/
400%
200%
100%
75%
50%
25%
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Item 7A
City of Southlake Department of Planning STAFF REPORT March 24, 2004 CASE NO ZA03 -091 PROJECT: Southlake Boarding Facility REQUEST: On behalf of N. Main Partnership, Dave Shackelford is requesting approval of a specific use permit for a kennel facilitating small domestic pets. ACTION NEEDED: 1. Conduct public hearing 2. Consider specific use permit approval ATTACHMENTS: (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Background Information Vicinity Map Plans and Support Information Concept Plan Review Summary Surrounding Property Owners Map Surrounding Property Owners Responses Resolution No. 04 -018 STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough (481 -2073) Bruce Payne (481 -2036) Case No. ZA03 -091 BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNER: N. Main Partnership APPLICANT: Dave Shackelford PURPOSE: The purpose of this request is to receive approval of a Specific Use Permit to allow the use of a kennel. PROPERTY SITUATION: The address is 2045 Crooked Lane. The property is located on the northeast corner of E. Continental Boulevard and Crooked Lane. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4R1, Block 1, Green Meadow Subdivision LAND USE CATEGORY: Industrial CURRENT ZONING: "I -l" Light Industrial HISTORY: -A final plat for the Green Meadows subdivision was approved by City Council on December 3, 1974. -The rights -of -way for S. Kimball Avenue and E. Continental Boulevard were realigned splitting Tract 2 into multiple parcels. -A plat revision was approved by City Council on December 15, 1998. -City Council approved another plat revision on July 17, 2001. TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT: Case No. ZA03 -091 Master Thoroughfare Plan The Master Thoroughfare Plan recommends E. Continental Blvd to be a 3- lane, undivided arterial street with 94 feet of right -of -way. Adequate right -of- way exists for this roadway. Existinz Area Road Network and Conditions The proposed site will have one (1) access directly onto E. Continental Boulevard and one (1) access directly onto Crooked Lane. The site is proposing common access easements that will connect into the sites to the east and the north. Both E. Continental Blvd and Crooked Lane are currently 2 -lane, undivided thoroughfares. May , 2003 traffic counts on E. Continental Blvd (between Crooked Lane & Carroll Ave 24hr West Bound (WB) (4,224) East Bound (EB) (4,291) WB Peak A.M. (262) 8 — 9 a.m. Peak P.M. (601) 5 — 6 p.m. EB Peak A.M. (768) 8 — 9 a.m. Peak P.M. (274) 4 — 5 p.m. Attachment A Page 1 May, 2003 traffic counts on Crooked Lane (between Continental Blvd & Kimball Ave 24hr South Bound (SB) (2,417) North Bound (NB) (2,208) SB Peak A.M. (283) 8 — 9 a.m. Peak P.M. (300) 3 — 4 p.m. NB Peak A.M. (335) 8 — 9 a.m. Peak P.M. (232) 3 — 4 p.m. PATHWAYS MASTER PLAN: WATER & SEWER: An 8 -foot multi -use trail is planned along the north side of E. Continental Blvd. The trail is shown on the concept plan. A 12 -inch water line currently exists along the north side of E. Continental Blvd. An 8 -inch sanitary sewer line exists along the east property line. TREE PRESERVATION: There are 12 existing large Post Oak trees on the development site. The applicant does not currently know what the grade changes need to be to develop on the site but as shown on the submitted plan five (5) of the 12 existing trees are not located within impervious areas. The other seven (7) existing trees are located within impervious areas such as the building pad, parking lot, fire lane, sidewalks and southeast access drive. P &Z ACTION: February 19, 2004; Denied (5 -0) COUNCIL ACTION: March 2, 2004; Approved to Table on Consent (5 -0 -1) to next City Council meeting scheduled for March 30, 2004. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Concept Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated February 13, 2004. The following variance is being requested: • Driveway Location Commercial, multi - family, and service driveways shall not be permitted on collector or local streets unless the tract or lot has no other public access. The applicant is proposing a driveway on Crooked Lane. V,Community Development \WP - FILES \MEMO \2003cases \03 -091 SUP.doc Case No. Attachment A ZA03 -091 Page 2 Vicinity Map Southlake Boarding Facility 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 Feet N E Case No. ZA03 -091 Attachment B Page 1 o 0 c 51TE PLAN X I n b � (TQ � lln— 3 CONCEPT PLANS C - 2O0 mmaax. am 03bB� w. NW N..r Hun Nv Ibaa ¢ P4vpv55v Sf r p_<N pia eni0.ax4 1Ba6� nanmra rmai - 1-1 IiG'i u , . �-, n o 0 c 50UTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION b � n rn FFR C 2 W4 N n sE� w.exs eevFn —• r._e�oz= ..x CONCEPT PLANS Yno9 -0Ot TWrv� TaM3 Fv. Btl,,¢a,esea z .,186853 = -y..,i a �s v «x� A_L�© 4 "^ seutl4xx ave.V K�Wb sou8xaka, Tmxnl C . Trsa+ b � n rn FFR C 2 W4 N n CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA03 -091 Review No.: Three Date of Review: 02/13/04 Project Name: Concept Plan — Southlake Boarding Facility APPLICANT: Dave Shackelford 1400 Vino Rosso Ct. Southlake, TX 76092 Phone: (817) 416 -5653 Fax: OWNER: N. Main Partnership Mike Ware 1001 W. NW Hwy Grapevine, TX 76051 Phone: (817) 481 -1217 Fax: (817) 424 -3884 CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 02/02/04 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF CONCEPT PLAN 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. The following changes are needed with regard to driveways: a) Commercial, multi - family, and service driveways shall not be permitted on collector or local streets unless the tract or lot has no other public access. (A variance has been requested.) b) Label the common access easements to allow connection from the properties to the east and north. The easements appear to be shown but no label has been provided. C) Correctly show the existing driveways across adjoining rights -of -way. There are drives on the other side and just to the north of the proposed drive on Crooked Lane. 2. Relocate the loading space to where it will not encroach into the proposed fire lane. 3. Label the type and height of all fencing to be used on the site. No label has been provided for the portion from the northwest corner of the building to the north property line. 4. Correct the curb radius on the west side of the drive on E. Continental Blvd to a 30' radius. Correct the alignment of the 8' multi -use trail along the north side of E. Continental Blvd to be located within the right -of -way for E. Continental Blvd. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS The applicant should be aware that prior to issuance of a building permit a 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. This review is based on the "I -1" Zoning District Regulations. Case No. ZA03 -091 Attachment D Page 1 TREE PRESERVATION ANALYSIS (Non - Residential Development) Case: 03 -091 Date of Review: February 11, 2004 Number of Pages: 1 Project Name: Southlake Boarding Facility OWNER \ DEVELOPER Mike Ware Phone: (817) 481 -1217 Fax: PREPARED BY: Bacon Groun, Inc. Thomas W. Vogt — Land Surveyor Phone: Fax: 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: The applicant submitted a Concept Plan with the trees imposed on it. 2. There are 12 existing large Post Oak trees on the development site. The applicant does not currently know what the grade changes need to be to develop on the site but as shown on the submitted plan five (5) of the 12 existing trees are not located within impervious areas. The other seven (7) existing trees are located within impervious areas such as the building pad, parking lot, fire lane, sidewalks and southeast access drive. 3. There is a 31" Post Oak located in the middle of the southeast access drive. If the proposed southeast access drive could be relocated along the east property line than the tree can be preserved. Although, because of the previous East Continental Road construction, water line installation and storm sewer installation, this tree may be in bad physical shape. During the construction we exhausted all options trying to preserve the tree as best as possible. Non - residential Development: In a non - residential development, all protected trees that the Landscape Administrator determines must be altered in order to install utility lines within public R.O.W. or public utility or drainage easements as shown on an approved Final Plat, or to install fire lanes, required parking areas and building pad sites as shown on