Loading...
Item 8ACity of Southlake Department of Planning STAFF REPORT March 9, 2005 CASE NO PROJECT ZA04 -103 Zoning Change and Concept Plan for Proposed Lots 1 -9, Brentwood Addition REQUEST: On behalf of Wilburn G. Davis, Four Peaks Development is requesting approval a zoning change and concept plan from "AG" Agricultural District to "SF -30" Single Family Residential District. The plan proposes the development of 9 residential lots on 8.681 acres. Although the concept plan shows a street stub into the east boundary as recommended by the City staff, the applicant is requesting that the street stub not be required. ACTION NEEDED: Consider first reading for zoning change and concept plan ATTACHMENTS: (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) Background Information Vicinity Map Plans and Support Information Concept Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated February 25, 2005 Surrounding Property Owners Map Surrounding Property Owners Responses Ordinance No. 480 -452 Full Size Plans (for Comnaissi and Council Meniber.v Only) STAFF CONTACT: Ken Baker (481 -2036) Dennis Killough (481 -2073) Case No. ZA04 -103 BACKGROUND INFORMATION • 'R ' APPLICANT: PROPERTY SITUATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION LAND USE CATEGORY CURRENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING: HISTORY: TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT: Case No. ZA04 -103 Wilburn G. Davis Four Peaks Development 2055 N. White Chapel Boulevard Tract IA2, Larkin H. Chivers Survey, Abstract No. 300 Low Density Residential "AG" Agricultural District "SF -30" Single Family Residential District There is no development history on this property. No structures exist on the property. Master Thorouzhfare Plan The Master Thoroughfare Plan recommends N. White Chapel Boulevard adjacent to the proposed subdivision to be an undivided, 5 -lane arterial roadway with 94 feet of right -of -way with a continuous, two -way, center left - turn lane. Right -of -way is being dedicated accordingly. E.zistin z Area Road Network and Conditions The proposed subdivision will have one (1) street intersecting with N. White Chapel Boulevard. Currently, N. White Chapel Boulevard is a 2 -lane, undivided roadway. The capacity of the existing roadway is approximately 8,400 vehicle trips per day. Under this condition, the roadway would be considered to operate under a level of service `D'. Completion of this development will add approximately 86 vehicle trips per day to this section of N. White Chapel Boulevard, bringing it to 3,566 vehicle trips per day. There are no plans for improvement in the near future. May, 2004 traffic counts on N. White Chapel Blvd (between Dove St and SH 114 24hr North Bound NB 1,603 South Bound (SB) (1,877 NB Peak A.M. 140 8 — 9 a.m. Peak P.M. 168 5 — 6 p.m. SB Peak A.M. 175 8 — 9 a.m. Peak P.M. 143 5 — 6 p.m. Attachment A Page 1 Traffic Impact PATHWAYS MASTER PLAN: Use 4 Lots Vtpd* AM- IN AM- OUT PM- IN PM OUT Single-Family Residential 9 86 2 5 6 3 *Vehicle Trips Per Day * *The AM /PM times represent the number of vehicle trips generated during the peak travel times on N. White Chapel Boulevard. The Southlake Pathways Master Plan does not recommend any trail or sidewalk improvements adjacent to this site. The plan recommends an eight (8) foot paved multi -use trail on the west side of N. White Chapel Boulevard. The subdivision ordinance requires minimum 4 -foot wide sidewalks on both sides of the street within the subdivision and must provide safe connections to City trails and sidewalks. The sidewalks are shown on the concept plan. WATER & SEWER: The applicant proposes to extend a 12 -inch water line on the east side of N. White Chapel Boulevard from an existing 12 -inch water line along Dove Street. The applicant is proposing to extend sanitary sewer from the northeast to the subdivision. TREE PRESERVATION: An aerial photograph was submitted with the Preliminary Plat submittal. The dominant existing trees on the site are Post Oak. It shows that some trees could be preserved in the right -of -way turnabout median and on the lots. There are no trees existing in the off -site retention pond area or in the Storm Sewer Easement on site leading off the site. P &Z ACTION: February 17, 2005; Approved to table (5 -0) until March 3, 2005. March 3, 2005; Approved (6 -0) subject to Concept Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated February 11, 2005; eliminating the street stub and subject to a maximum of nine (9) lots. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Concept Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated February 11, 2005. The City's Land Use Plan designates this area for "Low Density Residential" development which is defined as follows: The Low Density Residential category is for detached single - family residential development at a net density of one or fewer dwelling units per acre. 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 rural character of the City of Southlake. "Net density" according to the City's Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, as amended, is defined as follows: Case No. Attachment A ZA04 -103 Page 2 DENSITY, NET The number of dwelling units per net acre. ACREAGE, NET The acreage included within the boundary line of a particular subdivision, tract, parcel, lot, etc., but excluding all public rights -of -way. It is staff's opinion that in order for this development to fully comply with the City's Land Use Plan, it must have a net density no greater than 1 dwelling unit per net acre of the development. The net acreage is the amount of gross area of the development less any existing or proposed public rights - of -way. The net density for this development is 1.27 du /ac. A justification letter from the applicant is included as part of Attachment `C' . Any motion for approval of this item should include justification for non- compliance with the Land Use Plan. M \Community Development \MEMO \2004cases \04- 103Z.doc Case No. ZA04 -103 Attachment A Page 3 Vicinity Map Lots 1 - 10, Brentwood Addition 1000 4 1000 2040 3400 Feet Case No. Attachment B ZA04 -103 Page 1 W E Case No. Attachment B ZA04 -103 Page 1 o� ~' o o . w I f"r b � va adNT�,.Ie�E { ]ll . . . .. ..... ........... _. I ..... nun - ..___..d_ _...�_._..... f'.,y st4'ef'SE'YI a n , mr- attarrT L �'+x t gaalenae tan wG Avlt llu,pl TAGO / .f e E Lum l o Ws 9�uerveFS S.— PEYL MIl Lune MIAEU Yrx ZMIN6 2MING • Eers� ..tl�„tgt�..E�}7:6E SAFNFIY we fn�e��wcL � µ pE C - _..� i L LOT SET9�CF 1NO OF PEN 56 -b gusLS -YnwLx MC i,- 5, lSgl'JEm1A4 O19lRIeT YYC .1Y.. L.LIiY 9EL'£tiig F4 PE wlrna�P @x 14 s'409'((Ps sSSYl4lnxpx .r, s..An — - - s 10 REFFaIU w1 lepS. RAYYEATr. e7 RECD E B 2 2 2005 9i � aY I { ]ll 1, - a i N S1fAU16�MI le f'.,y st4'ef'SE'YI a n , mr- attarrT L �'+x t gaalenae tan wG Avlt llu,pl TAGO / .f e E 2p4lNG lltF,Q li Ol Esialt ALI lute LOW O 5111 E51m[ uFL F .__ OEOIY:ATepry x a - POINT OF ZONING Aq I[u I tA61 LIB t 1 B a ms M T— ®4' IV` ZomNG Ayeiw11-1 IAGI tW :0WK.JITr KSIO MI" i 1 etn � axT — Egyw c.tpa CONCEPT PLAN FOR `SF -34' ZONING REQUEST AND PRELIMINARY PLAT BRENTWOOD ADDITION 0."1 ACRE TRACT DF IhIFO 91K9Frtxie4 L9TE. IIfPfT•M•Mx L1W Lx1P5^wY>•F EtgEEgNT [+*e' uY�idn>•1+1 iwivt. � s� uu�f tlw. WxM w. a � e µ ++ � I IT M -� �y � � �� F1$1Y � FUBAIPAII, w. [ L 11 A �1 LOCATION 1W zS:n2 -Md hiy aem3��l.e LLahE r J IP!! RrP :r �YtieC4wv T. s "� �. -• 'i1wF.�.,.:�:_- . •:. _..w a-r�va... rwe sn e.�xe. +��3iFMiGOaeen Ol.�nn 4en t1w in r IiFT .. rre na ±4 + •+ -••-- N � � tde.FY h .a a h]Il?! c3 �-- n 1, - a i N S1fAU16�MI le Lum l o Ws Lune MIAEU Yrx ZMIN6 2MING MR -PUG -4 NR -PIIA •q rgTF ga L LOT SET9�CF 1NO OF PEN 56 -b gusLS -YnwLx MC i,- 5, lSgl'JEm1A4 O19lRIeT YYC .1Y.. L.LIiY 9EL'£tiig F4 PE wlrna�P @x 14 s'409'((Ps sSSYl4lnxpx .r, s..An — - - s 10 REFFaIU w1 lepS. RAYYEATr. e7 RECD E B 2 2 2005 etn � axT — Egyw c.tpa CONCEPT PLAN FOR `SF -34' ZONING REQUEST AND PRELIMINARY PLAT BRENTWOOD ADDITION 0."1 ACRE TRACT DF IhIFO 91K9Frtxie4 L9TE. IIfPfT•M•Mx L1W Lx1P5^wY>•F EtgEEgNT [+*e' uY�idn>•1+1 iwivt. � s� uu�f tlw. WxM w. a � e µ ++ � I IT M -� �y � � �� F1$1Y � FUBAIPAII, w. [ L 11 A �1 LOCATION 1W zS:n2 -Md hiy aem3��l.e LLahE r J IP!! RrP :r �YtieC4wv T. s "� �. -• 'i1wF.