The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 7BSOUTHLAI<F, Department of Planning & Development Services STAFF REPORT May 19, 2015 CASE NO: ZA14-144 PROJECT: Zoning Change & Development Plan for Shady Lane EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: REQUEST DETAILS: ACTION NEEDED: ATTACHMENTS: 76 Hat Creek Development is requesting 1st reading approval of a Zoning Change and Development Plan for Shady Lane to develop seventeen residential lots and three open space lots on property described as Tracts 5C1, 5E1, 5E and 5D2C, Samuel Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 525, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and located at 853, 909, 1001 and 1015 Shady Ln., Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District. Requested Zoning: "R-PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District. SPIN Neighborhood # 4. The applicant is requesting 1 st reading approval of a Zoning Change and Development Plan for Shady Lane to develop seventeen residential lots and three open space lots on approximately 20.5 acres. The Development Plan has been revised since the case was first tabled at 1 st reading on March 3, 2015 to remove one residential lot. With the reduction of one lot, the net density has decreased from approximately 0.965 dwelling units per acre to approximately 0.912 dwelling units per acres and the gross density has decreased from approximately 0.88 dwelling units per acre to approximately 0.83 dwelling units per acre. A comparison of the site data between the originally proposed eighteen lots and the revised plan with seventeen lots is below. Residential Average Lot Gross Net Density Open Space Open Space Lots Size Density % 18 33,648 sq. ft. 0.88 0.965 4.74 ac. 23.12% DU/Acre Units/Acre 17 34,032 sq. ft. 0.83 0.912 5.37 ac. 26.20% DU/Acre Units/Acre -- - - M-0 - -- Consider 1st reading approval of a Zoning Change and Development Plan (A) Background Information (B) Vicinity Map Case No. ZA14-144 619M15 Ci.swHale.bus Mail - Rezorrng ofShadylane 73 Cry Of S'QLrrHLA Richard Schell <rschell@Ce.tx.us> Rezoning of Shady lane 1 message Jean Lehmann To: rschell@ci.southlake.tx.us Tue, May 19, 2015 at 3:04 PM My name is Jean Lehmann and I reside at 1100 Shady Lane in Southlake. Initially, I was opposed to the new PUD request for the North Shady Ln development. However, after careful review of the plan and the quality of home previously built by the developer, I support the current proposal. I understand that many of the neighbors in the area would prefer all 1 acre lots. I believe that meeting this demand would actually undermine the preservation of our immediate community, as it would mean the elimination of the "green space", making any development of the property less desirable. Thank you for your time and consideration. Jean Lehmann hitpsJ/mail.g oog Ie.caNmi il/?u=2&iIF 178M4086&aevr-pt8search=ice 14d6dc6ff5eO7cb78sim1=14d6dc&FjW7cb7 1/1 Ci.southlale.txus Mail - F%nd: Shady Lane Proposal Y Fwd: Shady Lane Proposal 1 message Richard Schell <rschell@ci.southlake.tx.us> Ken Baker <kbaker@ci.southlake.tx.us> Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:11 PM To: Richard Schell <rschell@ci.southiake.tx.us>, Holly Blake <hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us> Forwarded message From: sammy armstrong Date: Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:07 PM Subject: Shady Lane Proposal To: "mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us" <mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us>, "place3@6.southlake.tx.us" <place3@ci.southlake.tx.us>, "place4@ci.southlake.tx.us" <place4@ci.southlake.tx.us>, "places@ci.southlake.tx.us" <place5@6.southlake.tx.us> Cc: "kbaker@ci.southlake.tx.us" <kbaker@ci southlake.tx.us> Mr. Mayor & Councilpersons, My name is Sammy Armstrong, my family and I reside at 1012 Shady Ln, Southlake. This is my second letter to state that although I was initially opposed to the new PUD request for the North Shady Ln development I am now supporting it. We have attended every spin meeting, the council meetings, and the citizens meeting regarding this developlment. I am confident that I am the only Shady Ln resident who has communicated with both the developer and my opposing neighbors from day one. I have stressed to all parties to work together to determine what the very best options are for this land going forward. Those that are opposed have made it clear they do not want to see any type of development and feel that by insisting the developer adhere to 1 acre per home they will negate the project from going forward. They continue to fantasize a pro athelete will buy the land and build a single mansion.(note this property has been on market for over 10 yearsD They insisted that only a "chosen W' would attend the citizen's meeting with the developer and that no one would discuss how the PUD could possibly work. They went to the citizens meeting determined to see that there was no way the developer could build more than a dozen homes on 1 acre lots, a fact that they repeatly stated when securing the signatures for their petition. Obviously their insights were incorrect. I remain dismayed that you and the majority of the council have made it clear that the PUD is the best option, yet you will not over rule the "citizens of this neighborhood". Forgive me for being frank, but I spoke at the first council meeting and attempted to paint a picture of who truly lives near this developlment. The majority of the citizens who have led the "anti-pud campaingn" do not live near the location. Most of them live over a half mile or more away on side streets and have no interaction with the neighbors who will be most effected by the development. I attended one of the "neighborhood meetings" and it was clear that those in support would not be listened to. I was then shocked when an existing council member showed up and rallied those in opposition to stay the course which was coupled with a campaign speech for Mayor. I was not excited to see and hear the property accross the street from my home had now become campain tool! I must say I feel disinfranchised by the council. As of today I am aware of 4 residents who live within 250' of the proposal who are sending letters stating they support the PUD. There are several more who actually live on Shady Ln who verbally support the PUD, but have been silenced and defeated by peer pressure from by an aggressive campaign by those who oppose it. I personally have had numerous members of the opposition stop by my home on three occassions and while polite they strived to convince me to retract my support. They have made it clear that if they can secure the support of those living within 250' of the proposal they can mandate a majority vote by the council. I truly wish the council would offer the same value to those living with 250" of the property versus those who live on a queit cul-de-sac over a mile away. httpsJ/mail.google.corrVn-dl/?ui=2&ilc-178M340B6&,j&A-pt&searcF--irto)& h--14d596aca8bd54fl&siml=14d596aca8bd54fl 