Item 7A SimpsonRating the Suburbs--“2. Southlake”
“Locals believe the restrictions placed on home builders
(few lots are less than half an acre, no apartments or
condos) will keep their investment safe.”
D Magazine July 2008
Hines/Carillon Proposal
ZA08-31
Dr. Kathleen V. Simpson
104 Brentwood Circle
Southlake, TX 76092
Brentwood Estates, President HOA
Homeowners Recap
•
Oppose current plan
–200 foot buffer neighbors
–Neighbors in many other areas
•for high density --zoning
Sets precedent
change goes beyond Carillon
•
Pro Development
–Balance between business & homeowner goals
–Top quality showpiece for Southlake
1/25/20102
Concerns
(Same ones addressed since first public hearing—P&Z 6/5/08)
•Density of residential portion
•Infrastructure—Traffic & Drainage
•Green Buffers
•School impact synchronization
•Construction impact
•Lack of firm commitments from patrons to
sponsor Fine Arts center, uncertainty about
details of commercial/retail sector
•Big Picture Economy—right time?
1/25/20103
Hines has not been responsive-1
•KEY: Hines makes contract with City—not
homeowners
•HOPE: Social conscience would lead Hines to meet
with citizens for meaningful discussion
•REALITY #1: Hines has no interest in citizens’
concerns; responds only to council; implies to council
and media a substantive interaction with homeowners
•REALITY #2: Hines promoting community schism
between homeowners and business owners –we
should all be working together for the best of
Southlake
1/25/20104
Hines has not been responsive-2
ConcernHines Action
Primrose LaneYes, bufferadded
N.Carroll bufferNo, states plancontains sufficient buffer, no
change made
Retail supportable? No firm data provided; states market studies
support
Traffic on N.CarrollNo changes made; citestraffic study; no impact in
year 1-2; only 7-9% increase; cites precedent to
make errors by not solving traffic issues prior to
development
Traffic onN. White No changes made; citestraffic study with 7-9%
Chapelincrease; cites precedent to make errors by not
solving traffic issues prior to development
1/25/20105
Hines has not been responsive-3
ConcernsHines Action
Carroll Exit across Yes, exit alignedaway from driveway
from driveway
Density too highNo.First P&Z hearing briefed 455 units; reaction
to density concern was to cite change from their
initial internal plan of 600 units; current proposal
of 417-380 units is still too high
DrainageNo. Cites engineering study;65 acre feet
detention exceeds 43 acre modeled. No link to
current/ongoing developments (e.g., Gateway,
Estes Park & Brentwood build outs)
Kirkwood Impacton ? Met withselect owners, modified alignment; no
owners S of Carillonmeeting with owners on western alignment
Requestedno None
attached housing
Estate lots IAW None, actuallycan’t give acreage of each lot as
Southlake standardsproposed.
1/25/20106
Hines has not been responsive-4
ConcernsHines Action
Greenbuffers on all No, Primroseonly adjustment noted
sides
No existing Not addressed
neighbors should
face new walls
Save maturetreesNot addressed, except in “treepreserve” in North
Maintain “park” in No, modified to show 9.37 acres as “residence”
Carillon;not true (sic) only; 37.64 acres for dedication to public, and
“public” park14.55 acres as open space publicly accessible.
Addresswidening No, statesit is a city issue
of White Chapel &
Carroll
Brentwood Circle Not addressed
becomesturnaround
1/25/20107
Hines has not been responsive-5
ConcernsHines Action
Carillon used as cut-Nospecifics available; unable to provide details
throughon speed limits, bumps, etc.
UseSH 114 as No. Continues to show N. Carroll and N. White
primary accessChapel as primary access points
Show firm No.
commitment from
Fine Arts Patrons
Show commitments No.
from retail,
commercial,realtors
Furtherstudy on No. Model assumptions unclear,realtor advisor
child/house ratiostudy done prior to build out of other
developments N of 114
Construction Not addressed; no commitment to limit accessto
managementSH 114 nor to limit multiyear disturbance
1/25/20108
What we want…
•Density
–No attached housing
–No “lofts”—translates to condos, then to apartments
–Ballpark of 300 homes total
–Balance between estate lots and zero lot units
–Acreages and lot to house size ratios IAW status quo
•Infrastructure-focus on West & East sides
–N. Carroll & N. White Chapel saturated
•Should use SH114 service road for primary access
•Limit access/egress from N. Carroll or N. White Chapel
–Road infrastructure improvements made to
PRIOR
development
1/25/20109
What we want…
•Infrastructure
–Drainage impact study
–Drainage resolved PRIOR to development
•Landscaping
–Green buffers on all sides
–Save mature trees
–Carillon maintain all “Park” areas—no donation to City
•Fine Arts Center
–Eliminate unless firm commitment from patrons up front
•Construction-
multi-year disturbance
–Firm construction plan
–Agreement governing construction hours; standard code of 7:00 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Monday through Saturday too unfettered
–No construction traffic allowed on N. Carroll or N. White Chapel
1/25/201010
What we ask…
•Slow the train down—table this proposal
•Take the time to let all the issues get addressed
prior to a public vote
–Brownstones took approx 11 months to gain approval
–Why rush this project through in 3-4 months?
•City have meaningful dialogue with developer
•Get all the facts for a rational decision
•Citizens made contract with elected officials to
be our voices ---we need elected officials to
ensure contract they make with Hines represents
the voters’ desires
1/25/201011
What we hope
•Keep the essence of Southlake
•Make developers adapt to Southlake, not
Southlake to developers
1/25/201012