�.,.:�:_- . •:. _..w a-r�va... rwe sn e.�xe. +��3iFMiGOaeen Ol.�nn 4en t1w in r IiFT .. rre na ±4 + •+ -••-- N � � tde.FY h .a a h]Il?! c3 �-- n o� o . w OIN A b � QQ � A w n Four Peaks Develo I n e. Planning and Zoning Department Attn: Ben Bryner City of Southlake I400 Main St., Suite 310 Southlake, Texas 75092 Re: ZA04 -103 & -4 -104 Dear Ben, In response to item 1. of the Plat Review Summary dated January 24, 2005 please accept this as our written justification for requesting a zoning that is not in compliance with the City's Land Use Plan for the subject property. We are requesting SF -30 zoning which is described in the City Zoning Ordinance as being "moderately low density ". Whereas we realize that the Land Use Plan's definition of low density is for full one acre lots we would suggest that the SF -30 category is in reality a very low density residential utilization. The subject property fronts on N. White Chapel Rd. which is slated to become a 94' wide Arterial in the future. In addition, the property abuts the north side of the Aventerra property which currently is planned as a commercial use development. Moreover, directly across N. White Chapel is more Aventerra property slated for commercial development. The property abutting the north side of the subject property is currently zoned RE and the City Subdivision Ordinance in Article V111 section 8.01 G requires that a 30,000 sq.ft. minimum lot size when abutting RE zoned property. This would suggest that the proposed SF -30 zoning is appropriate in this area. Moreover, less than 1 /4 Mile to the east a new development has been constructed with lot sizes much smaller than what is being requested for the subject property. The lots in Estes Park are as small as 15,000 s.f Estes Park was also in an area of the Land Use Plan that called for Low Density. Rn j �N 31 2035 726 Commerce St., Ste. 109 • South lake, TX 76092 - (817) 329 -6996 • Fax (817) 481 -4074 Case No. Attachment C ZA04 -103 Page 3 Like Estes Park the subject property is impacted somewhat by aircraft noise due to the nearby approach pattern for DFW. It is also impacted by road noise from Hwy. 114. We feel that the SF -30 zoning would provide an excellent buffer use between the commercial properties to the south and west while maintaining a low density look and feel and yet allow the development to be a viable endeavor. Sincerely, ,David McMahan Principal Case No. Attachment C ZA04 -103 Page 4 PLAT REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA04 -103 Review No.: Four Project Name: Zoning Change /Concept Plan — Brentwood Addition Date of Review: 02/25/05 APPLICANT: Four Peaks Development, Inc. ENGINEER: Huitt - Zollars, Inc. David McMahan Ocie Vest 726 Commerce St, Suite 109 Southlake, TX 76092 Phone: (817) 329 -6996 Fax: (817) 481 -4074 3131 McKinney Ave, Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: (214) 871 -3311 Fax: (214) 871 -0757 CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 02/22/05 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT BEN BRYNER AT (817) 481 -2086. 1. Correct the existing zoning on the Westerra Southlake property across N. White Chapel Blvd to `Detailed Site Plan (S -P- l y . INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS * The subject property must comply with the City of Southlake Drainage Ordinance No. 605, as amended. Although there are a few lot lines which are not perpendicular or radial, they appear to meet the intent of this requirement. * It appears this property lies within the 65 LDN D/FW Regional Airport Overlay Zone, requiring construction standards in compliance with the Airport Compatible Land Use Zoning Ordinance No. 479. Additionally, the "Avigation Easement and Release" shown in Appendix 3 of the Subdivision Ordinance No. 483 should be executed on subsequent Plats to be filed in the County Plat Records. * A Developers Agreement is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure. The Developer's Agreement for this addition should consider streets, drainage, park dedication