The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 7A+ oi ,� j City of Southlake Department of Planning STAFF REPORT May 12, 2004 CASE NO: ZA03 -096 P ROJECT: Estes Park Phase 2 REQUEST: Hat Creek Development and Terra Land Development are requesting approval of a zoning change and development plan. ACTION NEEDED: 1. Conduct public hearing 2. Consider approval of second reading for zoning change and development plan. ATTACHMENTS: (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) 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 (for 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 IA1B, IA1D, IAIE, IAIEI, 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 I 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. Existin- 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 nearfuture Case No. Attachment A ZA03 -096 Page 1 have been made. PATHWAYS MASTER PLAN: 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 Impact Use # Units Vtpd* AM- IN AM- OUT PM- IN PM- OUT Residential 80 766 15 45 52 29 *Vehicle Trips Per Day *The AWPM 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. WATER & SEWER: 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 oftrees 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. COUNCIL ACTION: May 4, 2004; Approved first reading (7 -0) as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and requiring a minimum 4,000 square foot floor area. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Preliminary Plat Review Summary No. 4, dated May 12, 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 zoningthe 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 -20A" 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. o Bufferyard The 10' — Type `B' bufferyard is not required adjacent to Case No. Attachment A ZA03 -096 Page 3 E. Dove Street. Case No. ZA03 -096 Attachment A 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 i I N C Ci. C vu6. EPOU g Poa zanw6 msrucr PEaNwErcurs rtEN . ]Oa Ri.VO. ]9AOO ff u:Pw Y 1W FB T VM3 35 M 30 R 04 n PE cqo xo FT 3d FT r L dd Fi smE ymo N1 . m a . -- _ _ _ - - cI 'r sxr:..�.arsra, �.�cvm�wx+an�rc.. * s��g2W� �s ;m�.>�4,e<;�xrasE::xrea+.•ua�„ 'E � `Aer - "z�� "�,.�a.r =- °.xtea:-ur+i xePr+r:.cc•.s:_ I� i , sr � - F�fsii`rr- re "x':€�s,"_zm'r'"' ,: rsurx- LvuusaYNa'ri,.Raa,.. j Tt�l'4. ^:P�..YY'19,&A'L'+. °'°° �.. qm T, h y u ®. r._ ®.auu I zw '� 'Y3 9M e '�L a^:a'a •e- vat.�x -m; e_sreL -- �w.� I e � : �. dni��F- ?I? .v;s.pv�clas:sa•� �.«.r...,... .l 4 � ? ' LC E LOCATION MAP q i REC - D MAY 12 2004 f i ? -.. •° �'-� 3a �.e�5 � [ [ 3i I 5 � � � KR uwLrnr / BLOCK 11 I3- 6E.6,vL rYO,fs '. Ef °Srss�oNW.Lxs xo ee ne:xF:::n ad P�Tx smcs 7 ESTES PARK PHASE I s i9 Y , Yr�r�` T`S �mSEA�r�Ewf.. CEPT F -0R fiv fz BLOCK S P �v C''+. o f s a 1 �f EC nF '°� `V °•� EAE X86o9x - g i' / ! 3 ;`� I �{ 13 IE L .,� >F �!' A '`'' -+�" zz`' ' ; 1IL13 i 1 a>,"I rs.. . F& €mc cc'SSEx —1: Sx.1.L PL .. 16 EP ', Y ;; 1L =_` 12:9. _ - � - r I - I° 6 �nLP �I ., `,.asmreLan. ��PY�N�,w��PF�6rcv$4�$ a,rsvx L� ` l �•. ��`` P. • -� E PRELIMINARY q?� _ FOR PE IEW P lY r w4 61- �,,,., -� r meas en6.s ,»:ear 11 :�xuv __ 6 v ❑ I I 7 f 1 xl • �'- ! a:ea r i y J - -- w E 3 1 ® Kxrwr zaxEO x { T f rw � it � �' � xx �'q� 2 a _��. - e.rs:: _e:._._.._.9•--- '� -• of ?i'3"� olE _ v 11LO cK 8 .�raK� G BLOC 7 [- }- g-{- -1 �L 1. I Y .,w q agxTMr. BLO K10 DEVELOPMENT PLkN /P �_ RELIMINARY PLAT j El f " eLc� "s ^% ' S I I �ET � a� w 5 ( ! � —w— = y sV i p MB d10 GE VS MC lFx4M CPfePO 4EHBT: ��.of 4 1 A, W J7 1 p J I Irr''' _ !� C 03'$+ ]b 1555 EL6G'f I3, L6Y SBLOp( 14 L61 S P Af LOi 1 ESTES PARK K -PHASE IF I - m xanj6tli°'x TMRxII' entgtt Te 3S BEING A C ] ACRE TRACT OF LAND OUT OF THE z. -n , ....g v 9 �9 - ¢q 3l I' / ; Z Y O y ?+w• ' fi n ddd ; -? 1 AH. CN3VER5 SURVEY. A9s TRACT 40. 