Loading...
Public Comment Cards - Item 7D Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: M ( c, e !e_ YV t e `✓1 Date: I ).20 i iv Address: 45 o it7 U f ''`y'r�' Phone: 21P '`�t f a" (10 y5- (Include City and State) I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# -]D 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 I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: 177,4.4.1.670,-�i Required: Cards will not be read into the record unless it is signed. Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. r•) ! , a Name: Date: .4.2„) Address: Phone: 7 -3Y3---&04/(0 (Include City and State) EdI wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# 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 I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: Required: Cards will not be read into the record unless it is signed. 10/20/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook Proposed new subdivision in Harbor Oaks Brett Leedy ?C,'_ `,.) a:30 PM To: Jerod Potts <jpotts@ci.southlake.tx.us> Mr. Potts, my name is Brett Leedy. I live at 2920 Harbor Refuge St., I am a registered voter in Southlake. I am opposed to the proposed development in my neighborhood, I believe it's call "The Conservation", because it is absolutely NOT compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. Even that name is insulting, they are not conserving anything, only destroying a little more of our ever-diminishing, barely-touched piece of nature. It's my understanding that this development within my existing neighborhood: -Will have sidewalks &storm sewer, where we have bar-ditches. -It will also have street lights, were we do not. (Horses cannot live well w/street lights it negatively affects their circadian rhythms, it affects the cycle of mares) -We all have of bridle paths behind our homes, that are accessible to all the neighbors for trail-riding& hiking, allowing access to the Corps of Engineers property w/miles of trails to explore, they will not have these. -The numerous lots as we have been shown, are not like ours,they are skinny, narrow lots where the houses will be close together, where our lots are more proportionally square w/ large distances between our homes. -Ours is very much a horse community, where almost all the homes are set up to have horses,the new development has not shown one mention for how these new houses could or would be set up to accommodate horses. I'm not opposed to someone developing this property, but it most certainly should try & adhere to the quant rural culture that is Harbor Oaks, that's what we feel in love with &why we purchased our property more than 13 years ago. This new development is not even trying, it's simply a money grab, trying to install as many large homes, as it can possibly get away with. Additionally, there is a real safety issue, it's my understanding our current neighborhood is already in violation of the National Fire Code, with too many homes with only 1 entrance &exit, the addition of these homes only further exacerbates an existing problem. Heaven forbid there is an emergency, but if there is &the result is a fatality, that could have been prevented by a faster response time, I feel confident the City will have.culpability. I'm not just blowing smoke here. At the very entrance into my neighborhood, on 2 very icy conditions, I have pushed vehicles w/ my four-wheeler that were stuck sliding on the ice, even though there is only a very gradual rise at the entrance to the neighborhood. If this single entrance was obstructed during an emergency,there could be a very real problem. The current development plan has not, from all that I can see, solved any of the previous &still existing challenges to the development of this property. It's also my understanding that, then Councilwoman Hill & other City Councilmen unanimously denied this development proposal in 2006 &2008. I cannot see any substantial difference from those plans to these plans. https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNG12ZS11N2QzLTA1 N2100DMzN2UzZgAQAFsM8mXE7Oq jq%2FEmKpX... 1/2 10/20/2020 :?c; Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook Please ao right by my awesome neighborhood & deny this proposal as it is currently constructed. Thank you for your service to our city. Respectfully, Brett Leedy Project Manager Fast Trak Construction, Inc. 14500 Trinity Blvd. Ste. 180 Fort Worth, TX 76155 Mb.817-312-9184 Office 214-638-0525 Fax 214-638-0528 • https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUx0DgtNG12ZS1 iN2QzLTA1 N2100DMzN2UzZgAQAFsM8mXE70gVjq%2FEmKpX... 2/2 Amy Shelley From: Hans Schroen > Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:34 PM To: Mayor, Place 1; Place 2; Place 3; Place 4; Place 5; Place 6; Ken Baker; Dennis Killough; Jerod Potts Subject: [Possible Scam Fraud]Opposition to "The Conservation" first reading tonight Oct 20th WARNING:Your email security system has determined the message below may be a potential threat. The sender may trick victims into passing bad checks on their behalf. If you do.not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, please do not respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the security settings, clickable URLs may have been modified to provide additional security. Hello, My name is Hans Schroen. I live at 2895 Burney Lane where I have resided since 2005. I'm directly on the path to this proposed development as Harbor Oaks sub-division and those behind it to the North (Carmel Bay) are accessible only from Burney Lane. So, I think it is fair to say I will be directly impacted by any "collateral damage" this new sub-divison will bring with it. I do not feel that the current proposed plan by the applicant has solved any of the previous and still existing challenges, which include: • Compatibility with our current neighborhood • Public safety with one access point serving 80 + homes:TRAFFIC on Burney Lane • Aerobic septic systems not having adequate size aeration field • Ecological impacts • Drainage issues • And impact on the boarding neighbors I believe and understand all property owners have the right to develop their property,within the guidelines of any restrictions attached to the land. However, I do not believe Mr. and Mrs. Housmans can arbitrarily rezone and remove their platted lot from the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. In addition,the right to develop your land does not come with the privilege to usurp the rights of your neighbor land owners.The existing owner/descendant of the Miles' property made an impassioned plea at the P&Z meeting that he has the unalienable right to develop his land, but again it does not come at the expense or my rights or those of my neighbors! It does not guarantee him the ability to carve 8 pieces of property out of his one parcel because that is the way he can maximize his sales price, at the neighborhoods' expense. I am OPPOSED to the proposed development for all the same reasons it was unanimously denied in 2006 and 2008, by you Mayor Hill and your fellow Councilmen at the time. (I also took part in the opposition to the 2006 development proposal). This proposal was denied in 2006 and 2008 with a unanimous vote by City Council. Nothing has changed with the challenges of developing this land. Please continue to uphold the prior decisions to deny this almost identical proposal in 2020. 1 Thank you for your time and for serving our community in a volunteer elected position. Hans Schroen • 2 610 Amy Shelley From: Graham Johnson Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:51 PM To: Mayor, Place 1; Place 2; Place 3; Place 4; Place 5; Place 6 Subject: The Conservation Dear Mayor Hill and City Councilmen, Good afternoon.This email is in regard to agenda item 7.D. on tonight's City Council Agenda regarding"The Conservation."This process has given me a brief glimpse into the complexity of the positions you hold. I greatly appreciate your service to our wonderful City of Southlake. I am certain that each of you take your role as city officially with the utmost humility and responsibility. As a homeowner within Harbor Oaks, please kindly allow me to convey my opposition to the proposed "The Conservation" housing development in and adjacent to Harbor Oaks. To be clear, I am not against private development. However, I am opposed to any development that would put my neighborhood's safety and welfare at risk. To support this position, I have added applicable provisions of Section 5.01 C of the Southlake Ordinance and the 2018 International Fire Code Appendix D for your review, along with the attached Narrative: Section 5.01, C of the Southlake Ordinance—Street and ROW Requirements- "Adequate Emergency Access: To insure adequate access to each subdivision, there:shouktbe at least;two(2)plannedpothtsof ngress and egress except that Cul-de-sacs shall be permitted in conformity with section 5.03-1. The Council may require more than two access points be considered if the configuration, number of lots, or other consideration creates the need for the additional access points." Section 5.03-1"Cul-de-sacs: Generally, a on a cul-de-sac street permanently designed as such. Additionally, exceed:1,000 feet dr be less than 150 feet in length. However, density of development, topography, lot sizes and other significant factors will be weighed in determining the length pf the cul-de-sac street. ...." 2018 International Fire Code Appendix D, D107.1: "One or two-family dwelling residential development: Developments of one or two family dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. EXCEPTIONS: 1) Where there are more than 30 dwelling units on a single public or private fire apparatus access road and all=dwelling units are equipped throughoutiwith an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2, or 903.3.1.3, access from two directions shall not be required. 1 , 9-4 2) The number of dwelling units on a single fire apparatus access road shall not be increased unless fire access roads will connect with future development, as determined by the fire code official. D107.2 Remoteness: Where two fire apparatus access"rod'd3 are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one-half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property area to be served, measured in a straight line between access." These provisions support the conclusion that a Traffic Impact Analysis and more thorough study into the emergency preparedness/response should be completed. Harbor Oaks has one (1) point of ingress and egress,with 79 homes.The attached Narrative more clearly explains the effect the additional development from The Conservation will have on Harbor Oaks,where your current Southlake residents reside. In addition, and on a more personal note. I manage 3 working ranches in north Texas and she is a pediatrician at Children's Medical Hospital in Dallas. My employees and I raise All Natural beef and registered Quarter Horses. We use these horses to work cattle and compete in rodeos. I'm currently able to continue the training of these young ranch raised horses because my property is safe and quiet. I'm also able to exercise these colts on the equestrian trails, accessed through the allotted entrance on the south side of Harbor Oaks.This development would bring noise and light pollution that are not conducive to this equestrian neighborhood.Therefore, I would like to request that the Developer move his street farther to the west. This would allow for greater setbacks and larger tracts that would be directly behind the existing houses in Harbor Oaks. As a side note, I have questions about the financial stability of this developer. Since first presented,Jody Boyd is now on his third corporate name (Woodbridge,Sage, Rockwater). In conclusion, I am willing and ready to explore all options available to us to protect the current safety and wellbeing of Harbor Oaks, as well as uphold our deed restrictions,which Mr. and Mrs. Houseman are violating. We are currently pooling financial resources from neighbors,and potentially environmental activists groups,to assess of the options available, including,the ability to purchase the Miles property ourselves,to in turn, convey to the City for open space/park land. Thank you for taking the time to read my email and thank you for your attention to this very important issue. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Graham Johnson 2940 Burney Lane 2 Amy Shelley From: Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 1:22 PM To: Mayor Subject: [Possible Scam Fraud]Proposed Development, The Conservation WARNING:Your email security system has determined the message below may be a potential threat. The sender may trick victims into passing bad checks on their behalf. If you do not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, please do not respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the security settings,clickable URLs may have been modified to provide additional security. Mayor Hill, My name is Arturo Soto. I live at 1065 Harbor Haven St, Southlake, TX 76092 and I am a registered voter in Southlake. I am opposed to the proposed development, The Conservation, for the reasons listed below and the detailed reasons outlined in the 2020 petition, submitted by Harbor Oaks: • compatibility with the existing neighborhood • public safety issues • ecological concerns • aerobic septic systems • drainage issues • Harbor Oaks deed restrictions violations I believe all property owners have the right to develop their property,within the guidelines of any restrictions attached to the said land. However, I do not believe Mr. and Mrs. Housman can arbitrarily rezone and remove their platted lot from the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. I do not feel that the current proposed plan by the applicant has solved any of the previous and still existing challenges to the development of this land. You and your fellow Councilmen unanimously denied this development proposal in 2006 and 2008. Please continue to uphold the prior decision to deny this almost identical proposal in 2020, as nothing has changed. Thank you for volunteering your time and energy for the benefit of our community. I appreciate all you do for Southlake. Sincerely, Arturo Soto 1 - "AD Amy Shelley From: Bea Wilson Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 2:39 PM To: Mayor and City Council Subject: The Conservation - Proposed Development @ Harbor Oaks Subdivision Mayor Hill and Distinguished Councilmen, Thanks for your service devoted to Southlake and our citizens. You are appreciated! You've heard much through the years (2006,2008 and now currently 2020) about development of the Marilyn Miles land adjacent to Harbor Oaks subdivision. I don't want to wear you out with all of the already discussed opposition issues held by over 75%of the residents of Harbor Oaks-you know those. There is a petition supporting this%. I do want to tell you for a fact we know one has the right to development their land. We have never, repeat never said we do not agree with one's rights to develop their land. We were accused of this position in the recent P&Z mtg. We were also told "you people will never be satisfied"! There was a reference of one P&Z Commissioner that"he too is a Texan" referring to the land owner's statements. Well,we are proud voters and Texans as well but didn't push that button. I do want to voice my opposition to the development based what we've had to live by for over 40 years and that is our Deed Restrictions and Regulations. If you live outside a HOA you most likely have Deed Restrictions to which you must comply. I'm not going into quoting the issues that"smack" up against our Deed Restrictions,you've already heard those. BTW,there are many. The applicant has now jumped from asking for a SF-1A zoning, as was the case in 2006/08,to a R-PUD. You know the differences so I ask why the change? As you also know,there are many other valid objections supported by various documents but the main one is City Plan 2035. Again, I won't belabor you with quotes but Southlake is believed to support what they publish. In closing,we are not a "band of adversarial residents". We simply want to see our Deed Restrictions mean something and that ALL must abide. Got a little 'long winded" and I know you are busy. I hope you see our points and honor what is right and again vote in opposition. Thanks, Bea Wilson 2930 Burney Lane 1 . IP Amy Shelley To: Ken Baker;Jerod Potts Subject: The Conservation Development From:Jamie Galis<jamiepg@me.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 11:26 AM To: Mayor<Mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 1<Place1@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 2<Place2@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 3<Place3@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 4<Place4@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 5<Place5@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 6 <Place6@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Ken Baker<kbaker@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Dennis Killough<dkillough@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Jerod Potts<jpotts@ci.southlake.tx.us> Subject: [Possible Scam Fraud]The Conservation Development Mayor Hill, Councilmen and Directors of Planning and Development. My name is Jame Galis and I live at 885 Harbor Court in Harbor Oaks Subdivision. I am a registered voter in Southlake. I am strongly opposed to the proposed development,The Conservation, for the pertinent and notable reasons listed below and detailed in the 2020 petitions submitted by Harbor Oaks which I have signed: A) COMPATIBILITY WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD B) PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES DUE TO SINGLE INGRESS AND EGRESS INTO THE HARBOR OAKS SUBDIVISION C) ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS REGARDING THE SENSITIVE ECO-CLIMATE D)THE SUSCEPTIBILITY AND LIKELY FAILURE OF THE AEROBIC SEPTIC SYSTEMS LEADING TO SEWAGE CONTAMINATION OF THE SENSITIVE ECOLOGY OF THE AREA. E) DRAINAGE ISSUES And most importantly, F) HARBOR OAKS SUBDIVISION DEED RESTRICTION VIOLATIONS THAT WILL BE NECESSARY TO ALLOW THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO PROCEED. Certainly all property owners have a right to develop their property within the guidelines of any restrictions that are attached to the said land under development consideration.The right of a property owner to develop stops when it leads to violations of existing deed restrictions. Upon review of the Harbor Oaks Subdivision Deed Restrictions (which the Housman's agreed to upon purchase of their property), it is my understanding and belief that the Housman's can not arbitrarily REZONE AND REMOVE their platted lot from the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. The proposed plan by the applicant has NOT SOLVED ANY of the previous and still existing challenges to development of the land identified in the proposed development. Previous attempts to gain development approval for this property in 2006 and 2008 were denied by the city council which included Councilwoman Hill. Please continue to uphold the prior decisions to deny this proposed development since none of the basis for the previous two denials has changed in the current proposal. Thank you for your time and I appreciate all that you do to make and keep Southlake the desirable community that it is today. Jamie L. Petty-Galis, M.S., P.E. 885 Harbor Court Southlake,Texas 76092 Mobile: 817-368-5525 1 Amy Shelley From: Mayor Subject: FW: [Possible Scam Fraud]Proposed Development,The Conservation Amy Shelley, TRMC City Secretary I City of Southlake (817) 748-80161 ashelley@cityofsouthlake.com 1400 Main St., Ste. 270, Southlake,TX 76092 1 www.citvofsouthlake.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any receipt and/or response to this email may be considered a PUBLIC RECORD. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. From: Barbara A< Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 10:47 AM To: Mayor<Mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us> Subject: [Possible Scam Fraud]Proposed Development,The Conservation Mayor Hill, My name is Barbara Auyang. I live at 1065 Harbor Haven St, Southlake, TX 76092 and I am a registered voter in Southlake. I am opposed to the proposed development, The Conservation, for the reasons listed below and the detailed reasons outlined in the 2020 petition, submitted by Harbor Oaks: • compatibility with the existing neighborhood • public safety issues • ecological concerns • aerobic septic systems • drainage issues • Harbor Oaks deed restrictions violations I believe all property owners have the right to develop their property, within the guidelines of any restrictions attached to the said land. However, I do not believe Mr. and Mrs. Housman can arbitrarily rezone and remove their platted lot from the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. I do not feel that the current proposed plan by the applicant has solved any of the previous and still existing challenges to the development of this land. You and your fellow Councilmen unanimously denied this development proposal in 2006 and 2008. Please continue to uphold the prior decision to deny this almost identical proposal in 2020, as nothing has changed. Thank you for volunteering your time and energy for the benefit of our community. I appreciate all you do for Southlake. 1 Amy Shelley From: Lisa Vu Boyer < Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 9:13 AM To: Mayor Subject: Harbor Oaks development Mayor Hill, My name is Lisa Boyer.I live at 2900 Harbor Refuge and I am a registered voter in Southlake. I am opposed to the proposed development,The Conservation,for the reasons listed below and the detailed reasons outlined in the 2020 petition, submitted by Harbor Oaks: • compatibility with the existing neighborhood • public safety issues • ecological concerns • aerobic septic systems • drainage issues • Harbor Oaks deed restrictions violations I believe all property owners have the right to develop their property,within the guidelines of any restrictions attached to the said land. However,I do not believe Mr. and Mrs. Housman can arbitrarily rezone and remove their platted lot from the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. I do not feel that the current proposed plan by the applicant has solved any of the previous and still existing challenges to the development of this land. Then Councilwoman Hifi and her fellow Councilmen unanimously denied this development proposal in 2006 and 2008. Please continue to uphold the prior decision to deny this almost identical proposal in 2020, as nothing has changed. Thank you for volunteering your time and energy for the benefit of our community. I appreciate all you do for Southlake. Sincerely, Lisa Boyer 2900 Harbor Refuge Street Southlake Texas 76092 Sent from my iPhone 1 Amy Shelley From: Valerie Adams < Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 12:53 PM To: Mayor; Place 1; Place 2; Place 3; Place 4; Place 5; Place 6; Ken Baker; Dennis Killough; Jerod Potts Subject: The Conservation Development- lot drainage and aerobic systems Importance: High Good morning, We are Bill and Valerie Adams and we live at 880 Harbor Court and we are both registered voters in Southlake. We were present at the planning and zoning meeting on October 8th and feel the applicant did not fully address the soil erosion/water runoff issue. He stated that his project was lower than the homes on Burney however he did not mention that his proposed project is well above our property and by a fair amount. Our property is located directly behind lots 6 and 7.While the Burney properties are backed up to one proposed lot we are backed up to two. The Burney properties have water moving away from their homes down to the lake while we are between the Burney properties and the lake. We are quite concerned that the applicant or the home builder will change the topography of these lots to the point of redirecting more water onto our property.We already have significant run off from the Burney properties and have had to do a lot of landscape engineering to move that water away from our house and down into existing runoff creeks below our home. If lots 6 and 7 change the water flow in our direction at all, we will have a problem. In addition,with the planned aerobic septic systems above us any runoff from these lots could directly impact us as well. We oppose the project on these grounds and respectfully ask that you take these points into consideration while deliberating the approval or disapproval of this project. Bill and Valerie Adams 880 Harbor Ct Southlake Tx Cell#469-446-0609 1 Amy Shelley From: Mary Staples < Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 8:54 PM To: Mayor and City Council Cc: Amy Shelley;Veronica Lomas; Selena Serrano Subject: Comments on Ordinance No.480-773 (ZA20-0049)—(7.D) - strongly oppose but cannot attend meeting RE: OPPOSE - Ordinance No. 480-773 (ZA20-0049)—(7.D) We have lived in the Harbor Oaks neighborhood for more than 35 years and strongly oppose this zoning change and development plan. Due to COVID,we will not be participating in-person at the City Council meeting tomorrow night, but want to make certain that our point-of-view is considered. NOT COMPATIBLE Our charming, quiet, country estate neighborhood has oversized lots, the majority 2-10 acres, with no curbs, gutters, or bright streetlights. There is an abundance of wildlife. This proposed development is not at all compatible with the neighborhood. The fact is that all of the Harbor Oaks lots adjacent to the proposed development and the lot directly across from the proposed entrance are much larger, more than two-plus acres each. This development does not match our neighborhood. MANIPULATING THE RULES The Harbor Oaks is zoned SF-1A single family. The homeowner knew the rules when he purchased the property a few years ago. But now, in cahoots with the developer,they have found a loophole to circumvent the Harbor Oaks platting rules established 40 years ago, and that is wrong! By granting an easement for a private road to cut through a lot currently zoned SF-1A Single Family Resident, the property does not have to be replatted. The unintended consequences of allowing them to dodge the rules are that you will be opening the floodgates for more developers to flock to our neighborhood seeking to subdivide and replot multiple lots. We know of at least three property owners that are watching these proceedings with a special interest. Last month, one neighbor admitted that she has already have been approached by this developer to do a similar project subdividing her multi-acre lot. CONCLUSION We have lived in Harbor Oaks for over three decades. Please do not allow this developer to circumvent the zoning established decades ago and ruin our SF-1A single-family country estate neighborhood. We strongly ask that you to reject"The Conservation" development plan. Thank you. Respectfully, Randy& Mary Staples 817-488-1094 i '#410 Amy Shelley From: Gloria Land < Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 9:09 PM To: Mayor Subject: Opposition to The Conservation development Attachments: 10.20 City Council Letter Gloria.pdf Attached is my letter of opposition to the Conservation development. loria.Lout& 817-481-4267/ 817-680-3352 cell 1 -19 Amy Shelley From: Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 10:17 PM To: Mayor Subject: [Possible Scam Fraud]Harbor Oaks Subdivision WARNING:Your email security system has determined the message below may be a potential threat. The sender may trick victims into passing bad checks on their behalf. If you do not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, please do not respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the security settings,clickable URLs may have been modified to provide additional security. Mayor Hill, Councilmen, and Directors of Planning and Development, My name is Mills Roberts. I live at 1110 Harbor Retreat St and I am a registered voter in Southlake. I am opposed to the proposed development,The Conservation,for the reasons listed below and the detailed reasons outlined in the 2020 petition, submitted by Harbor Oaks: • compatibility with the existing neighborhood • public safety issues • ecological concerns • aerobic septic systems • drainage issues • Harbor Oaks deed restrictions violations I believe all property owners have the right to develop their property,within the guidelines of any restrictions attached to the said land. However, I do not believe Mr. and Mrs. Housman can arbitrarily rezone and remove their platted lot from the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. I do not feel that the current proposed plan by the applicant has solved any of the previous and still existing challenges to the development of this land. Then Councilwoman Hill and her fellow Councilmen unanimously denied this development proposal in 2006 and 2008. Please continue to uphold the prior decision to deny this almost identical proposal in 2020,as nothing has changed. 