Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Item 8A
City of Southlake Department of Planning STAFF REPORT February 15, 2006 CASE NO: ZA05 -127 P ROJECT: Zoning Change for Proposed Bella Lago Subdivision REQUEST: On behalf of Marylyn E. Miles, Maxxus Development, L.P. is requesting approval of a change of zoning from "AG" Agricultural District to "SF -IA" Single Family Residential District on approximately 11.25 acres. No plan is required to be submitted with a request for "SF-IA" single family residential development. Approximately 26 % of the surrounding property owners within 200 feet of the property have officially registered opposition to the request. Because of this, a super - majority vote (6 of 7 City Council members) is needed to approve the requested zoning change. ACTION NEEDED: Consider approval of first reading for zoning change ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information (B) Vicinity Map (C) Surrounding Property Owners Map (D) Surrounding Property Owners Responses (E) Ordinance No. 480 -478 STAFF CONTACT: Ken Baker (748 -8067) Dennis Killough (748 -8072) Case No. ZA 05 -127 BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNER: Marylyn E. Miles APPLICANT: Maxxus Development, L.P. PROPERTY SITUATION: The property is located at the 2900 Block of Burney Lane behind the properties located at 2930 to 2970 Burney Lane. LEGAL DESCRIPTION LAND USE CATEGORY CURRENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING: HISTORY: TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT: Case No. ZA 05 -127 Tract 5, situated in the R. Price Survey, Abstract No. 1207 Low Density Residential "AG" Agricultural District "SF-IA" Single Family Residential District There is no development history on this property Master Thorouzhfare Plan The Master Thoroughfare Plan does not make any recommendations for roadways adjacent to the proposed subdivision. Existin- Area Road Network and Conditions The proposed subdivision will have one (1) street intersecting with Burney Lane. Currently, Burney Lane is a 2 -lane, undivided residential roadway. The capacity of the existing roadways is approximately 8,400 vehicle trips per day. Under this condition, the roadways would be considered to operate under a level of service 'D'. This development is not expected to warrant expansion of the existing roadway network. No plans for improvement in the near future have been made for Burney Lane. Traffic Impact Use # Lots Vtpd* AM- IN AM- OUT PM- IN PM- OUT Single-Family Residential 9 86 2 5 6 3 *Vehicle Trips Per Day * *The AM /PM times represent the number of vehicle trips generated during the peak travel tunes on Burney Lane. Attachment A Page 1 PATHWAYS MASTER PLAN: The Southlake Pathways Master Plan does not recommend any trail or sidewalk improvements adjacent to this site. WATER & SEWER: An 8 -inch water line exists along the east side of Burney Lane. No sanitary sewer lines are located within close proximity to the site. The applicant is proposing to use private septic systems. DRAINAGE COMMENTS: The lots on the east side of the proposed street drain to the proposed storin drain system which will carry the storm water to the proposed detention pond. The detention pond will outfall into the existing channel directly north of the development. The lots on the west side of the street will sheet flow directly into the existing channel. TREE PRESERVATION: The site is heavily wooded with typical Cross Timber type vegetation of numerous Post Oaks and associated understory vegetation. Other trees that may be existing on the site are Black Hickory, Cedar Elm, Black Jack Oak, Ash and American Elm which would be closer to the floodplain area of the site. From the shape of the existing flood plain on lots 2, 5 and 6, the construction of homes on these lots may possibly require reclamation of flood plain area. Grading plans are not required to be submitted with the submittal of Concept Plans so it is difficult to determine how proposed grading and construction would affect the flood plain and existing trees outside of buildable areas. SOUTHLAKE 2025: City Council approved the recommendations made by the Southlake 2025 committee for the Plan Area `E' study area to include the following changes: Land Use Recommendations • Existing land use designation — Low Density Residential. Environment Resource Recommendations Protect and enhance critical environmental and natural features, with particular emphasis on trees and floodplains. Allow floodplains, wetlands, and streams to remain in a natural state and preserve a tree buffer around these features. The Environmental Resource Protection Map specifically identifies most of the site as a priority area for protection. Building pads should be located to maximize tree preservation and to avoid the floodplain. P &Z ACTION: November 17, 2005; Approved to table (5 -0) until December 8, 2005. The Commission held discussion with Mr. Housmans and Mr. Lyle. The Commission agreed the following issues needed to be further addressed: • determine where the flood plain is located Case No. ZA 05 -127 Attachment A Page 2 • determine the buildable area of each of the lots • tree plan • further determine drainage plan • fencing illustrations • deed restrictions regarding stables or barn type structures • location of horse trail • skeptical regarding the proposed septic system plans being realistic and the impact of the systems on the existing trees • concerns about the easement / dedicated right of way December 8, 2005; Approved to table (7 -0) until January 5, 2006. January 5, 2006; Approved to table (6 -0) until January 19, 2006. The following are the issues that were discussed prior to tabling: • Consideration of the Environmental Resource Protection aspect of the Southlake 2025 Land Use Plan. • Infringement upon the flood plain • The configuration, elimination, or combining of lots • Specifically, lots 5, 6, and 2 are too close • Reduce to 7 lots • Long term effects of aerobic septic systems • No perimeter fencing that would hinder wildlife movement • Eliminate horse trail • Incorporate a wildlife easement • Look at deed restricting street parking in order to narrow the roadway... making sure any changes are acceptable to the Fire Dept. • Tree Preservation January 19, 2006; Approved to table (7 -0) until February 9, 2006. The following items were stated prior to tabling: • Show us a plan with 7 new lots • Show on plan each pad site; all easements; all strips and buffers; and materials used for strips and buffers • tree preservation plan; including trees you are going to mitigate and /or add across the south and the east • consider different form for wildlife easement or migration pattern — seeking staff's assistance • location of septic • view shed map retention area • show areas to replant and vegetation that will be put in • detail of retention area • drainage flows • work with the neighbors Case No. Attachment A ZA 05 -127 Page 3 February 9, 2006, approved (5 -0) subject to accepting the applicant's "Developer Commitment" received by the City February 9, 2006 at the meeting and noting the applicant's unwillingness to commit to a maximum of seven (7) new residential lots. STAFF COMMENTS: An application for "SF -IA" zoning does not require submittal of a concept plan. No review summary was created for this item. Case No. Attachment A ZA 05 -127 Page 4 Vicinit ► Map Tract 5, R.D. Price Survey, Abstract No. 1207 Bella Lago E Case No. Attachment B ZA 05 -127 Page 1 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 Feet Surrounding Property Owners Tract 5, R.D. Price No. 1207 Bella Lago 12 Case No. ZA 05 -127 Attachment C Page 1 Owner Zoning Land Use Acreage 1. Stewart, John D & L nda A SF-IA Low Density Residential 1.84 2. Wilson, John N & Thelma B SF-IA Low Density Residential 1.93 3. Fischbach, Bernard V & Barb SF-IA Low Density Residential 1.99 4. Winn, Darin & Michele Mers, Clarence A & Carmen E SF-IA Low Density Residential 1.92 5. Fredricks, Jack M & Rose E SF-IA Low Density Residential 1.87 6. Housmans, Errol V & Leslie SF-IA Low Density Residential 1.86 7. Flora, Ward D & Diedra W SF-IA Low Density Residential 3.876 8. Burnett, Don & Patricia Ann SF-IA Low Density Residential 0.83 9. George, David W SF-IA Low Density Residential 0.96 10. Miles, Marylyn E SF-IA Low Density Residential 11.251 11. George, David W SF-IA Low Density Residential 0.973 12. George, David W SF-IA Low Density Residential 0.836 Case No. ZA 05 -127 Attachment C Page 1 Surrounding