Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Item 7H
City of Southlake Department of Planning STAFF REPORT May 31, 2006 CASE NO: ZA06 -027 P ROJECT: Zoning Change and Development Plan for Proposed Palomar Estates REQUEST: David Keener of 985 Randol Mill., LP is requesting approval of a zoning change and development plan on property located along the east side of Randol Mill Avenue and the north side of Gifford Court (private drive). A summary of the proposal is as follows: Requested Zoning Change from "AG" to "RPUD" Gross Land Area - 29.85 acres Net Land Area - 25.69 acres Open Space - 4.77 acres / 16% No. of Residential Lots - 33 Gross Density - 1.11 Net Density - 1.27 Average Lot Area - 27,904 sq. ft. The applicant requests approval of the RPUD regulations as proposed. The development is proposed to follow the permitted uses and regulations for the SF -20A single family residential district. Regulations specific to this development are as follows: Min. Lot Area - 20,000 SF (same as SF -20A) Min. Front Yard - 35 feet (same as SF -20A) On Cul -de -Sac - 30 feet Min. Side Yard - 15 feet On Side Street - 25 feet Rear Yard - 30 feet Lot width - 80 feet No buffer lots required adjacent to low density residential lots No min. 125 ft rear lot width adjacent to low density residential lots Street R.O.W. Width - 40 feet Single point of access with the commitment to meet the minimum requirements of the City's Fire Code by either installing a fire sprinkler system in all homes or by providing a secondary point of access for emergency use only. City staff has recommended that a street stub be provided into the southern boundary. The applicant is requesting relief from this recommendation in lieu of the above. Case No. ZA 06 -027 ACTION NEEDED: 1. Conduct public hearing ATTACHMENTS STAFF CONTACT 2. Consider second reading for zoning change and development plan approval (A) Background Information (B) Vicinity Map (C) Plans and Support Information (D) Development Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated April 28, 2006 (E) Surrounding Property Owners Map (F) Surrounding Property Owners Responses (G) Ordinance No. 480 -489 (H) Full Size Plans (for Commission and Council Members Only) Ken Baker (748 -8067) Dennis Killough (748 -8072) Case No. ZA 06 -027 BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNERS: Lemke, Jenkins, Prentice, Maness, Farmer, & Ferguson APPLICANT: 985 Randol Mill, LP PROPERTY SITUATION: The property is located at 945 & 985 Randol Mill Avenue and 2090 through 2186 Gifford Ct. (a private drive). LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tracts lAlA2, 1AlA2 -A, D, E, F, G; lAlA, and lAlAl, B.J. Foster Survey, Abstract No. 519 LAND USE CATEGORY: Low Density Residential (A concurrent request to change this area to Medium Density Residential is proposed) CURRENT ZONING: "AG" Agricultural District REQUESTED ZONING: "R -PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District HISTORY: A zoning change and preliminary plat were submitted for a 4 acre portion of this property 2004 and was withdrawn from consideration in conjunction with this proposal coming forth. TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT: Case No. ZA 06 -027 Master Thorou ,-hfcure Plan The Master Thoroughfare Plan recommends Randol Mill Avenue, or the future F.M. 1938 roadway expansion, to be an arterial street with 140 feet of right-of- way. Existinz Area Road Network and Conditions The proposed subdivision will have one (1) street intersecting with Randol Mill Avenue (the future F.M. 1938 roadway expansion) to the west. Randol Mill Avenue is currently a 2 -lane, undivided roadway. The north/south alignment of Randol Mill Avenue is planned to be a 4 -lane, divided arterial street with 140 feet of right-of-way (the future F.M. 1938 roadway expansion). The future F.M. 193 8 roadway will ultimately provide access to State Highway 114 to the north. May, 2005 traffic counts on Randol Mill Ave (between F.M. 1709 and Florence Rd 24hr North Bound (NB) (4,065) South Bound (SB) (4,142) NB Peak A.M. (373) 7 - 8 a.m. Peak P.M. (349) 4 - 5 p.m. SB Peak A.M. (350) 7:45 - 8:45 a.m. Peak P.M. (352) 4:30 - 5:30 p.m. Attachment A Page 1 Traffic Ini»ctet PATHWAYS MASTER PLAN: Use # Lots Vtpd* AM- IN AM- OUT PM- IN PM- OUT Single - Family Residential 33 316 6 19 21 12 *Vehicle Trips Per Day "The The AM /PM times represent the number of vehicle trips generated during the peak travel times on Randol Mill Ave. The Southlake Pathways Master Plan recommends an 8 -foot multi -use trail along the western edge of the development. Additionally, the subdivision ordinance requires minimum 4 -foot wide sidewalks on both sides of the streets within the subdivision and must provide safe connections to City trails. WATER & SEWER: A 6 -inch water line exists along the east side of Randol Mill Avenue and along within the north boundary line of the adjoining property to the south. A 6 -inch sanitary sewer line exists along the west side of Randol Mill Avenue. TREE PRESERVATION: The highest concentration of "Quality Trees" is located within the southeast and northeast portions of the property. The trees in these areas are made up of almost all Post Oaks. The applicant is proposing Open Space area that will preserve a majority of trees within the southeast and northeast portions of the development. The existing trees in the middle to northwest portions of the property are mostly Eastern Red Cedar, American Elm, Hackberry and some small Post Oaks and Black Jack Oaks. Around the stock tanks are Black Willows and Cottonwood trees. The submitted tree survey shows that only trees will be removed within the shaded area which indicates the area of the right -of -way, and trees to be removed for the installation of storm drains within the proposed easements. Both the Development Plan and the Preliminary Plat show 30' and 40' Tree Preservation Easements along the north and west property lines and the south and west property lines adjacent to the Malik Estates Addition. There are numerous trees existing within the 40' area along the east property line, scattered small trees within the 30' area along the north property line, Very few trees within the 40' area along the west property line, and no trees within the 30' area along the south property line north of the Malik Estates Addition. Non - Disturbance Areas / Tree Preservation Easement: If the Applicant designates a nearly wooded area as a non - disturbance zone in which no construction will occur there should be no easements located within the area, no construction of any type shall occur within the area, the area is intended to remain natural in perpetuity, and a single incidence removal of underbrush and vines is allowed subject to the requirements of Section 6.3 of the Ordinance Case No. Attachment A ZA 06 -027 Page 2 There are easements either existing or proposed within all of the Tree Preservation Buffer/Easements. Staff recommends removing and relocating, where possible, to areas that will lessen the impact on native plant material DRAINAGE ANALYSIS: Drainage from this development will flows toward the northeastern boundary and will be detained in a dry detention area within an HOA common area. There is a pond proposed within the HOA common area near the western subdivision entry but is not shown to function as a detention area. SOUTHLAKE 2025: City Council approved the recommendations made by the Southlake 2025 committee for the Davis Blvd/F.M. 1938 Corridor study area to include the following changes: Land Use Recommendations • Existing LUP Designation - Low Density Residential. The proposed development does not meet the criteria for LD- Residential. Definition of LD- Residential — "detached single - family residential development at a net density of one or fewer dwelling units per net acre ". The applicant has submitted a comprehensive plan amendment application to change the land use designation. Mobility Plan Recommendations • An 8' trail is planned and shown on east boundary Randol Mill Avenue. Sidewalks are provided along both sides of the internal streets along residential lot frontages and extend through the common areas. The Mobility and Master Thoroughfare Plan recommends connected residential streets and discourages cul -de -sacs. This property has only a single street connection onto Randol Mill Avenue. Environmental Resource Protection Recommendations • The Environmental Resource Protection Plan recommends the protection and enhancement of critical environmental and natural features, including trees and ponds. P &Z ACTION: April 6, 2006; Approved to table until the May 4, 2006 meeting. May 4, 2006; Approved (6 -0) subject to Development Review Summary No. 3, dated April 28, 2006; granting variance for access and noting applicant's willingness to meet fire code by installing sprinklers in all homes or providing a secondary point of access for emergency use only. COUNCIL ACTION: May 30, 2006; Approved first reading (7 -0) subject to Development Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated April 28, 2006; noting all fences that face street frontage will be wrought iron; prior to second reading, the applicant will Case No. Attachment A ZA 06 -027 Page 3 contact neighbors to the north to determine if they are willing to have their wood fences replaced with wrought iron fencing; noting the applicants willingness to work with the city to accommodate excess drainage coming from Randol Mill Avenue; noting the detention pond will be changed to a detention/retention pond which will maintain a constant level; noting the developer will vacate the portion of Gifford Court affecting the six lots and will sprinkler all homes in the subdivision; and, the southern border fencing will be 8' cedar with top cap and metal poles. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is the Development Plan Review Summary No. 3 dated April 28, 2006. The applicant requests approval of the RPUD regulations as proposed. A variance to the subdivision ordinances requirement for 2 planned points of access and the staff recommendation for a street stub into the southern boundary are requested. NXommunity Development \MEMO \2005cases \06- 027ZDP.doc Case No. Attachment A ZA 06 -027 Page 4 Vicinity Map Palomar Estates Case No. ZA 06 -027 w S Attachment B Page 1 E 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 Feet We are pleased to present "Palomar Estates," a proposed residential community of luxury homes in Southlake, Texas. Palomar Estates is located on the east side of Randol Mill Avenue, directly across from the intersection with Wild Wood Way. The proposed development intends to use the natural beauty and features of the land to create a high quality neighborhood of homes and park -like open spaces. The featured open space area will be a 1.7 acre park, specifically located to preserve a high quality grove of old Post Oak trees, and will provide a central gathering space for the residents. The development plan, including the locations of the streets, open space medians, greenbelts and pathway systems have been carefully designed to take advantage and preserve the features found naturally on the property, such as the significant trees- both the occasional stately large trees, as well as the groves of Post Oak trees. Palomar Estates is bounded by Randol Mill Estates to the north and Cross Timbers, Phase III to the east, both one -acre lot low density development, Across Randol Mill, to the east is the Wildwood subdivision, a medium density residential development in Keller. To the south is a private drive called Gifford Ct., which leads to an Industrial Park area, adjacent to Palomar Estates at the eastern end of the southern property line. Palomar Estates offers 36 home sites on 29.85 acres, a density of 1.21 homes per acre. Abundant open space has been made integral to the development- approximately 15% of the site- and the lots range in size from 20,700 s.f to over 38,000 s.f., and with an average size of approximately 25,700 s.f. In additional to the primary park, the plan features an additional 1.5 acre park and greenbelt buffer at the rear of the development. The entry road is divided by a large median/ open space area featuring a lake and fountain, and leads to a round -a -bout centered on a large, existing Elm tree. The project will have several "park- like" drainage features, engineered to assure adjacent properties there will be no increase in storm runoff that will occur as a result of this development. EU F 1 3 2+06 za06 -027 Case No. Attachment C ZA 06 -027 Page 1 Residential Planned United Development District - Land Use and Development Regulations for Palomar Estates Case No. ZA 06 -027 This Residential Planned Unit Development shall abide by the all conditions of the City of Southlake Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended, as it pertains to the "SF -20A" Single - Family Residential zoning district and the City of Southlake Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, as amended, with the following exceptions: Lot Area: The minimum area of a lot shall not be less than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. Front Yard: The minimum front yard of a lot shall not be less than thirty -five (35) feet, except for front yards along corner or cul -de -sacs "balls," in which case the minimum front yard setback shall be thirty (30) feet. Side Yard: The minimum side yard shall not be less than fifteen (15) feet. Side Yard Adjacent to a Street: The minimum side yard abutting a street shall not be less than twenty -five (25) feet, unless otherwise noted. Lot Width: Each lot shall have a minimum width of eighty (80) feet, measured at the Front Yard setback line for each lot as indicated on the Zoning Site Plan. Rear Yard: Each lot shall have a minimum rear yard of thirty (30) feet. Section 8.01E of the Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, as amended, regarding lot width along the rear property line of certain lots shall not apply to property within this Residential Planned Unit Development.* Section 8.01G of the Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, as amended, regarding buffer lots adjacent to certain lots shall not apply to property within this Residential Planned Unit Development. A minimum 4' wide concrete sidewalk shall be required on both sides of all internal streets, except where Open Space Lots front the street, in which case sidewalk location shall be as shown on the Zoning Site Plan. RECD FED 1 (006 ZA06 -027 Attachment C Page 2 o � 00 N • aummary mart aun arcs « /sue m m�6oe LMSm wlere "rvc° Tre s Trch sur�us aef3rf cmav,Ml � _ aandal mill) Pequlred 9 S� -Q i5 - ' ,i � i rovdal 489' 1 10 15 50 E' MawnN I _ �nm it I��s � � NOTES C ty f 1-1 la- 1 [ f Rand I M'II p acermredomaeeao All idzz70 (� / / Iit1IU _nai i v S R,I dama� w Legend ilk s eWir— ithnrecce - s Masonry mrau ease — �5L 1 / h 2 � �"� 'i Area Summary No new fence Proposed Resdenbal Lets 7132% z 29 ac. Right of Way 15TypeQ BUReryaN i p II'I RanduI MIII Ded vat on 2.98% 074 ac. Common op", slice Dpehte��a�SLreeG 1474% 440 ac. 4 51d —ilk - - - -- r e Gross Acreage 100,00% 29.85 ac. Site Data G Aaaage 29.95 ac. Net Ar - G D 25.69 ac. Density 1.21 du /at. . } \ _ Net Densuy 1.40 du /si F ( ', 7 `••, s e L u L - I — ' )=6y« Lot Summary Residential Lctr 36 r - a M m Rn'Ming Lot Arca 20,217 s.r. f I y l Y 1F �. rt A i Buld Lot Area 25,761 0. I ' nUTHLAKE a p �� L nc _ c g n Areas l0 L.U.D. /Zoning L ; era v R w 1 EIS[ g L D. Low Density Residential Ali 1 F Ze01,1g: .1C f I:r. iF �l E i g Z 11 rIy A6 Z ning ... /� .m If ,I lrN III - InsIlrafnll '. \ - Poposad LU, C.. Medium D— KyResidential I 'AG ._ _ ^.. Rropo.,ed Zoning: RPUD SAGE GROUP, INC. Preparedt,' �) Nal2r Planning 905 Randoll Mill L.P. 1 ±iUcture 3901 W. Airport Freeway i/200 Q O 4 © 8995FrccpotP,rlrv,,S"t'669 RedfFd IF -76021 Zoning Case #ZA 06 -027 Iving, Texas'S963 Attn: David Keener - e1972- 9290443 Tel: 972- 342 -7920 20 MAR 86 Fm_ Any; 9 -I ?41 Fax: 817 - 886 -2533 W' �� oo' do Residential P.U.D. Development Plan & Pedestrian Access Plan Paio4nar Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas y Received Mar& 20, 2306 n I� V � r"r w l 1 o � 00 N• i n b � C1Q � r9 Summary Chart aufferyards �9d WItlM V TYOe Hsl9h[g M.