1 Thank you for volunteering your time and energy for the benefit of our community. I appreciate all you do for Southlake. Sincerely, • Mills Roberts, MD 2 Amy Shelley From: Martin Newby < Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 8:26 PM To: Mayor; Place 1; Place 2; Place 3; Place 4; Place 5; Place 6; Ken Baker; Dennis Killough; Jerod Potts Subject: [Possible Scam Fraud]Harbor Oaks WARNING:Your email security system has determined the message below may be a potential threat. The sender may trick victims into passing bad checks on their behalf. If you do not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, please do not respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the security settings, clickable URLs may have been modified to provide additional security. Mayor Hill, Councilmen, and Directors of Planning and Development, My name is Martin Newby. I live at 2885 Burney Lane and I am a registered voter in Southlake. I am opposed to the proposed development, The Conservation, for the reasons listed below and the detailed reasons outlined in the 2020 petition, submitted by Harbor Oaks: •compatibility with the existing neighborhood •public safety issues •ecological concerns •aerobic septic systems •drainage issues •Harbor Oaks deed restrictions violations I believe all property owners have the right to develop their property,within the guidelines of any restrictions attached to the said land. However, I do not believe Mr. and Mrs. Housman can arbitrarily rezone and remove their platted lot from the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. I do not feel that the current proposed plan by the applicant has solved any of the previous and still existing challenges to the development of this land. Then Councilwoman Hill and her fellow Councilmen unanimously denied this development proposal in 2006 and 2008. Please continue to uphold the prior decision to deny this almost identical proposal in 2020, as nothing has changed. 1 Thank you for volunteering your time and energy for the benefit of our community. I appreciate all you do for Southlake. Sincerely, Martin Newby 2 Amy Shelley From: Kathleen Carrabine < Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 8:21 PM To: Mayor; Place 1; Place 2; Place 3; Place 4; Place 5; Place 6; Ken Baker; Dennis Killough; Jerod Potts Subject: [Possible Scam Fraud]Opposition to the proposed development,The Conservation WARNING:Your email security system has determined the message below may be a potential threat. The sender may trick victims into passing bad checks on their behalf. If you do not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, please do not respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the security settings, clickable URLs may have been modified to provide additional security. Hello my name is Kathleen Carrabine. I live at 961 Thousand Oaks Court and I am a registered voter in Southlake. Up front, I want to thank you for taking the time to listen to your residents. I do not feel that the current proposed plan for the Conservation, by the applicant, has solved any of the previous and still existing challenges, which include: • Compatibility with our current neighborhood • Public safety with once access point serving 80+ homes • Aerobic septic systems not having adequate size aeration field • Ecological impacts • Drainage issues • And impact on the boarding neighbors I am opposed to the proposed development for all the same reasons it was unanimously denied in 2006 and 2008, by you Mayor Hill and your fellow Councilmen at the time. I believe all property owners have the right to develop their property,within the guidelines of any restrictions attached to the land. However, I do not believe Mr. and Mrs. Housmans can arbitrarily rezone and remove their platted lot from the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. This proposal was denied in 2006 and 2008 with a unanimous vote by City Council. Nothing has changed with the challenges of developing this land. Please continue to uphold the prior decisions to deny this almost identical proposal in 2020. Consider how Southlake's 2035 plan is of sound management with accountable objectives for our city's growth.As any community learning from the past,these objectives have been fine-tuned over decades of input from our councils and our residents.And simply put,this proposed Conservation development is clearly incompatible with Southlake's 2035 plan. Objective 13 states:to have appropriately-scaled neighborhood design that compliments existing development patterns, recognizing that quality residential neighborhoods are the cornerstone of our community. Sage Group,Wood Bridge, and/or Rockwater have ignored Southlake's objectives and designed a development for themselves. In reference to the developer's cross-section information showing the 13ft. slope to the west from Burney Lane. He stated that the development would be barely visible from the street. I am not a builder, but how do 8 multi-million dollar, 2 to 3 story mega-homes hide behind a 13 ft. slope?Also, I'm confused that Boyd keeps saying that they want to 1 be good neighbors. Boyd and the owners are not neighbors—they are not voting Southlake.residents or have stated any plans to live here in the future. The developer also stated that they want cement, lights, walls, pilasters, and fences because they think it's good for conceivable pedestrian pathways.Are they conceiving that Southlake will budget'six figures'just in case they want to build pedestrian pathways through the flood plains?That actually does not apply to Southlake's objective 3.3:to use pathways to connect shopping, schools,work and residential areas.There are no schools,or work or shopping in Harbor Oaks.And there is no light pollution or noise pollution. Harbor Oaks is an equestrian neighborhood that is a sanctuary amidst a highly residential and retail area. Southlake has been through enough growing pains to have the knowledge as to what is profitable and responsible growth. And that's why these objectives have been put into place. Consider objective 4.13:the goal of protecting and preserving the existing ecosystem for future generations. Objective 7.2: promote sustainability issues on water conservation and overall environmental stewardship. Objective 7.5: conserve, restore and promote tree and plant cover that is native, while also protecting existing significant vegetation and character. Objective 7.7: Recognize the importance of and protect the biological diversity for the ecological and aesthetic benefits to the community.Saying yes to this proposed Conservation development will sabotage one of Southlake's last pieces of sacred land.They are filing for a zoning change and then planning on 8 mega-mansions on a delicate area.These new houses and property will be built to the owner's desire—there are no guarantees that they are going to be stewards of this unique corridor. And they will not need to respect Southlake's neighborhood compatibility objectives. But Southlake is maturing and thinking longer term. Listen to objective 2.1. Encourage the balance of uses, including retail, office, medical, hospitality,entertainment, and institutional and residential areas.Southlake now has all the success and experience to know when enough is enough. They know the balance of uses.They know they don't have to scrape down every inch of land and pave it with cement. Or to develop every inch of land so the wildlife habitat is destroyed. Southlake is not afraid to say no.Yet the Conservation developer is ready to say yes to whatever it takes to make a hefty profit. In the P&Z meeting, Chairman Kubiak asked the developer about different possible options for the number of lots. Boyd stated that he couldn't decrease the number because he does not have the money.This was also the case in our SPIN meeting,when residents wanted to discuss options and compromise.The developer's most frequent reply was that it was not"financially feasible"to make any modifications. His pat answer tells us he's either contracted too much for the purchase and/or he is a poor businessman. We know he's filed bankruptcy twice. Conservation is defined as the official supervision of rivers,forests, and other natural resources in order to preserve and protect them. Conservation is defined as the prevention of injury, decay,waste or loss through prudent management. Do not confuse the definitions of conservation with the intent of this developer.Their use of the name is an ironic misnomer and a marketing ploy to mislead you.Just hear it. Conservation development. It's an insulting oxymoron just like acceptable losses or a peaceful takeover. Again,thank you for your time and for serving our community in a volunteer elected position. 2 elc) Amy Shelley From: Ken Land < Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 8:40 PM To: Mayor Subject: Opposed to The Conservation development Attachments: 10.20 City Council Letter Ken.pdf Attached is my letter of opposition to the Conservation development. Ken Ken Land 817-739-8584 1 10 Amy Shelley From: Elena Soto < Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 4:46 PM To: Mayor Subject: [Possible Scam Fraud]Proposed Development,The Conservation WARNING:Your email security system has determined the message below may be a potential threat. The sender may trick victims into passing bad checks on their behalf. If you do not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, please do not respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the security settings, clickable URLs may have been modified to provide additional security. Mayor Hill, My name is Elena Soto. I live at 1065 Harbor Haven St. Southlake, TX 76092 and I am a registered voter in Southlake. I am opposed to the proposed development,The Conservation, for the reasons listed below and the detailed reasons outlined in the 2020 petition, submitted by Harbor Oaks: •compatibility with the existing neighborhood •public safety issues •ecological concerns •aerobic septic systems •drainage issues •Harbor Oaks deed restrictions violations I believe all property owners have the right to develop their property,within the guidelines of any restrictions attached to the said land. However, I do not believe Mr. and Mrs. Housman can arbitrarily rezone and remove their platted lot from the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. I do not feel that the current proposed plan by the applicant has solved any of the previous and still existing challenges to the development of this land. You and your fellow Councilmen unanimously denied this development proposal in 2006 and 2008. Please continue to uphold the prior decision to deny this almost identical proposal in 2020, as nothing has changed. Thank you for volunteering your time and energy for the benefit of our community. I appreciate all you do for Southlake. Sincerely, Elena Soto 1 "--19 Amy Shelley From: Shay Sabbatis < Sent Tuesday, October 20, 2020 8:24 AM To: Mayor Subject: [Possible Scam Fraud]neighborhood development WARNING:Your email security system has determined the message below may be a potential threat. The sender may trick victims into passing bad checks on their behalf. If you do not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, please do not respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the security settings,clickable URLs may have been modified to provide additional security. October 20, 2020 Dear Mayor Hill, My name is Sharon Sabbatis. I live at 850 Harbor Court and I am a registered voter in Southlake. I am opposed to the proposed development,The Conservation, for the reasons listed below and the detailed reasons outlined in the 2020 petition, submitted by Harbor Oaks: • compatibility with the existing neighborhood • Harbor Oaks deed restriction violations • ecological concerns • aerobic septic systems • drainage issues • Public safety issues I believe all property owners have the right to develop their property,within the guidelines of any restrictions attached to the said land. However, I do not believe Mr. and Mrs. Housman can arbitrarily rezone and remove their platted lot from the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. I do not feel that the current proposed plan by the applicant has solved any of the previous and still existing challenges to the development of this land. Then Councilwoman Hill and her fellow Councilmen unanimously denied this development proposal in 2006 and 2008. Please continue to uphold the prior decision to deny this almost identical proposal in 2020, as nothing has changed. 1 Thank you for volunteering your time and energy for the benefit of our community. I appreciate all you do for Southlake. Sincerely, Sharon Sabbatis 850 Harbor Ct, 2 Amy Shelley From: Sent Tuesday, October 20, 2020 5:38 AM To: Mayor, Place 1; Place 2; Place 3; Place 4; Place 5; Place 6; Ken Baker; Dennis Killough; Jerod Potts Subject: [Possible Scam Fraud]Opposition to the proposed "The Conservation" WARNING:Your email security system has determined the message below may be a potential threat. The sender may trick victims into passing bad checks on their behalf. If you do not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, please do not respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the security settings,clickable URLs may have been modified to provide additional security. Mayor Hill, Councilmen, and Directors of Planning and Development, My name is Ray Chancellor. I live at 890 Harbor Court of the Harbor Oaks subdivision and I am a registered voter in Southlake. I am opposed to the proposed development, The Conservation, as it is currently is presented, for the same reasons as many of my neighbor's reasons listed below and the detailed reasons outlined in the 2020 petition, submitted by Harbor Oaks, i.e.: compatibility with the existing neighborhood ecological concerns • aerobic Septic System • drainage issues public safety issues • Harbor Oaks deed restrictions violations I want to specifically address ecological concerns. This development is adjacent to the Kirkwood-Quail Creek environmental corridor and ecosystem. This corridor is one of the most sensitive ecological areas that still remain in Southlake. It includes land within Bob Jones Park as well as the corridor adjacent to the proposed land to be rezoned. It is one ecosystem, pure and simple. The City seems to be aware and to recognize this,sensitivity in its planning documents but still has no environmental/ecological/wildlife management/trail management plan for any of this area including adjacent land to this proposed rezoning development. The often-stated commitment to preserving and protecting Southlake's natural heritage and ecosystems while having absolutely no plan to do so raises question as to the City's own planning documents. It is for that reason; I am opposed to the development as it is currently proposed and ask that any rezoning be tabled until such time as the City has an ecological preservation and conservation plan for the Kirkwood-Quail Creek Corridor as recognized protection for the 1 ..T -1t City's natural heritage. Without that, all that the City has stated to the.citizens of its long range plan is nothing more than a rhetorical wish list with little apparent commitment. Without that plan, any decisions related to this development could be detrimental to or will lack any relationship to any plan that the City might have present or future. After 20 plus years and after incrementally losing the majority of of the City's natual heritage without any semblance of a plan, it would seem an appropriate action to first include a real plan for the preservation and protection of the little remaining natural heritage we have is in order before we rezone and develop such sensitive and unique adjacent lands. As a City Council and stewards of this natural heritage, if the question arises, "What is your ecological and conservation/protection plan for the sensitive Kirkwood-Quail Creek Ecosystem Corridor?", what answer can you presently give? You have a standing invitation to walk any or all parts of this ecosystem or any of Southlake's remaining natural areas to better understand the sensitivity, what is being lost, and why a management plan is imperative. Respectfully Submitted, Ray L. Chancellor 2 Amy Shelley From: Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:59 AM To: Mayor Subject: The Conservation (ZA20-0049) Dear Mayor, My name Jack Fredricks,along with my wife, Rose Fredricks and our family,we have lived in our property at 2960 Burney Ln for over 15 years and are registered voters in the City of Southlake.Today there is a significant request being brought forward to the City Council,the Conservation Development,which we are opposed to. I believe all property owners have the right to develop their property,within the guidelines of any restrictions attached to the land. However, I do not believe the Housmans', or any other owner within Harbor Oaks, can arbitrarily rezone their platted lot within the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. Please note, I am not opposed to development, but to force fit this development as proposed into Harbor Oaks negatively impacting from what it is today,to something it was not intended to be, is my objection. Previous proposals were denied in 2006 and 2008 with a unanimous vote by City Council. Very little if anything has changed with the challenges of access in order to develop this land. Please continue to uphold the prior decisions to deny this almost identical proposal in 2020. The planned road will surround my existing property and home on three sides,this is not acceptable nor accepted general development practices based on professionals that I have spoken with.The road placement creates new traffic, noise and light pollution from every vehicle that travels the road, on the side and the rear of my property. I am not aware of any other existing plat in Harbor Oaks that has a road around three sides of an existing home. If approved,this development will also not create any lots with a road on three sides of such lots.Why impact an existing property and home in and adverse way? An effective,well thought out development plan would not create such an approach with significant impact. My next concern is allowing this application to pass,will start a slippery slope in our neighborhood. If this development passes breaking the Harbor Oaks deeds and restrictions,there is nothing to stop others to development or easements within existing lots. With this precedence,other property owners can request.easements and build additional homes. Of course,they could be denied, but with an approval, precedence will have been set, and in my view,they will be approved.This will continue to add risk to the Harbor Oaks development and change it from what it is today, a rural equestrian development, into more of a suburban approach. After the issue with the road,compatibility of the neighborhood is a significant concern as well.The lot sizes in our neighborhood on average are over 2 acres.The proposed development is much less than this.The proposal to my knowledge does not include a planned public road, rather an easement of an existing lot to"force fit" an approach to gain access to the property. As for the surrounding area in question, I am concerned about the significant damage it will do to the natural environment and eco system.There is limited open land in Southlake that can be developed with surrounding natural trees and wildlife. As caretakers of our generation and the next,we all need to be as thoughtful as possible to protect the land and all of us that live within it while supporting development rights of land owners. We as a Southlake community should minimize impact to such eco systems with well-planned thoughtful land use,this application design does not minimize such impacts. 1 Finally, Harbor Oaks existing lots are not fully developed, and as such as remaining lots are developed, it is assumed the original infrastructure installed (streets and water)will be at capacity.The street infrastructure into the development has one way in and one way out.The proposed development was not part of the Harbor Oaks, Carmel Bay or Huse Home place developments.This development,with its significant increase in total homes not originally planned, will add additional pressure on the water and road system in Harbor Oaks.This not only adds pressure to daily water consumption, but in case of a fire (sprinkler systems in homes) or other emergency, it creates greater risk to the neighborhood. I am not aware of any studies showing the impact of this development on top of the of Harbor Oaks, Carmel Bay and Huse Home place which seems to be a thoughtful and comprehensive review that is needed. In closing, it has been my experience in life and business that if the right foundational principles are not in place,the impact of a change can be significant.The developer has offered small concessions to try and work with our neighborhood as long as the road access and lots don't change. As I told Mr. Boyd on the first day I met him,the issue is the road and the lots. I continue to believe those issues have not been addressed adequately. It is not the right foundation of a plan to work with! I simply cannot understand how this application of a zoning change would be approved given the previous denials in 2006 and 2008 of proposed developments and the design of this development.The approach that is being taken and the impact that it will have on our home,our neighbor's homes, and our general neighborhood are numerous. Breaking Harbor Oaks Deeds and Restrictions, cutting an easement onto an existing lot,surrounding our home with a road on three sides was never part of the Harbor Oaks development plan, nor an thoughtful, effective approach.We strongly oppose the development based on the impact that it will have on ourselves and our neighbors.The proposed development does not fit, and is not in keeping with our neighborhood. It is not compatible with Harbor Oaks which is a rural, equestrian designed neighborhood. It will have eco system impact on the natural landscape and wildlife in the surrounding area. In addition, it creates additional infrastructure risk for Harbor Oaks, Carmel Bay and Huse Home Place which could adversely impact our neighborhood in a significant way. Please deny this application.Thank you for your service to our great City and consideration of this matter. Please respond back acknowledging receipt of this request. Respectfully Jack &Rose Fredricks 2960 Burney Ln Southlake,TX.76092 2 19 Amy Shelley From: Rod Zielke < Sent Tuesday, October 20, 2020 11:53 AM To: Mayor; Place 1; Place 2; Place 3; Place 4; Place 5; Place 6 Cc: Jerod Potts Subject: Ordinace No.480-773 (ZA20-0049) Attachments: HSW report 10-20-20.pdf Honorable Mayor and Council Members, I regret I will not be able to participate in the Council Meeting this evening. Although I wholeheartedly support the inherent rights of the subject property to develop, I am currently in opposition to the PUD currently presented. I would appreciate it if you would take the time to consider the brief narrative attached describing one of my concerns for our neighborhood before making your decision on this case. Thank you for your service and feel free to contact me for any further discussion. Rod Zielke 1090 Burney Lane Southlake, TX 1 10/19/20 Burney Lane Development(Conservation?) HON Health,Safety,Welfare Narrative The roughly 200 acre Harbor Oaks Neighborhood/Area(HON) is served by a single point of access and water main originating at N. Carroll Ave. and Burney lane. This single point of access/water main serves approximately 79 existing lots, 10,400 liner feet of existing dead end roadway/waterline with a single existing long run dead end of 4,600 liner feet and an overall diagonal straight line distance of 1,750+/-. Proposed development would add 7 lots and a 650+/-linear foot of dead end road/waterline. Section 5.01,C of the Southlake Ordinance—Street and ROW Requirements- "Adequate Emergency Access:To insure adequate access to each subdivision,there,sh'ould:be:at�leasttwo12)=:planned.points=of !tigress and`.egress,except that Cul-de-sacs shall be permitted in conformity with section 5.03-I. The Council may require more than two access points be considered if the configuration, number of lots,or other consideration creates the need for the additional access points." Section 5.03-I "Cul-de-sacs: Generally,a maximum number of 20dwell'ing unitsshould be-permitted on a cul-de-sac street permanently designed as such. Additionally,the length of the cul-de-sac should-not exceed 1,00Difer be less than 150 feet in length. However, density of development,topography, lot sizes and other significant factors will be weighed in determining the length pf the cul-de-sac street. ...." 2018 International Fire Code Appendix D, D107.1: "One or two-family dwelling residential development: Developments of one or two family dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. EXCEPTIONS: 1) Where there are more than 30 dwelling units on a single public or private fire apparatus access road and a1I dwellingunits are equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1,903.3.1.2,or 903.3.1.3, access from two directions shall not be required. 2) The number of dwelling units on a single fire apparatus access road shall not be increased unless fire access roads will connect with future development, as determined by the fire code official. D107.2 Remoteness:Where two fire apparatus access roads are required,they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one-half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property area to be served, measured in a straight line between access." COMMENT:The City/Fire Marshall have currently made the interpretation under Exception 1)that "all dwelling units are equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system..."only applies to new development in a single access/single water line area,thus as long as new development is spriklered they can be added to an area without considering the impacts of a single access/waterline and the need for a second access/water loop. In the HON instance the vast majority of the existing 70+ homes served by the single access/water are older and are not sprinklered. Although sprinklers may help protect the new development it would only serve to exacerbate an already bad situation for the existing homes already depending on one access and one waterline. This interpretation would "theoretically" allow additional development at the expense of the safety of the existing homes. Therefore we respectfully submit that this current interpretation does not make sense and be reconsidered. NOTE: Although the Fire Code addresses exceptions to two points of access with total sprinkler coverage (see above)this does not address other EMERGENCY VEHICLE response times associated with potential blockage of one point of access/water(ie Ambulance, Police, etc.) A Traffic Impact Analysis or other Emergency Vehicle Response Time evaluation study should be considered to determine the number of units that can be safely added to this existing single point of access. Fire department water availability tests only test pressure at the delivery point both static and with load and adds a safety factor. This type of limited evaluation does not model/account for or recognize the total system dynamic effects of one supply line with over 10,000 linear feet of dead end water lines and 79 existing homes plus the contribution of possible additional. Because this is not a "typical"code application,this should be studied to determine the effects of adding additional units to the system before the amount of additional units that can be safely added is determined. , Harbor Oaks Service Area Point A - Single point of access starts at CarroH Ave/Burney Lane Intersection Ponit C - Intersection of Harbor Haven and Burney Lane Point D- Dead end at Thousand Oaks Court. Point A to PoinC—summary Shortest Roadway - 2,420 If Total Existing Roadway - 7,020 If Total existing lots - 50 Point C to Point D—summary Roadway to dead end - 2,173 If Total Existing Roadway - 3,423 If Total existing Lots - 29 TOTAL HARBOR OAKS AREA, Point A to Point C Roadway to dead end - 4,593 If Total Existing Roadway - 10,443 If Total existing lots - 79 Note: 1/2 of the maximum diagonal distance of service area from Point A=1/2 x 3,500 If=1,750 If Separation required for two points of access is 1,750 If. _ _ •,17-1 • , .- • • ' .. . - • ' . . . , . .• ,.. ., , , .