Property Owner Responses Bella Lago Notices Sent Certified Mail: Twelve (12) Responses Received from Residents within 200' as of 02/03/06: Five (5) Name Address Position Date(s) SPO # WITHIN 200 * Bernard Fischbach * Lynda Stewart * John Wilson * Diedra Flora * Jack & Rose Fredricks OUTSIDE 200 * Robert Johnson * David Valdez * Ray Chancellor * Randy Staples Jim & Jamie Galis Shay Sabbatis Hans & Alethea Schroen * Mary O'Connor 2940 Burney Ln Opposed 11/07/05 3 2920 Burney Ln Opposed 11115105 1 2930 Burney Ln Opposed 11/14/05 2 880 Harbor Ct Opposed 11115105 7 2960 Burney Ln Opposed 11/17/05 5 1110 Harbor Retreat St Opposed 11/07 &28/05 NA 2910 Harbor Refuge St Opposed 11/09/05 NA 890 Harbor Ct Opposed 11/11/05 NA 1080 Harbor Haven Opposed 11/14/05 NA 885 Harbor Ct Opposed 11/16/05 NA 850 Harbor Ct Opposed 11/16/05 NA 2895 Burney Ln Opposed 11/17/05 NA 2965 Burney Ln Opposed 1/25/06 NA The list above reflects correspondence received via letter or email and does not include those residences that have signed any unofficial petitions. A neighborhood petition, signed by thirty -six (36) residents of Harbor Oaks and Huse Homeplace, was also submitted on November 17, 2005. Another neighborhood petition, signed by fifty -two (52) residents of Harbor Oaks, Huse Homeplace, and Camel Bay was submitted at the Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting on January 19, 2006 * Denotes signature of City's Official Opposition Petition Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 1 Property Owner Respplise Foi Reference. ZA 6'S - ! f A ! q b dJu tn�y fry h. � Being the owners) of the property so noted, do hereby favor . oppose circle or underline one) the proposed rezoning of the above referenced property. Signature Return or Mail to: City of Sauthlake Planning Department 1400 Main Street, Suite 310 Southlake, Texas 76092 N;; Community DevelopmentlW ?- FTE.FS\FORM,S1official ptitiotl doc t /* / &V° REC'D N OV a 7 2001 Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 2 ppoperty owazP)• Response Forin 'a. B aQ-0 G2 t L-1 . 07� UC-L"- I ' .. N Il tl T Being the owner(s) of the property so noted, do hereby favor oppose (circle car undwline one) the proposed rezoning of the above referenced property. Return or Mail to: City of Southlake Planning Department 1400 Main Street, Suite 310 Southlake, Texas 76092 NACommunity D eve }opmrn[\WP -Fri ESTORM51ofncieI petition-dot RECD NOV 1 5 2705 Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 3 Property Ohre Response Form Reference: ZA (),S T i ZL t f, ' N , [h , � saw. C - � 0 1 30 �3 uCneI LV\ Being the owners) of the property so noted, do hereby favor o ase (circle or underline one) the proposed rezoning of the above referenced property. 6L, 3 RF C , j �.! n V -t A 2-005 Return or Mail to: City of South] ake Planning Department 1400 Main Street, Suite 310 Southlake, Texas 75092. Date r T p v&, :` a rer, 5 ovAA k '�- (�GPC o 5 �a O c cklr t QC�t125 V\ CV��I rW,lnnEth� N- Commimiry DevelopmetitlWP- Fr[.ESIFORMSlofiicial petition .doe Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 4 Page 1 of 1 Lorrie Fletcher From: Bea Wilson Sent. Tuesday, November 15, 2005 12:31 PM To: Lorrie Fletcher Subject. Case ZA05 -127 To City of Southlake dept of Planning, P &Z Commission, City Council I would like to express my opposition to the proposed zoning change and proposed development of the 11.25 acres west of the northern end of Burney Ln. I would like a better understanding of why this land was changed from agricultural to SF -1A in the 2025 land use plan. Why does every parcel of land need to be developed? When we moved to Southlake in 1990, my wife said we were moving to "gentleman's country ". I've not heard a better description of our area. It is truly unique in our city. The large lots, the equestrian trails, access to carps property make our area special to those who live here. Timmaron type developments are great, they are just not what we want. And the Bella Lago development couldn't be more conceptually opposite from Harbor Oaks. One acre lots with 5000+ sgft homes will present many problems. What type of proven septic system will work.? Isn't the western side of some lots in the 100 yr or 500 yr flood plain? What about the experience that the city, as well as homeowners had with the development eventually called Huse Home Place? Haven't we been down this trail? Originally proposed as small lots with suspect septic systems, this development was nicely done very much In keeping with our neighborhood. Thanks for your attention, John and Bea Wilson, 2930 Burney Ln, 817 -488 -4536 RM UV 15 2005 11115/2005 Case No. ZA 05 -127 Attachment D Page 5 Propet•ty []? urz& Respvn Form Reefereuce: ZA Q 6' � 4 -7 ]� d' ,,rr rl pra— , ooff- laA T 1&012- Being the owner(s) of the property so noted, do hereby favor �circle or underline one) the proposed rezoning of the above referenced property- azure Lute Return or Mail to: RM'D NOV I ) 2005 City of Southlake Planning Department 1400 Main Street, Suite 3 10 Soutblake, Texas 76092 N:1Communiry DevelopmentlWP- FYL- ESTORMSlofficial perifl- 60C Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 6 Page 1 of 1 Lorrie Fletcher From: Sent: Tuesday, November 95, 2005 7. 10 PM To: Lorrie Fletcher Subject: Case No ZA05 -927 zoning Change for proposed Bella Lago November 15, 2005 Dear Ms. Fletcher, Please forward the following comments and questions to the Planning and Zoning Commissioners. We are the family living directly south of the proposed development, at 880 Harbor Court. Three issues should be addressed when cons[dering the proposed zoning change for the Bella Lago development. First, the density of the project dots from 1.0 to 1.5 acres) is not consistent with the existing neighborhood, Specifically, the newest development in this area, Huse Homeplace was approved by the City with lots ranging from 2.5 to 3.9 acres. It is my understanding that this plan was adopted after at least one other plan with lots in the range of 1 acre was rejected. It seems reasonable that If Huse Homeplace could be successfully developed on larger lots that are consistent with the existing neighborhood, then why not consider a similar plan for Bella Lago? We have initiated an information request with the City Staff to investigate the particulars of the Huse Homeplace development process. Second, any developer considered for this project should be evaluated on the basis of experience, Considering the environmentally fragile nature of this land, and the complex drainage Issues it seems reasonable that the approved developer have considerable experience. Does Maxxus Development, LP have significant experience in land development? Third., being an owner of an aerobic septic system, I can speak to their complexity and requirements. Since these systems need a substantial aeration field, and do not operate flawlessly, I have a hard time visualizing a system serving a 5,000 square foot house operating on 1 acre lots. For example, lots 1,5, and b appear to be around 50% in the flood plain. Will these lots be using their front and back yards as aeration 'fields? Sincerely, Ward and Diedra Flora 880 Harbor Court 11116/2005 Case No. ZA 05 -127 REM NOV 16 2005 Attachment D Page 7 Property Ownd-j• Respvizse Fours Reference; ZA 95 -1ZI I, R05t FvedvrC -93 7-R & {7 t,t the L e - 60I.t: h BUJ' <<, `i 7C Oq Being the owner(s) of the property so noted, do hereby favor/ pose circle or underline or,e) the proposed rezoning of the above referenced property. ignature Date REM I�QV 1 6 2005 Return or Mall to: city of Southlake Planning Department 1400 Main Street, Suite 31 b southlake, Texas 75092 N:ICommuniry DcvOckpmentlWP- FIi.ESTORMSlofifcial PCfWon d 13 Case No. ZA 05 -127 Attachment D Page 8 Messagc Page 1 of 1 Lorrie Fletcher From: Fredricks Family , Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 9.52 PM To: Lorrie Fletcher Subject: Bella Lago development Concerns to be addressed Opposition to the project as proposed includes the following; 1) Lots under 1 5 acres We believe that the lots should be a minimum of t 5 acres This is more suited to the neighborhood Also without City sewer, we are concerned about the potential smell and impact to natural foliage of multiple aerobic septic systems 2) Road construction across natural creek We believe that the road should be constructed in such a way with a high quality bridge with natural stone veneer to match the natural environment (creek) of the area. We are concerned that the appearance will not fit the current environment and that the drainage plan will create an opportunity for rain water to back up onto our property The road should be screened by existing natural woods /trees 3) House size and style The house size and style should conform to the neighborhood to ensure consistent resale value of our homes Currently as planned, they do not We also have a concern for the potential of sky racketing property taxes that typically result from the addition of high -end homes in a neighborhood 4) Access to Core of Engineering property Public access to core of engineer property should be provided from the entrance of the development along the new read so that horse owners in the development will have access to the core of engineering property that abuts to the new road and development. 