinance or zoning verification letter
publication or before acceptance of any other associated plans for review. Plans and
documents must be reviewed and stamped “approved” by the Planning Department.
* All development must comply with the City’s Drainage Ordinance No. 605 and detain
all post development run-off.
* 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.
Case No. Attachment D
ZA09-013 Page 1
Surrounding Property Owners
Statham/Eddins Property
SPO # Owner Zoning Land Use Acreage Response
1. Corps of Engineers NR
U S A – Lake Grapevine AG 310.70
2. Low Density Residential NR
Eastwood, Wm S Etux Kollis A SF1-A 1.08
3. Low Density Residential NR
Housmans, Errol V Etux Leslie SF1-A 1.86
4. Low Density Residential NR
Statham, Jerry E & Jill S RPUD 2.13
5. Low Density Residential NR
Statham, Jerry E & Jill S RPUD 1.98
6. Low Density Residential NR
Burnett, Patricia H SF1-A 2.05
7. Low Density Residential NR
George, David W SF1-A 1.10
8. Low Density Residential NR
Curtis, Mary Kathryn SF1-A 1.07
9. Low Density Residential NR
Ault, David Etux Gloria SF1-A 0.97
10. Low Density Residential NR
Miles, Marylyn E & Etal AG 9.73
11. Corps of Engineers NR
U S A – Corps of Engineers AG 110.44
12. Low Density Residential NR
Shackleford Holdings SF1-A 1.10
13. Low Density Residential NR
George, David SF1-A 0.81
Responses: F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response
Case No. Attachment E
ZA09-013 Page 1
Surrounding Property Owner Responses
Statham/Eddins Property
Notices Sent:
Ten (10)
Responses Received:
One (1) from Ray Chancellor, 890 Harbor Ct, June 1, 2009 (see attached)
Case No. Attachment F
ZA09-013 Page 1
June 1, 2009
To: Honorable Mayor Terrell
City Of Southlake Council Members
st
RE: Ordinance No. 480-510a, 1 Reading (ZA09-013)
Forgive this somewhat informal letter but I am presently out of town and do not have access to
some of the resources that I need. Still, I must voice my formal objections to the proposed
zoning request by Statham and Eddins.
My first objection is based on the good faith grounds on which the first approved zoning request
was passed. Members of the Harbor Oaks neighborhood stated at the time to the Council that
Mr. Statham only wanted to divide the property in order to sell it. The Council was told by Mr.
Statham that he only wanted to divide it into two lots as a future protection to his family and that
he had not intentions of ever selling it. The result was that it was passed on that good faith
statement and the concept of the preferred “estate property” was dropped.
Mr. Statham then pressured the Council to rapidly pass his request because he needed to start
his home immediately. He assured the Council that he and his wife cared much about the
sensitivity of the area and they planned on cutting nothing except for the house footprint. They
would protect the sensitive areas.
The end result of all this was a blatant end run around the Council. Mr. Eddins bought the
property this past December meaning that the sale was, in all likelihood, preplanned even as
the Council request was being presented. It is interesting that by having the four acres, the
Stathams possibly could have been in the Carroll ISD. But now that the south two acres are
sold, I believe that all of his homestead will be in the Northwest ISD and will pay no Carroll ISD
school taxes.
If you remember the discussion on the southern one acre, Mr. Statham purchased it from Mr.
George solely because of the needed driveway and Mr. George would probably buy it back. (At
that time there was a question of whether it was full acre or not.) It was later discovered that it
was owned by Mr. Statham’s company with no intent of returning it to Mr. George.
I believe these facts to be true, but I do not have my files with me. You have the details and can
judge each statement for its merits. I am not naïve and realize that Statham won the battle in
his own way. I grew up believing that a man’s word was his signature. In this case, I prefer to
not have the signature any longer.
Here are some facts that I encourage you to explore:
1. Mr. Statham went in and cleared most of the trees on his lot. Nothing has been done to
protect the wildlife corridor other than to remover the brush to have a better view.
Statham has yet to start any construction.
2. The three acres that Mr. Ebbins has bought is almost 100 percent tree covered and is
Case No. Attachment F
ZA09-013 Page 2
part of the prime habitat adjacent to the Southlake Cove Ecosystem.
3. The planned footprint of 18,000 square feet, not counting the five septic system fields
and the tennis court will remove virtually all the viable habitat. It will be proffered that
there is a big buffer on the western edge of the property. If one looks at this area, it is a
very steep slope and represents a very small area of useable corridor habitat.
