Item 8ACity of Southlake
Department of Planning
STAFF REPORT
April 28, 2004
CASE NO
ZA03 -096
PROJECT: Estes Park Phase 2
REQUEST: Hat Creels Development and Terra Land Development are requesting approval of a
zoning change and development plan.
ACTION NEEDED: Coi
ATTACHMENTS: (A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
isider first reading for zoning change and development plan.
Background Information
Vicinity Map
Plans and Support Information
Development Plan Review Summary
Surrounding Property Owners Map
Surrounding Property Owners Responses
Ordinance No. 480 -437
Full Size Plans (f )r Commission and Council Members Only)
STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough (481 -2073)
Bruce Payne (481 -2036)
Case No.
ZA03 -096
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
OWNERS /APPLICANTS: Hat Creek Development and Terra Land Development
PURPOSE: The purpose of this request is to receive approval of a zoning change and
development plan for the development of 80 residential lots and 7 private
common areas on 57.36 acres.
PROPERTY SITUATION: The property is generally located along the north side of the 700 to 900
blocks of Primrose Lane, the west side of the 2100 block of N. Carroll
Avenue and the south side of the 800 block of E. Dove Street.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tracts lA1B, lA1D, lAlE, lAlEl, 113, 2A, 2A1, 2A2, 2C1 and 2C3,
situated in the A. Chivers Survey, Abstract No. 299.
LAND USE CATEGORY: Low Density Residential.
CURRENT ZONING: "AG Agricultural District and "R -PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development
District.
REQUESTED ZONING: "R -PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District.
HISTORY: -A change of zoning to "R -PUD" and a development plan for Estes Park,
Phase 1 was approved by City Council on August 19, 2003.
-City Council approved a preliminary plat for phase 1 on August 19, 2003.
-The final plat for Estes Park, Phase 1 was approved by the Planning &
Zoning Commission on February 5, 2004.
TRANSPORTATION
ASSESSMENT: Master Thoroughfare Plan
The Master Thoroughfare Plan recommends E. Dove Street to be a 5 -lane,
undivided arterial with 94 feet of right -of -way and a continuous, two -way,
center left -turn lane. The Master Thoroughfare Plan recommends N. Carroll
Avenue to be a 3 -lane, undivided arterial with 94 feet of right -of -way and a
continuous, two -way, center left -turn lane.
Existinz Area Road Network and Conditions
The proposed site will connect into the previously approved Estes Park,
Phase 1, which will have one street intersecting with E. Dove Street. The site
will also have a street intersecting with N. Carroll Avenue giving the
subdivision two points of access.
E. Dove Street is currently a 2 -lane, undivided roadway. N. Carroll Avenue
is also a 2 -lane, undivided roadway. No plans for improvement in the near
Case No. Attachment A
ZA03 -096 Page 1
fixture have been made.
PATHWAYS MASTER
PLAN:
WATER & SEWER
May, 2003 traffic counts on E. Dove Street (between N. White Chapel
and N. Carroll Ave
24hr
West Bound (WB) (3,137)
East Bound (EB) (3,661)
WB
Peak A.M. (362) 8 — 9 a.m.
Peak P.M. (479) 5 — 6 p.m.
EB
Peak A.M. (531) 7 — 8 a.m.
Peak P.M. (444) 5 — 6 p.m.
May, 2003 traffic counts on N. Carroll Ave (between Highland St and E.
Dove St
24hr
North Bound (NB) (1,640)
South Bound (SB) (1,405)
NB
Peak A.M. (220) 8 — 9 a.m.
Peak P.M. (153) 3 — 4 p.m.
SB
Peak A.M. (244) 7 — 8 a.m.
Peak P.M. (156) 5 — 6 p.m.
Traffic Iml)(tct
Use
9 Units
Vtpd*
AM-
IN
AM-
OUT
PM-
IN
PM-
OUT
Residential
80
766
15
45
52
29
*Vehicle Trips Per Day
*The AM/PM times represent the potential number of vehicle trips generated during the peak
travel times on E. Dove Street & N. Carroll Avenue.
The Southlake Pathways Master Plan does not recommend any trail or
sidewalk improvements on or adjacent to this property.
This site will connect into the water and sanitary sewer system being provided
for Phase 1.
TREE PRESERVATION: The applicant has made a very good -faith effort in preserving the most
amount of trees on the Estes Park Development site. The biggest
concentration of trees in Phase 2 seems to be within the Private Common
Area as shown on the Development Plan and Preliminary Plat. The rest of the
proposed development is pasture land with some scattered trees on the lots
that back up to Primrose Lane and at the end of the existing Primrose Lane.
