Loading...
2004-01-27 Meeting Report (Estes Park Phase II)SPIN Citywide Forum for Neighborhood #5 Topic: Estes Park, Phase H Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:00 p.m. SouthIake Town Hall Third Floor Training Rooms Summary of Questions and Comments: Off of Primrose, you have a road that comes out is Primrose going to be converted to a public road? Not sure what the status is going to be regarding Primrose. What is the existing designation of this property on the City's Land Use Plan? So what you are doing is asking for in this proposal is a higher density than what is recommended? Estes Park Phase I Living in Carroll Meadows Subdivision, our concern has been setting a precedent of medium density development in the area versus what the Land Use Plan recommends. What came out of the first phase what that this was a unique development case and would not result in the same type of proposed development coming forward in the future. The concern is the same with Estes Park Phase II. I live in Carroll Meadows and we know that whatever is built around us, if you skirt the Land Use Plan around our subdivision with less than what is recommended all around us, it will continue to domino. I have heard rumors that the property owner to the north plans to follow your lead in asking for this type of change. We have to "what -if' and are concerned about the precedent because of what is coming in the future. The thing is that, I would like to see you develop the property, but when we bought our house from you in Carroll Meadows, you sold the benefits of being on the north side of town where it is one -acre lots. Now you are asking for this approval that is less than the one -acre standard. Our property (Morgenstein) has become available because they have agreed to buffer the property on the south side to the current owners. I was here when Estes Park Phase I was presented. When I moved to Southlake 17 year's ago, everything was one acre lots. Trails and Parks are nice, but I was concerned about the proposed density in the first phase, and still am concerned. I am concerned about the impact on my property values by having %z acre lots. It is a quality of life issue here; I bought my property to have a lot of space. You start building more lots, trails, and parks; it will bring more people into the area and diminish the quality of life. I feel that the City is taking a downward standard from what we have had. You are going to have a lot of traffic from the highway in there, and the schools are already having trouble balancing the books, and it brings more kids in there. In the Triple C case, there was a similar discussion, but they went in there and the City didn't get the right- of-way they needed to address drainage issues there, and Hunters Ridge will be impacted by that development. I think everything ought to be to the standard and one -acre; I don't like the trend the City is taking here. I opposed Estes Park Phase I, we moved here to be out in the country.. The only thing we came out here for was the land. I was against the change in Phase I, unfortunately the precedent has been set and the north side of the City will be developed in this manner. That being said, this proposal has a lot of merit, I like the integrated approach, we don't need a lot of checkerboard development„ In approaching the P &Z and City Council, I think the mistake was made in Phase I and I am willing to state that I support this project and this type of development going forward. What is going to come first, your development or what is happening with the new road on the thoroughfare plan? So all of that traffic will be on Dove Road until the proposed road to the South happens, are we going to do anything to address the additional cars that will be in the area due to this development. Am I ever going to be able to get out of my driveway? It may be only a hypothetical additional seventeen homes according to some Plan, but there is going to be many more cars due to this approval. We have traffic issues in the City right now, my point is let's not worry about some thoroughfare plan in the future that will accommodate this growth, but let's do something now like put in a light so we can move traffic. I also share the concerns expressed earlier regarding drainage issues, you cannot hard -scape all of this pasture land and not have drainage issues. What you just said about fencing the creek at Triple C is not true and accurate. There are drainage easements along that creek that prevent such fencing. I live behind the development you refer to, the drainage issues that we have are due to issues upstream and not due to the development. The City has repeatedly told us that when the Triple C property develops it will address the issues that we are currently having. We love one acre lots, they are great. I have the property that has a b' culvert that drains to Lake Grapevine. The City continually is telling me that they will hold the developers feet to the fire and not allow drainage to be dumped on my property, but the City will not come out and document the condition of the land prior to the developer coming in and there is no way to hold a developer accountable. You cannot count on the City to hold these developers feet to the fire and protect