Item 7CCity of Southlake
Department of Planning
STAFF REPORT
January 31, 2003
CASE NO: ZA02 -042
PROJECT: Southlake Town Square
REQUEST: Cooper & Stebbins, L.P. is requesting approval of a zoning change and concept plan.
ACTION NEEDED: 1. Conduct public hearing
2. Consider second reading for zoning change and concept plan approval
ATTACHMENTS: (A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
(
Background Information
Vicinity Map
Plans and Support Information
Concept Plan Review Summary
Developer's Comments
Surrounding Property Owner Map
Surrounding Property Owner's Responses
Ordinance No. 480 -224a
Full Size Plans (for Commission and Council Members Only)
STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough (481 -2073)
Ben Bryner (481 -2086)
Case No.
ZA02 -042
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
OWNER/APPLICANT: Cooper & Stebbins, L.P.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this request is to amend the current NR -PUD zoning to allow
single - family attached dwellings and full service hotels as permitted uses and
to revise development regulations.
PROPERTY SITUATION: The property is located on the south side of State Highway 114, north side of
East Southlake Boulevard (FM 1709) and east side of North Carroll Avenue.
The proposed townhouses will be east of Central Avenue and off ofboth sides
of Main Street. The townhouses will be adjacent to the Village Center
development.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Blocks 1R, 2R1, 3R1, 4R, 5R, 6, 7, and 8, Southlake Town Square, and
Tracts 3, 3A, 2A5, and 2A, R. Eads Survey, Abstract No. 481.
LAND USE CATEGORY: Mixed Use
CURRENT ZONING: "NR -PUD" Non - Residential Planned Unit Development District with limited
"C -3" uses.
REQUESTED ZONING: "NR -PUD" Non - Residential Planned Unit Development District with hotel,
attached single family residential and limited "C -3" uses.
HISTORY: -City Council approved a concept plan and a zoning change to "NR -PUD" on
January of 1997.
-The Development Plan, Site Plan and Preliminary Plat for Phase 1 were
approved by City Council on August of 1997. Since that time several stages of
development within Phase 1 have been completed.
-Phase 2 was approved in April of 2000.
-A revised site plan and a revised preliminary plat for Phase 3, Stage 1 were
approved in December, 2001 to include restaurant, retail and office uses.
TRANSPORTATION
ASSESSMENT: Existinz Area Road Network and Conditions
Southlake Town Square is located on the north side of E. Southlake Blvd
(FM 1709), the east side of N. Carroll Ave, the south side of State Highway
114, and west of Village Center.
Main Street and Central Avenue currently exist within Phase 1 of Southlake
Town Square but terminate at the east and north boundaries of Phasel,
respectively. Both streets will be extended as part of future phases. New
streets (Summit Ave, Elm Street, and Parkridge Blvd.) will be dedicated and
built with the addition of the residential dwellings. On- street angled or parallel
parking is provided.
Case No. Attachment A
ZA02 -042 Page 1
Pathways Master Plan
The Southlake Pathways Master Plan recommends an eight (8) foot paved,
multi -use trail on the north side of E. Southlake Blvd. The trail was shown on
a previously approved site plan for Block 23 (adjacent to FM 1709).
WATER & SEWER: A 10" sanitary sewer line and a 12" water line run along the north side of E.
Southlake Blvd adjacent to the property.
P &Z ACTION: May 23, 2002, Approved (5 -2) subject to Concept P1anReview SummaryNo.
2, dated May 17, 2002, specifically amending Exhibit A, 1. a., Permitted Uses:
restricting "hotels" to "full service hotels" and providing a definition and
deleting Bed and Breakfast lodging reference; Further, Exhibit A, 2.a., Height
for Non - Residential Buildings: adding height restrictions that would allow
buildings up to 90' in height north of Division Street only; And, Exhibit A,
2.f., Floor Area: increased to 2,000 sq. ft. minimum.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: June 4,2002; Approved to Table (6 -1) until the July 16, 2002, City
Council meeting.
July 16, 2002; Approved to Table (6 -1) until the October 1, 2002, City
Council meeting.
October 1, 2002; Approved to Table (7 -0) until the October 15, 2002, City
Council meeting.
October 15, 2002; Approved to Table (7 -0) until the November 5, 2002,
City Council meeting.
November 5, 2002; Approved to Table (6 -0) until the November 19, 2002,
City Council meeting.
November 19, 2002; Approved first reading (4 -1) subject to the Concept
Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated May 31, 2002, permitting no more
than 85 residential units.
December 3, 2002; Approved to Table (7 -0) until the December 17, 2002,
City Council meeting.
December 17, 2002; Approved to Table (7 -0) until the January 7, 2003,
City Council meeting.
January 7, 2003; Approved to Table (6 -0) until the January 21, 2003, City
Council meeting.
January 21, 2003; Approved to Table on Consent (5 -1) until the February
4, 2003 City Council meeting.
Case No.
ZA02 -042
Attachment A
Page 2
STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Revised Concept Plan Review Summary No. 4 dated January 17,
2003.
The regulations included in your packet have been revised to incorporate
changes discussed during the January 6, 2003 work session.
N: \Coimnunity Development \WP - FILES \MEMO \2002cases \02- 042.doc
Case No.
ZA02 -042
Attachment A
Page 3
Vicinity Map
Southlake Town Square
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 Feet
OEM
W
S
Case No.
ZA02 -042
E
Attachment B
Page 1
o
0 c
n. Z.
+
m
rl`
rl`
v
rl`
SO11T3MEWAUOfIICN o O
CAS,A III m —,
PAT.C.T.
o a
UI.. IN 6110E 1360
PAT.GT._ I
A, f0
1
F� F
x^-WW ik
a AG
�� aAC f4
SPi
61'PR0YX0 CONC 'P [
� C{f &S°{'p00L BFFI X PAHC
6P -2 f2
° ROX[l
10 3 s
AC AG
LUD=
MED. ➢ENEITY I.UD=
RESI➢ENTLAL MEG. LENS
RESIDENT]
A
�r lA w N�....
A L \
;B. � BNllAII ENVELOPE
&+I[➢tlia rXVF10Yc
A: €NV.FIOPE `Llu mm $I pu0n1PG EXYElOPE
NX
x.
1/ PRgPEB
DRIVE
dk'PROYER LxlOrsPT P13N
SBVfB,A2. C01d0NS
LUD=
OFFICE COMMERCIAL
J N� 0 0 auk
"�JE39
LUU=
MISED USE
2S
44 g e
NRPUD axlA ecL ecf
LUD=
MDtED USE zc
V AG
M
�r11 0
r.-•. 1.::XL-- I. m
g
xl �VIlL4EiE CENTER
P WE30 6R.1 Of1NYIAt
r
22 .0 �8 T. C.T. 58]OP@ POBP056 OP F2"; X<
PABT.C.T. ui15 P4-aN xs nGL,mEU m iE r!c LAw AREAS, s.P. .w AGES
x" al Aru E 15YY»x A)9 MINE �� AaEA 9. LG0. x30
ilcX 2 RSSH15 rF XaY3 XiTNxN Tr P. u. x. A . A EIEO pf
23 C -9 I- PPEVr0.19.Y APPPOVEO gpx:EPi RAN ANO m IxTFfl]DR PD493 EN.0e5 s.F of .OP ACYE.
510N 1HE 0JIL0�1� tlAf /Xx LN6 uSFS WfiDF05W P.00 x.l
LUD=
Pau o sEU eASr u arEPLX XI,InN P,.F wPiu .xE. a , o:s, :TS s.E. „o5.os AwEa
RETAIL COMMERCIAI nxex P.u. x.
u. [. �IHINMR YIEA DP 0 lCxE3
IWTE EN SPACE IfcmlPFn
A4 IAR1 IisES YFPXIN liE FPOPOSED P.V.O. A!E 1N OiF,I SPADE 11.14 ACIFS
C01WD`i
3L0Cli a ACtOPNXCF XS1H ALLOPAOLES SX C 3IN1Irfi PPOVftEn _
AS xw1F]W BY A QfV£L ! PcNi[,ATYDN5 OF
' TPTS P.N.O. KE�LOi 0 e01 - AxG$GATE FIXr
FSxcENTAOE DF
------ -- LDT S auY66EO 90 C 3 O
" eIDC[.a
1x1 u.[.