an approved Site Plan, shall be exempt from the tree protection and tree replacement 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 development shall be subject to both the tree replacement and the tree protection requirements, and all other provisions of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Case No. ZA03 -091 Attachment D Page 2 Surrounding Property Owners Southlake Boarding Facility PPR� 0 Owner Zoning Land Use Acreage 1. Beech, Johnny L. & Edna 1 -I Industrial 2.502 ac 2. City of Southlake 1 -I Industrial 13.057 ac 3. Latigo Property No. 22 1 -I Industrial 1.797 ac 4. Latigo Property No. 22 1 -I Industrial 1.490 ac 5. Latigo Property No. 22 1 -I Industrial 1.515 ac 6. Segars, Ralph 1 -I Industrial 7.611 ac 7. Explorer Pipeline Co. I -2 Industrial 14.024 ac 8. North Main Partnership 1 -I Industrial 1.800 ac Case No. Attachment E ZA03 -091 Page 1 Surrounding Property Owner Responses Southlake Boarding Facility Notices Sent: Eight (8) Responses: Two (2) from within the 200' notification area. • Tom Matthews, Four Peaks Development, Southlake, TX 76092; opposed. See attached email received 2- 19 -04. • Gary Cantrell, Real Estate Development /Investments, Colleyville, Texas 76034; opposed. See attached letter received 3- 12 -04. Two (2) from outside the 200' notification area: • Darrell Faglie, Southlake, Texas 76092; undecided. See attached email received 2- 19 -04. • Terry J. Walter, 907 Westminster Way, Southlake, Texas 76092; opposed. See attached email received 2- 19 -04. Case No. Attachment F ZA03 -091 Page 1 5LibJect Case ZAO-3-091 Hi Lonia E have dust discovered that there is a ZA03-091 case on Use agenda lot a kennel_ Evldanlly them was a Spin meeting Fab 16 taut oUr neighborhood did not recelve their nofifbcatlon cards until Feb. 17 Also there Is riot a sign posted on the property announcing the case I may be in favor of the 1 ennel but will rat know untl I have furliw informatian. Also I WIN definitely be opposed if there are ouWde runs for the herinels i would Ilkea to see this case tabled until proper' WRation is given and smother ;pin meeung he" with all lnvlwd Qaff em r-aam RECD FEB I D 2054 Case No. ZA03 -091 Attachment F Page 2 Subject; Dag Boarding 1 wlsh to axprass my opposMon to the proposed pet bowding We on Crooked Lane and Continental (ZA03.091). 1 believe that this would limit the potential development of lh ti� entue area Kennels lend to be loud and smegy by nature arO may increase ticks In lha area that dhMran play sports. Barking would certainly carry over I nt o the horrras of Carnbnidge Place as well as residents of Woodsey and - timberline Courts. i urge you to turn dawn the spec flc use permit and protect not only the harneownerers but potentlal future deveIDpn ant in tho area . tncerely, E $ 1 9 2004 Worry J. Weller 907 Westminster Way Case No. ZA03 -091 Attachment F Page 3 Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 10:21 AM To: LFletcher@ci.southlake.tx.us Subject: Dog Kennell As owners of the 12 acre tract of land on the south side of Continental at Kimball, our property is directly south of the proposed dog kennel for which a special use permit ( "SUP ") application will be heard by the Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission on Thursday, February 19, 2004. Please accept my input and the position that, as long as one hundred percent (100 %) of the activities of the kennel are contained and restricted to indoors, we do not have opposition to the use. On the other hand, if there are outdoor activities or facilities, no matter what percentage the outdoor area is to the total area or what percentage outdoor activities have to the total use, we oppose the SUP. In another city, we have observed as a disinterested third party, the negative effects on property values of adjoining property from having a dog kennel with outdoor facilities nearby. We have strong concerns for the negative impact the unpleasant chorus of dogs will have on our property and the business owners who may choose to house their businesses at this "gateway to Southlake" location, if an SUP allowing outdoor kenneling activities is approved. RFC'D F F B 1 9 2004 Case No. ZA 03 -091 Attachment F Page 4 Gary L. Cantrell Company, Inc. REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT/INVESTMENTS