Item 8ACity of Southlake
Department of Planning
STAFF REPORT
March 15, 2002
CASE NO
PROJECT
ZA01 -124
Remington Retirement Community
REQUEST: Veranda Senior Communities is requesting approval for a rezoning and concept plan
for the Remington Retirement Community.
ACTION NEEDED: Consider first reading for rezoning and concept plan request
ATTACHMENTS: (A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
Background Information
Vicinity Map
Plans and Support Information
Concept Plan Review Summary
Surrounding Property Owner Map
Surrounding Property Owner's Responses
Ordinance No. 480 -275a
Full Size Plans (fog• Connie s . on and Council Members Only
STAFF CONTACT: Ben Bryner (481 -2086)
Case No.
ZA01 -124
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
OWNER: Remington / Veranda Southlake, L.P.
APPLICANT: Veranda Senior Communities
PURPOSE: The purpose of this request is to revise the zoning district regulations and
concept plan for the Remington Retirement Community.
PROPERTY SITUATION: The property is located on the south side of West Southlake Boulevard (FM[
1709), south of the intersection of West Southlake Boulevard (FM 1709) and
West Jellico Circle.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tracts 4F, 41 5A1B, 6A1, and a portion of Tract 6B situated in the Jesse G.
Allen Survey, Abstract No. 18, and being approximately 22.558 acres.
LAND USE CATEGORY: Low Density Residential
CURRENT ZONING: "S -P -2" Generalized Site Plan District to include personal care facility,
nursing care facility, and (senior) multi - family residential uses.
REQUESTED ZONING: "S -P -2" Generalized Site Plan District to include personal care facility,
nursing care facility, and (senior) multi - family residential and (senior) two -
family residential uses.
HISTORY: -City Council approved a zoning and concept plan on July 7, 1998.
-A site plan was approved for the project on November 17, 1998.
-A final plat was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June
17, 1999.
TRANSPORTATION
ASSESSMENT: Master Thorouzhfare Plan
The Master Throughfare Plan recommends Southlake Blvd to have 130' of
right -of -way. Adequate right -of -way exists for this road.
Proposed Area Road Network and Conditions
The proposed site will have three (3) access drives directly onto Owenwood
Drive, a proposed commercial street along the west portion of the Remington
site with 60' of right -of -way, which will intersect Southlake Blvd across from
West Jellico Circle. The street will eventually extend south to connect to
Union Church Road.
Case No. Attachment A
ZA01 -124 Page 1
Existing Area Road Network and Conditions
West Southlake Boulevard is a five lane, undivided thoroughfare with a
continuous, two -way, center left turn lane. The roadway will ultimately be
widened to a seven lane roadway.
May, 2001 traffic counts on F.M. 1709 (between FM 1938 (Davis Blvd)
& Pearson Lane): Table #1
24hr
West Bound (WB) (16,105)
East Bound (EB) (16,634)
WB
Peak A.M. (874) 10 — 11 a.m.
Peak P.M. (1,704) 4 — 5 p.m.
EB
Peak A.M. (1,743) 6 — 7 a.m.
Peak P.M. (1,106) 4 — 5 p.m.
Traffic Impact
Use
# Units
Vtpd*
AM-
IN
AM-
OUT
PM-
IN
PM-
OUT
Villa apartments
32
111
1
1
1
2
Independent apartments
41
143
1
1
3
2
Assisted living units
122
262
4
3
12
9
Nursing units
170
366
6
4
16
13
Totals
365
882
12
9
32
26
*Vehicle Trips Per Day
*The AN"M times represent the number of vehicle trips generated during the peak travel times
on Southlake Boulevard.
Southlake Boulevard, between FM 1938 (Davis Blvd) and Pearson Lane,
carries approximately 32,739 vehicles with the peak traffic times occurring
between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. in the morning and between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. in
the afternoon. According to Trip Generation, 6`" Edition, the site will
generate approximately 21 vehicle trips during the A.M. rush hour and
approximately 58 vehicle trips during the P.M. rush hour.
WATER & SEWER: The site will connect water services to an existing 12" water line along the
south side of Southlake Boulevard. A 10" sewer line extension of
approximately 3300 feet is proposed from the southern property line to the
south side of Union Church and over to an existing 18" sewer line
approximately 600 feet from Davis Blvd.
ESTIMATED IMPACT
FEES:
Water
$77,319.42 (assumes 13 — 2" compound meters)
Irrigation
$23,790.59 (assumes 4 — 2" simple meters)
Wastewater
$48,182.78 (assumes 13 — 2" compound meters)
Roadway
$58,520.45 (assumes 292 nursing /assisted living
units, 41 independent units, and 32 villa apartments)
*Final Impact Fees are determined by the Building Services Department at the time of Building Permit
Issuance. The fees shown above represent estimates prepared by the Planning Department.
Case No. Attachment A
ZA01 -124 Page 2
MASTER PATHWAYS: According to the Master Pathways Plan, an 8' multi -use trail is planned along
Owenwood Drive, located on the west side of the Remington property,
connecting Southlake Blvd to Union Church. An 8' trail is designated along
the north side of Southlake Boulevard.
P &Z ACTION: February 21, 2002; Approved to Table (5 -0) until March 7, 2002.
March 7, 2002; Approved (5 -1) subject to Concept Plan Review Summary
No. 3, dated February 15, 2002.
STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Concept Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated February 15, 2002.
1. The following changes have been made from the previously approved
zoning and concept plan:
a) Number of stories: The Congregate Living Center was previously
approved as a two -story building. The new proposal shows a three -
story building.
b) The Congregate Care Center was previously approved as a single -
story building. The new proposal shows a two -story building.
c) Number of units: The previously approved plan allowed for a
maximum of 202 units. The proposed plan is requesting a maximum
of 365 units. This is a change in density from 9 dwelling units per acre
to 16 dwelling units per acre.
2. Under the "S -P -2" Generalized Site Plan District zoning, the applicant
proposes the following:
a) Density: The applicant proposes a maximum density of 16.2 dwelling
units per acre. Ordinance 480, Section 17.5.i allows a maximum
number of 12 dwelling units per acre.
b) Parking: The applicant is requesting 265 total spaces (68 one -car
garages and 197 surface spaces) with 25 tandem driveways. The total
number of parking spaces required by Ordinance 480, Section 35
equals 422 spaces.
Case No. Attachment A
ZA01 -124 Page 3
c) Building setback: The applicant proposes that buildings having a
height greater than 20' having more than one story shall be setback a
minimum distance from single family residential property lines as
shown on the concept plan. All other buildings shall be setback no
closer than the building setback lines shown on this concept plan.
