Loading...
Item 17 - CP16-001 - Rural Estate Residential Land Use (2)CITY OF SOUTHLAKE Department of Planning & Development Services STAFF REPORT February 4, 2016 CASE NO: CP16-001 PROJECT: Land Use Plan Amendment to create Rural Estate Residential Future Land Use Designation Cateqory EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In an effort to retain certain rural estate qualities still in evidence but disappearing within the City of Southlake, and to enhance the attractiveness of the City as a whole, an amendment to the Future Land Use Plan for certain areas of Southlake will be considered. This land use amendment would create a new Future Land Use category known as "Rural Estate Residential" which would recommend a 5 acre minimum lot size on affected parcels of land. DETAILS: The Southlake 2030 Land Use Plan is Southlake's vision for future development that serves as a guide for land use decisions and as a foundation for Southlake's zoning and subdivision regulations. The plan is a policy document that allocates the general location, concentration, and intensity of future development within the City by land use categories. Proposed is a Rural Estate Residential Future Land Use designation which recommends density to no more than 5 acres on affected properties. The proposed implementation areas are shown as Attachment B. Existing zoning on these lots would remain as it is currently. Any future rezoning contemplated on these properties would be evaluated based upon conformance to the Future Land Use designation, or be preceded by a change in the Future Land Use designation to a designation appropriate to the requested zoning. Purpose: To identify, provide for, and preserve the rural aesthetics and natural resource characteristics of very low density single-family residential development. Definition: The Rural Estate category is for detached single-family residential development at a net density of one or fewer dwelling units per 5 acres. The Rural Estate category encourages the openness and rural character of the City. The institution of the Rural Estate Residential Land Use would provide an additional level of scrutiny to these properties and a greater degree of discretion to City Council in granting or denying rezone requests to greater densities. ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information (B) Vicinity Map (C) Support Information -Link to Power Point Presentation Case No. CP16-001 (D) SPIN meeting report — January 26, 2016 (E) Corridor Planning Committee meeting Report — December 2, 2015 (F) Affected Property Owners (G) Affected Property Owners Responses STAFF CONTACT: David Jones (817) 748-8072 Ken Baker (817) 748-8067 Case No. CP16-001 BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNERS: See attachment E APPLICANT: City of Southlake PROPERTY LOCATION: See attachment B EXISTING LAND USE CATEGORY: Low Density Residential or Medium Density Residential (depending on property) PROPOSED LAND USE CATEGORY: Rural Estate Residential (5 acre minimum lot size) CURRENT ZONING: "AG" Agricultural District; "RE" Residential Estate District; "SF-1A", "SF- 1 B", "SF-30", "SF-20A", or "SF-2013" Single Family Residential District (depending on property) PROPOSED ZONING: No change in zoning is proposed for any property HISTORY: Staff was directed to research a new land use category to aid in the preservation of remaining large agricultural and residential lots. All residentially zoned lots with 3 acres or more of land and a Low or Medium -Density Residential Future Land Use designation on the Future Land Use map were analyzed. Those which retained rural or estate characteristics and which were situated within close proximity to other such parcels were delineated into study areas. 5 such study areas are proposed for consideration under the proposed Rural Estate Residential Future Land Use. N: Community Development�MEMO�Comp Plan Amendments�2016�CP16-001 Staff Report�CP16-001 -Rural Estate Residential5ac.docx Case No. Attachment A CP16-001 Page 1 Areas Under Consideration for Rural Estate Residential Land Use Description Areas Consideration :.. Jones -... �MIlwW Hi Wand - Shady Oaks nl-mnllnnn � l_7S ite Chapel Blvd Su "ine Lane So -lake Parcels 7n111Y�■■ ��— °" l nn: q ■ r` 1911Y un■111 - �, l S ■+� i •1 YIt L:7 P city 'frit Boundary 7•a�� E^I■ ►���il■IIII DISCLAIMER Yw� G■hr r 1 \V � r III .ul r i\� IIIIIIG}t i��" Ails ■�■IIIII''1 �, a ■■�� � k we . nnu , �YYYIYYYY ,,.■IIIY_ '� � •i- L A' ,1111�� 1 •IIII . "A I - J S �:.r IIII Y9iY ■ Y1ill ■mi ' nrn1Y ;{ram IIY Su nnnnnq aq ` s uunn —IN Thi data has been compiled for City of Southialke and is for infor ational purposes Various :ul ■official and urofficil ourceswere =011i used to gather this data and it does q not represent an on -the ground shown are ropresentatiors only. Every effortwas made to ensure the KF A accuracy of this data, but It was not prepared for and may not be .... suitable for legal. engineering, or surveying purposes. As such, no guarantee is given or implied as to the accuracy of this data. IN 16 �I� ■•1� H Jsi.A'� Development 1 -��." 1�� . A � _ ���" �� �; a �113��«'�'° � � �1■�� ° �R �r�E"ri,�' � ' ' 1pi' ■I „ ■ w�;y.'