1/2 5/19/2015 Ci.soul:Naletcus Mail - rv%d: Shady Lane Proposal I respect the volunteer work you and the council put forth on behalf of our beautiful city. Now is the time that i must insist that you do what is best for both those who will be most effected by the proposed development and for all the citizens of Southlake. The 2030 plan encompasses a concept that allows a master plan that more than addresses the needs of those that hope to live on larger parcels of land. I live on 1.2 acres with a vegetable garden, small orchard, greenhouse, pool, and beautiful gardens that I work in year round. To my left I have a neighbor who has lived in his home since 1974. The rear of my property is surrounded by modem day large homes on .5 acres. It's totally neat how we all respect each other's life styles and have become friends. Simply put "crying wolf' is a strategy that should never dominate sound judgement. Please step up and be the leaders our city deserves -vote YES for the PUD. Sincerely Sammy J. Armstrong 1012 Shady Ln Southlake, Texas 76092 817-713-7191 Kenneth M. Baker, AICP Senior Director of Planning and Development Services City of Southlake 1400 Main Street - Suite 310 Southlake, TX 76092 817-748-8067 Council Letter.doc 26K https•J/mail.g oog Ie.corrVmail/?u=2&iIF 178M34086&4ew=pt&searct--inbou&th-- 14d596aca8bd54f1&siml=14d596aca8bd54f1 212 5/19/2015 Ci.southlake.bcus Mail - Fwd: FW North Shady Lane USOUTHLAKE Richard Schell <rschell@ci.southlake.tx.us> Fwd: FW: North Shady Lane 1 message Ken Baker <kbaker@ci.southiake.tx.us> Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:19 AM To: Richard Schell <rschell@ci.southlake.tx.us> Forwarded message From: Lori Payne <Ipayne@ci.southlake tx.us> Date: Tue, May 19, 20.15 at 10:03 AM Subject: FW: North Shady Lane To: Ken Baker <KBaker@ci.southiake.tx.us>, Holly Blake <hblake@ci southlake fix us> —Original Message — From: Scott Moyer Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 10:00 AM To: mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us Subject: North Shady Lane To Whom it May Concern, My name is Scott Moyer. I reside at 1010 Shady Ln. Although first opposed to the RPUD, I since have changed my position on the matter and am now in support of the RPUD. I am sure that the RPUD is the best for those in the immediate vicinity of the development. Sincerely, Scott Moyer Sent from my iPhone Kenneth M. Baker, AICP Senior Director of Planning and Development Services City of Southlake 1400 Main Street - Suite 310 Southlake, TX 76092 817-748-8067 https://niail.g oog Ie.corNmai I/?ui=2&i Ir 178f934086&vieu.= pt&search=inbox&tF-- 14d6cf8cbeb37dcc&si n i=14d6cf8cbeb37dcc 1/1 5/19/2015 Ci.southlale.bcus Mail - FW: Proposed zoning change for the Shady Lane neighborhood SOUTHLAKE Richard Schell <rschell@ci.southlake.tx.us> FW: Proposed zoning change for the Shady Lane neighborhood 1 message Lori Payne <lpayne@ci.southlake.tx.us> Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:25 PM To: Ken Baker <KBaker@ci.southlake.tx.us>, Holly Blake <hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us>, Richard Schell <rschell@ci.southlake.tx. us> From Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 1:24 PM To: mayorandcitycouncil@ci.southiake tx.us Subject: Proposed zoning change for the Shady Lane neighborhood Dear City Council, Please consider this position statement as you prepare to address the proposed zoning change in the Shady Lane neighborhood tonight, Tuesday, May 19, 2015. We love our neighborhood's quiet, country -like appeal and this is whywe moved to this area eight years ago. Please deny Mr. Maykus's/Hat Creek Developments proposed zoning change in the Shady Ln neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Susan Rysavy 2460 Greenbough Lane https://mail.g oog le.com/mail/?U=2&il4z-- 178P934086&%ievy= pt&searcF-- inbox&th=14d6d6c744f3ebc9&siml=14d6d6c744f3ebc9 1/1 SI9/2015 Ci.southlal e.txus Mail - FM: FIN., RPUD citizen response USOUTHLAKE Richard Schell <rschell@ci.southlake.tx.us> Fwd: FW: RPUD citizen response 1 message Ken Baker <kbaker@ci.southlake.tx.us> To: Richard Schell <rschell@ci.southlake.tx.us> Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:18 AM Forwarded message From: Lori Payne <Ipayne@ci.southlake.tx.us> Date: Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:02 AM Subject: FW: RPUD citizen response To: John Terrell <mayor-int@ci southlake.tx us>, mayorandcitycouncil@cl.southiake.tx.us Cc: Ken Baker <KBaker@ci.southlake.tx.us>, Holly Blake <hblake@ci southiake.tx.us> Front retacannelia Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 10:55 AM To: 1payne@ci.soutnfaKe.tx us Subject: RPUD To the City secretary, Please forward this messageto the mayor and the city of Southlake council. I am a Shady Lane neighbor and I am opposed to the Shady RPUD. Reta Ca n nel I a 2850 Brookwood Lane Southlake, TX 76092 Kenneth M. Baker, AICP Senior Director of Planning and Development Services City of Southlake 1400 Main Street - Suite 310 Southlake, TX 76092 817-748-8067 httpsJ/mail.g oog Ie.corrVmai1/?ui=28 ilr 178f934086&MeA-pt&search=inbox&th=14d6cf8711 b59bld&siml=14d6cf8711b5gb1d 1/2 D/19/2015 Ci.southlale.txus Mail - Fad: FW: RPUD citizen response https://mail.g oog Ie.corNmail/?U=2&iir 178f934086&iievL=pt&search=inbox&th=14d6cf8711b59bld&siM=14d6cf8711b59b1d W Usouthlal-.tx.us Mail - FAd: FVV: Shady Larte Applicafion Fwd: FW: Shady Lane Application 1 message Holly Blake <hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us> To: Richard Schell <rschell@ci.southlake.tx.us> Richard Schell <rschell@ci.southlake.tx.us> Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:30 PM Forwarded message From: Lori Payne <Ipayne@ci.southlake_tx.us> Date: Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:29 PM Subject: FW: Shady Lane Application To: Holly Blake <hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us>, Ken Baker <KBaker@ci.southlake.tx.us> From: Greg Standerfer [mailtc __ Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 2:27 PM To: rnayor@ci.southlake.tx.us; place 1@ci.southlake tx us; place2@ci.southlake tx f..ts; puce.