�a�al xuntl 48y s' 0 Typ SISO b� twr wnp n,oama tsl' s' o ip so 8'wa. >�ry N. Loom ore; ��_mttxn�� J w a ir e W 9t a nn FFn l �, I s rtaxorrywa�l�, - 15 r D Durrey,d - r olt7r 6h' 4' 5dwalk \ n l l m /ti•n7m ,rte - / ^,.,. Ili m f J 1 e �nr o t rrmar — t SfSUTH LAKE- SACE GROUP INC vrepaad mr: Area Summary Master Planting R.&nbal Lt, 70,82% 2114 ac. ghty L,,dstapc 4rchsecture 1n1 W R d a Mill D,di,,Ij or i 248 °A 0.74 ar I to al Str is 10.72 -A 3, 2D ac Open SP 15,98% 4.1711 G Ac ge 100.00�A 29 BS ac Ste Data Este G A 3 29.65 ac Net Ar eage 25.91 ac C D ns i y 1.11 tlu /ae. Nit,L DcnsLv 1.27 J,/ac Lot Summary R U V I Lots 33 Min Minnun Buld'rg Lot Area 2D,7085 f. 4.q, Bu Id q Lnt An,. 27;9041 t C_..' Mess 11 L.U.U./Zoning E-t'ng L L1 D.: Low 311 Res deti'el Ez sL'ng 2cr ng, AS Proposed L.J.D.: Medunl Densi.y Rcsidentia Proposed Toning: RPUD I . 1 Master Planting 985 R39d011 MITI LP. L,,dstapc 4rchsecture 1n1 W 3901 W. NripOrt Fe —#200 Bedfotd,1 -76021 Zoning Case #ZA 06 -027 Q 0 0 h,q TC 7,aE3 Attn: David Keenar 25 APRIL 06 p Dp 7e1 , 9729:9043 Fax -8r 79)9-:41 200 DB Tel: 912- 342 -7920 Fa B13�8(, -2533 Residential P.U.D. Development Plan &Pedestrian Access Plan Este \ u , Received April 25, 2006 Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas r C �I r � l J r � l O l J b z A n DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA06 -027 Review No.: Three Project Name: Development Plan for Palomar Estates Land Planner: Curtis Young Sage Group Phone: (972) 929 -8443 Fax: Date of Review: 04/28/06 ENGINEER: Kellie Engineering Phone: (817) 379 -1225 Fax: (817) 379 -1244 CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 04/25/06 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT DENNIS KILLOUGH AT (817) 748 -8072. 1. The following changes are needed regarding Right -of -Way dedications and interior street geometry a. Provide a minimum of two planned points of access. The applicant proposes to address the minimum requirements of the City Fire Marshal by adding a note stating all homes will either be protected by a fire sprinkler system or secondary emergency access will be provided. (5.01 -C) b. The Subdivision Ordinance recommends street stubs at approximately 1000 intervals. A street stub into the south boundary is recommended. (Variance Requested) C. Dedication of ROW will be required in accordance with the MTP and TXDOT Davis /FM1938 extension plans at the time of subdivision platting. d. Propose a regulation requesting a reduced right -of -way width to 40'. 2. The following changes are needed regarding lot configurations: a. The ROW reservation should be placed in a separate lot (lot /block number, labeled ROW reservation) and should be removed from the open space calculation. (Approximately 11,320 sf) 3. Define "Tree Preservation Easement" in your development regulations. The following should be informational comments only * 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. Case No. Attachment D ZA 06 -027 Page 1 * All development must comply with the City's Drainage Ordinance No. 605 and detain all post development run -off. * Prior top filing a final plat, two intervisible boundary corners of the site must be geo- referenced by state plane coordinates in accordance with section 8.03(B) of the Subdivision Ordinance No. 483 upon submittal of the final plat, and, prior to acceptance of the subdivision by the City, a digital computer file of the subdivision must be provided in accordance with Section 8.04 of Ordinance No. 483. * Approval of a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Developers Agreement is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure. The Developer's Agreement for this addition should consider streets, drainage, park dedication requirements and fees, off -site sewer extensions, off -site drainage and utility easements and impact fees. * Denotes Informational Comment Case No. Attachment D ZA 06 -027 Page 2 Case No. ZA 06 -027 Revie'si• No. 3 Dated: 4/28/06 Number of Pages: 1 Project Name: Palomar Estates — Zoning Change & Development Plan Contact: Cheryl Taylor, Civil Engineer Phone: (817) 748 -8100 Fax: (817) 748 -8077 Email: ctaylor(aci.southlake.tx.us The following comments are based on the review of plans received on 4/20/2006. It is the applicant's responsibility to contact the department representative shown above and make modifications as required by the comment. GENERAL COMMENTS: Use the City of Southlake GPS monuments whenever possible. EASMENT COMMENTS: 1. Sanitary sewer, water and drainage easements shall be 15' minimum and shall be dedicated by plat. 2. Label the utility easement on Block 1, between Lots 14 and 15 as a Water Line Easement rather than a Utility Easement. SANITARY SEWER COMMENTS: The proposed sanitary sewer line, as designed, shall be extended to the proposed ROW ofFM 1938 for future connection of adjacent properties. DRAINAGE COMMENTS: Curb inlets must be 10' minimum. A 3' — 4' pilot channel is recommended rather than a 5' for low flows and irrigation drainage. This property drains into Critical Drainage Structure #7 ($280.91 /acre X 29.8 acres = $8371.12) 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 to Public Works Administration. Ensure that plans conform to the most recent construction plan checklist, standard details and general notes which are located on the City's website under Public Works—Engineering Design Standards. http:// www. cityofsouthlake.com/PublicWorks /engineeringdesign. asp * A Developer's Agreement will be required for this development and must 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. Case No. ZA 06 -027 Attachment D Page 3 Surrounding Property Owners Palomar Estates 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 g 24 7 - - -__ 33 23 6 26 11 $ 25 28 29 30 4 WO 27 31 3 d W - 2 32 10 �r 1 Owner Zoning Land Use Acreage 1. Tanksley, Lawrence & M B SF-IA Low Density Residential 1.035 2. Pennington, Gwendolyn J SF-IA Low Density Residential 1.0 3. Bingham, Patricia H SF-IA Low Density Residential 1.0 4. Ferguson, W Blaine Jr & Roc SF-IA Low Density Residential 1.0 5. Rhoades, Anne & Robert SF-IA Low Density Residential 1.0 6. Thomas, William & Kathryn SF-IA Low Density Residential 1.343 7. Timms, Walter H & Carol D SF-IA Low Density Residential 1.01.434 8. Sherrill, Steven & Brigitte SF-IA Low Density Residential 0.99 9. Catlin, Roger L & Jeanne SF-IA Low Density Residential 1.0 10. Lemke, Robert H & Virginia SF-IA Low Density Residential 5.493 11. Malik, Parvez & Seema Parvez SF-IA Low Density Residential 2.3 12. Ruth, Ralph SF-IA Low Density Residential 1.0 Case No. Attachment E ZA 06 -027 Page 1 13. Kasden, Scott SF-IA Low Density Residential 0.869 14. Pratt, Michael A & Paula M SF-IA Low Density Residential 0.869 15. Whitsett, Lyle D & Michaela SF-IA Low Density Residential 1.027 16. Hill, Rodger G Sr & Constan SF-IA Low Density Residential 1.056 17. Harriger, Gary W & Kit K SF-IA Low Density