Loading...
Item 6GCity of Southlake Department of Planning & Development Services S T A F F R E P O R T September 26, 2007 ZA07-098 CASE NO: Zoning Change and Development Plan for South Village at Watermere PROJECT: REQUEST: Keller Watermere, L.P. & Southlake Watermark Holdings, L.P. is requesting approval of a zoning change and development plan from "AG" Agricultural District to "R-PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District. The plan proposes 54 single-family residential detached lots and 6 open space lots on approximately 30 acres. The applicant proposes that South Village at Watermere follow the permitted uses and development regulations of the "SF-20A" Single Family Residential zoning district with the following exceptions:  Minimum Lot Size: 9,800 square feet  Minimum Lot Width: 70 feet at the front building line  Minimum Lot Depth: 130 feet  Minimum Floor Area: 2,500 square feet  Minimum Front Yard: 25 feet  Minimum Side Yard: 7 feet; 15 feet for corner lot adjacent to street  Minimum Rear Yard: 25 feet for exterior lots; 20 feet for interior lots  Maximum Lot Coverage: A variance from the 30% maximum lot coverage "R-PUD" requirement to allow a 60% maximum lot coverage is being requested  Minimum Garage Setback: 25 feet forward facing; 20 feet swing Land Area Tabulations are as follows: Gross Land Area – 30.1 Acres Net Land Area – ±28.2 Acres Number of Lots – 54 Single Family Residential – Detached Gross Density – 1.79 du/Ac. Net Density – ±1.91 du/Ac. Open Space Req'd – 3.01 Acres (Only 25% can be within area designated and used for drainage (i.e. flood plain or drainage easements). Open Space Prov. – 9.52 Acres / 32% of Gross Area (The proposed lake/detention pond is 3 acres in size. Approximately 6.5 acres will be outside of any drainage areas or easements.) Case No. ZA07-098 The following variance is being requested:  Street Frontage - All lots must front on a public street. The applicant is requesting that all lots front on a common access easement (private street). The applicant is proposing to gate all private streets. At the first reading of this item on June 19, 2007, City Council approved the first reading for subject to the following:  Noting the applicant has agreed to match the side elevations with 85% masonry and The applicant has since increased the masonry to 90%. rear as presented. Material Percentages (%) Approximate percentages based on site and building location. Phase – 1 (Villas) Phase – 2 (Villas) Front Elevation = 85 % Brick/Stone Front Elevation = 95% Brick/Stone 15% Stucco/Siding 5% Siding Rear Elevation = 40% Brick/Stone Rear Elevation = 90% Brick/Stone 60% Stucco/Siding 10% Siding Side Elevation = 40% Brick/Stone Side Elevation = 90% Brick/Stone 60% Stucco/Siding 10% Siding  An age restriction of 55 years  4 trees per lot  Approving variances requested  Subject to the applicant’s presentation at 1st reading City Council requested the applicant to address the following items at the second reading: Item Applicant Response 1.Provide an exhibit for screening from A conceptual parking plan and a parking Watermere Drive from the parking island cross section has been provided and lot used for the tennis courts; included in Attachment C of this report. 2.Provide a landscaping concept plan The landscape concept and channel section and images for the open space / have been provided and included in drainage lot along Union Church Attachment C of this report. 3.Provide renderings of parking in A conceptual parking plan has been front of tennis courts and open space provided and included in Attachment C of along Union Church; this report. 4.Provide renderings on gates to be An elevation exhibit for the entry gates has used for private street entrances; been provided and included in Attachment C of this report. Case No. ZA07-098 1. Conduct public hearing ACTION NEEDED: 2. Consider approval of second reading for a zoning change and development plan ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information (B) Vicinity Map (C) Plans and Support Information Revised Development Plan Review Summary No. 1, dated August 17, 2007 (D) (E) Surrounding Property Owners Map (F) Surrounding Property Owners Responses (G) SPIN Meeting Summary Report (H) Ordinance No. 480-532 (I) Full Size Plans (for Commission and Council Members Only) STAFF CONTACT: Ken Baker (748-8067) Ben Bryner (748-8602) Case No. ZA07-098 BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNER/APPLICANT: Keller Watermere, L.P. & Southlake Watermark Holdings, L.P. PROPERTY SITUATION: 2271 Union Church Rd, 2451 Union Church Rd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tract 4C & 6A2 and a portion of Tracts 4D & 6A, J.G. Allen Survey, Abstract No. 18 LAND USE CATEGORY: Medium Density Residential CURRENT ZONING: “AG” Agricultural District & “S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District REQUESTED ZONING: “R-PUD” Residential Planned Unit Development District HISTORY: No development history exists on this site. The site was previously owned by Keller I.S.D. and was planned for a school site. TRANSPORTATION Master Thoroughfare Plan ASSESSMENT: The Master Thoroughfare Plan recommends Union Church Road to be a 2-lane, undivided collector roadway with 84 feet of right-of-way and Watermere Drive to be a 2-lane, undivided collector roadway with 60 feet of right-of-way. Adequate right-of-way is shown to be dedicated for these roadways. Proposed Area Road Network and Conditions The proposed overall development will extend Watermere Drive to the south which will intersect Union Church Road across from Arcadia Drive in Keller. The development will have three (3) access drives (private streets) directly onto both sides of Watermere Drive, one (1) on the east side and two (2) on the west side. Existing Area Road Network and Conditions Union Church Road is a 2-lane, undivided thoroughfare. The roadway is shared between the Cities of Southlake and Keller and was re-furbished a few years ago. No plans are being made for future improvement at this time. May, 2006 traffic counts on Union Church (between FM 1938 (Davis Blvd) & Pearson Lane): Table #1 24hr 1,6251,932 West Bound (WB) () East Bound (EB) () WB 85216 Peak A.M. () Peak P.M. () 5:30 – 6:30 p.m. 10:15 – 11:15 a.m. EB 277160 Peak A.M. () Peak P.M. () 5 – 6 p.m. 7:15 – 8:15 a.m. Case No. Attachment A ZA07-098 Page 1 Traffic Impact Use # Vtpd* AM-AM-PM-PM- Units IN OUT IN OUT Elderly housing - detached 54 188 4 7 8 4 *Vehicle Trips Per Day *The AM/PM times represent the number of vehicle trips generated during the peak travel times on Union Church Road. Union Church, between FM 1938 (Davis Blvd) and Pearson Lane, carries approximately 3,557 vehicles with the peak traffic times occurring between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. in the morning and between 5 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. in the th afternoon. According to Trip Generation, 6 Edition, the site will generate approximately 11 vehicle trips during the A.M. rush hour and approximately 12 vehicle trips during the P.M. rush hour. PATHWAYS MASTER PLAN: The Pathways Master Plan recommends a 6-foot sidewalk along the north side of Union Church Road and an 8-foot multi-use trail along the east side of Watermere Drive. The sidewalk and trail are both shown on the proposed plan. WATER & SEWER: The site will connect water services to an existing 12” water line along the west side of Watermere Drive to the north. A 10” sanitary sewer line exists along the eastern boundary of the proposed development. DRAINAGE ANALYSIS: The drainage from this site will drain to the proposed retention/detention pond which will ultimately discharge into the existing storm drainage system on the south side Union Church Road. TREE PRESERVATION: The submitted Tree Conservation Plans shows almost all of the existing trees within the proposed development to be removed. The most quality trees are within the right-of-way of Watermere Drive, close to the intersection of Watermere Drive and Union Church Road. Unless Watermere Drive were shifted to east or the west before it intersects Union Church Road, and area where the trees are was designated parkland or common area, the trees would be removed for the construction of the Watermere Drive right-of-way. The existing trees along Union Church Road are shown to be removed on the Tree Conservation Plan. Except for any pecan trees that may be existing, these trees are made up of not very desirable species and to repair the existing drainage along that section of the right-of-way would cause for a large portion of the trees to be removed. The submitted landscape design proposes more trees to be planted than currently exist on the site. Street tree plantings as well as extensive tree planting Case No. Attachment A ZA07-098 Page 2 and landscaping are proposaed across the site and along Union Church Road Consolidated Land Use Plan Recommendations SOUTHLAKE 2025: The underlying designation is Public/Semi-Public and Medium Density Residential. The proposed development is not consistent with the Public/Semi- Public designation. This property does not have an optional land use designation. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment application has been submitted to change the underlying land use designation to Medium Density Residential. Environmental Resource Protection Recommendations The Environmental Resource Protection (ERP) Plan identifies the northeast corner and eastern boundary of the site as priority areas for preservation, where appropriate: The plan shows that the existing pond will be enlarged and will serve as a focal point of the development. Although all of the trees in the ERP preservation area will be removed, these trees are predominantly mesquite and hackberry trees that will be replaced with trees such as oaks and elms. Mobility & Master Thoroughfare Plan/Southlake Pathways Plan Recommendations The Mobility and Master Thoroughfare Plan recommends that a north-south 2- lane, undivided collector roadway with 60 feet of right-of-way be constructed from Union Church Road to West Southlake Boulevard. The applicant is Case No. Attachment A ZA07-098 Page 3 proposing a north-south roadway (Watermere Drive) that is consistent with the Mobility and Master Thoroughfare Plan. A 6 foot sidewalk is required along Union Church per the Southlake Pathways Plan. This sidewalk is shown on the concept/development plan. Sidewalks (5 foot minimum) are required along both sides of all public and private streets. Sidewalks are not shown on the north and west side of Private Street C. In addition, the sidewalk on the east side of Private Street C is not shown to connect to the S-P-2 portion of the development to the north. Provide sidewalks along both sides of the entire length of Private Street C. P&Z ACTION: August 23, 2007; Approved (6-0) as presented; granting the requested variances; allowing the gated private streets and subject to the Development Plan Review Summary No. 1, dated August 17, 2007. COUNCIL ACTION: September 4, 2007; Approved first reading (6-1) Applicant has agreed to match the side elevations with 85% masonry and rear as presented; age restriction – 55; Subject to applicant’s presentation; renderings of parking in front of tennis courts and open space along Union Church; Renderings on gates to be used; Approving variances requested; 4 trees per lot; and, subject to P&Z motion. September 18, 2007; Approved to table second reading on consent (7-0) until October 2, 2007. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Development Plan Review Summary No. 1, dated August 17, 2007. N:\Community Development\MEMO\2007cases\07-098ZDP.doc Case No. Attachment A ZA07-098 Page 4 Case No. Attachment B ZA07-098 Page 1 Approved Concept Plan for Watermere Phase 1 Case No. Attachment C ZA07-098 Page 1 Developer's Narrative Letter Case No. Attachment C ZA07-098 Page 2 Case No. Attachment C ZA07-098 Page 3 Case No. Attachment C ZA07-098 Page 4 Case No. Attachment C ZA07-098 Page 5 Case No. Attachment C ZA07-098 Page 6 Conceptual Drawing of Overall Site Case No. Attachment C ZA07-098 Page 7 Proposed Development Plan for South Village at Watermere Case No. Attachment C ZA07-098 Page 8 Conceptual Building Elevations Case No. Attachment C ZA07-098 Page 9 Case No. Attachment C ZA07-098 Page 10 Overall Fencing Plan Case No. Attachment C ZA07-098 Page 11 Conceptual Landscape Plan Case No. Attachment C ZA07-098 Page 12 Case No. Attachment C ZA07-098 Page 13 Case No. Attachment C ZA07-098 Page 14 Parking Island Cross Section Case No. Attachment C ZA07-098 Page 15 Entry Gate Exhibit Case No. Attachment C ZA07-098 Page 16 Drainage Channel Exhibit Case No. Attachment C ZA07-098 Page 17 Drainage Channel Cross Section Case No. Attachment C ZA07-098 Page 18 Case No. Attachment C ZA07-098 Page 19 Landscape Plan Case No. Attachment C ZA07-098 Page 20 Tree Conservation Analysis Case No. Attachment C ZA07-098 Page 21 DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY ZA07-098One08/17/07 Case No.: Revised Review No.: Date of Review: Site Plan Project Name: - South Village @ Watermere ("R-PUD" zoning) APPLICANT: Southlake Watermark ARCHITECT: GSWW, Inc. Holdings Richard Simmons Sean Faulkner, P.E. 3110 W. Southlake Blvd 3950 Fossil Creek Blvd, Suite 210 Southlake, TX 76092 Fort Worth, TX 76137 Phone: (817) 742-1851 Phone: (817) 306-1444 Fax: Fax: (817) 306-1555 CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 08/06/07 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT BEN BRYNER AT (817) 748-8602. The development does not comply with the underlying land use designation of 'Public/Semi-Public'. A request to amend the land use designation is being processed concurrently. 1.All lots must front on a public street. The applicant is requesting that all lots front on a common access (A variance has easement (private street). The private street must be built to public street standards. been requested.) 2.Provide the area of R.O.W. in the Land Use Schedule chart. 3.Show and label a minimum 5 foot sidewalk along the north and west side of Private Street C. In addition, the sidewalk on the east side of Private Street C is not shown to connect to the S-P-2 portion of the development to the north. Sidewalks (5' minimum) are required along both sides of all public and private streets. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS * A fully corrected plan that includes all associated support plans/documents and conditions of approval is required before any ordinance or zoning verification letter publication or before acceptance of any other associated plans for review. Plans and documents must be reviewed and stamped “approved” by the Planning Department. * All development must comply with the City’s Drainage Ordinance No. 605 and detain all post development run-off. * No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan. A separate building permit is required prior to construction of any signs. Case No. Attachment D ZA07-098 Page 1 * The applicant should be aware that prior to issuance of a building permit a Plat must be processed and filed in the County Plat Records, a fully corrected site plan, landscape plan, irrigation plan, and building plans must be submitted for approval and all required fees must be paid. This may include but not be limited to the following fees: Park Fee, Perimeter Street Fee, Water & Sewer Impact and Tap Fees, and related Permit Fees. TREE CONSERVATION COMMENTS: 1. The submitted Tree Conservation Plans shows almost all of the existing trees within the proposed development to be removed. The most quality trees are within the right-of-way of Watermere Drive, close to the intersection of Watermere Drive and Union Church Road. Unless Watermere Drive were shifted to east or the west before it intersects Union Church Road, and area where the trees are was designated parkland or common area, the trees would be removed for the construction of the Watermere Drive right-of-way. The existing trees along Union Church Road are shown to be removed on the Tree Conservation Plan. Except for any pecan trees that may be existing, these trees are made up of not very desirable species and to repair the existing drainage along that section of the right-of-way would cause for a large portion of the trees to be removed. The submitted landscape design proposes more trees to be planted than currently exist on the site. Street tree plantings as well as extensive tree planting and landscaping are proposed across the site and along Union Church Road. * Please be aware that all existing trees shown to be preserved on the City Council approved Tree Conservation Plan must be preserved and protected during all phases and construction of the development. Alteration or removal of any of the existing trees shown to be preserved on the approved Tree Conservation Plan is a violation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance and the