The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 4H Q1CITY OF S0UTHLA1<.,,,E Department of Planning & Development Services STAFF REPORT August 9, 2016 CASE NO: ZA15-153 PROJECT: Preliminary Plat for Stone Trail Estates EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Consider denial of a Preliminary Plat for Stone Trail Estates to develop 61 residential lots and 12 open space lots on approximately 36.03 acres described as Tracts 5A, 5C1, 5B, 5A3, and 5A2, Jesse G. Allen Survey, Abstract No. 18, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and Lots 3R, 5B and 5A (5A and 5B being portions of Lot 5) Brock Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and located at 2607, 2621, 2631, 2641, and 2651 W. Southlake Blvd. and 250, 400 and 410 Brock Dr., Southlake, Texas. SPIN Neighborhood #11. REQUEST DETAILS: The Stone Trail Estates Zoning Change and Development Plan (ZA15-152)to develop 61 residential lots and 12 open space lots on approximately 36.03 acres was denied by City Council on August 2, 2016.The plat is being processed in association with the Zoning Change and Development Plan (ZA15-152). The Preliminary Plat is not consistent with the existing underlying zoning, so the plat cannot be approved. ACTION NEEDED: Consider denial of a Preliminary Plat ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information (B) Vicinity Map (C) Corridor Committee Meeting Report (D) SPIN Meeting Report (E) Plans and Support Information (Link to PowerPoint) (F) Plat Review Summary No. 3, dated April 28, 2016 (G) Surrounding Property Owners Map and Responses (H) Full Size Plans (for Commission and Council Members Only) STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough (817)748-8072 Richard Schell (817)748-8602 Case No. ZA15-153 BACKGROUND INFORMATION APPLICANT: Terra/Manna, LLC OWNERS: Margaret J. Haney and Sandra Lynn Bagwell PROPERTY LOCATION: Generally located south of W. Southlake Blvd. and west and south of Brock Dr. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Tracts 5A, 5C1, 5B, 5A3, and 5A2, Jesse G. Allen Survey, Abstract No. 18, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and Lots 3R, 5B and 5A(5A and 5B being portions of Lot 5) Brock Addition LAND USE CATEGORY: Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential and 100-Year Flood Plain CURRENT ZONING: "AG" Agricultural District and "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District REQUESTED ZONING: "R-PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District HISTORY: - The property was annexed into the City in 1956 and given the "AG" Agricultural District zoning designation. - A Plat Showing for Brock Addition was filed November 8, 1967. - The "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District zoning was placed on the Brock Addition property with the adoption of Ordinance No. 480 and the Official Zoning Map in September of 1989. - A Plat Revision for Lots 1 R and 3R, Brock Addition was approved September 2, 1997 and filed November 21, 1997. SOUTHLAKE 2030 PLAN: Consolidated Future Land Use Plan The majority of the site is designated "Medium Denisty Residential", which is suitable for any single-family detached residential development.Approximately 6.77 acres of the proposed developement that is currently in the Brock Additions has a "Low Density Residential" designation in the 2030 Land Use Plan.The number of lots in that portion of the subdivision does not comply with the"Low Density Residential"designation,which requires a net density of one or fewer dwelling units per acre, so a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment from "Low Density Residential"to"Medium Density Residential"is also being requested under case number CP15-004. Mobility& Master Thoroughfare Plan The Mobility and Master Thoroughfare Plan shows W. Southlake Blvd.to be a Farm-to-Market road with 130' of right of way Adequate right of way is shown to be dedicated on the plans. Pathways Master Plan & Sidewalk Plan The Pathways Master Plan shows the existing 8'multi-use trail along the south side of Southlake Blvd. and a future >_8' multi-use trail extending from W. Case No. Attachment B ZA15-153 Pagel Southlake Blvd. to Union church Rd. through the floodplain. Major Corridors Urban Design Plan The property is in the "Estate Residential" zone in the Major Corridors Urban Design Plan. The following recommendations pertain to the "Estate Residential" zone in the plan. M Reiunforce uici eiii.wce the chstaict -EsLate ■ Pmerre and mnforcr the existing Residential zone'clnaxacter by character of the estate residenitW with recotiiiileikling the planting of G-8 foot park-war plantuigs and trail amenities as high sluubs along residential fences that recommended in the plan, require frequent maintenance along the corridor. This aottld snot oaly screen ■ 'Masterplannvn�of larger residential or comm nerrml tracts,or inidtiple tracts,is esistitig residelnGal uses tiortn flit buss' encouraged overpiece-meal development. road-ay, but also create green edges along In addition,die master plan applications the roadway, should include all the elements of the bruit eczrirocu►tes3t such as btukLag design,site ■ New residential neighborhood fencing designs,n-ayfunduig and bnulditig signage, should be bruited to nlasoury, stone and landscapiclg,treatinEsit of liaturnl features, n-rought-iron style fencing tnatersals,R7th bridges,streets,street lighting,etc. Every tree and shnibbert-Planting in a naturalistic effort shoidd be mask to incorporate tnnasuner on The lrtrk-wa}•side of the fence, recornutnended urbacn design eleisne%its unto die project desiVi. ._r r w w.• •rrRrr rMdY.¢aka 6w�irr� �r �Ru�r..u�tomer aprr riw�lir i-Ll.W 1.s+rF,�rKC� r .terve�+lft�rr�iNs.11�n "doom idEh+–..1..m Of 4-1- TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT: Existing Area Road Network and Conditions The development shows one street access onto W. Southlake Blvd.,which is currently a six lane divided arterial. The traffic counts are below. Case No. Attachment B ZA15-153 Pagel DavisW. Southlake Blvd. 24hr East Bound (18,836) West Bound (18,766) AM Peak AM (2,075) Peak AM (1,110) 7:00 AM—8:00 AM 11:30 AM— 12:30 PM PM Peak PM (1,137) Peak PM (2,122) 5:45 PM—6:45 PM 5:00 PM—6:00 PM *Based on the 2015 City ofSouthlake Traffic Count Report Traffic Impact Use Lots pdPM- IN OUT OUT Single Family Residential (210) 65 622 13 37 42 24 4/7 P&Z Submittal Single Family Residential (210) 61 584 12 35 40 22 5/5 P&Z Submittal Net Difference -4 -38 -1 -2 -2 -2 * Vehicle Trips Per Day *AM-In,AM-Out,PM-In and PM-Out are peak hour of generator on a weekday *Based on the ITE: Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition WATER & SEWER: The property proposes to connect to an existing 12"water line in W. Southlake Blvd. to the north and to an existing 8"water line in Naples Dr. to the south. A stub out is proposed to the property to the Watermere Addition to the west. Sanitary sewer for the development is proposed to connect to an existing 8" sewer line in Naples Dr to the south. A stub out is proposed to the property to the east. TREE PRESERVATION: For property sought to be zoned R-PUD, the City Council shall consider the application for a Conservation Analysis or Plan in conjunction with the corresponding development application (see below). The applicant is proposing to preserve 53.62% of the existing tree cover, which is increased from the 51.52% of existing tree cover that was proposed to be preserved on the previous plan. The existing tree cover is shown to be 40.23% and if the case was for straight zoning, a minimum 50% of the existing tree cover would be required to be preserved. CITIZEN INPUT/ BOARD REVIEW: This project was discussed at the 2030 Corridor Committee Meeting on December 2, 2015. The meeting report is included as Attachment C of this report. A SPIN meeting for this project was held by the applicant on September 22, 2015. A SPIN Report is included as Attachment D of this Staff Report. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION: February 4, 2016; The item was tabled to the February 18, 2016 meeting at the applicant's request. February 18, 2016; The item was tabled to the March 3, 2016 meeting at the applicant's request. Case No. Attachment B ZA15-153 Page 1 March 3, 2016; The item was tabled to the April 7, 2016 meeting at the applicant's request. April 7, 2016; The item was tabled to the May 5, 2016 meeting at the applicant's request. May 5, 2016; Approved (3-2) subject to the staff report dated April 28, 2016 and Plat Review Summary No. 3, dated April 28,2016 and specifically granting the requested variance related to the Driveway Ordinance No. 634. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Plat Review Summary No. 3, dated April 28, 2016. Case No. Attachment B ZA15-153 Page 1 2030 Corridor Committee Meeting Report CITY OF 9 SOUTHLAKE IExAS 2035 ITEM #3 DISCUSSION — STONE TRAIL ESTATES (proposed 65-lot, 36 acre residential subdivision south of FM 1709 and west of Davis Boulevard): ■ Staff made presentation to the Committee, and there were no immediate questions for staff. ■ Paul Spain. developer of Stone Trail Estates made a presentation to the Committee. The following includes comments by the developer: Creek running through the property goes down to Bear Creek o Originally wanted (development) to go out to Davis with offices, but could not acquire land o Davis Blvd, is dividing line in Southlake of Carroll Schools and Keller School districts o The creek area has many trees. Creek (channel) Is 6-8 feet wide o In the future as the City is looking at the creek area it would be a great space for a hikelbike trail o Purchasing the Haney tract.which is currently part of Brock Dr. neighborhood o Have been visiting with Brock residents and working on issues o To the west is the church and the Watermere Villas o Limited access to 1709 (right-in, tight-out) - street stubs-out to the south. Will have water-'sewer The question becomes: "What makes a great neighborhood?" Hard to tell from plans. Take the prettiest piece of the property and make it open space. Up at the corner there are some trees along 1709 on the north Questions the developer wanted to answer while putting the pian together: 1) What will the drive look like on 1709? o Proposing the entrance off 1709-Only two lots back onto 1709 o Will have stone wall on the north side of lots with fountain, open space 2) How do we make the entrance as spectacular as we can? d Have a buffer with existing trees and pond c Have 7 lots that face onto pond with trees - preserve the existing tree tine 3) Neighborhood Design Learned doing green space endcaps from developing Shady Oaks Part of open space is putting endcaps wherever there are lots facing the side of other lots In SPIN meeting were asked about having land for expansion from a representative from church to the north east The lot most affected by the development is the McCall's. They well have common access given through deed to them and instead of backing lots to Them. Told the McCall's they would put up fence to them and the corner orf the cut-de- sac will remain access from Brock Dr. into the open space 5autWake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item 903--Stone Trail Estates Meeting$#I-December 2,2015 Page 1 Case No. Attachment C ZA15-153 Page 1 a 1.$dul'acre o Right now lots average 15.000 square feet with open space o In this case we have squeezed out more open space to make the entrance fabulous and add endcaps • Questions for Developer: Q: Single driveway with 65 lots with a right-in, right-out is troubling to me. Why is there a stubbed out street? A: Residents to the south do not want people driving through their neighborhood per feedback at SPIN. Will do an emergency access to the south, must provide emergency access because we are required two points of access O: In a perfect design world the neighborhood would connect to Davis. Is this not going to happen? A. The problem with the Davis intersection construction is that people would cut through (from Davis). Can't afford to acquire the property at residential prices Q; The amount of vehicle trips with right-in, right-out is not preferred and people will have to do U-turns. How does this work with the right-in, right-out only? A: Need another median break onto 1709 Q: Can open space be groomed? A: Cut once a month - this is what we do on rural parks Q: Is the open space useable? A_ Yes, it is beautiful Q: Is there a way to open the open space so it is more of an amenity for the neighborhood? A: Opened it up on the creek. See the creek area being a fabulous asset for the City in the future Q: Why no access onto Brock?Why is Brock untouchable? A: What I work at doing is not bringing unhappy citizens to City meetings. Visited with everybody there 0, Will drainage be an issue? A: Drainage will go into streets and be carried south to the creek. McCall's and Haney's are getting this runoff now - and the development would take care of this O: Removing a sizable amount of trees? A: We try and save the best Q: What are thoughts on tree preservation? A: Have tied down the easiest ones to save, and require every lot to have two trees on Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item#3—Stone Trail Estates Meeting#1-December 2,2015 Page 2 Case No. Attachment C ZA15-153 Page 2 the front and 2 on the back - and we put the right kind of trees. The larger the tree the harder to save. It is easier to save those around the edge and in open spaces • Comments by Committee: a Have seen it where houses face the open space o Mobility seems to drive development potential for this area o First red flag is the single access. I would be happier if there were three points of access DEVELOPER RESPONSE: Could bridge creek if initial phases are successful o Should think about a phasing plan .._access to open space is not a phase 11 or Phase III part of the plan. When lots are released open space is available to neighborhood I like the concept of how you dress up endcaps - I think that is interesting way to approach open space. Anything to break up the cookie cutter (more imagination) are nice planning elements I find the two boxes (street layout) boring. Possibly consider draw more people to the open space in the middle of the project. Maybe more curvilinear streets. which may help with access to the south over time because you do not have the visual of a straight shot through the neighborhood • Comments by Public: o One of the big appeals to the property was the solitude of it. There are no sidewalks. The biggest concerns are topography, runoff. Want to make sure these things are addressed. Currently the way Brock Dr. is right now. drivers attempt to do a turnaround and they can't make the turn so they come down Brock thinking it is an exit, and people will speed down the street. There are so many people that come through. because it is a country setting, and the asphalt is cracked because semis turn around on my driveway In an emergency how will people get out safely? Would be worried. Also. Brock Dr. - these people have been long time residents and have been involved and there have been issues with traffic turning in there. Also, if there was a cut through the people wanting to go west on 1709 would cause a backup ■ Comments by Developer: o Eventually may have a fabulous entry off of Davis c Will work with City to get median break in 1709 ■ Developer Question for Committee: Q: Does the City like the more open space. endcaps? What about lots under 15,000? A: Like the fact there is open space, and a nice size entry buffer on 1709. Concerned about setbacks and side yards ■ Comments by Staff: (Regarding median break comment by developer) existing median opening at Brock and Watermere Dr. These are on about half-mile intervals and it is the 5outhlake 2035 Coutdor Planning Committee Item #3—Stone Trail Estates Meeting#1 December 2,2015 Page 3 Case No. Attachment C ZA15-153 Page 3 landscaped area. Do not believe storage lengths would meet TXDOT requirements and will have to take medians oul People (trucks, etc,) driving on Brock may possibly be a signage issue STONE TRAIL ESTATES PLANS , DOCUMENTS SHOWN TO COMMITTEE: r R -� y..-•�rn--air *i , y Master Plan 'tonc Tnail LStates Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item#3--Stone Trait Estates Meeting X11 - December 2,2015 Page 4 Case No. Attachment C ZA15-153 Page 4 OR '7 kk A•. v- IF AO r i 11 yy• � I `� ' r Y + '~"j� 1I► fill, 1 VOL it SLltACRES r o ns& I t I n s C"OF SOvTHLOXL TUM Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item#3-Stone Trail Estates Meeting#1 December 2,2015 Page 5 Case No. Attachment C ZA15-153 Page 5 10 SOUTHLAKE SPIN MEETING REPORT SPIN Item Number: SPIN2015-34 Project Name: Stone Trail Estates SPIN Neighborhood SPIN # 11 Meeting Date: September 22. 2015 Meeting Location: 1400 Main Street, Southiake. TX City Council Chambers Total Attendance: Twelve (12) Host: Monique Schill, Community Engagement Committee Applicant(s) Presenting: Paul Spain City Staff Present: Jerod Potts, Planner I Town Hall Forums can be viewed in Iheir entirety by visiling htlp 'www.citvotsouthlake corn and clicking on'Learn More- under Video Qn Demand;forums are fisted under SPIN by meeting date. FORUM SUMMARY Property Situation: a Southlake Blvd. between Lakeside Presbyterian Church and The HFI#s Church Development Details: a 1709 to the north and Daus to the far east a Proposing 65 lots ■ The project contains the Wiesman tract, a lot within the Brock subdivision. and approximately 6 acres of the Haney tract - the total acreage of the site is approximately 36 acres a Presenter mentioned there are many trees on the Wiesman tract a The presenter mentioned the Wiesman tract land use is medium density and the Haney tract is zoned SF-1 A a The presenter mentioned that sewer runs down the creek and is stubbed out on the south The presenter noted there is a road stubbed out on the south end of the property and on the west is Watermere and also church on the west and north side of the property ■ The presenter mentioned the access point is off 1709-did not plan any tie-in to Brock Drive a The presenter noted the project is in Keller schools ■ The presenter mentioned they also have the Kuelbs tract to the west under contact, but that is not part of this meeting ■ The presenter noted the lots will be north-south facing and they will be doing RPUD Zoning Case No. Attachment D ZA15-153 Page 1 ■ The presenter mentioned an area of the land being historically significant lot having wagon tracks • The majority of the open space will be in the southwest corner with a creek that goes all the way to the north with a frail beside it ■ The presenter noted they visited with the neighbors to the south and they did not want access from 1709 — the proposal could include a request for an emergency gated area where if they need the second point of access there is a gate that fire and police could use ■ The presenter noted the lots are generally a 1?3 acre up to an acre -- will be building homes roughly in the 3500 square foot range +?