Residential 1.109 18. Randolph, Michael & Brigi SF-IA Low Density Residential 1.175 19. Trumpheller, Kenneth & Marsh SF-IA Low Density Residential 1.191 20. Robinson, Daniel F & E Jane SF-IA Low Density Residential 1.194 21. Andrews, Gary R & Diana D SF-IA Low Density Residential 1.196 22. Hall, Bradley W SF-IA Low Density Residential 1.186 23. Prentice, Danny AG Low Density Residential 6.78 24. Jenkins, James H AG Low Density Residential 10.34 25. Maness, Mark S & Wanda Sue AG Low Density Residential 2.14 26. Farmer, Sandra AG Low Density Residential 1.95 27. Malik, Parvez & Seema AG Low Density Residential 1.62 28. Maness, Mark S & Wanda Sue AG Low Density Residential 2.14 29. Lemke, Robert H & Virginia AG Low Density Residential 2.14 30. Ferguson, Blaine & Rochelle AG Low Density Residential 2.17 31. Ferguson, W B Jr & Rochelle AG Low Density Residential 2.18 32. Clark, Valerie Joyce AG Low Density Residential 1.0 33. City of Keller -- -- -- Case No. ZA 06 -027 Attachment E Page 2 Surrounding Property Owner Responses Palomar Estates Notices Sent: Twenty -eight (28) Responses Received as of 5:OOPM 5/15/06: Four (4) • Cross Timber Hills Homeowners Association Executive Board, Letter of Concern received April 3, 2006 • Kathy & Bill Thomas (SPO # 6), 1374 Lakeview Dr, Letter of Concern received April 5, 2006. • Anne & Rob Rhoades (SPO # 5), 1376 Lakeview Dr, Letter of Concern received April 5, 2006. • Anne & Rob Rhoades (SPO # 5), 1376 Lakeview Dr, Letter of Support received May 15, 2006. • Kathy & Bill Thomas (SPO # 6), 1374 Lakeview Dr, Letter received May 16, 2006 • Also attached for informational and reference purposes is correspondence between the developer, Mr. David Keener, and residents Kathy & Bill Thomas and Anne & Rob Rhoades. The correspondence was included in the May 16 letter from Kathy & Bill Thomas. Case No. ZA 06 -027 Attachment F Page 1 Page 1 of 1 Lorrie Fletcher From: Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 9:41 PM To: Lorrie Fletcher Cc: Bob & Kathy Peipert; Steve & Aline Perry; David & Nancy Baltimore; Tom & Fran Halbouty Subject: Attn: Michael Boutte and the Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission TO THE MEMBERS OF PLANNING AND ZONING: The Cross Timber Hills Home Owners Association has several concerns with the current plans of the developer of the proposed Palomar Estates, which is located adjacent to several homes in our development. 1) We are very concerned that the developer is proposing a medium density development in an area designated by the Southlake 2025 Plan as low density. The area of the proposed Palomar Estates currently consists of low density developments such as Cross Timber Hills, Randol Mill Estates, the new development of WestWyck Hills and several single family multi -acre estates. We firmly believe that the low density designation in the Southlake 2025 Plan is the correct land use. 2) We feel that the proposed set backs in the new development are in excessively close proximity to the lot lines of the existing homes in our neighborhood. At a minimum, we expect the new homes to be set back from the existing homes at least equivalent to a low density development configuration. We ask that the developer maintain adequate buffer areas, tree preservation and builder restrictions in order to preserve Cross Timber Hill's current low density country atmosphere. 3) One of the primary concerns with the new development is and will be the drainage issue and the overall impact of the additional runoff water on Higgins Creek. The additional water volume and control of the flow as it leaves the proposed Palomar Estates will require a great deal from the developer in engineering and land use. In closing, we understand that this property has issues that may require an innovative approach and thinking in order to create a viable development that fits with the surrounding area and is an asset to Southlake. Cross Timber Hills Home Owners Association p R 3 �QQ� Bob Peipert, President NECD Steve Perry, Vice President David Baltimore, Treasurer Fran Halbouty, Secretary New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. 4/3/2006 Case No. ZA 06 -027 Attachment F Page 2 4/4/06 Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission: This is in regard to CP06 -001, ZA06 -027, and ZA06 -028, the Palomar proposal on Randol Mill. We live in Cross Timber Hills (CTH) abutting the east side of this development. Our concerns are as follows: - Drainage - Preservation of rural atmosphere (setbacks, buffer, trees, and density) - Fencing We have met and corresponded with the developer, David Keener, and he has promised to adequately address our concerns. Please see the emails included which detail the issues and the developer's responses. 1. Our greatest concern with this development is drainage. We experience significant water problems which have caused loss of use and damage to our property. If you recall, pictures of my yard and our neighbors' were used during the P &Z and City Council public comment process last fall for Westwyck to demonstrate the magnitude of water already flowing into our subdivision. A great deal of water flows onto the Palomar property from offsite. On the south side, much of this water is diverted along a curb on Gifford Road to the Palomar /CTH property line. This water dumps into a drainage ditch along the Palomar east property line and then flows through a channel cut under the fence into the back of 1376 Lakeview, even though there is no drainage easement on the Lakeview property. The water invades several yards. The Palomar property itself also drains toward Lakeview. A small drainage easement exists between 1374 and 1376 Lakeview but this ditch is quickly overwhelmed. About six years ago, the city obtained another easement across the back of 1372 and 1374 Lakeview. They placed a 36 inch pipe underground to pick up some of the water and relieve the stress on the Lakeview front bar ditch concrete culverts, which were being eroded and undermined by the fiercely gushing water. Excavation for this pipe killed five mature trees in our yard; two others were severely damaged due to worker carelessness. While the pipe has taken about half of the flow, we still experience flooding in our yard. Until CTH got sewer, our septic field was useless during rainy weather (we literally could not run the washing machine or flush the toilets). As you can see, we have suffered with this problem for many years. We have delayed upgrades to our house and landscape until the drainage issue is resolved, for fear of flooding. Our drainage problems will be greatly reduced if the water entering the Palomar property from Gifford, and from the Palomar property itself, is routed to the proposed detention pond, instead of channeled into CTH. The developer has promised to do this with a an intake structure on Gifford, underground storm sewer, and a ditch and swale along the eastern side. 2. In regard to the density, we expect that our rural atmosphere will be preserved with the use of setbacks, native trees, and buffer zones. Case No. Attachment F ZA 06 -027 Page 3 3. In regard to fencing, we expect the developer to place a fence between Palomar and CTH. We prefer the open look of wrought iron. Thank you for your consideration, APR DQ� Kathy & Bill Thomas�C 1374 Lakeview Drive Southlake, TX 76092 214 -665 -2229 Case No. Attachment F ZA 06 -027 Page 4 Message Morrie Fletcher From: Anne & Rob Rhoades Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 9:58 PM To: Lori Farwell Cc: Lorrie Fletcher )mas' Subject: Palomar Estates Planning & Zoning Commission: Page 1 of 1 We write regarding the proposed development of Palomar Estates. We live at 1376 Lakeview Drive, directly east of the proposed development. Our priorities are: 1. Drainage. Currently there is significant drainage from the proposed development into our property; we look forward to Palomar Estates addressing and fixing this problem. We are cautiously optimistic that the developer's proposal will alleviate this drainage. 