P &Z ACTION: February 19, 2004; Approved to Table (5 -0) until March 4, 2004.
March 4, 2004; Approved to Table (6 -0) until April 22, 2004.
April 22, 2004; Approved (5 -0) subject to Development Plan Review
Summary No. 3, dated April 16, 2004; as presented.
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has added approximately 21 acres of land area, 22 residential lots and
5 private common areas to the project since last appearing before the
Commission. Attached is Development Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated
April 16, 2004.
Case No. Attachment A
ZA03 -096 Page 2
Please note that the Zoning and Development Plan as proposed is not
compliant with the City's Master Land Use Plan's "Low Density Residential"
Land Use Designation on the subject area. A justification letter from the
applicant is included as part of Attachment 'C'. Any motion for approval of
this item should include justification for non - compliance with the Land Use
Plan.
Under the "R -PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development district zoning
the applicant proposes the following:
• 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 -20X" single family residential
zoning district and the City of Southlake Subdivision Ordinance No. 483,
as amended, with the following exceptions:
o Front Yard The minimum front yard of a lot shall not be less than
thirty (30) feet.
o Side Yard Adjacent to a Street The minimum side yard abutting a
public street shall not be less than twenty (20) feet.
o Side Yard The minimum side yard shall not be less than ten (10) feet.
o Rear Yard The minimum rear yard shall not be less than thirty (30)
feet.
o Lot Area The minimum area of a lot shall not be less than fifteen
thousand (15,000) square feet.
o Lot Width Each lot shall have a minimum width of ninety (90) feet.
o Right -of -way Streets D1 & D2 shall be one -way streets with thirty
(30) feet of right -of -way and a twenty (20) feet pavement width.
o Buffer Lots Minimum 30,000 square foot lots shall be required on all
lots adjacent to platted property zoned SF -1 or RE, with the exception
of Lots 6 — 13, Block 11 and Lot 23, Block 10 shall have a minimum
lot size of 20,000 square feet.
o Curvilinear Streets For the purpose of compliance with the
curvilinear street requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance No. 483,
as amended, the maximum permitted centerline curve radius shall be
one thousand six hundred (1,600) feet.
Case No. Attachment A
ZA03 -096 Page 3
o Buffervard The 10' — Type `B' bufferyard is not required adjacent to
E. Dove Street.
Case No. Attachment A
ZA03 -096 Page 4
Vicinity Map
Estes Park, Phase II
10,
S
Case No.
ZA03 -096
E
Attachment B
Page 1
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 Feet
u, Twls .R sT ouwf x + r � - � ._.,_ ,r �'T+�'�T!� "� a�r.�,"'
J ,
v ra s�n'E� � .von V�s., f , $ � ��V �'��. I �� ... �e.•s' ra,rrW •: . «`
LOCATION MAP
RFr'O A P p
g. R �004
Al
_,,
------ r ------- t ---- -- - ------- ------------
BLOCK 11
� �
I 4 4 5 12 TO az 11-0 OF, secs
"I -IE I 111 1. —1. ESTES PARK PHASE I to
.,ALsg�%m v (a
3] <
- LOCK
to
_3 It pw*
ILLO
V—.11I Tj
L4
IF
PREL 11
IMINARY
FCR
1 — o K_ ° y +'�' y� ,� A e, e r 1 w�: N. X
A
2 IN
—+� ��" �� .. f -°°-.- _� q f'-' � —_. � 4 � " � e f W T, � � _ = �...�.�:'�.®a -. I Y - _ — � I _. _... ___� _.d. y uc<xp.
.1 2
—
pol)
71
Hl __=vv_�
LUCK .
_13 "cane ,cs
– BL OCK �— � , �1�,
--- - ! T
BLO K 10
Of
71 K I DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT
—IONT I— I.I. IO—Q "JO I. .— OT I
11 I L .T I I..
4
-a b .,._aa – � 1 ` �_ ' f� - - y 1 � ,a' �ZI 4Po Ml6 39 � �S 1�� O tl IAY u
FS PARK PHASE 11
IITY OF E
71 1—
2 C � 1 36 ACRE TRACT OF TANI) IXIT OF THE .77 F, BEING A 57
AN VERS SbRW . ASSM CT NO 299
DATE OF PREPARATION 4-5-04
.__ OWE
T 5n—m
—E
TIOT O...TNO
I l90 _.® n. as aawuow`w4uw.lxc. w,xww000ROn
MU!"
