Loading...
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