March 10, 2004 City Council City of Southlake 1400 Main Street Southlake, Texas 76092 Re: ZA 03 -091 for Elite Suites, A Dog Kennel at the northeast corner of Continental and Crooked Lane, Southlake Dear Council Members: I am opposed to the special use permit for a dog kennel for many reasons. I am writing this letter because I may not be able to attend the next Council meeting. I spoke at the Planning and Zoning meeting which denied the referenced zoning case with a unanimous vote. I was disappointed that the public hearing on 2 Mar 04 was tabled at the request of the applicant. I will try to summarize my thoughts in this letter. My partner and I own the adjacent property to the north and to the east of the proposed dog kennel. We have seven (7) remaining lots (see attached plat) that either abut or are within 200 feet of the proposed dog kennel. We plan to sell the individual sites and/or develop office buildings ourselves for an upscale office park. This is an excellent location for an office park because of the extension and new construction of Kimball Road to Continental Blvd. to be started this summer. I was recently contacted by Ms. Ann Creighton who identified herself as an attorney hired by the applicant to represent him. My understanding is that the applicant has proposed a new acoustical fence around the perimeter which they claim will mitigate the noise from the barking dogs during their outside exercise time. As a structural engineer by training, with some sound engineering knowledge, I dispute their claims. The only way to appropriately mitigate the noise from barking dogs is total self containment; i.e. install walls /fences and a sealed roof. Noise travels in waves in all directions. Furthermore, sound waves traveling in all directions spread out around corners and over fences. This spreading out of the sound waves is called diffraction and diffraction enables you to hear a sound from over a fence (no matter what it is made of) even though no straight path exist from the source of the sound to your ears. if sound traveled only like a vector in a straight line low to the ground, the fence idea might have merit. But, as we all know, this is not the case. RECD MAR 12 2004 Celebrating 20 Years P.O. Box 96 • Colleyville, TX 76034 • 817 - 571 -4834 • Fax 817 - 685 -7739 Case No. Attachment F ZA 03 -091 Page 5 ZRo3 -01 Now, let's go beyond the basic laws of science, and use common sense. In your neighborhood, you probably have fences, but you can hear a single dog barking 2 -5 houses (200 -500 feet) away while you are sitting inside your own house. There are at least two reasons for this. First, as stated earlier, the sound travels in waves over the fences. Second, and probably the most important, a dog bark is a unique noise that has random frequency, pitch, and intensity. Also, some dogs are small and some are large.. These ingredients cause these unique bark sounds to sound louder than other sounds of the same decibel level. In other words, a dog bark sounds louder than a sound of the same decibel level reading simply because it is more irritating to the normal sensibilities of human ears. I can explain why this is true by going into more detail with explanations about the various combinations of frequency, pitch and intensity. But this will take much more time and you probably are not interested in the detail. But, please trust me, there is a scientific reason why dog barks are more irritating than other noises. For example, at a given frequency, the more intense a sound is, the louder it seems, while equally intense sounds at a different frequency may not be equally as loud. Like I said, even the simple laws of science and physics are hard to explain, so... enough said. Furthermore, if you multiply one (1) barking dog times twenty-five (25) barking dogs, the noise intensity will be so great at the source, that these sound waves will travel 200- 1000 feet over fences and will be clearly audible and disrupt and annoy the calm, comfort and quiet of persons of ordinary sensibilities beyond the immediate vicinity of the noise. And this is a violation the Noise Nuisance Ordinance No. 778. In fact, constant barking — even if it is not extremely loud — can cause fatigue, headaches, irritability, nausea, and