T
�.- n
1_--�_ --� Public
Park y CISD
i
�
Q Q +� y PHASE
OY�QOIRGIC '6
U ,' r
nE11lBVRP�1@iyYa.L]lse A10 , .. - -_. y �
L`_ RV➢�3BX ]W43 _ _'
Orep�rae fnn "��,�f{li3V °R"da1RIFi je.c'.LY.
I Terra Land & CaWe Co.
C onne ctivi t y Plan Estes Park
5outhlake,Texas
Case No. Attachment C
ZA03 -096 Page 2
r
C7al< Pointe
�
Q Q +� y PHASE
OY�QOIRGIC '6
U ,' r
nE11lBVRP�1@iyYa.L]lse A10 , .. - -_. y �
L`_ RV➢�3BX ]W43 _ _'
Orep�rae fnn "��,�f{li3V °R"da1RIFi je.c'.LY.
I Terra Land & CaWe Co.
C onne ctivi t y Plan Estes Park
5outhlake,Texas
Case No. Attachment C
ZA03 -096 Page 2
Estes Park Phase 11
Proposed Permitted Uses and Development Regulations for "R -PUD" Zoning
Permitted Uses
This property shall be limited to the permitted uses as found in the "SF -20A"
Single Family Residential District as described in Section 14 of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance Rio. 480, as amended.
Development Regulations
This property shall be subject to the development regulations for the "SF -20x"
Single Family Residential District, and all other applicable regulations with the following
exceptions:
• Front Yard: There shall be a front yard of not less than thirty (30) feet
• Side Yard adjacent to street: There shall be a side yard of not less than twenty
(20) feet adjacent to a public street
• Side Yard: There shall be a side yard of not less than ten (10) feet
• Rear Yard: There shall be a rear yard of not less than thirty (30) feet
• Lot Area: The minimum area of a lot shall be fifteen thousand (15,000) square
feet
• Lot Width: Minimum lot width shall be ninety (90) feet
• Right -of -Way: Streets D1 & D2 are one way streets with 30' right -of -way and
20' street pavement width
• A minimum of 30,000 square foot lots shall be required on all lots adjacent to
platted property zoned SF -1 or RE, with the exception of lots 6 -13, Block 11 and
lot 23, Block 10 where 20,000 square feet shall be the minimum.
• The proposed maximum street centerline radius for curvilinear street design
requirements shall be 1600'.
• Waive 10' bufferyard requirements for property adjacent to E. Dove St.
2603- 096 -t 0` - 7
RECD APR 0 8 2004
Case No. Attachment C
ZA03 -096 Page 3
H Creek Development, Inc.
P. 0. Box 92747. 80uthIake. TX 76x92 817- 329 -3111. Fax 817 -329 -3854
Case No.
ZA 03 -096
February 13, 2004
City of Southlake
Planning Department
RE: Zoning of Estes Park Phase II
We are seeking zoning for a residential Planned Unit Development {PUD} on
approximately 37 acres. The analysis of existing zoning and other factors have
led us to seek the PUD that you are now considering.
To the south and west of this tract is an existing commercial PUD. To the north
and west is the recently zoned Estes Park Phase I and to the east is an existing
one acre development and two large estate properties. The proposed Estes
Park Phase II falls under the DFW Airport noise corridor. Recognizing the
existing and potential land uses and the impact of the DFW noise corridor, it is
apparent that our tract is transitional in nature. The existing land use plan seeks
low density, residential land uses on our tract. It is our belief that our proposed
residential PUD is a more appropriate zoning designation.
Our proposed residential PUD seeks a density of approximately 1.5 units to the
acre and over 12% of the tract in designated open space and parks. Our tract is
an obvious buffer from the commercial PUD and the existing 1 acre zoning and
the proposed low density residential uses to our east. It is our belief that it
would be difficult to develop and build homes on one acre lots under the existing
flight pattern and the commercial PUD that borders two sides of our tract. Our
proposed PUD allows us to use open space as buffers to the existing one acre
zoning to our east. Without the open space, the existing one acre homeowners
would have residences much closer thatlwe propose today.
It is for this reason that we are requesting the approval of our proposed
residential Planned Unit Development.