P.9.0. EON09G /13x10 944 6tNOlARY
P ur FFVP sE LuNexT ral9PDCex n
y[s�i' L9r+vm iDX rrs Ymi ..u.D.0 -P. XXaPfnc ECLLE 1 .2DD
i is IiONiutL D MP s xITX9N P. u.O. X q�P,�� L { X jrSE
15 L/ f7 � 19 1UTtlIFD AP£A NIIMN P,LLx. M3NA Wnmx NFYEO x]SE0
him, f@
EACH D -I ds CL .NETf IA' 16 f0I fE.10ENIlAL 0SF5
poll aog SP-2 cz. Box
SP -2 r. ABU -67A rXAt vElnuaE u. .P.
GL y YEN100E xEST If. R.P�
smlr4A cENrgLL YEXTIWE
'A NI RON ADDITION _ xmll-*R YExxLnF FAST. L.P.
CAB. A, SLIDE M? L ) EmP6ANE YEN1LafE REST, L.P.
LUD= TIr= F€Lx1EL ufuP
0 'ICE x -e. ENxFxPxlsE Lm.
'FF10E COMMEIiC SP -2 CO 'RCIA.L Pg r'"
60R6UTT ADDITION 4B0 -67 tt ff EOUP ..E
YBL.._56, P6. 12 tpl YEP11ESEN9 T 14 FNDISEF,V9ErrEYDR
P. R. T. L. T. 6xUwl ,1s50CE[RS I
FOR INTERN REYILTX ONLY C Y AN Y Sx@IXS s>g S1 Wi OAV10 Z+1 6Vf1E a0o
1256 RMIX BiREFT. OJYE 2e0 A W %EYA�S 58011
Er. ..N Y� li vv.... 9BIffo1A E, IEYAS ]6092 al
P Pk 1x1211 920 -wa0 PK• � f -ae3e
FAK IB it g91 -0]3] FA.C' 141).1 S °@2J6
OZ G CAS. R., 2602
ant
.e xo�e P wtnrnsvrNi
a WP x00 400
\
P.U.D. DISTRICT
SOUTHLA TOWN SQUARE
CIT IF SOUT TL
TARMN7 LWNTY, TL2A5
IAAT 6, 2002
r }i
V U
TJD
LUD=
p
wo[ t.L PlmVwf nu mvp[ w,xmsvrm P'a wrr vmx
RET'AU. COMMERCIAL
I
30R 1
GR. LrPRD -CMWOLL d001d7
IPPROtOB F9'161. PLAT
0
(I[6COIf0 T PER .
race ND. 2601 -1
txtlq
I_
� lAT
�E
-
y
S
"
LU➢=
.
Mn(ED USE
4
1 0;
r
SO11T3MEWAUOfIICN o O
CAS,A III m —,
PAT.C.T.
o a
UI.. IN 6110E 1360
PAT.GT._ I
A, f0
1
F� F
x^-WW ik
a AG
�� aAC f4
SPi
61'PR0YX0 CONC 'P [
� C{f &S°{'p00L BFFI X PAHC
6P -2 f2
° ROX[l
10 3 s
AC AG
LUD=
MED. ➢ENEITY I.UD=
RESI➢ENTLAL MEG. LENS
RESIDENT]
A
�r lA w N�....
A L \
;B. � BNllAII ENVELOPE
&+I[➢tlia rXVF10Yc
A: €NV.FIOPE `Llu mm $I pu0n1PG EXYElOPE
NX
x.
1/ PRgPEB
DRIVE
dk'PROYER LxlOrsPT P13N
SBVfB,A2. C01d0NS
LUD=
OFFICE COMMERCIAL
J N� 0 0 auk
"�JE39
LUU=
MISED USE
2S
44 g e
NRPUD axlA ecL ecf
LUD=
MDtED USE zc
V AG
M
�r11 0
r.-•. 1.::XL-- I. m
g
xl �VIlL4EiE CENTER
P WE30 6R.1 Of1NYIAt
r
22 .0 �8 T. C.T. 58]OP@ POBP056 OP F2"; X<
PABT.C.T. ui15 P4-aN xs nGL,mEU m iE r!c LAw AREAS, s.P. .w AGES
x" al Aru E 15YY»x A)9 MINE �� AaEA 9. LG0. x30
ilcX 2 RSSH15 rF XaY3 XiTNxN Tr P. u. x. A . A EIEO pf
23 C -9 I- PPEVr0.19.Y APPPOVEO gpx:EPi RAN ANO m IxTFfl]DR PD493 EN.0e5 s.F of .OP ACYE.
510N 1HE 0JIL0�1� tlAf /Xx LN6 uSFS WfiDF05W P.00 x.l
LUD=
Pau o sEU eASr u arEPLX XI,InN P,.F wPiu .xE. a , o:s, :TS s.E. „o5.os AwEa
RETAIL COMMERCIAI nxex P.u. x.
u. [. �IHINMR YIEA DP 0 lCxE3
IWTE EN SPACE IfcmlPFn
A4 IAR1 IisES YFPXIN liE FPOPOSED P.V.O. A!E 1N OiF,I SPADE 11.14 ACIFS
C01WD`i
3L0Cli a ACtOPNXCF XS1H ALLOPAOLES SX C 3IN1Irfi PPOVftEn _
AS xw1F]W BY A QfV£L ! PcNi[,ATYDN5 OF
' TPTS P.N.O. KE�LOi 0 e01 - AxG$GATE FIXr
FSxcENTAOE DF
------ -- LDT S auY66EO 90 C 3 O
" eIDC[.a
1x1 u.[.
P.9.0. EON09G /13x10 944 6tNOlARY
P ur FFVP sE LuNexT ral9PDCex n
y[s�i' L9r+vm iDX rrs Ymi ..u.D.0 -P. XXaPfnc ECLLE 1 .2DD
i is IiONiutL D MP s xITX9N P. u.O. X q�P,�� L { X jrSE
15 L/ f7 � 19 1UTtlIFD AP£A NIIMN P,LLx. M3NA Wnmx NFYEO x]SE0
him, f@
EACH D -I ds CL .NETf IA' 16 f0I fE.10ENIlAL 0SF5
poll aog SP-2 cz. Box
SP -2 r. ABU -67A rXAt vElnuaE u. .P.
GL y YEN100E xEST If. R.P�
smlr4A cENrgLL YEXTIWE
'A NI RON ADDITION _ xmll-*R YExxLnF FAST. L.P.
CAB. A, SLIDE M? L ) EmP6ANE YEN1LafE REST, L.P.
LUD= TIr= F€Lx1EL ufuP
0 'ICE x -e. ENxFxPxlsE Lm.
'FF10E COMMEIiC SP -2 CO 'RCIA.L Pg r'"
60R6UTT ADDITION 4B0 -67 tt ff EOUP ..E
YBL.._56, P6. 12 tpl YEP11ESEN9 T 14 FNDISEF,V9ErrEYDR
P. R. T. L. T. 6xUwl ,1s50CE[RS I
FOR INTERN REYILTX ONLY C Y AN Y Sx@IXS s>g S1 Wi OAV10 Z+1 6Vf1E a0o
1256 RMIX BiREFT. OJYE 2e0 A W %EYA�S 58011
Er. ..N Y� li vv.... 9BIffo1A E, IEYAS ]6092 al
P Pk 1x1211 920 -wa0 PK• � f -ae3e
FAK IB it g91 -0]3] FA.C' 141).1 S °@2J6
OZ G CAS. R., 2602
ant
.e xo�e P wtnrnsvrNi
a WP x00 400
REV[5ED CONCEPT PLAN
P.U.D. DISTRICT
SOUTHLA TOWN SQUARE
CIT IF SOUT TL
TARMN7 LWNTY, TL2A5
IAAT 6, 2002
r }i
V U
(� GTa I'm As tes Inc.