- and with the current cost of real estate and development the homes wiiI probably sell for just under a million to a million plus • The presenter noted the lots are similar in size to what was done in Estes Park and Shady Oaks • Presenter said wrought iron fence with cedar inserts will be used in the development and will go in with typical street tree policy which requires 2 trees in the front on the median and 2 required on the rear yard. and corner lots will require an additional 4 on the side of the lot • The presenter referenced entrance features and open space features (attached) Exhibits presented at SPIN- Stow, PIN.Stow, Tra i 1 Estate S.P.I.N Presentation Terre Manna, L.L.0 J"w stew�fw, I • . - vKrnlnl� Case No. Attachment D ZA15-153 Page 2 Stone Trail Estates Proiect Location r 1. 6.03 Acres M " V r r►rwcs uc a w.n�►.r-n.� Stone Trail Estates Master plan 1, a ken dcT'iel Lots 2. 15,000 s-f. -20,000 91 3. 5.30 ayes of open Space 4. 14.71 %open Space ` _r ................7- 1 F r Case No. Attachment D ZA15-153 Page 3 Stone rra#Estates Entry r -Oda -90 milp rn QUESTIONS CONCERNS: • You are saying that the road will probably be for emergency access only? Yes. What they do is build a road and gate it and have certain kinds of locks and controls on it so if police and fire need it they can come in from another direction ■ So you are really sure that is how it is going to be or that is what they are talking about? That is what we are going to apply for. As I have told all the neighbors it will help if you ask for it along with me because they really care what neighbors think • Who do I need to talk to to encourage that? We will be submitting that and I would encourage you to basically support the project subject to that being an emergency access entrance ■ Your entrance across from Jellico East, is TXDOT going to open that up? We are nol asking them. We dont have enough traffic from this project to warrant that and the City is precise about where their median breaks are • On the park area, the creek bottom. you have a cul-de-sac, when you develop this other tract is there going to be a road through there eventually? We are planning on it. That is one of our options_ • Are those two creeks? No,lust one. The blue lines are the outside of the floodplain and the red lines are the floodway ■ The wagon trails,that is going to be a park? That would be open space. Would have an HOA that would maintain the entrance and the park areas Meeting adjourned SPIN kke fi rig Re pony are gone ral obx vsbons W SPIN Meetings by Cdy stall and SPIN Aepre se nl ativ v s-The repurt+s ne filer verb al Irn rwr oflltlal meeting Inutile%-ralfbr a ser Nes rdalm ekoW and apparnled aflimaK Cay slafl,acrd Itre pubic ut lfre Issues and questions I ssed by rrsrdents end 11,v general r"pcnsls mwe. Re3ypnyes as aurnmarued in Vvis report should riot be taken as guay.lnleea by the appicathl, Itleteated part."are slronW iso(muraged m Maw Ow case ite ouglr The planning and Ionlnp cow". n and IwW aitWi by Goy Counol- Case No. Attachment D ZA15-153 Page 4 DEVELOPMENT PLAN IL ,1r11111 •1 r _ _ I CAT ry...Y.a,^ 1 - 1 � 1 la}711 ■ _ - �� L11eM' r.[]71+x+: LN ✓ • - ! 1 14 1 % - -- _- •r'. - --tri Atf 1�.i ! I•. i I r+ ...i �!-i� i i�� i .-. '4i �: 'I�Iw u'•IbJ.A lr/1 naU.1 ''11 il4 I'1- 1111a.f•• 6 I ••I rr I f l 1 i.. .1,1■I.l [s.>4 l y--...7.y.— ; ias.r + ■ r+ACAK[+1+1(AAK • 1n 11 l.s ■ { ' __JJ -4l]wC 7111+1.PAM!1•. - lap- a■oa wn.a I 1 1 7rFM r - 8 '1'+f9 ::..tl:.l 1 ' 13CS.i T - + MR Sti ,lab.l I I air r l l'r1w•.1;:...al # _ i" -- � s:l I t rQ71 PRELIMINARY PLAT I owl 0 I , 1 a , 4r �1•wJ� I I I 1 .w.w � t t - .• 1p1100 �- I �y 1 I I I ' I I l •• ^ • .Nyl. ,} � ,701i11911A I .--t Ki�f•r l`.. ..i �. '� ...��._. rte.-_.�__�� •� f 1 �r mROR ��.=•,,,1r Y�x'_''1v�ST�IEC7--�j' ��---+.� _ .. .- iwH♦ €k� I . [ ,...- iii.. tFiri+r r•,rr ... ' ~ .r.. ��. i4liPfV ter. .. .....� ...r iar 1a•n• - _ � � 1rw. C Kle 1[4111(1 PLA(1 i 1 I _ _ ___ U•'ru.l=1..1..1 ' 1 r ' Case No. Attachment E ZA15-153 Page 2 TREE CONSERVATION PLAN PL419 FT- I I � Wt -+- , L wt I 11. � I I VI. f`�'• I I 1 + I v,_ Iq 11 �+ IWO 46 Ir- 17 II I Tree Canopy Coverage _ Total site area 1,569,495 s.f. Total existing canopy x;631,443 s.f. -- 40.23% Preserved tree canopy Preserved tree canopy (green) --338,592 s.f. -- 53.62% Possible preserved tree canopy (yellow):�114,375 s.f. -- 18.11% Removed tree canopy (red) --178,476 s.f. 28.27% ~631,443 s.f. -- 100.0041/4 Case No. Attachment E ZA15-153 Page 3 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Kimley ,))Horn MEMORANDUM To Wallace Rennets Access Permit Coordinator Texas Department of Transportation From; Jeff Whitacre. P.E. Pete Kelly. EIT Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. TBPE Registered Firm Number F-928 Date. November 20,2015 Subject. Weisman Tract-Traffic Engineering Study to Support Variance Request Southlake•Texas Introduction The purpose of this study is to support an access vanance:deviation request for a proposed right- ininght-out driveway along FM 1709 in Southlake, Texas for a proposed residential development. In addition, the study will also determine the need for a right-turn dece'eration lane at the proposed driveway. The proposed residential development ::ill include 65 single-family dwelling units and is located on the south side of FN1 1709. bet,•:een Watermere Drive and FM 1938 (Davis Boulevard Access to the site is proposed to be one 111 right-imright-out driveway on FM 1709, and an emergency access on the south side of the site ;.connected to Naples Drive). The site location is provided in Exhibit 1 The conceptual site plan is also attached. Access Spacing TxDOT's Access A44anagement "anual sets fortis criteria for connection spacing along a frontage roadway. Table Table 2.1 (Frontage Road Connection Spacing Criteria) provide access spacing standards for one--,,,ay frontage roads. two-way frontage roads. and other state facilities Based on a 45 mph posted speed for an "tither state facility,`the minimum access spacing is 360 feet Exhibit 1 provides the spacing of the proposed driveway to the existing driveway on the east and west side of the development. The proposed driveway is located ++- 190 feet east and +'- 380 feet :est of the next existing driveways. Based on these distances. the proposed drivevray does not meet the minimum sparing criteria, and as a result, a variance deviation in access spacing standards is being requested. One Factor in determining appropriate drivev,-ay spacing is based on providing sufficient space for a nght-tum deceleration lane The existing driveway to the east does not currently have a right-tum deceleration lane. and it is not anticipated that one would be,ezi,ranted in the future Discussion on the need for a right-turn deceleration lane into the proposed development is provided later in the memo, v:hich drives the distance from an existing upstream drive-,ray. Case No. Attachment E ZA15-153 Page 4 Y {� �Y . c r n z 1• m � fr_ { 46 r *.i• r • THE r1-_7 CHURr- 1 L,r:EviCE PREyB"•ER1AN -HuRC-1 ��'` r• 1 I -'_— ! r• I' � - 1{imley aHor I 1 r�n�er�r SITE LOCATION AND DRIVEWAY SPACING EXHIBIT WEtS MAN TRACT•RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT T.. SOUTMLAKE.TE%AS Case No. Attachment E ZA15-153 Page 5 Kimley>>)Horn 3 Trip Generation and Distribution To estimate the trips generated by the proposed development,trip generation rates from the 9th edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual were used. Table 1 shows the trip generation rates for the proposed land uses. Table 1 -Estimated Trip Generation Rates Land Use Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Description Variable Rate Split Rate Split Rate Split Single-Family Hauling Dwelling Units 9.52'(X} 50%In 0.75'(X} 25%In 1.00' [X} 63%In (ITE#210) 50%Out 7510 Out 3710 Out Number of trips generated=Trip Rate'(Dwelling Units) Table 2 summarizes the total number of trips that are expected to be generated at build-out of the proposed development during the AM and PM peak periods and on a daily basis. The number of trips generated represents the number of vehicles entering and exiting the proposed development to and from the adjacent street system. Based upon the driveway access, all project traffic will enterlexit at the site driveway along FM 1709. Table 2-Trip Generation Analysis Land Use ITE Code Intensity Units Daily AM PeakPM Peak Total In Out Total In Out Total Weisman Tract Single-Family Housing 72'10 65 Dwelling Units 619 12 37 49 41 24 65 Total Trips 6113 12 37 49 41 24 65 Right-Turn Lane Analysis TxDOT's Access Management Manual sets forth criteria for auxiliary lanes. Per Table 2.3 (Auxiliary Lane Thresholds), a right-turn deceleration lane should be considered on roads with a posted speed equal to or less than 45 mph if the projected right-turn volume into a driveway is greaterthan 60vehicles per hour. The posted speed of FM 1709 in front of the site is 45 mph. Based on the trip generation, the right-turn volume is expected to be 12 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 41 vehicles during the PM peak hour. Therefore, a right-turn deceleration lane is not recommended at the proposed driveway on FM 1709. Case No. Attachment E ZA15-153 Page 6 Klmley O Horn 4 Conclusion The proposed Weisman Tract rill include 65 single-family dwelling units generating 49 trips during the AM peak hour and 65 trips dunng the PM Peak hour. Based on TxODT Access Spacing Requirements, the proposed driveway does not meet minimum spacing requirements As a result.the property owner is requesting a variance:deviation in the drive,,-,,ay spacing standards. Follo-,ing are reasons to consider supporting the requested variance'deviation: • Primary access to the development is planned along Fh1 1709.A secondary access is planned to connect to existing Naples Dnve:ho'•�ever this connection :rill be for emergency access only. ■ Based on the anticipated number of vehicles entering the development, a right-turn deceleration lane is not warranted. ■ The driveway east of the proposed development(+;-380 feet does not currently have a nght- turn deceleration lane.and it is not anticipated that one will be needed in the future Ho•.vever, the driveway spacing would allow for a full length nght-turn lane. Feel free to contact me at joff.whitacre@kimley-hom.com of 817-339-2254 if you have any quesbans or comments. Case No. Attachment E ZA15-153 Page 7 Development Plan Review Summary Case No.: ZA15-152 Review No.: Three Date of Review: 04/28/16 Project Name: Development Plan — Stone Trail Estates APPLICANT: Paul Spain PLANNER: Curtis Young Terra/manna, LLC Sage Group, Inc. 101 Clariden Ranch Rd. 1130 N. Carroll Ave. Southlake, TX 76092 (817) 424-2626 Phone: (817) 410-9201 Phone: E-mail: E-mail: CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 04/27/16 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT RICHARD SCHELL AT (817) 748-8602. 