„,, . . ., . _ . . ':',•:` • 0 •:-,. -, ••• ,,.... .,, . _ . .,. . . . '77 111",,._`E.::':', *,...-L4:1• . , -, '--.C ',-'.: :.:,-'. -,:": .: -:'":-.1.— . , . . -, --:'" , 'y ,•,.' .•-:,-,4: - . -r-- ••:,;,".•-:'--r•.,'- •-'. r'.' :-:, Laii.(..7..f-•., - - .. • ... ., -.•-• -\-.. '. '•'-' • • -1 -: ' :. '.i-.-' ' • 1-''' ''-::•:.4:"T: 40779122 - ••'' '-.• -. ' . .. .. , . " - • - ... . ,,b,.• . . •• • . • 06040810 ,.1. . .. . .. . . " . , ...,_ ..., 1 r,. • - , . , . . ..„ . 1:, 06040845",, 7.x ..., 06040713' . . ,••!"":,:,,-',•:'"---, :' '•••••,„; ?: ... „ . -..• ,,,•,,...,..d.•••„, .., ..—• _ ___:„._„..••• • _:•- 41481534 _---.A. , 1 .., ! i:r'—'----- —1: • i063321t53•,[11L1.13E ,..,I.,,i IN,,_ -4 -?' I! Account/Map revision A.:tending_ J011,475705,3379,21182 03792870 — 41401569 r .! , .. ' 1 T3 1 06244319 \ //""..j 06523811 ••-.... 40778886 ,o, :•:, "i57 -,'••..,4,... 01175254 t - I , „..... 06523838 ., 011886 '•[ 417_ — 1' I.! 01175165 fil 1 i j F 101174878 1 rOpOtC( '1 1 01175173 .. 01175181 04089278 ti I . • . . 01174851 01175211 11 01175149 01174843 6_ ••- --_ „....e•Lii,,.,,,,. ,•:•;..... _,. • • • , 1 ....••.; i. ; 01174967 01175130 011'74835 , .. . • ) H4,-.1106,-.1A1..S 01175122 \ I .. . 0073608 • \ . . ' „, .0736090 . 01.1,7,49,40 110 ,,, 01174827 1 - , , 5 00736065 ---..'>•"' '• 007360581 2 06905536 1-----' ' 41 737229 7 ---------7-;1174932 5106 01175092 /I/ 00736023 011174819 \ , 11 -i•"•i i• u0735981 , 1 -:_ 7,i924 ----• , - 11 / ' 38859 •--- - ..._•-• \ .., 01174800 , ./.-'-' ''''' '' ‘' - . 7' , 0175068 .._:4 --------\-- • . 4 00715....zs,884 06905528 011749 16 , .„, !I ---;'• .,-•' ,/011/5041 .. 007358-45 I 06965501 1 i'--- r--- __-- _, 1 .,,E11.1EPLAC ACCITION ' 04538013 01174797 I \ \ i 1 1 0114 '.- 'mu \ 06905471 7i789 - 01174908 . i 0,6522815 6 JP.I•IET IL.A..:-E.,.1-.'•1 m -j ph ,fl.....,..--,..1., --1 1 0073565 I i ; . ... ,.. ... ..• \ • _. 1 : , 1 1 'r a I =X NE Al)..,•V 1:51.411-,•' I \ ''''....,___ _ . • • ----- 00735531 i 04851811 [- 06965463 4 h 06739'865 06922848• I — . 04851803.:Hir.RE .1•:.1-11•1.2?-1 AC.L.1 n,,,N ;0673985'71 \ 06905455', 1 1 — "/-.<.-” I 111 - —' .-. - 02288877 06739997 c '-' 069230891 - I— 1-_,N .c.r,,E&:d:fisTA FE si 5,31TRIrr--.,,, 02289059 I 02288966 1 i 1 06739989 r-- 1 , :,. ,,:.:,---06923070. .-. ,fr. 1 ..-..11A1L.:6E.--:+:E.•-31-A"E-• :,,••:-ATTFIV-17E-----/ .' 02288885 1,_—06739970 ,1 02289040 02288974 1 _06923046\ • '..---- . . 3COtt I I - I 06739962 I I C177 RAA Q 1 : 067400301 i. ..'‘ Zil 'i::LVI:jig _...1 i . • . 02289008 I I I 1 '"'art Worth City oF Soutnlake.raccant Ccurv,cgtlep,Tcrar of F,c?wer Masa.. --- Amy Shelley From: Terry Sauder < Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 10:46 AM To: Mayor Subject: Conservation development Dear Mayor Hill, I am adamantly opposed to the proposed Conservation development for numerous reasons. Terry and Judy Sauder 1090 Harbor Haven St. Southlake 1 10/20/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook D Proposed new subdivision in Harbor Oaks Brett Leedy i;., iii ;2�_1 n it .J =.CPM _. _ To: Jerod Potts <jpotts@ci.southlake.tx.us> Mr. Potts, my name is Brett Leedy. I live at 2920 Harbor Refuge St., I am a registered voter in Southlake. • I am opposed to the proposed development in my neighborhood, I believe it's call "The Conservation", because it is absolutely NOT compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. Even that name is insulting, they are not conserving anything, only destroying a little more of our ever-diminishing, barely-touched piece of nature. It's my understanding that this development within my existing neighborhood: -Will have sidewalks &storm sewer, where we have bar-ditches. -It will also have street lights, were we do not. (Horses cannot live well w/street lights it negatively affects their circadian rhythms, it affects the cycle of mares) -We all have of bridle paths behind our homes, that are accessible to all the neighbors for trail-riding& hiking, allowing access to the Corps of Engineers property w/ miles of trails to explore, they will not have these. -The numerous lots as we have been shown, are not like ours,they are skinny, narrow lots where the houses will be close together, where our lots are more proportionally square w/large distances between our homes. -Ours is very much a horse community, where almost all the homes are set up to have horses,the new development has not shown one mention for how these new houses could or would be set up to accommodate horses. • I'm not opposed to someone developing this property, but it most certainly should try&adhere to the quant rural culture that is Harbor Oaks, that's what we feel in love with &why we purchased our property more than 13 years ago. This new development is not even trying, it's simply a money grab, trying to install as many large homes, as it can possibly get away with. Additionally, there is a real safety issue, it's my understanding our current neighborhood is already in violation of the National Fire Code, with too many homes with only 1 entrance &exit, the addition of these homes only further exacerbates an existing problem. Heaven forbid there is an emergency, but if there is &the result is a fatality, that could have been prevented by a faster response time, I feel confident the City will have culpability. I'm not just blowing smoke here. At the very entrance into my neighborhood, on 2 very icy conditions, I have pushed vehicles w/ my four-wheeler that were stuck sliding on the ice, even though there is only a very gradual • rise at the entrance to the neighborhood. If this single entrance was obstructed during an emergency,there could be a very real problem. The current development plan has not, from all that I can see,solved any of the previous &still existing challenges to the development of this property. It's also my understanding that,then Councilwoman Hill & other City Councilmen unanimously denied this development proposal in 2006 & 2008. I cannot see any substantial difference from those plans to these plans. https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxQDgtNGI2ZS1 iN2QzLTA1 N2I0ODMzN2UzZgAQAFsM8mXE70gVjq%2FEmKpX... 1/2 10/20/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook Please ao right by my awesome neighborhood & deny this proposal as it is currently constructed. Thank you for your service to our city. Respectfully, Brett Leedy Project Manager Fast Trak Construction. Inc. 14500 Trinity Blvd. Ste, 180 Fort Worth, TX 76155 Mb.817-312-9184 Office 214-638-0525 Fax 214-638-0528 https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNG12ZS 1 i N2QzLTA1 N210ODMzN2UzZgAQAFs M8mXE70gVjq%2FEmKpX... 2/2 ` b The Conservation Design Standards for Construction and Exterior Materials • Create deedrestrictions which manage the high level of construction expected, specifically: 1. Minimum Floor Space. All floor areas referenced below are for air- conditioned floor areas, exclusive of porches, garages, patios, terraces or breezeways attached to the main dwelling. Each dwelling constructed on any Lot shall contain a minimum of four thousand (4,000) square feet of heat and air conditioned floor space. 2. Drives and Walks.The standard finish for the lead walk and driveway will be salt deck or pavers,and not broom finish concrete. Any other finish must be approved in writing by the Architectural Control Committee. 3. Structure Materials: Exterior Items and Surfaces. Unless approved by the Committee,the dominant exterior vertical wall area of each structure, exclusive of doors and windows, shall be a minimum of 80% masonry (brick, stone,or stucco over masonry base) or other material solely determined by the Committee. No more than 20% of the exterior vertical wall to be authentic lath and stucco application over wood framing. Dryvit systems or Styrofoam products are not acceptable. The exterior of chimney flues shall be of masonry material acceptable to the Committee. Installation of all types of exterior items and surfaces such as address numbers or external ornamentation,lights, mail chutes,mailboxes, roofing materials and exterior paint or stain,shall be subject to the approval of the Committee as to size, design,materials color,manufacturer and location. 4. Roofing Materials. The Architectural Control Committee will only approve roofing materials which are of the highest grade and quality and which are consistent with the external design, color and appearance of other improvements within the subdivision. Roofing materials which are metal, slate, slate like, clay,barrel tile, copper,minimum 50 year composition shingle, or concrete are the minimum standard of quality for roofing material to be used. The roof pitch of any structure shall be approved based on the roof type associated with architectural style of the home.Any deviation of roof pitch or roofing material must be approved in writing by the Architectural Control Committee. 5. Windows.Windows must be wood or fibrex composite clad,steel,or bronze and submitted for review of Committee approval. Window mullions that are appropriate for the selected architectural style are required and shall be approved by the Committee. � e i •+ C11 OF SOUTHLAKE Public Comment Form TEXAS Your participation in a pub ic meetings is va ued and citizens wishing to express their views can e ectronica y submit this Pub ic Comment Form for any topic or agenda item. P ease specify where you wou d ike your comments to appear be ow and enter the required information. (***A comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m.on the meeting date and wi be provided for the record***) COVID-19 PUBLIC MEETING PROTOCOL A C f @Oti€}iIk t City CooVi ar P C rrtrsamon nk'etrn Qttt =fp)a , .tbe?t,., in •-rs• , d, to eons alts , a ed t3-sr•jeaci of(3. Vii-l°.Citizens wishing to address the City ' may submit comments on any topic or agenda item e ectronica y by uti izing this Pub is Comment Form be ow. Public Meeting Date 10/8/2020 Board Meeting* P ann ng and Zon ng Comm ss on * Frst and Last Nara Kath een Carrab ne * Address 961 Thousand Oaks Court Rhone 214-923-3369 • i7ra] • I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item No.* 6 (i a 1A) * r 1 w speak n SUPPORT of th s tern I w speak n OPPOSITION to th s tern c' I do not wsh to speak,but p ease record my: Comments: his is an opportunity to subrrit ccsmrents on any topic that is not scheduled for a public hearing or an item that is not on the agenda South ake's 2035 p an s of sound management wth accountab e object yes.As any commun ty earn ng from the past,these have been f ne-tuned over decades of nput from our counc s and res dents. Item#6, the proposed Conservat on Deve opment, s c ear y ncompat b e wth 2035 p an. (300 character tmt) Signature:* itcteie,ek eNutdOt& 10/19/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook The Conservation Development - lot drainage and aerobic systems Valerie Adams Mon 10/19/2020 12:52 PM To: Mayor <Mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 1 <Place1@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 2 <Place2@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 3 <Place3@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 4 <Place4@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 5 <Place5@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 6 <Place6@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Ken Baker <kbaker@ci southlake.tx.us>; Dennis Killough <dkillough@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Jerod Potts <jpotts@ci.southlake.tx.us> Good morning, We are Bill and Valerie Adams and we live at 880 Harbor Court and we are both registered voters in Southlake. We were present at the planning and zoning meeting on October 8th and feel the applicant did not fully address the soil erosion/water runoff issue. He stated that his project was lower than the homes on Burney however he did not mention that his proposed project is well above our property and by a fair amount. Our property is located directly behind lots 6 and 7. While the Burney properties are backed up to one proposed lot we are backed up to two. The Burney properties have water moving away from their homes down to the lake while we are between the Burney properties and the lake. We are quite concerned that the applicant or the home builder will change the topography of these lots to the point of redirecting more water onto our property. We already have significant run off from the Burney properties and have had to do a lot of landscape engineering to move that water away from our house and down into existing runoff creeks below our home. If lots 6 and 7 change the water flow in our direction at all,we will have a problem. In addition,with the planned aerobic septic systems above us any runoff from these lots could directly impact us as well. We oppose the project on these grounds and respectfully ask that you take these points into consideration while deliberating the approval or disapproval of this project. Bill and Valerie Adams 880 Harbor Ct Southlake Tx Cell#469-446-0609 https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNGI2ZS 1 iN2QzLTA1 N210ODMzN2UzZgAQAKaJBR%2BuiEnDkH8xePKJey... 1/1 . 1. 10/19/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook [Possible Scam Fraud]Proposed Development. The Conservation Barbara A Mon 10/19/2020 12:00 PM To: Jerod Potts <jpotts@ci.southlake.tx.us> WARNING: Your email security system has determined the message below may be a potential threat. The sender may trick victims into passing bad checks on their behalf. f you do not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, please do not respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the security settings, clickable URLs may have been modified to provide additional security. Mr Potts, My name is Barbara Auyang. I live at 1065 Harbor Haven St, Southlake, TX 76092 and I am a registered voter in Southlake. I am opposed to the proposed development,The Conservation, for the reasons listed below and the detailed reasons outlined in the 2020 petition,submitted by Harbor Oaks: • compatibility with the existing neighborhood • public safety issues • ecological concerns • aerobic septic systems • drainage issues • Harbor Oaks deed restrictions violations I believe all property owners have the right to develop their property,within the guidelines of any restrictions attached to the said land. However,I do not believe Mr. and Mrs. Housman can arbitrarily rezone and remove their platted lot from the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. I do not feel that the current proposed plan by the applicant has solved any of the previous and still existing challenges to the development of this land. Then Councilwoman Hill and her fellow Councilmen unanimously denied this development proposal in 2006 and 2008. Please continue to uphold the prior decision to deny this almost identical proposal in 2020, as nothing has changed. Thank you for volunteering your time and energy for the benefit of our community. I appreciate all you do for Southlake. Sincerely, Barbara Auyang https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNGI2ZS1 iN2QzLTA1 N2I0ODMzN2UzZgAQANVQ5EUERsBOvh5Wt2wLMp... 1/1 10/19/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook Harbor Oaks Lisa Vu Boyer Mon 10/19/2020 9:15 AM To: Jerod Potts <jpotts@ci.southlake.tx.us> Mayor Hill, Councilmen, and Directors of Planning and Development, My name is Lisa Boyer. I live at 2900 Harbor Refuge and I am a registered voter in Southlake. I am opposed to the proposed development,The Conservation, for the reasons listed below and the detailed reasons outlined in the 2020 petition, submitted by Harbor Oaks: • compatibility with the existing neighborhood • public safety issues • .ecological concerns • aerobic septic systems • drainage issues • Harbor Oaks deed restrictions violations I believe all property owners have the right to develop their property,within the guidelines of any restrictions attached to the said land. However, I do not believe Mr. and Mrs. Housman can arbitrarily rezone and remove their platted lot from the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. I do not feel that the current proposed plan by the applicant has solved any of the previous and still existing challenges to the development of this land. Then Councilwoman Hill and her fellow Councilmen unanimously denied this development proposal in 2006 and 2008. Please continue to uphold the prior decision to deny this almost identical proposal in 2020, as nothing has changed. Thank you for volunteering your time and energy for the benefit of our community. I appreciate all you do for Southlake. Sincerely, Lisa Boyer 2900 Harbor Refuge Street Southlake Texas 76092 Sent from my iPhone https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNGI2ZS 1 iN2QzLTA1 N2 IOODMzN2UzZgAQADuGx2DuXMdCsFJIkIbPmCI%... 1/1 From: Molly Blum Subject: Proposed Deveto t Date: October 19,2020 at 11:46 AM To: Shaun Bnyait Mayor Hill,Councilmen,and Directors of Planning and Development, Our names are SHAWN& MOLLY BROWN. We live at 2980 Burney Ln.,Southlake, TX 76092 and I am a registered voter in Southlake. I am opposed to the proposed development,The Conservation,for the reasons listed below and the detailed reasons outlined in the 2020 petition,submitted by Harbor Oaks: • compatibility with the existing neighborhood • public safety issues • ecological concerns • aerobic septic systems • drainage issues • Harbor Oaks deed restrictions violations I believe all property owners have the right to develop their property,within the guidelines of any restrictions attached to the said land. However,I do not believe Mr. and Mrs.Housman can arbitrarily rezone and remove their platted lot from the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. I do not feel that the current proposed plan by the applicant has solved any of the previous and still existing challenges to the development of this land. Then Councilwoman Hill and her fellow Councilmen unanimously denied this development proposal in 2006 and 2008. Please continue to uphold the prior decision to deny this almost identical proposal in 2020,as nothing has changed. Thank you for volunteering your time and energy for the benefit of our community. I appreciate all you do for Southlake. Sincerely, i/ ` ( ,1 10/20/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook [Possible Scam Fraud]Opposition to the proposed development, The Conservation Kathleen Carrabine Mon 10/19/2020 8:52 PM To: Mayor <Mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 1 <Place1@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 2 <Place2@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 3 <Place3@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 4 <Place4@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 5 <Place5@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 6 <Place6@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Ken Baker<kbaker@ci southlake.tx.us>; Dennis Killough <dkillough@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Jerod Potts <jpotts@ci.southlake.tx.us> WARNING: Your email security system has determined the message below may be a potential threat. The sender may trick victims into passing bad checks on their behalf. If you do not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, please do not respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the security settings, clickable URLs may have been modified to provide additional security. Hello my name is Kathleen Carrabine. I live at 961 Thousand Oaks Court and I am a registered voter in Southlake. Up front,.I want to thank you for taking the time to listen to your residents. I do not feel that the current proposed plan for the Conservation, by the applicant, has solved any of the previous and still existing challenges,which include: • Compatibility with our current neighborhood • Public safety with once access point serving 80+ homes • Aerobic septic systems not having adequate size aeration field • Ecological impacts • Drainage issues • And impact on the boarding neighbors I am opposed to the proposed development for all the same reasons it was unanimously denied in 2006 and 2008, by you Mayor Hill and your fellow Councilmen at the time. I believe all property owners have the right to develop their property,within the guidelines of any restrictions attached to the land. However, I do not believe Mr. and Mrs. Housmans can arbitrarily rezone and remove their platted lot from the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. This proposal was denied in 2006 and 2008 with a unanimous vote by City Council. Nothing has changed with the challenges of developing this land. Please continue to uphold the prior decisions to deny this almost identical proposal in 2020. Consider how Southlake's 2035 plan is of sound management with accountable objectives for our city's growth.As any community learning from the past,these objectives have been fine-tuned over decades of input from our councils and our residents.And simply put,this proposed Conservation development is clearly incompatible with Southlake's 2035 plan. Objective 1.3 states:to have appropriately-scaled neighborhood design that compliments existing development patterns, recognizing that quality residential neighborhoods are the cornerstone of our community.Sage Group, Wood Bridge, and/or Rockwater have ignored Southlake's objectives and designed a development for themselves. In reference to the developer's cross-section information showing the 13ft.slope to the west from Burney Lane. He stated that the development would be barely visible from the street. I am not a builder, but how do 8 multi- million dollar, 2 to 3 story mega-homes hide behind a 13 ft.slope?Also, I'm confused that Boyd keeps saying that they want to be good neighbors. Boyd and the owners are not neighbors—they are not voting Southlake residents or have stated any plans to live here in the future. The developer also stated that they want cement, lights,walls, pilasters, and fences because they think it's good for conceivable pedestrian pathways.Are they conceiving that Southlake will budget'six figures'just in case they want to build pedestrian pathways through the flood plains?That actually does not apply to Southlake's objective https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNG12ZS1 iN2QzLTA1 N210ODMzN2UzZgAQAF1%2FyBeGOjxKhFdpSrb8sM... 1/2 10/20/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook 3.3:to use pathways to connect shopping,schools,work and residential areas.There are no schools, or work or shopping in Harbor Oaks.And there is no light pollution or noise pollution. Harbor Oaks is an equestrian neighborhood that is a sanctuary amidst a highly residential and retail area. Southlake has been through enough growing pains to have the knowledge as to what is profitable and responsible growth.And that's why these objectives have been put into place. Consider objective 4.13:the goal of protecting and preserving the existing ecosystem for future generations. Objective 7.2: promote sustainability issues on water conservation and overall environmental stewardship. Objective 7.5: conserve, restore and promote tree and plant cover that is native,while also protecting existing significant vegetation and character. Objective 7.7: Recognize the importance of and protect the biological diversity for the ecological and aesthetic benefits to the community.Saying yes to this proposed Conservation development will sabotage one of Southlake's last pieces of sacred land.They are filing for a zoning change and then planning on 8 mega-mansions on a delicate area.These new houses and property will be built to the owner's desire—there are no guarantees that they are going to be stewards of this unique corridor. And they will not need to respect Southlake's neighborhood compatibility objectives. But Southlake is maturing and thinking longer term. Listen to objective 2.1. Encourage the balance of uses, including retail,office, medical, hospitality,entertainment, and institutional and residential areas. Southlake now has all the success and experience to know when enough is enough.They know the balance of uses.They know they don't have to scrape down every inch of land and pave it with cement. Or to develop every inch of land so the wildlife habitat is destroyed.Southlake is not afraid to say no. Yet the Conservation developer is ready to say yes to whatever it takes to make a hefty profit. In the P&Z meeting, Chairman Kubiak asked the developer about different possible options for the number of lots. Boyd stated that he couldn't decrease the number because he does not have the money.This was also the case in our SPIN meeting,when residents wanted to discuss options and compromise.The developer's most frequent reply was that it was not"financially feasible"to make any modifications. His pat answer tells us he's either contracted too much for the purchase and/or he is a poor businessman. We know he's filed bankruptcy twice. Conservation is defined as the official supervision of rivers,forests, and other natural resources in order to preserve and protect them. Conservation is defined as the prevention of injury, decay,waste or loss through prudent management. Do not confuse the definitions of conservation with the intent of this developer.Their use of the name is an ironic misnomer and a marketing ploy to mislead you.Just hear it. Conservation development. It's an insulting oxymoron just like acceptable losses or a peaceful takeover. Again,thank you for your time and for serving our community in a volunteer elected position. https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNG12ZS1 iN2QzLTA1 N210ODMzN2UzZgAQAF1%2FyBeGOjxKhFdpSrb8sM... 2/2 10/19/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook Harbour Oaks Michael Cope Mon 10/19/2020 4:01 PM To: Mayor <Mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 1 <Place1@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 2 <Place2@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 3 <Place3@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 4 <Place4@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 5 <Place5@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 6 <Place6@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Ken Baker <kbaker@ci southlake.tx.us>; Dennis Killough <dkillough@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Jerod Potts <jpotts@ci.southlake.tx.us> Mayor Hill, Councilmen, and Directors of Planning and Development, My name is_Michael Cope. I live at_3550 Carmel Ct and I am a registered voter in Southlake. Ijoin many of my neighbors in being opposed to the proposed development, The Conservation, for the reasons listed below and the detailed reasons outlined in the 2020 petition, submitted by Harbor Oaks: *compatibility with the existing neighborhood Added Traffic by virtually doubling the number of houses served by a section of road. other public safety issues ecological concerns aerobic septic systems drainage issues Harbor Oaks deed restrictions violations I believe all property owners have the right to develop their property, within the guidelines of any restrictions attached to the said land. However, I do not believe Mr. and Mrs. Housman can arbitrarily rezone and remove their platted lot from the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. I do not feel that the current proposed plan by the applicant has solved any of the previous and still existing challenges to the development of this land. Then Councilwoman Hill and her fellow Councilmen unanimously denied this development proposal in 2006 and 2008. Please continue to uphold the prior decision to deny this almost identical proposal in 2020, as nothing has changed. Thank you for volunteering your time and energy for the benefit of our community. I appreciate all you do for Southlake. > Sincerely, Michael Cope https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNGI2ZS1 iN2QzLTA1 N210ODMzN2UzZgAQAETSMAsObEVCk9B%2Bz5ib3... 