Item 7ACity of Southlake
Department of Planning
STAFF REPORT
March 30, 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.
Staff recommends a street stub into the east boundary. The applicant is requesting
that the street stub not be required.
ACTION NEEDED: 1. Conduct public hearing
2. Consider approval of second 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. 5, dated March 30, 2005
Surrounding Property Owners Map
Surrounding Property Owners Responses
Ordinance No. 480 -452
Full Size Plans (foi Conn i and Council Member. � 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
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.
PATHWAYS MASTER
PLAN: 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 25, 2005; eliminating the street stub and subject to a
maximum of nine (9) lots.
COUNCIL ACTION: March 15, 2005; Approved first reading on Consent (6 -0) subject to the
Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation and accepting the
applicant's willingness to use wrought iron fencing with stone columns along
the north, east, and south boundaries and noting that this proposal deviates
slightly from the Land Use Plan but specifically nothing the low density
nature of the proposal.
STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Concept Plan Review Summary No. 5, dated March 30, 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
Case No. Attachment A
ZA04 -103 Page 2
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:
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 1.24 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 - 9, Brentwood Addition
a
1000 2040 3444 Feet
Case No.
ZA04 -103
Attachment B
Page 1
1000 0
°
E
Case No.
ZA04 -103
Attachment B
Page 1
1000 0
o�
o .
w
s� .h %19�IPL'lh�gl+ L
��>•R ML1Ai�R d A
Mum
gesi 9eviYvl Esl plp [iEl
L14• Lout R:NSITT 9ES1PEIf1IAL
e •m im
1+'r
1"r
n
Q �
�OHIB6
Bus ss Sfrvic! PGA r9li
E5tl• uIr%€P USE
41 == l 11LD +LCr,
v Itl
Qs •�
L7 � 111
�{ I
i
y �
i JJ
J�
s
I
4
xa+INc
Aqr l prl Wrvl IAr1
Lla wr- UEMSIIr 9€sIPEn
t
LOCAT1o4 MAP
l _
BLOCK 1 Fk 1
LW • LOMCENYIIT
Ce pe
- F-''
I1« _ ,g
ZONING
Aye iCUe tut0l NC1
Lm. L�O EeN :TuwENltAI
20H1Nv"
r. --
�Lpr[tul lur al IAG1
MR-PIlD "4
ti
y
•r���t� -jug
� ,�' rT.i `
C,�? �--6�� i °: "bT � `�.�
� e
NIML b
I
q€acENtr.L on19ic1 iSEC.nPN �I.
- --
L 1ugE[rP[ FtiSE1a:N13 IB BE INiNI LiwEO ICI NG[04N m
LSECCIATION NOAL
O.1NER.' -E va 0I51 ING 3INI1CTv TO ft-,N ON lHj5 PIIOP6Rly.
_
- 9E�IWIM prruE
t,i,�.• I�
��
I t
a
e
I
:'6
_ ".°`ti �- s•�L�11rI. -- -• - -. I
.� 5 �o.m.....+4,..�.re
Ysrr sAa�. W +�e4eRXtA-
.•n +W�W�i ieo-cw w
LW • LOMCENYIIT
1[Si4Enilµ
Lulls IAI pEO 4IEE
20H1Nv"
xBN1r6G
�Lpr[tul lur al IAG1
MR-PIlD "4
NOSC &�
LLOI +M Q1IE9 iT€IUL PF11 9F•]O fu14iC- F41,Ii�Y
NIML b
I
q€acENtr.L on19ic1 iSEC.nPN �I.
L 1ugE[rP[ FtiSE1a:N13 IB BE INiNI LiwEO ICI NG[04N m
LSECCIATION NOAL
O.1NER.' -E va 0I51 ING 3INI1CTv TO ft-,N ON lHj5 PIIOP6Rly.
L.vI-W %PV usE
ZONING
HR -PW +9
re
w.%x e.I.n a r w d m 6�L.eE �EL. m w+eu x s4xLes. r>..e
Tw1 .a ►sa � s� w � �.c;g x. cArrFxs sunvsr. sesrn.cr
NueW585E0 e.a rrm'6+:s itie iwr urn d laof ewryW ea LTiL+u Omp W�ie M daN
e"mm. vwm..do>s P+v USI rr.m x«.. ca.y n 'r+.+..
SF 4PICUP u 1 pl?r bM s� W+ W eae r 4rlk K P/e%Y1 Aasi:oe.Nn?nv. imv Y
,,:rwra.roamr Omar rrwr�a. sawrnwa..�rw Ar6wma
h aaw ]6 eaa deN 5156 Ywtra pcix /x cwxr.