2. Fencing. We have met and corresponded with the developer and have expressed our preference for a wrought iron fence at the property boundaries, and have every reason to believe that his promise for this fence will meet our needs. 3. Drainage Easement. The plans we have seen call for a 25' drainage easement on the east side of the development; we support that and expect that will remain in the plan. Anne & Rob Rhoades 1376 Lakeview Drive Southlake, TX 76092 817- 421 -8438 4/5/2006 Case No. ZA 06 -027 Attachment F Page 5 Page 1 of 1 Lorrie Fletcher From: Lori Farwell Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 9:08 AM To: 'MayorWambsganss ®aol.com'; Place 5; Place 3; Place 2; Place 1; Place 6; Place 4 Cc: Ken Baker; Lorrie Fletcher Subject: Palomar Estates email From: Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 8 :22 AM To: Mayor Subject: Email sent from City of Southlake Web Site Name: Rob & Anne Rhoades Phone: 817-421-8438 Email: annenrob @verizon.net Comments: We are residents of 1.376 Lakeview Drive, Cross Timber Hills, and we write in support of Ordinance No, 480 -489, Zoning Change and Development Plan for proposed Palomar Estates. We are hopeful that the developer's plans will decrease the drainage issues that affect our subdivision and are pleased with the spirit of cooperation with the neighborhood shown in the planning of this new subdivision. RECD MAY 15 2006 5/15/2006 Case No. ZA 06 -027 Attachment F Page 6 5/15/06 For the record. Members of the City Council: This is in regard to CP06 -001, ZA06 -027, and ZA06 -02$, the Palomar proposal on Randol Mill. We live in Cross Timber Hills (CTH) abutting the east side of this development. Our concerns are as follows: - Preservation of rural atmosphere (setbacks, buffer, trees, and density) - Fencing - Drainage We have met and corresponded with the developer, David Keener, and he has promised to adequately address our concerns. We expect these issues will be included in a Developer's Agreement with the City. If these commitments are met, we support this project. Please see the emails included which detail the issues and the developer's responses. 1. In regard to the density, we expect that our rural atmosphere will be preserved with the use of setbacks, protection of native trees, and buffer zones. The proposal appears equivalent to a low density configuration from our perspective on Lakeview Drive. 2. In regard to fencing, the developer has promised to put a six -foot wrought iron fence along the development's east side property line (adjacent to the Lakeview Drive properties). 3. Our greatest concern with the Palomar property is drainage. The developer has promised to address our current problems by routing the water through the proposed detention pond. On the south side of the development, water will be collected via an intake structure on Gifford, then routed through an underground storm sewer and a ditch and swale along the eastern side, instead of diverting in onto our property as is the current situation. We expect this design to contain the 100 - year storm event on the Palomar property. We currently experience significant water problems which have caused loss of use and damage to our property. If you recall, pictures of our yard and our neighbors' were used during the P &Z, and City Council public comment process last fall for Westwyck to demonstrate the magnitude of water already flowing into our subdivision. A great deal of water flows onto the Palomar property from offsite on the north, west, and south. On the south side, much of this water is improperly diverted along a curb /wall on Gifford to the Palomar /CTH property line. This water dumps into the yards on Lakeview and a drainage ditch which has been cut along the Palomar east property line by the current property owner (Blaine Ferguson). The water then flows through a channel cut under the Ferguson's fence into the back yard of 1376 Lakeview, even though there is no drainage easement on the Lakeview property, filling up the backyards of 1374 and 1376 Lakeview. We just recently found out that the water was being diverted under the fence onto 1376 Lakeview when the 1376 property was sold and the new owners cleared brush, exposing the drainage cut. The Palomar property itself also drains toward Lakeview. Case No. Attachment F ZA 06 -027 Page 7 A small drainage easement exists between 1374 and 1376 Lakeview but this ditch is quickly overwhelmed. About six years ago, the city obtained another easement across the back of 1372 and 1374 Lakeview and installed a 36 inch pipe underground to pick up some of the water and relieve the stress on the Lakeview front bar ditch concrete culverts, which were being eroded and undermined by the fiercely gushing water. Excavation for this pipe killed five mature trees in our yard and two others were severely damaged due to worker carelessness. While the pipe has taken about half of the flow, we still experience flooding in our yard. Until CTH got sewer, our septic drain field was useless during rainy weather (we literally could not run the washing machine or flush the toilets). As you can see, we have suffered with this problem for many years. We have delayed upgrades to our house and landscape until the drainage issue is resolved, for fear of flooding. 4. While the developer has promised to meet our drainage concerns along Lakeview Drive, we are also deeply concerned about the volume of water that will enter the Palomar property from the west and north due to TxDOT's expected improvements to Randol Mill. The Palomar developer has included this in his plans but we implore the city to obtain concessions and funding from TxDOT to address erosion and water volume issues in Higgins Creek, which runs through Cross Timber Hills. Thank you for your consideration, RECD MAY 1 2006 Kathy & Bill Thomas 1374 Lakeview Drive Southlake, TX 76092 214 -665 -2229 Case No. Attachment F ZA 06 -027 Page 8 From: "David Keener" <i To: "Anne & Rob Rhnaripe" Cc: 'Thomas" Subject: RE: Lakeview Neighbors Fencing Preference Date: Monday, April 03, 2006 2:19 PM Good - was going to call you today to make sure you did get the email, glad to see you did.. I have no problem with wrought iron and agree that it would be best for all. From: Anne & Rob Rhoades Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 5:39 PM To: David Keener Cc: `Thomas Subject: Lakeview Neighbors Fencing Preference Mello, David, Thanks for your reply to our questions. We appreciate your cooperative attitude and look forward to working with you toward mutal progress, With regard to the fence, we (1374 & 1376 Lakeview) have concluded that our preference would be six -foot wrought iron fencing. This would keep the open feeling, present a nicer appearance, and be more durable. In addition, it would probably be more acceptable than wood to the Lakeview homeowners who wanted pipe fencing. We are thinking shrubs such as holly bushes and trees in our yards will provide adequate privacy screening for both sides_ Thank you, RECD M AY 2x06 Rob & Anne Rhoades 1376 Lakeview Drive Kathy & Bill Thomas 1374 Lakeview Drive Case No. Attachment F ZA 06 -027 Page 9 From: "David Keener" < To: "Anne & Rob Rhoades" Cc: Thomas" Subject: RE: Palomar Estates Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 5:30 PM Ann, Rob and Kathy, Thanks again for taking the time to meet with me last week and for your email. I appreciate as you stated during our