tension. How would you like to go to your office and listen to 25 barking dogs for 3 -4 hours a day? It would be hard to concentrate and be productive. The Noise Nuisance Ordinance also uses decibel reading numbers as a guide to determine if there is a noise violation. This is good guideline for motors, machinery, pumps, etc., but as discussed above, sometime the decibel reading is no indication of the true noise nuisance. Even a few dogs barking at lower decibel readings can have a detrimental effect on human ears and will become a noise nuisance by definition. I know from experience about dog kennels. I had a similar experience in Colleyville where the kennel operator promised fencing, trees... a number of things. Finally, when total enclosure and self containment was the only acceptable option, the owner finally closed it down. In fact, I may be the only person involved in this case who has first hand experience. What alarms me (and it should you also) is the fact that the applicant admitted in the P&Z meethig that this will be Ills first (1) dog keiuuel. The building 2 RECD MAR 12 2DD4 Case No. ZA 03 -091 Attachment F Page 6 ZA ©3 -oy0 contractors, Mr.Ware and Mr. Lancaster admitted this will be their first (1 kennel construction project. So, where is the creditability; where is the track record? I'm sure they are honorable people, but they simply do not have any experience with dog kennels. I would hate for them to build a million dollar plus facility and be forced to close it down because it is a nuisance to the surrounding neighbors. Remember, a nuisance as defined in the ordinance is not just about decibels; if it "creates any ...noise of a volume, intensity, repetitiveness or duration that is clearly audible and disrupts, annoys, or endangers the calm, comfort, quiet,...peace ...of persons of ordinary sensibilities beyond the immediate vicinity of the noise. Such noise shall be a violation of the ordinance." The council members must consider the future landowners and business owners next to the kennel. Everyone has a right to a peaceful environment and you must protect their rights. No business owner wants a dog kennel next door to them. I know from experience. In summary, the applicant is going to say that he can stop the noise at the perimeter with acoustical fencing. Because sound waves travel over fences as I have explained, that is impossible. I have explained why barking dogs are more irritating than most sounds. Your Police Department probably receives more complaints about barking dogs than any other single complaint. What about at least twenty -five (25) barking dogs at one time in one place? The applicant said at the P&Z meeting that with 100 dogs in the kennel, they would be exercised three times a day for 20 minutes each time. He said that 25 dogs are exercised at any one time. This means that there would be at least 12 exercise periods at 20 minutes each. This translates to the fact that at least 25 dogs would be out for at least 240 minutes (4 hours) each day. Please, use common sense and do not promote fighting among the business owners in our office park. The kennel does not belong in an office park where it will be a nuisance. We are planning a nice office environment on our remaining seven (7) lots. We are planning a dentist office next door to the east of the proposed kennel. Please deny the special use permit. Dental clinics and churches are not compatible with a dog kennel. Thank You. Sorry this is so long. But, this information is important. ZG4 d o— cantreil DECD MAR 12 2004 Case No. ZA 03 -091 Attachment F Page 7 o � wz o H I IN A �y C9 !i fit IDI L amt , amaec asaL rwa talcs ay trot . Q Iola am, L " f m wuia nn. Ira a41 pry - �� war O ; r. WORM WLm aaT L rml IoaOi fleEAaa1 auLa 3WA& Ma r N89'44'1 5"E - - -- - 482 Ls w „ e .r I t � m LOT 4 -R -4 -A ;` 9. 2.944 ACRES' i apt "a y" 3 589"57 52 E I '--- D3L26.'---------- - - - - -- - �--- - - - - -- `p q0 S Inr 4--a -s LOT 4 -R -3 -A 1 q'E i 1.622 ACRES 1 II �9 may _............_._ ............ . . ----- . - . .... . ... 1 589'5752 � 1 354.31' + c 1. I � A% 1• LOT 4 -R -2 -A ' 1.648 ACRES I I 1 it l ' N89'57'52 "W 371.49' � I I ' .49 i ir1 Q ON uw aw aenl reonl. aaaaat ; !' 