@ ci.iouthiaKaAX.uS; piaG&4&i.avuIhaKC.ix.u6; Allen Taylor Subject: Shady Lane Application Mayor Hill and Council Members: I have spoken before on the Shady lane Development Application filed by Hat Creek. As I have previously stated, I have in the past represented Kosse Maykus and/or entities owned by Kosse Maykus. I do not represent Hat Creek in this development application. I will be in trial the week of May 18, and therefor unable to attend the council meeting. I would like to take this opportunity to address the council on this application. I have heard (both in election materials and from past speakers on this application) a claim that this property is SF1A under Southlake's Land Use Plan. That statement is untrue and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan speaks in terms of density. This property is carried as low density residential in the land use plan. Low density residential in the Land Use Plan calls for density of at or below 1 lot per acre. My understanding is that the application requests 17 or 18 lots on 22 acres. The application meets the Land Use Plan for this property. The property is zoned SF1A, hence the zoning change application. At the last meeting, I stated that I was confident that Kosse could simply file a plat for an 18 lot SF1A development. I was wrong. Kosse could simply file a plat for an 17 lot SF1A development. My understanding is that he is willing to reduce the PUD Application to 17 lots also. Assuming that to be true, whether the PUD is turps://mail.g oog Ie.corrVmai l/?ui=2& k--178f934086&%iev=pt&search=i nbox&ttr- 14d59oeebbc27601 &sim1=14d590eebbc27601 1/4 5/19/2015 Ci.southlal-,.bcus Mail - Nd: FW Shady Lane Application approved or the 17 lot Plat is filed, the density is the same (17 single family homes). The traffic is the same (actually, in the PUD, all lot access is internal so access points to Shady Lane are actually reduced, but the trip count will be the same). However, the PUD offers significantly greater open space, sidewalks, trails, Corps property access for the neighbors, etc. The SF1A Plat will provide none of these. One need only to compare Coventry and the Triple C developments to appreciate the differences in quality between a 1Acre PUD and a 1Acre straight zoning development. The density of Coventry and Triple C are equal. However, Coventry has curvilinear streets, sidewalks, curb & gutter drainage, open space, parkland, etc. Triple C has none of these. It has straight line asphalt streets, narrow flag lots, bar ditch drainage, no open space, no trial, no sidewalks, and very little landscaping or watering on the back half of the lots. It simply does not compare to the quality of the Coventry development, although both were done by the same developer. Dave McMahan wanted a PUD similar to Coventry with, as I recall, 14 acres of open space, curvilinear streets, sidewalks, curb & gutter drainage, open space, parkland, etc. I was on the council at the time and argued against forcing a lower quality development simply to follow a slavish a 1Acre only agenda. The results are stark different, the tax base is much lower. This very discussion was made central argument in the recent mayor's race. Turnout was high. The majority (by a wide margin) spoke during that election. I also heard most, if not all, of the council members state that they would not vote for a development application opposed by the neighbors in the immediate area. First and foremost, that I believe such statements made by a majority of council members, are, as applied, an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority over zoning. Minton v. Ft. Worth Planning Com , 786 S.W.2d 563 (Tex. Civ. App.— Fort Worth 1990, ); see also, Arbor Bend Villas Housing L.P. v Tarrant County Housing Finance Corp., 2005 WL 548104, *15 (N.D. Tex. 2005); Geo-Tech Reclamation Industries. Inc v Hamrick, 886 F.2d 662 (4th Cir.1989) (holding that director's rejection of permits solely because of adverse public comment, and despite the fact that all technical requirements were fulfilled, was unconstitutional); Washington ex rel. Seattle Title Trust Co v Roberge, 278 U.S. 116, 49 S.Ct. 50, 73 L.Ed. 210 (1928) (finding that an ordinance requiring consent from neighboring landowners in order to obtain a permit violated the Due Process Clause); Eubank v Richmond, 226 U.S. 137, 33 S.Ct. 76, 57 L.Ed. 156 (1912) (holding that city ordinance requiring two-thirds resident approval to approve changes to a street was unconstitutional); Cilyof Dallas v. FCC, 165 F.3d 341, 357-58 (5th Cir.1999) (holding that practice allowing open -video system operators to grant access to the system when FCC was legally required to prohibit such operators from discriminating among video -programming providers violated Constitution); General Elec. Co. v New York State De0 of Labor, 936 F.2d 1448, 1455 (2d Cir.1991) ("a legislative body may not constitutionally delegate to private parties the power to determine the nature of rights to property in which other individuals have a property interest, without supplying standards to guide the private parties' discretion'. Secondly, Southlake does not elect council members in single member districts. Each council member is charged with representing the interests of all of Southlake. Ceding authority over zoning decisions to 40 people carrying pitchforks and torches excludes the interests of the other 28,000 residents of Southlake. Thirdly, I specifically recall the neighbors' opposition to the Lacrosse fields and the north DPS Facility and gun range, both located at Whites Chapel and Dove Rd. (by the way, I did not oppose either of those uses, even though I live approximately 3 blocks from those developments). If council members express commitment never to override neighbor opposition, where was the council members' support for neighbor opposition to the Lacrosse fields and the north DPS Facility and gun range? The council essentially ignored sincere public opposition to the Lacrosse fields and the north DPS Facility and gun range simply because it believed that the desires of the land owner (in these cases, the city) outweighed the desires of the neighbors to prevent development near their back yams. It seems to me that you can't have it both ways. https://mail.9oogle.corrVmail/?ui=2& k--178f934086&�Aev�r-pt&search=inbox&th=14d590eebbc27601&sim1=14d590eebbc27601 24 912015 Ci.scuthialebcus Mail - FM: FW: Shady Lane Application All development affects neighbors to at least some degree. In this case, however, the impacts upon the neighbors is at most the same with the PUD and straight zoning, and probably of lesser impact due to the more limited access to Shady Lane and the addition of significant open space, trail, sidewalks, access to Corp property etc. As I stated at the last meeting, given no difference in density, and the same number of residential lots, I prefer quality and open space over fenced in flag lots of inferior quality. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Greg Standerfer EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2012, OUR NEW ADDRESS IS 700 N. CARROLL AVE., SUITE 140, SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS 76092 PLEASE MAKE A NOTE OF OUR NEW ADDRESS. THE TELEPHONE NUMBERS AND EMAIL ADDRESS REMAIN THE SAME Gregory P. Standerfer Please respond Standerier Law Firm. P C. 700 N. Carroll Ave. , Suite 140 Southlake. Texas 76092 Office: (M) (817) 481-44' 1 Cell: (M) (214) 683-3900 Fax: (M) (817) 481.4053 This communication is intended solely for the use of the indhAdual httpsJ/niail.g oog Ie.corrimai]/?Li=2&ilr 178f934086&vieu�=pt&search=ir box&tFr-14d590eebbc27601&sim1=14d590eebbc27601 314 5/19/2015 ci.southlaletcus Mail - Fwi: FVV Shady LaneApplication to whom or the entity to which It Is addressed It may contain Information that is privileged, confidential. If you are neither the Intended recipient, nor the employee, nor the agent responsible for delivering the communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone or email, delete the communication from any computer or other electronic storage media, and destroy all other copies in your possession. Holly Blake Administrative Secretary - Planning Certified Permit Technician - Building Inspections City of Southlake 897-748-8621 hblake@ci.southlake. tx. us httpsJ/mail.g oog le.corNmail/?U=2&W--178M34086&HewF pt&search=inbox&tf-- 14d590eebbc27601 &si m1=14d590eebbc27601 414 Ci.southlaie.txus Mail - Nd: Shady Lane OSWTHLAK—E Richard Schell <rschell@cl.southlake.tx.us> Fwd: Shady Lane 1 message Ken Baker <kbaker@ci.southlake.tx.us> To: Richard Schell <rschell@ci.southlake.tx.us> Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: Tue, May 19, 2015 at 7:25 AM From: Lori Payne <Ipayne@ci.southlake.tx.us> Date: May 19, 2015 at 6:42:36 AM CDT To: Ken Baker <KBaker@ci.southlake.tx.us>, Holly Blake <hbiake@cl.southIake.tx.us> Subject: Fwd: Shady Lane Lori Payne Begin forwarded message: From: KAYLE GREEN Date: May 18, 2015 at 11:34:30 PM CDT To: mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us, "place 1 @ci. southlake tx.us" <place1@ci.southlake.tx us>, "place2@ci southlake tx us" <place2@ci.southlake.tx.us>, "place3@ci.southlake.tx us" <place3@ci.southlake.tx.us>, "place4@ci southlake.tx.us" <piace4@ci.southlake.tx.us>, "place5@ci southiake tx us" <place5@ci.southlake.tx.us>, "place6@ci southlake.tx.us" <place6@ci.southlake.tx. us> Subject: Shady Lane Dear Council Members, My name is Kayle Green and I reside at 421 Copperfield St. In Southlake. I am writing you to express my support of the plan put forth by Mr. Kosse Maykus for the Shady Lane development. Although I am out of town and unable to attend the meeting on May 19th, I ask that you consider the following: 1. Less than 1 acre lots, accompanied by more trees, trails, and green zones can be a better product than the altemative. 2. Why are we debating over .75 acre lots when zero lot line homes were approved to be built in Carrillon? I find that ironic. tr "Wrnail.goog Ie.corrftail/?u=2&ilr 178M34086&wev,-pt&seard--inbox&th=14d6c22a37fe1ad7&sim9=14d6c22a37fe1ad7 1/2 `fix' 3 %i.scuthialetxus Mail - FM: Shady Lane 3. The neighbors that signed the petition have done so in the hope of causing such a delay that the development plan would be abandoned. If they knew that wasn't the case, they would admit that Mr. Maykus's proposed PUD zoned plan is the best option. Do you think if he had gone to them from the start with 1 acre lots that they would have then been ok with the development and not been in opposition? 4. Mr. Maykus has an outstanding reputation as a custom builder. As testament to my belief in the project, I currently have my house for sale in anticipation of building in Shady Lane. Thank you for your consideration. Kind Regards, Kayle Green Southlake Resident O: 214-346-2709 C: 214-284-5256 https://mail.g oog le.corrYmaill?ui=2&ilr 178M34086&Ahe%=ptg search=irbox&dt-- 14d6c22a37fe1 ad7&siml=14d6c22a37fel adz 2/2 _i -�9/2C-1-- Ci.southlaletc.us Mail - Fnd: Rezoning: Shady Lane US6UTHLAKE Richard Schell <rschell@ci.southlake.tx.us> Fwd: Rezoning: Shady Lane 1 message Holly Blake <hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us> Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:52 AM To: Richard Schell <rschell@ci.southiake.tx.us> Forwarded message From: Lori Payne <lpayne@ci.southlake.tx us> Date: Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:05 AM Subject: Fwd: Rezoning: Shady Lane To: Ken Baker <KBaker@ci.southlake.tx.us>, Holly Blake <hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us> Lori Payne Begin forwarded message: From: Lee and Sally Simpsoi Date: May 18, 2015 at 9:59:15 AM CDT To: mayorandcltycouncii@cl.souiniaKe.rx us Subject: Rezoning: Shady Lane To: Mayor Laura Hill and City Council members From: Sallyand Lee Simpson, Southlake residents 17 +years Re: Rezoning of Shady Lane acreage Dear Mayor and Council members, We are NOT in favor of rezoning the Shady Lane properties. We would like to see it remain SF1Awhich follows the 2030 Plan, and is the zoning that many long time Southlake homeowners bought into and wish to retain. Just because one developer sees an area "ripe for development' and potential profit does not mean rezoning is the best plan for the area and surrounding neighborhood. We TRUST that you will abide bythe wishes of the overwhelming majority of the Shady Lane homeowners, and keep this property zoned SF1A The homeowners have spoken, loudly and clearly, and theysupport redevelopment as long as it remains SF1A Their wishes should supercede a developer's desire to change the zoning to increase profits. Mayor and Council, you are elected and charged with protecting the rules and regulations of ebsbng zoning, and balancing the desires of Southlake residents. Please protect our residents from unwanted zoning changes. Sallyand Lee Simpson https://mail.g oog Ie.corNmail/?U=2&ik=178M34086&ueA-pt&search=irboxgttv= 14d67ba73a790494&sim1=14d67ba73a790494 1/2 =l"! 9/2015 Ci.southlak-.txus Mail - Fwd: Rezoning: Shady Lane Holly Blake Administrative Secretary - Planning Certified Permit Technician - Building Inspections City of Southlake 817-748-8621 hblake@ci.southlake. tx. us httpsJ/mail.g oog le.com/maill?Li=2& k=178M34086&aevr-ptgsearct--inboxWi=14d67ba73a790494&siM=14d67ba73a790494 212 5N9i2015 Ci.southlale.txus Mail - Fmd Shady Lane development 13SOUTHLAKE Richard Schell <rschell@ci.southlake.tx.us> Fwd: Shady Lane development 1 message Holly Blake <hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us> Mon, May 18, 2015 at 9:27 AM To: Richard Schell <rschell@ci.southlake.tx.us> Forwarded message From: Lori Payne <ipayne@crsouthlake tx.us> Date: Sun, May 17, 2015 at 11:26 AM Subject: Fwd: Shady Lane development To: Ken Baker <KBaker@ci.southlake.tx.us>, Holly Blake <hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us> Lori Payne Begin forwarded message: From: Bobby Rawls Date: May 17, 2015 at 11:21:44 AM CDT To: mayorandcltycouncll@ci.southiake.tx.us Subject: Shady Lane development Dear Mayor and Cound Members, The voters of Southlake spoke loudly this past weekend. The constant drone of how negative that all development in Southlake is was rejected. It was rejected by a wide margin. I'm an advocate for following the Future Land Use Plan.Shady Lane is totally compliant with the City's land use plan. If you want to continue the same quality developments that Kosse Maykus has done in Southlake, vote positively for this potential neighborhood.. These negative people (CAVE) Citizens Against Virtually Everything who oppose almost all development recently,need to be rejected. The adjacent neighbors support the Shady Lane plan, but a small, very vocal group is now trying to work you as newly elected Council members.. This group sends all type of negative mailers, attack the character of the council candidates they oppose, and