� ate m6 tlNEE S % [ �uE05
p
wo[ t.L PlmVwf nu mvp[ w,xmsvrm P'a wrr vmx
VICINITY MAP
— \ 1
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
P.U.D. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Ordinance Number 480 -224 is proposed to be amended as set forth below. The following development
regulations and standards shall be applicable and shall control to the extent of any conflict with any
other P.U.D. Development Regulations, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Landscape Ordinance and
Subdivision Ordinance. Upon approval, the provisions below would be incorporated into a
comprehensive Amended and Restated Development Regulations for the Southlake Town Square
P.U.D.
1.0 Use Regulations
a. Permitted Uses: Permitted uses are hereby amended to include the following additional uses:
Full Service Hotels, which shall be defined as buildings with habitable rooms or suites which
are reserved for transient guests who rent the rooms or suites on a daily basis, and with:
(i) a minimum area of 310 square feet in each guestroom;
(ii) a full service restaurant with full kitchen facilities providing service to the general
public; and a kitchen on the premises in which meals are prepared by the management
or a concessionaire of the management for room service delivery;
(iii) on -site staff required seven (7) days a week, twenty -four (24) hours per day; and
(iv) a minimum of one thousand (1,000) square feet of meeting or conference rooms.
2.0 Development Regulations: The following P.U.D. development regulations are amended and
supplemented as set forth below. Introduction of residential uses allows the creation of residential
districts within Southlake Town Square that are recognized as a desirable form of downtown living, and
provide standards that will protect and encourage various types of single- family dwellings within
Southlake Town Square. The Residential District provides minimum standards as set forth below.
a. Height. No principal single - family residential building or structure shall exceed three (3)
stories, nor shall it be less than twenty feet (20') in height or exceed fifty -two feet (52') in
height. Residential accessory buildings shall be a minimum of twelve feet (12') in height and a
maximum of twenty -eight feet (28'). The height shall be measured from the sidewalk or
ground surface elevation along the side of the building fronting onto a public right -of -way to
the top of the roof for flat roofs (not the parapet) and the mid -point for sloped roofs, and not
along the side(s) of the building facing onto interior portions of the block
b. Front Yard. Required front yard shall be a minimum of five (5) feet. Porches, stairs and
other architectural elements may project into such yard, up to the lot line. The maximum
front yard setback shall be fifteen feet (15').
Side Yard. Residential dwellings may be attached. Accordingly, there shall be no side yard,
except on corner lots, where the side yard adjacent to the street may be up to a maximum of
fifteen feet (15'). If residential dwellings are detached, separation between the units shall
meet the minimum required for fire safety.
Case No.
ZA02 -042
Attachment C
Page 2
d. Rear Yard. There shall be a rear yard of not less than five feet (5')
e. Maximum Lot Coverage. There shall be no maximum lot coverage.
f. Lot Area. The minimum area of a lot shall be (a) one thousand six hundred eighty -seven
(1,687) square feet for residences with detached garages, and (b) one thousand one hundred
twenty -five (1,125) square feet for residences with attached garages.
g. Lot Dimensions. Each lot shall have a minimum width of twenty -two and one -half feet
(22.5'). The minimum lot depth is: (i) seventy -five feet (75') for residences with detached
garages; and (ii) fifty feet (50') for residences with attached garages.
h. Floor Area. Each single- family dwelling unit shall contain a minimum of two thousand
(2,000) square feet of gross floor area (excluding the area of any accessory structures on the
same lot).
i. Maximum Residential Density. The maximum number of single - family (attached and
detached) lots allowed shall be as specified in the Development Plan filed in
conjunction with a request for Specific Use Permit for residential development within the
Downtown district.
j. Parking
(i) Two (2) off - street parking spaces must be provided for each dwelling unit.
(ii) One (1) on- street parking space must be provided for each dwelling unit.
k. Electrical Service. Electrical Service. A lot for a single - family use may be supplied by not
more than one electrical utility service, and metered by not more than one electrical meter.
1. Building Limitations
(i) All residential structures (including accessory buildings) are required to be
sprinklered; provided that a series of attached structures may be combined and
treated as a single structure.
(ii) All residential structures shall be designed and built similar in character to the
elevations /drawings submitted with an approved development or site plan.
(iii) All residential structures shall have all exterior walls constructed using a masonry
material covering at least eighty percent (80 %) of said walls, exclusive of windows,
doors, roofs, glass construction materials, or sidewalk or walk -way covers. "Masonry
materials" shall mean and include brick, stone, rock or other masonry materials of
equal characteristics. The use of stucco or a similar material shall be subject to City
Council approval with the review of a site plan submitted with a SUP application.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA02 -042 Page 3
M. Residential Adjacency Standards. The Residential Adjacency Standards of Section 43,
Article III of the Zoning Ordinance shall not apply to residential development within the
P.U.D. Further, the provisions of Section 43 relating to non - residential development in
proximity to residential development shall not apply to non - residential development within the
P.U.D., unless applicable due to residential development outside the boundaries ofthe P.U.D.
(i.e., such rules shall not apply because of the development of residential uses within the
P.U.D.). The intent of this Section is to remove residential adjacency protection and Corridor
Overlay regulations from the development of residential uses within the P.U.D.
n. Curvilinear Streets. The curvilinear street standards specified in the Subdivision Ordinance
shall not apply to residential development within the Downtown district.
o. Open Space. Residential development within the Downtown district shall be exempt from
the Open Space requirements specified within Ordinance 483 for residential uses. Open space
in the Downtown district shall be planned in conjunction with an overall concept and
development plan approved by City Council.
P. Use Limitations on Residentially Designated Buildings. Once designated for single -
family residential uses with City Council approval of an SUP, non - residential uses in
single - family structures shall be limited to home occupations only. Any change in intensity
of such use shall constitute a zoning map amendment and shall be processed as such.
q. Design Guidelines. All single - family residential development shall meet the standards
outlined in the Downtown District Design Guidelines as amended and adopted by City
Council.
3.0 Supplemental Non - Residential Development Regulations: The following P.U.D. development
regulations are amended and supplemented as set forth below.
a. Building Height: Non - residential and mixed -use buildings shall not be less than twenty feet
(20') (including parapet height) in height nor more than fifty -two feet (52') in height; with the
exception of development located along Hwy 114 which shall be no more than 90 feet. The
90 -foot height limitation shall apply to all non - residential and mixed -use buildings within a
1,000 -foot wide strip, parallel to and along the southern edge of Hwy 114 R -O -W.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA02 -042 Page 4
U �r,
v a
v
Ni
N
o
Z o
�N
�o
U N
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY
Case No.: ZA02 -042 Revised Review No.: Four Date of Review: 01/21/03
Project Name: Revised Concept Plan — Southlake Town Square Residential
APPLICANT: Cooper & Stebbins
Brian Stebbins
1256 Main Street, Suite 240
Southlake, TX 76092
Phone: (817) 329 -8400
Fax: (817) 251 -8717
ENGINEER: Graham Associates, Inc.
David Smith, P.E.
616 Six Flags Drive, Suite 400
Arlington, TX 76011
Phone: (817) 640 -8535
Fax (817) 633 -5240
CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 05/15/02 AND
REGULATIONS RECEIVED 1/16/03 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, DENNIS KILLOUGH AT (817) 481 -2073, OR BRUCE PAYNE AT (817) 481 -2041.
The applicant requests approval of the NRPUD amendments as proposed in the application.
1. The new street south of Old City Hall must either align with the centerline of Southcrest or be off -set
a minimum of 125' according to the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff recommends if not aligned that it be
located in alignment with a planned median cut or be a minimum of 200' from any other driveway or
street centerline.
2. Alignments of Parkridge and Division Street and Main Street must meet City Engineering
requirements. Streets must be aligned so as not to conflict with driveways on development plans an
site plans.
3. Main Street, east of Central must have a minimum 50' R.O.W. for residential use and 60' for
commercial/mixed use according to the Subdivision Ordinance. 42' is proposed.
4. Label existing parks and proposed parks. Remove "Open Space" from City Hall site.
5. Include the residential uses under the "permitted uses" section of the use and regulations sheet.
6. Remove references to "Specific Use Permit" under the "Maximum Residential Density ".
7. Under "Design Guidelines" change reference to Downtown Design Guidelines to elveations and
renderings include as part of this application.