1. Lot 3R in the Brock Addition is shown to be included in the R-PUD zoning district. Please include specific setbacks for that lot in the R-PUD regulations if the lot will retain the same setbacks as it currently has in the "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District. 2. Please add specific language describing the use and maintenance of Open Space Lot 18. The open space lot contains a driveway for the garage on Lot 4, Brock Addition. Please be specific on the maintenance responsibilities of the driveway, fencing and landscaping, including irrigation on that lot. Since the lot is fenced off from the rest of the development, please also be specific as to the access rights to the lot by the public and by the residents of Stone Trail Estates. The note on the Development Plan states that open space lots are open to the public. If the lot is not to be open for anyone to use, then it needs to be removed from the open space area provided and renamed something else. All driveways/points of ingess/egress must comply with the Driveway Ordinance No. 634, as amended). A minimum spacing of 500' is required for the minimum distance from a commercial driveway ( a church is considered commercial property in the Driveway Ordnance definition) to an intersection along W. Southlake Blvd., but that spacing may be reduced to 250' for right-in/right- out driveways. A variance letter has been submitted requesting a variance to Driveway Ordinance No. 634, as amended, to allow a spacing of 199' to the Lakeside Presbyterian Church driveway to the west. Tree Conservation/Landscape Review E-mail: kmartin@ci.southlake.tx.us Keith Martin Landscape Administrator Phone: (817) 748-8229 Case No. Attachment F ZA15-153 Page 1 TREE CONSERVATION COMMENTS: * A Tree Conservation Analysis was submitted. The existing tree cover is shown to be 40.23% and under straight zoning a minimum 50% of the existing tree cover is required to be preserved. The applicant is proposing to preserve 53.62% of the existing tree cover so the existing tree cover preservation would comply with the existing tree cover preservation requirements. Except as provided by subsection 7.2.b. of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, a Tree Conservation Analysis or Tree Conservation Plan shall be approved if it will preserve existing tree cover in accordance with the percentage requirements established by Table 2.0. If the property has previously received a tree permit related to development, the percentage of existing tree cover at the time the first such permit was issued shall be used to calculate the minimum existing tree cover that must be preserved under this section. Table 2.0 — Existing Tree Cover Preservation Requirements Percentage of existing tree cover on Minimum percentage of the the entire site existing tree cover to be preserved* 0% -20% 70% 20.1 —40% 60% 40.1% - 60% 50% 160.1% - 80% 40% 180.1% - 100% 30% *The minimum percentage of existing tree cover to be preserved shall exclude any area in public rights-of-way as approved by City Council. For property sought to be zoned for the Downtown zoning district or a planned development zoning district, including an S-P-1 Site Plan, S-P-2 Site Plan, Transition, Rural Conservation, Planned Unit Development, or Employment Center zoning district,the City Council shall considerthe application for a Conservation Analysis or Plan in conjunction with the corresponding development application (as established in Table 1.0). The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the application and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the application. The City Council shall approve the Plan or Analysis if the Council finds that the Plan or Analysis provides for the: i. placement of building pads, parking areas, driveways, streets, and utility easements so as to maximize the preservation of environmental features of the property including mature tree stands, natural creeks and ponds, and significant grades; ii. maximizes the preservation of tree cover preservation areas indicated on the Environmental Resource Protection Map; iii. maximizes the preservation of existing tree stands with the potential to buffer residential areas from the noise, glare, and visual effects of nonresidential uses; iv. maximizes the preservation of existing trees, if any,adjoining a natural or man-made drainage creek; V. maximizes the preservation of existing protected trees along rural roadways and other streets as identified and prioritized in the Street Typology designation; and vi. mitigation of altered trees through proposed tree replacement procedures pursuant to this Ordinance. Case No. Attachment F ZA15-153 Page 2 Please be aware that all existing trees shown to be preserved on the City Council approved Tree Conservation Plan must be preserved and protected during all phases and construction of the development. Alteration or removal of any of the existing trees shown to be preserved on the approved Tree Conservation Plan is a violation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance and the zoning as approved by the Southlake City Council. Please ensure that the layout of all structures, easements, utilities, structures grading, and any other structure proposed to be constructed do not conflict with existing trees intended to be preserved. LANDSCAPE BUFFERYARD COMMENTS: The 20' — L type north bufferyard has been provided. Indicates informational comment. # Indicates required items comment. Public Works/Engineering Review Om Chhetri, P.E. Civil Engineer Phone: (817) 748-8089 E-mail: ochhetri(a)ci.south Iake.tx.us GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. This review is preliminary. Additional requirements may be necessary with the review of civil construction plans. 2. Please update the Traffic Analysis based on the reduced number of lots. Per the City of Southlake driveway ordinance 634, a deceleration lane is required if the site peak period ingress movement is greater than 40 veh/ hr. The Traffic Analysis from Kimley-Horn shows 41 veh/hr for the previous plan with 65 lots. If a deceleration lane is required, a shorter deceleration lane than TxDOT requirements may be required due to the geographical challenges with respect to the distance to the adjacent western church driveway.This requirement will be contingent on TxDOT's willingness to amend their access requirement.A future deceleration lane is also proposed at the Lakeside Presbyterian church with phase II of the development. 3. Show any proposed sidewalks in the site plan. Street intersections shall comply with TDLR/ADA accessibility standards. Sight distances shall comply with AASHTO guidelines on adjacent collectors and arterials. Sidewalk widths shall conform to the Southlake Pathways Plan. Use the City of Southlake GPS monuments whenever possible. Monument locations can be found in the City of Southlake website: http://www.citvofsouthlake.com/index.aspx?NID=266 DRAINAGE COMMENTS: 1. A comparison of Tc's in itself cannot be accepted as justification for waiving detention. The Engineer should update the HEC-1 model to demonstrate the impacts of hydrograph timing. If this study indicates no increase in peak discharge, the detention requirement can be waived. If during final Case No. Attachment F ZA15-153 Page 3 design a detention pond was deemed required, the applicant may be required to revise to the concept/site/development plan and obtain approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. 2. Include a pre-developed conditions drainage area map/calculations and provide calculations that demonstrate no adverse impact in post-project conditions as a result of development within basin A-1. * LOMR shall be obtained prior to acceptance of the subdivision. * Storm sewers collecting runoff from public streets shall be RCP and constructed to City standards. The proposed flume will not be allowed. * Property drains into a Critical Drainage Structure may require a fee to be paid prior to beginning construction. * Discharge of post development runoff must have no adverse impact on downstream properties and meet the provisions of Ordinance No. 605. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS: * Submit 22"x34" civil construction plans and a completed Construction Plan Checklist directly to the Public Works Administration Department for review. Please allow 15 business days for review. The plans shall conform to the most recent construction plan checklist, standard details and general notes which are located on the City's website: http://www.cityofsouthlake.com/PublicWorks/engineeringdesign.asp * Submit with Civil Construction Plans a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan which outlines pre- construction, construction and post-construction erosion control measures. * A geotechnical report will be required for all private and public roadways. The geotechnical report shall include pavement design parameters for subgrade stabilization. * A right of way permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Operations Department (817) 748- 8082 to connect to the City's sewer, water or storm sewer system. * A Developer Agreement may be required for this development and may need to be approved by the City Council prior to any construction of public infrastructure. Construction plans for these improvements must be acceptable to Public Works prior to placing the Developer's Agreement on the City Council agenda for consideration. * Any hazardous waste being discharged must be pretreated per Ordinance No. 836. *=Denotes informational comment. Fire Department Review Kelly Clements Assistant Fire Marshal Phone: (817) 748-8671 E-mail: kclements@ci.southlake.tx.us GENERAL COMMENTS: Case No. Attachment F ZA15-153 Page 4 Subdivision street names to be approved by city prior to final plat. Submit proposed names and alternate names as soon as possible. The gated entry, if approved, must be equipped with an Opticom or KS-2 switch for opening the gate electronically, as well as a means for manual opening. Cul-de-Sacs must have 30 ft. inside turn radius and 50 foot radius (100 foot diameter) for approved turnaround. (Plans show a 90' diameter). Community Service/Parks Department Review Peter Kao Construction Manager 817-748-8607 pkao@ci.southIake.tx.us Park Board comments or recommendations: All applicants are required to appear before the Park Board to discuss park dedication issues if requesting fee payments or fee credits. Please contact the Community Services Department at(817) 748-8607 for further details. Land/park dedication requirements: Residential developments must provide dedicated parks and/or open space at a ratio of one(1)acre of park land for every forty (40) dwelling units. If fee payment is approved by City Council in lieu of land dedication, residential park dedication fees in the amount of$3000 per dwelling unit x 61 dwelling units = $183,000. $6000 credit will be given for two existing dwellings. Pathway Comments: Should provide pathways consistent with Southlake Master Pathways Plan. Should provide pedestrian access from each building to Trail System or sidewalk connections and between buildings. Should provide 4ft+ concrete sidewalks on both sides of all public and private streets consistent with Article V Street and Right-Of-Way Requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and all State of Texas accessibility requirements. Other informational comments? General Informational Comments A SPIN meeting for this development was held on September 22, 2015. Properties within Corridor Overlay Zone see Ord. 480-S § 43.9.c.1(e) for design criteria. Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 39.5(4) requires fences along W. Southlake Blvd. to comply with the Architectural Fencing requirements of the Corridor Overlay District. (Section43.9(c)l(f), which states "All architectural fencing which runs roughly parallel to the SH 114, Carroll Ave.FM 1709, FM 1938, rights of way shall be constructed of the primary materials of the building, wrought iron or living plant material. It shall not run in a straight line without being offset by a minimum of 6 feet every 60 feet. It shall be located no closer to the right of way than one half the width of the required bufferyard. Case No. Attachment F ZA15-153 Page 5 No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan. A separate building permit is required prior to construction of any signs. All mechanical equipment must be screened of view from right-of-ways and residential properties in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended. All lighting must comply with the Lighting Ordinance No. 693, as amended. All development must comply with the Drainage Ordinance No. 605 and the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance No. 946, as amended. Development must comply with all requirements in Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 43, Overlay Zones. The applicant should be aware that prior to issuance of a building permit a Plat must be processed and filed in the County Plat Records, a fully corrected site plan, landscape plan, irrigation plan, and building plans, must be submitted for approval and all required fees must be paid. This may include but not be limited to the following fees: Park Fee, Perimeter Street Fee, Water & Sewer Impact and Tap Fees, and related Permit Fees. The proposed street connection on Southlake Blvd. requires TXDOT approval. Denotes Informational Comment Case No. Attachment F ZA15-153 Page 6 SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS Stone Trail Estates ar. au Mai Ad Pi ' I y1/ L�L 7 1. NADO I LLC Tspi 2530 W SOUTHILAKE BLVD 1.92 1 2. NADO I LLC spi 2580 W SOUTHILAKE BLVD 1.71 3. BONOLA FAMILY LTD PRTNSHP SFI-A 2608 W SOUTH LAKE BLVD 1.78 NR 4. HALL,JERRY G SF1-A 102 JELLICO CIR 1.24 IF S. WIESMAN, E 1AG 2607 W SOUTHILAKE BLVD 0.88 -A- 6. QUINONES, MICHAEL C SF1-A 109 BROCK DR 0.58 0 7. VARGAS, PERRY W 5F1-A 209 BROCK DR 1.14 0 8. HOWARD, EMMA L SF1-A 303 BROCK DR 1.13 0 9. WIESMAN, E I AG 2641 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.39 NR 10. MCCALL, MARIE C SF1-A 320 BROCK DR 1.33 0 11. KUELBS, GREGORY G RE 500 DAVIS BLVD 5.50 NR 12. PAPILLARD, MARJORIE S SF1-A 319 BROCK DR RIF 0.67 IF 13. PAPILLARD, MARJORIE A 5F1-A 329 BROCK DR 0.74 IF 14. HANEY,ARVEL W EST SF1-A 400 BROCK DR 4.84 IF 15. KUELBS, GREGORY G RE 504 DAVIS BLVD 2.03 NR 16. LOWMAN, MIKE SF20A 711 PORTOFINO PL 0.47 NR 17. FRANKS, NINA SF20A 700 VENICE AVE 0.47 NR 18. BEENE, LORI DAMRON SF20A 719 PORTOFINO PL 0.46 NR 19. FAZEN, MARK A SF20A 720 PORTOFINO PL 0.46 NR 20. HARIDAS, RAGHAVEN SF20A 701 VENICE AVE 0.46 NR 21. POTEET,THOMAS AG 2435 MICHAEL DR 0.55 NR 22. C&T LAWNS LLC AG 2440 MICHAEL DR 1.13 NR 23. 1 STRAND, VERLO J AG 2420 MICHAEL DR 1.13 NR Case No. Attachment G ZA1 5-153 Page 1 24. C&T LAWNS LLC AG 2425 MICHAEL DR 1.11 NR 25. SMYTH, HENRY C SP2 301 WATERMERE DR 6.37 NR 26. MULLENIX, DAVID W SF20A 701 PORTOFINO PL 0.59 NR 27. SMYTH, HENRY C SP2 301 WATERMERE DR 8.90 NR 28. WIESMAN, E I AG 2651 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 13.18 NR 29. LAKESIDE PRESBYTERAN CHURCH CS 2701 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 7.43 NR 30. KUELBS, GREGORY G SF1-A 684 DAVIS BLVD 5.00 NR 31. JOHNSON, GEORGE AG 2390 MICHAEL DR 1.13 NR 32. WIESMAN, E I AG 2621 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 9.22 NR 33. WIESMAN, E I AG 2631 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 3.50 NR 34. HANEY, ARVEL W EST SF1-A 410 BROCK DR 1.70 NR 35. BYLER,JOHN R SF20A 705 PORTOFINO PL 0.46 NR 36. FARAGHER,JACK SF20A 707 PORTOFINO PL 0.47 NR 37. YOUNG, MICHAEL M SF20A 715 PORTOFINO PL 0.52 NR 38. QUINN, WILLIAM AG 2445 MICHAEL DR 0.57 NR 39. COUCH, BOBBIE JOE SF2 829 SIENA DR 2.37 NR 40. SOUTHLAKE CHURCH OF CHRIST CS 2417 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 9.82 NR 41. WIESMAN, E I SF1-A 250 BROCK DR 1.53 NR 42. BUCY, DOROTHY HALLMARK SPI 2419 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 1.28 NR 43. 1 QUINONES, MICHAEL C SF1-A 105 BROCK DR 0.51 O Responses: F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response Notices Sent: Forty-three (43) Responses Received Within 200': Eight (8) and 12 Public Comment Forms - Attached Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 2 Notification Response Form ZA15-153 j��' • r �'C: i+ f Meeting Cate: February 4, 2018 at 8:30 PM I 3 MCC.ALL, MARIE C 320 BROCK DR SCUTHLAKE,TX 78092 �ti_ 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 CGnd �--ecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above- Space for comments regarding your position: our tears are listed below: 0 Animals have lived in this open area for eons. often traversing our roads to get a drink in creek. We have bobcats,coyotes,fox,raccoons,owls,bunnies,hawk,etc. QAir quality - if 64 houaesat 2 working people per house, with 2 cars, then that makes over 100 Is= going to work/school/etc. The traffic on 1709 will be worsa. 3� They are over current density limit ❑ 1.a. Trey are at 1.8.04. V ❑ red t❑ PV f SM put our land into that edition in order to meet city density requirements. we do of want to 5e part of ME ealtion. wor a Eneir RUA 7decisions. This zoning change will put the road ( ress)to our home under their HOA. How can t it? If they own it, they should take care of it, water it, maintain fencing,e±tc_ or 44a r duce their an b one or t hou s. 5. Makin money should never trump ecoiogy,air quality,ov -density,status quo of Southlake neighborhoods. Signature' — -' `� _ Date: 'A/ ��6 s Additional Signature: Date: Printery Names): 14,0:4 C MCC1 LL [Just to property o)wner(s)whose name(s)are p+hsm at top. Ol erwies canted 0*Plsriwig Oenannmm One farm per prnperty- Phone Number (optional); --�.2 le C7 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 3 Notification Response Form ZA15-152 15- S7 6 Meeting Date: February 4, 2016 at 6:30 PM MCCALL, MARIE C 320 BROCK 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 opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Zoning Change and Development Plan referenced above. av,a Thome.+TS Arks I:s rMd bvLDw Space for comments regarding your position: A.. AN.�,,,�$ >„�„� t; ,%%j;,v-This Aramq FSR rs mss. DFreN r-AAV4trH-"r- mak Rt4d5 70 GrrT'R❑Ai'v'S aeeK-wo4AJK go60AI.-S (aTi`i,FiXfQAtce.wA ,awIs,bwurreCl 2 ) ►►'A. q.At;7y1•;P -4 hr� 'e a save -r- ws4kiNdVFSeAh4D W:T6 TWUCRASonccAJ !h'4rffi4KCS o veq LwGD tAgs LPO;; 6 rewaAKJSCice ,7h 4TQAF06i.;J"" 19ayw: l eL—A 6e.- 0-)Tl.s-[11Ae0UC1Z C AAtA*T i igoj5;r'/ Nm i r or-/.a . r4oy AAc 1.8.e'f , j*A4,7 3P4"+J aAFpAcr) ro ja.r OVA kA&d 'mro rhrlr ed;rrQ,rj +►:saJ•,Q '7b rn067 CG' '{peNF;ry Rvpu;lie,ll -TS-jj&coo ,,-rl'A,..T Te tiny h7+4ej-r Or- rh,4r• td.r❑.aa -waknNy a rh■;R ► ❑A AcsTAf[±.orus aC;s;a,a.