1/1 10/19/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook [Possible Scam Fraud]The Conservation Development Jamie Galls Mon 10/19/2020 11:55 AM To: Mayor <Mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 1 <Place1 @ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 2 <Place2@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 3 <Place3@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 4 <Place4@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 5 <Place5@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 6 <Place6@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Ken Baker<kbaker@ci southlake.tx.us>; Dennis Killough <dkillough@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Jerod Potts <jpotts@ci.southlake.tx.us> WARNING: Your email security system has determined the message below may be a potential threat. The sender may trick victims into passing bad checks on their behalf. If you do not know the'sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, please do not respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the security settings, clickable URLs may have been modified to provide additional security. Mayor Hill, Councilmen and Directors of Planning and Development. My name is Jame Galls and I live at 885 Harbor Court in Harbor Oaks Subdivision. I am a registered voter in Southlake. I am strongly opposed to the proposed development, The Conservation, for the pertinent and notable reasons listed below and detailed in the 2020 petitions submitted by Harbor Oaks which I have signed: A) COMPATIBILITY WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD B) PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES DUE TO SINGLE INGRESS AND EGRESS INTO THE HARBOR OAKS SUBDIVISION C) ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS REGARDING THE SENSITIVE ECO-CLIMATE D) THE SUSCEPTIBILITY AND LIKELY FAILURE OF THE AEROBIC SEPTIC SYSTEMS LEADING TO SEWAGE CONTAMINATION OF THE SENSITIVE ECOLOGY OF THE AREA. E) DRAINAGE ISSUES And most importantly, F) HARBOR OAKS SUBDIVISION DEED RESTRICTION VIOLATIONS THAT WILL BE NECESSARY TO ALLOW THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO PROCEED. Certainly all property owners have a right to develop their property within the guidelines of any restrictions that are attached to the said land under development consideration. The right of a property owner to develop stops when it leads to violations of existing deed restrictions. Upon review of the Harbor Oaks Subdivision Deed Restrictions (which the Housman's agreed to upon purchase of their property), it is my understanding and belief that the Housman's can not arbitrarily REZONE AND REMOVE their platted lot from the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. The proposed plan by the applicant has NOT SOLVED ANY of the previous and still existing challenges to development of the land identified in the proposed development. Previous attempts to gain development approval for this property in 2006 and 2008 were denied by the city council which https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUx0DgtNG12ZS1 iN2QzLTA1 N210ODMzN2UzZgAQACxyEZ5XwNRFvL34E4G%2B... 1/2 10/19/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook included Councilwoman Hill. Please continue to uphold the prior decisions to deny this proposed development since none of the basis for the previous two denials has changed in the current proposal. Thank you for your time and I appreciate all that you do to make and keep Southlake the desirable community that it is today. Jamie L. Petty-Galis, M.S., P.E. 885 Harbor Court Southlake,Texas 76092 https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNGI2ZS1 iN2QzLTA1 N2I0ODMzN2UzZgAQACxyEZ5XwNRFvL34E4G%26... 2/2 10/19/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook [Possible Scam Fraud]City Council meeting 10/20 Kay Johnson Mon 10/19/2020 4:16 PM To: Mayor <Mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 1 <Place1@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 2 <Place2@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 3 <Place3@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 4 <Place4@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 5 <Place5@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 6 <Place6@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Ken Baker <kbaker@ci southlake.tx.us>; Dennis Killough <dkillough@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Jerod Potts <jpotts@ci.southlake.tx.us> WARNING: Your email security system has determined the message below may be a potential threat. The sender may trick victims into passing bad checks on their behalf. If you do not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, please do not respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the security settings, clickable URLs may have been modified to provide additional security. Mayor Hill, Councilmen and members of Planning and Zoning, My name is Kay Johnson and I live at 2940 Burney Ln in Southlake. I am directly behind Lot 6 of the proposed development, The Conservation. I submitted comments prior to the P&Z meeting on Oct 8th and I really appreciated the dialogue and feedback. I watched the P&Z meeting on the City Website and was disappointed it turned into a debate on property rights and family history. I was hoping to gain some clarification on the zoning ordinances and specifics within the proposed development from experts in the area. Since that didn't happen and I don't entirely trust the developer to be forthcoming on his motives, I am reaching out to you in an effort to gain clarity at tomorrow's meeting. It is unclear to me and many others why the applicant is requesting a zoning change for Lot 10 of Harbor Oaks, currently zoned SF1-A. Initially when this was presented to the neighborhood the entire development was going to be zoned SF1A with a 50ft ROW through Lot 10. By the time it was presented to the Corridor Committee, the zoning was changed to R-PUD for all the lots in the development, including Lot 10, now with a 40ft private access easement. At the corridor committee meeting, it was stated Lot 10 would be part of the subdivision but not re-platted and would remain part of Harbor Oaks Estates. How can a lot be platted in Harbor Oaks and part of another subdivision? All the lots in Harbor Oaks are SF1A so how does one re-zone a platted lot to PUD without approval of the Subdivision? If people can do this, what is the point of a neighborhood at all? In the Corridor Committee meeting, Mr. Kubiak asked, "if this development wasn't an R-PUD, would you be able to get the same number of lots on the property?" The Applicant's response was "with straight zoning we could get more, but we thought 8 lots looks good on the property. So, it could be done with more but that is why we went with R-PUD zoning (to get fewer lots)." A developer is choosing this zoning so he can "get fewer lots"?? That answer cannot suffice. To me and perhaps I am wrong, it seems that he is intentionally finding ways to not have to re-plat Lot 10 as he knows he would never have the neighborhood's approval. https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNGI2ZS1 iN2QzLTA1 N210ODMzN2UzZgAQANvgpFneLSdLgP6RdC%2Big0... 1/2 10/19/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook As it states in the prepared document (page 797 of meeting packet) that will be signed by Mayor Hill if this is approved, one must "find that there is a public necessity for the zoning changes, that the public demands them, that the public interest clearly requires the amendments, and that the zoning changes do not unreasonably invade the rights of those who bought or improved property with reference to the classification which existed at the time their original investment was made." I think it is pretty clear that the majority of the public are NOT demanding this zoning change but vehemently opposing it. It does seem to invade the rights of the property owners immediately surrounding Lot 10 as now they will have an entrance road to a new subdivision next door instead of a single family home as our platted Subdivision states. This fundamentally changes the property they purchased. I'm begging you to help us understand how this is acceptable. Thank you for your time. I will see you tomorrow night. Again, if anyone would like to walk the area, I welcome and encourage it. Best, Kay Johnson https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNG12ZS1 iN2QzLTA1 N2100DMzN2UzZgAQANvgpFneLSdLgP6RdC%2Big0... 2/2 10/18/2020 Mayor Hill, Councilmen, and Directors of Planning and Development, Hello, my name is Ken Land. I live at 2900 Burney Lane and I am a registered voter in Southlake. I do not feel that the current proposed plan by the applicant has solved any of the previous and still existing challenges,which include: • Compatibility with our current neighborhood • Public safety with once access point serving 80+homes • Aerobic septic systems not having adequate size aeration field • Ecological impacts • Drainage issues • And impact on the boarding neighbors I am opposed to the proposed development for all the same reasons it was unanimously denied in 2006 and 2008, by you Mayor Hill and your fellow Councilmen at the time. I believe all property owners have the right to develop their property,within the guidelines of any restrictions attached to the land. However, I do not believe Mr. and Mrs. Housmans can arbitrarily rezone and remove their platted lot from the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. This proposal was denied in 2006 and 2008 with a unanimous vote by City Council. Nothing has changed with the challenges of developing this land. Please continue to uphold the prior decisions to deny this almost identical proposal in 2020. Thank you for your time and for serving our community in a volunteer elected position. I appreciate all you do for Southlake. Sincerely, Ken Land 10/20/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook [Possible Scam Fraud]Harbor Oaks Martin Newby Mon 10/19/2020 8:56 PM To: Mayor <Mayor@ci.southiake.tx.us>;Place 1 <Place1 @ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 2 <Place2@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 3 <Place3@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 4 <Place4@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 5 <Place5@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 6 <Place6@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Ken Baker <kbaker@ci southlake.tx.us>; Dennis Killough <dkillough@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Jerod Potts <jpotts@ci.southlake.tx.us> WARNING:Your email security system has determined the message below may be a potential threat. The sender may trick victims into passing bad checks on their behalf. If you do not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, please do not respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the security settings, clickable URLs may have been modified to provide additional security. Mayor Hill, Councilmen, and Directors of Planning and Development, My name is Martin Newby. I live at 2885 Burney Lane and I am a registered voter in Southlake. I am opposed to the proposed development,The Conservation, for the reasons listed below and the detailed reasons outlined in the 2020 petition,submitted by Harbor Oaks: • compatibility with the existing neighborhood • public safety issues • ecological concerns • aerobic septic systems • drainage issues • Harbor Oaks deed restrictions violations I believe all property owners have the right to develop their property,within the guidelines of any restrictions attached to the said land. However,I do not believe Mr. and Mrs. Housman can arbitrarily rezone and remove their platted lot from the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. I do not feel that the current proposed plan by the applicant has solved any of the previous and still existing challenges to the development of this land. Then Councilwoman Hill and her fellow Councilmen unanimously denied this development proposal in 2006 and 2008. Please continue to uphold the prior decision to deny this almost identical proposal in 2020, as nothing has changed. Thank you for volunteering your time and energy for the benefit of our community. I appreciate all you do for Southlake. Sincerely, Martin Newby https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNGI2ZS1 iN2QzLTA1 N210ODMzN2UzZgAQAOmiQGsSM1IInEJYgAuUNRA... 1/1 10/19/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook [Possible Scam Fraud]Proposed Development, The Conservation Mon 10/19/2020 2:06 PM To: Jerod Potts <jpotts@ci.southlake.tx.us> WARNING: Your email security system has determined the message below may be a potential threat. The sender may trick victims into passing bad checks on their behalf. If you do not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, please do not respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the security settings, clickable URLs may have been modified to provide additional security. Mr. Potts, My name is Arturo Soto. I live at 1065 Harbor Haven St, Southlake,TX 76092 and I am a registered voter in Southlake. I am opposed to the proposed development, The Conservation, for the reasons listed below and the detailed reasons outlined in the 2020 petition, submitted by Harbor Oaks: • compatibility with the existing neighborhood • public safety issues • ecological concerns • aerobic septic systems • drainage issues • Harbor Oaks deed restrictions violations I believe all property owners have the right to develop their property,within the guidelines of any restrictions attached to the said land. However, I do not believe Mr. and Mrs. Housman can arbitrarily rezone and remove their platted lot from the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. I do not feel that the current proposed plan by the applicant has solved any of the previous and still existing challenges to the development of this land. You and your fellow Councilmen unanimously denied this development proposal in 2006 and 2008. Please continue to uphold the prior decision to deny this almost identical proposal in 2020, as nothing has changed. Thank you for volunteering your time and energy for the benefit of our community. I appreciate all you do for Southlake. Sincerely, Arturo Soto https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNG12ZS 1 iN2QzLTA1 N210ODMzN2UzZgAQAJ5VOU7WL1 NNnMmp%2FhxT... 1/1 10/19/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook [Possible Scam Fraud]Proposed Development, The Conservation Elena Soto Mon 10/19/2020 5:16 PM To: Jerod Potts <jpotts@ci.southlake.tx.us> WARNING: Your email security system has determined the message below may be a potential threat. The sender may trick victims into passing bad checks on their behalf. If you do not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, please do not respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the security settings, clickable URLs may have been modified to provide additional security. Mr. Potts, My name is Elena Soto. I live at 1065 Harbor Haven St. Southlake, TX 76092 and I am a registered voter in Southlake. I am opposed to the proposed development, The Conservation, for the reasons listed below and the detailed reasons outlined in the 2020 petition,submitted by Harbor Oaks: • compatibility with the existing neighborhood • public safety issues • ecological concerns • aerobic septic systems • drainage issues • Harbor Oaks deed restrictions violations I believe all property owners have the right to develop their property,within the guidelines of any restrictions attached to the said land. However,I do not believe Mr. and Mrs. Housman can arbitrarily rezone and remove their platted lot from the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. I do not feel that the current proposed plan by the applicant has solved any of the previous and still existing challenges to the development of this land. Then Councilwoman Hill and her fellow Councilmen unanimously denied this development proposal in 2006 and 2008. Please continue to uphold the prior decision to deny this almost identical proposal in 2020, as nothing has changed. Thank you for volunteering your time and energy for the benefit of our community. I appreciate all you do for Southlake. Sincerely, Elena Soto https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNG12ZS 1 iN2QzLTA1 N210ODMzN2UzZgAQAJ7QRGLnj%2BIAusfeGytBJZ4... 1/1 10/19/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook FW: The Conservation - Proposed Development @ Harbor Oaks Subdivision Amy Shelley <ashelley@ci.southlake.tx.us> Mon 10/19/2020 3:06 PM To: Mayor-Int <Mayor-Int@ci southlake.tx.us>;Laura Hill Cc: Ken Baker <kbaker@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Jerod Potts <jpotts@ci.southlake.tx.us> From: Bea Wilson Sent: Monday,October 19, 2020 2:39 PM To: Mayor and City Council<MayorandCityCouncil@ci.southlake.tx.us> Subject:The Conservation- Proposed Development @ Harbor Oaks Subdivision Mayor Hill and Distinguished Councilmen, Thanks for your service devoted to Southlake and our citizens. You are appreciated! You've heard much through the years (2006, 2008 and now currently 2020) about development of the Marilyn Miles land adjacent to Harbor Oaks subdivision. I don't want to wear you out with all of the already discussed opposition issues held by over 75% of the residents of Harbor Oaks-you know those. There is a petition supporting this%. I do want to tell you for a fact we know one has the right to development their land. We have never, repeat never said we do not agree with one's rights to develop their land. We were accused of this position in the recent P&Z mtg. We were also told "you people will never be satisfied"! There was a reference of one P&Z Commissioner that"he too is a Texan" referring to the land owner's statements. Well,we are proud voters and Texans as well but didn't push that button. I do want to voice my opposition to the development based what we've had to live by for over 40 years and that is our Deed Restrictions and Regulations. If you live outside a HOA you most likely have Deed Restrictions to which you must comply. I'm not going into quoting the issues that "smack" up against our Deed Restrictions, you've already heard those. BTW,there are many. The applicant has now jumped from asking for a SF-1A zoning,as was the case in 2006/08,to a R-PUD. You know the differences so I ask why the change? As you also know,there are many other valid objections supported by various documents but the main one is City Plan 2035. Again, I won't belabor you with quotes but Southlake is believed to support what they publish. In closing,we are not a "band of adversarial residents". We simply want to see our Deed Restrictions mean something and that ALL must abide. Got a little 'long winded" and I know you are busy. I hope you see our points and honor what is right and again vote in opposition. Thanks, Bea Wilson 2930 Burney Lane https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNGI2ZS1 iN2QzLTA1 N210ODMzN2UzZgAQAJD2X7DAZ6pAgTCXe%2FXX... 1/1 10/20/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook [Possible Scam Fraud]Opposition to the proposed "The Conservation" Tue 10/20/2020 6:32 AM To: Mayor<Mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 1 <Place1@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 2 <Place2@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 3 <Place3@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 4 <Place4@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 5 <Place5@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 6 <Place6@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Ken Baker <kbaker@ci southlake.tx.us>;Dennis Killough <dkillough@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Jerod Potts <jpotts@ci.southlake.tx.us> WARNING: Your email security system has determined the message below may be a potential threat. The sender may trick victims into passing bad checks on their behalf. If you do not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, please do not respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the security settings, clickable URLs may have been modified to provide additional security. Mayor Hill, Councilmen, and Directors of Planning and Development, My name is Ray Chancellor. I live at 890 Harbor Court of the Harbor Oaks subdivision and I am a registered voter in Southlake. I am opposed to the proposed development, The Conservation, as it is currently is presented, for the same reasons as many of my neighbor's reasons listed below and the detailed reasons outlined in the 2020 petition, submitted by Harbor Oaks, i.e.: compatibility with the existing neighborhood ecological concerns • aerobic Septic System • drainage issues public safety issues • Harbor Oaks deed restrictions violations I want to specifically address ecological concerns. This development is adjacent to the Kirkwood-Quail Creek environmental corridor and ecosystem. This corridor is one of the most sensitive ecological areas that still remain in Southlake. It includes land within Bob Jones Park as well as the corridor adjacent to the proposed land to be rezoned. It is one ecosystem, pure and simple. The City seems to be aware and to recognize this sensitivity in its planning documents but still has no environmental/ecological/wildlife management/trail management plan for any of this area including adjacent land to this proposed rezoning development. The often-stated commitment to preserving and protecting Southlake's natural heritage and ecosystems while having absolutely no plan to do so raises question as to the City's own planning documents. It is for that reason; I am opposed to the development as it is currently proposed and ask that any rezoning be tabled until such time as the City has an ecological preservation and conservation plan for the Kirkwood-Quail Creek Corridor as recognized protection for the City's natural heritage. Without that, all that the City has stated to the citizens of its long range plan is nothing more than a rhetorical wish list with little apparent https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNG12ZS1 iN2QzLTA1 N2I0ODMzN2UzZgAQAA91 L%2BTWzZ1 Bubg7aWrM... 1/2 10/20/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook commitment. Without that plan, any decisions related to this development could be detrimental to or will lack any relationship to any plan that the City might have present or future. After 20 plus years and after incrementally losing the majority of of the City's natual heritage without any semblance of a plan, it would seem an appropriate action to first include a real plan for the preservation and protection of the little remaining natural heritage we have is in order before we rezone and develop such sensitive and unique adjacent lands. As a City Council and stewards of this natural heritage, if the question arises, "What is your ecological and conservation/protection plan for the sensitive Kirkwood-Quail Creek Ecosystem Corridor?", what answer can you presently give? You have a standing invitation to walk any or all parts of this ecosystem or any of Southlake's remaining natural areas to better understand the sensitivity, what is being lost, and why a management plan is imperative. Respectfully Submitted, Ray L. Chancellor https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNGI2ZS1 iN2QzLTA1 N210ODMzN2UzZgAQAA91 L%2BTWzZ1 Bubg7aWrM... 2/2 10/20/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook The Conservation (ZA20-0049) Tue 10/20/2020 5:08 AM To: Jerod Potts <jpotts@ci.southlake.tx.us> Dear Sir, My name Jack Fredricks, along with my wife, Rose Fredricks and our family,we have lived in our property at 2960 Burney Ln for over 15 years and are registered voters in the City of Southlake.Today there is a significant request. being brought forward to the City Council,the Conservation Development,which we are opposed to. I believe all property owners have the right to develop their property,within the guidelines of any restrictions attached to the land. However, I do not believe the Housmans', or any other owner within Harbor Oaks,can arbitrarily rezone their platted lot within the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. Please note, I am not opposed to development, but to force fit this development as proposed into Harbor Oaks negatively impacting from what it is today,to something it was not intended to be, is my objection. Previous proposals were denied in 2006 and 2008 with a unanimous vote by City Council. Very little if anything has changed with the challenges of access in order to develop this land. Please continue to uphold the prior decisions to deny this almost identical proposal in 2020. The planned road will surround my existing property and home on three sides,this is not acceptable nor accepted general development practices based on professionals that I have spoken with.The road placement creates new traffic, noise and light pollution from every vehicle that travels the road, on the side and the rear of my property. I am not aware of any other existing plat in Harbor Oaks that has a road around three sides of an existing home. If approved,this development will also not create any lots with a road on three sides of such lots. Why impact an existing property and home in and adverse way? An effective,well thought out development plan would not create such an approach with significant impact. My next concern is allowing this application to pass,will start a slippery slope in our neighborhood. If this development passes breaking the Harbor Oaks deeds and restrictions,there is nothing to stop others to development or easements within existing lots. With this precedence, other property owners can request easements and build additional homes. Of course,they could be denied, but with an approval, precedence will have been set, and in my view,they will be approved.This will continue to add risk to the Harbor Oaks development and change it from what it is today, a rural equestrian development, into more of a suburban approach. After the issue with the road, compatibility of the neighborhood is a significant concern as well.The lot sizes in our neighborhood on average are over 2 acres.The proposed development is much less than this.The proposal to my knowledge does not include a planned public road, rather an easement of an existing lot to "force fit" an approach to gain access to the property. As for the surrounding area in question, I am concerned about the significant damage it will do to the natural environment and eco system.There is limited open land in Southlake that can be developed with surrounding natural trees and wildlife.As caretakers of our generation and the next,we all need to be as thoughtful as possible to protect the land and all of us that live within it while supporting development rights of land owners. We as a Southlake community should minimize impact to such eco systems with well-planned thoughtful land use,this application design does not minimize such impacts. Finally, Harbor Oaks existing lots are not fully developed, and as such as remaining lots are developed, it is assumed the original infrastructure installed (streets and water)will be at capacity.The street infrastructure into the development has one way in and one way out.The proposed development was not part of the Harbor Oaks, Carmel Bay or Huse Home place developments.This development,with its significant increase in total homes not originally planned,will add additional pressure on the water and road system in Harbor Oaks.This not only adds pressure to daily water consumption, but in case of a fire (sprinkler systems in homes) or other emergency, it creates greater risk to the neighborhood. I am not aware of any studies showing the impact of this development on top of the of Harbor Oaks, Carmel Bay and Huse Home place which seems to be a thoughtful and comprehensive review that is needed. In closing, it has been my experience in life and business that if the right foundational principles are not in place, the impact of a change can be significant.The developer has offered small concessions to try and work with our neighborhood as long as the road access and lots don't change.As I told Mr. Boyd on the first day I met him,the https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNG12ZS1iN2QzLTA1 N2100DMzN2UzZgAQAN6Cw%2FuLOEa2o6zw%2FQ... 1/2 10/20/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook issue is the road and the lots. I continue to believe those issues have not been addressed adequately. It is not the right foundation of a plan to work with! I simply cannot understand how this application of a zoning change would be approved given the previous denials in 2006 and 2008 of proposed developments and the design of this development.The approach that is being taken and the impact that it will have on our home, our neighbor's homes, and our general neighborhood are numerous. Breaking Harbor Oaks Deeds and Restrictions, cutting an easement onto an existing lot, surrounding our home with a road on three sides was never part of the Harbor Oaks development plan, nor an thoughtful, effective approach. We strongly oppose the development based on the impact that it will have on ourselves and our neighbors.The proposed development does not fit, and is not in keeping with our neighborhood. It is not compatible with Harbor Oaks which is a rural, equestrian designed neighborhood. It will have eco system impact on the natural landscape and wildlife in the surrounding area. In addition, it creates additional infrastructure risk for Harbor Oaks, Carmel Bay and Huse Home Place which could adversely impact our neighborhood in a significant way. Please support denial of this application. Thank you for your service to our great City and consideration of this matter. Please respond back acknowledging receipt of this request. Respectfully Jack& Rose Fredricks 2960 Burney Ln Southlake,TX. 76092 https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNGI2ZS1 iN2QzLTA1 N210ODMzN2UzZgAQAN6Cw%2FuLOEa2o6zw%2FQ... 2/2 10/20/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook FW: The Conservation Amy Shelley <ashelley@ci.southlake.tx.us> Tue 10/20/2020 3:01 PM To: Mayor-Int <Mayor-Int@ci southlake.tx.us>;Laura Hill Cc: Ken Baker<kbaker@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Jerod Potts <jpotts@ci.southlake.tx.us> From:Graham Johnson Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:51 PM To: Mayor<Mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 1<Place1@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 2 <Place2@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 3 <Place3@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 4<Place4@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 5 <Place5@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 6<Place6@ci.southlake.tx.us> Subject:The Conservation Dear Mayor Hill and City Councilmen, Good afternoon.This email is in regard to agenda item 7.D. on tonight's City Council Agenda regarding"The Conservation."This process has given me a brief glimpse into the complexity of the positions you hold. I greatly appreciate your service to our wonderful City of Southlake. I am certain that each of you take your role as city officially with the utmost humility and responsibility. As a homeowner within Harbor Oaks, please kindly allow me to convey my opposition to the proposed "The Conservation" housing development in and adjacent to Harbor Oaks. To be clear, I am not against private development. However, I am opposed to any development that would put my neighborhood's safety and welfare at risk. To support this position, I have added applicable provisions of Section 5.01 C of the Southlake Ordinance and the 2018 International Fire Code Appendix D for your review, along with the attached Narrative: Section 5.01, C of the Southlake Ordinance—Street and ROW Requirements- "Adequate Emergency Access: To insure adequate access to each subdivision, there should be at least two(2)planned points of ingress and egress, except that Cul-de-sacs shall be permitted in conformity with section 5.03-1. The Council may require more than two access points be considered if the configuration, number of lots, or other consideration creates the need for the additional access points." Section 5.034"Cul-de-sacs: Generally, a on a cul-de-sac street permanently designed as such. Additionally, exceed 1,000 feet or be less than 150 feet in length. However, density of development, topography, lot sizes and other significant factors will be weighed in determining the length pf the cul-de-sac street. ...." 