Case No. Attachment E
ZA02 -042 Page 1
INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS
* It appears that a portion of 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.
* The applicant should be aware that prior to issuance of a building permit a final plat must be
processed and filed in the County Plat Records, and 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, Street, Water & Sewer Impact and Tap Fees, and
related Permit Fees.
Case No. Attachment E
ZA02 -042 Page 2
COOPER & STEBBINS
Cooper & Stebbins, L.P. 1256 Main Street, Suite 240
Southlake, Texas 76092
Telephone (817) 329 -8406
Facsimile (817) 251 -8717
May 29, 2002
Mr. Dennis Killough
Senior Planner
Planning Department, City of Southlake
1400 Main Street, Suite 310
Southlake, Texas 76092
Re: Revised Concept Plan, and Amended Zoning Change Application —
Southlake Town Square -- Case No. ZA02 -042
Dear Dennis:
Please find attached a revised set of Development Regulations in support of our Revised Concept
Plan and Zoning Change Applications for Southlake Town Square. Pursuant to our approval
from the Planning & Zoning Commission on the night of Thursday, May 23, we have
incorporated the following changes to the Zoning Regulations:
• Section 1.0a. has been amended to delete "Bed and Breakfast" as a permitted use, and by
adding a reference and definition to "Full Service Hotel" as a permitted use;
• Section 2.0a. has been amended to allow non - residential buildings of up to 90 feet tall on
blocks north of Division Street or adjacent to Highway 114 (this includes the block north
of Parkridge Blvd., as well as the westernmost block north of the future 5 acre park);
• Minimum gross floor area has been raised from 1,500 sf to 2,000 sf in Section 2.0f.; and
• We have expanded Section 2.0i. (Building Standards) to include' a design standard
(referencing the previously provided renderings to establish design intent) and to
incorporate a minimum 80% masonry standard.
The approval by Planning & Zoning included recommendations raised in Review Summary No.
Two dated 5/17/02. Pursuant to our discussions on Tuesday, our comments to Review Summary
No. 2 are as follows (organized in the order raised in the Review):
Agreed (see revised Development Regulations, attached).
2. Agreed (see revised Development Regulations, attached).
3. As we discussed, landscape requirements for each district within Town Square are
individually reviewed. We believe that we have provided sufficient landscape details in
support of the proposed Brownstones, and therefore respectfully request approval as
submitted.
4. We will address the new street south of Old City Hall concurrently with the submission
of a Site Plan or revised Plat for that portion of the site.
Case No.
ZA02 -042
Attachment E
Page 3
Dennis KiIlough
May 29, 2002
Page 2
We will address the alignment of Division Street concurrently with the submission of a
Site Plan or revised Plat for that portion of the site. We request that Parkridge Blvd. be
approved as submitted.
6. As discussed at the Planning and Zoning hearing, we have added an additional eight feet
(8') of R.O.W. to Main Street, to provide a fifty foot (50) right -of -way width.
7. Agreed.
Changes to the Concept Plan will be made as noted above, and submitted under separate cover.
We believe that the above is responsive to the conditions to approval, and to the comments raised
in Review Summary No. Two, and look forward to the City Council's review and consideration
of the Revised Concept Plan and Zoning Change Applications at their meeting on the night of
Tuesday, June 4.
Pursuant to our conversations on Tuesday, we acknowledge that the Revised Concept Plan and
Zoning Change Applications will require 2 readings before the Council, and accordingly request
that the City table our associated Revised Preliminary Plat and Development Plan Applications
until the next scheduled City Council meeting on June 18. We understand that these Applications
will be heard together with the second reading of the Revised Concept Plan and Zoning Change
Applications on June 18, and will submit revised materials in support of those applications on or
before Monday, June 10, incorporating those comments raised in your Review Summaries of
May 17 except as noted in our discussions this past Tuesday. Please advise if you require these
changes prior to June 10.
Please feel free to call me or Brian Stebbins should you have any questions or comments
regarding the above.
Sincerely,
Frank L. Bliss
Executive Vice President
Cooper & Stebbins, L.P.
Case No.
ZA02 -042
Attachment E
Page 2
Cooper & Stebbins, L.P.
A number of concerns have been expressed recently regarding the proposed Brownstone residential development at
Southlake Town Square. In an attempt to clarify the record, Cooper & Stebbins would like to address the issues (perceived
or otherwise) raised thus far.
1. "Developer requests multi family (MF -2) zoning in Southlake Town Square. "
No multi - family zoning (which accommodates multiple families in a single residential dwelling)
has been requested or is required. Single family zoning has been requested. Each Brownstone
residence will be separately owned and will occupy its own legal lot.
2. "Unprecedented density —113 houses on 9.5 acres (12 unitslacre). "
9.5 acres represents the actual lot area proposed. The method of calculation used to determine
density throughout the City includes the total land area, not the net lot area. For example,
Timarron's density of 2 units per acre is derived by including the golf course and all streets,
sidewalks, and other open space and amenities, in addition to the lots themselves. The density in
Timarron would be much greater if calculated on the net lot area. The total area proposed for the
Brownstones is approximately 20 acres, including streets, open space and the land for an
immediately adjacent 6 -acre park that will be dedicated to the City at no cost to the taxpayer.
"Opens door for more multi family in Southlake. "
This is not a request for multi - family zoning. The single family residential offering being
proposed is only viable due to its immediate adjacency to the downtown. Nowhere else in
Southlake does this adjacency exist. As well, residential product within Town Square is defined —
and confined — by the P.U.D. boundaries already in place. We believe for these two reasons that
no precedent is set for any areas outside of Town Square.
4. °`No CISD tax revenue to educate additional students. "
This statement is simply wrong. CISD will have full benefit of all tax revenues accruing to it from
Case No.
ZA02 -042
Attachment E
Page 3
the Brownstones. CISD tax revenues may not be used for Town Square development. As designated by
CISD, its revenues are reserved for use on school projects within the TIF zone, such as the recently
completed Old Union Elementary, Eubanks Intermediary and the Football Stadium. CISD
revenues from Town Square are currently estimated at $1.6 Million per annum as a result of
development already in place. In fact, Town Square tax revenues provide an advantage to CISD,
inasmuch as the TIF tax base is exempted from Robin Hood calculations.
5. "Violates Ordinance protection from overhead jet noise for residents. "
The Brownstones are located within the 65 LDN Zone, within which residential development is
allowed (a number of which already exist in Southlake). Any additional sound attenuation
requirements will be met or exceeded.
6. "No protections from commercial development. "
We have requested waiver of the residential adjacency standards of Section 43 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Handling these adjacencies within the P.U.D. requires a revised approach than
contemplated under the existing Zoning Ordinance (just as Town Square itself required a revised
approach, which led to the adoption of new downtown rules and regulations to allow its
development). Appropriate residential adjacency protections have been incorporated into the
development plan, and are being incorporated into the design of the homes themselves.
7. "Replaces prime commercial with residential. "
The P.U.D. always contemplated up to 10% residential uses, the request for which is allowed
under the Zoning Ordinance. The site proposed is not (and was never planned to be) a retail site.
Although it has been considered for office development, the challenging topography strongly
favors residential development. As to comparative tax revenue generation, the proposed
residential development is expected to generate equivalent tax revenues to office development.
"Possible City budget shortfall of $3.3 Million does not make this proposal financially prudent. "
The revenues accruing to the City, County and CISD from the Brownstones are equivalent to the
revenues that commercial office could generate (projected at over $1.0 Million per annum). The
readiness of this market for development — and the corresponding weakness in the current office
market - is a strong argument in favor of approving this proposal.
"Town Square was given tax breaks to bring in economic (sales tax revenue), not residential. "
Town Square was not given tax breaks; the TIF uses only those taxes generated as a result of new
development within the District. The Town Square TIF was entered into in order to provide
incremental public financing in support of the construction of the downtown, and was necessary to
fund the incrementally higher costs of incorporating the public infrastructure and amenities
inherent to a downtown district. TIF revenues are being used to fund Town Hall, CISD school
improvements (to date, two new schools and the football stadium), roadway improvements, and
utility infrastructure (both inside and outside the Town Square). With over $6.0 Million of tax
revenues generated to date, and with annual revenues now approaching $3.4 Million per annum,
Town Square has become an important economic engine for the City.