requirements and fees, off -site sewer extensions, off -site drainage and utility easements and impact fees. Case No. Attachment D ZA04 -103 Page 1 TREE PRESERVATION ANALYSIS (Residential Subdivision Development) Case: 04 -104 Date of Review: January 20, 2005 Number of Pages: 1 Project Name: Proposed Lots 1 -10, White Chapel Addition ( Preliminary Plat) THIS ANALYSIS IS PREPARED AT THE TIME OF REVIEW OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT AND IS TO PROVIDE AN ANALYSIS OF THE PLAN OR SURVEY AND THE IMPACT OF CONSTRUCTION ON ANY PROTECTED TREES ON THE SITE. FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATION CONTACT KEITH MARTIN, LANDSCAPE ADMINISTRATOR AT (817) 481 -5640 TREE PRESERVATION COMMENTS: An aerial photograph was submitted with the Preliminary Plat submittal. The dominant existing trees on the site are Post Oak. It shows that some trees could be preserved in the right -of -way turnabout median and on the lots. There are no trees existing in the off -site retention pond area or in the Storm Sewer Easement on site leading off the site. Residential Subdivision Development: In a residential subdivision, all protected trees that the Landscape Administrator determines must be altered in order to install utility lines within public R. OW. or utility easements or drainage easements as shown on an approved Final Plat, or to achieve the cut/fill drainage as designated on the master drainage construction plan, shall be exempt from the tree replacement and tree protection requirements listed in Sections 7 and 8 of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Any protected trees within these areas that the Landscape Administrator determines do not have to be altered shall be subject to the tree protection requirements listed in Section 8 of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, but not to the tree replacement requirements listed in Section 7 of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. All other areas of the subdivision shall be subject to both the tree replacement and the tree protection requirements, and all other provisions of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Case No. ZA04 -103 Attachment D Page 2 City of Southlake Parks and Recreation Department Development Review Committee (DRC) Comments Contact: Chris Carpenter, AICP 817 - 481 -1585 carpenter( ,ci.southlake.tx.us Project: ZA 04 -103, Zoning Change for Woodmont Addition CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 0 1110105 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT CHRIS CARPENTER AT (817) 481 -1585. Pathway Comments: 1. No off -road trail required in east N. White Chapel right -of -way. Park Dedication Comments: This property has not previously been platted and is therefore required to meet park land dedication requirements of Article VII in the City of Southlake's Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, as amended. This development is noted as being in or near a service area for "existing" park resources in the Park Master Plan and otherwise has a land dedication equivalent of only 0.25 acres. Therefore, staff recommends a fee payment alternative, which for a 10 dwelling unit residential development at $1,500 per dwelling unit amounts to $15,000. This fee will be required to be paid upon approval of the Developer's Agreement at the time of a pre - construction meeting and with the transfer of other development fees. Case No. ZA04 -103 Attachment D Page 3 Surrounding Property Owners 1801 White Chapel Road Owner Zoning Land Use Acrea i 1. Westerra Southlake Lp. "S -P -2" Mixed Use 56.580 2. Morre, Trigg & Traci "RE" Low Density Resid. 9.500 3. Morre, Trigg & Traci "AG" Low Density Resid. 11.330 4. Westerra Southlake Lp. "NR -PUD" Mixed Use 35.000 5. Leach, Chere "AG" Mixed Use 1.820 6. Thrasher, Wesley & Terri "AG" Mixed Use 1.788 7. Thrasher, Imogene "AG" Mixed Use 1.082 8. Shivers Family Ptnrship Ltd. "AG" Mixed Use 38.376 9. Davis, Wilburn George "AG" Low Density Resid. 