2018 International Fire Code Appendix D, D107.1: "One or two-family dwelling residential development Developments of one or two family dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. EXCEPTIONS: 1) Where there are more than 30 dwelling units on a single public or private fire apparatus https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNGI2ZS1 iN2QzLTA1 N210ODMzN2UzZgAQAAnIoL%2BrDStLoH4YIWoYXrA... 1/2 10/20/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook access road and all dwelling units are equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2, or 903.3.1.3, access from two directions shall not be required. 2) The number of dwelling units on a single fire apparatus access road shall not be increased unless fire access roads will connect with future development, as determined by the fire code official. D 107.2 Remoteness: Where two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one-half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property area to be served, measured in a straight line between access." These provisions support the conclusion that a Traffic Impact Analysis and more thorough study into the emergency preparedness/response should be completed. Harbor Oaks has one (1) point of ingress and egress, with 79 homes.The attached Narrative more clearly explains the effect the additional development from The Conservation will have on Harbor Oaks,where your current Southlake residents reside. In addition, and on a more personal note. I manage 3 working ranches in north Texas and she is a pediatrician at Children's Medical Hospital in Dallas. My employees and I raise All Natural beef and registered Quarter Horses. We use these horses to work cattle and compete in rodeos. I'm currently able to continue the training of these young ranch raised horses because my property is safe and quiet. I'm also able to exercise these colts on the equestrian trails, accessed through the allotted entrance on the south side of Harbor Oaks.This development would bring noise and light pollution that are not conducive to this equestrian neighborhood.Therefore, I would like to request that the Developer move his street farther to the west. This would allow for greater setbacks and larger tracts that would be directly behind the existing houses in Harbor Oaks. As a side note, I have questions about the financial stability of this developer. Since first presented,Jody Boyd is now on his third corporate name(Woodbridge,Sage, Rockwater). In conclusion, I am willing and ready to explore all options available to us to protect the current safety and wellbeing of Harbor Oaks, as well as uphold our deed restrictions,which Mr. and Mrs. Houseman are violating. We are currently pooling financial resources from neighbors, and potentially environmental activists groups,to assess of the options available, including,the ability to purchase the Miles property ourselves,to in turn, convey to the City for open space/park land. Thank you for taking the time to read my email and thank you for your attention to this very important issue. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Graham Johnson 2940 Burney Lane https://outlook.offce.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNG12ZS1 iN2QzLTA1 N210ODMzN2UzZgAQAAnIoL%2BrDStLoH4YIWoYXrA... 2/2 10/18/2020 Mayor Hill,Councilmen, and Directors of Planning and Development, Hello, my name is Gloria Land. I live at 2900 Burney Lane and I am a registered voter in Southlake. I do not feel that the current proposed plan by the applicant has solved any of the previous and still existing challenges,which include: • Compatibility with our current neighborhood • Public safety with once access point serving 80+homes • Aerobic septic systems not having adequate size aeration field • Ecological impacts • Drainage issues • And impact on the boarding neighbors I am opposed to the proposed development for all the same reasons it was unanimously denied in 2006 and 2008, by you Mayor Hill and your fellow Councilmen at the time. I believe all property owners have the right to develop their property,within the guidelines of any restrictions attached to the land. However, I do not believe Mr. and Mrs. Housmans can arbitrarily rezone and remove their platted lot from the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. This proposal was denied in 2006 and 2008 with a unanimous vote by City Council. Nothing has changed with the challenges of developing this land. Please continue to uphold the prior decisions to deny this almost identical proposal in 2020. Thank you for your time and for serving our community in a volunteer elected position. I appreciate all you do for Southlake. Sincerely, Gloria Land 10/20/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook FW: [Possible Scam Fraud]Harbor Oaks Subdivision Ken Baker <kbaker@ci.southlake.tx.us> Tue 10/20/2020 9:16 AM To: Jerod Potts <jpotts@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Amy Shelley <ashelley@ci.southlake.tx.us> Kenneth M. Baker, AICP Senior Director of Planning and Development Services City of Southlake 1400 Main Street, Suite 310 817-748-8067 From: > Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 10:20 PM To: Ken Baker<kbaker@ci.southlake.tx.us> Subject: [Possible Scam Fraud]Harbor Oaks Subdivision WARNING: Your email security system has determined the message below may be a potential threat. The sender may trick victims into passing bad checks on their behalf. If you do not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, please do not respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the security settings, clickable URLs may have been modified to provide additional security. Mayor Hill, Councilmen, and Directors of Planning and Development, My name is Mills Roberts. I live at 1110 Harbor Retreat St and I am a registered voter in Southlake. I am opposed to the proposed development,The Conservation, for the reasons listed below and the detailed reasons outlined in the 2020 petition, submitted by Harbor Oaks: • compatibility with the existing neighborhood • public safety issues • ecological concerns • aerobic septic systems • drainage issues • Harbor Oaks deed restrictions violations I believe all property owners have the right to develop their,property,within the guidelines of any restrictions attached to the said land. However, I do not believe Mr. and Mrs. https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNG12ZS1 iN2QzLTA1 N210ODMzN2UzZgAQAH%2Bymk%2F6ETVPkiuhiC3s... 1/2 10/20/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook Housman can arbitrarily rezone and remove their platted lot from the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. I do not feel that the current proposed plan by the applicant has solved any of the previous and still existing challenges to the development of this land. Then Councilwoman Hill and her fellow Councilmen unanimously denied this development proposal in 2006 and 2008. Please continue to uphold the prior decision to deny this almost identical proposal in 2020, as nothing has changed. Thank you for volunteering your time and energy for the benefit of our community. I appreciate all you do for Southlake. Sincerely, • Mills Roberts, MD https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNGI2ZS1 iN2QzLTA1 N210ODMzN2UzZgAQAH%2Bymk%2F6ETVPkiuhiC3s... 2/2 10/20/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook [Possible Scam Fraud]opposition Shay Sabbatis Tue 10/20/2020 9:02 AM To: Jerod Potts <jpotts@ci.southlake.tx.us> WARNING: Your email security system has determined the message below may be a potential threat. The sender may trick victims into passing bad checks on their behalf. If you do not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, please do not respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the security settings, clickable URLs may have been modified to provide additional security. October 20,2020 Dear Mr. Potts, My name is Sharon Sabbatis. I live at 850 Harbor Court and I am a registered voter in Southlake. I am opposed to the proposed development, The Conservation, for the reasons listed below and the detailed reasons outlined in the 2020 petition,submitted by Harbor Oaks: • compatibility with the existing neighborhood • Harbor Oaks deed restriction violations • ecological concerns • aerobic septic systems • drainage issues • Public safety issues I believe all property owners have the right to develop their property,within the guidelines of any restrictions attached to the said land. However, I do not believe Mr. and Mrs. Housman can arbitrarily rezone and remove their platted lot from the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. I do not feel that the current proposed plan by the applicant has solved any of the previous and still existing challenges to the development of this land. Then Councilwoman Hill and her fellow Councilmen unanimously denied this development proposal in 2006 and 2008. Please continue to uphold the prior decision to deny this almost identical proposal in 2020, as nothing has changed. Thank you for volunteering your time and energy for the benefit of our community. I appreciate all you do for Southlake. Sincerely, Sharon Sabbatis 850 Harbor Ct, https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNG12ZS1iN2QzLTA1 N2I0ODMzN2UzZgAQAFQfs4DigEQFuCvyixM3IF8%3D 1/2 10/20/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNG12ZS1iN2QzLTA1N2I0ODMzN2UzZgAQAFQfs4DigEQFuCvyixM3IF8%3D 2/2 10/20/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook FW: Conservation development Amy Shelley <ashelley@ci.southlake.tx.us> Tue 10/20/2020 2:43 PM To: Mayor-Int<Mayor-Int@ci southlake.tx.us>; Laura Hill Cc: Ken Baker<kbaker@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Jerod Potts <jpotts@ci.southlake.tx.us> From:Terry Sauder Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 10:46 AM To: Mayor<Mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us> Subject:Conservation development Dear Mayor Hill, I am adamantly opposed to the proposed Conservation development for numerous reasons. Terry and Judy Sauder 1090 Harbor Haven St. Southlake I https://outlook.office.com/maillinbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNG12ZS 1 i N2QzLTA1 N210ODMzN2UzZgAQAC8kYVjwKvhNvQ72T9vKgZ0... 1/1 10/20/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook [Possible Scam Fraud]Opposition to "The Conservation" first reading tonight Oct 20th Hans Schroen Tue 10/20/2020 3:07 PM To: Mayor<Mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 1 <Place1@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 2 <Place2@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 3 <Place3@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 4 <Place4@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 5 <Place5@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 6 <Place6@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Ken Baker<kbaker@ci southlake.tx.us>; Dennis Killough <dkillough@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Jerod Potts <jpotts@ci.southlake.tx.us> WARNING: Your email security system has determined the message below may be a potential threat. The sender may trick victims into passing bad checks on their behalf. If you do not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, please do not respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the security settings, clickable URLs may have been modified to provide additional security. Hello, My name is Hans Schroen. I live at 2895 Burney Lane where I have resided since 2005. I'm directly on the path to this proposed development as Harbor Oaks sub-division and those behind it to the North (Carmel Bay) are accessible only from Burney Lane. So, I think it is fair to say I will be directly impacted by any "collateral damage" this new sub-divison will bring with it. I do not feel that the current proposed plan by the applicant,has solved any of the previous and still existing challenges,which include: • Compatibility with our current neighborhood • Public safety with one access point serving 80+ homes:TRAFFIC on Burney Lane • Aerobic septic systems not having adequate size aeration field • Ecological impacts • Drainage issues • And impact on the boarding neighbors I believe and understand all property owners have the right to develop their property,within the guidelines of any restrictions attached to the land. However, I do not believe Mr. and Mrs. Housmans can arbitrarily rezone and remove their platted lot from the Harbor Oaks Subdivision without violating the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. In addition,the right to develop your land does not come with the privilege to usurp the rights of your neighbor land owners.The existing owner/descendant of the Miles' property made an impassioned plea at the P&Z meeting that he has the unalienable right to develop his land, but again it does not come at the expense or my rights or those of my neighbors! It does not guarantee him the ability to carve 8 pieces of property out of his one parcel because that is the way he can maximize his sales price, at the neighborhoods' expense. I am OPPOSED to the proposed development for all the same reasons it was unanimously denied in 2006 and 2008, by you Mayor Hill and your fellow Councilmen at the time. (I also took part in the opposition to the 2006 development proposal). This proposal was denied in 2006 and 2008 with a unanimous vote by City Council. Nothing has changed with the challenges of developing this land. Please continue to uphold the prior decisions to deny this almost identical proposal in 2020. Thank you for your time and for serving our community in a volunteer elected position. Hans Schroen https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUx0DgtNGI2ZS1iN2QzLTA1N210ODMzN2UzZgAQALJyTgS1 MbBJkSeFkkC7yel%3D 1/1 10/20/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook FW: Comments on Ordinance No. 480-773 (ZA20-0049) — (7.D) - strongly oppose but cannot attend meeting Amy Shelley <ashelley@ci.southlake.tx.us> Tue 10/20/2020 11:24 AM To: Mayor-Int <Mayor-Int@ci southlake.tx.us>; Laura Hill Cc: Ken Baker<kbaker@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Jerod Potts <jpotts@ci.southlake.tx.us> From: Mary Staples Sent: Monday,October 19, 2020 8:54 PM To: Mayor and City Council<MayorandCityCouncil@ci.southlake.tx.us> Cc:Amy Shelley<ashelley@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Veronica Lomas<vlomas@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Selena Serrano <sserrano@ci.southlake.tx.us> Subject: Comments on Ordinance No. 480-773 (ZA20-0049)—(7.D) -strongly oppose but cannot attend meeting RE: OPPOSE - Ordinance No. 480-773 (ZA20-0049)—(7.D) We have lived in the Harbor Oaks neighborhood for more than 35 years and strongly oppose this zoning change and development plan. Due to COVID,we will not be participating in-person at the City Council meeting tomorrow night, but want to make certain that our point-of-view is considered. NOT COMPATIBLE Our charming, quiet, country estate neighborhood has oversized lots, the majority 2-10 acres, with no curbs, gutters, or bright streetlights. There is an abundance of wildlife. This proposed development is not at all compatible with the neighborhood. The fact is that all of the Harbor Oaks lots adjacent to the proposed development and the lot directly across from the proposed entrance are much larger, more than two-plus acres each. This development does not match our neighborhood. MANIPULATING THE RULES The Harbor Oaks is zoned SF-1A single family. The homeowner knew the rules when he purchased the property a few years ago. But now, in cahoots with the developer,they have found a loophole to circumvent the Harbor Oaks platting rules established 40 years ago, and that is wrong! By granting an easement for a private road to cut through a lot currently zoned SF-1A Single Family Resident, the property does not have to be replatted. The unintended consequences of allowing them to dodge the rules are that you will be opening the floodgates for more developers to flock to our neighborhood seeking to subdivide and replot multiple lots. We know of at least three property owners that are watching these proceedings with a special interest. Last month, one neighbor admitted that she has already have been approached by this developer to do a similar project subdividing her multi-acre lot. CONCLUSION We have lived in Harbor Oaks for over three decades. Please do not allow this developer to circumvent the zoning established decades ago and ruin our SF-1A single-family country estate neighborhood. We strongly ask that you to reject"The Conservation" development plan. https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtN GI2ZS 1 iN2QzLTA1 N210ODMzN2UzZgAQABpNbYkd%2FHtMo0641 Mr5Q6... 1/2 10/20/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook Thank you. Respectfully, Randy&Mary Staples 817-488-1094 https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LWUxODgtNGI2ZS1 iN2QzLTA1 N210ODMzN2UzZgAQABpNbYkd%2FHtMo0641Mr5Q6... 2/2 10/20/2020 Mail-Jerod Potts-Outlook Ord i pace No. 480-773 (ZA20-0049) Rod Zielke Tue 10/20/2020 12:02 PM To: Mayor<Mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 1 <Place1@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 2 <Place2@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 3 <Place3@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 4 <Place4@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Place 5 <Place5@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Place 6 <Place6@ci.southlake.tx.us> Cc: Jerod Potts <jpotts@ci.southlake.tx.us> 1 attachments(937 KB) HSW report 10-20-20.pdt Honorable Mayor and Council Members, I regret I will not be able to participate in the Council Meeting this evening. Although I wholeheartedly support the inherent rights of the subject property to develop, I am currently in opposition to the PUD currently presented. I would appreciate it if you would take the time to consider the brief narrative attached describing one of my concerns for our neighborhood before making your decision on this case. Thank you for your service and feel free to contact me for any further discussion. Rod Zielke 1090 Burney Lane Southlake,TX https://outlook.office.com/maiUnbox/id/AAQkADNhOGM4NzA5LW UxODgtNG12ZS 1 iN2QzLTA1 N2100DMzN2UzZgAQADzy8n0OgkVEg2vt%2ByTH12... I it 10/19/20 Burney Lane Development(Conservation?) HON Health,Safety,Welfare Narrative The roughly 200 acre Harbor Oaks Neighborhood/Area(HON) is served by a single point of access and water main originating at N.Carroll Ave.and Burney lane. This single point of access/water main serves approximately 79 existing lots, 10,400 liner feet of existing dead end roadway/waterline with a single existing long run dead end of 4,600 liner feet and an overall diagonal straight line distance of 1,750+/-. Proposed development would add 7 lots and a 650+/-linear foot of dead end road/waterline. Section 5.01,C of the Southlake Ordinance—Street and ROW Requirements- "Adequate Emergency Access:To insure adequate access to each subdivision,thwg should tog 02E0 two(0) planned points N'n'giortand[e'gress, except that Cul-de-sacs shall be permitted in conformity with section 5.03-I. The Council may require more than two access points be considered if the configuration, number of lots, or other consideration creates the need for the additional access points." Section 5.03-I "Cul-de-sacs: Generally,a vpdtma nu ber O( dwelling Elidg,should LIQi on a cul-de-sac street permanently designed as such. Additionally,AG f i j x eul-de sac s ould I - ceed 1, 0 i( Cr be less than 150 feet in length. However, density of development,topography, lot sizes and other significant factors will be weighed in determining the length pf the cul-de-sac street. ...." 2018 International Fire Code Appendix D, D107.1: "One or two-family dwelling residential development: Developments of one or two family dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. EXCEPTIONS: 1) Where there are more than 30 dwelling units on a single public or private fire apparatus access road and dwelling iyagaRg equipped throughou(with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1,903.3.1.2,or 903.3.1.3,access from two directions shall not be required. 2) The number of dwelling units on a single fire apparatus access road shall not be increased unless fire access roads will connect with future development,as determined by the fire code official. D107.2 Remoteness: Where two fire apparatus access roads are required,they shall be placed a' distance apart equal to not less than one-half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property area to be served, measured in a straight line between access." COMMENT:The City/Fire Marshall have currently made,the interpretation under Exception 1)that "all dwelling units are equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system..."only applies to new development in a single access/single water line area,thus as long as new development is spriklered they can be added to an area without considering the impacts of a single access/waterline and the need for a second access/water loop. In the HON instance the vast majority of the existing 70+ homes served by the single access/water are older and are not sprinklered. Although sprinklers may help protect the new development it would only serve to exacerbate an already bad situation for the existing homes already depending on one access and one waterline. This interpretation would "theoretically" allow additional development at the expense of the safety of the existing homes. Therefore we respectfully submit that this current interpretation does not make sense and be reconsidered. NOTE:Although the Fire Code addresses exceptions to two points of access with total sprinkler coverage (see above)this does not address other EMERGENCY VEHICLE response times associated with potential blockage of one point of access/water(ie Ambulance, Police,etc.) A Traffic Impact Analysis or other Emergency Vehicle Response Time evaluation study should be considered to determine the number of units that can be safely added to this existing single point of access. Fire department water availability tests only test pressure at the delivery point both static and with load and adds a safety factor. This type of limited evaluation does not model/account for or recognize the total system dynamic effects of one supply line with over 10,000 linear feet of dead end water lines and 79 existing homes plus the contribution of possible additional. Because this is not a "typical" code application,this should be studied to determine the effects of adding additional units to the system before the amount of additional units that can be safely added is determined. Harbor Oaks Service Area Point A - Single point of access starts at Carroll Ave I Burney Lane Intersection Ponit C - Intersection of Harbor Haven and Burney Lane Point D- Deadend at Thousand Oaks Court. PointAtoPo|ntC—summary Shortest Roadway - 2,420 If Total Existing Roadway - 7,020 If Total existing lots - 50 PointCtoPointD—summary Roadway to dead end - 2,173 If Total Existing Roadway - 3/423 If Total existing Lots - 29 TOTAL HARBOR OAKS AREA, Point A to Point C Roadway to dead end - 4,593 If Total Existing Roadway - 10,443 If Total existing lots - 79 Note: 1/2 of the maximum diagonal distance of service area from Point A=1/2 x 3,500 If= 1,750 If Separation required for two points of access is 1,750 If. ---- --- ------' • - ' '-*.. I - • • Ck I . . tir'ir I- ', • . „...„..,, • :.-,. ..... a IR.. 0 . .1.1:11:e elw .4 e. \-,,,,,,,, N. 40779122 LII:e \ DI 06040810 A -1) 06040845% \\.,......,..\ , . ., '',. • 06,94071806o. . 40691 \\: ''...-----.--•- 00_ _08 8 'I - LISP 06040926 ....'",.., v I tili. I E..1,-,! :t..,4.,,., ,.'-----• 41481534 _ oil7986,t_____12 0137,i92L70___ i p,I:10_11,V: I 0 ..r,,•..:63321513:1:ILI:REIII..04475783 ii i AccountiMap revision pending . 1 —...... ,t q I,* ...." 4148 569 1 ) ,..-• __....--` ,,. / t 40778886 06244319 \ / 06523811 '-,..,,, ----- -----.' J t.I 011?4886 4. 1 4 , ''..?: ---— — .--.-.; 01175254 . -1 01175165 ''''''''- t01'523"8— ,1 A .1c . i i /011Z4878 \ i`I'Op95014 , ' 1, 01175173 . . 1 - \\\ 04089278 I 01175181 01175211 01174851 I Ili .... fl -- i , 1 . \ ,..•• ,._.... ...• - _ - - - -- -'- \ 01175149 ... 01'174843 " — _ : xilI. .-.i.i ;',2:-. __, \ \ . 1 \ i ; . ,I.' I 0117 130 : : 01174967 5\ 71 itAH-1,-,Fis.m,.. J.011.1r;17,111'2112 01174835 .' . . . , .. ' -'--..„.„...., , 1.----- I " \ Oj6 6082 / -...,.. . .:y 073606 '0.070907 74,940 0 011 74 .27 ' i ! I 069055* 74932 ...:1 • 00736058 - / 4i 7372291 ------------;1 ; 01175092 \ ---k 00736023 s ,. 0117 819 , _-----!--),174'924 , ' 01175106 \ ........ it,'</..1 , 00735981 I I 1 38859 ' . ' I 0071588/44 .d T-- 06905501 06905528 01174800 ' 1 01174916 ..:'017.5041 01175068 li----....L.••,..A.- .., At L" 1 ....'" .. . 1.00735825 I 'Alla ....5% ! h •7E I I.,1.1111 L ,:l..V.(J1)1,-,11 ,, „,____.----------1 04538013\ , 01174797 . 01174789 \ . . ; • 007356631 N....."' '''''' ' .F-'i+.1 — 13.11411i I'I,VE.1 Ji.ill.:..11 1....„...- ',. / I i 06905471 \,1 01174908 . . . - --- , \_.•••:.. ..-•". '.''''''. : 06522815 1 00735655 I j I . . ' "• I — 00735531 77.1 NE,11,_,.",Ad.11k17.74MAIK,N ' _ _ .- •......._ lir, . 04851811 i \ 1 06905463 i1 06739865 865\ I7_9221 848 — 05455' \ 04851803HIDRE .:1in a 4AC1111'11 067398571 )II ... i 1I— _ .. ------ —. _ _ — . 067.3.81,17 N. I 06739997 1 '.. 069230891 02288877 , - 1 • th.qi f..,,..4.11.-17-, IA I LS r•-.71Fr4,1 N. 02288966 - • _ . : 06739989 02289059 1 7: ,' a ---- --06923070. ,----,- 1 02289040 -- 6 ' ,-,11411_.-.RE'll•-:Ft.•IA 1,, c ,." ...: ' 885 06739970 1---- " 02288974 02288 1 1. ---, 06923046 - , 3::0:1 1 I ° 73996240030] 02289008 'ort WI gle.