5) Natural green belt in back portion of lots A thoughtful approach to development should be provided In such a manner to provide a green belt of shrubs and trees with the natural screening remaining between the back of the proposed lots and the back of the existing lots along Burney Lane 6) Burney Lane street damage There currently is no plan to repair damage on Burney Lane or, or wear and tear, after the development is complete 7) Fencing In the development; We are opposed to privacy fencing between lots, rather wrought iron fencing with natural screening of shrubs and trees We are not completely opposed to development in the area Our concern is that such development conform to the existing neighborhood to ensure consistent property values and environment ,Sack and Rose Fredricks 2960 Burney Lane �g �y Southlake, TX 817- 76092 r RID N O V 11/17/2005 Case No. ZA 05 -127 Attachment D Page 9 Property Owner .Response Form Reference: ZA D S -- { Z Being the owner(s) of the property so noted, do hereby favor oppose ircle or underline one) the proposed rezoning of the above referenced property. -'L' Signature Return or Mail to: City of Southlake Planning. Department 1400 Main Street Suite 310 REUD NOV 0 " 2005 If 7 Z05 Date Southlake, Texas 76092 L-4 - LC!D w 7 nJ (--- rr <E:) t + Y A- N:4Community Development \WP- FILESIFORMSkifficial petition.do r:E [`; y rl L g rc SY r L tT5 T - 0 E 2©©` Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 10 Page 1 of 1 Lorrie Fletcher From: Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 11:56 AM To: Planning Subject: Email sent from City of Southlake Web Site Narne: Robert .Johnson Phone: 917- X124 -17 s. t Email: Comments: I will not be able to attend the Nov. 17th P &Z meeting and wanted to express my "oppose" opinion on the proposed zoning change at 2970 Burney Lane. Case # ZA05 -127. Current zoning is "AG" and proposed is "SF -IA ".. Proposed development is called" Bella Largo" - First, the developer is violating our Harbor Oaks Deed Restrictions. It clearly states that " no owner shall be permitted to re- subdivide any lot of the addition ". They plan on sub- dividing Lot #10 for road access. I think before any change in zoning is made, that this issue should be cleared up first. - second, the proposed development does NOT fit into our equestrian style neighborhood. The lots are too small to have horses and a barn on them, The lots should be a minimum of 1.5 acres like the rest of Harbor Oaks. The "fit" does not stop just with the lot size, but the concept is so off base from this neighborhood, from the syle and size of the homes, to even the name "Bella Lago" . - third, septic_._. these home are proposed to be 5,000 +sf on 1 -1.3 acre lots which. will require them to be septic. (no sewer in this part of town). i have a hard time believing that this property will be suitable for this type of system. - fourth, this property borders Corp of Engineer property- This piece of land really should just be left alone for the sake of the wildlife. Also, bordering this property are the hiking /equestrian trails used by many of Southlake residents. The property lines will be within 50' of these trails, really taking "nature" out of a nature hike. This development really makes no sense at all. This land should be preserved in its natural state, or at a minimum, limit the impact, by reducing the amount of homes allowed on this property. I don't see why we have to put a home on every sliver of land in Southlake. Thank you for your time. RECD NOV 0 7 2005 111912005 Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 11 Properly Owner Response Forst: Referen Z.4 0 j — 1c2-7 L Pr C-2 1-1 C. lei K Being the owner(s) of the property so noted, do hereby , favor appose circle or underline one) the proposed rezoning of the above referenced P y- .. Date RMD NM V o 9 2005 Return or Mail to: City of Sout'hlake 4 / T Y Planning Department r Q e,' 7 — ra Co-'V �' //[l 1400 Main Street, Suite 310 � l- 5outh)ake, 'Texas 76092 ' q _ 7 A F,r- f c— NACummunity Devclopm enllWP- FILESTOPMS\OfFicial prfition,doc Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 12 Property Okvner ,�espo }Ise Form Reference: ZA Being the owners) of the property so noted, do hereby . favor/ ppose circle or underline one) the proposed rezoning of the alcove referenced property. Sign Return or Mail to: City of 5outhlake Planning Department 1400 Main 5tkeet, Suite 310 Southlake, Texas 76092 Date 4 ` De iv 5J � Ob G,1- 1 1 ' X NACommunity Devc l©pmentlVJT- FFL.ESIFDRMS\QfF:cio petikion.doe RECD N 11 2005 C) i & 2Qo Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 13 gropertyt Ojvn r Response Forrrx Reference; ZA' CD 5— e f 2 1 I 7-,c Being the owner(s) of the property so noted, do hereby favor I pose circle or underline one) the proposed rezoning of the above referenced property. tf / e2S— Signature Date Rettrm or Mail to: RFC'0 N 1 4 ?..Q�5 City of Southlake Planning Department 1400 Main Street, Suite 310 Southlake, Texas 76092 , N:1Communiry Dcvclopmmtkwp- FrL.Esw oRms\of iicial petition.doe Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 14 Propel Owner Response Forin Reference: ZA 0 ` 1 07 f I, 4 J V ( rn h a ►- u rn c Being the owner {s} of the property so noted, do hereby favor a as -Cie or underline one) the proposed rezoning of the above referenced property, C') - Vate RECD FEB 1' ZOGG Return or Mail to: City of Southlake Planning Department 1400 Main Street, Suite 31 a Southlake, Texas 76092 jq DevelopmentiVJF- FIr_.ESTORMS1oCticial petition.doz Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 15 Vase IN ZA05 -127 Page 1 oft Loma Fletcher From: Galis, Jim _ Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 9:22 AM To: Lorrie Fletcher Cc: Galls, Jim, Jamie L Petty -Galis Subject: Case # ZA05 -127 To wham it may concern: I would like to submit my opposition to the proposed zoning change for Bella Lago at 2970 Burney Lane. I have been a resident at 885 Harbor Court for 6 years 1 moved into the neighborhood because of the large lots and equestrian lifestyle My reasons for the opposition are as follows: 1 There is not an existing easement for right of way road access, so they would have to subdivide a lot This will violate the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. 2 Lots that have been proposed don't seem sufficient to support aerobic septic systems Aerobic systems require more acreage for distribution of the grey water. If these systems are located too close to property, it can create an odor problem in the area. Much of this area is on flood plane, which will not support septic systems 3 Acreage is not subdivided to support equestrian property 4 1 also understand that keeping this zoned as agricultural will facilitate a bird sanctuary on the property i would be in favor of this since it keeps the area more natural and fitting for horse trails I have also signed a petition that will be presented during the P &Z meeting on Thursday night Thank you OnELC 7 i DV 1 60 2005 .Jim wrwwwwwwwwwwwawwwwwww *w * + ** ***** Jim Galis, Executive Producer Paradigm Entertainment, Inc - Atari 1628 Valwood Pkwy #110 Carrollton. TX 75006 www..p -i.com + ++ there are no accidents + ++ • * *www *wwwwwwwwwwww * * *s * + * * #** 11/16/2005 Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 16 Page 1 of 1 Louie Fletcher From: Jamie L Petty -Galls Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 7:15 PM To: Lorrie Fletcher Subject: Case # ZA05 -127 To whom it may concern: I would like to submit my strong opposition to the proposed zoning change for Bella Lag at 2970 Burney lane 1 have been a resident at 885 Harbor Court for 6 years I moved into the neighborhood because of the large lots and equestrian lifestyle. We have horses on our property as do many of the rest of the residents in this neighborhood. The equestrian character of this area makes it unique in 5outhlake and valuable to the city and residents Certainly, finding horse property so close to State highway 114 and tire equestrian trail network around Lake Grapevine is a valuable commodity for Southlake. I vehemently oppose this zoning change for the following reasons: I. There is not an existing easement for right of way road access. The proposed lots ate landlocked and therefore would require access from Burney through an existing property In order to provide access, a lot would have to be subdivided This will violate the Harbor Oaks deed restrictions. 