2015-06-23 Meeting Report (Matthews Court)
SPIN MEETING REPORT
SPIN Item Number:
SPIN2015-23
Project Name:
Matthews Court
SPIN Neighborhood:
SPIN #9
Meeting Date:
June 23, 2015
Meeting Location:
1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX
City Council Chambers
Total Attendance:
2
Host:
Bobbie Heller,Community Engagement Committee
Applicant(s) Presenting:
Tom Matthews
City Staff Present:
Jerod Potts, Planner I; Dennis Killough, Deputy Director of
Planning and Development Services; Mike White, Chief Building
Inspector
City Staff Contact:
Dennis Killough, Deputy Director of Planning and Development
Services(817)748-8072
Attached to the end of this report are the Blackboard Connect Delivery Results for the
6/23/2015 SPIN Town Hall Forum
Town Hall Forums can be viewed in their entirety by visiting http://www.cityofsouthlake.comand clicking on “Learn More”
under Video On Demand; forums are listed under SPIN by meeting date.
FORUMSUMMARY
Property Situation:
Near Carroll Avenue and Zena Rucker Rd.
Development Details:
Generally the project is south of Southlake Blvd., in between Byron Nelson Pkwy. to the
west and Carroll Ave. to the east on the south side of the future Zena Rucker Rd.
Presenter noted that in cooperation with the City, the culverts are going to be put in
crossing this creek that will allow the road to put it for this project and there will only
remain a small section for the completion of Zena Rucker Rd.
The existing zoning on the property is Agricultural
Presenter mentioned the future land use plan for this area is medium density residential
Application for zoning is for a PUD
Presenter noted the project is 8 lots on 5.3 acres all of the lots are over 20,000 square
feet
Could have zoned SF-20 but wanted to do things that would enhance the lots
o
such as reducing setbacks to create a more intimate feel
Reducing the setbacks on the front, rear, and side yard would encourage and
o
allow single story homes to be built
Presenter mentioned the project has incorporated green space to the north which
includes a walking trail that would tie into the trail on the north side of the Winding Creek
development
Presenter mentionedthat onthe east side of the property, the plan is to reduce the
setbacks in order to incorporate existing trees into the project to preserve them
Presenter noted that at the entrance to the subdivision the pathway contains a raised
arbor on either side of the entrance; also there will be patterned concrete or paved stone
at the entrance
Details of the PUD are noted in the slides below
Presented at SPIN:
QUESTIONS / CONCERNS:
The land to the west is a waterway; so that’s always going to be green?
Area is owned by the school district and some portions are owned by Timarron
o
as open space
How do you propose to fence between the yards and along the back line, especially on
the eastern side?
The eastern side will be solid wooden fence–there will be wood fencing
o
between the lots side-to-side. The fronts will have open style fencing, wrought
iron fencing.
What size of home are you expecting to go onto these lots by square footage? You said
you are going to PUD; explain what you get bygoing PUD?
The reason for doing PUD as opposed to SF-20, is it gives more flexibility on
o
positioning and designing the house –many of these SF-20 lots, everybody has
to go up. PUD allows the project to bring the houses forward. It also allows
people the possibility of designing a single-story house. An advantage is that a
PUD gives the City a right to say yes or no. We expect houses to be 3,500
square feet on up. Hesitant to dictate the house size. Probably will put a
minimum on them.
Do you know if Zena Rucker has plans for the remaining land that is hers?
No –except for the commercial land.
o
SPIN Meeting Reports are general observations of SPIN Meetings by City staff and SPIN Representatives. The report is neither verbatim nor official
meeting minutes; rather it serves to inform elected and appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues and questions raised by residents and
the general responses made.Responses as summarized in this report should not be taken as guarantees by the applicant.Interested parties are
strongly encouraged to follow the case through the Planning and Zoning Commission and final action by City Council.