'P13145C9 Nsne 99 my+rr 54 o'rwlerflr+cxeOr N' 55195 rex uer+ru6+ex.L
SI ik.Ai'�' - -- 19 iliur lL mi -xL Wa MI91 fn u.+peroefxwxxr,
raes`-e NuW wa &, rn.ra wrl +. «a.r,
]HI9:'.>n s . _. m �Y`sr ac ...... n ,__... rv,e win r•.. e � werr oe
uEawNV<a.m a„e.®r L6PI .aw a we �r x w
o �
a�
CONCEPT PLAN
FOR
, SF-3(r ZONING REQUESF
AND
PREUMINA1tY PLAT
BRENTWOOD ADDITION
9.681A ff Tk.T OF LAND
9 IIMDENIi6L LOTS.
9 ipII -OF-MW L Llfa3CFPE EPSEILrNT
um oP sPCiw.n, e.u: �c��im"i
RF( MAR 0 9 7.005
r,- rry E ft
. HUIITZDIJARS
1.wrM.allo-�. 9•rLI en 1
l 1
o�
o .
w
m
�5
I
A7
n
b �
QM
N 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.: Five
Date of Review: 03/30/05
Project Name: Zoning Change /Concept Plan — Brentwood Addition
APPLICANT: Four Peaks Development, Inc. ENGINEER: Huitt - Zollars, Inc.
David McMahan Ocie Vest
726 Commerce St, Suite 109 3131 McKinney Ave, Suite 600
Southlake, TX 76092 Dallas, TX 75204
Phone: (817) 329 -6996 Phone: (214) 871 -3311
Fax: (817) 481 -4074 Fax: (214) 871 -0757
CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 03/09/05 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 - 1)'.
2. Provide sufficient street stubs into adjacent property. Staff recommends a street stub to the east.
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 Districtunder
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�
~' o
o .
w
O IN
b�
ara
zow
N Ay itukFw of 64
` golIW6 I LW+LrnP- oinsllr nr rAL
F= Lu0• r.Ow b2rAllr Pr s5 t-
1 r�.a aa..r..xru. rl.wu wi i'cl. Powr OF V
.64bq •r.. •" I$GkHHIHG 1
.69
2
_
M
�
�
ruM�LULrLL
��
1
SL
na wa wrw..r.xwwexw.a §w.a'cara �+aaMCarwoe+LC r.....
mNw.ar re S
[
I
BLOCK I
T �
j
LI&i)P5E
wC— a .s a.P taW.. s, se.vaan�ww� h�a�
}a
�
�-
L°�
1[.�Yflt*rxL
rww484 relrvl.66M PW PJf. A.1 Rrp6r. TlnW Lri.rl i .•"r.
- § CL
.4
LtU• Low- 4En9�1r
a.a�0.avdr lmAl Gw dws it 9eaxnmwrNUN A00�wn
J L•
�.,..
...iOi�°i:""�.. aia°e.c
- a.yaaa...m x,.arw.. wTZavaw.par.aar...
j
L. .���
1
_^ fit°,
^I°�.
Y1Rli48 NW iA.slmwiFF.m.x ww %f 9's bar ryQx P^.e�
YLWINC
m..Ilm.s serr��. Pma ®n
!�
�" - - , �`^
S�� - _
- = - 1
TIBR'Bb.bC6bpwu�n6i rwnb watWS6bew.pY
wt
5p L'�[NPr/+CPOp
/
l l
�
Y!@![EIbSODC.wrN rlw.riww.L Car rli tP Ywx.f�.l kewor.
•.... u+n..,, ++xaxrir.
I
P
''yyi a v° �+$3F t.�
F f/F
'1, ' �
I
r�a�iue�rl�
nr.n
.wP+xP+om T1P&v[8. awh a+ draw �S wir. w.w�! ar 1x6.19 ka w Wr P64r"P 4F
.69
2
�
ruM�LULrLL
��
�
LO OOErSx
M�luprrw.
mNw.ar re S
T �
�1} • r
LI&i)P5E
Y•.
i�
�•! 1N�'.wr �
LLO• M +=OR �
MUM
kR -Putl -4
IP]SES
LLOt M Mar - oTl�c. —W.. K. V-6 9W4LE-CwiL•
r�st...m V .... rmCr� 6L
22.. L..OSC� I.PE— To . —TA-0 a .n..;ort.4.9
i iKrrr .M 6o C...11!IG i1.l+eiw[e. o .EW �. o. rwf r.aP[.fr,
r
-- awa
CONCEPT PLAN
avo, wu.o FOR
ZONING "SF�36' ZONING REQUEST
IW - P+YJ •9 AND
PRELIMINARY PLAY
BRENTWOOD ADDITION
6L61 ACAS T. OF W
91t�uDnrlLL Lai&
.I[wr -fwur L.N LlMIGK [I.6[.rLnr
W N seui...+rG�is.4.e0 C�dmr�r.if
••.�.F n, iw�F.
RFC'n 'MAR n 9 znn, wuTf -31M
LQCATION IMP