Residential adjacency standards (Section 43.11, exhibit 43 -E) states
that no non - residential building may encroach in the area above a line
having a slope of 4:1 from any property line of a property with a low
density residential land use designation. However, a structure may be
built up to within 40 feet of the residential property line, provided that
the structure is no greater than one story or 20' in height.
d) Bufferyards: The applicant proposes that bufferyards between Lots 1
& 2 shall not be required. Bufferyards are required within and along
the outer perimeter lot or boundary line (Section 42.3).
e) Minimum floor areas: The applicant has set minimum standards for the
unit types being: villas = 1,128 S.F.; independent living = 550 S.F.;
personal care = 450 S.F.; and nursing = 300 S.F. The "MF -2" district
requires a minimum of 850 S.F. per unit. Personal care facility
requirements include 350 S.F. per efficiency unit, 450 S.F. per one -
bedroom unit, and 550 S.F. per two - bedroom unit.
f) The applicant is proposing an age requirement restricting the age of
residents to 62 years of age or older.
There is an adjacent property owner to the west that is within the 200'
notification area, opposed to this zoning change. This opposition exceeds 20%
of the surrounding properties within 200' and will require.
M \Community Development \WP - FILES \MEMO \2001cases \01- 124ZCP.doc
Case No. Attachment A
ZA01 -124 Page 4
Vicinity Map
Remington Retirement Community
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 Feet
WIN
S
Case No.
ZA 01 -124
E
Attachment B
Page 1
o�
~z
N°
i
b �
CfQ �
r
..a
-
;
D
.. IP ` W��GRFGATE
R {uMi
9
REMINOTON
xiTMEM rrr Cow
C OWEN WOOD DRIVEADDMON
ILRI1.49111CL1
Qfl'PVld.FiIDAi6
TAQUTfA3H14,'III89
PR ftA �UC1P A W Lt [IYQ/C LllA1fl Q'N YiM W i
911AI{ �P6PIIIdh➢PHiTE}lQ aNd4PQ1WYdL
TlPEPMIlIIT f,'D4�'GGn:NYIIlli AM1n
WLEl61mS11tR18
1116fl1NhC4PPl9�INIW.dI�n '
P48t1p'A]6.PLLC
PIWNFL
�Y]@lC1GN�YPA,ms 90t1I1Q.1R LP.
aLM1'S1(1'PY
vPPanne �ao¢rsaaPOnz{�
>9wrt�snor nPnn
PNRtlP
PdT 079dn [(9d
PRPP�aP',
CdIRl ]SYDIIIP®1'fH N'94Y.1.490Oh'14d
qfl BA9WY�KfrtFBel0.
.WfI4 nP
xa�Pmv,.mPmuraPein
P11y11S491
Pd1f 0111diSOWP
ZA01 -124
CONCEPT PLAN
SCALE 1' - oo-o t b 15 2
o m
F
E
9 0
� z!q
ry �{ N
(Q Q 1
�-- n
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY
Case No.: ZA01 -124 Review No.: Three Date of Review: 02/15/02
Project Name: Concept Plan — Remington Retirement Community
APPLICANT: Veranda Senior Communities / ARCHITECT:Galier, Tolson, French Design
Remington/Veranda Southlake, L.P.
Ron Howell, Todd Lindley
12900 Preston Road, Suite 400
Dallas, TX 75230
PHONE: (972) 934 -3344
FAX: (972) 661 -0606
Associates
Marc Tolson
8251 Bedford - Euless Rd, Suite 250
North Richland Hills, TX 76180
PHONE: (817) 514 -0584
FAX: (817) 514 -0694
CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 02/08/02 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
Remove the ± from the floor area regulations.
The applicant requests approval of the uses and development regulations as noted in the City's staff
report and on the face of the Concept Plan.
The applicant should be aware that prior to issuance of a building permit a Plat must be processed and
filed in the County Plat Records, 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, Perimeter Street Fee, Water & Sewer Impact and Tap Fees, and
related Permit Fees.
This site falls within the applicability of the residential adjacency standards as amended by Ordinance
480 -CC, Section 43, Part III "Residential Adjacency Standards" as well as the Corridor Overlay Zone
regulations in Section 43, Part 11. Although no review of the following issues is provided with this
concept plan, the applicant must evaluate the site for compliance prior to submittal of the site plan. A
Site Plan must be submitted and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council
prior to issuance of a building permit. Note that these issues are only the major areas of site plan
review and that the applicant is responsible for compliance with all site plan requirements:
Masonry requirements per §43.13a, Ordinance 480, as amended and Masonry Ordinance No.
557, as amended.
Roof design standards per § 43.13b, Ordinance 480, as amended
Mechanical Equipment Screening per § 43.13c, Ordinance 480, as amended.
Case No.
ZA 01 -124
Attachment D
Page 1
• Vertical and horizontal building articulation (required on all building facades) per §43.13d,
Ordinance 480, as amended.
• Building setback standards as per § 43.13h and as shown in exhibit 43 -E, Ordinance 480, as
amended.
• Spill-over lighting and noise per §43.131 and §43.13j, Ordinance 480, as amended.
• Off - street parking requirements per §35, Ordinance 480, as amended. All areas intended for
vehicular use must be of an all weather surface material in accordance with the Ordinance No.
480, as amended.
• Screening as per §39.4, Ordinance 480, as amended.
• Interior landscaping per Landscape Ordinance No. 544.
• Fire lanes must be approved by the City Fire Department.
Case No. Attachment D
ZA 01 -124 Page 2
Surrounding Property Owners
Remington Retirement Community
Case No. Attachment E
ZA 01 -124 Page 1
Owner
Zoning
Land Use
Acreage
1.
W. Goodell
1.
SF -IA
1.
Low Density Residential
1.
1.79
2.
W. Goodell
2.
SF -IA
2.
Low Density Residential
2.
1.63
3.
J. Hall
3.
SF -IA
3.
Low Density Residential
3.
1.72
4.
J. Hall
4.
SF -IA
4.
Low Density Residential
4.
1.58
5.
J. Hall
5.
SF -IA
5.
Low Density Residential
5.
1.17
6.
N. E. Tarrant County
6.
CS
6.
Low Density Residential
6.
7.03
Baptist Church
7.
E. Weisman
7.
SF -20A
7.
Low Density Residential
7.
13.4
8.
R. Reutlinger
8.
SF -20A
8.
Low Density Residential
8.
11.0
9.
B. Couch
9.
0-1
9.
Low Density Residential
9.
5.00
10.
J. Mortazavi
10.
AG
10.
Low Density Residential
10.
3.08
11.
P. Bailey
11.
AG
11.
Low Density Residential
11.
3.00
12.
D. Sammons
12.
SF -IA
12.
Low Density Residential
12.
4.00
13.
Keller, ISD
13.
AG
13.
Low Density Residential
13.
19.7
14.
R. Slayton
14.
SF -IA
14.
Low Density Residential
14.
7.64
15.
R. Slayton
15.
SF -IA
15.
Low Density Residential
15.