your property? Can we get a copy of the water impact study associated with this plan? Will the drainage study for Phase I change due to Phase 11, how do these plans interact with each other? If I look at your Phase I development and Phase II proposal, what goes north and what goes south? So you are saying that the Phase 11 drainage study accounts for changes in Phase I? What is the rationale, why are you able to ask for this type of change when there is a Land Use Plan adopted by the City. Why can you come in and even ask for this? I have heard six or seven people say that they don't want this, I have heard one that states that they are in favor of this proposal based on the precedent that the City Council mistakenly set by approving Phase 1. Secondly Phase I was approved specifically due to the conditions that existing on the land, and these conditions don't exist in the Phase 11 portion. I like the amenities you propose, I think it looks pretty, but the land to the south is not in reality commercial zoning, because the property owner has the ability to put residential development within their current zoning. I heard that there is a 10% residential component. I got on City Council because these big boys to the south (Aventerra) were zoning this property, and these guys brought their whole development plan in at one time in one application so that we could see what they were planning to develop in our city. What happened was that there was a lot of medium density residential in the plan at the time, and when these guys carne in, we said we want quality commercial in here, something that brings in tax base. We said to the developer, "put your money where your mouth is and ask for zoning for commercial." But we had to have some buffer, but we said "no residential." The zoning that they have allows them to ask for 10% residential, but they cannot build the residential without coming back and asking for it, or applying for a zoning change. That way the neighbors know about it and what is going on. I can ask for a zoning change on my property, but the reality is, it's not going to happen. As this property has developed, I have tried to negotiate something that has quality, something that has some parks and open space. What was done at the time with the Land Use flan was done to slop what we perceived was coming 20,000 square foot lots with no parks or open space in there, I believe that if these guys will come in and develop our problem areas with nice amenities, with things that will keep people in their own neighborhoods, using their own park areas and open space, it would be a good option. This City Council is not approving the same intent that you were operating within years ago and are approving things that go against the recommendations in the Land Use flan. I don't want Timarron in my backyard, that's why I don't live there, I am against this, what will happen is that the land next to Triple C will be acquired, and there will be '/x acre lots there, I am not going to take the position that the other guy has taken and just roll over- here, I am against this, Gentlemen made the point earlier that you couldn't sell a million dollar home in these areas due to these conditions, but the reality is that the developer is going to get his million dollars an acre and the residents will be getting acre homes. With one acre zoning, you are going to come out with a value of one million dollars an acre, When you zone that part, is that going to change our zoning on the rest of Primrose as well? Why would a person pay $500,000 to $800,000 for these lots, when they are going to have their neighbors being right next to them by a few feet? Who is going to maintain these park areas? The Home Owners Association? So these park areas will be private parks? If I want to use these parks, is parking provided so that I can drive there and use it? How do you get across Dove from that Public Park on the north side of Dove to the subdivision? Did I miss you earlier when you first stated that the Carroll Meadows homeowners that they would be able to pay a fee in order to use them? How does Carroll Meadows tie into those parks in Estes Park? What does your proposal for that do for liability for homeowners in Carroll Meadows? Is any member of the public going to be run out of one of those parks, or be asked if they live in that subdivision? Does the Carroll Meadows HOA have the right to say no to a sidewalk going into the Estes Park areas if they don't want that type of feature in the subdivision? Regarding parking, only thing I can induce is that people going to the park stopping on the streets in the subdivision to access the park areas and maybe it doesn't happen, but could it? On the original plan that you had, there is a cul -de -sac that dead -ended on the east side but would provide a potential cut through to Carroll Meadows? Is that for access onto Carroll Road? I will take a look at the dates of the Thoroughfare Plan implementation, but we have a problem and I want to determine if it is a three year problem, a five year problem, etc. The Thoroughfare Plan is about to be reviewed, everyone needs to get involved if you have an interest in that plan. When you are talking about connectivity, what if you turned that picture upside down and