meeting and again in your email today that you appreciated us working with you, what we are doing to fix the drainage problem that currently exists and that you will support our project.. It is important to me to do everything we said we would do and to earn your support. Please see a detailed answer to your (Kathy's) specific questions below: Question number 1 Your assessment is 100% correct, The only disclaimer I will add is that the engineer will spec the final exact pipe size as you noted so while I think it will be 30 inches or greater he will call that out based on needs and review by City of Southlake Staff to capture the proper flow of water, etc. Question #2 We will have a drainage easement where the ditch is on the east side of the property. Since we do not know the exact location of the ditch (as the final location will depend on location of trees and final construction, etc) we wilt file a dedicated drainage easement that will be inside or right next to the tree preservation easement,. The way we are going to route the swale will be done in a way so as to not remove substantial trees in the area. The HQA will have maintenance of the easement/ditch and will require fences that cross it be built properly and that homeowners do not do anything to alter its effectiveness. Again, you need to also please keep in mind the amount of water coming down the ditch will be WAY LESS than what you see today, or rather a week ago Sunday, once our proposed improvements (pipe)are installed. The channel will be extended as we discussed to the detention pond and not dump out in Rob's back yard as it now does. Diverting the water coming down Gifford and off the industrial site to our detention pond will allow the Inlet in his back yard and the other drainage in your subdivision in a much better position to deal with the water coming to you from other directions, etc. Question #3 Yes, your understanding / assessment is correct.. Question #4 I said in the SPIN meeting that fencing would be installed along the East border of our property As we discussed during our meeting we are still somewhat up in the air as to what type of fencing will be installed along the east boarder as we did /do not know what type of fencing the adjoining properties even would want. As I mentioned in our meeting it was my initial thought to extend the current pipe fencing along the eastern border until meeting the existing newer wood fence built by the homeowner next to the creek, I got the general impression that you guys would rather see just a 6 foot wood privacy fence. We are certainly Case No. Attachment F ZA 06 -027 Page 10 agreeable to require a wood fence backing your homes and would prefer that if everyone is in agreement. would encourage you to make your request for a wood fence know to City Staff and Council as it has been our experience that the council prefers the open look of wrought iron or the pipe fencing. Assuming the city is okay with this we will make builders install a foot wood fence (metal poles is in restrictions) from the open space to the south along the eastern border. We mutually agreed that we would work together on what type of fence to install (if any) along the back of the open space once we both had a chance to see how it cleaned up, etc, I also stated that wrought iron would be required to be put in by builders on the back of the lots that are next to the open space. The HOA would only maintain a fence installed along the back of the open space on east border. All other fences would be installed (per HOA restrictions) and maintained by home owners. As a matter of clarification only fences that we are going to construct as part of the PD are listed on exhibits. Builders required fencing per our HOA and plan approval is not listed on the exhibitsM Question #5 Yes, your understanding ! assessment is correct. In addition, certain trees like cypress will be planted and maintained by HOA. Question #6 Although we are technically having to request a change in "Land Use Designation" to Medium Density, we do not feel that we are requesting the typical "medium density" type zoning. Typical medium density zoning would allow for - 50 homes on the 30 acres. We are simply asking for 36 home sites on 30 acres, and frankly, it is a lot of additional time, costs and headache to just get 6 additional lots: but because of the challenging and expensive drainage issue we are trying to solve(for your benefit, as well as ours), we need the additional lots to pay for such costs.. We have gone to great lengths to consider the surrounding homes and make the lots on the perimeter wider and larger in the new layout that we had done for the property The lots that abut the surrounding development all have a large tree preservation easement to ensure that a good green buffer zone remains in effect in addition to the building set back requirements. From your side of the fence (what ever the final type of fence everyone agrees they want) there should be no visible difference in the lots in Palomar that we are proposing verses typical low density residential lots. The HOA and the City will have the right and will enforce this easement. Restrictions on the homes are very tight. As we discussed homes in the development are anticipated as starting at 800+ and going over 1 million. I can give you some specific addresses and neighborhoods if you want to see the quality of the builders coming into the development. We have 6 of the best Southlake builders committed to buying lots in Palomar so quality of home in the development will not be an issue. Your property values can only be positively impacted by the removal of the junk on the property now and the construction of true custom estate homes. Again, I appreciate your support and interest and please let me know if there is anything I did not cover. David Case No. Attachment F ZA 06 -027 Page 11 - -- Original Message---- - From: Anne & Rob Rhoades Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 9:12 PM To: David Keener Cc: 'Thomas' Subject: Palomar Estates Mr. Keener - We appreciate your communication with us on your plans for Palomar Estates. We are eager to hear your responses to Kathy's questions below, and would like to communicate our support, as well as our concerns about the proposed development Our priorities are: 1, Drainage. As Kathy points out, the majority of drainage from your properties comes across our backyard and into the Thomas' yard. We are hoping, and expecting, that you will come to the P &Z meeting with firm and final details about your plans to address the drainage issues, 2. Fencing, At the SPIN meeting, you clearly stated that you would provide fencing across the east side of the development, but the plan we were mailed shows that no new fencing is planned. When might we expect an unchanging answer about your plans for fencing? 3, Zoning. The city spent a great deal of time and money developing a master plan that designated this land as low- density, and we are not sure what rationale there is to justify changing that plan. As new residents of Southlake, we expected that the land behind us would be developed. What we trusted was that the Southlake master plan would protect the nature of our subdivision. We understand that this new subdivision is still in the planning stages, but it is slightly unsettling to hear so many different answers from the developers to these basic questions, We are supportive of this development, and are trying to make this a win -win situation, We'd appreciate some answers to our concerns before the P &Z meeting so that we can be supportive in front of the Commission at that time. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Anne & Rob Rhoades 1376 Lakeview Drive Southlake, TX 76092 817 - 421 -8438 Case No. Attachment F ZA 06 -027 Page 12 - - - -- Original Message---- - Prom: Thomas ;t] Sent: Monday, Marcn ef, zuub 6:u4 rivi To: David Keener Cc: ie & Rob Rhoades Subject: Palomar Thanks for meeting with Rob Rhoades and me on Tuesday, 3/21106, regarding the Palomar development During this meeting, you reiterated and expanded on comments made during the 2/27/06 SPIN meeting, and said that you would memorialize your commitments through a "Developer's Agreement" with the city. Since that agreement is typically done after the P &Z and City Council public comment process, I would like clarification on some issues and have additional questions about the development. We have received formal notification from the city (a certified letter on 3/25/06 which included a plan map dated 3/20/06 prepared by Sage Group, and another letter today, 3/27/06). Also, Anne Rhoades and I met with the city engineers on 3 /9 106. 1. You said that you will install a water runoff collection structure on Gifford Road approximately 150 ft from the road's eastern end. This structure will collect the majority (approx 90 %) of water draining northward to your property along the Gifford curb. The collector will connect to a pipe which will run underground along 'Palos Verdes Trail' and ultimately discharge into the detention pond on the Palomar northeast corner. This pipe diameter will be greater than 30 inches, but the exact size needed has not yet been determined. 2. You stated that the surface ditch along the eastern side of Palomar (adjacent to Lakeview Drive properties) will remain and be extended from Gifford to the detention pond. This ditch will be "enhanced" to prevent discharge and runoff onto Lakeview properties ([e., you will pile up the dirt along the eastern property line to create a Swale, keeping the water in the Palomar ditch). The city told us that a drainage easement along the eastern side of Palomar, running from Gifford Road to the detention pond, would be required. I do not see this easement shown on the 3/20/06 Sage plan. Please clarify: will the surface ditch along the eastern side of Palomar be located in a dedicated drainage easement? Will the Palomar HOA covenants specifically require maintenance and upkeep of this ditch, as well as prohibit alteration? As we talked about, the drainage ditch running north from Gifford along the eastern side of your property currently has a channel cut under the fence into the back of 1376 Lakeview, even though there is no drainage easement on the Lakeview property. The water flowing down Gifford, this drainage ditch, and the channel cut are the source of most (if not all) of the flooding problems on Lakeview. Will the channel cut into the Lakeview property be closed off? Will the drainage collection structure on Gifford, combined with the drainage ditch along the eastern side of Palomar extending to the detention pond, capture the 100 year storm event runoff without diverting water to the Lakeview properties? 3.. You said that drainage controls will be put in place at the very beginning of grade work to prevent water and silt runoff onto Lakeview properties and the creek. These controls will include silt fencing, excavation the detention pond, and grading of the drainage ditch so that water is contained at all times. 4. You said that you will install a six -foot wood privacy fence along the property line between Palomar and Lakeview and Kingswood homes. This fence will not encroach onto Lakeview or Kingswood properties but will be on the property line or just inside the Palomar property, making an allowance for mature trees. The fence will be maintained by the Palomar HOA per restrictive covenants. I expect that a wood fence will have steel posts. Your 3/20/06 Sage plan shows "no new fence proposed" for these areas. Please clarify, do you agree to put in a fence and what type of fence? Case No. Attachment F ZA 06 -027 Page 13 5. You said that the 'buffer' area around the northeast detention pond would be cleaned up to be visually attractive. This cleanup will include removal of brush, undergrowth, and vines.. Will the HQA covenants contain specific provisions for ongoing maintenance of this area? 6. Since our 20 -year old subdivision is Low Density Residential, and your property is also shown as Low Density Residential on the Southlake 2025 Plan, we are concerned with your request for medium density. h particular, it will be unacceptable for your new homes to "loom" over our property, especially since your homes will most likely be two story. As a minimum, we expect your homes to be set back from our property at least equivalent to a low density development configuration. How do you intend to ensure that buffer areas, tree preservation, and builder restrictions will be adequate to preserve our current (and cherished) low density country atmosphere? We are pleased with your statements that your development "should fix" our drainage problems and we appreciate your efforts to make this development a quality addition to the city of Southlake as well as our neighborhood, I am certain the process will move smoothly if you continue to keep the Cross Timber Hills and Kingswood homeowners involved in your plans, Kathy Thomas 1374 Lakeview Drive Southlake, TX 76092 -4850 RECD M Ay 16 *b Case No. Attachment F ZA 06 -027 Page 14 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS ORDINANCE NO. 480 -489 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 1AIA2, 1AIA2A, 1AIA2D, 1AIA2E, 1AIA2F, 1AIA2G, IAIA, AND 1AIA1, SITUATED IN THE B.J. FOSTER SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 519, BEING APPROXIMATELY 29.85 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 "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 FORA 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 under the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; and Case No. ZA06 -027 Attachment G 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 G ZA06 -027 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 Soutlake, 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 Tracts 1AlA2, lAlA2A, IMAM, IMAM, lAlA2F, lAlA2G, lAlA, and lAlAl, situated in the B.J. Foster Survey, Abstract No. 519, being approximately 29.85 acres, and more fully and completely described in exhibit "A" from "AG" Agricultural District to "RPUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District with "SF -20X" Single Family Residential District uses as depicted on the approved Development Plan, including "RPUD" development standards, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit `B ", and subject to the following specific conditions: 1. Case No. ZA06 -027 Attachment G Page 3 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. 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 Case No. Attachment G ZA06 -027 Page 4 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 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. Case No. ZA06 -027 Attachment G Page 5 SECTION 10. 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 , 2006. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the day of , 2006. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Case No. ZA06 -027 Attachment G Page 6 CITY ATTORNEY DATE: ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: Case No. ZA06 -027 Attachment G Page 7 EXHIBIT "A" Being Tracts IAIA2, 1AlA2A, IMAM, lAIA2E, lAIA2F, 1AIA2G, IAIA, and lAlAl, situated in the B.J. Foster Survey, Abstract No. 519, being approximately 29.85 acres: LEGAL DESCRIPTION BEING a 29.845 acre tract of land in the B. J. Foster Survey, Abstract No 50 and being a portion of those Certain lract of fond as described in deed to W. $twine Ferguson, Jr. and wife, Rochelle Oernn Ferguson os recorded in Vokrrne 0785, Page 508 Deed Records of Torrcml County. Texas, land described in deed to Robert Lemke, etux Virginia Lemke os recorded in Volume 67f4, Page 1547 D, R. T, C, T, . tend described in deed to Mork Steven Manne$S Ord $POUSe Wanda Sue Monness as recorded in Volume 13 79 7. Page 271 D. R. T. C. T. , tend described in d"d to Danny Prentice as recorded in Volme 10548, Page 2179 D.R. T. C. T., hand described in deed to James H. Jenkins and wife, Nertha L. Jenkins as retarded in Volume 1514 J, Page 419 D. R. T, C, T. , rand land described air deed to Curtis Woods and wife. Jean Woods as recorded in tnslrumeM #0205{83313 O_ R. T�C. T. and being more particularly described as tattows 1 BEG1NNtNG at o meld pas! of a pope grad cable fence and said point being the rroriheasf Corner of Lot t, R- J. Foster Nn. 519 Addition, an addition lo the Cify of Southloke, Tarrant County, Texas, as recorded in Cabinef A, Slide 2346 of the Plat Records of Tarrant Courtly. Texas and also being the southeast corner of sold Ferguson tract, THENCE S 89' 41' 30' W a distance of 967.60 feel along the noflh line of said Lot t and passing said Ferguson trot!, said Lemke lroct and said Stevens POCI to a 112' iron rod set with a ` TO Burks #5509' rap of the southwesf corner of said ${evens lract, also being in the north line of that certain froct of lard as described in deed to Valerie Joyce Clark os recorded in Volume 7794, Page 102 D. R. T. C. T,, THENCE N 00 04 ' 40' W and passing at 59. 04 feel o 112' iron rod found at the southeasl corner of that certain tract of fond as described in deed to Capricorn hve5imenls Limiled Porfnership as recorded in instrument Na. 172 05 14 3 70 0 D,R. T. C, T. and continuing in ,tit o distonc° of 560.52 feet to a 5!0 " !'ran rod found of the northwest corner of said Stevens lroct, the northeast corner of Lot 1 Malik Stales Addrtaon an addition to the City of Soulhtoke, Tarrant CoLoly, Texas as recorded rn Cabinet A. Slide 5711 P.R. T. C. T. and also being a ,point in the south line of said Prentice trgcf, THENCE S 89' 34 ' 43` W along the south line of said Prentice lra0 a distance of 332.92 leer to a t12 iron rod set with a ' TO Burks #5509' cop in the east righl-of -way line of Randal Mitt Avenue (R. 0. W. varies J, T14ENCF N 00' 08' 04' E Bony said right -of -way a distance of 832.52 feet to a 112" iron rod salt with a ' TO Burks #15509' cap the northwest corner of said Prentice fracl and also being a point in the south fine of said .Jenkins tract, THENCE N 89' 43' 49" W along said Jenkins tract a distance of 11.83 feet 10 o 112` iron rod set with a ' TO Burks #5509' cap in the east rlghf -af -way line of said Randoh UJ Avenue, THENCE N 00' 20' 25' W alaang sold righl -of -way o distance of 330.20 feet to a 112" iron rod set with a ' TO Surks 95509' cap and said painf being by deed call the northwest corner of said Jenkins lract, TI N 84` 59' 19 C passing was 21.09 feet the southwest corner of Lot 1, Block 2, Rondol Miff' Estates, an addrlion to Itte City of Soulhloke, Tarronl County, Texas as r ecorded in Volume 388 - 167, Page 53 P. R. T. C, T. and confinurog along scaath fine of said Raarndol Mid Estates a distance of 1322. 70 feet to a 112' iron rod sel with a - TO Burks #5509' cap at the soulheosl corner of said Randal Mill Esfales, the northwest corner of said Jenkins tract and also being in fhe west line of Lai 38, Block 4, Cross Timbers Phase lit, an addition to the City of 5aufhloke, Tarrant County, Texas, T14EAJCE S 00" .36' 15` E utong the west tine of soil81ock 4 and passing the Prentice tract, said Woods Tract and said Ferguson tract a distance of 1123,87 feel to the Point of Beginmrng and conjoining in alt f, 300. 061 square feel or 23.895 acres of tared. Case No. ZA06 -027 Attachment G Page 8 o 0 c n.+ i n b � CfQ „�•r Summary Chart Bufferyards a1.rr�vad cmwv en«sceenrns «gym -Trce nac3nts nare131 �r�d mu Pmmded ass• s -p is so s•namnw v��a ce onm tee. all e m E City of 5outhlele f °fF IFA I f R11111 I M 11 _ I a �gti i h. y �� r,L A �r� 1 i f i 1411191Kf S I rrrto v , I R I i I i s g L I I I r L tl f _ x' ° e Area Summary Haste, 1 knning 9 R-denn I Lots 70,824 21,14 oc. a ght o way _andsca�e 4rhr[e¢ur 3 RA 1 Mill 0 Ilya l inl 748°n n.7 nr. 1,te al Street 10,72% 3,20 au open Spec- 15,98% 111 e G s A eage 100.00% 29.85 ac. Ste Data G oss Acreage 2985 ac. %,I Pr ge 25.91 ac. G D1.1i, 111d1ac. vet Densq 127 duiac Lot Summary FPS dErtl 9 SS Aki 6 'Iding Lnt Ama 711,7081 f. Arclog Build Lot Arco 27,904 s.f, co—en 4 s 11 L.U.D./Zoning Existing LU, D.: Low Deny Residential Ex sl. ng 21nig : AS Proposed L J.D.: Med Den>ty Residential Proposed Zoning: RPUD w Residential P.U.D. Development Plan &Pedestrian Access Plan e en a�4 ., i t t# � e' w a F a++viaaa+va I I e 4 A v y. t5'7yp- a B,regad r>::i•:f , �` '-�� r .I 1 � _ �� 7 a wao q rrn p common open sp. 0 € 1� m 7r C 6r9r Y L v g� 1f1 tr evert 49d-,Ak z � � I I:Nlil .o t Zo rnr, A6, IT 1 TM,K c - ,rrAl rret�4 MUTHLAI4€ r >o II�nnIAl, Zpt g AG , �_ — — SACEGRDUP INC Prepared rnr Received April 25, 2006 Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas H� H I� M-4 Haste, 1 knning 9 985 Randcll MITI LP_ Q O O Q 1 _andsca�e 4rhr[e¢ur 3 39n1 W. 41, pnit F— x 200 Zoning Case #ZA 06 -027 IrvinS, Tc:e95c61 A Tel: 972 -342 -7920 25 APR[L 06 F Fau 9'J- 9;c - ;4I F Fax', 817 886 -2533 P at&"ww L L e en a�4 ., i t t# � e' w a F a++viaaa+va I I e 4 A v y. t5'7yp- a B,regad r>::i•:f , �` '-�� r .I 1 � _ �� 7 a wao q rrn p common open sp. 0 € 1� m 7r C 6r9r Y L v g� 1f1 tr evert 49d-,Ak z � � I I:Nlil .o t Zo rnr, A6, IT 1 TM,K c - ,rrAl rret�4 MUTHLAI4€ r >o II�nnIAl, Zpt g AG , �_ — — SACEGRDUP INC Prepared rnr Received April 25, 2006 Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas H� H I� M-4 Residential Planned United Development District - Land Use and Development Regulations for Palomar Estates This Residential Planned Unit Development shall abide by the all conditions of the City of Southlake Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended, as it pertains to the "SF -20A" Single - Family Residential zoning district and the City of Southlake Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, as amended, with the following exceptions: Lot Area: The minimum area of a lot shall not be less than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. Front Yard: The minimum front yard of a lot shall not be less than thirty -five (35) feet, except for front yards along corner or cul -de -sacs "balls," in which case the minimum front yard setback shall be thirty (30) feet. Side Yard: The minimum side yard shall not be less than fifteen (15) feet. Side Yard Adjacent to a Street: The minimum side yard abutting a street shall not be less than twenty -five (25) feet, unless otherwise noted. Lot Width: Each lot shall have a minimum width of eighty (80) feet, measured at the Front Yard setback line for each lot as indicated on the Zoning Site Plan. Rear Yard: Each lot shall have a minimum rear yard of thirty (30) feet. Section 8.01E of the Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, as amended, regarding lot width along the rear property line of certain lots shall not apply to property within this Residential Planned Unit Development.* Section 8.01G of the Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, as amended, regarding buffer lots adjacent to certain lots shall not apply to property within this Residential Planned Unit Development. A minimum 4' wide concrete sidewalk shall be required on both sides of all internal streets, except where Open Space Lots front the street, in which case sidewalk location shall be as shown on the Zoning Site Plan. RECD FED 1 (006 ZA06 -027 Case No. Attachment G ZA06 -027 Page 10