1.22
16.
C. Slayton
16.
SF -IA
16.
Low Density Residential
16.
1.0
17.
Lifestyles, Inc.
17.
SP -2
17.
Public /Semi -Public
17.
12.3
18.
E. Owen
18.
SP -2
18.
Public /Semi -Public
18.
10.1
Case No. Attachment E
ZA 01 -124 Page 1
Surrounding Property Owner Responses
Remington Retirement Community
Notices Sent: Fourteen (14)
Responses: One response was received from within the 200' notification area:
• Ruby Slayton, 2815 W. Southlake Blvd., Southlake, Tx. is opposed. (Received February
14, 2002)
Sixty (60) responses were received from outside of the 200' notification area, all being
opposed, numerous letters were written with identical format and wording; each type has
been identified by an Addendum:
Addendum "A"
• Jaime Cadiz, 707 Chaucer Ct., Southlake, Tx
Addendum `B"
• David Carissimi, 1203 Normandy Dr., Southlake, Tx.
• Mary Lloyd Jamison, 619 Regency Crossing, Southlake, Tx.
• Sherry Berman, Southlake, Tx.
Addendum "C"
• Jessie Cadiz, 707 Chaucer Ct., Southlake, Tx
• Cory Abbot, Southlake, Tx.
Addendum "D"
• Carolyn Morris, 403 St. Charles Ct., Southlake, Tx
Addendum "E"
• Joanna Johnson, Southlake, Tx.
• Chris Smith, 1500 OakLn., Southlake, Tx
• Brandon Baker, Southlake, Tx,
• Michelle and Chris Weber, Southlake, Tx
• Tony and Cinda Knight, 708 Chaucer Ct., Southlake, Tx
Addendum "F"
• Eric Milhizer, 452 Marshall Rd, Southlake, Tx
Addendum "G"
• Richard Montes, Southridge Lakes, Southlake, Tx
Case No. Attachment F
ZA 01 -124 Page 1
Addendum "H"
• Nancy M. Jones, Southlake, Tx,
• Kelley Kennedy, Southlake, Tx
• James McPhail, Southlake, Tx
• Jamie Cadiz, Southlake, Tx"
• Robert E. Ward, Southlake, Tx
• Glenn F. Young, Southlake, Tx
• Laura Roach, Southlake, Tx
Addendum "I"
• Penny Pannell
• Tom Morris
• David and Karen Howell
• James and Mary Ryniak
• Maureen and Mal Fallon
• Pat Cockrum
• David Ackerman
• Liz and Jack Lounsbury
• Bruce Johnson
• Jicky Sandow
• Shelly Powell
• Mike Bevill
• Dan and Barbara Weinberger
• Robert K. Hughes
• Jamie S. Wimberly
• No name given
• Susan Quinn
• No name given
• Diane Smith
• Bernard Ausdenmoore
• Tom Kelley
• John Saeger
• Jim & Suzanne Peckham
• Rhett and Angela Higginbotham
• J. Scott Smith
• Pam Jones
• Robert & Christy Ward
• Curtis & Kathlyn Woodard
• Barbara A. Weinberger
• No name given
Case No. Attachment F
ZA 01 -124 Page 2
• Kurt D. Miller
• Steven W. Kettering
• Laura A. Friedman
• Robert S. Bennett
Addendum "J"
• Ed Roach, 1319 Westmont Court, Southlake, Tx.
Addendum "K"
• Dan Duffy, Southlake, Tx.
Addendum "L"
• Christopher D. Smith, 1500 Oak- Ln., Southlake, Tx.
Addendum "M"
• Carmen and Allen Mers, 2950 Burney Lane, Southlake, Tx.
Addendum "N"
• Daniel L. Fink, 603 Llano Court, Southlake, Tx.
Addendum "O"
• Michael E. Trader, 2701 Derby Ct. Southlake, Tx.
Addendum "P"
• Michael and Lisa Oleson, 1205 Lansdowne Ct., Southlake, Tx.
Addendum "Q"
• Hap Lyda, Southlake, Tx.
Case No. Attachment F
ZA 01 -124 Page 3
Addendum A
Dear Commissioner,
Thank you for serving the city of Southlake.
Many Southlake residents (including seniors), along with numerous
citizens who spent many hours working on the original Remington
plan, have expressed their concerns about the proposed changes to
Remington. There are facts, research and history behind the original
plan approved in 1998 and why this proposal should be met with
Opposition.
The major concerns deal with:
I. The drastic increase in specific population density (going from 201
units to 365).
2. The decrease in age requirement (going from 62 years old to 55).
These two issues alone, if not accepted as approved, were enough to
force Lifestyles, Inc. (the first developer) to abandon their proposal.
The many citizens of Southlake support low - impact growth which
conforms to the Southlake Land Use Plan.
These two very important aspects of Veranda's proposal should be
brought into compliance with what our senior citizens expect and what
the former council and developer agreed upon.
We hope that you will seriously consider and then reject this higher
density proposal and maintain the same lower- density, higher -age-
restricted community as the original Remington proposal.
Sincerely,
RECD FEB 2 0 2.002
Case No.
ZA 01 -124
Attachment F
Page 4
Addendum B
Lorrie Fletcher (Herrick)
From: David Carissimi [dcarissimi @iwatsu.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 3:10 PM
To: 'Ifletcher @cityofsouthlake.com'
Dear Lorrie:
Please forward the following letter to all 7 Commissioners. Thank you. Dear Commissioner,
I am very concerned about Veranda's proposal to increase the density of the Remington
Retirement Community.Southlake citizens, seniors and former city council members worked
hard to approve Remington in 1998 as a lower density community where our senior citizens
and parents could enjoy uncrowded living.Veranda's proposal almost doubles the number of
apartments and will
cause:
OVERCROWDED SENIORS
OVERBURDENED TOWN SERVICES
HIGHER TAXES
PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE HIGH- DENSITY APARTMENTS IN SOUTHLARE Veranda should be made to comply
with the existing lower density plan for our senior citizens. Thank you for standing up
for Southlake's taxpayers and senior citizens.
Respectfully,
David Carissimi
1203 Normandy Drive
Case No. Attachment F
ZA 01 -124 Page 5
Addendum C
Dear Commissioner,
This Veranda proposal for Remington is not good and I think
someone should answer these questions before they approve this
high - density change to a quality retirement community.
What would prevent any apartment development from being built
under S -P -2 if this sets the precedent albeit in a "retirement" format?
What protection does the city have if the developer goes bankrupt
and the exclusive use for seniors no longer is viable?
Could the city then decree that it must become a regular apartment
complex or the city will be faced with an abandoned building, blight
and a maintenance nightmare?
What is the issue dealing with lowering the age from 65 to 55 and
how would that impact our community?
Please vote against this proposal before it is too late.
Thank yo or taking the time to address my concerns.