4. The five septic system fields are to be constructed on this steep slope. Any system
failure will send effluent down the slope into the adjacent ecosystem. If I interpret
correctly, the proposed swale will not cover the sewage fields.
5. The plans call for a 10 foot drainage swale on the southern edge of the property to
prevent runoff. I cannot tell from the compressed plan on the web where exactly this is
located. A ten foot ditch is a massive ditch that is going to have to be dug into pure rock
raises some real questions. That water will go somewhere even though the rock may not
be pervious at that location.
6. Mrs. Eddins said in the neighbor meeting that she has no plans to cut the trees that
buffer the western edge but does plan to remove the underbrush so that they can have
easy access to the Corps property. Failure to maintain the wildlife corridor is a serious
issue that the neighbors have fought to maintain for almost two decades.
7. It is impossible to mitigate the trees that will be removed.
8. Fencing must be clearly defined because of the uniqueness of the wildlife corridor on
this property. Note the request is for 6 feet fencing. We were told in the neighbor
meeting that there is no intent to fence the property other than around the pool and
immediate yard area.
9. The pool is planned to be a salt water pool. With no public sewage, any drainage will be
directly into Quail Creek and the receiving lake ecosystem.
I know I an submitting this objection more out of frustration than identified legal reasons. Still, it
is another one of those cases where “we told you so.” Many of my neighbors, who raised their
voices over the years to protect a little piece of Southlake, can see the process where it only
takes a promise by a developer to get something passed. Then, the actual process is
manipulated to do as they prefer once it is passed. If there is a positive, it removes the SF-1A
zoning for Tract 7 which again, was one of those “we would never sell” arguments.
I hope you will review the history of Mr. Statham’s request and make decisions that are best in
the best interest of the total Southlake Ecosystem and hold all parties to the statements they
make to you as covenants for development.
Respectfully submitted,
Ray L. Chancellor, Ph. D.
890 Harbor Court
Case No. Attachment F
ZA09-013 Page 3
Southlake, TX 76092
Case No. Attachment F
ZA09-013 Page 4
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS
ORDINANCE NO. 480-510a
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 LOTS 1 AND 2, R.D. PRICE NO. 1207 ADDITION
AND TRACT 7, REES D. PRICE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1207, AND
MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT “A” FROM “R-
PUD” RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND “SF-
1A” SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 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,
WHEREAS,
the hereinafter described property is currently zoned as “R-PUD” Residential Planned Unit
Development 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
Case No. Attachment G
ZA09-013 Page 1
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 effect 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 particular 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 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
Case No. Attachment G
ZA09-013 Page 2
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, are 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 hereinafter described areas be altered, changed and amended as shown and
described below:
Being Lots 1 and 2, R.D. Price No. 1207 Addition and Tract 7, Rees D. Price Survey, Abstract
No. 1207, being approximately 5.05 acres, and more fully and completely described in Exhibit
“A” from “R-PUD” Residential Planned Unit Development 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”.
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
Case No. Attachment G
ZA09-013 Page 3
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 community. They have been made after a full and complete hearing 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 not, under such ordinances, same shall not be affected by
this ordinance but may be prosecuted until final disposition by the courts.
Case No. Attachment G
ZA09-013 Page 4
SECTION 9.
The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to publish the proposed ordinance or its
caption and penalty together with a notice setting out the time and place for a public hearing thereon at least
fifteen (15) days before the second reading of this ordinance, and if this ordinance provides for the imposition
of any penalty, fine or forfeiture for any violation of any of its provisions, then the City Secretary 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 2nd day of June, 2009.
_________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________
CITY SECRETARY
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the _____ day of __________, 2009.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________________
CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
_________________________________
CITY ATTORNEY
DATE:___________________________
ADOPTED:_______________________
EFFECTIVE:______________________
Case No. Attachment G
ZA09-013 Page 5
EXHIBIT “A”
Being legally described as Lots 1 and 2, R.D. Price No. 1207 Addition and Tract 7, Rees D. Price Survey,
Abstract No. 1207, and being approximately 5.05 acres.
**Reserved for Metes and Bounds Description**
Case No. Attachment G
ZA09-013 Page 6
EXHIBIT “B”
(Reserved for the Approved Development Plan, Development Regulations and Tree Conservation Plan)
Case No. Attachment G
ZA09-013 Page 7