+ . (0 rhiS zemi,va wire io"T rhe EGress s 4rvaitafS i+r m&-fZ hon+; w,ucoA- mei iL NoA,44 1-J CAJU Th• chAa+c.e w Ar;S O• A. AtGk, To o.J& *use rha,u re ll U5 he.a 8W 7-4;A.? a 7 a i F TheVF 4P4-0e+ 1 'rha,u rh-y %hao0 moLJ.,uTH;,v Pe-ciK+G 4-d wsrra.i rA■:rt ptA-vTS .ak .+deduce The; 014- 4,1 *ye e2 two house s �rnA+c:NC. Irta,u-f s h e I J AdQueA, T um ec4n lo(;y, f}� ;hj41:ryjoLtek--6Qtusi►'Y STAT05 C1 ,6oF SouTk1AMQ- ev'e.;7h6&iZ K,n,85 r Signature: DateAL/ /Z- Additional Signature: f Date: - ,Lj e,)b Printed Name(s): /t7 �� f�AAa1cS l . s it Must he property owner,sl whose narne(s)are printed 81 top- Otherwise contact the Planing Departmard. one fpRn pqx property. i Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 4 Southlake Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Public Comment Form I'leasc print. Return completed form to Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: 14 Date: Address: .9 0 i2 v ' Phone: e f --S 7 S- Y l Q 7 (Include City and State) ❑ I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# J 3—q /14 1 Kill sock in SUPPORT of this item Z",will speak in OPPOSITION to this item I do not wish to speak,but please reedy !SUPPORT PPOSITION ❑ Chi=Comments(for an item on this agenda) F,....C u r P: � — Relr arils ov Gert the recird unless ith.dtn4rA h Southlake Planning& Zoning Commission Meeting Public Comment Farm Please print. Return completed form to Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: D`- �—c'4 Date*. Address: i�, 5_Cly 1 ! lC P Phone: 7'f 2- Y!9 (bwla*City and Swr) ❑ l wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# Cl I will speak in SUPPORT of this item I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item I do not wish to speak,but please record my SUPPORT OPPOSITION L+_'1 Citizen Comments{for an item on this agenda} C- SignatureS4Wn'M': G0R Cardt+ell nor be rea4in#the record unless la it Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 5 Notification Response Form ZA 15-152 Meeting Date: February 4, 2016 at 6:30 PM VARGAS, PERRY W 209 BROCK 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 apposed tol undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Zoning Change and Development Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: I Date: 7 L Additional Signature: Dater Printed Names): Re. r rV yetvio la j A- `'a's Faust be prot. rty oh•ner(ti 1 whose narne(s)ari printed at top• OthemAe contict the Planning Depw merK. One form pwipromfty- Phone Number (optional): _f f . Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 6 January 21, 2016 Perry & Flvira Vargas 209 Brock Drive Southlake Tx, 76092 817431-2659 Resident since 1978 Re: ZA15-152 - Reasons for not in favor of Rain water not saturating and eventually going into the creek behind us. To much concrete. Worry about it overflowing and flooding. Creek behind our yard. Who will be responsible if flooding occurs` Water in the ditches across from us settles there for days atter it rains. Trap for mosquitoes (eventually the church will propose to put a parking lot there) Haney's property is on a flood zone as it is. Our street will be less than 10 acres when Haney's property is sold, developers will not buy less than 10 acres. Price of our home when we decide to sell will be less. With all these homes being build, there will be more traffic and congestion. It is already hard to get in and out of our block. Also more pollution. Southlake Blvd. is already congested. We have cars turning in and out of our driveway as it is and tearing up our driveway. Bunch of trees that been there for years will be chopped down. Husband has COPD. All the construction will create more dust and will restrict him from sitting outside. Not to mention all the noise while construction is going on. This is normally a quiet stretzt. Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 7 Construction trucks will have to come down our street to built part of the development. Wearing out our street more. Also, all the rodents and snakes will becoming down into our yards. They will he looking for another habitat. Jeopardizing our safety. DUST, HUSBAND COPD TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION LOSING PROPERTY VALUE WHEN WE DECIDE TO SELL RODENTS AND SNAKES NOICE CONSTRUCTION TRUCKS DOWN OUR STREET. WE WERE TOLD THAT THEY MAY SELL TO THE CHURCH PROPERTY ON BROCK,AND THEY WILL BUILD A PARKING LUT. THAT MEANS MORE CARS DOWN OUR STREET, CRIME,AND UNSAFE FOR CHILDREN. MORE CONCRETE,AND WATER NOT SATURATING HOW IS THIS BENEFITING US? r Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 8 Southlake Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to Secretary prior to start of regular session. Nan • l - - Address:-if---) elude City Sure) wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item#-LiL 1 /� -z /Y-f [will speak in SUPPORT of this item _ will speak in OPPOSITION to this item I do not wish to speak,but please record my SUPPORT OPPOSITION ®r-, Citimn Comments(for an item on this agenda) h Signature• NequiW- Wards wN r p read fnlaa mwrd ten It is.0 xed Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 9 Notification Response Form ZA15-152 Meeting Date: February 4,2016 at 6.30 PM NAQO I LLC 800 THROCMMORTON ST APT 2706 FORT WORTH, TX 76102 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS. Be' a (s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about circle or underline one) the proposed Zoning Change and Development Plan referenced above. Space for Comments reg riling our pnsition: Signature: Date; Z Additional Signature. —:7Date: Printed hlame($): ]� CCI�, CVn)NI�_ L �_ Must be property Qumei{s}whbw names)am pAWd vl Wq oteivnae mntw the Plsnnkv D"fternt. One rwm per propartV Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 10 Notification Response Form ZA15-153 Meeting Date: February 4, 2016 at 6:30 PM HALL, JERRY G PO BOX 982045 FORT WORTH. TX 75182 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 Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Date/ Additional Signature; Date: Printed Name(s): I Must be propemty owner(s)whose Warnew are pnntedaftop. hChYi G the Panning Oeparftnent One farm per property Phone Number (optional): 2 - Q Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 11 Notification Response Form ZA15-153 A eeting Date:February 4,2015 at 6:30 PM P11PILiAFiD,MIARJDRlE A 319 BROCK 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 opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above Space for comments reparding your position: tom. �- Signature: )ate,- Additional ateAdditional Signature: Date: Printed Names}: � Must be PrO"dY—Irl1k)whl�*e nameW,are 'PA st Ina. 00Wkw cbriladfft Pfanrrep Dgmwkr t- Orrrr&rm per prop uty Phone Number (optinnaly f Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 12 Notification Response Form ZA15-153 Meeting Date: February 4, 2016 at 6:30 PM HOWARD. EMMA L 303 BROCK DR SOUTHLAKE,TX 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS V!A MAIL, FAX C7R HAND DFL.IVFRY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner{s} of the property so noted above, are hereby in flavor of ;_opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: _ Iten f ti r Signature: Date: Additional Signature: Date: r , LPrinted Names): 6 a gi Must be property awner(st whose narne(sl Are primed at top. Othe►wiee contact the Planning Department. One Ioim par property. Phone Number (optional): 17 ^ e, 5 7 'Z Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 13 Southlake PIanning & Zoning Commission Meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed forst to Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: 3 Elate: 6,Address: �) ~ ��V G Phone/! t 11 (include City and ware) ❑ I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item; Agcnda Item;V I will speak in SUPPORT of this item _ I will speak in OPPOSI'T'ION to this item (�7I do not wish to speak,but please record my SUPPORT '-SUPPOSITION ❑ Citizen Comments(for an item on this agenda) Signature: Required. C will Hof hr nwd fnr the mconf unless if is s4maj Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 14 Notification Response Form Direct questions and mail responBos to: ZA15-153 City of Southlake Meeting Date: February 4, 2016 at 6:30 PM Planning & Development Services Notification Respons¢ 1400 Main St; Ste 310 Southlako,TX 76092 QUINONES, MICHAEL C Phone: (617)7+18-8621 105 RROCK DR Fax, (817)748-8077 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 Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Jr Ole !r fI Signature; Date. Additional Signature: 2LA-kA0\J6--" Date: P PI,.a 1A4 Printed Name(s): 0:e 4, e� 3 5•r Must be property awne-(s)whose names)are punted at top Oherwse ronLwI the Planning Department arse form per property, Phone Number (optional): ��i ?� 7 7/-;)o Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 15 quinones Family Primary reason for opposing ZA15.152 and ZA15.153: Neglect to take city vision and values in to consideration when designing the Stone Trail Estates development. Very little greenspace and conceptual design does not follow the city's"board of commissions manual"corps value For neighborhoods,"We offer quality neighborhoods and a high standard of living". Don't want the Stone Trail Estates design to not live up to the City of Southlake standards. Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 16 z 0 0 r".J _0 m 0 0 -� N H 0 z p 0 w N a--a Ln W +� 00 �, ❑ �t Q w 0 — � a 0 a 0 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 17 � t 2E C %n m $A M > c / 0 0 Gk L- 0 k r- / C= '> n o g to E r M § u : 2 0 = o Cr o vi � :3 2 0 $ k 2 k L y § | � - � M C E t § k $ a § .$ 2 Z / / $ ( k ƒ � vi Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 18 v o` .