Jesse Cadiz
707 lChaucer Court
Southlake TX 76092
RECD F E B 2 0 2002
Case No.
ZA 01 -124
Attachment F
Page 6
Addendum D
403 St. Charles CT.
Southlake, TX 76092
February 6, 2002
City of Southlake
Planning & Zoning Commission
Southlake, TX
Dear Commissioner Vernon Stansell,
I am writing to express my concern about the changes being proposed for the Remington
Retirement Community on Southlake Boulevard by Veranda.
I was an interested and involved citizen when this original proposal was presented to the
community, P &Z, and City Council. It was a plan that was thoroughly discussed and negotiated
to gain approval. I support our senior citizens but the proposed Veranda plan does not represent
the quality the seniors deserve.
Some of the concerns I have about the Remington Retirement Community are:
• Density — 81 % density increase — original 201 beds increased to 365 beds, which represents
higher density than any of the MF zoning allowed in Southlake.
• Age restrictions — lowered the age restrictions to 55 instead of 62 — age 62 is the age
protected by the Federal Fair Housing Law (age 55 is not)
• SP2 zoning has been approved for the land and should not be changed
Please vote against the proposal by Veranda as it does not meet the original perimeters of the
approved Remington Retirement Community,
Sincerely,
Carolyn Morris
Case No. Attachment F
ZA 01 -124 Page 7
Addendum E
Remington, ZAOI -124
Lorrie Fletcher (Herrick)
From: Christopher Smith [cdsmith2000 @compuserve.com]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 12:50 PM
To: Ifietcher@cityofsouthiake.com
Subject: Remington, ZAOI -124
LolTie,
Please forward this to all the Planning and Zoning Commissioners. Thanks for your help.
I am very concerned about Veranda's higher density proposal for the
Remington Retirement Community.
Remington was supposed to be the retirement community where our senior
citizens and parents could enjoy uncrowded living in a rural setting. Our
1998 City Council approved it as a lower density, 201 -unit, 1 -2 story
development.
Page 1 of 1
VERANDA IS TRYING TO TURN IT INTO A SUPER HIGH- DENSITY APARTMENT COMPLEX FOR
OUR SENIORS BY PUTTING 365 - UNITS (16 UNITS PER ACRE) INTO 2 -3 STORIES.
THIS WOULD EXCEED SOUTHLAKE'S HIGHEST DENSITY ALLOWED AND SET A PRECEDENT
FOR FUTURE APARTMENTS.
IT WOULD INCREASE THE NEED FOR TOWN SERVICES AND CAUSE HIGHER SOUTHLAKE
TAXES AND OVERCROWDING FOR OUR SENIORS.
Southlake citizens support the current lower density plan for our seniors.
Please ask Veranda to stay with the original lower density plan.
Thank you for your service to our fine community.
Chris Smith
1500 Oak Ln
Southlake, TX 76092
2/11/2002
Case No. Attachment F
ZA 01 -124 Page 8
Addendum F
Page 1 of 1
Lorrie Fletcher (Herrick)
From: Eric Milhizer [emilhizer @yahoo.comj
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 5:07 PM
To: Ifietcher@cityofsouthlake.com
Subject: Veranda Proposal
Lorrie, please forward my letter to all seven P &Z Commissioners. Thanks.
Dear P &Z Commissioner,
Thank you for serving the city of Southlake.
Many Southlake residents (including seniors), along with numerous citizens who spent many hours working on
the original Remington plan, have expressed their concerns about Veranda's proposed changes to Remington.
There are facts, research and history behind the original plan approved in 1998 and why this proposal should be
met with opposition.
The major concern deals with the drastic increase in specific population density (going from 201 units to 365).
Higher density would set a precedent for more of the same from future developers, put a burden on our town
services and cause higher taxes and overcrowding for our seniors,
The citizens of Southlake support low- impact growth, which conforms to the Southlake Land Use Plan.
The super high- density aspect of Veranda's proposal should be brought into compliance with what our senior
citizens expect and what the former council and developer agreed upon.
We hope that you will seriously consider and then reject this higher density proposal and maintain the same
lower- density community of the original Remington plan.
Eric Milhizer
452 Marshall Rd.
2/12/2002
Case No. Attachment F
ZA 01 -124 Page 9
Addendum G
Page 1 of 1
Lorrie Fletcher (Herrick)
From: richar montes [r.montes @gte.net]
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 3:02 PM
To: Ifletcher@cityofsouthlake.com
Subject: veranda developer
Dear p and z members,
I am a resident of Southlake and concerned about the new proposal by Veranda developers to build a high
density apartment complex for seniors on 1709 west of Davis blvd. I am attending your next meeting but am going
on record now that I am very much against this effort. I am in favor of uncrowded senior apartments but not
density levels that exceed Southlakes allowable. Please vote against this as it would otherwise create an
unfavorable precedent.
Richard Montes
Southridge Lakes
2/19/2002
Case No. Attachment F
ZA 01 -124 Page 10
Addendum H
Page 1 of 1
Lorrie Fletcher (Herrick)
From: reS0r48x (resOr48x @verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 7:46 PM
To: Ifletcher @cityofsouthlake.com
Subject: Remington
Lorrie: Please forward this to all seven Commissioners.
Thank you.
Dear Commissioner,
I would like to express my appreciation for your service to our fine city.
The reason I'm writing you is because I'm very concerned about VERANDA'S PROPOSAL TO ADD
APARTMENTS to the Remington Retirement Community on 1709, west of Davis. i feel it is not in the best
interests of Southlake citizens, including seniors, for the following reasons:
It was supposed to be a retirement community where our senior citizens and parents could enjoy
uncrowded living in a rural atmosphere. Our 1998 City Council approved it as a lower density, 201 -unit, 1 -2
story development.
Veranda is trying to turn it into a super high- density apartment complex for our seniors by putting 365 -
units (16 units per acre) into 2 -3 stories.
Veranda is violating Southlake's highest density zoning allowed (12 -units per acre) by taking advantage of
the intent of Site Plan District Zoning, which is supposed to prevent this very sort of high- impact development.
This will overcrowd our seniors and set the precedent for future apartments.
According to the Southlake Projected Population Report, our build -out limit of 35,580 residents is based upon the
current Land Use Plan. Veranda's super -high- density apartments will exceed our current infrastructure
projections for street, water, sewer, police and fire services.
According to the Residential Fiscal Impact Studies done by the Center for Urban Policy and Purdue University,
the increased infrastructure demands of Veranda's request will cause a higher and disproportionate tax
burden on Southlake's lower density homeowners.
Southlake citizens, including seniors, support the current lower density plan for our seniors. Please don't
be swayed by Veranda's appeals about their "distinctive architecture, quality -care, luxury, lush landscaping and
special programming." HIGHER DENSITY WILL SET A PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE APARTMENTS, CAUSE
HIGHER TAXES AND CROWD OUR SENIORS.