A stated goal of the TIF is to encourage quality commercial development along the Highway 114
Case No.
ZA02 -042
Attachment E
Page 4
corridor. The TIF plan contemplated that 29% (720,000 sq. ft.) of total square footage ultimately
developed would be comprised of retail — or sales tax revenue generating — uses. Prospective
retailers, restaurants and office tenants have cited the Brownstones as a positive factor in their
consideration of a Town Square location. The Brownstones do not take land away from retail
uses, but rather provide an economically viable alternative to office development, and an important
attraction to the development of new retail and office opportunities
10. "Taxpayers (not developer) will pay for streets, water, sewer or sidewalks. "
The taxpayer does not pay the up front cost of streets, water, sewer or sidewalks developed within
the TIF. Rather, the TIF has been structured to require the Developer to fund the up front cost of
improvements, and to allow reimbursement from the establishment of an otherwise unavailable tax
base. Eligible reimbursements include 40 % of the cost of streets, sidewalks and associated
infrastructure, and 100 % of the cost of park improvements (interestingly, no provision was made
to allow SPDC revenue to fund park costs, although Town Square sales taxes currently generate in
excess of an estimated $350,000 per annum to the SPDC fund). To date, the Developer of Town
Square has spent over $8.5 Million on the construction of public streets, sidewalks, parks and other
public improvements, of which $4.5 Million is reimbursable under the TIF.
11. "Adds residents but no taxes to pay for services. "
The Brownstones are expected to generate substantial excess revenues after accounting for the
reimbursement of eligible TIF improvements. Projected revenues exceed the anticipated cost of
services to the residents.
12. "Causes increased residential traffic, school buses, garbage trucks, etc. "
The traffic impact analysis provided to the City shows that the Brownstones will generate
substantially less traffic than a corresponding office development would bring.
We'd appreciate the opportunity to discuss the items raised herein, and any other questions relating to
the Brownstone proposal. Please contact either Brian Stebbins (hm. 817 -488 -2377) or Frank Bliss (hm.
817 -421 -4738) or at our office 817 -329 -8400 if we can provide further clarification or information.
Case No.
ZA02 -042
Attachment E
Page 5
Surrounding Property Owners
Southlake Town Square
7
2
4
5 -
6
7 7 e
4 M _
8 J 27
26
25
2 W- N -'
24
L c 5 �❑ a 23 Y A&�j
E45Y 9QEh' WAKE E
16 F17 18 �� 21
5
x
4
Case No. Attachment F
ZA02 -042 Page 1
Owner
Zoning
Land Use
Acreage
1.
Greenway Carroll
1.
C3
1.
Retail Commercial
1.
10.0
2.
City of Southlake
2.
CS
2.
Mixed Use
2.
2.68
3.
Carroll Partners
3.
Ol
3.
Office Commercial
3.
2.89
4.
Genesis Financial Grp
4.
Ol
4.
Office Commercial
4.
1.00
5.
First Flatiron Inc
5.
Ol
5.
Office Commercial
5.
1.02
6.
Flagstaff Partners Lp
6.
Ol
6.
Office Commercial
6.
1.67
7.
Mystere Ent Inc
7.
Ol
7.
Office Commercial
7.
0.89
8.
R. Reece
8.
SF -20A
8.
Med. Density Residential
8.
0.46
9.
M. Wright
9.
SF -20A
9.
Med. Density Residential
9.
0.53
10.
B. Paulsen
10.
SF -20A
10.
Med. Density Residential
10.
0.47
11.
Mendez Ltd
11.
AG
11.
Med. Density Residential
11.
3.00
12.
J. Strunk
12.
AG
12.
Med. Density Residential
12.
3.00
13.
Southlake Venture
13.
NR -PUD
13.
Med. Density Residential
13.
0.25
14.
Southlake Venture
14.
SP2
14.
Med. Density Residential
14.
0.51
15.
Greenway Rowlett
15.
SP2
15.
Med. Density Residential
15.
1.17
16.
A. Prade
16.
AG
16.
Med. Density Residential
16.
18.0
17.
S.Carroll/1709 Ltd
17.
SP2
17.
Office Commercial
17.
29.1
18.
Tx. Health Resource
18.
SP2
18.
Office Commercial
18.
12.6
19.
E. Taylor
19.
Ol
19.
Office Commercial
19.
1.52
20.
P. Bruton
20.
SP2
20.
Office Commercial
20.
1.00
21.
Z & E Land
21.
C2
21.
Office Commercial
21.
1.03
22.
G. Miron
22.
C2
22.
Office Commercial
22.
0.51
23.
98 HM Southlake
23.
C3
23.
Retail Commercial
23.
2.27
24.
First Security Bank
24.
C3
24.
Retail Commercial
24.
4.68
25.
The Shamrock Pipeline
25.
C3
25.
Retail Commercial
25.
0.70
26.
HD Development
26.
C3
26.
Retail Commercial
26.
11.5
27.
C. Peterka
27.
C3
27.
Retail Commercial
27.
2.06
Case No. Attachment F
ZA02 -042 Page 1
Surrounding Property Owner Responses
Southlake Town Square
Notices Sent: Twenty -four (24)
Responses: Eighty -three (83) were received from outside of the 200' notification area:
Subuhi Husain, Southlake, Tx. is opposed. (Received May 29,2002) See
Attachment
Diane Sarpalius, Southlake, Tx. is opposed. (Received May 24,2002) See
Attachment
Robert D. Neil, Soutlake, Tx., is opposed. (Received May 24, 2002) See
Attachment
Karen Lyman, 1410 Bentley Court, Southlake, Tx. is in favor. (Received May 31,
2002) See Attachemet
Daphne Shipowitz, 1300 Lakeway Dr. Southlake Tx. is in favor." Dear City Council
Members, I am asking each of you to please support the proposed Townhomes in
Town Square. After reviewing the plans myself, I believe these to be a wonderful
addition to Town Square and the City of Southlake." (Received June 4, 2002)
Forest and Marna Parker, 3180 Peninsula Drive, Southlake, Tx. are opposed; "All
that we have read leads us to believe that this is not a wise choice for our city. We
are definitely against this form of housing." (Received July 8, 2002)
David and Judy Watts, Southlake, TX; are opposed. (Received July 8, 2002) See
Attachment.
Robert D. Neil, Southlake, TX; is opposed. (Received July 8, 2002) See
Attachment.
Krista Klein, Southlake, TX; is opposed. (Received July 8, 2002) See Attachment.
Seventy -four (74) Public Comment Forms were received stating in favor on
November 15, 2002.
Case No. Attachment G
ZA 02 -042 Page 1
Lorrie Fletcher
From: subuhi husain [subuhihusain @yahoo.coml
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 11:12 AM
To: Ifletcher @cityofsouthlake.com
Subject: residential zoning
I as a Southlake resident protest comercial zoning area to be used for residential housing
Subuhi Husain
subuhihusaingya
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
Case No.
ZA 02 -042
Attachment G
Page 2
Lorrie Fletcher
From: Sarpalius, Diane [dsarpalius @kpmg.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 5:12 PM
To: 'Ifletcher @cityofsouthlake.com'
Subject: Planning & Zoning Meeting Tonight
Lori:
I would like to voice my opposition to multi - family, high density housing in Scuthlake.
It is my understanding that there is a meeting tonight and I would like very much for my
opposition to be noted.
Diane Sarpalius
Administrative Assistant to Ross Garrity / Kent Pennington
KPMG Consulting / 972 -373 -7415 / 972- 373 -6442 FAX
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is
intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized.
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action
taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful, When
addressed to our clients any opinions or advice contained in this email are subject to the
terms and conditions expressed in
the governing KPMG client engagement letter.