Best Regards,
e ase M�ykus
President
REC'P F E B 1 3 2004
Attachment C
Page 4
PLAT REVIEW SUMMARY
Case No.: ZA04 -096 Review No.: Three
Date of Review: 04/16/04
Project Name: Development Plan — Estes Park, Phase II
APPLICANT:
Hat Creek & Terra Land Development
SURVEYOR/ENGINEER:
Hamilton Consulting
Phone: (817) 329 -31]1
Fax: (817) 329 -3854
Phone: (817) 268 -0408
Fax: (817) 284 -8408
CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 04/08/04 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) 481 -2086.
Where adjacent property is un- platted or platted showing a 5' U.E., provide a 5' U.E. along the
property line. If adjacent property is platted and shows no easement, provide a 10' U.E. along the
interior of the property line. However, Staff recommends that easements be placed only where needed
to provide necessary utility services and, where possible, be placed in a manner that minimized
impacts on existing quality trees.
2. Show and label all survey lines.
The north lot line of Lot 3, Block 11 must be a minimum of 100 feet.
4. Correct the dedication shown for Carroll Avenue to be a minimum of 47 feet from the established
centerline of Carroll Avenue. The dedication at the southeast corner should match the dedication line
from Carroll Meadows subdivision at its northeast corner. If additional dedication is proposed forturn
lane, it must meet the design criteria and approval of the City Engineer.
If any, show the location, type, and height of all walls, fences, and screening devices.
The applicant requests approval of the RPUD uses and regulations as proposed in attachment `C' of
this report.
It appears this property lies within the 65 LDN D /FW Regional Airport Overlay Zone, requiring
construction standards in compliance with the Airport Compatible Land Use Zoning Ordinance No.
479. Additionally, the "Avigation Easement and Release" shown in Appendix 3 of the Subdivision
Ordinance No. 483 should be executed on subsequent Plats to be filed in the County Plat Records.
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 ofthe final plat,
Case No.
ZA 03 -096
Attachment D
Page 1
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.
* A 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.