This is an excellent opportunity for you to make the right decision for all of Southlake. Thank you for your
consideration.
James McPhail
2/18/2002
Case No. Attachment F
ZA 01 -124 Page 11
Addendum I
Pa oc 1 of 1
Lorrie Fletcher (Herrick)
From: PJPannell@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 11:03 AM
To: Ifletcher@cityofsouthlake.com
Subject: (no subject)
I am very concerned about the following two issues before our Planning and
Zoning Commission on March 7:
Issue #1: Veranda's proposal to increase the density of the Remington
Retirement Community.
-- Southlake citizens, seniors and former city council members worked hard to
approve Remington in 1998 as a lower density community where our senior
citizens and parents could enjoy uncrowded living.
-- Veranda's proposal almost doubles the number of apartments and will cause
overcrowding for our seniors and set a precedent for more apartments.
Issue #2: Very High- Density Housing Ordinance 480 -MM (Planned Residential
Neighborhood).
— 480 -MM at least triples the specific population density, creates school
crowding, permits crime - ridden back alleys and violates the City Charter and
Residential Ordinances.
Please ask Veranda to comply with the existing lower density plan and do not
allow 480 -MM (PRN) into our city. They will both overpopulate, overburden
town services and cause higher taxes.
Thank you for standing up for Southlake's taxpayers and senior citizens
Sincerely,
Penny Pannell
RECD 'MAR 0 4 ZOOZ
3/4/2002
Case No. Attachment F
ZA 01 -124 Page 12
Addendum J
Opposed to Remington changes and high density proposal(s)
Lorrie Fletcher (Herrick)
From: Edward Roach [eroach@airmail.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 12:02 PM
To: Ifletcher@cityofsouthlake.com
Cc: Laura Roach
Subject: Opposed to Remington changes and high density proposal(s)
Lorri e,
Page 1 of 1
I am writing in advance of the March 7th P &Z meeting to ask you to forward this to all commissioners.
I am strongly opposed to the Remington plan as altered over time by the developer. This has become a
much larger, higher density, more intensive care facility than previously agreed to in formal and
informal compromise between residents and developers / Iandowners. This is absolutely unacceptable to
me in its present form:
• violates the master land use plans
• creates a very high density facility
represents a "bait and switch" approach by the developer /landowners that is against the
democratic principles of our city government
Secondly, I oppose the creation of The Very High - Density Ordinance 480 -MM (Planned
Residential Community or PRN) in our city. As written it appears to allow extremely higher densities
than ever before with unacceptable limitations on total land parcel size and consideration for adjoining
properties. We do not need multi - family housing in Southlake. Every argument I have heard thusfar
fails to hold water and appears to be a "get -rich quick" scheme for developers /landowners that violates
the spirit and letter of the plans for building Southlake to be what we all want.
Nearby multi - family housing exists in Grapevine, Bedford and other communities
There is not a Southlake citizen -based demand for this housing
Multi- family housing will alter demographic projections for our schools and other services
There is an undeniable correlation between higher density and higher crime
Please log and distribute my strong opposition to these two proposals. Thank you.
Ed Roach
1319 Westmont Court
Southlake, TX 76092
Broach c�airmail.net
817.424.2387 (home)
214.676.4313 (cell)
3/5/2002
Case No.
ZA 01 -124
REVD M AP, 0 5 2002
Attachment F
Page 13
Addendum K
Lorrie Fletcher (Herrick)
From: Dan Duffy [DDuffy@Epartnersolutions.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 12:47 PM
To: 'Ifletcher@cityofsouthlake.com'
Lorrie -
Please forward this to the P &Z commissioners....
What will your historic contribution be to our community? You are looking out for
the interests of those people who live, shop, eat and raise children in
Southlake .... please be diligent in your effort to balance the need for property
owners to make a fair profit and the future quality of life for those who choose to
make Southlake our home.
We only have one opportunity to do this right ... once the buildings are built,
parking lots paved, trees cleared... there is no going back. Don't cave under
pressure from a pro -real estate, pro - developer city government. They will be long
gone when the development is done and we will have to live with the result. Think
about all of those communities that allowed Kmart to pave a parking lot, build a
large building and now have no prospects of filling the space or having taxes paid
to fund local needs.
Please be diligent in your efforts and keep a long term view when considering both
of these issues.
ISSUE #l: Remington Retirement Community: The name belies the fact that the
developer, veranda, has changed the approved, lower- density, independent
living community into a high- density, hospital -type, institutionalized
nursing care complex.
ISSUE #2: Discussion of The Very High - Density Ordinance 480 -MM (Planned
Residential Community or PRN): Triples population density (6 houses per
acre), allows school crowding, back alleys and violates the City Charter.
Permits very high- density development on a patchwork of parcels with as
little as 5 acres all over town (many next to established large -lot
neighborhoods).
M. Dan Duffy
972.582.36036
RECD MAR 0 5 2002
Privileged /Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in
this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this
message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message, and notify us immediately. If you /your
employer do(es) not consent to Internet e-mail messages of this kind, please advise us immediately. Opinions,
Cc1MPI -1100
Case No. Attachment F
ZA 01 -124 Page 14
Addendum L
Lorrie Fletcher (Herrick)
From: Christopher Smith [cdsmith2000 @compuserve.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 12:59 PM
To: Ifletcher @cityofsouthlake.com
Subject: Remington Retirement Community
Lorrie: Could you forward this to all the Planning and Zoning Commissioners, please.
Thank you very much.
Dear Commissioner,
Thank you for your dedication and commitment to our fine community.
This letter is to let you know that I favor Remington as it was first approved by our
previous council. I have grave concerns about this new developer's intention for this
quality plan. Here are some questions and
comments:
1. Is Veranda's giant hospital -type complex appropriate in this part of town, where the
land use plan calls for low - density homes, not the C -3 (highest impact) commercial -type
zoning as its use requires?
Veranda's Institutional Concept is opposite of the Independent Living intent of the
original plan. Here is a breakdown;
NUMBER OF UNITS: INDEPENDENT LIVING /ASSISTED LIVING /NURSING
Original Remington (1 -2 stories): 111/60/30 TOTAL -201
* *Veranda request (2 -3 stories); 73/122/160 TOTAL -365
As you can see, the original plan had a majority of Independent Living residences (111).
Veranda, even though they double the total number of units, actually has FEWER independent
living units (only 73) with the rest being hospital -type, high- care/cost rooms (262). Ail
the fancy amenities that Veranda will speak about will really only be accessible to the
non - ambulatory (those capable of walking, not the bedridden) 20% of the residents.
2. Census 2000 demographics for Southlake show that only 899 citizens (4.2o of the
population, many obviously independently living) are 62 or older. Based on this and the
information above, will Veranda's expensive hospital concept be economically feasible for
middle - income senior citizens and where will they come from?