� m .� 0 a cn W m 4- L •d u ' j t7 a Y M N N r-1 C cu c E �> m S m x C7 'w oG Cn 11j � CO `'{ 0 � P-. CD c� � a � o► M � � � `0 0 o CO R N �a M f*_ [d Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 19 C C v 04 V cn M7 Q a � a v C: 3 L Y v N w *�0-' ? ru CLn 0 -0 H [d ❑ ° } E V +� •- ra Q �' 0 M o 7 LIL H Am lei GJI lit Plitt ,. �_ '��..�� _wi- �,;moi � •�L17,.w jiL'� •�•: �� '�� 14 ru i� �j` 'LI `�' {, �f r' rr ��` f L��Ji.:.�, I �•:�•• .� i I + �y;� Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 20 V) L1 L C C a r-1 Cu 4j ti0 oD rV O -0 L Ln N ry E ❑ v as E -Z3 a U E vtn v 4S E _0 +� L [[} +.r ❑ V p ❑ � Q� j.,LU o o ❑ c ° .� a; a a LIM ❑ ao Cr ko ',_ C G7 Q Z C `0 �C C a] Cn C o Zv� � °J Ln �, E b E -0 4� E `O 4J C ❑ s M v vrO �• L ,_❑ C i 4> > +� cA kj-i^'1.i�. = - `ii 1 •i ; �li lI.�77 r ;L�I.:C�..I�i� .7 ± ....J �• .---_.. - ii �; .v .!f I ill �.� � .••]•j•� I � �;1' ; l• 7•] � t 1 kp Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 21 Coll eyvilIe Opposed design for Terra development-REDUCED IN SIZE March 6,2013 A proposed new subdivision along Bluebonnet Drive drew a crowd to Colleyville City Council to protest Tuesday. The Preservation on Glade along Bluebonnet Drive started with plans for 48 lots. By the end of the meeting around midnight Wednesday,the lot number at dropped to a maximum of 38. The council took no action because the project was presented only for first reading and a public hearing. Members asked the developer,Paul Spain,to come back with more details of the slope of the property and grading plans. Residents of the Bridges at Riverwalk,an adjacent subdivision,said they opposed the new development because of existing drainage problems,traffic issues and density.About 14 people spoke against the project, "Why don't they go over to Euless?There's lots of land over there in Euless,"one man said. Others showed photos of water flooding through their property and expressed worries about traffic. Developer Paul Spain of Terra land said his proposal would actually eliminate the drainage problem.He also showed the City Council a traffic study that indicated the impact would be minimal. Two more new housing developments that had attracted resident protests earlier subdivisions were approved Tuesday,the earlier issues apparently having been worked out with residents. Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 22 Sot.tthlake Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: ��^ r�►.:��t,. 5 Ilate• d M, /4 A G rA �0 I J , Zrvt' 5s f l t� �.� Phone: (RI�� 74 s� 7 ucie City wad 9aie) s>rari my 'sews on an A ends keen I(et.3#_77—ale- /42 -3 -2 Wi��3 Kill sDf a1;in,SUPPORT of this item 1 speak in OPPOSITION to this item iia not,kish to speak,but please record my SUPPORT OPPOSITION ff �' u Citiren Comments(for an item on this agenda) Aero�+rL^+c+ F err,'' rrul r rr�t �n lhr :M cq1�;itlr.xigrre Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 23 City of Southlake Meeting 04/07/2010 Items 13, 14, 15 Ord. # 450-712 Neighborhood #11 ZA15- 152 and ZA 15-153 OPPOSED RESIDENT DISCUSSION Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 24 Table of Contents Summary of the Opposed Page 3 Original Stone Trail Estates Designs Page 5 Supporting Documents Page 7 Appendix Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 25 Summary for the Opposed Short summary on Lawsuit for remaining residents of Brock Addition Opposed of Terra Design: The Plaintiff has a contract to sale her property to a Developer(Terra—Paul Spain)with the stipulation that a 40 year old restriction be removed. This Stipulation has left the Plaintiff and her son(Attorney representing Plaintiff)no option but to attempt in disqualifying Defendants vote to allow the 40 year old restriction to be lifted, See Exhibit 3 The Developer knows that residents of 105, 109,and 209 Brock(Defendants) will not agree to remove the restriction until his design is approved by city council (which has been denied twice,council 2030 meeting and recent rezoning meeting ZA15-152 and ZA15-153)and all his guarantees to Brack Addition community are put in writing. As the defendants have told the Plaintiff and Developer before,our entire community will agree to the release the restriction once he puts all his guarantees to the Brack Addition Community in writing and the council approves his design. He has not agreed to,nor have his plans been approved. Lawsuit remains pending. -Restriction does not allow more than one family home to be built on each lot of the Brock Addition neighborhood Additional notes: Brock Addition Restriction Release-Majority of the neighbors whom initially signets the release to remove the 40 year old restriction are no longer in favor of the build as Terra and Mr.Spain have changed the design multiple times and are now retracting many of his initial verbal guarantees. Brock Drive entry not an option for Mr.Spain-Mr. Spain does not wish to incorporate a"Brock drive entry"into his design because it was a guarantee in writing,in order to receive signature agreement by more than half of the Brack Addition community. This Guarantee stakes that Stone Trail Development wilt not utilize Brock drive as a neighborhood access. See Item 1 and Appendix for entire document"Partial Release" -Majority of the Brock community is now opposed of lifting the Terra restriction and have voiced their opinions,"that if they had to sign aga in they would oppose the design and not agree to lift!rig the restriction." Incorporating Brock into the design will require Mr.Spain to have new agreements signed by all Brock Addition Residents agreeing to lift the restriction. Top Brock Addition Community request/concerns: False statements by Mr.Spain to Brock Community-Residence initially asked if Mr.Spain did include Brock into his design (although not in favor)as an access point that he put in writing, to develop the Brock drive and incorporate sidewalks as the majority of the neighborhood walks up and down the street for exercise because of no sidewalks being available. This request was denied by Mr.Spain as he mentioned the city of Southlake would not approve a sidewalk design and street improvements if he requested it. This statement was later proven as false when the city of 5outhfake Public works was contacted,andstated"that Terra would only have 3 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 26 Summary for the Opposed to apply for permits to have his sidewalk street improvement designs approved for Brock Addition. False Guarantee's-Brock Addition Community asked that access to the Stone Trail Estates open/common areas be granted as a good gesture and put in writing as such. Mr.Spain initially agreed verbally however, has public-ally stated since,"that the open/common areas a solely for use of Stone Trail Estates residents." See public SPIN meeting video for 02/04/2016, items 13, 14, 15. Design in Best Interest of City of Southlake-Neglect to take city vision and values in to consideration when designingthe Stone Trail Estates development, Very little greenspace and conceptual design does not follow the city's"board of commissions manual"corps value for neighborhoods,"We offer quality neighborhoods and a high standard of living". Don't want the Stone Trail Estates design to not live up to the City of Southlake standards. Terra Previous Designs Denied-Previous design was denied in order to preserve Quality over Quantity reducing initial design by 10 lots. See Item 2(City of Colleyville ruling,2013) 4 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 27 Terra's"Stone Trail Estates Designs 55 Lots - �-,d Initial design prior to Southlake 2030 - Planned meeting in December 2015 7L •' ' _=i -� -�'�.J.. _'- � 4 65 Lots Design 02/04/2016 after board j ___i� member recommendations to add more 5outhlake unique values to design ~ f -T" t i Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 28 * r�=: 4 *" . Southlake Subdivision . ? Y r;,,;, Comparison Y r' ta w w r P Villas at Hidden Knoll design 40 units Maximized Greenspace r - t ��.�i• t 1 �• _ �. _ _- _ ._moi I �i _ _ �- _� •: Terra's-Stone Trail Estates design J:.r. - - -_ ..__ !. 64 units 1. Floodplain primary Greenspace Already unusable space IT Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 29 => 3. As part of the development of the Haney Property, Terra eliminate access to the Haney Property from Brock Drive and will fence off the Haney Property from the Brock Addition. 4. This Release may be signed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original for all purposes but all of which taken together shall constitute a single instrument. 5. As used in the Release, "Terra" includes any successors and assigns of Terra. [Remainder of Page Blank; Signature and Acknowledgment Pages Follow] Item 1 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 30 CDlleyville Opposed Design for Terra Development—Reduced in size March 6,2013 A proposed new subdivision along Bluebonnet Drive drew a crowd to Colleyville City Council to protest Tuesday. The Preservation on Glade along Bluebonnet Drive started with plans for 48 lots. By the end of the meeting around midnight Wednesday,the lot number at dropped to a maximum of 38. The council took no action because the project was presented only forfirst reading and a public hearing. Members asked the developer,Paul Spain,to come back with more details of the slope of the property and grading plans. Residents of the Bridges at Riverwalk,an adjacent subdivision,said they opposed the new development because of existing drainage problems,traffic issues and density.About 14 people spoke against the project. "Why don't they go over to Euless?There's lots of land over there in Euless," one man said. Others showed photos of water flooding through their property and expressed worries about traffic. Developer Paul Spain of Terra Land said his proposal would actually eliminate the drainage problem. He also showed the City Council a traffic studythat indicated the impact would be minimal. Two more new housing developments that had attracted resident protests earlier subdivisions were approved Tuesday,the earlier issues apparently having been worked out with residents. Item 2 s Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 31 Appendix Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 32 7STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF TARRANT § PARTIAL RELEASE This Partial Release ("Release") is MADE by the parties who have executed this instrument below(each,an"Owner"or"Lienholder"and,collectively,the"Owners"). Margaret June Haney, as Independent Executor of the Estate of Arvel Wayne Haney, Deceased, Cause No. 2015-PRO1041-2. Probate Court. Tarrant County. Texas: Margaret June Raney. 