Case No. Attachment D
ZA 03 -096 Page 2
S
Owner
Zoning
Land Use
Acreagf
1. Westerra Southlake Lp.
NR -PUD
Mixed Use
40.712
2. Estes, Christine V
R -PUD
Low Density Residential
11.388
3. Hess, Lee Roy & Mary
R -PUD
Low Density Residential
7.754
4. Cullum, Ronald R.
R -PUD
Low Density Residential
5.187
5. Foreman, W.D. Rosie
R -PUD
Low Density Residential
4.929
6. Edwards, Mary G.
AG
Low Density Residential
1.939
7. Radcliff, Zack D Etux Pearlean
SF-IA
Low Density Residential
1.187
8. Jacks, Elizabeth Ann
SF-IA
Low Density Residential
1.784
9. Long, Michael R
SF-IA
Low Density Residential
1.775
10. Hawkins, Mildred
AG
Low Density Residential
1.945
11. Carter, Wanda & James
SF-IA
Low Density Residential
1.652
Case No. Attachment E
ZA03 -096 Page 1
Surrounding Property Owners
Estes Park Phase II
12. Worley, Larry Jo
AG
Low Density Residential
1.571
13. Gonser, Christopher W Etux Lisa
SF-IA
Low Density Residential
2.002
14. Clark, Marjorie E
SF-IA
Low Density Residential
2.018
15. Miller, Michael R
SF-IA
Low Density Residential
2.404
16. Wilson, Don J Jr
AG
Low Density Residential
1.935
17. Guest, Mark Etux Linda
AG
Low Density Residential
2.898
18. Wilson, Mary Lou
C -2
Low Density Residential
4.298
19. McKee, Curtis M & Nancy G
AG
Low Density Residential
0.970
20. Bhogavalli, N & S Chennareddy
AG
Low Density Residential
5.080
21. Eastwood, William & Kollis
SF -2B
Low Density Residential
0.463
22. Richardson, Clara N
AG
Low Density Residential
1.473
23. Teng, Samuel Etux Christine
AG
Low Density Residential
1.071
24. Haynes, Larry S Etux Lynda J
SF-IA
Low Density Residential
1.111
25. Baranek, Rachel D
SF-IA
Low Density Residential
0.994
26. Lewis, Jerry W Etux Shelly
SF-IA
Low Density Residential
1.016
27. Dodson, Leec Etux Marie L
SF-IA
Low Density Residential
1.040
28. Mauk, Richard Jr. & Deann
SF1A
Low Density Residential
1.109
29. Munoz, Michael & Lee Ann
SF1A
Low Density Residential
1.574
30. Soulier, Paul & Mary
SF1A
Low Density Residential
1.069
31. Tharp, Harry & Monica
SF1A
Low Density Residential
1.011
32. Morris, Louis M Etux Leslie
AG
Low Density Residential
0.964
33. Westerra Southlake Lp.
NR -PUD
Mixed Use
99.838
34. Mussina, Kathleen Bronwyn
AG
Low Density Residential
7.370
35. Frank, Walter W & Sammie C
AG
Low Density Residential
0.500
36. Morganstean, Robert J
AG
Low Density Residential
3.660
37. Carter, Wanda R & James
AG
Low Density Residential
1.650
38. Worley, Larry Jo
AG
Low Density Residential
0.996
39. Hosea, A. S.
AG
Low Density Residential
0.946
40. McKee, Curtis & Nancy
AG
Low Density Residential
9.311
41. Tate, Lanny M.
AG
Low Density Residential
8.499
Case No. Attachment E
ZA03 -096 Page 2
Surrounding Property Owner Responses
Estes Park Phase II
Notices Sent: Forty -One (41)
Responses: Two (2) from within the 200' notification area:
• Paul and Mary Soulier, 1005 Carroll Meadows Ct., Southlake, TX 76092; in favor. See
attached letter received 2- 18 -04.
• Harry Tharp, Carroll Meadows Ct., Southlake, TX 76092; opposed. See attached email
received 2- 19 -04.
Six (6) from outside the 200' notification area:
• John R. Van Son, 675 Southview Trail, Southlake, Texas 76092; in favor, "The
proposed subdivision is a very acceptable alternative to the "1 acre" position generally
taken by the City and the developer will build a quality subdivision." (Received 2 -13-
04)
• Lonnie Vann, 607 E. Dove Road, Southlake, Texas 76092; in favor. See attached
letter received 2- 17 -04.
• R. W. "Bill " Taylor, 1613 Heather Lane, Southlake, TX 76092; in favor. See
attached letter received 2- 18 -04.
• Chris Gonser, 955 E. Dove Road, Southlake, Texas 76092; in favor. See attached
letter received 2- 19 -04.
• Jay Koldus, Southlake, Texas 76092; in favor. See attached email received 2- 19 -04.
• Kirk Johnson, Southlake, Texas 76092; in favor. See attached email received 4 -22-
04.
Case No. Attachment F
ZA03 -096 Page 1
Link's Backhoe
Service, Inc.
P 0 }SOX 647 -- ROANOKE, TX 76262
1- 817488 -0844 TeUhx -- 1- 940 - 745 -19:13 Corp
relxrnary 3 7, 20N
DeM is Killough
Cary of Sonthlakc
5uutlilakc, TX 16M
KE: Estpas Park I}haw 11
Mr Killough:
I am contacting you as a Sauftakc Businessman and a horngo : ng a! 607 E Dave Road which is adjacent to tha Esirs Ilk
subdivision, to advise you that I am in fmorof the alcove mendorked developmcnl pr r ing under the hand of Kass Maykus Qpd the
]flat Onck Development. Should you IaVC any further gUCraions or cumFmnts, Incase fee] fire to c+aulact nr- on my mubilC (8 17) 994-
.395 8
Sincerely,
Lonniv Vann
PresidenOor rDwrLff
Case No.
ZA 03 -096
RE's F E B 17 2004
Attachment F
Page 2
R. W. "BILL" TAYLOR
1613 HEATHER LANE - S I1'I HLAIE, TEXAS 7609
February 17, 2004
planning and Zoning Commission
City of Southlake Texas
1400 '-Main Street
Southlawke, Texas 76092
Ike: Estes Park 11
Dear Commission Members:
I attended the recent SPIN meeting for the preSeatUtiun by the developers of their
plans for Estes Park H. I thought the plans were well conceived and clearly of the
quality we should be proud to have in Souttdake.
The saerifce of lot size to have tree lined parlcwnys and parks are very much
appreciated and a nice addition to Southilake. The argument that such smaller lots are
an encroachment of South lake's way of life do aot make much sense when you consider
the very "Tvanilla` and plaid addition just east of Carroll Road and the planned Estes
Park II.
Our fa ally moved to Southlake in 1984 because of its location and natural beauty.
When we moved here I expected there wauld be growth because of our location and the
UFW airport What I Dope to have in Soutbla ke is quality growth with attractive
nweigkborheod&
Please consider my thoughts when you vote an the plans for Estes Par& H. I appreciate
your work on behalf of our cnmrarrnity.
Best regards,
RECD FEB 1 82004
R. W. ,I Will" Taylor
Case No.