+•11y �'Geograptn Information Systems illy s ■ Y 1 �-� sl i 1IN low. w _* I n � �•w,� r.. SOUTHLAKE Case No. Attachment B CP16-001 Page 1 JUSOUTHLAKE SPIN MEETING REPORT Case Number: SPIN16-03 Project Name: CP16-001 Southlake 2030 Rural Real Estate Residential Land Use Category SPIN Neighborhood: Citywide Meeting Date: January 26, 2016 Meeting Location: 1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX City Council Chambers Total Attendance: 28 Host: Bobbie Heller, CEC Applicant(s) Presenting: Ken Baker, Senior Director of Planning and Development Services City Staff Present: Patty Moos, Planner I City Staff Contact: David Jones, Principal Planner, email: diones(a)ci.south lake.tx.us phone: 817-748- 8070 Attached to the end of this report are the Blackboard Connect Delivery Results for the January 26, 2016 SPIN Town Hall Forum Presentation begin: 6:15 pm Presentation ended: 6:45 pm Town Hall Forums can be viewed in their entirety by visiting http://\Aww.cityofsouthlake.com and clicking on "Learn More" under Video On Demand; forums are listed under SPIN by meeting date. FORUM SUMMARY: Property Situation: Citywide Development Details: Note: SPIN16-02 and SPIN16-03 were presented as one presentation at the SPIN meeting Staff was directed to research a new land use category for the City's Future Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan is a policy document only for City Council. It is a framework for commercial and residential development, a fundamental plan for all city services. Zoning is a regulatory document. City Council uses the Future Land Use map for rezoning and as a tool with zoning and lot configuration, tree preservation, etc. in the framework. The Land Use category is for Rural Estate Residential. Staff is analyzing 3-5 acre, 5-7 and 7+ acre properties in Southlake. There are 5 general areas for the Land Use Plan amendment: W Bob Jones Road (north); Dove/N. Peytonville Ave/Shady Oaks (west/northwest); S. White Chapel Road (south); Sunshine Lane (east); and Highland Ave/Shady Oaks (central). Case No. Attachment D CP16-001 Page 1 The Rural Estate Land Use Category: Purpose: To identify, provide for, and preserve the rural aesthetics and natural resource characteristics of very low density single-family residential development. Definition: The Rural Estate category is for detached single-family residential development at a net density of one or fewer dwelling units per 5 acres. The Rural Estate category encourages the openness and rural character of the City. RE Single Family-7 Zoning District: • Newly Created Zoning Classification • Same regulations as the existing RE —Single family Residential Estate zoning district except for acreage minimum. Planning and Zoning Commission date for ordinance: February 4, 2016 at 6:30 pm (Public Hearing). City Council dates for the ordinance: February 16, 2016, first reading (not a public hearing, but can speak at meeting) at 5:30 pm and March 1, 2016, 2Id reading (Public Hearing) at 5:30 pm. OUTHLAKE Land Use vs Zoning e - J Staff examined areas with multiple lots sized 3 acres or more and possessing AG or residential zoning and low or medium density Future Land - Use in the Comp Plan From these criteria, five areas of study were identified: - w Rob Jones Road (north); - Dove/N. PeytonvWeAve/Shady Oak.s(eve_st/northwest); - 5whiteChapelRoad(south); — Sunshine Lane(east(; Mimi — Highland Ave/5hady Oaks(-ntrali WNW Case No. CP16-001 Background Staff was directed to research a new land use category to and inning district to aid in the preservation of remaining large agricultural and residential lots. • Land Use Plan Categories tia+,rnm xn:�a. � Zoning Uistricts� R T a�_- Residential Lot I arl Size Analysis ;t .�a �s YTHl_nrce AGfResiderifia • Staff examined areas with multiple lots sized acres or more and possessing AG or residential zoning and low or medium density Future Land Use in the camp Plan From these criteria, five areas of study were identified: - - w Bob Jones Road (north); Dove/N.. PeytonviV le Acre/Shady Oaks (wesklnorthwestj; — 5 whste Chapel Road (south); Sunshinelane (east);`` — Highland Ave/shady Oaks(eentral) Attachment D Page 2 .mod✓ _ �1 r Zia h �t lti tracts/lots ra ngingfrum 15.2 to 3a[res — Fourare7acresorgreater — Seven are between 5-6.9 ac res Five are heh-en 3-49 awes A g is 61 acres All sites are dey I pedsingle-family homes or pined with d I ped lots Spa. lytreed more prototypic. I ru cal d ape Bordered prima rilv by developed a rea of Medium Dens ty Future Land use 15 tracts./lots rangingfrom36 2to 44 acres Seven are 7 acres rgreater — F.urarebetween 5-59acres F between 3 49acres Average 101 acres the largestofthe four udy M y it-- undeveloped or minimally developed with some substantialforest—i tapographirvariatinn Adjacent to Grapevine Lake, Army Carps and public park land DOVE I PEYTONVILLE ! SHADY OAKS STUDY AREA RANGE OF LOT SIZES I FIVE AREAS OF COWL; — .. WHITE CHAPEL STUDY AREA RANGE OF LOT SIZES 13. W. BOB JONES STUDYAREA RANGE OF LOT SIZES 15 tracts/lots rangmgfrom 1U 5to 9 acre Fourare7 acresorgreater Fivearehetvreen 5 69acres. — Siaarebetween 3-4.9 acres Average sire is 59arres_ Allsiteshutone currentlydevelaped assingir family homes_ Adjacent to 114 corri d.r a n d an und—l.peed area of Offi—Cammercial Future Land Use 12 tracts./tots ra ,grog from 12.5 t. 3._ acres — 6ne is 7 acres or greater F —bet—en 5-59arres 5 ehetween 3-49aeres A ge i- is 495 acres All sites aredevelaped—mglrfamily hnmesor .mbinedwith dl—loped lots Entirelysurrounde.d by Lo-Density Residential Future Land Use Case No. Attachment D CP16-001 Page 3 SUNSHINE STUDYAREA RANGE OF LOT SIZES I 20t,acts/lots ra ngingfrom 5.6to 3 acres - - D- is] acres.,greater } Nine are hive 5-6.9 acres - Ten are between 3-p.9 acres Average size �s 4.8A acres,the sma7iest of the five study areas - Allsitesaredevel.ped ass a ngle-famityhomesar combined with developed lots Entrreiysurr.unded by Low -Density Residential Future Land llse, ex ceptfor some Medium y Density R—identWt.thesouthand ea st -, I 4111 2 Proposed Rural Estate LU Category Purpose To identifyprovide forand preserve the rural aesthetics and natural resource characteristics of very low density single-family residential development. Definition. The Rural Estate category is for detached single-family residential development at a net density of one orfewer dwelling units per 5 acres. The Rural Estate category encourages the openness and rural character of the City. PZ Commission/City Council Dates • February 4th - PZ Commission — Public Hearing —6:30 PM February 161h — City Council - 15t reading — 5:30 PM March 1st— City Council — 2n1 reading — Public Hearing — 5 30 PM Mir QUESTIONS / CONCERNS: HIGHLAND / SHADY OAKS STUDY AREA RANGE OF LOT SIZES J J RE Single Family-? Zoning District • Newly Created Zoning Classification • Same regulations as the existing RE — Single family Residential Estate zoning district except for acreage minimum. 1. If this category is put in place with underlying a 7 acre property, how will this affect a property that will put a PUD on the property, not existing? Response: They can always ask City Council for the zoning with the land use and zoning change. 2. Concern by Bill Lafavers and John Klebs and both are opposed. White Chapel is zoned RE, but concerned with properties on Pine Street (approx. 9 acres) and what will happen with this property. 3. Question: What criteria were used and why are there other properties Milner along SH114 and Rucker (near S. Carroll) not included? Case No. Attachment D CP16-001 Page 4 Response: The Milner property will most likely become mixed use in the future and Rucker property was not included, but can be considered by City Council. 4. Are land values considered with this process for a 5 acre minimum? Response: City Council will probably consider this. 5. Comment: Three residents on Sunshine Lane may be opposed. 6. Concerned on how this will affect property values for 8 acre property. Property value is not comparable with acre vs. square foot prices. 7. Concerned about property values. 8. How will this affect property values under 3 acres and 2 acres? Response: Should not affect property values on this property or affect smaller lots. 9. Concerned about government control of 9 acre property on N. White Chapel. 10. Comment: Opposed to this on E. Highland Avenue. 11. Comment: For this property- controls development surrounding their property. 12. Comment: Opposed to restriction of lots regarding economics and maybe need a reduction in density and reduction in city taxes. 13. Comment: Opposed (Sunshine Lane) to economic concerns with property values. Southlake is no longer rural. 14. Comment: Southlake builder opposed as land owners' values of land, should be able to recoup- 5 acre will reduce value to owners. 15. Comment: Country atmosphere around Sunshine Lane is no longer rural. This should have been done 10 years ago. Sh114 and office development has made the rural atmosphere long gone. Less than 15% of land in Southlake is developable. 16. Will new designation for rural estate affect land use? Response: Definition is: The Rural Estate category is for detached single-family residential development at a net density of one or fewer dwelling units per 5 acres. The Rural Estate category encourages the openness and rural character of the City. 17. Comment: Restrictions on land owner should be considered for formula for size of house on a specific lot size. Now it is bigger homes forced onto smaller lots and needs to change to smaller homes on bigger lots. Response: This can be discussed with City Council. Case No. CP16-001 Attachment D Page 5 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. Case No. Attachment D CP16-001 Page 6 Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Meeting Report Meeting 1 — December 2, 2015 ITEM #5 DISCUSSION — NEW LAND USE CATEGORY AND ZONING DISTRICT: Staff presented this item to the Committee, and the following represents questions for staff after the presentation: Q: Staff recommendation is the land use category would have a maximum density of 1 house per 5 acres and RE 2 with 1 house per 7 acres? A: Correct Q: How logistically would we move forward? A: If we went through a land use amendment change we would have to go through the process. It would have to be adopted by an ordinance Q: Are there incentives available (voluntarily or otherwise) to motivate a behavior for people to sign up for this? Tax benefit? A: Opportunity to put land into a perpetual easement which may result in a tax benefit Q: Talking about incentive to buy into zoning category? If you are the landowner, why do this? A: What the land use designation would do, is, for those lots not currently zoned, within this 5 acre or whatever land use category the council or PZ would have basis to not approve that zoning. If a development came in on 30 acres and has the 5 acre zoning, you would be limiting them to basically 6 new lots. Land use primarily impacts those properties that are not zoned currently Q: What percentage of these study areas is zoned AG? A: It's probably close to half Comments by Committee: o There are tracts in here that have existing RE and