2. A significant portion of each of the proposed lots occurs in flood plane. This precludes conventional on -site waste treattent using both anerobic and aerobic septic systems. If you are not aware, there is no city waste water access to this part of Southlake Therefore, the requirements of the wastewater treatment alone would require that the individual tots be larger that the proposed t acre and would most likely be on the order of 2 to 3 acres minimum as was the case for the Huse Homeplace development on Harbor Court.. An engineering evaluation of the wastewater treatment requirements must be performed before any zoning change should be considered. 3. One acre is not suitable for horse- keeping To maintain the unique character of this neighborhood the lots should be at least 2 acres to allow for horses. 4 I also understand that keeping this zoned as agricultural will facilitate a bird sanctuary on the property. Certainly my first choice would be to maintain the agriculture zoning to maintain the existing ecosystem that is rapidly dying due to the obliteration of the forest and vegetation around the lake. 1 have signed a petition that will be presented during the P &2 meeting on Thursday night Thank you RECID rov 1. Jamie L. Petty -Gans ernail . ' Office Ytione: 817 -442 -1623 Fax: 817 -442 -1643 11/17/2005 Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 17 Lorrie Fletcher From: Shay Sabbatis Sent: Wednesday, !November 16, 2005 7:53 AM 7o: Lorrie Fletcher Subject: P & Z Commission I am concerned about the development proposals for the property behind 2970 Burney Lane, It is being considered for 10 lots. The adjacent properties have much larger lots. I would like to see this development keep the lot size between 2 -4 acres each. This would ensure enough space for aerobic septic systems and hopefully keep some of the trees and habitat in tact. Thank you for your consideration, f i Shay Sabbatis R�4! !1 i`v� ; l! 1 6 2B9 85a Harbor Ct, Southlake, TX 817}488 -7177 0 Vt 3l cll?. 2 c Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 18 Lorrie Fle tcher From: Hans Schroen Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 4:42 PM To: Lorrie Fletcher Subject. P +Z commission meeting Nov 17th considering ZA05 -127 + 128 To whom it may concern, We would like to voice our opinion and concerns on a proposed development which is being presented Thursday 11/17/05 to your Department, The name of the proposed development is Sella Lago and it is to be located on Burney Lane. We live at 2895 Burney Lane, which is south of the proposed development entry point (there will only be one way in and out of this development). First, let me come forth and state that we are strongly AGAINST this proposed development. The reasons for our objections are highlighted below: 1. The new development does not "fit" into the character of the neighborhood. Much of Burney Lane, Harbor Court, Harbor Retreat and surrounding streets, are geared toward an Equestrian lifestyle. Often, you can find your neighbors riding their horses down the street. There are horse trails throughout our area_ An "ultra exclusive" (quote taken directly from the developers application to your Department) enclave such as Bella Lago does not match the "fit and feel" of the existing homes and properties in our neighborhood. We are riot an "ultra exclusive" neighborhood, nor do we feel the majority of our neighbors want to become one. We are not interested in mimicking Timmarron or Estes Estates, that's simply not what our neighborhood is about. 2. Traffic.. The increased traffic from the lots at Bella Lago will be a burden on Burney Lane. Our home is located south of the proposed development entrance /exit, so every car and vehicle associated with Bella Lago will pass directly in front of our house. We have two small children, ages 4 and 5, and are very concerned with what the increased amount of traffic and speed will do to their safety and the safety of those riding horses in the neighborhood, and the increased wear and tear on the road (already in a deteriorated state of repair), with 9 extra homes on the street you can count on a minimum of 2 cars per household, guest, domestic workers, lawn care and miscellaneous traffic. 3. The destruction of the ecosystem and tranquility of the property on which Bella Lago is to be built, and the surrounding area. Currently, the lot on which the proposed development is to he built, is vacant to humans. However, the property is home to a myriad of wildlife and beautiful old trees. The piece of property in question is landlocked, and has remained undisturbed for many years_ This development is being "forced" upon a land which is not geared or suitable for homes, especially in the plat density as proposed by the developer. Looking at the developers site map, most of the lots are at least partially in a flood plain since it is so close to Lake Grapevine. A lot of ground /soil preparation, razing of trees, and clearing will be necessary. You are "forcing" the land to accept the building plats. In addition, this is destroying one of the last remaining parcels of land in Southlake where wildlife and Mother Nature still roam undisturbed. We hope that our voices will be heard. We are not opposed to development. Our hope is that the development of Southlake is managed very carefully, Too many times we have heard the promises that Southlake is trying to preserve a quality of life and aesthetic but once the development is pushed through, sometimes it appears that the best interest of the city is pushed to a low priority.. This neighborhood has established a precedence and a strong community. It is true that land to develop is becoming more scarce but that does not mean that every square inch of land being developed must have a gigantic home on a postcard sized lot. 'There are other parcels of land available that are better suited for the scope of this development. It is my hope that if this land *must* be developed it will be modified to better fit with the environment and constraints that the land presents and also is compatible with the character and lifestyle already present in this gem of a neighborhood.. Sincerely, Hans & Alethea Schroen e F `r 1 2895 Burney Ln 1 RECD f �O V 1 2005 Y 41 t U 1 Southlake TX 76092 469- 879 -5269 Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 19 Page 1 of'] Lorne Fletcher From: Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 9:14 AM To: Planning Subject: Email sent from City of Southlake Web Site Nance: Robert Johnson Phone: 817 -424 -1281 Comments: I'm a resident of Harbor Oaks where 'Bela Lago" is being proposed. The last P &Z meeting the developer was given extra time to determine effects of drainage, flood plan and septic for this property. My question is, do the engineers of Southlake validate the developers findings ?? This developer has said several things at the SPIN meeting and at the fast P &Z meeting that were not accurate. I am strongly opposed to this development, it does not fit our neighborhood at all. He is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Thanks for your time. RE 11129/2005 Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 20 Page 1 of 1 Lorrie Fletcher From: Lori Farwell Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 4 :07 PM To: 'MayorWambsganss @aol.com ": Place 1; Place 2; Place 3; Place 4; Place 5; Place 6 Cc: Ken Baker; Lorrte Fletcher Subject: !Bella Lago development Front: Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 2:50 PM To: Lori Farwell Subject: Email sent from City of 5outhlake Web Site Name: Mary O'Connor Phone: 817- 488 -6282 Email: Omwildwood ca hotmail_com Comments Lori, Please forward this to all Planning and Zoning Personnel and the City Council