8.645 Case No. Attachment E ZA04 -103 Page 1 Surrounding Property Owner Responses Lots 1 -10, Brentwood Addition Notices Sent: Seven (7) Responses: One (1) from outside the 200' notification area. • Bob Bonchak, 1820 Hunters Creek Drive, Southlake, TX 76092; opposed. See attached email received 2- 28 -05. Case No. ZA04 -103 Attachment F Page 1 Subject: ZA04 -103 (Brentwood Addition) Please record my opposition to the Commission's approval of the subject application, which application requests a zoning change from Agricultural District to SF -30. The property in question is designated as Low Density ( "... a net density of one or fewer dwelling units per acre. ") in the current Land Use Plan. Over 80% of the subject property is contiguous with land designated as Low Density. Almost 44% of the contiguous land is zoned Agricultural (maximum residential density, 0.10), and 39% is zoned Residential Estate (maximum residential density; 0.20). Approving zoning with a density greater than 1.0 (SF -1A) is contrary to City policy, as expressed in the adopted Land Use Plan, and inconsistent with the vast majority of contiguous land zoning. To approve SF -30 zoning for the subject property, based upon the argument that (less than one -fifth of the) contiguous, undeveloped, property is designated Mixed Use pushes the bounds of rationality and credibility. Contrast and compare the Commission's approach to ZA04 -103 with it's approach to case ZA04 -097. The latter application (ZA04 -97) contemplated dividing an approximate two acre parcel into one lot approximating 3/4 acre and another lot of over one acre. The smaller tract required approval of SF -30A zoning. The existing Land Use designation for the property (Low Density) and zoning (SF -1A) was identical to all surrounding tracts. The applicant sought the higher density zoning, not to increase a developmental profit but to accommodate the construction of the owner's "dream" house. The net density of the existing tract would remain at 1.0. The Commission made it clear to the applicant that the request would be denied if a vote were taken. One Commissioner stated that approval would place the City on a "slippery slope" with respect to maintaining conformance with the Land Use Plan. Another, expressing an inclination to deny the request, stated that the "integrity" of the Land Use Plan must be maintained. The phrase "one acre, one house" was used. The applicant withdrew the request, obviously influenced by the Commissioner's comments. In case ZA04 -103 the Commission persuaded the applicant to Table the request, indicating that a request with the proposed number of lots reduced from ten to nine would receive favorable consideration, despite the Staff conclusion that only a maximum of seven lots would comply with the Land Use Plan. The nine lot proposal was advanced by the Commission as a "compromise ". No mention was made of any need to maintain the "integrity" of the Plan in this case. A statement that "nine iota gets us a lot closer to one acre" was made. The "compromise" results in a proposed net density of 1.24. This density represents less than a 10% reduction from the original proposal. It contemplates a density still significantly in excess of the majority of surrounding zoning requirements, and Plan designations. The Commission's inconsistent approach to these two zoning applications raises questions with this casual observer as to what factors the Commission's decisions are based upon. For example, I wonder which of the two 2/28/2005 Case No. ZA 04 -103 Attachment F Page 2 referenced applications had /has a greater negative impact on street congestion, land overcrowding, and population concentration. I cannot find anything that specifies that an applicant's profit potential should be a factor in the Commission's zoning decision process. Nor can I find anything that specifies that contemplated "niceness" or "development quality" should be a consideration (see Triple C Ranch and Carroll Meadows). I request that you acknowledge receipt of this communication, and that you provide a copy of it to all remaining members of the Commission. I also thank you in advance for your sincere consideration of the above comments. Bob