would prevent further subdivision o Intention is not to encourage subdivision of land, this accomplishes that in a straightforward way o We are a democracy, this is passionate for some people maybe not for others - we get this out there for discussion. If we are going to talk about this let everyone chime in and see where the process goes o P&Z was going to be the first ones hit with this o Gives control we otherwise do not have. Goal to be stewards of existing property to help Southlake develop in the best way possible o What is going to motivate people to do this? To have your land rezoned... o Not talking about rezone, talking about land use, overlay. Doesn't encourage you to rezone but does say you won't ask for 15 houses on 15 acres Case No. Attachment E CP16-001 Page 1 o As a community we are open for debate. Property owners would need to come talk to us o Concerned the landowners won't want to do this Direction for Staff from Committee: o Talk about how many dwelling units could be created o Provide more data on dwelling units o Look to see whether it would be good to include lots on Highland Comments by Staff: o The one issue about going higher (7 acre) you will get the top end but a number of people coming forward with land use amendment requests to plat their property o May conduct SPIN or special meeting to give property owners idea o Will present to Council and ask how to proceed Comments by Public: o None NEW LAND USE CATEGORY/ZONING DISTRICT RESEARCH SHOWN TO COMMITTEE: Residential Lot Size Analysisa�.aE=ao 1 Case No. CP16-001 Parcels zoned AG or Residential (SF1-A, SF1-B, SF2, RE, MH, SF20A, SF206 or SF30) with a Low or Medium Density Land Use 3 acres in size or above Legend 7+ acre parcels 5-6.9 acre parcels ® 34.9 acre parcels Parcels -- — City Limit Boundary wE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE Attachment E Page 2 North Peytonville Study Area ... Study Area for AG or Residential Parcels low or medium density Land Use designation .;�� ®SOUTHLAKE Case No. Attachment E CP16-001 Page 3 2 31' fit``' _ acs 3.2742 S I e 624 a" ' 2.015 'r. } S `ry. may_ I I i•-094�t`!C >i IiII.N! i \. 5.974 _ ac .67 ac 5.14 y ass 3.06 ac p ac _L x 174 �dl ll 3.Q9.c 5.293 :r ac 3.08 ac 5.47 FL, 4 - ac i 'eY T^l a .,,J ' , a - •'14. ¢ �} + ]•. �( mow- t.��R �,. ac f at 2.102 ac, 2.05 at ar 12.497 I �• is 'i ;i I .4 r . ellnrM', lu r. South White Chapel Study Area Study Area for AG or Residential Parcels L715GUIMEXt with a low -density land Use designation u5ae ro getner mn Imomnelbn. Eery ettext w.aa matle to en9�m rPov nar Mi5 I„9 eccurecy.1. 1.1. EW ning entl �avelopmenX...... M1rnVawr. na 9u Bra rMa b gNan, ceegrepM¢ Inydmr�5'en syalemc Case No. CP16-001 13SOUTHLAKE Attachment E Page 5 � .III IIYY n p � 1'lh IOII r11IYI �IIIIIII"' ,■ � ,w,a al_d I — W2.048 4.44 y i - _ 4.842 r - ac ac t3.017 ac W 3.095 ac 17.705 ac + ac - R 6.809 ac p '4 'tP 4.996 5.332 _ ac ac _ y 10.449 ac :1.421 11.728 ac _ 36.232 ac 9:706 ac acCD ` �r'1'. 1' 1 - rF? S I - 4 qr it t•.' - a. �rrl:nr�u 'l1lR� 11-y�iri�nll ' u � .1 - 0.997 6.478 ac 4.6 cr9.496 ac 4.493 ac ac — ±�— 6-� �rF1 e11611•��yNy lli �WI� LN 41' II111 ''i 1 I avvvvvv111 Affected Property Owners •. # Owner Zoning AddressResponse 1 94 ONE LLC SF1-A 465, 479 W HIGHLAND ST 4.99 NR 2 940 WEST DOVE RD LLC SF1-A 940 W DOVE RD 4.86 NR 3 AHMED, IMTIAZ SF2 841 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 1.33 NR 4 ANDERSON, WILFRED E SF1-A 555 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 3.04 NR 5 ARMISH LLC RE 1300 SUNSHINE LN 5.47 0 6 AVARY, JOHN SF1-A 1075 W DOVE RD 3.98 NR 7 BAJAJ, GURPREET SF1-A 410 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 2.49 0 1280, 1284, 1288 8. BARKER, DOUGLAS J SF1-A 3.97 0 SUNSHINE LN 9 BEDFORD, MARK D SF1-A 1331 SHADY OAKS DR 4.95 0 10. BEHRENDS, LINDA AG 1749 E HIGHLAND ST 12.50 0 4700 N WHITE CHAPEL 11. BOWER, KEVIN R SF1-A 4.84 NR BLVD 12 CAMPBELL, JOSE AG 335 W HIGHLAND ST 0.73 NR 13. COMBE, DANIEL SF1-A 339 W HIGHLAND ST 1.01 NR SF1-A 14. COSTELLO, MICHAELJ 1862 N PEYTONVILLE AVE 10.60 NR 15. DAHLSON, RICHARD SF1-A 1250 SHADY OAKS DR 6.04 NR 16. DALLAND PROPERTIES LLC AG 700 W BOB JONES RD 6.81 NR 17. DAVIS, GORDON WAYNE SF2 1900 SHADY OAKS DR 9.99 NR 18 DEAN, ROBERT RE 911 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 7.77 NR 19 DEAN, ROBERT AG 859 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 5.96 NR 20 DERR, ROBERT W SF1-A 1500 SUNSHINE LN 5.97 NR 21 DOWNING, JAMIE S SF1-A 685 W DOVE RD 2.11 NR Case No. Attachment F CP16-001 Page 1 1350, 1360, 1370 DUERST, BRADLEY J SF1-A 8.08 0 22• SUNSHINE LN 23 DUGGINS, JAMES L SF1-A 865 W DOVE RD 6.61 NR 24 ELLIOTT, BRYAN SF1-A 935 W DOVE RD 7.27 NR 25 EMMER, DANIEL P SF1-A 345 W BOB JONES RD 4.64 NR 26 EVANS, LARRY R SF1-A 975 W DOVE RD 4.86 F EVANS, MARZELL F TR M.F. 4078 N WHITE CHAPEL 27. AG 5.34 NR EVANS TRUST BLVD 28 FLEPS, JOHN J AG 601, 603 W HIGHLAND ST 2.81 NR 4440 N WHITE CHAPEL FLYNT, JASON & LINDSAY SF1-A 2.05 NR 29. BLVD 715, 711 S WHITE CHAPEL FOX, GEORGE SF1-A 4.59 NR 30. BLVD 31. FRIEDLAND, LEWIS D RE 2001 N PEYTONVILLE AVE 6.80 NR 32 GAINES, ROBERT K SF1-A 1265 SHADY OAKS DR 2.18 NR 33. GIOLMA, F EDWIN 1311 SUNSHINE LN 2.10 0 34. GRABOWSKI, LESZEK SF1-A 1285 SHADY OAKS DR 5.41 NR 35. GRAY, ROBERT J SF2 1275 SHADY OAKS DR 4.30 NR SF1-A 36. GRUBBS, GEORGE 702 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 4.26 NR 37. HARDY, LINDA S AG 1100 SHADY OAKS DR 1.13 NR RE 1111, 1125 S WHITE 38• HARGETT, GARY 