generally work against all projects -They will threaten the new council members if they approve a PUD on Shady Iane.They will not vote for any current council members with the exception of Shaffi and Fawks, They campaigned and voted against the 2 newcomers this election, and will vote against them next election either way they vote. Shawn and John ran on what they believed in, and their opponents ran on the same tired fear of "Apartments" coming to Southlake, like "SAN' Stop Apartments Now started back in 1996. They actually think they can stop the landowners who have the right to sell their property, to not build anything on this land. The neighbors can put their money together and buy this land for the amount Mr Maykus is paying and make it into what they feel is more desirable for their neighborhood. Did you ever think that the land owners were not too excited to see a bunch of homes on 1 acre lots develop around them when they owned such a large parcel of land? Think about that https:/Imail.g oog Ie.corrVmail/?u=2&ik=178f934086&uev�=pt&search=inbox&th=14d676c3dr1158a5&sid=14d676c3dr1158a5 1/2 5118/2015 Ci.southlale.ccus Mail - FM: Shady Lane developnmM for a ;nlnute. Kosse Maykus has built many of the premier neighborhoods in Southlake. He has given back to this Community as he spent his own money to remodel the Senior Center, I urge you Laura Hill, Brandon Bledsoe, Shawn McCaskill John Huffman, Randy Williamson to not allow another triple CCC to be built on Shady Lane. Keep Southlake a premier community with a Premier developer, one who continues to give back to his city. Do not let a small group of CAVE people keep you from doing the right thing. Think of it this way, we elect at large Council members to do the right thing for all citizens. There are maybe 50 people against everything and developer wants to do in this town. That means the rest of the 4500 voters who voted have complete confidence in you council members doing the right thing. 50 against you, the rest of the 28,000 residents think Southlake has been developed just fine. Do not be intimidated on Tuesday night by a small, minuscule vocal minority, remember CAVE people did not support you in this last election,nor will they in upcoming elections. Time we take our town back. These people are the same people who fought Town Square, Costco, Loews,Walmart. There is a reason we have a premier city, we have had competent Mayors in the past who led this city again the vocal minority, even if it hurt the CAVE peoples wishes. It just meant that this town finally got tired of the fear mongers that Southlake was allowing apartments to be built here. Please support a quality PUD on Shady Lane. Bobby and Lisa Rawls 165 a dove rd Southlake Texas Holly Blake Administrative Secretary - Planning Certified Permit Technician - Building Inspections City of Southlake 817 74"621 hblake c@ci.southlake. t x. us https://rnail.googIe.corNmail/?ui=2& k--178f934086&4evr-pt&search=inboxBttt--14d676c3df1158a5&siml= 14d676c3df1158a5 212 5/19/2015 Ci.southlaletcus Mail - FM: Aufricht position statement regarding proposed zoning change for the Shady Lane neighborhood SOUTHLAKE Richard Schell <rschell@ci.southlake.tx.us> Fwd: Aufricht position statement regarding proposed zoning change for the Shady Lane neighborhood 1 message Ken Baker <kbaker@ci.southiake.tx.us> To: Richard Schell <rschell@ci.southiake.tx.us> Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: Tue, May 19, 2015 at 9:16 AM From: Lori Payne <lpayne@ci.southlake.tx.us> Date: May 18, 2015 at 7:34:58 PM CDT To: Ken Baker <KBaker@ci.southlake.tx.us>, Holly Blake <hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us> Subject: Fwd: Aufricht position statement regarding proposed zoning change for the Shady Lane neighborhood Lori Payne Begin forwarded message: From: "Aufricht, Jennifer" To: s._,Uthlake.tx us" <mayorandcitycouncil@c: southlake tx us> Cc: "Hall, Judy L." <JHall@thompsoncoe.com> Subject: Aufricht position statement regarding proposed zoning change for the Shady Lane neighborhood Dear City Council members. Please see attached my personal position statement regarding the proposed zoning change for the Shady Ln neighborhood. I will see you all tomorrow night as I will speak then on behalf of my wonderful neighborhood. Thank you for your seance, Jennifer Aufricht httpsJ/nrail.g oog le.corrimail/?ui=2&ilr 178f934086&wev-pt&search=inbox&th=14d6c885bc510c6e&siml=14d6c885bc510c6e 1/2 5/19/2015 Ci.southlale.bcus Mail - FM: Aufricht position statement regarding proposed zoning change for the Shady Lane neighborhood Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy the original and all copies of the message. Thank you. Tax Advice Disclosure: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication, including any attachment(s), unless expressly stated otherwise, was and is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein. 3 attachments Shady Lane Position Statementpdf 64K Attachment G.pdf 3056K Red dot map.pdf 590K https://rnail.g oog Ie.corNmail/?ui=2& k--178f934086&Hevv= pt&search=inbox&th=14d6c885bc510c6e&sim1=14d6c885bc510c6e 212 THOMPSON COE Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, L.L.P. Attorneys and Counselors Jennifer D. Aufricht Austin Direct Dial: (214) 871-8276 Dallas Voice Mail: (214) 880-2556 (x8276) Houston Los Angeles uoara uernnea m rersonai mjury i nai Law Northern California Texas Board of Legal Specialization Saint Paul May 18, 2015 SHADY LN. ZONING CHANGE OPPOSITION STATEMENT TO: City of Southlake City Council RE: Case No. ZA14-144 Dear City Council, Please consider this position statement as you prepare to address the proposed zoning change in the Shady Lane neighborhood tonight, Tuesday, May 19, 2015. None of us envy your position, but we count on your prior word, your integrity, and your guts to deny a friend when denial is appropriate. Please deny Mr. Maykus's/Hat Creek Development's proposed zoning change in the Shady Ln. neighborhood. Council Promises The Shady Ln. neighborhood has done all it can every time a zoning change has been presented. Two prior city councils have supported the neighbors desire to remain SMA by denying RPUDs. The City Council of two weeks ago expressed support for denying the now proposed RPUD. All but two of you were on that council. All of you expressed support if, after we viewed Maykus's options, we remained opposed. Well, we neighbors remain opposed. Note that not one of you said you would be interested to know what Mr. Maykus's friends in Kirkwood or Timarron had to say. You all focused, fairly, on "the neighbors" i.e. The Shady Lane neighbors. The Shady Ln. neighborhood has done all that council has asked of them regarding this most recent zoning request. We have appeared en masse at numerous meetings. When the zoning request was "tabled," not at the neighborhood's request — but at the request of council, the neighbors met with Maykus as requested. That meeting was contentious and some felt threatened and bullied by Maykus. Maykus