Bonchak 1820 Hunters Creek Drive Case No. ZA 04 -103 Attachment F Page 3 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS ORDINANCE NO. 480 -452 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 TRACT 1A2, SITUATED IN THE LARKIN H. CHIVERS SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 300, BEING APPROXIMATELY 8.681 ACRES, AND MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" FROM "AG" AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO "SF -30" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, 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 "AG Agricultural District under the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; and Case No. Attachment G ZA04 -103 Page 1 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 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, Case No. Attachment G ZA04 -103 Page 2 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, 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 Tract 1A2, situated in the Larkin H. Chivers Survey, Abstract No. 300, being approximately 8.681 acres, and more fully and completely described in Exhibit "A" from "AG" Agricultural District to "SF -30" Single Family Residential District. SECTION 2. That the City Manager is hereby directed to correct the Official Zoning map of the City of Southlake, Case No. Attachment G ZA04 -103 Page 3 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 subj ect 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 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. Case No. Attachment G ZA04 -103 Page 4 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 aviolation 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. 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. Case No. ZA04 -103 Attachment G Page 5 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 MAYOR ATTEST: day of , 2005. CITY SECRETARY PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the day of , 2005. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CITY ATTORNEY DATE: ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: Case No. ZA04 -103 Attachment G Page 6 EXHIBIT "A" Being Tract 1A2, situated in the Larkin H. Chivers Survey, Abstract No. 300, being approximately 8.681 acres. 'Property Dosortpuon All that ceftain tract or patoel of land lying and being situated in the pity of Soutidalae, Tarrant County, Texas and being a part of the LARKN H. CRIVERS SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 300 and also being the same tract of )ad conveyed to Wilib= George Davis by decd regarded in Volunw, 6059 Par, 633, D 1tecwds, T=ant County, Texas. BEGGING at a point in the South line of Lot 1, Larkin F, Chivers Addition Ike. 300. found in Cabinet & Aide 021. plat RezoFds, Warrant County, Texed and being South SR degrees 46 rr6nutes 40 wwnds 129-07 feet from tea& Soothe t corner of said Addition. THENCESov&00d egas 01 mirnutes 36 Winds Vest 46726 feet to a pomt for on=, THWCE North 89 degr 1 n 53 seccidsWest 361.95 feet to an ugle point THENCE Scutb 89 de fi es 44 minwes 56 seconds West 444.53 feet to a point for canner, THENCE North CO definers alt minutes 25 seconds Fast 471.49 feet to a point for wmar, THENCE South. 89 degrees 46 minutes Oil seconds Fast 806.79 feet to the POINTY' OF BWWNING and containing 8.681 acres of land, more or less. Case No. ZA04 -103 Attachment G Page 7 O M EMAMME ia ZMIN6 Ell. AE' . . .P' .. ......... ......... I-..-- — ------ ..... .. .. .......... . ---- A-mr L8P -PSG1 l9 xdrEae 1.9liEWS M K -WI-,EP 11 4� J bqn c�ilu.ol [e GI IONIIrG a Wpw -4 REC'D F E B 2 2 2005 LorATT M" =7-4 ctrl .te Ow L rA ....... ... ..... . PEATI FOR 'SF-,30'20N1NG REQUEST ZE) FRELLYJN6RY PLAT BRENTWOOD ADDITION ACRE M fl MD KVXM1— LOTL TM4-1 AT W;41 A ZMIN6 Ell. AE' . . .P' .. ......... ......... I-..-- — ------ ..... .. .. .......... . ---- A-mr L8P -PSG1 l9 xdrEae 1.9liEWS M K -WI-,EP 11 4� J bqn c�ilu.ol [e GI IONIIrG a Wpw -4 REC'D F E B 2 2 2005 LorATT M" =7-4 ctrl .te Ow L rA ....... ... ..... . PEATI FOR 'SF-,30'20N1NG REQUEST ZE) FRELLYJN6RY PLAT BRENTWOOD ADDITION ACRE M fl MD KVXM1— LOTL TM4-1