14.22 NR CHAPEL BLVD 39 HILL, KENNETH W RE 1360 SHADY OAKS DR 5.29 NR 40. HUBEL, PETER H SF1-A 1459 SUNSHINE LN 3.06 NR 41. J 0 SR & B M PASSMORE LIV TR SF1-A 1391 SHADY OAKS DR 4.77 NR 42 JAMAL, SYED SF2 2000 SHADY OAKS DR 4.96 NR 43. JAMESON, MARK J SF1-A 1780 SUNSHINE LN 2.93 NR Case No. Attachment F CP16-001 Page 2 44. JANDON LTD AG 974 W DOVE RD 5.02 NR 45. JOHNSON, DREW SF1-A 921 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 6.00 NR 4680 N WHITE CHAPEL JONES, ANDREW & KENLYN SF1-A 3.02 NR 46. BLVD 47 JOYNER, J DAVID SF1-A 1559 SUNSHINE LN 1.49 NR 48 KAY, ROBERT SF1-A 1450, 1460 SUNSHINE LN 6.23 0 49 KEENE, J RANDALL SF1-A 525 W HIGHLAND ST 5.09 NR SF1-A 50. KEENER, DAVID 1950 N PEYTONVILLE AVE 4.02 NR 51. KEM INS, ROBERT A AG 605 W HIGHLAND ST 0.52 NR 611 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 52 KUELBS, JOHN A RE 14.93 NR AND 430, 460 PINE DR 520, 530, 580, 620, 640 S 53. LAFAVERS, WILLIAM E AG 12.72 O WHITE CHAPEL BLVD LAMON, CHRISTOPHER R & 4720, 4730, 4740 N WHITE 54. AG 8.40 NR JANE CHAPEL BLVD 275, 300 W BOB JONES RD LEGACY LIMITED, LLC AG AND 4060 N WHITE 18.28 NR 55. CHAPEL BLVD 56. LINDAMOOD, JAKE W SF1-A 1821 SUNSHINE LN 5.62 NR 57. LORENZ, RONALD W SF1-A 1297 SUNSHINE LN 2.05 NR 4000 N WHITE CHAPEL MAHONE, MATTHEW J & SF1-A BLVD AND 335 W BOB 9.14 NR 58. LEIGH ANNE JONES RD 59 MALIK, AMJAD SF1-A 700 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 7.10 NR 60. MARSHALL, L E SF1-A 1300 SHADY OAKS DR 2.52 NR SF1-A 61. MARTILLO, JOHN 1779 SUNSHINE LN 2.93 NR 62 MARYLAND, RUSSELL RPUD 510 W HIGHLAND ST 1.71 NR Case No. Attachment F CP16-001 Page 3 63. MCLEMORE, MARK SF1-A 533 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 3.93 NR 64. MILANI, JOHN C & CHRISTEN AG 500 W BOB JONES RD 9.71 NR 65. MILLER, ROBERT SF1-A 440 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 2.00 NR 66. MLADENOVIC, RADE SF1-A 710 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 5.01 NR 67 NEUSE, STEPHEN H SF1-A 1679 SUNSHINE LN 2.02 NR 68 NOETZEL, STEVEN J SF1-A 2145 N PEYTONVILLE AVE 3.31 NR 69 OREN, STEPHEN J SF2 2050 SHADY OAKS DR 4.49 NR 70 PAXTON, JOHN F SF1-A 1055 W DOVE RD 5.06 NR 71 RALEY, TIMOTHY AG 440,498 W HIGHLAND ST 3.04 NR 72 REISING, MAX AG 400 W BOB JONES RD 2.54 NR 73 RENDA, FRANK SF1-A 1469 SUNSHINE LN 3.67 NR 74 RICHARDSON, SALLYE ANN SF1-A 1295 SHADY OAKS DR 4.85 NR 400,480 W HIGHLAND ST 75 RIDE WITH PRIDE INC SF30 AND 324 MONTROSE LN 1.94 NR AG 4650, 4686 N WHITE 76• ROBINSON, RALPH & WILMA 5.53 U CHAPEL BLVD 77 RUNYAN, BILLY W AG 979 SHADY OAKS DR 0.99 0 78 RUSSELL, ANN AG 1049 SHADY OAKS DR 1.55 NR SANCHEZ, CHRISTOPHER SF1-A 79. 1287, 1251 SUNSHINE LN 4.65 NR MICHAEL 314, 488, 494 W 80 SEEBECK, ROBERT OR DOREEN SF1-B HIGHLAND ST 3.34 NR 81 SELLS, RALPH B SF1-A 825 W DOVE RD 6.58 NR 82 SHAFI, MAZUFER SF1-A 1861 SUNSHINE LN 3.27 NR 4500 N WHITE CHAPEL 83 SHOWTIME FARMS INC AG 10.01 NR BLVD 84 SMITHSON, SHELLEY R SF1-A 1439 SUNSHINE LN 3.08 NR Case No. Attachment F CP16-001 Page 4 330-360 W BOB JONES RD 85 SPECTRA LAND LP SF1-A AND 4640 N WHITE 42.40 NR CHAPEL BLVD SPICKLER, DENNIS G SF1-A 1950 SHADY OAKS DR 8.17 NR 86 87 SPIEGELMAN, PAUL SF1-A 545 W HIGHLAND ST 4.39 NR AG 88 STEPHENS, LESTER 500 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 1.90 NR 89 STROMBERG, WILLIAM AG 1029 SHADY OAKS DR 1.49 NR 90 SULLIVAN, PAUL T SF1-A 1900 N PEYTONVILLE AVE 2.06 F 91 SYKES, J R RE 720 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 15.15 NR 92 TOLBERT, ANTHONY SF1-A 475 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 2.58 NR WACKER NEUSON 93. SF1-A 1255 SHADY OAKS DR 2.33 NR CORPORATION SF1-A 94. WAHBY, SAMIR C 811 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 1.11 NR 1340, 1342 SHADY OAKS WALBURG, JAMES B SF1-A 2.25 NR 95 DR 96 WALDRUM, GARRY SF1-A 1310 SHADY OAKS DR 1.37 NR 97 WASSERMAN JAY RPUD 520 W HIGHLAND ST 1.39 NR 98 WAYLAND, CHERYL RENEE SF1-A 701 W DOVE RD 3.05 NR 99 WHITE, THOMAS W AG 600 W BOB JONES RD 36.23 NR 1852 1842 N PEYTONVILLE 100. WIRTALA, DAVID A AG 2.81 U AVE 101. WISNIEWSKI, JAMES C SF1-A 1449 SUNSHINE LN 3.09 NR 102. WOOD, PAUL D SF1-A 400 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 2.42 NR 345, 351, 459 W 103. YETMAN, BERT M AG 6.68 NR HIGHLAND ST SUPERINTENDENT OF CARROL 104. ISD NR Case No. Attachment F CP16-001 Page 5 SUPERINTENDENT OF NR 105. NORTHWEST ISD SUPERINTENDENT OF 106. GRAPEVINE-COLLEYVILLE ISD NR SUPERINTENDENT OF KELLER 107. ISD NR Responses: F: In Favor O: Opposed To Notices Sent: One Hundred Seven (107) Responses Received: Fourteen (14) In Favor: Two (2) Opposed: Ten (10) Case No. CP16-001 U: Undecided Undecided: Two (2) NR: No Response Attachment F Page 6 Courtesy Notice Response Form CP16-001 ARMISH LLC 1221 SAINT EMILION CT SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMSIVIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) The proposed amendment to the Southlake Comprehensive Plan to add a Rural Residential Estate Land Use category Space for comments regarding your position: i 17sUlJl �ls�6wcx 1M 4L� .X s W MAe . vc� 11A 4Ci G c feu due 1t. 1 c�nsxe ��� 2s�laQe firs s3• 1Gi , �� r+ t iywk ay�cL6& Signature: Date: Additional Signature: Date: Printed Name(s): vim ` Y7,j Must be property owner(s) whose name(s) are printed at top. Otherwise contact the Planning Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment F CP16-001 Page 2 Jan 26 16 07:45a CP16-00i Dr. Gurpreet Bajaj 8173103852 Courtesy Notice Response Form BAJAJ, GURPREET 4403 