•.y••• r •:. . , ,i I 1 1 r77C-rolloutnlake,rarlrare.County_Cotle°o6e7,Town of flower Motn,... ',•:" ::: • ii __— CIT Y OF Public Comment Form SOUTHLAKE TEXAS Your participation in a pubic meetings is va ued and citizens wishing to express their views cane ectronica y submit this Pubic Comment Form for any topic or agenda item. P ease specify where you wou d ike your comments to appear be ow and enter the required information. (***A comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m.on the meeting date and wi be provided for the record***) COVID-19 PUBLIC MEETING PROTOCOL (LiT(55"a�E� CityCourtci or PtCorr m1:'ato`lr7YetIn4S°'no a?ea COOT C:Iffi^„1 (5,ii: ruittiwo : eJ i :eva,eco023 a qv:, e cosi C : '=1 R.Citizens wishing to address the City may submit comments on any topic or agenda item e ectronica y by uti izing this Pub is Comment Form be ow. Public Meeting Date 10/8/2020 Board Meeting* P ann ng and Zon ng Comm ss on * First and Last Nacre JmGa s * Address 885 Harbor Court Rinne 8179927408 6ral ' I I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item No.* 6 (i e 1A) * C I w speak n SUPPORT of th s tern C I w speak n OPPOSITION to th s tern I do not wsh to speak,but p ease record my: OPPOSITION Signature:* 1 C" PuI�IIAc Comment Form SOUTHLAKE TEXAS Your participation in a pubic meetings is va ued and citizens wishing to express their views can e ectronica y submit this Pub ic Comment Form for any topic or agenda item. P ease specify where you wou d ike your comments to appear be ow and enter the required information. ("*A comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m.on the meeting date and wi be provided for the record***) COVID-19 PUBLIC MEETING PROTOCOL iI 09tto t5u;r Ift Crty Cot ;;i Or VI Commission MOOtiniqtnntry ECSOE= ®cam. Wit;rr£{moi-a Ra4DC21 gliG ii@E1011 kg dr,Gial 0 .[)•.1,q.Citizens wishing to address the City may submit comments on any topic oragenda item e ectronica y by uti izing this Pub ic Comment Form be ow. Public Meeting Date 10/8/2020 • Board Meeting* Pann ng and Zon ng Comm ss on * First and Last Name Dan McDowe * Address 961 THOUSAND OAKS CT Fhone 2148932348 Erna] • I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item No.* 6 (i e IA) r I w speak n SUPPORT of th s tern I w speak n OPPOSITION to th s tern r I do not wsh to speak,but p ease record my: Comments: This is an opportunity to subnit corrrrents on any topic that is not scheduled for a public hearing or an item that is not on the agenda I oppose the proposed zon ng change and deve opment p an.Th s deve opment s not compat b e wth th s un que ne ghborhood. I searched every ne ghborhood n South ake for 3 years before mov ng here.The reason I moved here s the country fee ng and atmosphere. P ease don't et t become homogen zed (300 character toil) Signature:* oars 40ace ' c"Y Of Public Comment Form SOUTHLAKE TEXAS Your participation in a pub ic meetings is va ued and citizens wishing to express their views cane ectronica y submit this Pubic Comment Form for any topic or agenda item. P ease specify where you wou d ike your comments to appear be ow and enter the required information. (***A comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m.on the meeting date and wi be provided for the record*'') COVID-19 PUBLIC MEETING PROTOCOL I'm..vfo V1 ccettf't1'3 . ififJ;�Cit}!rdov-ri Qt PcF Corr:u•f:41:1}1 tmonips GF1L CP' erSP,'� ' > Gt-r-o ,i W.ErrJC,L41 .Citizens wishing to address the City may submit comments on any topic or agenda item e ectronica y by uti izing this Pub ic Comment Form be ow. Public Meeting Date 10/20/2020 Board Meeting* P ann ng and Zon ng Comm ss on * First and Last t brre Dane R McDowe * Address 961 THOUSAND OAKS CT Fhone 2148932348 En-el I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item No. * 7D (le 1A) * C I w speak n SUPPORT of th s tern C I w speak n OPPOSITION to th s tern I do not wsh to speak,but p ease record my: OPPOSITION Signature:* j 08/1u6,Raic'0enel2 • Citizens of Southlake Cannel Bay Harbor Oaks Huse Homeptace September 29, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commissioners City of Southlake 1400 Main Street Suite 3.10 Southlake, TX 76092 Commissioners: Please let us take this opportunity to express four points regarding the proposed Sage Group development, "The Conservation,"targeting the issues of compatibility with our rural neighborhood, wildlife conservation, public safety,and drainage. As citizens of this neighborhood,we oppose the proposed development for the following masons. First, a simple drive through the existing community would clearly reveal our rural, equestrian neighborhood with 2 acre lots and open nature,This is very different from many areas of Southlake. Southlake 2035, Objective 1.3"encouragefsJ appropriattely-scaled neighborhood design that compliments existing development patterns while creating unique places,recognizing that quality residential neighborhoods are the cornerstone of our community."The proposed 'The Conservation"plan of 1.16-1.8 acre lots clustered around a narrow boulevard is not consistent with this community.Lots directly adjacent to the development are over 2 acres in size and some much larger in the Harbor Oaks subdivision. Lot width of adjacent lots are a minimum of 215 ft compared to narrow lots of 130ft of the development. Unlike the current lots of Harbor Oaks, the proposed lots include the private road in determination of lot size and thereby the proposed lots are even smaller than stated. A 40ft private road/easement with curb and gutter pavement does not match the 60ft ROW currently present in Harbor Oaks.We also question the developer's plan to place an entrance road with a lighted entry monument in a platted lot within Harbor Oaks subdivision (Lot 10). The proposed roadway will generate about 80 vehicle trips per day with headlights and traffic drastically affecting previously isolated adjacent lots.Streetlights, sidewalks, entry signs and curb and gutter roads are all features not consistent with Harbor Oaks. The developer states "The Conservation"is compatible with the City of Southlake; however, its lack of compatibility to this neighborhood is obvious, especially the adjacent lots. Second,the proposed development plat,a 100+year old undisturbed wooded acreage,constitutes a major land piece in the"Southlake Cove"ecosystem and also serves as the major wildlife corridor on the eastern side of the"Cove" Critical to this property is its adjacency to the Corps property that forms part of the most dynamic and important natural habitat epicenter of the Southlake stewardship—as part of the Kirkwood-Quail creek corridor.This area offers ample native food supply, sufficient habitat acreage, a dynamic and balanced food chain,and ample denning capabilities.Southlake 2035 Objective 1.4 asks that developers"emphasize creativity and ensure environmental stewardship in the design of all development and public infrastructure, maximizing the preservation of desirable natural features such as trees, topography, streams, wildlife corridors and habitat_" Development of this property without critical overview will alter this natural ecosystem forever. If efforts are not made to minimize development of this property as much as possible,the result will be the total elimination of a vital part of the remaining natural ecosystem that currently exists. Third,Harbor Oaks is unusual in that there is one single point of access for travel and utilities that serves the existing 70-80 homes. There is no alternative emergency vehicle service access route if this point of access is blocked, alternative water service if the one water line or gas line serving the location is impaired. Adding additional houses to this already strained design is dangerous to the safety of the current and future residents. Fourth,the density of the current°The Conservation" proposal generates another issue,the implementation of sewage treatment systems.We have several owners of aerobic systems in the area and can offer the following experience. A 4,500 square foot house requires an aeration field of approximately 1%of an acre. Et is hard for us to understand how a pad for a 5,000 to 7,000 square foot house, a swimming pool, and some yard is going to leave space for an appropriate aeration field. Aerobic sewage treatment system failures should also be a cause of concern_ Experts in this area will tell you that°surge demand"can cause system failures. "Surge demand"can be caused by something as normal as a house full of Christmas guests, Further, any deterioration of the bacteria count inside the treatment tanks can cause massive system failure. Bacteria deterioration can be caused by something as simple as the accidental disposal of a household cleaner down the sink, an act that would,seem'normal" in a home connected to the City sewer system,or even a more forgiving traditional septic system with an underground drainage field. Finally, it is apparent that several of the current lots will be spraying effluent in the flood plain.In the event of system failures,the possibility of pollution to the Lake Grapevine drainage certainly exists. From experience,we can tell,you that the solution for any failure is to have the treatment tanks pumped out.This can take two or three days to schedule.All the while the system continues to aerate partially treated water and the property smells like raw sewage. In conclusion, as a neighborhood we are in opposition of the proposed development in its current state. The reasons for opposition are abundant amongst the neighbors;however,for the sake of brevity, allow this letter to summarize the issues of utmost concern. Respectfully, The Citizens of Carmel Bay, Harbor Oaks and Huse Homeplace Signature: RC-6-1\70 ,_Name: Address: Date: Harbor Oaks (HO), Carmel Bay (CB), & Huse Homeplace (HI-I) Sage Group Development Petition Sub Name Address j Signature o' HO Chadd,Jewel&Kristy 1029 I3urney Lane HO Cox,Mark&Carol 1039 Burney Lane ..,e,..z.......4::::) COnDe,- l'' HO 1-1111,Sam&Barbara 1085 Burney Lane HO Zielke,Rod&Marge 1090 Burney Lane / <� ! 4 if LT/• HO Sanders,Fred&Tracy 1095 Burney Lane HO Stanyer,Joseph&Natalie 1100 Burney Lane See- 1 eG N HO Lonergan,Scott&Michelle 2875 Burney Lane HO Newby,Martin&Amy 2885 Burney Lane di '' ° t A'-. .A 110 Schroer, % 2895 Burney Lane ir'�e�l� �j�+ �: � {► HO Land,Ken&Gloria 2900 Burney Lane .. 0 HO Wood,Martha 2900 Burney Lane JJ .-1'\_6T/L_:& HO Mortrad,John&Barbara 2905 Burney Lane ,( );,,...A,.Yli I-1O 1-lakert,Amy 2910 Burney Lane / t 1.10 Wambsganss,Andy&Leigh 2915 Burney Lune Wambsganss,Becky HO Stewart,John&Lynda 2920 Burney Lane 1 ��``� et(��itYC)Y11C s4 , OCINLIrei HO Peterson,Matt&Bethany 2925 Burney Lane A 1 • ' n rem 0 HO Wilson,Bea 2930 I3urney Lane HO Johnson;Graham&Kay 2940 Burney Lane a 8'1111111L' • 1-IO Winn,Darin&Michell ' 2950 Burney Lane / % �l rfi� �� A HO King,Ellyn 2950 Burney Lane tea . ,..ir.r. HO Fredricks,Jack&Rose 2960 Burney Lane - mit .Wi ! I ll. �sy .--. 2 1.10 Van Sant,Mary 2965 Burney Lane i "` rQ HO Housmans,Errol&Leslie 2970 Burney Lane HO Brown,Shawn&Molly 2980 Birney Lane ' 'i ` ' r C/41;:k713—? HO George,Tinki 2980 Burney Lane b-' HO Galanti,Livio&Paula 3000 Burney Lane - � ` 21-"z~ ) .- - HO Del Valle,Thomas&Patricia 3010 Burney Lane HO 13raytor,Joe&Patti 3020 Burney Lane elf--- --1:Z., /•/'Sage Group Development 2020 petition names listdocx t 9/27/20 10:25:00 AM Sub Name Address Signature I-10 Patterson,Dean&Tina 3520 Burney Lane HO 'McIntire,Leon 3530 Burney Lane • 41 :- i4 1A. HO Miller,Eric&Alice 3540 Burney Lane etec& oy c SIC3A66\k-re--1 HO Van Til,John&Melissa 3550 Burney Lane Or HO Hartman,Jay(owner) 3560 Burney Lane HO Ault,Gloria 3570 Burney Lane 80,4jett-e.t..) 1-IO 1 Curtis,Steve&Cathy � 3580 Burney Lane 7'-47'-';-- 1- jPtti_ et '4., ---. - 1-III [ HCTma Greg&Wendy 0855 Ilarbor Court 1*1 Sabbatis,Mike&Shay 0850 Harbor Court — 1111 Bartholornac,Shawn& 086011arborCourt Angela HH Cunningham,,Andy&Ashley 0865 Harbor Court I-iH Smith,Jeff&Susan 0870 Harbor Court HI-I Adams,Bill&Valerie 0880 Harbor court y e to HO Littlefield,Hayden&Tina 0875 Harbor Court HO Galls,Jim&Jamie 0885 Harbor Court Web,-` *de 1Aiif norHO Chancellor,Ray&Dinah 0890 Harbor Court Eft WOW/ ,/31 sir__ 'r 1'- HO Cook,Bill&Jimmie Nell 0895 Harbor Court ' 7. , ,, - HO Warren,Mike&Lynn 0900 Harbor Court /r illi?>/:/e.r.„------ HO Farhat,Judge Mike 1060 Harbor Haven r Ar } c tr HO Auyang,Barbara&Soto, 1065 Harbor Haven / .114/..9e1A-e- ; Arturo AIP HO Chitwood,Steve&Jam 1070 Harbor Haven le- ieCtr0 At St 4 ikikike- , 1� HO Hultin,Al&Cilia ; 1075 Harbor Haven HO Staples,Randy&Mary i 1080 Harbor Haven -- � HO Bauder,Terry&Judy 1090 Harbor Haven 1-10 Mosseri,Morris&Ally 1095 Harbor Maven '- 111,P-111111, II, , r -- ---- i- 110 Ronda,Vicki 1100 Harbor Haven . HO Chao,Mia ty'ufr S00 1105 Harbor Haven a lee frb yt acs Si Gw np ,{ ' 1-I0 Smith,Adam&Rebecca 1110 Harbor Haven �. P-4.' J 110 Walsh,Dennis&Janet 1115 Harbor Haven _... 41:5 //f./;/4;1(_ k,.6. �J Gyp_ Y Sage Group Dov lop eat 2 woman names list docx r U� 2 #. , ,dam 9/27t20 10:25:00 AM Sub Name Address f Signature J HO Hakemy,Sahreena 1120 Harbor Haven 1 -.11 . 111011 HO Hakemy,Shair&Nina 1120 Harbor I laver HO Capps Jr.,Buddy&Debi 2890 Harbor Refuge / it NO Boyd.Adrian&Lisa 2900 Harbor Refuge HO Ali,Barkat 2905 Harbor Refug:, now at: Undeveloped lot 615 Clariden Ranch Rd HO Burchett,Larry&Cyndi 2910 Harbor Refuge I•IQ Leedy,Brett&Heidi 2920 Harbor Refuge HO Mitchell,Mike&Kathy 2925 Harbor Refuge 4 HO Peterson,Jerry&Carly 1064 Harbor Retreat Et::- t:LL=c -cr- ti me -S:T- -tAA7 7� HO Kolb,Mice&Jennifer 1095 1 iarbor Retreat it4r1) `1s-- f.,� 1100 Harbor Retreat [ F� i . l-4 MI 1 Lee--1.1N1 l c HO Harryman,Scott&Laura 1105 Harbor Retreat HO Roberts,Mills&Starr 1110 Harbor Retreat Otee%-hPq • HO Claxton,Mark&Leslie 1115'1!arbor Retreat 4 / CB Eastwood,Bill&KoIlis 3530 Cannel Cowl �r CB antrum,Jay(reidence) 3540 Cannel Court �• S �� S' i�l'� soja 1J ' Paul,Miry Beth(Jays sister) CB Snook,Jon&Anette 3545 Carmel Court e Il ect o. Q -veJ CB Cope,Michael&Suzi 3550 Carmel Court CB Antltnes,Humberto&Erika 3560 Carmel Court y ee.-C+/(01,t l� G 1 A-{ re-- ' GB Bunch,Carl&Kelsey 3570 Cannel Court C� CBT : McDowell,Dan&Kathy 0961 Thousand Oaks Ct. 7/6 - /J,� CB Friedman,Richard 1020 Thousand Oaks Ct- now at: Unde1veloped.lnt 330 Slate Rock Rd Ennis,TX 75119 CB Knudson,Greg&Deborah 1040 Thousand Oaks Ct. 1. 08/20 Van Til,Bob&Bonnie 1060 Thousand.Oaks CL M' 4.1Sage Group Development 2020 petition names lest,docx 3 9/2720 10:25:00 A '.Number Description 79 Lots in Harbor Oaks,Huse Homeplace,Cannel Bay 2 Undeveloped lots 77 Number of possible household signatures to collect '59 Number of household signatures collected 77% .Percentage of households in OPPOSITION **signatures from the same household were only counted as ONE signature Citizens of Southlake Carmel Bay Harbor Oaks Huse Homeplace September 29,2020 Planning and Zoning Commissioners City of Southlake 1400 Main Street Suite 310 Southlake,TX 76092 Commissioners: Please let us take this opportunity to express four points regarding the proposed Sage Group development, The Conservation,"targeting the issues of compatibility with our rural neighborhood, wildlife conservation, public safety, and drainage. As citizens of this neighborhood,we oppose the proposed development for the following reasons. First,a simple drive through the existing community would dearly reveal our rural, equestrian neighborhood with 2 acre lots and open nature.This is very different from many areas of Southlake_ Southlake 2035, Objective 1.3"encourage[s]appropriately-scaled neighborhood design that compliments existing development patterns while creating unique places, recognizing that quality residential neighborhoods are the cornerstone of our community."The proposed"The Conservation" plan of 1.1E-1.8 acre lots clustered around a narrow boulevard is not consistent with this community_ Lots directly adjacent to the development are over 2 acres in size and some much larger in the Harbor Oaks subdivision. Lot width of adjacent lots are a minimum of 215 ft compared to narrow lots of 130ft of the development. Unlike the current lots of Harbor Oaks, the proposed lots include the private road in determination of lot size and thereby the proposed lots are even smaller than stated. A 40ft private road/easement with curb and gutter pavement does not match the 60ft ROW currently present in Harbor Oaks_We also question the developer's plan to place an entrance road with a lighted entry monument in a platted lot within Harbor Oaks subdivision (Lot 10). The proposed roadway will generate about 80 vehicle trips per day with headlights and traffic drastically affecting previously isolated adjacent lots. Streetlights, sidewalks, entry signs and curb and gutter roads are all features not consistent with Harbor Oaks.The developer states'The Conservation"is compatible with the City of Southlake; however, its lack of compatibility to this neighborhood is obvious, especially the adjacent lots. Second, the proposed development plat, a 100+ year old undisturbed wooded acreage,constitutes a major land piece in the"Southlake Cove" ecosystem and also serves as the major wildlife corridor on the eastern side of the"Cove." Critical to this property is its adjacency to the Corps property that forms part of the most dynamic and important natural habitat epicenter of the Southlake stewardship—as part of the Kirkwood-Quail creek corridor:This area offers ample native food supply,sufficient habitat acreage,a dynamic and balanced food chain,and ample denning capabilities. Southlake 2035 Objective 1.4 asks that developers"emphasize creativity and ensure environmental stewardship in the design of all development and public infrastructure,maximizing the preservation of desirable natural features such as trees, topography, streams, wildlife corridors and habitat." Development of this property without critical overview will alter this natural ecosystem forever. if efforts are not made to minimize development of this property as much as possible,the result will be the total elimination of a vital part of the remaining natural ecosystem that currently exists. Third, Harbor Oaks is unusual in that there is one single point of access for travel and utilities that serves the existing 70-80 homes. There is no alternative emergency vehicle service access route if this point of access is blocked,alternative water service if the one water line or gas line serving the location is impaired. Adding additional houses to this already strained design is dangerous to the safety of the current and future residents. Fourth,the density of the current"The Conservation" proposal generates another issue, the implementation of sewage treatment systems. We have several owners of aerobic systems in the area and can offer the following experience.A 4,500 square foot house requires an aeration field of approximately Y.of an acre. It is hard for us to understand how a pad for a 5,000 to 7,000 square foot house, a swimming pool, and some yard is going to leave space for an appropriate aeration field. Aerobic sewage treatment system failures should also be a cause of concern. Experts in this area will tell you that"surge demand"can cause system failures."Surge demand"can be caused by something as normal as a house full of Christmas guests. Further, any deterioration of the bacteria count inside the treatment tanks can cause massive system failure. Bacteria deterioration can be caused by something;as simple as the accidental disposal of a household cleaner down the sink,an act that would seem"normal"in a home connected to the City sewer system, or even a more forgiving traditional septic system with an underground drainage field. Finally, it is apparent that several of the current lots will be spraying effluent in the flood plain. in the event of system failures,the possibility of pollution to the Lake Grapevine drainage certainly.exists. From experience,we can tell you that the solution for any failure is to have the treatment tanks pumped out.This can take two or three days to schedule.All the while the system continues to aerate partially treated water and the property smells like raw sewage. In conclusion, as a neighborhood we are in opposition of the proposed development in its current state. The reasons for opposition are abundant amongst the neighbors;however,for the sake of brevity,allow this letter to summarize the issues of utmost concern. Respectfully, The Citizens of Carmel Bay, Harbor Oaks and Huse Homeplace Signature: 9-7C1"—e----Th • Name: 1\\5 Address: ) 1 t t> k I ( Date: j C3 �." .2=t) • N $ s • 1 3 78 /J 1 ii q cs- : . . 1g UPI it' .. , ii $ !IP ii q g Y, i i a� Eel vs $ V .g pis 5 ..X.-G, $1„ p V- . . , . . . , ,. `'- . a y 11 ]i/ q� itiijif I ,. 1 'a hi ll li UI 4o A ,�.' •. -, , flu h555 ii .1111! 5 .' Fc I'44 El' 3 .n I : : ':iuflMJflhuIIiuuI4 i A . - 1 - - . : access is blocked,alternative water service if the one water line or gas line serving the location is impaired. Adding additional houses to this already strained design is dangerous to the safety of the current and future residents. • Fourth,the density of the current'The Conservation"proposal generates another issue,the implementation of sewage treatment systems.We have several owners of aerobic systems in the area and can offer the following experience.A 4,500 square foot house requires an aeration field of approximately 1/of an acre. It is hard for us to understand how a pad for a 5,000 to 7,000 square foot • house, a swimming pool,and some yard is going to leave space for an appropriate aeration field. Aerobic sewage treatment system failures should also be a cause of concern. Experts in this area will tell you that"surge demand"can cause system failures.°Surge demand"can be caused by something as normal as a house full of Christmas guests. Further,any deterioration of the bacteria count inside the treatment tanks can cause massive system failure_Bacteria deterioration can be caused by something as simple as the accidental disposal of a household cleaner down the sink, an act that would seem"normal"in a home connected to the City sewer system,or even a more forgiving traditional septic system with an underground drainage field. Finally, it is apparent that several of the current lots will be spraying effluent in the flood plain. In the event of system failures,the possibility of pollution to the Lake Grapevine drainage certainly exists. From experience, we can tell you that the solution for any failure is to have the treatment tanks pumped out.This can take two or three days to schedule.All the while the system continues to aerate partially treated water and the property smells like raw sewage. In conclusion,as a neighborhood we are in opposition of the proposed development in its current state. The reasons for opposition are abundant amongst the neighbors;however,for the sake of brevity,allow this letter to summarize the issues of utmost concern. Respectfully, The Citizens of Carmel Bay,Harbor Oaks and Huse Homeplace Signature: ( .1L i Name: i\VA-A{ b6 LS)--8( - y ki Address: I (0 0 BIA it / L€tvie, Wnitk- 1 I/X 1( o -2 Date: 10 f l0 1 DID access is blocked, alternative water service if the one water line or gas line serving the location is impaired_ Adding additional houses to this already strained design is dangerous to the safety of the current and future residents_ Fourth,the density of the current"The Conservation" proposal generates another issue,the implementation of sewage treatment systems.We have several owners of aerobic systems in the area and can offer the following experience.A 4,500 square foot house requires an aeration field of approximately%of an acre, It is hard for us to understand how a pad for a 5,000 to 7,000 square foot house,a swimming pool, and some yard is going to leave space for an appropriate aeration field. Aerobic sewage treatment system failures should also be a cause of concern. Experts in this area will tell you that"surge demand" can cause system failures. "Surge demand"can be caused by something as normal as a house full of Christmas guests. Further, any deterioration of the bacteria count inside the treatment tanks can cause massive system failure. Bacteria deterioration can be caused by something as simple as the accidental disposal of a household cleaner down the sink, an act that would seem"normal'in a home connected to the City sewer system, or even a more forgiving traditional septic system with an underground drainage field_ Finally, it is apparent that several of the current lots will be spraying effluent in the flood plain_ In the event of system failures,the possibility of pollution to the Lake Grapevine drainage certainly exists. From experience,we can tell you that the solution for any failure is to have the treatment tanks pumped out.This can take two or three days to schedule. All the while the system continues to aerate partially treated water and the property smells like raw sewage. In conclusion, as a neighborhood we are in opposition of the proposed development in its current state_ The reasons for opposition are abundant amongst the neighbors;however,for the sake of brevity, allow this letter to summarize the issues of utmost concern. Respectfully, The Citizens of Carmel Bay, Harbor Oaks and Huse Homeplace Signatures,__ Name: i o cjrety S ( &Y Address: } 10 0 ?)_LA n(V t► j 1 lOkke_1 h 16 09 2_ Date: ID` 010 /1,02)) OneDrive Sign In 1 ••• 1 of 1 X 0 I cram Maw Mu matey ca callean bre Labs C444,44 dolmas C••••••,•••11k Fro-T.••••••nom..•csn px.toli es,•*lein bar.4 la amaall4••••••••Mix L••••••t Ivo re Mr dojo••IbteloW id be%Flop,.wpm toce.o0 e•wale*MOW 01•1•0 weect tr4 casotty mob am aw*wawa en=damn' .mt•rab$6211,x1.••••• cracaam 10 P.0.4" Thitnmas kr•*maim•••.atnerima mecov•;No not,tenr laita man desenly.cepa 0••14W Co muneuriao ta loam al dual erscom. Rworray. Tl P Mae Iiir",x Oda Ftmo Isansplow Stream a f•tum C [k peesma; ISO rnecA . - DX=lin tirckad.altinet,0•=•wrricik CV,crn vd:ar Eno or G8314 drag/to Irceal abeam&Mery arM..ml Nam*ki racry IroMddC-Ar El:SnCI-0.4V caber 01 00 areal ce3 tare rudest% boa=On iledly Oro rural"Ta*Casreardari dopact0inararla aloft.ha..ro at gaudy*471--.,—dm , Nr.•••••63.1 omen ol reed*orstsrs aro sa•• ena rWi d5Fr fro 10104na aspakinco.A 4.5%. 1131C maraud ark 001354143 LIii no WC :03810134 tab aca....8‘1634.tod•7 algo 10 TJXO'two red thida.•4,...,01[MI.afd 111 ON la..•[paw/Of el eg•ncetitt••••2511.We. 44380 0449•14•3•4*arum dews/bail 140 to•coal 01 ammo.goer4 its arta•31 481881-4142 aarane GM Caw fto. Tarp°mad an Ca masa by acrcalcec am s hams had errlerieS rp.•Irs. hers.wry det.ia r.A..J al DI Isalaea MAI WM.84=icon cocka4d8 can.n434.ayazd ham liacbsia aemcarcan con tat 00344 1.0313043030al• Ca..11,34clirareare nsulerckl new no sr{en 04CIICnual won Weed In hems•C•'...•Aqd tre Cty;war Fyarn.cc aeon•cacoltaG•441 Mama tapcc pram v87541 trallierreel allecca nreay.id•4444-1141 canted 014 viral 130•111•110:17pfly'Mars h &no phi".in r.nrarn gcorn tdiatic posaingly pea.eat I*CA Lake Grapinirm cronve cennYty casa. Fcry arber1444 ral am ti yal ClICLb3u•elca Ice WM 61844 ec ram Gs&aware tank+re8-443 Fes OM ad.!op.Yew darn lo setod.1.,MCU CUVCU1ZJVCISU 04501 prroPy Dudtol watt end Paa•tf h egrearim,Es•roketcerced cro IVVCUI ICCI.prcpczad clinioner•In!stared co• Tho room de copc CI.444=8 wronGatt• torpor.inr rts..64 tnwei,dfra. ▪ 4•417 macrn•ras Om Wars 01 sadnari caw. Sh•CA•mrsolCirm••Pay,Haw 0•14 ▪ CI MO='75.i4 -y Cada -31:2 -78-5-=r2 `\,/ 2 of 3 R (o) p • htips:11onedrive.iive,comflauIhkey=1421AFYaWiyAqijoE00&cid....FF7223B%2114268.parlde9593B77CFF72238%211428.o.Oneup 1013120,1:21 PM Page 1 of 1 1 access is blocked, alternative water service if the one water line or gas line serving the location is impaired. Adding additional houses to this already strained design is dangerous to the safety of the current and future residents. Fourth, the density of the current"The Conservation° proposal generates another issue, the implementation of sewage treatment systems. We have several owners of aerobic systems in the area and can offer the following experience.A 4,500 square foot house requires an aeration field of approximately In of an acre. It is hard for us to understand how a pad for a 5,000 to 7,000 square foot house, a swimming pool, and some yard is going to leave space for an appropriate aeration field. Aerobic sewage treatment system failures should also be a cause of concern. Experts in this area will tell you that"surge demand" can cause system failures. "Surge demand" can be caused by something as normal as a house full of Christmas guests. Further, any deterioration of the bacteria count inside the treatment tanks can cause massive system failure. Bacteria deterioration can be caused by something as simple as the accidental disposal of a household cleaner down the sink, an act that would seem "normal" in a home connected to the City sewer system, or even a more forgiving traditional septic system with an underground drainage field. Finally, it is apparent that several of the current lots will be spraying effluent in the flood plain. In the event of system failures, the possibility of pollution to the Lake Grapevine drainage certainly exists. From experience, we can tell you that the solution for any failure is to have the treatment tanks pumped out. This can take two or three days to schedule.All the while the system continues to aerate partially treated water and the property smells like raw sewage. In conclusion, as a neighborhood we are in opposition of the proposed development in its current state. The reasons for opposition are abundant amongst the neighbors; however, for the sake of brevity, allow this letter to summarize the issues of utmost concern. Respectfully, The Citizens of Carmel Bay, Harbor Oaks and Huse Homeplace Signature: j/4/7 Name: 5HeetlA 1 IC ft CL 50 r /5 c Address: "FSb f M tte t t .