zoning as approved by the Southlake City Council. Please ensure that the layout of all structures, easements, utilities, structures grading, and any other structure proposed to be constructed do not conflict with existing trees intended to be preserved. PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING COMMENTS: GENERAL COMMENTS: 1.Additional comments may be forthcoming with the review of the revised TIA. 2.Provide adequate corner clips where necessary. * Provide all necessary easements for water, sanitary sewer and drainage. Easements shall be 15’ minimum and located on one lot – not centered on the property line. A 20’ easement is required if both storm sewer and sanitary sewer will be located within the easement. * Use the City of Southlake GPS monuments whenever possible. WATER AND SANITARY SEWER COMMENTS: * Minimum radius for public sanitary sewer is 200’. Case No. Attachment D ZA07-098 Page 2 * Public water and sanitary sewer lines cannot cross property lines without being in an easement or in the ROW. All public water and lines in easements or ROW must be constructed to City standards. Water and sanitary sewer services may not cross lot lines. * Water meters and fire hydrants shall be in an easement or in the ROW. DRAINAGE COMMENTS: 1. All of the lots along Union Church drain directly into the drainage system in Union Church. How will developed flows from these lots be handled so as not the adversely affect the adjacent downstream properties? Consider directing roof drains from these structures to the street. Downstream improvements may be required to handle the drainage from this development. * Ensure that the difference between pre and post development runoff is captured in the detention area. Access easements are needed for maintenance of the detention area. All detention areas shall be in drainage easements. * The preliminary drainage plan provided shows a runoff coefficient of 0.35 for existing conditions. Note that 0.30 is the acceptable coefficient for existing conditions and revise calculations accordingly. * Verify that the size, shape, and/or location of the detention area, as depicted on the development plan, will be adequate to meet the detention requirements. Any changes to the size, shape, and/or location of the proposed pond(s) may require a revision to the plan and may need to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. * Radius pipe is required for storm sewer under public pavement. * This property drains into Critical Drainage Structure #18 and requires a fee to be paid prior to beginning construction. * The discharge of post development runoff must have no adverse impact on downstream properties and meet the provisions of Ordinance # 605. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS: * Submit civil construction plans (22” X 34” full size sheets) and a completed Construction Plan Checklist directly to the Public Works Administration Department for review. The plans shall conform to the most recent construction plan checklist, standard details and general notes which are located on the City’s website. * A ROW permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Operations Department (817) 748-8082 to connect to the City’s sewer, water or storm sewer system. * A Developer’s Agreement will be required for this development and may need to be approved by the City Council prior to any construction of public infrastructure. Construction plans for these improvements must be approved by Public Works prior to placing the Developer’s Agreement on the City Council agenda for consideration. * Any hazardous waste being discharged must be pretreated Ordinance No. 836. * This review is preliminary. Additional requirements may be necessary with the review of construction plans. *=Denotes informational comment. SOUTHLAKE 2025 COMMENTS: Consolidated Land Use Plan Recommendations Case No. Attachment D ZA07-098 Page 3 The underlying designation is Public/Semi-Public and Medium Density Residential. The proposed development is not consistent with the Public/Semi-Public designation. This property does not have an optional land use designation. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment application has been submitted to change the underlying land use designation to Medium Density Residential. Environmental Resource Protection Recommendations The Environmental Resource Protection (ERP) Plan identifies the northeast corner and eastern boundary of the site as priority areas for preservation, where appropriate: The plan shows that the existing pond will be enlarged and will serve as a focal point of the development. Although all of the trees in the ERP preservation area will be removed, these trees are predominantly mesquite and hackberry trees that will be replaced with trees such as oaks and elms. Mobility & Master Thoroughfare Plan/Southlake Pathways Plan Recommendations The Mobility and Master Thoroughfare Plan recommends that a north-south 2-lane, undivided collector roadway with 60 feet of right-of-way be constructed from Union Church Road to West Southlake Boulevard. The applicant is proposing a north-south roadway (Watermere Drive) that is consistent with the Mobility and Master Thoroughfare Plan. A 6 foot sidewalk is required along Union Church per the Southlake Pathways Plan. This sidewalk is shown on the concept/development plan. Sidewalks (5 foot minimum) are required along both sides of all public and private streets. Sidewalks are not shown on the north and west side of Private Street C. In addition, the sidewalk on the east side of Private Street C is not shown to connect to the S-P-2 portion of the development to the