Regarding Bella Lago, I have attentted 2 of the meetings where Erroll Houseman made presentations for a zoning change. It was apparent that some of the board members are meeting Mr. Houseman in private to help him put together a plan that would be acceptable forthe P &Z to pass on to the City Council. You received a petition with over 55 citizen in the Harbor Oaks subdivision opposing this developement, Will you meet with us privately to help our efforts to defeat this proposal? If we are forced to hire an attorney to enforce our deed restriction because of your actions, will the city reimburse us for our expense? Your admonition to those present to "work with Bella Lago" at the close of the last meeting was indicative of your bias towards this developer. That Mr Houseman stated he was tearing down his house in order to put a road in should indicate that he has no intention of remaining in this neighborhood and being a good neighbor once he gets this zoning change approved. Mr Houseman states that he is trying to work with the neighbors, but that is not true. Ask him who he has worked with and then contact those people. I doubt any would substantiate his claim- Until you walk the property you will not understand the ruggedness of the terrian and understand that all of his claims of not grading and impacting the environment are unrealistic. The soil on this property is rock, not nice topsoil that would support pollution control natural barriers. And replanting of trees destroyed would be a joke, It is not a hospitable place for new plantings. We have asked, suggested, and pleaded, that you use the Huse Addition as a model for this development. When you all agreed at the last meeting that 7 homesites was a number you could agree on it was obvious you totally ignored our recommendation and concerns, 55 people versus 1 developer, how can his desire to Elf his pockets so out weigh our concern for the neighborhood and the environment? I hope you will all reconsider giving this zoning request anymore time or attention and show some concern for a majority of citizens versus a greedy developer and simply vote it down at the next meeting. A response to my questions would be greatly appreciated. Respectfully, Mary O'Connor,2965 Burney Lane, Southlake RECD J AN 2 5 2006 1/25/2006 Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 21 Page I of I Lorrie Fletcher From: chinook450@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, February 41, 2406 5:36 AM To: Lorne Fletcher Subject: Bella Lago -- Update on Neighborhood Meeting With Mr. Housmans Ms. Fletcher; Please Forward the following information to Mr. Baker, and the Planning and Zoning Commissioners. If you would reply to this message to verify your receipt, I would appreciate it. Early last week (Monday and Tuesday) the neighbors, within 200' of the proposed development discussed the particulars of Mr. Housmans' last proposal with the purpose of providing a position of consensus. All parties agreed that If Mr. Housmans could provide the necessary "buffer zones" and the other environmental considerations he discussed at the last P &Z meeting, then the neighbors would support the development of 6 new lots. Mr. Housmans' original proposal contained 9 new lots. Our support would include the withdrawal of our current peltition of opposition. I relayed this proposal to Mr. Housmans in a telephone conversation, and he suggested we have a neighborhood meeting on Saturday, January 28th. The meeting took place in a local restaurant, beginning with Mr. Housmans presenting a revised plat including 7 new lots, The neighbors restated their portion, and after much discussion, disagreement continues over the number of new lots. Sincerely, Ward Flora 880 Harbor Court 2/1/2006 RECD r c- L o i L)a05 Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 22 Ward and Diedra Flora 880 Harbor Court Southlake, TX 76092 January 5, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commissioners City of Southlake 1400 Main Street Southlake, TX 76092 Gentlemen; Please let me take this opportunity to express two points regarding the proposed development, Bella Lago. My family and I live on the property immediately south of two of the proposed lots. I believe that bath the interests of the landowner and developer can be balanced with those of the existing community. Plainly speaking, some compromise should be pursued and targeted at the issue of density. The current proposal is simply too dense, too many lots on too lithe property I say this for two reasons. First, we can argue about the average lot size, the average home size, and the presence or lack of presence of horses, but one fact cannot be disputed. A simple drive through the existing community would clearly reveal the rural and open nature of the area_ This is very different from most parts of Southlake. The proposed Bella Lago plan of 1 acre lots clustered around a boulevard is not consistent with this community. By compromising the lot size, this development could be built and still be a part of the existing community In fact, the Huse Ilomeplace development, where my family and I live has 6 home sites ranging from aborjt 2 acres to almost 4 acres. A review of City {council documents analyzing the history of Huse Homeplace demonstrates that the City Council voted down a larger and higher density proposal. What began as an adversarial process ended with the development of property that is consistent with the existing community. This same process should be pursued with the Bella Lago proposal Second, the density of the current Bella Lago proposal generates another issue, the implementation of sewage treatment systems_ This proposal "stacks" sewage treatment systems too close and an adverse terrain and will result in problems As an owner of an aerobic system for 6 years, I can offer the following experience. Our 4,500 sq. foot house requires an aeration field of approximately Y, of an acre It is hard for me to understand how a pad for a 5,000 sq, foot house, a swimming pool, and some yard is going to leave space for an appropriate aeration field. Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 23 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 fell 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 From experience, I 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 By positioning these systems on small lots you are increasing the impact of one failure on the neighborhood. In the case of Huse Homeplace, fats of 2 plus acres provide sufficient separation when failures occur. If the current Bella Lago proposal is approved, my family and I will have two aeration fields facing our front door. In conclusion, these issues should be resolved by compromise, as they have been resolved in the past The developer should submit a revised, lower density plan that would be more consistent with the existing community, and would decrease the risk of septic issues. If the developer will not agree, an objective expert in sewage treatment systems should testify before this Commission regarding the viability and risks of this proposed plan. Sinc rely, Ward Flora Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 24 Fe- CV' 4 e Pi 7- 1- 5 -ab Bella Lago Preliminary Platt Considerations A decision matrix related to the proposed development of Bella Lago Estates should at least consider the following: 1. "Environmentally Sensitive" and "Ecologically Sensitive" are two different concepts. The City has carefully delimited areas within the City that has been defined "environmentally sensitive" and inchides primarily trees that should be "preserved where appropriate ". In most cases this implies a mature stand of trees, or possibly a wooded riparian path that may be used as a natural pedestrian walkway. The majority of this proposed Bella Lago plat has been designated as "environmentally sensitive ". What is not included in the City's decision matrix is a provision for ecologically sensitive areas As a result there is no map to recognize our ecological assets needing special consideration when reviewing; proposed development With this piece of undisturbed 100 year old piece of wooded property located in what I call the South lake Cove Ecological System, there is little question that the 90 percent or more of the proposed plat is an integral part of that system. The decisions made regarding this plat may eventually affect the whole system. These decisions also will set the precedent upon which the approximately] 0 acres directly north of this property will be developed next. 2. The slope in various portions of this proposed plat exceeds 10 percent and some reach 20 percent grade slope. Communities vary on what allowable slope percentage is allowed in areas where the environment should be a considered variable. (Flom 5% to 25 %) Our neighbor, Flower Mound uses 12'/ percent as the slope limit beyond which no development is allowed. Tire reasons are simple It is necessary for preserving riparian corridors and habitats. It maintains and provides greenways.. It preserves water quality by maintaining vegetation. 