did not present neighbors all that council requested he provide. But the neighbors listened to his position for the RPUD over an SF 1 A plan. The neighbors then protected their calendars for what they had been told by council would be the next council voting meeting. For some reason that cannot be determined, that May 1 8, 2D 1 5 Page 2 voting meeting turned into a "working session" where the city compared the two Maykus plans. So, the neighbors again have tried to protect their calendars for May 19''. This neighborhood has had to meet, exchange phone calls, organize petition signings (over 160?) in opposition, etc. These neighbors are not in the land development business, the city council business, or any other business that warrants such extraordinary time, effort, consternation and worry about a misplaced RPUD. But protecting of our way of life, our home values, the unique character of our neighborhood has us all still fighting the best we can. We recognize it may have been an orchestrated plan by Mr. Maykus to delay, wear us out, hope for a more developer -friendly council post -election and then appear with strangers to our neighborhood, supporters of his to come in at the end to pressure or rock your convictions. Those are known tactics of developers. It's what the present system allows. We ask that you do not fall for it. The Southlake 2030 Plan Consider the Southlake 2030 Plan: Objective 13: Encourage appropriately scaled neighborhood design that compliments existing development patterns while creating unique places recognizing that quality residential neighborhoods are the cornerstone of our community. • Purpose of Low Density Residential: To provide for and to protect low intensity detached single-family residential development that promotes the openness and rural character of Southlake. The Southlake 2030 Plan - Northern Sector • the north area provides Southlake with a distinctive rural character which differentiates it from other cities in the re 'on • the preservation of the rural character in the north side of Southlakc is of the utmost importance to the citizens • this unique type of development pattern will help maintain and even increase property values over other more typical or standard types of development Adding an RPUD with a medium density presentation is inconsistent with the stated goals of the 2030 Plan for our northern sector. This is a compelling reason to deny the requested zoning change. May 18c, 2015 Page 3 Ordinance Provisions The proposed ordinance amendment to ordinance No. 480 contains five provisions which warrant particular scrutiny and examination: 1. "Whereas a change in the zoning classification of said property was requested by a person or corporation having a proprietary interest in said property..." (Attachment G, p. 2); This provision addressing a request by a person or corporation "having a proprietary interest" is accurate but deserves explanation. "Proprietary interest" is a broad term. Mr. Maykus/Hat Creek Development, despite representing to both City Council ("I will sell it....") and to the neighborhood that he actually owns the property in question --does not. At the Wednesday, March 18t' meeting at city hall with the Shady Ln. neighborhood (which had been suggested by then Mayor Terrell), Mr. Maykus was specifically asked by me "Do you own the property?" His first response was "I am in ownership of the property". When I followed up as to what "in ownership" meant, Maykus said "I own it. I own it." I pointed out that the Tarrant County Appraisal District reveals no such ownership. The property in question is owned by Patricia Johnson, Brian Nerney and The City of Grapevine. Upon information and belief, Maykus/Hat Creek Development, has a contract on the property with a condition, an escape clause, should the requested zoning change be denied. This is important because, if accurate, it means that if the requested zoning change is denied, Maykus has the option, the choice, of either proceeding to purchase the property, knowing it must be developed SF1A, or walking away from his present contract. The actual owners of the property are also free to develop it SF1A at any time should they so choose. No one is denied the opportunity to develop the land. Any assertions as to what Maykus's future intentions are with regard to the property should the zoning change be denied are not set in stone, are speculative, and subject to change much as his RPUD recently changed in a manner Maykus earlier said would "never" occur, i.e. there is one fewer lot now than originally proposed. Council should not make decisions based on speculative, uncertain, subject -to -change variables such as stated intentions, promises, threats, or whatever one cares to call them. Especially when those statements, promises, threats, or whatever one cares to call them are coming from one with a strong desire for the zoning change to be granted. 2. WHEREAS, the City of Council of the City of Southlake, Texas does find that there is a public necessity for the zoning changes, that the public demand 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 May 18, 2015 Page 4 property with reference to the classification which existed at the time their original investment was made (Attachment G, p. 2); This provision is false. There is NO public "necessity", "demand", or "interest clearly requiring the amendment". The Shady Lane neighborhood has been zoned SF 1 A since September, 1989. Twenty-five years, eight months! It is a thriving, eclectic, problem- free (except for the traffic on Shady) neighborhood where lovely properties are improved and built every year. The neighborhood has defeated two prior similar requests for zoning changes: Simmons Forest and Remington Court. Simmons Forest, despite originally requested to be an RPUD, was developed SF1A in a lovely fashion when the then, and wise, city council refused the requested zoning change. The Remington court developer abandoned his pursuit. Every city council meeting to date has been attended en masse by only Shady Ln neighbors save two people: Maykus's attorney and Kale Green, a resident of Kirkwood who attended one meeting to our knowledge. Green is reportedly a prospective client of Kosse Maykus. The only neighborhood supporters of the zoning change have been neighbor Sammy Armstrong (who originally opposed the zoning change) and the "stand to gain residents": the property sellers, and a person not known to me or other neighbors, Mark Galanos. Galanos is reported to be the broker for the Nerney property. Galanos is still unknown to us, but he claims an address that we neighbors did not know to exist. According to information from the city the address may be coming due to a recent property purchase and plat application. Why have all the meetings (with Maykus, with council) been overwhelmingly attended by only our neighborhood? Because this proposed zoning change affects one neighborhood and one neighborhood only. Ours. For strangers to our neighborhood to "weigh in" because they are friendly to Mr. Maykus is indeed allowed, but should be given little to no weight. This dispute is not about whether Maykus may come develop in our neighborhood — he can. This dispute is not about securing quality. Maykus would do no less. Maykus has a pocket to fill and a reputation to uphold. This dispute is about whether Maykus chooses to develop SFIA as presently required or you go back on your word and force an unnecessary RPUD on our special and opposed neighborhood. Any non -Shady Ln. neighborhood "supporter" is late to this debate. The attached red dot map showing the positions of those actually affected by the proposed change tells the true story. And, notice how very out of character the surrounding lower density areas appear when viewed with our neighborhood. 