Case No. Attachment G
ZA 02 -042 Page 3
Lorrie Fletcher
From: rneil3017 @msn.com
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 6:46 PM
To: Ifletcher @cityofsouthlake.com
Subject: Multi Family Housing Proposal
Council Members -
T am totall opposed to the multi - family housing proposal for Southlake Town Center. That
property is the absolute prime location for commercial retail establishments, and as such, should
be limited to these types of businesses. Allowing multi- family units there would in no way help us
reduce the $3.3 million budget shortfall. Additionally, such dense housing would require even
more schools and contribute an inordinate amount of additional traffic to clog already congested
roads.
To approve this project would only make the developers very wealthy, and leave the residents with
wall to wall houses, impassible roads and even higher taxes. Reject this proposal immediately.
Please pass a copy of this email to all the council members prior to discussion of this issue.
Robert D. Neil
.I
Case No.
ZA 02 -042
RECD MAY 2 4 2002
Attachment G
Page 4
Lorrle Fletcher
From: Kfl1410 @aol.com
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 1:00 PM
To: Lfletcher @cityofsouthlake.com
Cc: bstebbins @southlaketownsquare.com
Subject: Southlake Towne Square Brownstone Project
To: Southlake City Council
From: Karen Lyman (Southlake resident)
I am disappointed that I will be out of town and unable to attend your Tuesday,
June 4th meeting regarding the brownstone project. However, I am
listing the reasons why I urge the Council to strongly support this project
and encourage its development.
My family and I have been residents of Southlake for almost 7 years. We have
grown to love this community and our neighbors and have made a conscious
decision to make it our permanent home. We have a vested interest not just
in real estate values, but in the style, character, quality and personality of
Southlake.
Before Towne Square, Southlake was a nice bedroom community just like many
others and when we heard about its development, we looked eagerly forward to
having shopping available. Towne Square is so incredibly above and beyond
"shopping and restaurants ", its character, ambience and facility for bringing
our community together has created a national standard as featured in numerous
publications. My new neighbors used to all say "we moved here because of the
schools ". My next door neighbors who arrived in the last year with no children
at home "moved here because of Towne Square".
Towne Square has distinguished Southlake from Colleyville, Grapevine, etc.
with its growing charm and quality and contributed to making this a more
desirable community to purchase a home in and live in.
We love to travel and shop wherever we go and I am astounded how in a few
short years Towne Square outshines many cities historic districts that place
have proudly cultivated over many decades. Furthermore, when our child goes
to college, should we no longer want the upkeep, I surely hope that we will
have those brownstones as an option to stay in this city we're so fond of.
Cooper and Stebbins has demonstrated only quality, high standards, concern
for our community. They should be applauded for what they have done and
enthusiastically encouraged to bring this brownstone project to fruition.
Sincerely,
Karen Lyman
1410 Bentley 817/481-9542 court RECD MAY 31 2002
Case No.
ZA 02 -042
Attachment G
Page 5
Page I of 1
Kim Bush
From: rneil30l7 @msn.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 6:21 PM
To: mayor @cityofsouthlake.com
Subject: High Density Townhouses
Sir:
I support your reluctance to approve the above for the following reasons:
• It is pr commercial real estate, and should be reserved as such. Commercial
development will bring in sales tax revenue to help alleviate our already heavy taxes.
• At least part of the taxes collected from residents will go to the developer to reimburse him
for his expenses in developing the project. Any new schools and related items will result in
even higher taxes!
• The specifications for the proposed townhouses cover only the first 32 or so units. Beyond
that, the actual they could be anything. If they are to be "Brownstones ", then it should be
specifically stated for the whole project.
• Allowing this project to go forward will open Southlake to all kinds of high density housing.
This should not be done lightly, and in my opinion, should not be approved.
I will make every effort to attend the City Council meeting when public comment is allowed on this
issue.
Robert D. Neil
REC'0 J U i- 8 2002
7/2/2002
Case No. Attachment G
ZA 02 -042 Page 6
Page 1 of 1
Kim Bush
Prom: SLake4 @aol.com
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 9:39 PM
To: mayor @cityofsouthlake.com
Subject: High Density Housing
Dear Mr. Stacy,
As part of your constituentcy we just wanted to drop you a note adivise you that my wife and I both feel that high
density housing in Southlake is inappropriate.
Please be true to your comments during the recent City Council campaign and do not support high density
housing in the council meetings and pending votes on the current project being discussed for Town Center.
Thank you.
David and Judy Watts
RECD JUL 8 2002
7/2/2002
Case No. Attachment G
ZA 02 -042 Page 7
Kim Bush
From: Krista Klein [gcdivers @hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 5:58 AM
To: mayor @cityotsouthlake.com
Subject: High Density housing
Dear Mayor Stacy, Thank you for your support in keeping high density housing
out of Southlake. We moved to Southlake from the Park Cities in Dallas 8 1/2
years ago. We moved "out" to Southlake in order to get more space and get
away from the congestion. One of the main draws of Southlake versus some of
the surrounding cities was the fact that no apartments /townhomes were
located in the city. This made it unique and the idea of having a city where
the population is settled, family - oriented and stable was a great selling
point for us. Apartments and town homes bring in another type of individual
who doesn't have the same interest in the comunity. Many times they can come
and go on a months notice and don't have the same determination to make the
city a better place to live for our children. Southlake is a beautiful city
even if the cow pastures have been disappearing. Please continue to stand
up for low density housing and careful development. Our city is unique.
hope we don't settle for anything less than the best for our community.
Thank you for your time and your continuing efforts. Krista Klein 1101
Crockett Ct.
Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http: / /www.hotmail.com
RECD J U L 8 2002
Case No.
ZA 02 -042
Attachment G
Page 8
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS
ORDINANCE NO. 480 -224a
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 BLOCKS 1R, 2R1 3R1 4R 5R 6 7 AND 8, SOUTHLAKE TOWN
SQUARE, AND TRACTS 3, 3A, 2A5, AND 2A, SITUATED IN THE RICHARD EADS
SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 481, AND BEING APPROXIMATELY 105.05 ACRES,
AND MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" FROM
"NR -PUD" NON - RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO
"NR -PUD" NON - RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
WITH "C -3," GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT USES AND ANCILLARY
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AS DEPICTED ON THE APPROVED
CONCEPT PLAN, INCLUDING PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, ATTACHED
HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN AS EXHIBIT "B", SUBJECT TO THE
SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS ORDINANCE; CORRECTING
THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PRESERVING ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE; DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST,
MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE DEMAND THE ZONING CHANGES AND
AMENDMENTS HEREIN MADE; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL
BE CUMULATIVE OF ALL ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS HEREOF;
PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN THE
OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Southlake, Texas is a home rule City acting under its Charter adopted by the
electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 9 of the Texas Local
Government Code; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code, the City has the authority to
adopt a comprehensive zoning ordinance and map regulating the location and use of buildings, other structures
and land for business, industrial, residential and other purposes, and to amend said ordinance and map for the
purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals and general welfare, all in accordance with a
comprehensive plan; and
WHEREAS, the hereinafter described property is currently zoned "NR -PUD" Non - Residential Planned
Case No. Attachment H
ZA02 -042 Page 1
Unit Development District under the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a change in the zoning classification of said property was requested by a person or
corporation having a proprietary interest in said property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, at a public hearing called by the City
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 H
ZA02 -042 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 Blocks 1R, 2R1, 3R1, 4R, 5R, 6, 7, and 8, Southlake Town Square, an addition to the
City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas as recorded in the Plat Records, Tarrant County,
Texas in Cabinet A, Slides 6888 — 6889 and Slides 4892 - 4893, P.R.T.C.T., and Tracts 3, 3A,
2A5, and 2A, situated in the Richard Eads Survey, Abstract No. 481, and being approximately
105.05 acres, more fully and completely described in Exhibit "A" from "NR -PUD" Non -
Residential Planned Unit Development District to "NR -PUD" Non - Residential Planned Unit
Development District with "C -3," General Commercial District uses and ancillary single - family
Case No.
ZA02 -042
Attachment H
Page 3
residential uses as depicted on the approved Concept Plan, including PUD development
standards, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit `B ", and subject to the specific
conditions established in the motion of the City Council and attached hereto and incorporated
herein as Exhibit "C."