north. Provide sidewalks along both sides of the entire length of Private Street C. Case No. Attachment D ZA07-098 Page 4 Surrounding Property Owners South Village at Watermere SPO # Owner Zoning Land Use Acreage Low Density Residential 1. Hall, Jerry G SF1-A 1.241 Low Density Residential 2. Hall, Jerry SF1-A 1.535 Low Density Residential 3. Hall, Jerry SF1-A 1.816 Medium Density Residential 4. Lakeside Pres Ch Grapevine CS 7.614 Medium Density Residential 5. Dallas Ashton Resid Llc SF20A 0.462 Medium Density Residential 6. Hopkins, David W Etux Karen K SF20A 0.468 Medium Density Residential 7. Griser, David Etux Kara SF20A 0.457 Medium Density Residential 8. Enriquez, Henry SF20A 0.47 Medium Density Residential 9. Mullenix, David W Etux Raeann SF20A 0.589 Medium Density Residential 10. Mendez Ltd SF1-A 1.173 Medium Density Residential 11. Briggs, Keith Etux Belinda B RPUD 0.37 Medium Density Residential 12. Miller, Howard Etux Cherri RPUD 0.33 Medium Density Residential 13. Cammarata, Patrick R RPUD 0.331 Medium Density Residential 14. Rodriguez, Laurie J RPUD 0.372 Medium Density Residential 15. Song, Chi C RPUD 0.353 Case No. Attachment E ZA07-098 Page 1 Medium Density Residential 16. Beathard, David W Etux Judy RPUD 0.4 Medium Density Residential 17. Dickens, Jason D Etux Adrienne RPUD 0.461 Medium Density Residential 18. Parrish, Jeff Etux Julie Ann RPUD 0.437 Medium Density Residential 19. Lee, Bob Etux Jane Ho RPUD 0.397 Medium Density Residential 20. Anderson, Nick C RPUD 0.371 Medium Density Residential 21. Schnacke, Alan R Etux Michelle RPUD 0.367 Medium Density Residential 22. Shelton, Chad E Etux Vicki C RPUD 0.374 Medium Density Residential 23. Phillips, David W Etux Yolanda RPUD 0.371 Medium Density Residential 24. Mortensen, Dana Jr Etux Celia RPUD 0.38 Medium Density Residential 25. Tolson, Kevin W Etux Deborah RPUD 0.576 Medium Density Residential 26. McDowell, Carl L RPUD 0.412 Medium Density Residential 27. Latham, Roy W Etux Christine R RPUD 0.372 Medium Density Residential 28. Follis, Mark A RPUD 0.468 Medium Density Residential 29. Behrens, Jay A Etux Deborah J RPUD 0.454 Medium Density Residential 30. Barnes, Reginald K Etux E RPUD 0.473 Medium Density Residential 31. Altay, Tayfun RPUD 0.552 Medium Density Residential 32. Goodell, William J SF1-A 1.771 Medium Density Residential 33. Lee, Jane S Etvir James AG 5.515 Public/Semi-Public 34. Keller ISD AG 10.066 Public/Semi-Public 35. Keller ISD AG 20.385 Medium Density Residential 36. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 9.02 Medium Density Residential 37. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 1.963 Medium Density Residential 38. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 7.856 Medium Density Residential 39. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SF1-A 1.401 Medium Density Residential 40. Schaefer, Paul J AG 4.153 Medium Density Residential 41. Keller, Nancy L AG 2.478 Medium Density Residential 42. Horn & Toad Properties AG 4.004 Medium Density Residential 43. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 8.626 Medium Density Residential 44. Wiesman, E I AG 13.185 Medium Density Residential 45. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 2.087 Medium Density Residential 46. Mortazavi, Joseph Etux Kimiela AG 3.449 Medium Density Residential 47. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 6.037 Medium Density Residential 48. Mortazavi, Joseph A & Kimiela AG 2.816 Medium Density Residential 49. Mortazavi, Joseph A & Kimiela AG 0.36 Medium Density Residential 50. Couch, Bobbie J AG 3.819 Medium Density Residential 51. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 2.382 52. City of Keller Case No. Attachment E ZA07-098 Page 2 Surrounding Property Owner Responses South Village at Watermere Notices Sent: Fifty-two (52). Responses Receive: Two (2). ●B.J. & Mary Couch (SPO #50), 2535 Union Church Road, submitted a Notification Concerns Response Form stating on August 21, 2007 (see attached). ●David & Yolanda Phillips (SPO # 23), 515 Chesapeake Lane, submitted a Notification Opposition Response Form in on August 23, 2007 (see attached). Case No. Attachment F ZA07-098 Page 1 Case No. Attachment F ZA07-098 Page 2 Case No. Attachment F ZA07-098 Page 3 Case No. Attachment F ZA07-098 Page 4 SPIN MEETING REPORT CASE NO. ZA07-060 & ZA07-061 PROJECT NAME: SOUTH VILLAGE AT WATERMERE SPIN DISTRICT: 15 MEETING DATE: 6:30PM, JUNE 11, 2007 MEETING LOCATION: 1400 MAIN STREET, SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS MEETING ROOMS 3A & 3B TOTAL ATTENDANCE:  SPIN REPRESENTATIVE(S) PRESENT: Bob Gray (11)  APPLICANT(S) PRESENTING: Rick Simmons  STAFF PRESENT: Planner Clayton Comstock, Community Relations Officer Pilar Schank STAFF CONTACT: Clayton Comstock, (817)748-8269; ccomstock@ci.southlake.tx.us APPLICANT PRESENTATION SUMMARY 30-acre Development Details 62 single-family residential lots (detached) o 7 four-family (“fourplex”) lots (attached) o 26% land dedicated for open space o Exterior amenities such as tennis courts, swimming pools, lake, walking trails, gazebos, pavilions, etc. Fencing to the south and west will allow properties to the west to drain into Watermere o and will hopefully resolve existing drainage problems on the site QUESTIONS & DISCUSSION Land Use & Development Design Questions What will the backyard setbacks be? Will pools be allowed? QUESTION: Will these homes be two-stories? What will their minimum size be? What will be their starting QUESTIONS: price? RESPONSE: Because the target audience of these homes is individuals between the ages of 55 and upper-60’s, there should not be a high demand for two-story