3. The flood plain, based just on visual review, consumes possibly 20-25 % of the proposed preliminary plat. Many communities across the country seeking to protect their environmental surroundings do so by limiting development juxtapositioned to flood plains. They do this by not allowing the flood plain area of a proposed plat to be included in any density calculations. Some go as far at to not allow these defined areas to he included in the development of any plat_ This allows for these communities to preserve natural areas and to come back later in order to create green belt walkways. Just think what commodity the City of South lake would have created if such a guideline had been used to preserve Big Bear Creek drainage system for the public. Also, such a guideline does more to preserve public natural areas ( "open space ") in an ecological sense than all the Conservation overlays that have been proposed to date. 4. The building of a single "community horse barn" or stables and a "trail" from this plat. Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 25 The building of a "community horse barn" would appear to pose several items that would need discussion and direction. a. SF I A designation would seem to not have any provision that would allow a "community horse barn ". b. The placement of such a facility can create a defined water pollution point source in relation to Lake Grapevine. One recent water quality testing report showed that only one spot in the lake has a high pH value — that point is off the included effluent channel. c. Poorly planned horse trails can be a serious detriment to maintaining land integrity. If the barn is placed on top of the upslope it would be in the back of existing yards. if it is placed on the down slope, it would be on steep grades and a direct trail to Corps property would accelerate water downhill creating serious erosion even into the Corps property flood plain over time. d. Technically, any connecting trail from a home, or in this case, homes, requires a Corps permit We probably have many connecting paths that are not permitted at this time but a "community stable" would definitely need approval if approved by City Council Using Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's results of the Wildlife Habitat Appraisal Process (WRAP) conducted in 2002, it is already established that if this plat has at minimum a WRAP index of .75. This means that if, hypothetically, a maximum of 5 acres of the 10 is used for the development and the remaining 5 acres is left undisturbed, only the equivalent of 115 "habitat value" acres will remain Should the owners of the property choose to clear the underbrush on the property the habitat value will drop to 2.5 acres. This figure will be significantly further reduced if all the non -oak trees such as red cedar, prickly ash, liackberry and other non -oak trees are removed. This means that, even with the best intentions, if efforts are not taken to preserve our ecological resources, we are relegating these areas to extinction through a failure to realize the ecological effects of platting property near or adjacent to ecologically sensitive areas. 6. Wildlife Corridor - The proposed plat, in totality, is part of a major wildlife corridor which forms the "Southlake Cove" )ecological system, All species of wildlife in this system which require tracts of a continuous environment for movement to hunt and reproduce will be affected by this development, The failure to consider limits on any kind of fencing that would remove or seriously restrict this corridor should be critically evaluated. 7. The total removal of under story within this plat will virtually eliminate the habitat, fond supply, and movement corridor for many existing indigenous wildlife species in the plat area. S.. Setting Precedent and City Efforts - It is a total non- sequiter not to begin to look at and realize that particular ecosystems and ecotones exist within the city limits of Southlake. Decisions affecting these areas may even far surpass in ecological importance those areas designated as environmentally sensitive in the 2025 Plan. This should not be taken as a criticism, but one of fact, The point is that this plat request blatantly brings to the table Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 26 decision variables which need to be incorporated into the next generation of City planning/plan clarifications. 9. Creativity —Creative planning must be brought to the table to look at options for mediating the needs of the developers with the need of the City to salvage to some degree what is left of an already compromised but powerful ecological system they hold in trust. With "build out" eminent, work to base decisions oil a total "build out" model instead of incrementally making decisions which lack far reaching consequences. Define and delineate ecologically sensitive areas in the City of Southlake. Review incentive options which the city might offer /support which would allow developers to include protective ecological measures as a benefit, not a detriment Seek cooperative planning options with the Texas Parks and Wildlife, adjacent communities, Corps of Engineers, Texas Conservation Conservancy, taxing authorities, and other organizations that might be used to support more structured ecological planning related to community development. Create new options by which ecological areas can be preserved for the up blic benefit and not be privatized through development plats using the guise of "open space" as it is ambiguously defined at this time, or "private" communities. 10, Consider Conservation Easements in identified or designated ecologically sensitive or environmentally sensitive zones. These easements can take on many descriptions from pure restricted easements preventing any development to formal state recognized and supported zones even recognized by tax entities. Possible Solutions Given the ecological significance of the plat request area, the expressed intent of the City to preserve and conserve natural areas, the topography of the plat, and the need to protect a semblance of the existing wildlife Corr idor, it would be a total non- sequiter to approve the plat as originally requested. Possible solutions to allow construction while preserving the integrity of the ecologically sensitive area could include the following: (These are neither rank ordered nor are they intended to represent the possible domain of solutions acceptable to the neighbors within 200 ft. of the proposed plat.) I _ Reduce the potential number of allowable homes to a number in line with a density calculated on the nonnally accepted formula less the acreage of flood plain on the plat. 2. Limit the number of homes on the west side of the plat to only areas 1 not in the flood plain and (2) not within areas where slope rrradc „exceeds 10 percent and (mot to exceed the area allowable density less the flood plain area. Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 27 Do not allow any provision for a "Community Barn or Stable" and encourage the division covenants to restrict horses or any animal that will remove the vegetative covering of the land. Even though this is an equestrian community, the slope of the land, equestrian fencing, single dot barns, and over grazed and over used yards, all lead to serious degradation of the land and total destruction of the ecological system on that property. Seek City incentives for developers preserving_,thc „wildrife corridors. Provide restrictions related to any solid barrier fencing on a 50 -100 feet western band of the plat the sensitive wildlife corridor, which would maintain a wildlife corridor in perpetuity.. This could involve "curve averaging” to maintain a natural fencing configuration if required. Simply do not remove tire agricultural zoning classification until the City can better define an ecologically sensitive area decision matrix. I am submitting these concerns as reasons why I cannot support the proposed preliminary plat as presented. There is a whole domain of questions which must be resolved before critical decisions on the future of identified ecological features of Southlake can be made. Bella Lago is one of those features. The City of Southlake leas been given a wonderful natural trust. It is blatantly evident that if steps are not taken to limit its incremental demise, Southlake will loose forever a natural treasure that has served the area for iniIlennia Respectfully Submitted, Clay L Chancellor Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 28 PETITION We the citizens of Southlake, Texas and residents of'14arbor Oaks Estate subdivision, the subdivision juxtapositioned to the proposed Sella Lago subdivision, do hereby formally protest the proposed preliminary plat proffered to the City of Southlake and described as BE LLA LA GO; being Lot 10, Block 1 HARBOR OAKS, and Tract 5 in the R. Price Survey, Absiracl 1207, and being approximately 13.09 acres located at 2970 Burney large The C10-rent toning of this property is "AG" Agricullural District The proposed Zoning is SF-1A "Single Family" Protested is the residential density being proposed which, even though recommended by the City in the 2025 Plan for Land Use, will significantly alter the residential makeup and land use for which these residents have purchased homes and have worked years to develop and protect. The proposed density is significantly greater than that which currently exists with the significant portion of existing homes being equestrian centered and with the average lot size of approximately 2 acres. Approval of the proposed preliminary plat will deviate from the City's own 2025 Plan regarding the recommended preservation of tree cover and under story on the western portion of this preliminary plat. Furthermore, in presenting; this proposed plat, the developer and the City are doing so not having explored options available in the City's 2025 Plan for Environmental resources. Just one of those recommendations for possible exploration might be as follows: (taken from the Southlake 2025 Plan, 6.0 Environmental Resources, 6.2.2 Recommendations and Implementation Strategies) Ensure that trees and vegetation along the stream corridors remain in a natural state. Develop regulations that allow,/or creative andllexible sire design Encourage the placement of critical environrrrental resources into a conservation easement to ensure lire protection of the area. We, therefore, petition the City of Southlake to not consider this recommended plat proposal until such time as a reduction in proposed home density will reflect the general design of the neighborhood and until such time as plat modifications better reflect the recommendations of the Southlake 2025 Plan regarding preservation of the environment and the preservation of the Southlake rural atrnosphere. Respectfully submitted this day of November, 2[105 nr_u �`. V 7 2005 Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 29 NAI E ADDRESS _ 193-j U F rUe- 1553 f A e q —" "`'` '�" I.� �a ✓acv C�C� �rc.t^r'l � � za pt..F J /DEC 2 i4 r E A, ,44-.,1,iw "q 5 0 Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 30 NAME ADDRESS t5 L Z- 7Cet]x Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 31 NAME ADDRESS c`�� fiaa r�iGrP �rer7' t1'G) � yry �j 7 r 7 c� flyd, hos 4Ty /11 iG� � a U`{ a •C �` 7 L -oar .- ���� ,70 ,� ��# i ►. C �I J � 05 SO-CM l 4- r� rfa QL c c Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 32 F e-c- ,, t A ?�, - Z-- � a-A� } - q, -DO Citizens of Southlake Caramel Bay Harbor Oaks Huse Homeplace January 9, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commissioners City of Southlake 1400 Main Street Southlake, TX 70092 Gentlemen: Please let us take this opportunity to express five points regarding the proposed development, Bella Lego. We believe that both the interests of the landowner and developer can be balanced with those of the existing community. Plainly speaking, some compromise should be pursued and targeted at the issue of density. The current proposal is simply too dense, too many lots on too little property. We say this for five reasons. First, we can argue about the average lot size, the average home size, and the presence or lack of presence of horses, but one fact cannot be disputed. A simple drive through the existing community would clearly reveal the rural and open nature of the area. This is very different from most parts of Southlake. The proposed Bella Lego plan of 1 acre lots clustered around a boulevard is not consistent with this community. By compromising the lot size, this development could be built and still be a part of the existing community. In fact, the Huse Homeplace development, the most recent development in the area has 6 home sites ranging from about 2 acres to almost 4 acres. A review of City Council documents analyzing the history of Huse Homeplace demonstrates that the City Council voted down a larger and higher density proposal. What began as an adversarial process ended with the development of property that is consistent with the existing community., This same process should be pursued with the Bella Lego proposal. 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." It constitutes two of the five transition zones associated with the Quail Creek flow channel. This varied transition zone system serves virtually every animal listed in this part of Texas. Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 33 Failure to recognize this complex biosystern and its impact of the total "Cove " system would be an irreversible tragedy for the City of Southlake. By reducing the density of the development these environmental issues could be addressed. Further, less home sites would give the developer some "breathing room" to propose concrete plans to address the issue of animal migration along the western corridor of the property . Again, Huse Horneplace should serve as a successful model. Third, by the developer's own admission, at least one of the proposed lots will require "reclamation" of the public land in the floodplain of Lake Grapevine. This process will require significant excavation in an environmentally sensitive area - We don't believe this process has been pursued in the City of Southlake in the past. Fourth, due to the severe topography of the site, development will be complex and require detailed water drainage plans that will be both successful, and offer the least disturbance to the natural environment. By reducing the density of the development, this issue can be addressed with more flexibility. Fifth, the density of the current Bella Lago proposal generates another issue, the implementation of sewage treatment systems. This proposal "stacks" sewage treatment systems too close and on adverse terrain and will result in problems. We have several owners of aerobic systems in the area and can offer the following experience. A 4,500 sq. 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 sq. 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 world seem "normal" in a home connected to the City sewer system, or even a more forgiving traditional septic system with an underground drainage field. In addition, these systems function with multiple electric pumps for air and effluent water that represent points of failure. Since they are mechanical devices, they will fail from time to time. Case No. Attachment D ZA 05-127 Page 34 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. By positioning these systems on small lots you are increasing the impact of one failure on the neighborhood. In the case of Muse Homeplace, lots of 2 plus acres provide sufficient separation when failures occur In conclusion, these issues should be resolved by compromise, as they have been resolved in the past. The developer should submit a revised, lower density plan. Specifically, we propose that Huse Homeplace be used as a model for Bella Lago Sincerely, The Citizens of Carmel Bay, Harbor Oaks and Muse Homeplace Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 35 Della Lap-o Petition (1- sghli& means no email address on file) Suhdivislon Name Address Signature HO 044, JOW81 & ICA* • 1029 Burney Lane ,HO Cox, Mark & Carol 1039 Burney Lane HD Hill, Sam & Barbara 1085 Burney Lane IIO zielke, Rod & Marge 1090 Burney 1 ane HO Scltmid_Jini 1095 Burney Lane HO Stanyer, AB & Garnetta 3100 Burney Lane HO