3. Whereas, the City 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 May 1 S, 2015 Page 5 transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements (Attachment G, p. 3); and To argue that adding an RPUD would "lessen" the congestion of streets, particularly Shady Ln., is preposterous. Shady Ln. can barely tolerate the traffic it has. It is the ONLY ingress and egress for the entire neighborhood. It is used as a cut through for northwest residents who wish to avoid the traffic light at Kimball. The traffic on Shady is a problem now. Adding an RPUD will only make the problem worse! And there is no safety, light issue, water, school... you name it "issue" with the Shady Ln. neighborhood as this referenced proposed ordinance provision states. In fact, the RPUD arguably exacerbates overcrowding, etc. 4. 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. (Attachment G, p. 3). There is no need, no change, no called for and no best interest to the public at large served by adding an RPUD to the Shady Ln. neighborhood. What change in close proximity to the tract in question could there possibly be? And what do citizens outside our neighborhood gain? Any council member who wants to can fabricate a reason to support the RPUD: "We want control." "We like it." "We prefer the RPUD plan to the SF1A plan we know Maykus will build." One could craft a rationale. But to do so would be to ignore the reality of the situation, impose personal preference over those who have lived in the neighborhood from 50 years, to 22 years, to ten or to less than one year. It would be to favor the sellers and the builder and their personal preferences driven by finances over the residents — for no good reason. Mr. Maykus is fully capable, creative, and resourceful. He can develop a lovely SF 1 A development if he so chooses. And the free market will both support it and demand his best — keeping trees for example. Southlake and the Shady Ln. neighborhood would keep an estate -like large tract, unique housing option as a crown jewel in its varied offerings. Contrary to the proposed ordinance verbage, there is no compelling reason, no good reason at all to change the zoning of this established, thriving, unique gem of a neighborhood. This is not a 100 acre farm that will become a Timarron. These are two single -family -owned, lovely, desirable parcels. I and my husband looked at the Nerney property a couple of years ago May 18, 2015 Page 6 as we wanted a larger tract, a more wooded tract, a more secluded tract. It's price and renovation needs did not suit us so we decided to invest in the four -acre tract we own at the end of Rolling Ln. In an SFIA neighborhood vs. moving! To treat these two at issue parcels like a large farm needing development is a mistake. And to allow development of those two tracts to alter the character of an established neighborhood with clear boundaries would be akin to purchasing 10 lots in Coventry and putting tinier, more densely packed housing in it. Council should not alter the character and vibe of an established, clearly bordered, thriving gem of a neighborhood. It's the reason "spot zoning" is disfavored in the law (see spot zoning discussion below). For those in the Shady Ln neighborhood who "bought into" SFIA as recently as this very year.....it is an invasion of their rights and extracts value from their properties to so drastically alter the neighborhood. The sellers of the land in question bought into, lived for years, and knew the neighborhood was SF 1 A all along. Their situation does not change should council deny the requested zoning change. If the zoning change is granted, Maykus, Patricia Johnson, Brian Nerney... they all leave the neighborhood. Those of us who bought into SF1A, who invested further into SF1A, are left with the change in character to our neighborhood, the increased traffic, and a reduction in value to our homes. That is not at all what was intended when the means of acquiring an RPUD were established. Potential Litigation for Spot Zoning The city should avoid the hassle and cost of potential litigation from the Shady Lane neighborhood for "spot zoning". According to Texas Jurisprudence §39, "spot zoning" is generally defined as an unacceptable amendatory ordinance that singles out a tract for treatment that differs from that accorded similar surrounding land, without proof of changes in conditions. It is also known as "piecemeal" or "Island" zoning. Spot zoning concerns develop when there is a small piece of property that is rezoned to a zoning classification that is less restrictive (e.g. smaller lot sizes) than the surrounding area. Spot zoning will not be upheld where there is no public need for the "spot" and it fails to serve general welfare, versus merely to benefit a particular individual or group (in our case just two sellers and one builder). Spot zoning is unjustified when a city acts arbitrarily, unreasonably, and abuses its discretion and does not bear any substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. McNutt Oil & Refining Co. v. Brooks, 244 S.W.2d 872 (Tex. Civ. App. — 1951). What general welfare for Southlake is served by an RPUD in the Shady Ln. neighborhood? None. Several courts have also held that deviation from a comprehensive plan is fatal. The Texas Supreme Court in City of Pharr v. Tippitt, 616 S.W.2d 173 (Tex.1981) stated that spot zoning is regarded as preferential treatment which "defeats a pre -established comprehensive plan". Another court stated that the term "spot zoning" is used to describe an amendment to a zoning ordinance which is invalid because the amendment is "not in accordance with the May 18, 2015 Page 7 municipality's comprehensive plan". Board of Adjustment v. Leon, 621 S.W.2d 431 (Tex.Civ.App. —San Antonio 1981)]. The 2030 plan identifies the Shady Ln. neighborhood as "low density." The presentation of Maykus's RPUD is medium density. Trends According to the Dallas Morning News (March 27, 2015) and other publications, what millennials (and many others) want now is not their parents golf course/country club centered neighborhood. They want space. Community gardens. There is a shift in demand and Southlake should, in an effort