ZA 03 -096
Attachment F
Page 3
ff rain & Y 4 0L]Iitr
E QQ
February 18, 2004
[dear Planning & .Zoning Committee,
We are property owners immediately adjacent to the proposed
Estes Park Pease !I. We have participated in a meeting with our
neighborhood and the developer, Mr_ Maykus, as well as a SM
meeting.
The proposed Estes Park Phase II is a balanced compromise
between our one acre lot subdivision and the approved Estes Park
.Phase i- The developer has placed a significant park along our
western boundary and has agreed to construct a rod iron fence
between the park and our home.
The developer has also agreed to !provide access between the
proposed park and our neighborhood. which we are in favor cif.
We respectfully request your favorable recommendation to the City+
Council for the proposed Estes Park Phase II.
Sincerely,
Oer
Paul Soullier C
FEB 1
arsvulier
Case No.
ZA 03 -096
Attachment F
Page 4
February 19, 2004
The Southlake Planning & Zoning Commission
Southlake City Council
Mayor Andy Wambsganss
Rex Potter (Deputy Mayor Pro Tem)
Keith Shankland
Ralph Evans (Mayor Pro Tem)
Greg Standerfer
Tom Stephen
Carolyn Morris
Re: Hat Creek Development - Estes Park — Phase II
Dear P &Z Commission and Council Members:
I have been a resident of Southlake since 1994. Between 1994 and 1999 my address was
245 E. Dove Road. Koss Maykus built and completed our current home at 955 E. Dove
Road in November 1999. Our home, which sits on 1.99 acres, will back -up to the
proposed Estes Park — Phase II. I have known Koss Maykus since 1964. His father Frank
built my parents first home in Irving, Texas at that time.
The intent of this letter is to express my support for the approval of the Estes Park II
development. Although I prefer lot sizes of 1 acre or larger, I believe continuing the
development from Estes Park I through to Primrose Lane makes very good sense. The
approval of Estes Park II will ensure continuity, as well as superior home building and
development around the immediate area in which we live. I have had personal discussions
with Koss concerning the look and size of the homes he intends to build. An example of
what Koss has promised Estes Park II will look like is his recently completed High Point
Estates in Southlake. Large custom built homes with the same size minimums required
for Estes Park I will ensure home values in the area will not be compromised as a result of
this development.
I believe he is the best choice for a builder or development company for this area for a
number of reasons, one of which is because of the relationships he has with other
homeowners whose homes he previously built in this area. The approval of this
development will ensure us that in the future another CCC Ranch disaster does not occur
or that the north side of Southlake is not completely made up of several hundred
neighborhoods with a dozen homes or less. As I told Koss, for me it is not so much the
size of the lot, but rather the quality and value of the homes that will make up Estes Park
I and II.
Best regards,
Chris Gonser
Case No. Attachment F
ZA 03 -096 Page 5
Dear Mr Kilfough:
I an' vxiting to you In support of the Propps+ett Estes Perk II development. My wife and I both support Phase I I of the Ustes
Par , -) volnpmeTit and wanW to be them to speak on behalf of this project, however we are colab ating our Waddirwg
+s -i rivc-. -.Pry and wilt be Dut of tcw
Mr Killough I think It is important to note that I have attended eveiry Irheetfrrg for Phase I iaM far Phase It. We were
against Phase I and I spoke out agakhet it In all public twuns alfhuded me We all fett Mr. Spain's original proposal was a
quality development but we simply wanted ft clty to increase tha rain imurn tat size. Ths City Council of Soulhlake
eppeoved Phase I against our wishes and our neighbor's washes. LVIth Phase 1 already under conalruetion, we A believe
Phase 11, however, Should bB approved
Mr Maykus's proposal is only a continua #Ion of the original develapmea#. V a would much prefer to sae a continued vision
of this grrslily developrnerst, than a checkerboard approach of frrcpnslstent visions and id!-advised developrnetht5. Such as
Triple C across north Southlake. The approval of Phase I I would unsure addlllorral northside pafks, paten #laf park
connectivity and tree lined boulevards_
The Kcddus family and many of our neighbors who were agakrs# Phase I are unanhoudy in favor of Phase II. We are
asking you to please support Phase II and a consirWt, fair, quality vision for the nof#lhsida ref Sauthiake You may contact
r at 61&662-933q or via email }aykoldus @aol.corn.
Best Regards.
Jay K6ldus
Case No.
ZA 03 -096
RED D F E 1 2004
Attachment F
Page 6
0
terra Ha<iy Thwarp
(E-meMg wcf ( ..