� access is blocked, alternative water service if the one water line or gas line serving the location is impaired. Adding additional houses to this already strained design is dangerous to the safety of the current and future residents. Fourth,the density of the current"The Conservation' proposal generates another issue,the implementation of sewage treatment systems_We have several owners of aerobic systems in the area and can offer the following experience. A 4,500 square foot house requires an aeration field of approximately V4 of an acre. It is hard for us to understand how a pad tar a 5.000 to 7,000 square foot house. a swimming pool, and some yard is going to leave space for an appropriate aeration field. Aerobic sewage treatment system failures should also be a cause of concern. Experts in this area will tell you that"surge demand"can cause system failures. 'Surge demand"can be caused by something as normal as a house full of Christmas guests. Further, any deterioration of the bacteria count inside the treatment tanks can cause massive system failure. Bacteria deterioration can be caused by something as simple as the accidental disposal of a household cleaner down the sink,an act that would seem"normal"in a home connected to the City sewer system, or even a more forgiving traditional septic system with an underground drainage field. Finally, it is apparent that several of the current lots will be spraying effluent in the flood plain. In the event of system failures, the possibility of pollution to the Lake Grapevine drainage certainly exists. From experience, we can tell you that the solution for any failure is to have the treatment tanks pumped out.This can take two or three days to schedule.All the while the system continues to aerate partially treated water and the property smells like raw sewage. In conclusion,as a neighborhood we are in opposition of the proposed development in its current state. The reasons for opposition are abundant amongst the neighbors;however,for the sake of brevity, allow this fetter to summarize the issues of utmost concern. Respectfully, The Citizens of Carmel Bay. Harbor Oaks and Huse Homeplace 1' A r+� Signature: >• Name: civ ls- f� S Address: P-25 5 CA2t--1 Cc--}uJU dc` 1u 1,41/-WC 7 6,0 Date: 2"N S . 2c ) ) access is blocked, alternative water service if the one water line or gas line serving the location is impaired. Adding additional houses to this already strained design is dangerous to the safety of the current and future residents. Fourth,the density of the current'The Conservation"proposal generates another issue,the implementation of sewage treatment systems_We have several owners of aerobic systems in the area and can offer the following experience.A 4,500 square foot house requires an aeration field of approximately'/.of an acre. It is hard for us to understand how a pad for a 5,000 to 7,000 square foot house, a swimming pool, and some yard is going to leave space for an appropriate aeration field. Aerobic sewage treatment system failures should also be a cause of concern.Experts in this area will tell you that'surge demand°can cause system failures.'Surge demand'can be caused by something as normal as a house full of Christmas guests. Further,any deterioration of the bacteria count Inside the treatment tanks can cause massive system failure.Bacteria deterioration can be caused by something as simple as the accidental disposal of a household cleaner down the sink,an act that would seem"normal"in a home connected to the City sewer system,or even a more forgiving traditional septic system with an underground drainage field. Finally,it is apparent that several of the current lots will be spraying effluent in the flood plain.In the event of system failures,the possibility of pollution to the Lake Grapevine drainage certainly exists. From experience,we can tell you that the solution for any failure is to have the treatment tanks pumped out.This can take two or three days to schedule.All the while the system continues to aerate partially treated water and the property smells like raw sewage. In conclusion,as a neighborhood we are in opposition of the proposed development in its current state. The reasons for opposition are abundant amongst the neighbors;however,for the sake of brevity,allow this letter to summarize the issues of utmost concern. Respectfully, The Citizens of C-' el Bay. arbor Oaks and Huse Homeplace 40110 Signature: ./If �. Name: 2/7 41/"..0~s Q4i97).7 Address: ofD //-4/-10/- G A F Date: 0 access is blocked,alternative water service if the one water line or gas line serving the location is impaired. Adding additional houses to this already strained design is dangerous to the safety of the current and future residents. Fourth,the density of the current The Conservation`proposal generates another issue,the implementation of sewage treatment systems.We have several owners of aerobic systems in the area and can offer the following experience.A 4,500 square foot house requires an aeration field of approximately'1A of an acre.It is hard for us to understand how a pad for a 5,000 to 7,000 square foot house,a swimming pool,and some yard is going to leave space for an appropriate aeration field. Aerobic sewage treatment system failures should also be a cause of concern.Experts in this area will tell you that'surge demand"can cause system failures.'Surge demand'can be caused by something as normal as a house full of Christmas guests. Further,any deterioration of the bacteria count inside the treatment tanks can cause massive system failure. Bacteria deterioration can be caused by something as simple as the accidental disposal of a household cleaner down the sink,an act that would seem"normal"in a home connected to the City sewer system,oreven a more forgiving traditional septic system with an underground drainage field. Finally,it is apparent that several of the current lots will be spraying effluent in the flood plain. In the event of system failures,the possibility of pollution to the Lake Grapevine drainage certainly exists_ From experience,we can tell you that the solution for arty failure is to have the treatment tanks pumped out.This can take two or three days to schedule.All the while the system continues to aerate partially treated water and the property smells like raw sewage. In conclusion,as a neighborhood we are in opposition of the proposed development in its current state. The reasons-for opposition are abundant amongst the neighbors;however,for the sake of brevity,allow this letter to summarize the issues of utmost concern.. Respectfully, The Citizens of Carmel Bay,Harbor Oaks and Huse Homeplace Signature: Name: k) k).A 0_1-1` Lk 0 0 Address: D 7 O Q r 1 AQC-5. f " • Date: 92u • access is blocked,alternative water service if the one water line or gas line serving the location is impaired. Adding additional houses to this already strained design is dangerous to the safety of the current and future residents. Fourth,the density of the current"The Conservation"proposal generates another issue,the implementation of sewage treatment systems. We have several owners of aerobic systems in the area and can offer the following experience. A 4,500 square foot house requires an aeration field of approximately 1/4 of an acre. It is hard for us to understand how a pad for a 5,000 to 7,000 square foot house.a swimming pool,and some yard is going to leave space for an appropriate aeration Feld. Aerobic sewage treatment system failures should also be a cause of concern. Experts in this area will tell you that"surge demand"can cause system failures."Surge demand"can be caused by something as normal as a house full of Christmas guests. Further,any deterioration of the bacteria count inside the treatment tanks can cause massive system failure. Bacteria deterioration can be caused by something as simple as the accidental disposal of a household cleaner down the sink,an act that would seem"normal"in a home connected to the City sewer system,or even a more forgiving traditional septic system with an underground drainage field. Finally,it is apparent that several of the current lots will be spraying effluent in the flood plain. In the event of system failures, the possibility of pollution to the Lake Grapevine drainage certainly exists_ From experience,we can tell you that the solution for any.failure is to have the treatment tanks pumped out.This can take two or three days to schedule.All the while the system continues to aerate partially treated water and the property smells like raw sewage. In conclusion,as a neighborhood we are in opposition of the proposed development in its current state. The reasons for opposition are abundant amongst the neighbors;however, for the sake of brevity,allow this letter to summarize the issues of utmost concern. Respectfully, The Citizens of Carmel Bay. Harbor Oaks and Huse Homeplace f 4, /(//: Signature: i '1 (/ Name: 61—"G- L C f/ 000 Address: t Or(0 11`(A.I(7 011 G (Ii i) Date: a. LV • access is blacked, alternative water service if the one water line or gas line serving the location is impaired. Adding additional houses to this already strained design is dangerous to the safety of the current and future residents. Fourth,the density of the current"The Conservation" proposal generates another issue,the implementation of sewage treatment systems.We have several owners of aerobic systems in the area and can offer the following experience.A 4,500 square foot house requires an aeration field of approximately Y of an acre.It is hard for us to understand how a pad for a 5,000 to 7,000 square foot house, a swimming pool, and some yard is going to leave space for an appropriate aeration field. Aerobic sewage treatment system failures should also be a cause of concern. Experts in this area will tell you that"surge demand"can cause system failures."Surge demand"can be caused by something as normal as a house full of Christmas guests. Further,any deterioration of the bacteria count inside the treatment tanks can cause massive system failure. Bacteria deterioration can be caused by something as simple as the accidental disposal of a household cleaner down the sink,an act that would seem"normal"in a home connected to the City sewer system, or even a more forgiving traditional septic system with an underground drainage field. Finally,it is apparent that several of the current lots will be spraying effluent in the flood plain.In the event of system failures,the possibility of pollution to the Lake Grapevine drainage certainly exists. From experience,we can tell you that the solution for any,failure is to have the treatment tanks pumped out.This can take two or three days to schedule.All the while the system continues to aerate partially treated water and the property smells like raw sewage. in conclusion,as a neighborhood we are in opposition of the proposed development in its current state. The reasons for opposition are abundant amongst the neighbors; however,for the sake of brevity,allow this letter to summarize the issues of utmost concern. Respectfully, The Citizens of Carmel Bay, Harbor Oaks and Huse Horrieplace ti Signature: it ' J9I .t1�k2 pp1 1 , Name: L1 Ac t 14 r G►'d" Address: 29 to 80,r4 1�.a.t f , �� k 76,bct Date: E O/0 21 20 access is blocked, alternative water service if the one water line or gas line serving the location is impaired. Adding additional houses to this already strained design is dangerous to the safety of the current and future residents. Fourth,the density of the current"The Conservation" proposal generates another issue,the implementation of sewage treatment systems. We have several owners of aerobic systems in the area and can offer the following experience.A 4,500 square foot house requires an aeration field of approximately'/of an acre. It is hard for us to understand how a pad for a 5,000 to 7,000 square foot house, a swimming pool, and some yard is going to leave space for an appropriate aeration field. Aerobic sewage treatment system failures should also be a cause of concern. Experts in this area will tell you that"surge demand"can cause system failures."Surge demand" can be caused by something as normal as a house full of Christmas guests. Further, any deterioration of the bacteria count inside the treatment tanks can cause massive system failure. Bacteria deterioration can be caused by something as simple as the accidental disposal of a household cleaner down the sink, an act that would seem"normal"in a home connected to the City sewer system, or even a more forgiving traditional septic system with an underground drainage field. Finally, it is apparent that several of the current lots will be spraying effluent in the flood plain_ In the event of system failures, the possibility of pollution to the Lake Grapevine drainage certainly exists. From experience, we can tell you that the solution for any failure is to have the treatment tanks pumped out.This can take two or three days to schedule.All the while the system continues to aerate partially treated water and the property smells like raw sewage. In conclusion, as a neighborhood we are in opposition of the proposed development in its current state. The reasons for opposition are abundant amongst the neighbors; however,for the sake of brevity, allow this letter to summarize the issues of utmost concern. Respectfully, The Citizens of Carmel Bay, Harbor Oaks and Huse Homeplace Signature: I -J �' Name: V a ^ , '� LA) "+ Address: 2�z-o /Jt,..{ r''h e Lct4 e qt.,C ""(c ig, 766? Date: ! 0 7®q Z0 access is blocked, alternative water service if the one water line or gas line serving the location is impaired. Adding additional houses to this already strained design is dangerous to the safety of the current and future residents. Fourth,the density of the current"The Conservation"proposal generates another issue,the implementation of sewage treatment systems.We have several owners of aerobic systems in the area and can offer the following experience.A 4;500 square foot house requires an aeration field of approximately 14 of an acre.It is hard for us to understand how a pad for a 5,000 to 7,000 square foot house,a swimming pool, and some yard is going to leave space for an appropriate aeration field. Aerobic sewage treatment system failures should also be a cause of concern.Experts in this area will tell you that°surge demands can cause system failures."Surge demand"can be caused by something as normal as a house full of Christmas guests. Further, any deterioration of the bacteria count inside the;treatment tanks can cause massive system failure.Bacteria deterioration can be caused by something as simple as the accidental disposal of a household cleaner down the sink,an act that would seem'normal'in a home connected to the City sewer system, or even a more forgiving traditional septic system with an underground drainage field. Finally,it is apparent that several of the current lots will be spraying effluent in the flood plain. In the event of system failures,the possibility of pollution to the Lake Grapevine drainage certainly exists. From experience,we can tell you that the solution for any failure is to have the treatment tanks pumped out.This can take two or three days to schedule.All the while the system continues to aerate partially treated water and the property smells like raw sewage. In conclusion,as a neighborhood we are in opposition of the proposed development in its current state. The reasons for opposition are abundant amongst the neighbors;however,for the sake of brevity,allow this letter to summarize the issues of utmost concern. Respectfully, The Citizens of Carmel Bay,Harbor Oaks and Huse Homeplace • Signature: Name: CAon t q CI opo Address: //6S HAI-A0/ JAueh $4 5qM/ , Tx 76°9-- Date: ,11/8 d/-2-0 • Firefox aboutblank access is blocked,alternative water service if the one water line or gas Ilne serving the location is • impaired. Adding additional houses to this already strained design is dangerous to the safety of the current and future residents. Fourth,the density of the current"The Conservation'proposal generates another issue,the implementation of sewage treatment systems.We have several owners of aerobic systems in the area and can offer the following experience.A 4,500 square foot house requires an aeration field of approximately'!of an acre.It is hard for us to understand how a pad for a 5,000 to 7,000 square foot house,a swimming pcol,and some yard is going to leave space for an appropriate aeration field. Aerobic sewage treatment system failures should also be a cause of concern.Experts In this area will tell you that"surge demand'can cause system failures.'Surge demand'can be caused by something as normal as a house full of Christmas guests. Further,any deterioration of the bacteria count inside the treatment tanks can cause massive system failure.Bacteria deterioration can be caused by something as simple as the accidental disposal of a household cleaner do','m the sink,an act that would seem"normal'in a home connected to the City sewer system,or even a more forgiving traditional septic system with an underground drainage field. Finally,it is apparent that several of the current lots will be spraying effluent in the flood plain.In the event of system failures,the possibility of pollution to the Lake Grapevine drainage certainly exists. From experience,we can tell you that the solution for any failure Is to have the treatment tanks pumped out.This can take two or three days to schedule.All the while the system continues to aerate partially treated water and the property smells like raw sewage. In conclusion,as a neighborhood we are in opposition of the proposed development in its current state. The reasons for opposition are abundant amongst the neighbors;however,for the sake of brevity,allow • this letter to summarize the issues of utmost concern. Respectfully, The Citizens of Carmel Bay,Harbor Oaks and Huse Homeplace Signature: / CC �� 1 Name: L{ I 6... S ✓0-,in +i'O Address: 0 CZ 9 c C7�t J� +-� L!"3 . So TX Date: / r)--0 2 of 2 9/30)2020,5:34 PM access is blocked, alternative water service if the one water line or gas line serving the location is impaired. Adding additional houses to this already strained design is dangerous to the safety of the current and future residents. Fourth,the density of the current"The Conservation" proposal generates another issue,the implementation of sewage treatment systems. We have several owners of aerobic systems in the area and can offer the following experience.A 4,500 square foot house requires an aeration field of approximately%of an acre. It is hard for us to understand how a pad for a 5,000 to 7,000 square foot house,a swimming pool, and some yard is going to leave space for an appropriate aeration field. Aerobic sewage treatment system failures should also be a cause of concern. Experts in this area will tell you that"surge demand" can cause system failures. "Surge demand"can be caused by something as normal as a house full of Christmas guests. Further,any deterioration of the bacteria count inside the treatment tanks can cause massive system failure. Bacteria deterioration can be caused by something as simple as the accidental disposal of a household cleaner down the sink, an act that would seem"normal"in a home connected to the City sewer system, or even a more forgiving traditional septic system with an underground drainage field. Finally,it is apparent that several of the current lots will be spraying effluent in the flood plain. In the event of system failures,the possibilityof pollution to the Lake Grapevine drainage certainly exists. From experience,we can tell you that the solution for any failure is to have the treatment tanks pumped out. This can take two or three days to schedule.All the while the system continues to aerate partially treated water and the property smells like raw sewage. In conclusion, as a neighborhood we are in opposition of the proposed development in its current state. The reasons for opposition are abundant amongst the neighbors:however,for the sake of brevity,allow this letter to summarize the issues of utmost concern. Respectfully, The Citizens of Carmel Bay, Harbor Oaks and Huse Homeplace J . 1 - Signature: . 1:1 1 W I FD if4 fiu I Name: rdgy Address: 113(44.1eiti Rokkikeily -7-6.07z- Date: q,6-� access is blocked,alternative water service if the one water line or gas line serving the location is impaired. Adding additional houses to this already strained design is dangerous to the safety of the current and future residents. Fourth,the density of the current"The Conservation'proposal generates another issue,the implementation of sewage treatment systems.We have several owners of aerobic systems In the area and can offer the following experience.A 4,500 square foot house requires an aeration field of approximately'A of an acre.It is hard for us to understand how a pad for a 5,000 to 7,000 square foot house,a swimming pool,and some yard is going to leave space for an appropriate aeration field. Aerobic sewage treatment system failures should also be a cause of concern.Experts in this area will tell you that"surge demand°can cause system failures."Surge demand'can be caused by something as normal as a house full of Christmas guests, Further,any deterioration of the bacteria count inside the treatment tanks can cause massive system failure.Bacteria deterioration can be caused by something as simple as the accidental disposal of a household cleaner down the sink,an act that would seem"normal"in a home connected to the City sewer system,or even a more forgiving traditional septic system with an underground drainage field. Finally,it is apparent that several of the current lots will be spraying effluent in the flood plain.In the event of system failures,the possibility of pollution to the Lake Grapevine drainage certainly exists. From experience,we can tell you that the solution for any failure is to have the treatment tanks pumped out This can take two or three days to schedule.All the while the system continues to aerate partially treated water and the property smells like raw sewage. In conclusion,as a neighborhood we are in opposition of the proposed development in its current state_ The reasons for opposition are abundant amongst the neighbors;however,far the sake of brevity,allow this letter to summarize the issues of utmost concern. Respectfully, The Citizens of Carmel Bay,Harbor Oaks and Huse Homeplace Signature: Name: ka R.Antunes Humberto C.Antunes Address: 3560 Carmel Ct,Southlake TX 76092 Date: October 1,2020 access is blocked, alternative water service if the one water line or gas line serving the location is impaired. Adding additional houses to this already strained design is dangerous to the safety of the current and future residents. Fourth,the density of the current The Conservation" proposal generates another issue,the implementation of sewage treatment systems.We have several owners of aerobic systems in the area and can offer the following experience_A 4,500 square foot house requires an aeration field of approximately%of an acre.It is hard for us to understand how.a pad for a 5,000 to 7,000 square foot house, a swimming pool, and some yard is going to leave;space for an appropriate aeration field. Aerobic sewage treatment system failures should also be,a cause of concern. Experts in this area will tell you that"surge demand'can cause system failures. °Surge demand"can be caused by something as normal as a house full of Christmas guests. Further, any deterioration of the bacteria count inside the treatment tanks can cause massive system failure. Bacteria deterioration can be caused by something as simple as the accidental disposal of a household cleaner down the sink, an act that would seem"normar in a home connected to the City sewer system, or even a more forgiving traditional septic system with an underground drainage field. Finally, it is apparent that several of the current lots will be spraying effluent in the flood plain. In the event of system failures,the possibility of pollution to the Lake Grapevine drainage certainly exists. From experience,we can tell you that the solution for any failure is to have the treatment tanks pumped out.This can take two or three days to schedule.All the while the system continues to aerate partially treated water and the property smells like raw sewage. In conclusion, as a neighborhood we are in opposition of the proposed development in its current state. The reasons for opposition are abundant amongst the neighbors; however,for the sake of brevity, allow this letter to summarize the issues of utmost concern. tcJYRespectfully, The Citizens of Carmel Bay, Harbor Oaks and Huse Homeplace Signatte Name: /4(4V2? SL.)06.% 0 Ktj Address: /c.U' £ GdsU 4r&-- Date: f 77 7 access is blocked, alternative water service if the one water line or gas line serving the location is impaired. Adding additional houses to this already strained design is dangerous to the safety of the current and future residents. Fourth,the density of the current"The Conservation" proposal generates another issue,the implementation of sewage treatment systems. We have several owners of aerobic systems in the area and can offer the following experience_A 4,500 square foot house requires an aeration field of approximately%of an acre. It is hard for us to understand how a pad for a 5,000 to 7,000 square foot house, a swimming pool, and some yard is going to leave space for an appropriate aeration field. Aerobic sewage treatment system failures should also be a cause of concern. Experts in this area will tell you that"surge demand"can cause system failures_"Surge demand" can be caused by something as normal as a house full of Christmas guests. Further, any deterioration of the bacteria count inside the treatment tanks can cause massive system failure. Bacteria deterioration can be caused by something as simple as the accidental disposal of a household cleaner down the sink, an act that would seem"normar in a home connected to the City sewer system, or even a more forgiving traditional septic system with an underground drainage field. Finally, it is apparent that several of the current lots will be spraying effluent in the flood plain. In the event of system failures,the possibility of pollution to the Lake Grapevine drainage certainly exists. From experience,we can tell you that the solution for any failure is to have the treatment tanks pumped out.This can take two or three days to schedule.All the while the system continues to aerate partially treated water and the property smells like raw sewage. in conclusion, as a neighborhood we are in opposition of the proposed development in its current state. The reasons for opposition are abundant amongst the neighbors; however,for the sake of brevity, allow this letter to summarize the issues of utmost concern. Respectfully. The Citizens of Carmel Bay, Harbor Oaks and Huse Homeplace • /0 01/1 Name:_ 7Zet,(`Mte".1 ►JA Y Address: /02- IfQ �a r f �� c ccrrJ 6 7 G 2— Date: Date: ,' -2 . I SOOF UTHLAKE Public Comment Form TEXAS Your participation in a pubic meetings is va ued and citizens wishing to express their views cane ectronica y submit this Pub ic Comment Form for any topic or agenda item. P ease specify where you wou d ike your comments to appear be ow and enter the required information. (***A comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m.on the meeting date and wi be provided for the record*") { COVID-19 PUBLIC MEETING PROTOCOL ulttL':.1�:�DELLt-.9 C;;sif ..�i v.t1.. C'lN(,`,01;*k.t or P7 C a;t91'"t i:a_s11r"1n r4.reb11‘44>071 I re �rgAi i.,l^' �r�'4-1 eR s2 apmtBi!IUz (4.1E0uJu 1.;Tu-''+llIv. DIA to, g '•v Citizens wishing to address the City may submit comments on any topic or agenda item e ectronica y by uti izing this Pub ic Comment Form be ow. Public Meeting Date 10/8/2020 Board Meeting* P ann ng and Zon ng Comm ss on 1 * Frst and Last Name Le gh Wambsganss * Address 2915 Burney Lane Phone 8174560066 Errail i 1 I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item No. * 6 (i e 1A) * C I w speak n SUPPORT of th s tern C I w speak n OPPOSITION to th s tern iI (% I do not wsh to speak,but p ease record my: SUPPORT Signature:* I � 1 Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: 10\v 1eC Date: (0- ?.b - Address: 1065 a�rb�r }lowe.0 Pa�. Soh ke, Tx �''O4.,� Phone: (Include City and State) XI wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# L(vO 7 )3 -meq�D_ pbr.