homes. They are geared more toward 1½ story with three-car garages. Houses will range between 3500 to 4000 square feet, with a 5000 square foot maximum and prices will likely start around $700,000. What is the timeline, or phasing, of construction? Will the wall be put up first? QUESTION: RESPONSE: Dirtwork will come first, followed by the installation of the drainage system, then the wall will be installed. Case No. Attachment G ZA07-098 Page 1 SPIN MEETING REPORT – PAGE 2 Can you work with the developer of the office park development to the north to create some QUESTION: consistency between your two screening walls along Chesapeake Place? Who will be responsible for the maintenance of the screening walls between Chesapeake Place QUESTION: and Watermere? RESPONSE: The HOA of the South Village at Southlake will be responsible for its maintenance given normal wear and tear conditions. What is the setback of the wall along Union Church Road? QUESTION: RESPONSE: The screening wall along Union Church Road will be close to the same setback as Chesapeake Place’s wall. Are the parks going to be dedicated as public parks? QUESTION: RESPONSE: They will not be dedicated as public parks because Watermere would like the discretion to control easement its use and maintenance. However, there will be a public dedicated on the park on the west side of Watermere Drive that will allow for public use. Traffic & Roadway Related Questions Where does Watermere Drive go? Will they have speedbumps? QUESTION: RESPONSE: Watermere Drive runs from W. Southlake Blvd through the Watermere property to Union Church Road and will be a public road. There cannot be any speed bumps, per City regulations, but Watermere will try to make use of stop signs and lower speed limits. Are there any plans for a light for your development at W. Southlake Blvd? QUESTION: RESPONSE: There are no plans for a traffic signal at W. Southlake Blvd and Watermere Drive at this time and because of the spacing between signals it would be difficult to have one there. Who will be responsible for maintaining the streets? QUESTION: RESPONSE: As Watermere Drive will be a public street, the City will be responsible for its maintenance. All other streets within the Watermere development are private and are to be maintained by the HOAs. How wide are the private streets? Is it a gated community? QUESTION: RESPONSE: The private streets in South Village at Watermere are 27-feet from back of curb to back of curb. There are some areas near the fourplexes that have parallel parking spaces that add another 8-feet of width. Drainage & Engineering Questions Will there be any elevation changes to the property due to the efforts to resolve drainage? How QUESTION: would that effect fence heights? Where does the City of Southlake storm drain to the southwest go? QUESTION: Case No. Attachment G ZA07-098 Page 2 SPIN MEETING REPORT – PAGE 3 Other Questions Do you intend to purchase any other adjacent property for future expansion? QUESTION: RESPONSE: There are no plans at this time to purchase or develop any additional property. This project itself will take many years to develop. “We’ve got our hands full already.” How are sales on Phase I? QUESTION: RESPONSE: There have been about 68 deposits made and 17 real sales without product in the first phase of Watermere. Once it is more developed and folks can see the product, we expect to see a surge. When will you have the first model open? QUESTION: RESPONSE: November 2007 SUMMARY The meeting’s attendants were generally receptive to the plan as well as the developer’s willingness to continue working with adjacent property owners on fencing and drainage issues, which seem to be the two major concerns with this development. SPIN Meeting Reports are general observations of SPIN Meetings by City staff and SPIN Representatives. The report is neither verbatim nor official meeting minutes; rather it serves to inform elected and appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues and questions raised by residents and the general responses made. Responses as summarized in this report should not be taken as guarantees by the applicant. Interested parties are strongly encouraged to follow the case through the Planning and Zoning Commission and final action by City Council. Case No. Attachment G ZA07-098 Page 3 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS ORDINANCE NO. 480-532 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 480, AS AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS; GRANTING A ZONING CHANGE ON A CERTAIN TRACT OR TRACTS OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS BEING LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS TRACTS 4C & 6A2 AND A PORTION OF TRACTS 4D & 6A, J.G. ALLEN SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 18, BEING APPROXIMATELY 30.1 ACRES, AND MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT “A” FROM “AG” AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT AND “S-P-2” GENERALIZED SITE PLAN DISTRICT TO “R-PUD” RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WITH “SF-20A” SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT USES, AS DEPICTED ON THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, INCLUDING “PUD” DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN AS EXHIBIT “B”, SUBJECT TO THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS ORDINANCE; CORRECTING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PRESERVING ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE; DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE DEMAND THE ZONING CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS HEREIN MADE; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE CUMULATIVE OF ALL ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS HEREOF; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Southlake, Texas is a home rule City acting under its Charter adopted by the electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 9 of the Texas Local Government Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code, the City has the authority to adopt a comprehensive zoning ordinance and map regulating the location and use of buildings, other structures and land for business, industrial, residential and other purposes, and to amend said ordinance and map for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals and general welfare, all in accordance with a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the hereinafter described property is currently zoned as “AG” Agricultural District and “S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District under the City’s Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; and Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 1 WHEREAS, a change in the zoning classification of said property was requested by a person or corporation having a proprietary interest in said property; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, at a public hearing called by the City Council did consider the following factors in making a determination as to whether these changes should be granted or denied: safety of the motoring public and the pedestrians using the facilities in the area immediately surrounding the sites; safety from fire hazards and damages; noise producing elements and glare of the vehicular and stationary lights and effect of such lights on established character of the neighborhood; location, lighting and types of signs and relation of signs to traffic control and adjacent property; street size and adequacy of width for traffic reasonably expected to be generated by the proposed use around the site and in the immediate neighborhood; adequacy of parking as determined by requirements of this ordinance for off- street parking facilities; location of ingress and egress points for parking and off-street loading spaces, and protection of public health by surfacing on all parking areas to control dust; effect on the promotion of health ad the general welfare; effect on light and air; effect on the over-crowding of the land; effect on the concentration of population, and effect on transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public facilities; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, further considered among other things the character of the districts and their peculiar suitability for particular uses and the view to conserve the value of the buildings, and encourage the most appropriate use of the land throughout this City; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does 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; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that the changes in zoning Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 2 lessen the congestion in the streets, helps secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers, promotes the health and the general welfare, provides adequate light and air, prevents the over-crowding of land, avoids undue concentration of population, and facilitates the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, has determined that there is a necessity and need for the changes in zoning and has also found and determined that there has been a change in the conditions of the property surrounding and in close proximity to the tract or tracts of land requested for a change since the tract or tracts of land were originally classified and therefore feels that the respective changes in zoning classification for the tract or tracts of land are needed, are called for, and are in the best interest of the public at large, the citizens of the city of Southlake, Texas, and helps promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That Ordinance No. 480, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Southlake, Texas, passed on the 19th day of September, 1989, as originally adopted and amended, is hereby amended so that the permitted uses in the hereinafter described areas be altered, changed and amended as shown and described below: Being Tract 4C & 6A2 and a portion of Tracts 4D & 6A, J.G. Allen Survey, Abstract No. 18, being approximately 30.1 acres, and more fully and completely described in exhibit “A” from “AG” Agricultural District to “R-PUD” Residential Planned Unit Development District with “SF-20A” Single Family Residential District uses as depicted on the approved Development Plan, including “R-PUD” development standards, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “B”, and subject to the following specific conditions: 1. SECTION 2. Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 3 That the City Manager is hereby directed to correct the Official Zoning map of the City of Southlake, Texas, to reflect the herein changes in zoning. SECTION 3. That in all other respects the use of the tract or tracts of land herein above described shall be subject to all the applicable regulations contained in said Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable and pertinent ordinances for the City of Southlake, Texas. All existing sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, words, phrases and definitions of said Zoning Ordinance are not amended hereby, but remain intact and are hereby ratified, verified, and affirmed. SECTION 4. That the zoning regulations and districts as herein established have been made in accordance with the comprehensive plan for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals and the general welfare of the community. They have been designed, with respect to both present conditions and the conditions reasonably anticipated to exist in the foreseeable future; to lessen congestion in the streets; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent over-crowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; and to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, drainage and surface water, parks and other commercial needs and development of the community. They have been made after a full and complete hearing with reasonable consideration among other things of the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for the particular uses and with a view of conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the community. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall be cumulative of all other ordinances of the City of Southlake, Texas, affecting zoning and shall not repeal any of the provisions of said ordinances except in those instances where provisions of those ordinances are in direct conflict with the provisions of this ordinance. Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 4 SECTION 6. That the terms and provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be severable and that if the validity of the zoning affecting any portion of the tract or tracts of land described herein shall be declared to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the zoning of the balance of said tract or tracts of land described herein. SECTION 7. Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply with or who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be fined not more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Each day that a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense. SECTION 8. All rights and remedies of the City of Southlake are expressly saved as to any and all violations of the provisions of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, or any other ordinances affecting zoning which have accrued at the time of the effective date of this ordinance; and, as to such accrued violations and all pending litigation, both civil and criminal, whether pending in court or not, under such ordinances, same shall not be affected by this ordinance but may be prosecuted until final disposition by the courts. SECTION 9. The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to publish the proposed ordinance or its caption and penalty together with a notice setting out the time and place for a public hearing thereon at least fifteen (15) days before the second reading of this ordinance, and if this ordinance provides for the imposition of any penalty, fine or forfeiture for any violation of any of its provisions, then the City Secretary shall additionally publish this ordinance in the official City newspaper one time within ten (10) days after passage of this ordinance, as required by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake. SECTION 10. Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 5 This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law, and it is so ordained. PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st reading the ____ day of _________, 2007. _________________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _________________________________ CITY SECRETARY PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the ____ day of __________, 2007. ________________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: ________________________________ CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: _________________________________ CITY ATTORNEY Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 6 DATE:___________________________ ADOPTED:_______________________ EFFECTIVE:______________________ Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 7 EXHIBIT “A” Being Tract 4C & 6A2 and a portion of Tracts 4D & 6A, J.G. Allen Survey, Abstract No. 18, being approximately 30.1 acres. *** Insert M&B Description *** Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 8 EXHIBIT “B” Developer's Narrative Letter Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 9 Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 10 Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 11 Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 12 Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 13 Conceptual Drawing of Overall Site Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 14 Proposed Development Plan for South Village at Watermere Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 15 Conceptual Building Elevations Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 16 Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 17 Overall Fencing Plan Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 18 Conceptual Landscape Plan Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 19 Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 20 Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 21 Parking Island Cross Section Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 22 Entry Gate Exhibit Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 23 Drainage Channel Exhibit Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 24 Drainage Channel Cross Section Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 25 Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 26 Landscape Plan Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 27 Tree Conservation Analysis Case No. Attachment H ZA07-098 Page 28