Thank you for forwarding this informa4icn to the PIZ representatives.. F will
bC speaking tonight so I can clarify theses Cvnce7rn3 at that time.
First and #oremoat, the density of the propased Oavelcpment is far too high to be
con9idered M a loan density designated area of town:
second, the developers were less than Orthtight with their statement, about density at
the sFIN meetings. We will diescuss this at some length at the meeting.
During the approval process of Estes Park I there were great pains taken to ,tote that it
would not set a precedent For higher density of future development in the aa:ea. .^here
sentiments were voiced by the P &Z, the City Counuii, and specifically addressed by the
Mayor at the oonalusion of the approval process He assurad the citizens the area would
return to low density standards immediately after leaving the area for which the Original
approval was granted.
I look forward to discussing this with the commitee tonight, and would welcome any Calls
from members for clarification prior to that t_ms.
Thanks again.
Harry E. Tharp, CYM, CPU
Mice President
Wealth NbnagemanL AdYisor
Chartered Retiioment Planning r_ounselor
F M � F. 19 29 94
Case No.
ZA 03 -096
Attachment F
Page 7
Sent: Thursday, April Gl, 2UU4 5:a3 FPM
To: Dennis Killough
Subject: Estes Park #2
Dear Mr. Killough,
I would like to voice my support for the Estes Park development and my support of Mr. Maykus and the other developers.
I feel their project will help our overall community and our long term property values. I live in the Lonesome Dove Estates
addition, between Carroll, Lonesome Dove, and north of Dove.
Feel free to contact me if you wish.
Respectfully,
REC APR 2 6 2004
Kirk Johnson
Executive Vice President
Sundance Resources, Inc.
4925 N. O'Connor Blvd.
Suite 101
Irving, TX 75062
972 - 717 -7441
800 -777 -9528
Fax 972- 893 -5825
kjoh n son @s a n d ante rese u rces.com
Case No.
ZA 03 -096
Attachment F
Page 8
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS
ORDINANCE NO. 480 -437
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 SOUTBL.AKE, TEXAS BEING 57.36
ACRES OF LAND SITUATED IN THE A. CHIVERS SURVEY,
ABSTRACT NO. 299, DESCRIBED AS TRACTS lA1B, lA1D,
lAlE, lAlEl, 113, 2A, 2A1, 2A2, 2C1 AND 2C3 AND MORE
FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A"
FROM "AG" AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT AND "R -PUD"
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO
"R -PUD" RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
CONTAINED IN THIS ORDINANCE; CORRECTING THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PRESERVING ALL OTHER
PORTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE; DETERNIINING
THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, MORALS AND GENERAL
WELFARE DEMAND THE ZONING CHANGES AND
AMENDMENTS HEREIN MADE; PROVIDING THAT THIS
ORDINANCE SHALL BE CUMULATIVE OF ALL ORDINANCES;
PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A
PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS HEREOF; PROVIDING A
SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN THE
OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Southlake, Texas is a home rule City acting under its Charter
adopted by the electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 9
of the Texas Local Government Code; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code, the City has the
authority to adopt a comprehensive zoning ordinance and map regulating the location and use of
buildings, other structures and land for business, industrial, residential and other purposes, and to
amend said ordinance and map for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals and
general welfare, all in accordance with a comprehensive plan; and
WHEREAS, the hereinafter described property is currently zoned as "AG"
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT AND "R -PUD" RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT under the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; and
Case No. Attachment G
ZA 03 -096 Page 1
WHEREAS, a change in the zoning classification of said property was requested by aperson
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 ofthe 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 ofthose
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 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.
Case No. Attachment G
ZA 03 -096 Page 2
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 57.36 acres of land situated in the A. Chivers Survey, Abstract No. 299,
described as Tracts lA1B, lA1D, lAlE, lAlEl, 113, 2A, 2A1, 2A2, 2C1 and 2C3
and more fully and completely described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
incorporated herein, from "AG" Agricultural District and "R -PUD" Residential
Planned Unit Development District to "R -PUD" Residential Planned Unit
Development 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.
Section 3. That in all other respects the use of the tractor 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 encouragingthe 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 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
Case No. Attachment G
ZA 03 -096 Page 3
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 ten (10) 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 by law, and it is so ordained.
PASSED AND APPROVED on the Ist reading the day of , 2004.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the day of , 2004.
MAYOR
Case No.