said that you wished to replicate what you have done in Carroll Meadows and use 1 acre lots, you couldn't do that to the north. What is to prevent this connectivity going north of Carroll Meadows as '/z acre? Estes Park I is supposed to get back to 1 acre as soon as possible according to the Mayor, and I understand blending into one to /z acre, but why can't the transition from Estes Park to Carroll Meadows be a 1 acre transition? Now take the southern border with no parks, those lots are now 113 of an acre? Doesn't that set a precedent for the development to go in to the south of your development? What was Carroll Meadows zoned as prior to being approved? I am sure that Lanny Tate didn't want that subdivision going in when it was going through the process. I can't say enough be careful what you ask for. Triple C had an original 17 acre park in the plan, and it was taken out with one acre. Nancy loves the one acre in Triple C, because she can look out and see a bunch of empty lots that no one wants to buy. I like the idea of smaller lots because I have kids that are all grown. In regards to traffic, I live at the corner of Dove and White Chapel and there is a fire station going in across the street, and that wasn't planned to be there when I bought the property. K In Estes Park I, you made the same argument that you are making here, that you can't sell one million dollar lots in this area. What is the economic basis that you make this claim in respect to this case? In Estes Park I you had the challenge of the power station, I guess what I want to hear from you is what is the challenges that you are facing here in Phase II that you base the economic arguments? Estes Park Phase I has de- valued Estes Park II already? I don't have a dog in this hunt; I have been building million dollar homes in this market for quite a while. What has happened here is that you don't have million dollar homes already on the ground or the type of amenities that is present in other areas (Vaquero, Timarron, etc.) that allows you to sell million dollar homes in this area. It is a small market. What is the LDN on this property? I live across the street to Phase I. I have no objections to the plan, there are a lot of people that don't like smaller lots, but with the parks, trails, and trees incorporated, and that nice homes are built, I don't have a problem with the plan? Are you planning to have deed restrictions in place regarding the minimum square footage of the homes? I guess what I think about in regards to the Land Use Plan, you have a builder like Hat Creek that builds a lot of quality homes, or you can have a tract home builder like Pulte. These people have the right to sell their property, and you can pick your poison. I agree that I would like to have a builder like Kosse, but I think that this plan can be tweaked some. I am going to benefit from this proposal economically, but I moved to the north side because I wanted to see more than just rooftops. I want to see more open space here.. How many more homes are you going to build with this plan than you would with the Land Use Plan recommendation here, you are going to get a custom home builder versus a tract builder right next to your property. I think that Carroll Meadows is asking, can you remake the lots adjacent to the Carroll Meadows subdivision to one acre, it would make them more amenable to your effort. I walked out on this property on Sunday, what I noticed was that Mr. Franks house is the high spot, and anything on the west side was almost like you could make this thing almost two different ways from the east side ofthe property to the west side of the property. Is Mr. Franks house the last thing existing on Primrose today to the west? I do want to make one point. While the lots abutting Carroll Meadows (east) are larger, you are required to make those lots larger by the zoning regulations, not to appease the homeowners. What you are doing is that you are planning to line everything up all around the one acre subdivisions that currently exist and plan acre with the Aventerra property. How can you not set a precedent with higher density zoning to the south with Aventerra from your project? Or you will play the devils' advocate if you buy the property to the south. What gives you the idea that the new developer won't sell 10 or 100 acres in Aventerra in a piecemeal fashion, and that you wouldn't buy parcels of Aventerra? I am not holding Phase I against you in regards to zoning, but you had the opportunity to buy the Estes property and you didn't. I thought that Paul Spain had said that these properties had been on the market for a while and couldn't sell due to existing conditions that hampered the one -acre standard.? When they made the zoning commercial on the east side of Carroll, the Council made regulations that they couldn't build over two stories and had to construct berms in place that would make commercial development more appeasing to the residential community. Do you have to be held to the similar requirements that exist for this other property? You said $500,000 homes, what is the variance from that figure $475,000 to $625,000? That was one of the reasons that we asked for 4,000 square foot minimums so that they couldn't move the pricing points Iike that.