Assisted Living /Nursing Care facilities are THE type of units that are having the most
bankruptcy problems nationwide. I can give you a list of 30 or more companies, if you
would like, including nine of the country's top nursing home companies, which have filed
for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the last 2 years. In addition, the Texas nursing
home bankruptcy rate is twice the national average. Is this what we want in Southlake? I
believe that if Veranda were to go bankrupt, their hospital -type institution could not
even be made into apartments, another undesirable option.
3. Veranda's hospital -type of facility must cost upwards of around $50 million. What is
the debt /equity ratio? Hopefully it is at least 45% debt and 55% equity, or watch out!
Who and how many independent investors? Have the lenders been lined up? What is
Veranda's track record? Are they publicly or privately held?
4. During the SPIN meeting, Veranda said that if this first proposal weren't approved,
'they would still want to stay in Southlake and therefore go to Plan B, Does that mean
they would lower the density and increase the more desirable and viable Independent Living
units? I would hope so. Let's find out.
5. During the SPIN meeting, Veranda said this would be a gated community. Is that legal?
6. Has there been an Economic /Traffic Impact Study done on this proposal with the city
choosing who does it and Veranda paying for it?
RECD MAR 0 5 2002
Case No. Attachment F
ZA 01 -124 Page 15
7. Will Veranda pay for the required traffic light at Owenswood and 1709?
8. Who will pay for the eventual street tie -ins at Union Church to the south and future
development to the west?
9. Finally, will it be deed restricted to age 62 or older, as was the original plan?
This is VERY important. Here's why:
The Federal Fair Housing Act (FFHA) can only legally 'age restrict senior communities
that are for those 62 or older. It opens Pandora's litigation box if Southlake allows
Veranda the larger market of 55 or older because, under the Housing for Older Persons
amendment to the FFHA, just who could live in the facility becomes a gray area.
Technically, in the case of 55 or older, up to 20`k of the facility (73 units) could have
any age /family combination. This then would put a greater strain on town services,
schools, etc.
In closing, I know this is a lot of information all at once. I am a long time resident of
Southlake, love my community and her people. I DO want our senior citizens to have a
lower density retirement community with a balance of options with an emphasis on true
Independent Living that provides them the dignity and respect they deserve.
Veranda's hospital -type institution proposal is not in keeping with the spirit of
Southlake. Let's send them back to the drawing board.
Sincerely,
Christopher D. Smith
1500 Oak Ln.
Southlake, TX
RECD MAR 0 5 2002
Case No. Attachment F
ZA 01 -124 Page 16
Addendum M
Lorrie Fletcher (Herrick)
From: cmers [curers @charter.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 20021:25 PM
To: Ifletcher @cityofsouthlake.com
Subject: Veranda and 480 -MM
We have lived in Southlake for 14 years and for the most part are pleased with the growth
of our city, We have not allowed high density zoning and the city has prospered. Why with
the small amount of land left do we want to make changes that will negatively impact our
residents? We are adamantly opposed to Veranda's proposed change and to the whole concept
of high density zoning. Sincerely, Carmen and Allen Mers, 2950 Burney Lane, Southlake,
817 -481 -8492
RED MAR 0 5 2002
Case No. Attachment F
ZA 01 -124 Page 17
Addendum N
Lorrie Fletcher (Herrick)
From: Dan Fink [DanF @cookchildrens.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 4:50 PM
To: Ifletcher @cityofsouthlake.com
Subject: Ms. Fletcher - Please forward the following letter to all 7 Commissioners. Thank
Ms. Fletcher - Please forward the following letter to all 7 Commissioners. Thank
you.
Dear Commissioners,
1 am perplexed about the following issues coming before our Planning and Zoning Commission on March 7.
First, I am very concerned about Veranda's proposal to turn Remington into a hospital -style nursing home.
Southlake approved Remington in 1998 as a low density community (201 units), including 111 independent - living
residences for our senior citizens and parents. Yet Veranda's new proposal almost doubles the density (365
units) and has over 80% of the facility designed for hospital -type assisted /nursing care rooms. I don't understand
how this fits within Southlake master plans!
Their land was Master Planned for low- density residential development. This was the original
intent of Remington for our community, which I still support.
The second issue is the consideration of the Very High - Density Housing Ordinance 480 -MM
(Planned Residential
Neighborhood). Acceptance of this ordiance stands to triple the population density, will most
certainly create greater school crowding, and, in my understanding, violates the City Charter.
Why is this even under consideration?
Sincerely,
Daniel L. Fink
603 Llano Court
Southlake, Texas 76092
RECD MAR Q 5 2002
Case No. Attachment F
ZA 01 -124 Page 18
Addendum O
Lorrie Fletcher (Herrick)
From: Mike Trader [mtrader @brantscompany.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 5:32 PM
To: Ifletcher @cityofsouthlake.com
Subject: Forward to Commissioners
Dear Commissioner,
I am very concerned about a couple of issues that are on your immediate radar screen.
My family and I moved to Southlake for many reasons but, two of the biggest reasons were
the schools and the fact that we were comfortable that we would not see apartments or
condos popping up all around us lending to all the traffic, crime, crowding in the schools
ect. that accompanies such development.
Based on what I am hearing about the changes Veranda is proposing with Remington and with
the change to Housing Ordinance 480 -MM this would require, I am feeling that sense of
security evaporating. I sense a feeling of terror and anger. Terror that what we wanted
away from and paid a premium to get away from is going to sneak right in under us do to
greed and political pressure and anger that you would allow such a change to occur under
your watch when you know many residents moved to Southlake with the same impressions and
expectations that I did. You've heard of the "ole bait and switch ", that is what you are
potentially creating here.
Please keep Southlake what so many of us moved here expecting it to be in the future by
preventing these proposed changes.
Thank you.
Michael E. Trader
2701 Derby Ct.
Southlake, TX 76092
Home: 817 251 -0182
The Brants Company, Inc.
(817) 339 -3128
Case No.
ZA 01 -124
RECD MAR 0 6 2002
Attachment F
Page 19
Addendum P
Lorrie Fletcher (Herrick)
From: Michael Oleson [msoleson @att.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 10:35 PM
To: lfletcher @cityol'southlake.com
Subject: Senior Citizen Residence
Please forward to the zoning commissioners. We are adamantly against the proposal before the P &Z Commission regarding
the modification of the planned senior citizen residence. This appears to be a much larger project than was originally
proposed. Please do not support this as currently submitted.
Michael and Lisa Oleson
1205 Lansdowne Ct.
REUD- MAR 0 6 2002
Case No. Attachment F
ZA 01 -124 Page 20
Addendum Q
Lorrie Fletcher (Herrick)
From: JTBrankin @aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 11:06 AM
To: Ifletcher @cityofsouthlake.com
Subject: Fwd: Remington Retirement Community
Please forward to P &Z and CC, per Mr. Lyda's request. His concerns mirror what I've heard, in general,
concerning Remington.... that senior care is needed, this proposal looks attractive in many ways, but the density is
troublesome to some.