ZA 03 -096
Attachment G
Page 4
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
CITY ATTORNEY
DATE:
ADOPTED:
EFFECTIVE:
Case No.
ZA 03 -096
Attachment G
Page 5
.4.I I C
Area Surveying, Inc.
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS
3333bM dO j-
Vw Wwk TX 76134
III -M -566
FIELQ NOTES
Description for a tract of land in the A, H. Chivers Survey, Abstract Number
299, Tarrant County, Texas, and being that tract of land described in a
deed to Robert J. Morganstan, recorded in Volume 7246, Page 11119,
Deed Records, Tarrant County, Texas; together with that tract of land
described in a deed to Kathleen Mussina, recorded in Volume 3656, Page
135, Deed Records, Tarrant County, Texas; also together with that tract of
land described in a deed to Wafter W. Frank, recorded in Volume 13559,
Page 166, Deed Records, Tarrant County, Texas; also together a portion of
a tract of land described in a deed to Ronald R. Cullum, recorded in
Volume 9167, Page 1199, Deed Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and also
a portion of a tract of land described in a deed to W. D. and Rosie
Foreman, recorded in Volume 3415, Page 147, Deed Records, Tarrant
County, Texas; and being described as one (1 ) tract by metes and bounds
as follows:
BEGINNING at the southwest corner of Lot 5, Block 1, CARROLL MEADOWS,
according to the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 5945, Plat Records, Tarrant County,
Texas;
THENCE North 89 degrees 51 minutes 18 seconds East a distance of 324.53 feet to a
southerly corner of Lot 5 and to the northeast corner of said Morganstan tract;
THENCE South 00 degree 28 minutes 00 seconds East at 487.97 feet passing the north
line of Primrose Lane and the southeast corner of said Morganstan tract, in all, a total
distance of 517.97 feet to the south line of Primrose Lane:
THENCE North 89 degrees 54 minutes 16 seconds West a distance of 719.04 feet
along the south line of Primrose Lane to the southeast corner of said Frank tract;
THENCE North 89 degrees 53 minutes 54 seconds West a distance of 888 -68 feet to
the southwest corner of said Frank tract;
THENCE North 00 degree 12 minutes 01 seconds West a distance of 971.86 feet to the
northwest corner of said Frank tract and to the southwest corner of a tract of land
described in a deed to Lee Roy and Mary Hess„ recorded in Volume 7809, Page 549,
Deed Records, Tarrant County, Texas;
THENCE North 89 degrees 10 minutes 15 seconds East a distance of 456.30 feet along
the south line of said Hess tract and continuing along the south line of said Cullum tract;
Page 1 or2
Case No.
ZA 03 -096
Attachment G
Page 6
Area Surveying, Inc.
RFGISTEREO PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS
135 $hf&1d w_
Fan WMK YM 76139
E17.293•56"
THENCE North 00 degree 49 minutes 45 seconds West a distance of 48.53 feet;
THENCE North 85 degrees 12 minutes 38 seconds East a distance of 170.33 feet;
THENCE North 75 degrees 52 minutes 44 seconds East a distance of 50.31 feet;
THENCE North 81 degrees 57 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 182.88 feet to the
east line of said Foreman tract;
THENCE North 00 degree 26 minutes 55 seconds West a distance of 216.43 feet along
the east line of said Foreman tract;
THENCE North 89 degrees 03 minutes 04 seconds East a distance of 432.01 feet;
THENCE South 00 degrees 13 minutes 19 seconds West a distance of 788.30 feet to
the POINT OF BEGINNING, said described tract containing 36.479 acres of land.
Prepared from surveys and other documents, December 11, 2003
4
C UkOOMIX Eatas Park D— AEate- Park Rdd. Hoo xk.
4
WI
Page 2 of 2
Case No. Attachment G
ZA 03 -096 Page 7
UI 00
I
mt
r- COVE
d.
ra I 'W'
. . .. ........ - ---------
_ � � :�1a�-�'�1f'!! s�4..r � w.Yaurr. � � � _'�'EL'' °.E �gt.m'' �. .. �....,
L3
PPE L.Wl
3
4
# �� 7 Fes"i' 4 .�:, " �w+. 1� f
9L so M
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PRELNARY PLAT
ME
C3 F.T
I&S
ES7ES - _PFfASZ H
4. & "ZIP w AwIff
DATE w PftrPmMm
%
.17Y CA5S - 2A M-M t 097
a$:
�
EXHIBIT "C"
This page reserved for the approved City Council motion.
Case No. Attachment G
ZA 03 -096 Page 9