SECTION 2.
That the City Manager is hereby directed to correct the Official Zoning map of the City of Southlake,
Texas, to reflect the herein changes in zoning.
SECTION 3.
That in all other respects the use of the tract or tracts of land herein above described shall be subject to
all the applicable regulations contained in said Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable and pertinent
ordinances for the City of Southlake, Texas. All existing sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, words,
phrases and definitions of said Zoning Ordinance are not amended hereby, but remain intact and are hereby
ratified, verified, and affirmed.
SECTION 4.
That the zoning regulations and districts as herein established have been made in accordance with the
comprehensive plan for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals and the general welfare of the
community. They have been designed, with respect to both present conditions and the conditions reasonably
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.
Case No. Attachment H
ZA02 -042 Page 4
SECTION 5.
That this ordinance shall be cumulative of all other ordinances of the City of Soutlake, Texas, affecting
zoning and shall not repeal any of the provisions of said ordinances except in those instances where provisions
of those ordinances are in direct conflict with the provisions of this ordinance.
SECTION 6.
That the terms and provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be severable and that if the validity
of the zoning affecting any portion of the tract or tracts of land described herein shall be declared to be invalid,
the same shall not affect the validity of the zoning of the balance of said tract or tracts of land described herein.
SECTION 7.
Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply with or
who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be fined not more than Two
Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Each day that a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a
separate offense.
SECTION 8.
All rights and remedies of the City of Southlake are expressly saved as to any and all violations of the
provisions of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, or any other ordinances affecting zoning which have accrued at
the time of the effective date of this ordinance; and, as to such accrued violations and all pending litigation,
both civil and criminal, whether pending in court or not, under such ordinances, same shall not be affected by
this ordinance but may be prosecuted until final disposition by the courts.
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
ten (10) days before the second reading of this ordinance, and if this ordinance provides for the imposition of
Case No.
ZA02 -042
Attachment H
Page 5
any penalty, fine or forfeiture for any violation of any of its provisions, then the City Secretary shall additionally
publish this ordinance in the official City newspaper one time within ten (10) days after passage of this
ordinance, as required by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake.
SECTION 10.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by
law, and it is so ordained.
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st reading the day of , 2002.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
ACTING CITY SECRETARY
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the day of , 2002.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
ACTING CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Case No. Attachment H
ZA02 -042 Page 6
CITY ATTORNEY
DATE:
ADOPTED:
EFFECTIVE:
Case No.
ZA02 -042
Attachment H
Page 7
EXHIBIT "A"
Being Blocks 1R, 2R1, 3R1, 4R, 5R, 6, 7, and 8, Southlake Town Square, an addition to the City of
Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, as recorded in Cabinet A, Slides 4892, 6888 and 6889, Plat Records,
Tarrant County, Texas, and Tracts 3, 3A, 2A5, and 2A, R. Eads Survey, Abstract No. 481, being
approximately 105 acres.
EXHIBIT "A„
BEGINNING at a .found 518 inch iron rod in the south right -of -way line of State Highway 114
(Northwest Parkway) (a 200 foot R.O.W.), said point being the southeast corner of a tract of land,
conveyed to Greenway- Carroll Road Partners, recorded in Volume - 11445, Page 1627, Deed Records,
Tarrant County, Texas, said point also being the most northerly, northeast comer of Fechtel tract;
THENCE South 47 °56'15" East, along said south right -of -way line, a distance of 171.70 feet to a
Texas Highway Department monument found for corner, said point being the point of curvature of a
curve to the left, having a delta of 17 ° 26'51 a radius of 5,839.58 feet and a chord bearing and
distance of South 56 1 39 1 41" East, 1,771.38 feet;
THENCE southeasterly, continuing along said south right -of -way line and along the arc of said curve
to the left, a distance of 1,778.25 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod with cap found for corner said point being
the northeast corner of said Peterka tract and the northwest corner of a twenty foot strip of land,
conveyed to Diamond Shamrock Corp., recorded in Volume 6812, Page 2108, Deed Records, Tarrant
County, Texas;
THENCE South 00 °01'16" East, leaving said south right -of -way line and along the east line of said
Peterka tract and the west line of said Diamond Shamrock tract, a distance of 1,517.13 feet to a 112
inch iron rod with cap found for comer in the north right -of -way line of Southlake Boulevard (F.M.
1709) (a 130 foot R.O.W.), said point also being the southeast comer of said Peterka tract and the
southwest comer of said Diamond Shamrock tract; -
THENCE North 89 West, along said north right -of -way line, z distance of 820.00 feet to a 112
inch iron rod with cap found for corner;
THENCE North 88 1 55'18" West, continuing along said north right -of -way line, a distance of 505.52
feet to a. 5/8 inch iron rod found for corner, said point being the southwest corner of said Peterka tract
and the southeast comer of said Fechtel tract;
THENCE North 88 °54'16" West, continuing along said north right -of -way fine, a distance of 1,261.13
feet to a 518 inch iron rod found; for comer, said point being the southwest corner of said Fechtel tract,
said point also being the intersection of the north right -of -way line of said Southlake Boulevard and the
east right -of -way line of North Carroll Avenue (a variable width R.O.W.);
TH N E North 00 11'06" West, along said east right -of -way line, a distance of 987.22 feet to a point
for corner;
Case No. Attachment H
ZA02 -042 Page 8
THENCE North 89 °58'44" East, leaving said east line, a distance of 529.87 feet to a point for corner;
THEN E North 00° 11'07" West, a distance of 170.36 feet to a point for corner;
THENC North 29 1 48'53" East, a distance of 120.00 feet to a point for corner;
THENCE North 14 0 48'53" East, a distance of 958.51 feet to a point for corner;
THENCE North 60 West, a distance of 71.90 feet to a point for corner;
THENCE North 89 West, a distance of 420.30 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron rod at the
southeast corner of the Richards Bads No. 481 Addition, recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 585, Plat
Records, Tarrant County, Texas;
IEN E North 00 1 03'41" East, a distance of 326.45 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod found for comer in
,ae south line of said Greenway tract, said point being the northeast comer of said 481 Addition and
the most northerly, northwest corner of said Fechtel tract;
THENC South 89 °53'32" East, a distance.of 630.23 feet to a point located in the said south right -of -
way line of State Highway 114 and the POINT OF BEGINNING and • CONTAINING 4,762,401
square feet or 109.330 acres of land more or less.
SAVE AND EXCEPT area within State Highway 114 right -of -way, area within North Carroll Avenue
right -of -way, and Block 9, Southlake Town Square, Phase 1, an addition to the City of Southlake,
Tarrant County, Texas, as recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 4892, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas.
Case No. Attachment H
ZA02 -042 Page 9
o
N �
0 c
n Z.
.+
aourrmE S AODR,od
MM M
1
PAT.CT.
■
W
I�
H
olm
1�
A
IS O
CfQ �
O x
A x°• 8U]fLIIYIY
PIMPOax N Ft.IN:
BUI rhw. Is TME1FIEn m tE TN3 LAHO INFIS, SLOG% /PCa 9. 660,?sO S..OX x Es
l81xO EmELOPES Xam Ex]SYY>6 !JE fNOPF s -E '
t Paanev[P tM10EPT.PI xyl pe ]xH�rfFI MI Pueus' eu.8e5 S.F. al.ao �tlF
Slpx Tic (IU110MMfl.OP� ENPE „NW ug s PPOPI,$FU PLO. v.1 s
po�PsES EN9l aL V ,IIIIN nE 50 aP€N �, 5M Tl0 S.P. f05 -w. NOPEs
[THIN P, 4.8.
mNCE�PtWIPID S aWFB
bTE
t5 NI TIE pxmvstn P -T. P. - IN F5CE iT.91 nCPE9
L iam xTrN uxox.ELE usES Ix 5a xPNxiE. oanvi� �
f miu1FD BY THE L(YEIexT IFU0.AT YYMS OF - Ip
1° 501 - AO IPM
Loos
2�av,t�WO �LRi pMi xo FµF 1'•fpp
LIED rFFAS xSMiN P. u.O. Ncvrvcnr YAPN° 0 ��uteg5_f0.