to make itself attractive to diverse residents, provide diverse housing options. What Southlake has much of is lovely, planned developments with smaller yards and large, beautiful homes. That is desirable to many. What Southlake has far less of is large tracts which are likewise desirable but to a different clientele: gardeners, equestrians, professional athletes, etc. Why can't Southlake protect its diverse offerings by allowing the Shady Ln neighborhood to remain what it is? A neighborhood with minimum one acre tracts up to large 10 acre tracts. I and my husband own four. Ms. Parker owns about five. The Fusellas have eight. Many have two or three and the smallest tracts are one. What a lovely "estate like" environment this neighborhood provides for those that do desire more land — or more seclusion! For those people, the Shady Ln neighborhood is a rare option not found in many other cities. Conclusion Our neighborhood expects you all recognize what are tactics, who is impacted, and what should matter. We hope, beg this "fourth -to -address -it" council to recognize: 1) the history, the precedent, of zoning change requests in this neighborhood; 2) that this is not the place for an RPUD; and 3) that Maykus has the choice, the opportunity, to develop the land as SFIA just like the developer of Simmons Forest did years ago. Please stand by your word given to us and deny the requested zoning change. Sincerely, Jennifer Aufricht CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS ORDINANCE NO.480-590 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 TRACTS SCt, 5E'I, 5E AND 5D2C, SAMUEL FREEMAN SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 525, CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING APPROXIMATELY 20.499 ACRES, AND MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" FROM "SFAA" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO 66R-PUD99 RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AS DEPICTED ON THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN AS EXHIBIT "B" SUBJECT TO THE SPECIFIC REQUIREME14TS 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 C14ANGES 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 YI, Ser_.tio-n. 5 of the Texas Constituiicn and Chapter J of the Texas Local Government Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 211 of the Local Government Cade, the City has the authority to a;apt . comprehensive zoning oidfnance and map regulating the location and use of buildings, ether structures and land for business, industrial, residential and other purposes, and to amend said ordinance and map for the purpose of pr0M0tirjg the public health, safety, morals and general welfare, all ,n accordarice Mth a comprehensi,,/e plan, and, WHEREAS, the hereinafter described property is currently zoned as "SF -IA" Single Family Residential District under the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; and, Case No. ZA14-144 Attachment G Page I WHEREAS, a change in the zoning classification or 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 raid 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; safetyfrorn fire hazards and damages; noise producing elements and glare of the vehicular and stationary fights and effect of such lights an 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 he generated by the proposed use around the site and in the immediate neighborhood; adequacy of parking as determined by req uirements 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, Boater, 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 necessit; for the zoning charges, that the pi. -Mc demands J-,em, that the public interest clearly requires the amendments, and that the zoning changes do not unreasonably invade the rights of those who bought' or impro%yed property with reference to the classification which existed at the time their original investment was made; and. Case No. ZA14-144 Attachment G Page 2 WHEREAS, the Ci4. Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that the changes in zoning lessees the congestion in the streets, hzIps secure safety from fire, panic, and other ;angers, 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, schoc!s, 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 tte tract or tracts of land were originally classified ard therefore feels that the respective chances in zoning classification far the :rant or tracts c4lard 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 CIY 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 described as Tracts 5C1, 5E1, 5E and 5D2C, Samuel Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 525, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, being approximately 20.496 acres, and more fully and completely described in Exhibit "AID from "SF -IA" Single Family Residential District to'R-PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District as depicted on the approved Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B", and subject to the following conditions; 1. Zane 14 `l4-'lam Attachment G Page 3 That the City Manager is hereby directed to correct the Official Zoning map of the City of Southiake, 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 herby 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 respectto both present conditions and the conditions reasonably anticipated to exist in the foreseeable future; to lessen congestion in the streets; to provide adequate Iight and air; to prevent over -crowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; and to facHitatethe 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 otherthings 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. 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 conflictwith the provisions of this Gase No. Attachment G ZA14-1" Page 4 ordinance. SECTION 6. Thatthe 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 saidtract or tracts of land described herein. SECTION 7e 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 in its entirety on the City website togetherwith 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 it this ordinance provides forthe imposition ofanypenalty, fine or forfeiture for anyviolation ofanyof its provisions, then the City Secretary shall additionally publish this ordinance in Me official City newspaper one time within ten (t 0) days after passage of this ordinance, as required by Section Case No, Attachment G 14-14 Page 5 3,13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake. SECTION 10. T his ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by faw, and it is so ordained. PASSED AND APPROVED on the V'reading the day of 2015. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2 nd reading the day of _, 2015, MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CITY ATTORNEY DATE: ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: Case No, ZA114-14,d Attachment 6 Page 6 7609211 171' 1---.7 --17 lm.ft- 7"1 El ZA14-144 Zoning change . ... ..... k_12 - - I i--- - �` C Or L J, F- a I Ali-