LANDS END CT SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092 a PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED OF THE SCHEDULEDL, FAX OR HAND PUBLIC HEARING. BEFORE THE START Being the owner(s) of the property so noted- above, are hereby in favor of opposed to' undecided about circle or underline one) The proposed amendment to the Southlake (;omprehensive Plan to add a Rural Residential Estate Land Use category comments regarding your position: Space for g ,L,4 4e-- 1 l� e. ova i Signature: �j Date: Additional Signature: lDate: Printed Names �r S �''`''� Must be - BOY OWttt:gs) whose names are printed at top. ise oo tact the P anning DePOrtmen ©e forfre per property p'io Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment F CP16-001 Page 2 Courtesy Notice Response Form CP16-001 BARKER, DOUGLAS J 1280 SUNSHINE LN SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) The proposed amendment to the Southlake Comprehensive Plan to add a Rural Residential Estate Land Use category Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Date: 9 L Additional Signature: Date Printed Name(s): U a 5 =:S �L"L,,A u Must be property owner(s) whose name(s) a e printed at top. Otherwise contact the Planning Phone Number (optional): ��� 4 '�- ,'- t One form per property. Case No. Attachment F CP16-001 Page 2 Courtesy Notice Response Form CP16-001 BEDFORD, MARK D 1331 SHADY OAKS DR SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HANDIDELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(=0uthlake noted above, are hereby in favor ofundecided about The proposed amendment one) omprehensive Plan to add a Rural Residential Estate Land Use category Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: � Additional Signature: Printed Name(s): Must be property owner(s) who, names) are Phone Number (optional): Case No. CP16-001 Date: i Date: at top. Ot erwise contact the Pi nning Department. One form per property. Attachment F Page 2 My name is Linda Behrends and I live at 1749 East Highland. I attended your SPIN meeting last night concerning the 2030 Rural Estate Residential Land Use Category. 1 am shocked and appalled at the proposal and the thought that the city would enact something that so negatively impacts the rural landowners to maintain an aesthetic appearance and ambiance for the community. It shows no respect for the heritages of many of these land owners and the work we have done to maintain our land and contribute to our communities. My parents, Harold and Shirley Knight, moved to this location in 1956 and raised my brothers and I here, starting before Southlake was Southlake. My father was an aerospace engineer for Vought Corp.; he served on the school board and the city council, and retired and began his second career with Southlake Realty. He worked with the school district in finding property for the now, Carroll Middle School. My husband, who served Carroll ISD for 34 years took over maintain this property for my dad when he could no longer care for it. Ron has worked so hard to manicure this property and create a beautiful place. It has become a home place, a gathering place, and a place of ministry. But the way you state your proposal makes me feel that the work done by Ron and our family, as well the efforts by all these rural owners, is for the benefit of residents and visitors who want to be afforded a "view". It takes hard work, time, and money to maintain these areas and it has been our choice. But to now tell these residents that they are to carry the burden to maintain an ambiance for the rest of the community by negatively dictating how we sell our property is unfair and self-serving. You want us to base the sale of our land on five -acre increments when less than a quarter mile from us you can sell by the square foot. This proposal will drive the land value for these landowners down. It is infuriating to hear comments by other residents that approve of this proposal because they don't want one acre or % acre lots etc., because they want to have open space as their view. But their desire comes at our expense. I agree with my husband, if the residents are looking for aesthetically pleasing open spaces, let the city purchase it and turn it into parks. Don't punish the rural landowners who have been maintaining these on our own for years. Case No. Attachment F CP16-001 Page 2 My name is Ron Behrends and I'm a retired teacher. I taught for thirty three years in the Carroll School District as the Band Director of the Dragon Band. In 1978, the Carroll Dragon Band participated in the Class A classification and when I retired in 2011, 1 had seen the town and the school grow through every classification from Class A through 5A which they now call 6A. I also led the choir and orchestra during this time at Whites Chapel United Methodist Church. At the current time, I am working part time as the Recreational Director for Whites Chapel UMC as well as keeping the property our property at 1749 E. Highland in good shape and looking after my parents in Fredericksburg, Texas. In 1979,1 married Linda Knight, daughter of Harold and Shirley Knight. Linda and I raised two girls Kimberly and Kay who also went through the Carroll School District and attended some of the same schools as their mom did. Linda grew up on 1749 E. Highland. Her parents bought the 40 acre property in 1956 and excluding a small time that they spent in Michigan, lived there until their passing