NI psPFO O cq0 N00 500
eTF;�RCIAt. A FMewn[ma, LTS. Ens
II4 - PFiErlil
nrt � sW11L W2
dIVn, TEP11E5EMx31VE: DgNAP,YETOc
45NIF �P sl "uoE 5N� As� INC.
FOR MTEEIM SFYIEW ONLY Nxi s n s�lus x1M sTV V10 �MuI E eon
IF AS 96092 YXO S- ...
Nm R I le li 9M - &00 ' 6MO 0.965
// u 1511 te9-eE1i €xx, u I )i 533 -9SNo
tl OZ v I ca. NO.: 21OR - Oia
P.U.D. DISTx1CT
KE TOWN SQUARE
i
HOMX.eT
lYtrnF>! /xFi. XI1MU P, u.S.
tYC.O
eTF;�RCIAt. A FMewn[ma, LTS. Ens
II4 - PFiErlil
nrt � sW11L W2
dIVn, TEP11E5EMx31VE: DgNAP,YETOc
45NIF �P sl "uoE 5N� As� INC.
FOR MTEEIM SFYIEW ONLY Nxi s n s�lus x1M sTV V10 �MuI E eon
IF AS 96092 YXO S- ...
Nm R I le li 9M - &00 ' 6MO 0.965
// u 1511 te9-eE1i €xx, u I )i 533 -9SNo
tl OZ v I ca. NO.: 21OR - Oia
P.U.D. DISTx1CT
KE TOWN SQUARE
i
EXHIBIT `B"
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
P.U.D. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Ordinance Number 480 -224 is proposed to be amended as set forth below. The following development
regulations and standards shall be applicable and shall control to the extent of any conflict with any
other P.U.D. Development Regulations, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Landscape Ordinance and
Subdivision Ordinance. Upon approval, the provisions below would be incorporated into a
comprehensive Amended and Restated Development Regulations for the Southlake Town Square
P.U.D.
1.0 Use Regulations
b. Permitted Uses: Permitted uses are hereby amended to include the following additional uses:
Full Service Hotels, which shall be defined as buildings with habitable rooms or suites which
are reserved for transient guests who rent the rooms or suites on a daily basis, and with:
(i) a minimum area of 310 square feet in each guestroom;
(v) a full service restaurant with full kitchen facilities providing service to the general
public; and a kitchen on the premises in which meals are prepared by the management
or a concessionaire of the management for room service delivery;
(vi) on -site staff required seven (7) days a week, twenty -four (24) hours per day; and
(vii) a minimum of one thousand (1,000) square feet of meeting or conference rooms.
2.0 Development Regulations: The following P.U.D. development regulations are amended and
supplemented as set forth below. Introduction of residential uses allows the creation of residential
districts within Southlake Town Square that are recognized as a desirable form of downtown living, and
provide standards that will protect and encourage various types of single- family dwellings within
Southlake Town Square. The Residential District provides minimum standards as set forth below.
a. Height. No principal single - family residential building or structure shall exceed three (3)
stories, nor shall it be less than twenty feet (20') in height or exceed fifty -two feet (52') in
height. Residential accessory buildings shall be a minimum of twelve feet (12') in height and a
maximum of twenty -eight feet (28'). The height shall be measured from the sidewalk or
ground surface elevation along the side of the building fronting onto a public right -of -way to
the top of the roof for flat roofs (not the parapet) and the mid -point for sloped roofs, and not
along the side(s) of the building facing onto interior portions of the block
b. Front Yard. Required front yard shall be a minimum of five (5) feet. Porches, stairs and
other architectural elements may project into such yard, up to the lot line. The maximum
front yard setback shall be fifteen feet (15').
Side Yard. Residential dwellings may be attached. Accordingly, there shall be no side yard,
except on corner lots, where the side yard adjacent to the street may be up to a maximum of
Case No. Attachment H
ZA02 -042 Page 11
fifteen feet (15'). If residential dwellings are detached, separation between the units shall
meet the minimum required for fire safety.
e. Rear Yard. There shall be a rear yard of not less than five feet (5')
e. Maximum Lot Coverage. There shall be no maximum lot coverage.
h. Lot Area. The minimum area of a lot shall be (a) one thousand six hundred eighty -seven
(1,687) square feet for residences with detached garages, and (b) one thousand one hundred
twenty -five (1,125) square feet for residences with attached garages.
i. Lot Dimensions. Each lot shall have a minimum width of twenty -two and one -half feet
(22.5'). The minimum lot depth is: (i) seventy -five feet (75') for residences with detached
garages; and (ii) fifty feet (50') for residences with attached garages.
h. Floor Area. Each single- family dwelling unit shall contain a minimum of two thousand
(2,000) square feet of gross floor area (excluding the area of any accessory structures on the
same lot).
i. Maximum Residential Density. The maximum number of single - family (attached and
detached) lots allowed shall be as specified in the Development Plan filed in
conjunction with a request for Specific Use Permit for residential development within the
Downtown district.
J. Parking
(i) Two (2) off - street parking spaces must be provided for each dwelling unit.
(ii) One (1) on- street parking space must be provided for each dwelling unit.
k. Electrical Service. Electrical Service. A lot for a single - family use may be supplied by not
more than one electrical utility service, and metered by not more than one electrical meter.
1. Building Limitations
(i) All residential structures (including accessory buildings) are required to be
sprinklered; provided that a series of attached structures may be combined and
treated as a single structure.
(ii) All residential structures shall be designed and built similar in character to the
elevations /drawings submitted with an approved development or site plan.
(iii) All residential structures shall have all exterior walls constructed using a masonry
material covering at least eighty percent (80 %) of said walls, exclusive of windows,
doors, roofs, glass construction materials, or sidewalk or walk -way covers. "Masonry
materials" shall mean and include brick, stone, rock or other masonry materials of
Case No. Attachment H
ZA02 -042 Page 12
equal characteristics. The use of stucco or a similar material shall be subject to City
Council approval with the review of a site plan submitted with a SUP application.
q. Residential Adjacency Standards. The Residential Adjacency Standards of Section 43,
Article III of the Zoning Ordinance shall not apply to residential development within the
P.U.D. Further, the provisions of Section 43 relating to non - residential development in
proximity to residential development shall not apply to non - residential development within the
P.U.D., unless applicable due to residential development outside the boundaries ofthe P.U.D.
(i.e., such rules shall not apply because of the development of residential uses within the
P.U.D.). The intent of this Section is to remove residential adjacency protection and Corridor
Overlay regulations from the development of residential uses within the P.U.D.
r. Curvilinear Streets. The curvilinear street standards specified in the Subdivision Ordinance
shall not apply to residential development within the Downtown district.
S. Open Space. Residential development within the Downtown district shall be exempt from
the Open Space requirements specified within Ordinance 483 for residential uses. Open space
in the Downtown district shall be planned in conjunction with an overall concept and
development plan approved by City Council.
t. Use Limitations on Residentially Designated Buildings. Once designated for single -
family residential uses with City Council approval of an SUP, non - residential uses in
single - family structures shall be limited to home occupations only. Any change in intensity
of such use shall constitute a zoning map amendment and shall be processed as such.
q. Design Guidelines. All single - family residential development shall meet the standards
outlined in the Downtown District Design Guidelines as amended and adopted by City
Council.
3.0 Supplemental Non - Residential Development Regulations: The following P.U.D. development
regulations are amended and supplemented as set forth below.
a. Building Height: Non - residential and mixed -use buildings shall not be less than twenty feet
(20') (including parapet height) in height nor more than fifty -two feet (52') in height; with the
exception of development located along Hwy 114 which shall be no more than 90 feet. The
90 -foot height limitation shall apply to all non - residential and mixed -use buildings within a
1,000 -foot wide strip, parallel to and along the southern edge of Hwy 114 R -O -W.
Case No. Attachment H
ZA02 -042 Page 13
EXHIBIT "C"
This page reserved for the City Council motion.
Case No. Attachment H
ZA02 -042 Page 14