1 t•.s[r A tua 4.It c 4 ! -� • , 1 #' Y1�'� L--- __ ____________________________ - 4 r 9..81 >tl alol vaua IWL nac rn m,w ,. lam creme ao�t Y01Lia >mM I,le[ M .alrc porn= w laalealll row s 9Y16T L Leal fe®O aa4 lauc ayy rear r 4. 1 -2 ^ .� ^ A - - Wry •'`\� IDr 4-R - ^. �w � X ': SJr. p �• 5 o A, i alLlt >>/f4 MQ Y 00 ZA03 -vJ] r A � + I I 0 I a I 1 Ll 1 m 4 a 120 lea I 2 Q a+N1rC 9C&E - FErr ,• ep• 1 L l 4[ em w ere a r,a ,m Iaa m Im avaa mamm air a: 4os w m ..e /•L mwwtL rca. et 11u r I 4 C aouo mtwaw,s rags ur rur.m a,oe+..aa a •n..o,r C I Q I ' I I I C•1Q A as ILL I !i fit IDI L amt , amaec asaL rwa talcs ay trot . Q Iola am, L " f m wuia nn. Ira a41 pry - �� war O ; r. WORM WLm aaT L rml IoaOi fleEAaa1 auLa 3WA& Ma r N89'44'1 5"E - - -- - 482 Ls w „ e .r I t � m LOT 4 -R -4 -A ;` 9. 2.944 ACRES' i apt "a y" 3 589"57 52 E I '--- D3L26.'---------- - - - - -- - �--- - - - - -- `p q0 S Inr 4--a -s LOT 4 -R -3 -A 1 q'E i 1.622 ACRES 1 II �9 may _............_._ ............ . . ----- . - . .... . ... 1 589'5752 � 1 354.31' + c 1. I � A% 1• LOT 4 -R -2 -A ' 1.648 ACRES I I 1 it l ' N89'57'52 "W 371.49' � I I ' .49 i ir1 Q ON uw aw aenl reonl. aaaaat ; !' 1 t•.s[r A tua 4.It c 4 ! -� • , 1 #' Y1�'� L--- __ ____________________________ - 4 r 9..81 >tl alol vaua IWL nac rn m,w ,. lam creme ao�t Y01Lia >mM I,le[ M .alrc porn= w laalealll row s 9Y16T L Leal fe®O aa4 lauc ayy rear r 4. 1 -2 ^ .� ^ A - - Wry •'`\� IDr 4-R - ^. �w � X ': SJr. p �• 5 o A, i alLlt >>/f4 MQ Y 00 RESOLUTION NO. 04 -018 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, GRANTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR KENNELS ON PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, BEING LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 4R1, BLOCK 1, GREEN MEADOW SUBDIVISION, MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A ", AND AS DEPICTED ON THE APPROVED CONCEPT PLAN ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN AS EXHIBIT "B" AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, a Specific Use Permit for kennels has been requested by a person or corporation having a proprietary interest in the property zoned as "I -I" Light Industrial District; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of Section 45.1 (16) of the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council have given the requisite notices by publication and otherwise, and have afforded the persons interested and situated in the affected area and in the vicinity thereof, and, WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find and determine that the granting of such Specific Use Permit is in the best interest of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS: SECTION 1. A Specific Use Permit is hereby granted for kennels on the property being legally described as Lot 4R1, Block 1, Green Meadow Subdivision, an addition to the City of Southlake, as recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 6872, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being approximately 1.81 acres, more fully and completely described in Exhibit "A ", and as depicted on the approved Concept Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit `B" and providing an effective date, subject to the provisions contained in the comprehensive zoning ordinance and the restrictions set forth herein. The following specific requirements and special Case No. Attachment G ZA03 -091 Page 1 conditions shall be applicable to the granting of this Specific Use Permit: 1 2. 4. SECTION 2. This resolution shall become effective on the date of approval by the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 2004. CITY OF SOUTHLAKE ATTEST: Lori Farwell City Secretary Case No. ZA03 -091 IM Andy Wambsganss, Mayor Attachment G Page 2 EXHIBIT "A" Being Lot 4R1, Block 1, Green Meadow Subdivision, an addition to the City of Southlake, as recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 6872, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being approximately 1.81 acres. Case No. ZA03 -091 Attachment G Page 3 o 0 c ■ td y I A :E A�a.w F w u a �� «(�.�� CONCEPT PLANS �a� .aw+., mu+ eR s,,..dnoss P��_o sr P_,., e.a...y... G2Plq saw... r.,.0 r. .... 51TE PLAN httj U ` IR9f -3 M c EXHIBIT "C" This page reserved for the approved City Council motion. Case No. ZA03 -091 Attachment G Page 5