within the past two years. During my time as a teacher in the district, I watched sub division after sub division being developed and I met and taught all the new kids to the area year after year. It was called growth which is what propelled us into a larger classification each year. As a young band director, I didn't need to look for another job that was bigger as I was getting more experience as we were getting bigger and stronger with more challenges each year. I noticed that when the band reached the largest classification, that we were no longer that little school or little town anymore. The roads were packed, the town square was booming, but the saying was don't worry about getting much bigger as Southlake is land locked and can only get so big unlike Frisco, Mckinney etc... In 1997, Linda's dad, Harold Knight, leased 25 of their 38 acres to Carroll ISD which later became Carroll Middle School. At time of purchase, the remaining 12.6 acres still included the Homestead, shop, barns, and coastal fields which Linda and I helped them to maintain. Carroll ISD was mentioned as having the first right of refusal should we sell the remaining property. In 2011, 1 decided to retire and help Linda with her parents and the property as her parent's wishes were to stay in their home, but were getting to that point where their health and well being was deteriorating by the week. Harold as a retired Vet, retired Engineer, and retired Southlake Realtor, had all of his ducks in a row with the will and his desires as things should be played out on their passing. In the will he states how a certain portion of the 12.6 would go to Linda and then the remaining section would be divided up between her and her two brothers, which have moved onto other states. Now we have learned that the City Council wants to tell the people in Southlake that have been here the longest, how to sell or manage their property and saying that they want to keep the rural look as much as possible and decrease the population per acre. Wow! How incredibly wrong can this be as this is way too much burden to pass on a very few long time residents and thinking that these few are going to reverse something that started over 30 years ago called growth. These few watch all of these people build up around them and then now they want to tell the long time residents how they can sell their property. ARE YOU FOR REAL??? These few properties will not make even a little difference on an already urban city, but the economic impact on these long time Southlake residents will be devastating. There are those that want to see the rural spots left in the city. Well have them try to keep up this kind of property which is almost impossible to make any profit from year to year. If the City wants to keep it more open then show us the money and buy it for what it is really worth and build a park. Don't handcuff us and lower the value just so the other people of Southlake can watch us struggle to make it pretty for them. This is so wrong and You Know It. Make it Rightl I I Case No. Attachment F CP16-001 Page 2 Mayor Hill and Southlake City Council Members, My name is Susan Duerst, 1360 Sunshine Ln, Southlake, and have been a long time Southlake resident for almost 25 years. My letter is in reference to the consideration of the City Council for a creation of a new 2030 Rural Estate Residential land use category, which would personally affect my husband and myself. I did attend the Spin meeting on January 26, 2016. After hearing the information I strongly oppose this new land use category. My first question is who made this recommendation in the first place? Were there any studies completed on how this will impact us homeowners financially? It seems too little too late. We have lived through 25 years of from our true beautiful, peaceful rural setting to now a sea of homes, subdivisions (i.e. 4 in our neighborhood, The Reserve, Wimbledon, Villa Del Sol, Saint Emilion), traffic, ongoing construction, congestion, etc. Now when the city has accomplished what they want, the long time Southlake residents will have to suffer the consequences. Yes, I too want to keep the rural setting so why was this not implemented back 10-15 years ago and have all the subdivisions at a minimum of 5 acre lots which would have truly given us the country feel that you want now and alleviated a lot of the traffic, construction, congestion, etc. Now we have the 68 acre Carillion, which by the way would have been perfect for this, it sells'/4 acre lots, seems not the vision you are asking for now! And what about the Rucker estate, again, still the rural feel, is this going to fall under this 5 acre minimum? From listening to the speakers at the Spin meeting, it appears that most of the residential areas that you have targeted are those residents who have lived in Southlake 20, 30, 40 50, 60+ years. We are the residents that have put up with losing our rural neighborhood that we moved to Southlake for and now we, the long time, loyal citizens are being asked to give up the most. By this I mean depriving of us of the financial opportunities that we could benefit from in the future, besides the city dictating what we can do with our property. We have no immediate plans of moving but if and when we do, it would be nice to have the options that all the other Southlake residents have had for years. It does not seem fair or ethical to punish your most loyal, long time residents for who