Moore, Mike & Debbie 2875 Burney Lane HO zaMcGaffigan, Marc & Joasi 2885 Bum ey lane HO Schroen, Harps & Alethea 2895 Burney Lane HO. Land, Ken & Gloria 2900 Burney Lane 110 mora John & Barbara 2905 Burney Lane Ho Hakert, Amy 2910 Burney Lane HO Wambsganss, Lean & Becky 2935 Burney Lnne 1.10 stew ail, John & Lynda 2920 Burney Lane Ho Czarnecki, Pete & Teresa 2925 Burney Lane HO Wilson, Jahn & Bea 2930 Burney Lane HO Fox, Jimmy & Tammy 2935 Burney Lane HO Fischbach, Semis & Bobbie 2940 Burney Lane HO Winn, Darin & Michelle 2950 Burney Lane HO Fredricks; Sack & Rase 290 Burney Lane HO O'Connor, M,arly & Mary 2965 Burney Lane HO Houseman, Errol & Leslie 2970 Burney Lanes HO Brawn, Shawn & Molly 2980 Burney Lane HO George, David & Tinkl 2980 Burney Lane HO Burnet, Pat 3510 Burney bane IIO Palt+nsori ° 17e "un_ &Tina —,-__ i n 3520 Burney Lane HO vlIrtlre'dlegn 3530Burney Lane .Bella Lago'05 --2 signature iisLdoc Case No. ZA 05427 a � Wil Ia� w 1/1310612;58 AM Attachment D Page 36 5aabdivision Naurc Address Signature HO Undeveloped lot 3533 Bumey Lane HO MI 354013urney Lane, HO 5abbatis, Mike & Shay' 3550 Burney- Lane. HO .' Wilkinson William H 3560 Bumey Cane HO Agjj :David y& Glaris 3570 Burney Lane ' HO Canis„ Mary Kathryn: 3580 Burney Lane L. fI Subdivision Name Address Signature HH' Undeveloped lot 0830 Harbor Court HH : Llndevelopt d 1e�t ' 0840 Harbor Court HH 5abbatis, Mike & Shay' 0850 Harbor Court HH McFall, Tommy . 0860 Harbor Court HI4 Ledet, Len & Debbie 0870 Harbor Court no Packard; Chris & Cathy 0875 Harbor Court 'HH Flora, Ward & Deidra 6880 Harbor Court ISO, G3lis, Jim & Jamie 0885 Harbor Court o HO Chancellor, Ray & Dinah 0890 Harbor Court HO Cook, Tull & limmic Nell 0895 Harbor Court t� HO Rick, Larry & Paula 0900 Harbor Court Subdivision: Name Address Signature HO _ Capps Jr: )3uddy T 2890 Harbor Refuge HO 2900 Harbor Refuge -HO 'i]ndevelaped,lot 2905 Harbor Refuge HO Valdez, David 2910 Harbor Refuge HO : Roberts„ Dwight, (Skip) & Kathy 2920 Harbor Refuge HO IvM tchell, Mike & Kathy 2925 Harbor Refuge Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 37 Subdivision Name Address Signature HO Farhat, Mik6 &,Gale 1060 Harbor Haven � HO Chitwood, Steve & Jenne 1070 Harbor Haven C HO HO Hultin, Al & Cilia Staples, Randy & Mary 1075 Harbor Haven 1080 Harbor Haven c.4 'HO . 5auder, Tent' & Judy 1090 Harbor Haven 140 1 White, Utah &Colleen 1095 Harbor Haven HO Ichason, Rob & Tina 1100 Harbor haven HO Hammer, Greg & Mariana 1105 Harbor Haven a Ho Hitchcock, Gil & Connie 1110 Harbor Haven CB s r sf� 1115 Harbor Haven HO Haken?y.7_Harneky;.Ahme4 1120 Harbor Haven Subdivision . Name Address Signature -- HO Peterson, ,Terry & Carly 1064 Harbor Retreat � HO McArthur, Nancy 1095 Harbor Retreat C HQ Seiter Chris 1100 Harbor Retreat / HO For Sale— .lackbnx on door. 1105 Harbor Retreat CB ille� }e. 3570 Carmel Court HO Ichason, Rob & Tina 1110 Harbor Retreat HD Stevenson, Rod & Kathy 1115 Harbor Retreat a CS Undevelopedot7 1020 Thousand Oaks C4 Subdivision No Address Signature CB Hartman,. lay 3540 Carmel Court � CB. Hplzgra* John 3545 Carmel Court F� CB. Cvpe,,mkheal- E. 3550 Carmel Court - CB YRnlunes, Erica 3560 Carmel Court CB Mcluitt:in,Sr', ]4rk1. 3570 Carmel Court CB 0151 Thousand Oaks Q. a CS Undevelopedot7 1020 Thousand Oaks C4 CB tsimule Manus1- & Pam 1 040 Thousand Oaks Ct. Cg Yam! "Bpnnie B: 1060 'Thousand Oaks CL reer i , me: Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 38 Number Descri #qn 77 Numbered lots. in Harbor Oaks, Huse Home lace & Carmel Ba 4 Undeveloped lots within the above total numbered lots 2 Homes under cousba uction or already sold 71 Number of possible signatures 52 Number of signatures obtained 73% % of signatures obtained Case No. Attachment D ZA 05 -127 Page 39 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS ORDINANCE NO. 480 -478 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 TRACT 5, SITUATED IN THE R. PRICE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1207, BEING APPROXIMATELY 11.25 ACRES, AND MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" FROM "AG" AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO "SF -IA" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, 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 strictures 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 under the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, a change in the zoning classification of said property was requested by a person or Case No. Attachment E ZA05 -127 Page I 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 E ZA05 -127 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 5, situated in the R. Price Survey, Abstract No. 1207, being approximately 11.25 acres, and more fully and completely described in Exhibit "A" from "AG" Agricultural District to "SF -IA" Single Family Residential District. SECTION 2. 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. Case No. Attachment E ZA05 -127 Page 3 SECTION 3. That in all other respects the use of the tract or tracts of land herein above described shall be subj ect to all the applicable regulations contained in said Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable and pertinent ordinances forthe 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. SECTION 6. That the terms and provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be severable and that if the validity Case No. Attachment E ZA05 -127 Page 4 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. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required Case No. ZA05 -127 Attachment E Page 5 by law, and it is so ordained. PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1` reading the day of , 2006. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2 "` reading the day of , 2006. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CITY ATTORNEY DATE: ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: Case No. ZA05 -127 Attachment E Page 6 EXHIBIT "A" Being Tract 5, situated in the R. Price Survey, Abstract No. 1207, being approximately 11.25 acres. BEING an 11.25 acre tract of land situated in the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas in the R. Price Survey Abstract No. 1207, and being that tract of land described in deed to Marylyn E. Miles et al recorded in Volume 11642, Page 1054 of the Deed Records of Tarrant County, Texas, and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a' /2 inch iron rod found being the northeast corner of the Miles tract being in the west line of Lot 10, Block 2, Harbor Oaks Addition; THENCE along the west line of Harbor Oaks, South 00 degrees 51 minutes 11 seconds East a distance of 1006.36 feet to a' /2 inch iron rod found for the southeast corner of the Miles tract and the northeast corner of a tract of land described in deed to Peggy H. Denton recorded in Volume 10366, page 2208 of the Deed Records of Tarrant County, Texas; THENCE departing Harbor Oaks and along the north line of the Denton tract, the same being the south line of the Miles tract, South 89 degrees 19 minutes 36 seconds West, at 149.89 feet passing a 5/8 inch iron road, at 322.77 feet passing a 1 /2 inch iron road found for the northwest corner of the Peggy H. Denton tract, in all a distance of 451.62 feet to a Corps of Engineers Monument No. 233 -6 found for the southwest corner of the Miles tract; THENCE North 17 degrees 39 minutes 18 seconds West a distance of 879.39 feet to Corps of Engineers Monument No. 233 -5 found for corner; THENCE South 78 degrees 29 minutes 26 seconds East a distance of 435.35 feet to Corps of Engineers Monument No. 233 -4 found for corner; THENCE South 87 degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds East a distance of 226.22 feet to Corps of Engineers Monument No. 233 -3 found for corner; THENCE North 53 degrees 03 minutes 04 seconds West a distance of 250.47 feet to Corps of Engineers Monument No. 233 -2 found for corner; THENCE North 26 degrees 47 minutes 25 seconds West a distance of 108.84 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod found for the northwest corner of the Miles tract, the same being the southwest corner of a tract of land described in deed to David W. George recorded in Volume 10590, Page 2077 of the Deed Records of Tarrant County, Texas; THENCE along the south line of the George tract, North 88 degrees 51 minutes 45 seconds East a distance of 300.41 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing approximately 11.25 acres of land. Case No. ZA05 -127 Attachment E Page 7