Andrea Brankin
SPIN #15
431 -4108
Andrea Brankin
Thanks for updating me on Remington. I have been booked for a program at a school this Thursday night, so
will be unable to attend P &Z meeting.
I do have some opinion on Remington. for sure, the density is too high. It is my observation that as density
increases, the neighborhood deteriorates. Southlake has such at unique opportunity at this stage in its
development to maintain its very high quality of pleasant living . Based on what I have seen elsewhere,
Remington's plan would be destructive to our lifestyle in Southlake; furthermore, it would be destructive to
property values for our residents who live nearby.
I am not opposed to some accommodation for our older residents who need extra -care living facilities, IF such
accommodations provide enhancing conditions to our loved ones as they, and then we, grow older. Perhaps the
NW corner of 1709 and 1938 could be used for an older -care facility; but not according to Remington's current
plan.
Thanks for your gratis service to SPIN and to our Southlake. Please relay my sentiments to P &Z and to the
Council that they and we have the opportunity to maintain and improve the high quality of life that has been
bequeathed to us by our predecessors. If we give way to proposals such as Remington's which seeks a
monetary profit at the expense of lifestyle, then we all shall reap a less happy future.
Hap Lyda
RECD MAR 0 0 2002
Case No. Attachment F
ZA 01 -124 Page 21
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS
ORDINANCE NO. 480 -275a
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
TRACTS 4F, 4F1, 5A1B, 6A1, AND A PORTION OF TRACT 6B SITUATED IN
THE JESSE G. ALLEN SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 18, AND BEING
APPROXIMATELY 22.558 ACRES, AND MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY
DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" FROM "S -P -2" GENERALIZED SITE PLAN
DISTRICT TO INCLUDE PERSONAL CARE FACILITY, NURSING CARE
FACILITY, AND (SENIOR) MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES TO 66 S -P-
2" GENERALIZED SITE PLAN DISTRICT TO INCLUDE PERSONAL CARE
FACILITY, NURSING CARE FACILITY, AND (SENIOR) MULTI - FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL AND (SENIOR) TWO - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AS
DEPICTED ON THE APPROVED CONCEPT PLAN ATTACHED HERETO
AND INCORPORATED HEREIN AS EXHIBIT "B ", SUBJECT TO THE
SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS ORDINANCE;
CORRECTING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PRESERVING ALL OTHER
PORTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE; DETERMINING THAT THE
PUBLIC INTEREST, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE DEMAND THE
ZONING CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS HEREIN MADE; PROVIDING
THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE CUMULATIVE OF ALL
ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR
A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS HEREOF; PROVIDING A SAVINGS
CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL
NEWSPAPER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Southlake, Texas is a home rule City acting under its Charter adopted by the
electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 9 of the Texas Local
Government Code; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code, the City has the authority to
adopt a comprehensive zoning ordinance and map regulating the location and use of buildings, other structures
and land for business, industrial, residential and other purposes, and to amend said ordinance and map for the
purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals and general welfare, all in accordance with a
comprehensive plan; and
WHEREAS, the hereinafter described property is currently zoned as "S -P -2" Generalized Site
Case No.
ZA01 -124
Attachment G
Page 1
Plan District to include personal care facility, nursing care facility, and (senior) multi - family residential
uses 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 ofthe 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
Case No. Attachment G
ZA01 -124 Page 2
requires the amendments, and that the zoning changes do not unreasonably invade the rights of those
who bought or improved property with reference to the classification which existed at the time their
original investment was made; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that the changes in
zoning lessen the congestion in the streets, helps secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers,
promotes the health and the general welfare, provides adequate light and air, prevents the over-
crowding of land, avoids undue concentration of population, and facilitates the adequate provision of
transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, has determined that there is a
necessity and need for the changes in zoning and has also found and determined that there has been a
change in the conditions of the property surrounding and in close proximity to the tract or tracts of
land requested for a 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 Tracts 4F, 4F 1, 5A1B, 6A1, and a portion of Tract 6B situated in the Jesse G.
Allen Survey, Abstract No. 18, and being approximately 22.558 acres, and more fully
and completely described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein,
Case No. Attachment G
ZA01 -124 Page 3
from "S -P -2" Generalized Site Plan District to include personal care facility, nursing
care facility, and (senior) multi - family residential uses to "S -P -2" Generalized Site
Plan District to include personal care facility, nursing care facility, and (senior) multi-
family residential and (senior) two - family residential uses as depicted on the approved
Concept Plan attached hereto and incorporating 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
Case No. Attachment G
ZA01 -124 Page 4
land throughout the community.
SECTION 5.
That this ordinance shall be cumulative of all other ordinances of the City of Southlake,
Texas, affecting zoning and shall not repeal any of the provisions of said ordinances except in those
instances where provisions of those ordinances are in direct conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance.
SECTION 6.
That the terms and provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be severable and that if
the validity of the zoning affecting any portion of the tract or tracts of land described herein shall be
declared to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the zoning of the balance of said tract
or tracts of land described herein.
SECTION 7.
Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply
with or who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be fined not more
than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Each day that a violation is permitted to
exist shall constitute a separate offense.
SECTION 8.
All rights and remedies of the City of Southlake are expressly saved as to any and all
violations of the provisions of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, or any other ordinances affecting
zoning which have accrued at the time of the effective date of this ordinance; and, as to such accrued
violations and all pending litigation, both civil and criminal, whether pending in court or not, under
such ordinances, same shall not be affected by this ordinance but may be prosecuted until final
disposition by the courts.
SECTION 9.
Case No. Attachment G
ZA01 -124 Page 5
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 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 frill 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 1 2002.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the day of , 2002.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
Case No. Attachment G
ZA01 -124 Page 6
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
CITY ATTORNEY
DATE:
ADOPTED:
EFFECTIVE:
Case No.
ZA01 -124
Attachment G
Page 7
EXHIBIT "A"
Being Tracts 41 4F 1, 5A1B, 6A1, and a portion of Tract 6B situated in the Jesse G. Allen Survey,
Abstract No. 18, and being approximately 22.558 acres.
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF TARRANT
PRDP'F.RTY DE,SCf- 3PTION
BEING A 22.57 ACRE tract of land located in the JESSE G. ALLEN SURVEY,
Alistrlct No. 18, Tarrattl. County, Texus, and being that certain tract oflartcl as conveyed
to Lifestyles, Inc. A Texas Corporation by deed recorded in Volutne 13169, Pagc 0113,
+lul in Voiurne 1331:), Pagc 0504, ofthe Deed Records of Tarrant County, said 22,57
lrcre tract of land being more pitrticularly described by lnctes and bounds m follows:
BEGINNING at a 1 /2" iron rod t'ound in the south line orF,M, 1709 (West Soltthlalce
Boulevard); said point a so being the N.E. confer of Lot 1, Block 1 Slayton Addition as
recorded in Cabinet "A Slide 1826, RR.T,C,T.