knows who or why someone now wants to make a change to try and save what is left of any rural "feel". Again, seems too little too late". Thank you for your consideration in rejecting this new land use category. Susan Duerst Case No. Attachment F CP16-001 Page 2 Courtesy Notice Response Form CP16-001 EVANS, LARRY R 975 W DOVE RD SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of apposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) The proposed amendment to the Southlake Comprehensive Plan to add a Rural Residential Estate Land Use category Space for comments regarding your position: i x d 1 Signature Additional Signature: Printed, Name(s): ` �e i-vs id 5 Must be property owner(s) whose name(s) are printed at top. Otherwise contact the Plannind Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): '4VI - 4q-tc-,:-Lo13 Case No. Attachment F CP16-001 Page 2 Courtesy Notice Response Form CP16-001 GIOLMA, F EDWIN 1311 SUNSHINE LN SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about erline one) The proposed amendment to the Southlake Comprehensive Plan to add a Rural Residential Estate Land Use category Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Additional Signature: Date: ! z fA Date: Printed Name(s): Must be property owner(s) whose name(s) are printed at top. Otherwise contact the Planning Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): c?J 7_l a 1 '?(o l Case No. Attachment F CP16-001 Page 2 Jan 26 16 12:56p A BIKERS GARAGE CP16-001 KAY, ROSERT 1460 SUNSHINE LN SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092 8174915207 p.1 Courtesy Notice Response Form PLEASE -PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of � undecided about (circle or underline one) The proposed amendment to the Southlake Comprehensive Plan to add a Rural Residential Estate Land Use category Space for comments regarding your position: T tt l: t✓2 M L t ! %Q US Tn -Y f k_-7c, T 0 _.._ r - 2 isCt2 f'1 F,Jt nL)ft -fr_? L&A)otQO sucitJ IT S TZ0 Ll ---C rtl_� L"7� 114 t'G5,71 Signature: Additional Signature: Printed Name(s): &aden i 0 eY�,,3c Must be property owner(s) whose name(s) are printed at top_ Otherwise eontact the Date: I Date: 23 One form per property Phone Number (optional): El ? -^ 31 ?- - 03 6'-0 Case No. Attachment F CP16-001 Page 2 CP16-001' LAFAVERS, WILLIAM E . 620 S WHITE CPL BLVD SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of o posed to undecided about (cir ire one) The proposed amendment to the Southlake Comprehensive Plan to add a Rural Residential Estate Land Use category Space for comments regarding your position: , -4-1.C-- _ '�- r Signature: Additional l -444 Printed Name(s): 1,(y- 1`A Must be property owner(s) whose name(s) are printed at top. Otherwise contact the Planning Department. kone form per property. Phone Number (optional): DD Case No. Attachment F CP16-001 Page 2 Courtesy Notice Response Form CP16-o01 ROBINSON, RALPH 8. WILMA 10104 CANDLEBROOK DR DALLAS TX 75243 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA AVAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) The proposed amendment to the Southlake Comprehensive Plan to add a Rural Residential Estate Land Use category Space for comments regarding your position: OL at Signature: '� Date: 1� Additional Signature: Date: �,6 Printed Name(s): a/ a Must be properly owner(s) who names are printed at top, Otherwise contact the Planning Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): L'o ML-Ut ZL6 eaeospuej swgo'd e15:L03)i Case No. Attachment F CP16-001 Page 2 Courtesy Notice Response Form CP16-001 j RUNYAN, BILLY W 979 SHADY OAKS DR SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of �Lppposed o� undecided about (circle or underline one) The proposed amendment to the Southlake Comprehensive Plan to add a Rural Residential Estate Land Use category Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: 'r,PG' Date: /- A�q - dv Additional Signature: Printed Name(s): ' ,/ Must be property owner(s) whose name(s) are printec Phone Number (optional): Case No. CP16-001 Date:6 at top! Otherwise contact the Planning Department. One form per property. Attachment F Page 2 ±0` 16.07:11 o GTS Mortaaae 8177590103 0.1 Courtesy Notice Response Form CP16-001 SULLIVAN, PAUL T . 1900 N PEYTONVILLE AVE SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETE© FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) The proposed amendment to the Southlake Comprehensive Plan to add a Rural Residential Estate Land Use category Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Additional Signature: Date: /- l Date: Printed Name(s): dui Must be property owner(s) whose name(s) are printed at top. Otherwise contaot the Planning Department. One form per property. Rhone Number (optional): 17- 5-.-)K' 7.2 q I Case No. Attachment F CP16-001 Page 2 Courtesy Notice Response Form cP16-001 I WIRTALA, DAVID A 1852 N PEYTONVILLE AVE SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE11SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to decL��about� (circle or underline one) The proposed amendment to the Southlake Comprehensive Plan to add a Rural Residential Estate Land Use category Space for comments regarding your position: Signature Additiona ;�'q J-/"" atvz:!� ? Date: / 1 � Date: /'(o Printed Name(s): `,(L VUr (.4-, Must be property owner(s) whose name(s) are printed at top. Otherwise contact the Planning Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment F CP16-001 Page 2