'Trustee of The Arvel Wayne Haney Estate Trust executed on August 7. 2000. and amended thereafter, under the third Article of the Last Will and Testament of Arvel Wayne Haney. Deceased. Cause No. 2015-PRO1041-2. Probate Court, Tarrant County. Texas, as devisee[jointly"Haney")owns property(the"Haney Property")commonly known as 400 Brock Drive, Southlake,Texas,and being legally described as follows: Lot 5, Brock Addition, to the Town of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to plat recorded in Volume 388-44, Page 40, Plat Records of Tarrant County,Texas Brock Addition contains 10 lots,and the Owners are all of the owners of the lots in Brock Addition. Haney and Terra Manna LLC,a Texas limited liability company(`"Terra"), have entered into a Contract of Sale whereby Haney will sell,and Terra,will purchase,the Haney Property. Terra intends to rezone and replat the Haney Property and develop as part of a subdivision of single family residential homes. As part of the development, the Haney Property will no longer be a part of the Brock Addition, and access will no longer be provided by Brock Drive, and the new subdivision will fence oft'from the remaining lots within Brock Addition. It is declared as follows: �. At the closing of Terra's purchase of the Haney Property, this instrument will be recorded in the Official Records of Tarrant County, Texas along with the Deed from Haney to Terra. This Release will be effective as of the date of the Ileal from Haney to Terra. 2. The Owners agree to the removal of the Haney Property from Brock Addition, and release and discharge the Haney property from the instrument dated December 12, 1967 executed by Jack D. Brock and Anita Brack recorded Volume 4548,Page 10,Official Records,Tarrant County,Texas. 1 10 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 33 3. As part of the development of the Haney Property, Terra eliminate access to the Haney Property from Brock Drive and will fence off the Haney Property from the Brock Addition, 4, This Release may be signed in multiple counterparts, each of which shalt be ati original for all purposes but all of which taken together shall constitute a single instrument. 5. As used in the Release,"Terra"includes any successors and assigns of Terra. [Remainder of Page Blank;Signature and Acknowledgment Pages Follow] Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 34 OWNER OF LOT 9: Michael C.Quinones Sandy Quinones STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF TARRANT § This instrument was acknowledged before me on the day of 12015 by Michael C.Quinones. Notary Public,State of Texas STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF TARRANT § This instrument was acknowledged before me on the day of , 2015 by Sandy Quinones. Notary Public,State of Texas 11 iz Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 35 LtENHOLDER FOR LOT 9: Navy Federal Credit Union By: Pint Name: Print Title: STATE OF § § COUNTY OF § This instrument was acknowlt dgcd bcforc me on tlic day of , 2015 by Navy Federal Credit Union, Notary Public Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 36 5outWake Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Public Comment Form Pleaserint., R yru.ni completed form to Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: `4/6 dl -1 ,a' Date: d A/b AddrrsoFrp"�Jp -rC r' ✓� Ph4nc:� 7 7v vt i3-7pd -Im Iude CIO,and�ale) I wish to sham my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item#_, `? i I will speak in SUPPORT of this item will speak in OPPOSITION to this item I do not wish to speak,but please record my SUPPORT OPPOSITION ❑ Citizen Comments(for an item on this agenda) Signature: Required: Carils will not he reud freta rhe record unless Ir Is slght'A Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 37 Notification Response Form ZA15-152 Meeting Date: February 4, 2016 at 6:30 PM WIESMAN, E I PO BOX 2164 DECATUR, TX 76234 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the ownerts) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Zoning Change and Development Plan referenced above Space for comments regarding your position, Signature, -Date: 21 UF Lov'6 Additional Signature: Date. Printed Name(s): _ 0. n %U91 be property owner?s)whose nanle{a)are printed W top oihecAe oontaa tho Panning Department. One farm per prope•ty Phone Number (optional): S 5z Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 38 As the Daughter of Elmer and Glenda Wiesman and the Executor of their Estates I took great care to find a someone who would be respectful of our family home place. After meeting with several developers my sisters and I were in complete agreement that Terra Mana was the perfect fit for us. They are knowledgeable, respectful of our ties to the land and our concern for our neighbors as weH as capable of turning our family's land into something we can be proud of. Our wish was to honor the memory of my Mother and Father who took great pride in the community of Southlake. I believe this development will be an asset to Southlake and the neighborhood. Sandra Bagwell Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 39 Southlake Planning, & Zoning Commission Meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to Secretary prior to start of regular session Name; Y-! Date: JJ � Address: 6• Phone� � ( ¢elude City and Some) LTJ 1�wish to share my views on an Agenda item, Agenda Item#_a_::] I will speak in SUPPORT of this item I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item I do not wish to speak,but pltmse record my _IPPORT OPPOSITION ❑ Citi7Ln Cowienv"fbk an item on this agenda) at "Signature: Required: C'ar be less It Is skped Southlake Planning& Zoning Commission Meeting Public Comment Form 1�y1 e�Please print. Return completed form to Secretary prior to start of regular stefssion. Name: '3 "" , JL '.' lba `1 hate: -1 1 r 1 f( r Address: a X001 ]• 7LSk+'ti. t�- fLc t 76CA 11hone: iqq o 3r,5 eo 5. '4 �{ (Include City and Mate) lJ (wish to share my views oit an Agenda Iter: Agenda Item# 06 ` ------ •will spcal, in SUPPORT o;this item 1 ►roll speak in OPFOSITION to this ilem _ 1 do not wish speak,but please recon!my SUPPORT OPPOSITION L� Chizan C o ninams(for an item on this agenda) "IgnMt are: Y,G L ?e•galrr h Cards will nn'be read Into the Vimd"ogle ss Ir is sfR►ed. Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 40 Southlake Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: -n-L.l s{f' C� Date: ] to Address: UV S 514t��Cv�+ +"�I�IJc?� Phone: , � �� l G}L 1RD (Inctuk City and Stare) I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item#A� I will speak in SUPPORT of this item I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item I do not wish a speak,but please retard my V SUPPORT OPPOSITION ❑ Citizen Comments(for an item on this agenda) Signature: Required: Cards w1U reef be rrad Lean the nerd unkss Lt is signed Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 41 Southlake Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Public Comment Form Please print.. Rettim completed form to Secretary prior to start Of n:gular session. Name:— iA-AI1atc• C]� Address: ' Phone: rL 7Z t'_:47 (Include City and Soule) I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item t,/I will speak in SUPPORT of this item I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item I do not wish to speak,but please record my SUPPORT OPPOSITION ❑ Citizen Comments(for an item on this agenda) Signature: RegNlmd., wlll plot be nnW lnlo the rues lrsr It h signed. Southlake Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to Secretary prior to start of regular session, Name; U � TT � t Bate: 'V` 7- 14 Address: oo QCJ k �� PhDnr: �,/ (include City and State) L4_! 1 wish to share my views on an Agenda item: Agenda Item# 1�y .Z- DCJ ►5 5�- I will speak in SUPPORT of this item I will speak in OPPOSITION to this iterit I do notwish speak,but please record my SUPPORT OPPOSITION ❑ Citizen Comments(for an item on this agenda) Signature: - t Requlred: Cards plot be read lura Ar record Nnlemp slgft'A Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 42 5outhlake Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Public Comment Form PIease print. Return completed form to Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name, ct Address: �)d Z SPW 6 ,SoalA rC! Phene: fJ/I —['Y' J (include City and Stare) t)LJ 1 wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# ;7— Y — 4- t/)will speak in SUPPORT of this item ,will speak in APPOSITION to this item I do not wish to::peak:, but please record my SUPPORT OPPOSITION ❑ Citizen Comments(for an item on this agenda) Signature: Required. Cards will nor ler re into dee record unless it A signed. Case No. Attachment G ZA15-153 Page 43