THENCE N 89 °54X25" E, 13.46 feet to a 1 /7" iron rod found s being citu,'ttcd lit
the bcginning of lj CLIVVC to the 10
TH1:NC'E An arc longth of 41)11.54 feet to a curve to the left, with a Contra] Angle of
23'21'00 ", a radius of 1004.93 feet, a tangent length of 2()7.65 feet, and a
long chord wllicll bears N 78" 13'57" E, 406.72 feet;
THENCE. N 61"07' E 30.47 feet to a 11 1 2" iron rod found,
THENCE,: N 66"0515" E, 11.13 feet to a lit" iron rod found;
T11L,N('E S Oo"o 1'06" E, 889.81 feet to a point,
"Cl IP.NCE S t39 E. 330.76 f=1 fu a point;
THENCE S {)1° 10'02" E, 469.80 feet to a point;
THENCE S 88 0 47'36" E, continuing atattg said north line, 84.63 feet to a 1/2" iron
rocs found, belle being sltuatcd at the nolthcast corner or5aid Joseph
Mortttravi tract;
THENCE S 00 °22'49' W, Colltinuin,g along Said cast dine of said Joseph Vlortazavt
tract, 502.Su feat to a 1/2" iron rod round,
THENCE: N 89 0 56' 4 5" W, 218.82 rcct to a 112" iron rod refund sane being sltuatcd at
the nortliewit corner of a tract or land described in decd to Patricia Ann
%jlley in Volume 9866, Pare 1403, D.R.T.C.T.;
THENCE N 89 W, :along the north line of said Bailey tract, 158.43 Nct to a
I /2" iron roj found;
1'l IENCE N 013 "U4`35" W, 5 10,5 3 feet to a 1 /2" iron rud found;
Case No.
ZA01 -124
Attachment G
Page 8
'1'llE.NC'E N 88 0 4? "3I," W, 193.04 feet to a 112" iron rod found,
THE?N'CYE S OV01'06" E, 184,10 feet to a :12" itan rocl fOLInd
THENCE S 89 0 59'49" W, 299.92 feet to a 1 /2" iron rod found;
TI IENCE NORTH, I439.03 feet to a 1i2" iron rod found in the south line of the
aforesaid F.M. 1.709 (West Southlakc Boulevard); siiid point being the
POINT OF BUGiNNING, containing 22.57 aeres of land (983,134 square
feet) of Iand,
Case No.
ZA01 -124
Attachment G
Page 9
CA
o
~' o
N
CA
A
0
n
Q �
f9 �
WHO
U}M
&11 `�1 141 M1
O �
F l
H
cd
.+1
N
E �
11J
Qy y c � � II I
CC6S O .i
fqi
YF.
A MW
1.OT #1
.. R
CONGREGATE
��usm
SSStc M'.
� N
f p
SITE DATA SUMMARY
aysmkr]aramuY lul Wsptw gJy
imw pa. tlP.N
Vwwr+9lm.oJ
e
REMINGTDN
Aomd 7gci�
Io.uJOYIM14iSmmPlea
�pmr,
a9muw. rmm,n,>�°
���wae�o
PuNk/FmILFi�Wk
co mmuNrry
°m'°
s . ` wreiia
mmew'
99F
0 OWEN WOOD DRWEADDMON
10111l4PP➢liP
QfYPAPa,�.ISL
Pmmmaef5lmIDrcye
YPW.FEFXf
'
O�a,r
Y J5]a'o.n
¢P,m�te st, Pi
+m�
ss ^. s
pmmy F.mTlm
G+o9m�D5w°ml
lkwe. slm ..
*. F[
_
U�nv. a
"m SJr m
SdLAIVPPJ114P14, 9EId9
R91W�UNAWLTWHJC Ia]lIP1AT0 WF1J016
TIIPIq {pdOP6AIIAt.➢PH7ChAII PNdyP115(INIY
C/6YMQIlT�N049P'GGJY:PNIISf1.Vm
�aJf 10LLW61al@mH
fLQIf1NbP.V ®IY�ClIW.dM1D)
pt[1q'p]p.EflBly�
ONNFL
1ptQa�pfyryypaylsa 90l[I16A�Lp,
1�0PIffiI�YP6a
61R19.IA
MIaN 5
miva�vvge
5IM450aa
4]S Wi�..
�Nne�ffm
aerMvm
R
P]6 0 fi
alma Mmin
OnefNGllu.
'rvrutySouy]>ww6lrc
�°svmn
mtleShcgi
sse[upe
,�u'Ime
saEn]f lute
°
I
my
w
_
v�w�as7�nw
lv Ua
xnlurY
N�IYOafb
VwxrN�wru
Hence- Ia ;Mi19.
�4- 3a1A9B59.
_ _
F..aIm IIWtlFy
HNU (Nm�na.
UV na Uelu
FAmYy
-IAq k -r,
AVZ�nx)
hll147,'EZ76ttlP
9199atou
P.P>; 91A.EPI GCPP
➢SPPltiPP4
YPfd1UN�6[N®OIH[SI1gi
]910AETF6V YOM
wncpo
DaLL1J�Tl9.18P
®15911
PdY @79dG14fL6
F �y�Sy_
CAIRL 'ILN.41tLP®lY ®OP.f1GV nBPOpd]Pb
p31�WY�RIIId'Im 10.
j°.
bu
r.mSir eew..la.p
NNUUmS
eT ""i
r 1 i lrvklrick!I
ISVnkm MW�ple
aWx
Soelmum lwtsmel
- IH1e
((glary FC
wp
I
Nmv19F- ar]d]eaJ05y
Mvaa
F41/9959RAVyegl
lchpiMral Lh9.rp
mIPSE &s FCIPPOSaFC
Ei l9W
.r.95ow lPW fq
519W- �/. R4
NO®llPIORAYUfI➢JSTd YPIW
Plpolauf3l
PA1f 6111diiFW1
'A
L[10 �-�
—
51WUJ
Id115e5umaeetlN
CONCEPT PLAN
i
—
u
Fvmlha 1pe,sgti�r
—
`
rmm.
scALF ' r — w -01 L b -L Z
vrc m m a�
e9aaor,emmaw9m,rcm,
a� mrcm
w „wF
J,a swl
O �
F l
H
cd
.+1
N
E �
11J
Qy y c � � II I
CC6S O .i
EXHIBIT "C"
This page reserved for City Council motion
Case No. Attachment G
ZA01 -124 Page 11