(q I will speak in SUPPORT of this item I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item XI do not wish to speak, but please record my SUPPORT X OPPOSITION I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: ` Required: Cards will not be read into the record unless it is signed. Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session.� Name: EfXYA S7-0 Date: 1 L.01 2 D 2 0 Address: } A r -IiNein 5f . IA-in Phone: 2 j, -B214 t '715 (Include City and State) A,c 7:1,3/4TX I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item # 7 2-0 ^ cogici -I A-) I will speak in SUPPORT of this item I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item I do not wish to speak, but please r ord my SUPPORT OPPOSITION I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to be h rd,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: Required: Cards will not be re&I into the record unless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: 1 30oC ? O P u` Date: J —, a r' J Address: 1 0 1J&ibov l- '�F'� '5\/ h �61 Phone: (oZh 617 g `K.f (Include City and State) I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# _ted 7'73 ZA`2.4-QQ 1L -417 I will speak in SUPPORT of this item I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item I do not wish to speak, but pleasejecord my SUPPORT A OPPOSITION I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: Required: Cards will not be read into the record unless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form dPlease print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: �..// /t �i�''R" Date: /CJ/Zf9 Address: ?Fr 1/A� �' • r Phone: 1`�' (Include City and State) I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# 773 2 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 I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: � Required: Cards will not be read into the record unless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: !`-\ i 5 \-0 Date: 1. ,J ;t)"*"7 -1 4bei Address: 10(.r ,:.,/ o r l a v ten- sle., %Q . �. � Phone: (o,2 b _ e 11 3 Fe (Include City and State) I wish to share my views on an Agenda Agenda Item# - J ID -004g I will speak in SUPPORT of this item I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item 7-I do not wish to speak, but please record my SUPPORT C OPPOSITION I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: tr. Required: Cards will noaera into the record unless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: c3 e l/D,. Date: 471- 094.2 oa D Address: eq 0 C2,to,A-f" Phone: 8)2- A/ - ,3.51? (Include City and State) I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# /7 ,) 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 i/OPPOSITION I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: Required: Cards will n t be read into the record unless it is signed. Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: b r Date: /O" 0 c)..e) Address: J.' 6L&( ►\42-e'\La'ti'‘,Q, Sam" ►� �l�Q . Phone:7174U 0-a "» (Include City and State) I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# 4 - 7 7 3 Z 4 .-o o 4/-5 I will speak in SUPPORT of this item I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item _X I do not wish to speak, but please record my SUPPORT ` OPPOSITION I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: 61 >G�. Required: Cards will not be read into the record unless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: �,, , /-7 /7: y1)15 Date: //o,Z2e) Address: gr3:0 .#4.-ii-List-611 Phone: /‘•L, -d,-0' (Include City and State) I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# /Xf- �./Isei-t1/9 ai7 /77 /d j 1 I will speak in SUPPORT of this item I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item X I do not wish to speak, but please record my SUPPORT X OPPOSITION • I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to s • - 'ard,please ' 't yo ' comments to 3 minutes. • Signature: / , , ,,• , Required: ards will not be tea, ' to e record unless it is signed ‘ Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. PeVer5f Date: V "" V "Name: 12)4\rraii\y Address: 35 By( -ey L.y Phone: R14-1 --7c7 -54 Include City and State) `.1 I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item#7D I will speak in SUPPORT of this item I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item I do not wish to speak, but please r9e6id my SUPPORT t OPPOSITION I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow every: 'e an o iportunity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: /" ) 111 Required: Cards wi not be read into the re ord unless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: .5 T F:,• , 4 e T r s Date: (Oh 0(2. 49 Address: 3 s u ¢u z N Ey L Phone: 2 l' • Y 2't-G- 3 2 l (Include City and State) I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# '14S 0 - 7 7 3 Z A 2.0 `t 71.1 I will speak in SUPPORT of this item I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item V I do not wish to speak, but please record my SUPPORT V OPPOSITION I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. r;t.. Signature: <=- Required: Catelf will not be read into the record unless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: Z.— &' \44 \c j t.- Date: \O Address: 11 itoey kAc of Phone: `'' ,1kI(Cf"gler?? (Include City and State) n I I I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item#1 E) I will speak in SUPPORT of this item I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item do not wish to speak, but please record my SUPPORT ! OPPOSITION I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to..ke heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. „� . Signature: Required: Cards will not be read into the record unless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: J 0 4A/ InAl-U!4 y Date: /Opp J 6 Address: .) (t 0 /-41449)/ Ld. ) 4T T 77: Phone:3/7 41-G S.417 (Include City and State) [I I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# ' 7', 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 I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: j 1,. , /1 Al . Required: Cards will of be read into the record unless it is signtd Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. /� //!1 Date: /0' e2 — 19 Name: �l�j^���l � +� Address: 30 IJV r"rr E. Phone:g17-308P-aa (Include City and State) I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item#7 10 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 X OPPOSITION I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow ev e an opportunity to be heard, lease limit your comments to 3 minutes. r • Signature: Required: Cards will not be read into third unless it is signed. Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular sessio . Name: ( vS S 9C\ O (Th Date: to tt. t© Address: on 1 6 Ui'VI it./ 4,\ Phone: ?J I 10 "7 772- z. Include City and State) I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# D I will speak in SUPPORT of this item I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item do not wish to speak, but please refd my SUPPORT j/ OPPOSITION I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow every anojnity to b hear ,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: ON. �► Required: Cards will not be read into e record unless it is signed. Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: h 0 C X511 . . cat ( Date: it) 16 - Address: A`fin 4'7(1 C?r (4 6cs kkor„-A ) Phone: a) ' ��°r I (Include City and State) �` I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# I) (,gym cp t r Pa 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 I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: .l Required: Cards will not be read into the record unless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed�� 11form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. � �1� Name: � 6ri Date: lo f \ tO Address: \Y \ICA\a5r 1\,ven S\- , Phone: 2iii'5i3-C1?� (Include City and State) dI wish to share my viewson an Agenda Item: g Agenda Item# 7-9 I will speak in SUPPORT of this item I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item do not wish to speak, but please record my SUPPORT L'MPOSITION I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone opportunity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: Required: Cards will not be read into the record unless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed formm to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: \ \ACA Q�l(z t' Date: I LO / 4 Address: 1 \2Q c 4 o' \-?cv e y& Phone:( 1 1 3 "e?S4j (Include City and State) so t CLIC 1°)i. I wish to share my view on an Agenda Item: -7 (907 2.-- Agenda Item # - I will speak in SUPPORT of this item will speak in OPPOSITION to this item v'I do not wish to speak, but please record my SUPPORT li3OPPOSITION • I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone\14) an oppo nity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: 'I "^) Required: Cards will not lire read into the record unless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: �J \A- - �.. 0`(k-' Date:_1012.1_4 �.� 2.6 Address: \ 110 T1 U G. ,/ S4. Phone: 1 7 (Include City and State) c 0101/4,44A ( a 1,. ! ,)1 leg LI (t ci I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: (, , Agenda Item# 7ED I will speak in SUPPORT of this item I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item I do not wish to speak, but please reco my SUPPORT ; OPPOSITION I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: 4 (: Required: Cards wiil_notbe red into the record unless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: 1t)i)c Fr viCks Date: 10 j 20 24;72.-0 Address: Z" 9 ( V EtAx r'e9 ( Phone: % -7 4 4(4 L\DO (Include City and State) VII wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# 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 XOPPOSITION I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note:To allow everyone an opportunity to,bi / / %leheard,please e liimmittyyour comments to 3 minutes. ::r/Signature: y' G�'V� Required: Cards will not be read into the record unless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Mid( print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. ,�/� Name: I V tic (GN t 1,0(16160 Date: 18/10/2-6 Address: '2 7t RbY V1&f L toe ��/ uriti v4k.e f TY Phone: D,3 2 - L03- ZS (Include City and State) I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# -7 D 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 I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an o portun' to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: `--- i--- Required: Cards will not be re in the record unless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: Z.c2 r e ``.J pC'`• v Date: / ('ie" Ay) 3 t.-,) -1 ' !0 ..-.V.,!,001� '' .�1 Phone: /y—6 23 ? % Address: /� (Include City and State) yI wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# 7 L I will speak in SUPPORT of this item I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item ,./f do not wish to speak, but please reco d my SUPPORT OPPOSITION I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to be heard, 'lease limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: ( (> �' Required: Cards will not be ead Eo the record unless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: Date: 10,2 0 -2 O Address: Phone,3)7—L ( - 777 (Include City and State) I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# j 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 I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: �--e� Required: Cards will not be read into'lhe record's it is signed. Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: ' ( L c-,k Y�� Dater _7 Q — Address: t 7g %. -, "' t t t 0,,V If` ‘: . Phone: 817 — tO—() Tr- (Include City and State) I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# -j r- 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 I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to be heard,p4 ase limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: Required: Cards will not e read into the record unless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form 'lease print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: .eWt/ Date:41_242,0DD Address: Di , (v \-. 41( lC� \Gitt Phone: q 1 7—rro 3 (Include City and State) ' I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# D XI 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 I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyon n oppo ity to heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: Required: Cards will not be read into the recor nless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: *, h IhLc, Date: / Z_I 1_026 Address: Z1'a C 314 t re L., 14.0 Q 15 4144. ot Phone: 5111' Vca-/Ci Y (Include City and State) I wish to share 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 I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyon n v ortu ,,to /ard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: Required: Cards will not be rea' into i a record unless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting /0 Public Comment Form lease print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: (:)._11 _e Date: /) —20 - —2 0 Za Address: .33 l kA) 1 1 .1,v\0_ 5A-, 7(OO? 2_ Phone:C g 17 850 "O (Include City and State) Ig' I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# V V5 5d2.1/%' 6-' 2''/C— V 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 I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not o tonight's agenda Topic: / ,Y5_ -520-,,J-11,b, Note: To allow eve o , oppo ' nity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. ve Signature: Required: Car, will n i be read into the record unless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: ciPok.\ C ✓ k Date: /0 - --7Q ZC7 Address: 3`i "`] 14 i 4�� �l &K2 Phone:C$( 7) 7 (Include City and State) VI wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# x 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 RI wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: 3 ) (S SCONtlAO\c 2 )Jk IP 7__D Note: To allow everyone an o's ortuniry to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: Required: Cards w, ` be into the record unless it is signed. Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: S h c. ► ( I.- .k (to., Date: ( / ho Address: it ZD �cl►�JO - t/�� J 4 - Phone: '6 (7 411(' ---Cd777 Include City and State) II wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item I will speak in SUPPORT of this item I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item I do not wish to speak, but please reco my SUPPORT iOPPOSITION I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: Required: Cards will not be read into the record unless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: 6 ,kA i //W 91,,,yo-ic, Date: 10 17'4'1 Address: /---Sq f3t bt Phone: 110-, A(, -Q03 (Include City and State) J X I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# 947 I will speak in SUPPORT of this item 4 I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item I do not wish to speak, but please record my SUPPORT OPPOSITION I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note:To allow ev ne an opportunity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. l Signature: 'et) �.�../ Required: Cards not be read into the record unless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed� form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: S('O \ L " Date: I d 29 Address: Pa// S tAff l4t,,1)C Phone: iipr2 (Include City and State) I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# I will speak in SUPPORT of this item .,'TT I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item I do not wish to speak, but please record my SUPPORT OPPOSITION I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an o'i rtunity I, . e, %,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: Itt Required: Card will ead int,4., e r• d unless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: J44L- /4G 9 Date: P.? 2C1.-C) Address:Z`7‘;70 tA7 14/ Phone: 4 ) 7' /6"" (iod (Include City and State) LJ wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# .7) will speak in SUPPORT of this item V I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item I do not wish to speak, but please record my SUPPORT OPPOSITION I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Not w everyo n opportunity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: -� Required: Cards 'll not be read into the record unles • - Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: G uy M O l\ er0 a loN Date: )0/2012-1) Address: 1 v O gu r ri Phone: n y 55O77tr (Include City and State) L"J I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# ___70/ I will speak in SUPPORT of this item VTwill speak in OPPOSITION to this item I do not wish to speak, but please record my SUPPORT OPPOSITION I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to be heard,please limit 'ur comments to 3 minutes. Signature: , Required: Cards will not be read into the record unless it is s ed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Date: Name: 2 `5S� a 6 ��� I �/�' © /Z,d L a Address:?06n g79/03b 12 , '7 ►9 € Z4 Phone: W/ ' (Include City and State) 4 9'3 I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: 4' Agenda Item#_____q--6 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 I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone- . _i to bias ase limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: Required: Cards cifl not be read into the record unless it is signed '>' Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: WI A, \ t,(t(, Date:________ Address: 4;9 D d AN) 1-93C Phone: T-`i-11 Vr )ti (Include City and State) XI wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# ID XI 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 I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. g LoAyr-- Required:Si nature:Cards wi not be read into the runless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: ClYitkilili Jt)h I tS114N Date: 10/7-0) 24) Address: IA LtQ (/r`'' S1 Lk....e Phone: ig- 2819 _ (Include City and State) 1> 'a DO /\ I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item#17E) I will speak in SUPPORT of this item f)(' I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item I do not wish to speak, but please record my SUPPORT OPPOSITION I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to o/be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. �' )\ �' Signature: '- Required: Cards will not be read into the record unless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: 6.12.40,40' .4146- Date: 20 Address: z-9 3t J. �,�! n L Phone: g !t IO f t= (Include City and State) 21 I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# - 4-L670 — 7 7 7 Zo - 610 -9 I will speak in SUPPORT of this item X I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item I do not wish to speak, but please record my SUPPORT OPPOSITION I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda • Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: - _= Required: Cards will not be read into the record unless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: �/ S 5 Date: OC, ®old c Address: J c-- 177 i �' _ . Phone(J/7 c2 (Include City and State) MI wish to share my views on an Agenda Ite ': Agenda Item# ` SQ - % % 2 O — O O y y 7 p I will speak in SUPPORT of this item V I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item I do not wish to speak, but please record my SUPPORT OPPOSITION I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: �` .. ��-- Required: Cards will not,be read into the record unless it is signed. Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print.6 , Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session.o Name: / V `O 0' Date: � �- +�..-�' Vito 17 { LJ\1 A (4 ' Phone: t 6 - :eta l " Address: (Include City and State) ,, N. T.)e,- I wish to share ar my views on an Agenda Item: AgendaiItem# 1 17 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 I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportuni to be heard,please 'mit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: i!/%j __ .7 Required: Cards will not be read into t e record unless it is signed § CITY OF Pubiic Comment Form ' SOUTHLAKE TEXAS Your participation in all public meetings is valued and citizens wishing to express their views can electronically submit this Public Comment Form for any topic or agenda item. Please specify where you would like your comments to appear below and enter the required information. (***All comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m.on the meeting date and will be provided for the record***) COVID-19 PUBLIC MEETING PROTOCOL tope ( wa c n brig- 4, ,�. 2 @ tSIl1���.`-'C�l'7` :='C1h7SI?'n'.- Ali`�r"�j.r]tfluiM2 r o - r ' =nGr J o ® A.Citizens wishing to address the City may submit comments on any topic or agenda item electronically by utilizing this Public Comment Form below. Public Meeting Date 10/20/2020 Board Meeting* City Council • * First and Last erre Mary Van Sant * Address 2965 Burney Lane Phone i r 817-600-0949 Erreil I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item No.* j/-411/"— 7D (i.e.,1A) -10 * G I will speak in SUPPORT of this item el I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item i 0 I do not wish to speak, but please record my: I Comments: This is an opportunity to subnit comrents on any topic that is not scheduled for a public hearing or an item that is not on the agenda. Please come and look at the corner of The Fredricks property in person.None of us are against development but 7 lots are way too many.Septic issues and health and safety support fewer lots. If you come and see for yourselves in person, I think you will be able to make a well informed decision. (300 character lint) Signature:* W 62,4 CITY OF Public Comment Form S�UTHLAKE ••••.,,„7TEXAS Your participation in all public meetings is valued and citizens wishing to express their views can electronically submit this Public Comment Form for any topic or agenda item. Please specify where you would like your comments to appear below and enter the required information. (***All comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m.on the meeting date and will be provided for the record*"*) COVID-19 PUBLIC MEETING PROTOCOL �-.O.'en ejiri 1l0 o r, ^ o ��tl �+I.�C�1l.:tRJ�'s am(r�, 1Tiiffr o- o n c LjCc'.r.�rn�11 [Os fir' 7 ead @IC® ID-ug.Citizens wishing to address the City may submit comments on any topic or agenda item electronically by utilizing this Public Comment Form below. Public Meeting Date 10/20/2020 Board Meeting* City Council * Rrst and Last N rre Kathleen Carrabine Address 961 Thousand Oaks Court Fhone 214-923-3369 Dred I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: 'c'r-41-64(k Agenda Item No.* 7D 0 (i.e.,1A) * C I will speak in SUPPORT of this item CI will speak in OPPOSITION to this item (;) I do not wish to speak,but please record my: OPPOSITION Signature:* MrCITY OF. SOUTHLAK L r I•c Comment Form TEXAS Your participation in all public meetings is valued and citizens wishing to express their views can electronically submit this Public Comment Form for any topic or agenda item. Please specify where you would like your comments to appear below and enter the required information. (***All comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m.on the meeting date and will be provided for the record***) COVID-19 PUBLIC MEETING PROTOCOL IT�LsJa��t�lt ?.S?ncaaU '`616)54 :, ,+, cf 'tSim 7,3-174 tt n ?p r�[f�13=;Ferro.9@rs. ,, 1tio)"g61gasgig .03;62:.Citizens wishing to address the City may submit comments on any topic or agenda item electronically by utilizing this Public Comment Form below. Public Meeting Date 10/20/2020 Board Meeting* Planning and Zoning Commission * First and Last Nhrre Daniel R McDowell * Address 961 THOUSAND OAKS CT Rhone 2148932348 Email I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item No.* 7D (i.e.,1A) 10 * C I will speak in SUPPORT of this item C I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item f�- 6). I do not wish to speak,but please record my: Der OPPOSITION Signature:* r giuEGRc vicree Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: /v( eJ l2 / F 2/ eir't= Date: E') z a Pc" Address: i £ 7 0 13 �R be/ 4--- Phone:e/ (Include City and State) 'a s--7 "7.›...._ I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item#1 I will speak in SUPPORT of this item will speak in OPPOSITION to this item do not wish to speak, but plea e record y SUPPORT PPOSITION I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone,an opportunity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: �� ) -( Q - Required: Cards will not be read into the record unless it is signed. Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: 4 Date: Address: c1101 4 r c'R s(� �'"�" Phone: 1st-12,33 3002, (Include City and State) I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# 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 I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: Required: Cards will ni'!be Lead into the record unless it is signed Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: S\C\ih 0O bAbb Date: ) .D 2b Address: \ IDS Vpirlpor \ Jtv• cot44,A6kei Phone:S*7 f (Include City and State) I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item:EX Agenda Item# --"/.�.� I will speak in SUPPORT of this item I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item XI do not wish to speak, but please r cord my SUPPORT OPPOSITION I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone n opportunity to be ard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: S140 Required: Cards will not be read into the record unless it is signed t Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name: )10i 4,, r 'f � Date: �cfry Address: ?ii j� ''�' {f/' I-,I Phone: If ?1' ' ogw ,.-- (1n lchide City and State) �f/' 1 I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item # 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 I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone pportunity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: , li, ; Required: Cards wi not be readlinto the record unless it is signed. Southlake City Council meeting Public Comment Form 1-Please print. Return completed form to City Secretary prior to start of rlegul session. Name: Date: 0 ' l) Address: '., guy- Phone: J'F '1/ ) (Include City and State) /14tet keel S/4.014 I wish to share my i ws on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item# 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 I wish to speak during Public Forum on an item not on tonight's agenda Topic: Note: To allow everyone an opportunity to be heard,please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Signature: Required: Cards will not be read into the record unless it is signed CITY OF Public Comment FormOUTHLAE TEXAS Your participation in all public meetings is valued and citizens wishing to express their views can electronically submit this Public Comment Form for any topic or agenda item. Please specify where you would like your comments to appear below and enter the required information. All comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on the meeting date and will be provided for the record***) COVID-19 PUBLIC MEETING PROTOCOL Citizens have the option to watch the City Council or PZ Commission meetings online or on the cable channel rather than in person due to concerns related to the spread of COVID-19. Citizens wishing to address the City may submit comments on any topic or agenda item electronically by utilizing this Public Comment Form below. Public Meeting Date 10/20/2020 Board Meeting* City Council First and Last NJarre Randy Wolf Address 3206 Foxfire Lane Fhone 8172334295 mil I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: Agenda Item No.* 4G i.e., 1A) r I will speak in SUPPORT of this item r I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item r I do not wish to speak, but please record my: Comments: This is an opportunity to subnit comrents on any topic that is not scheduled for a public hearing or an itemthat is not on the agenda. As I have previously stated in my email to all council members and the mayor, my family is opposed to the lease agreement of the Coker property to Dr. Harris for the grazing of livestock. Our home is surrounded on three sides by this property, which we have been taking care of for the past 5 years. 300 character limt) Signature:*