299 i GATE OF PREPARATION 4-5 -04 PRI MRpSE LA NE ksr"'£iti�o"aw4r � €'�`�".F.vm��' `a )) Y s�,' I b�i:w "°° oLV.E�.orclr• my ,� � vy �e3 e) 9o�a- u: ¢ HCwEEk OLV` UPx]x1, wc. Iv2rON CgI vuo- -um ux s x- . 86� ] ifPW. LINO NMYM.ENEM3,. N0. x 691 NA9W0095POW A,O�NOK Y.211] T. iFwM J605a I e�� ie1 I �- � IB,Yf R68 -a58B FLZ rB45120. -8408 11 '1 - 3y1 E CITY CASE + ZA 03 -098 & 097 SITE DATASUMMARY ESTES PARK PHASE II INFOPMATdON ITEM RESI'aNEE 4. 7. 8 mr+. gT£9 N PPS[ 0 9 Q gAEdNLE fws or a 393x .ePLV9 > tzE I]EV5E8 LING 6E [A ACPE Ib 5 ACBfS f - E AC ON6C01 cro I�-' r) 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.: Four Date of Review: 05/12/04 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 05/12/04 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. If any, show the location, type, and height of all walls, fences, and screening devices. Provide a maximum density regulation. As currently proposed, the maximum density is 1.4 dwelling units per acre. 6. Staff recommends that the cul -de -sac of street `C' be extended to the west to allow for a through street connection with the street stub in phase 1. 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: Four (4) 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. . Lee Dodson, 1020 Carroll Meadows Ct., Southlake, TX 76092; in favor. See attached letter received 4- 22 -04. • Sam and Chris Teng, 2089 N. Carroll Avenue, Southlake, TX 76092; opposed. See attached email received 4- 17 -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 letters received 2 -18 -04 and 4- 22 -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. Case No. Attachment F ZA03 -096 Page 1 • Kirk Johnson, Southlake, Texas 76092; in favor. See attached email received 4 -22- 04. Case No. ZA 03 -096 Attachment F Page 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 R. W. "BILL" TAYLOR 16A Heather Lane - Southlake, Texas 76092 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Southlake, Texas Via: F"ntile 817- 491 -2097 Re. Estes Park IL, Dear Commission Members: went referenced Our family stron emltrses the phonedelap above. We believe the planned new neighbor would be a plus to the s4rropnding area. We believe there is not a valid reason why there can not bt quag6 ind beautiful neighborhoods on our side of Highway 114 as there are oo the other side- la tact, we would stnmoy consider the area as a place to InDYe. Our family has lived in Southlake since 1984. 'While.we have enjoyed our large acre lot, we would now prefer to move into a newer sole home on a smaller lot in a quality nN�ighbnrhood like that planned 1! PArk -IL Ply twenty years with0" the benefits of a sewer system that was promised years ago has also contributed to our desire to move "out of the country" and into town with all of its bene Respectf d1Y -s»h RFC Case No. ZA 03 -096 A , 2 ?004 Attachment F Page 10 APRIL I2 SOUTHLAKE PIANNIN- G-&zONING BOARD- MY NAME IS LEE DODSON DDS AND I LIVE AT IOZO CARROLL MEADOWS CT. SOUTHLAKE,TX. THIS LETTER IS IN REGARDS. TO TQNI"GHTS HEARING FOR ESTES PARK 11. I HAVE SPOKEN IN THE PAST .AGAINST ESTES I. 1 ALSO - SPOKE AGAINST ESTES PARK IL ESTES PARKII.IIAS.NOW GROWN LARGER. AND INCLUDES IN JUST NORTH OF CARROLL MEADOWS. THE PLAN NOW HAS J)ECREASEu Fr&0VEA ALL DENISITV TO WHAT I FEEL IS AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL. MR- MAVKUS & Mit. SPAIN HAVE PROPOSE FTHE' 18 ACRES J[JS"T NORTH OF CARROLL MEADOWS TO ONEUNITIACRE, ADDITION. THEY HAVE ALSO CHANGED SOME LOT Si ZES IN THE ORIGINAL ES-TES - BARK fl: THE PLANNED P GREEN SPACES MEET MY EXPECTATION. THEIR ENTRY OFF CARROLL PROVIDES ACCESS AS WELL AS AN ESTHETIC aDDITMrs OUR ENTRY INTO CARROLL MEADOW'S COLTLD ALSO BE TO FURTHER THE CONTINUITY►' I DESIRE. THE DRAAINAC -F ISSUES-FROM OURA;DD171 N CAN BE TIM INTO "THEIR NEW DEVELOPMEN -T.., THEY HAVE WORKED WITH US TO MAKE THIS AN ACCEPTABLE PRUJECTTO CARROLL MEADOWS. 7 LEE C. DODt,SON DD& RECD APR 9. 2 2004 Case No. ZA 03 -096 Attachment F Page 11 Subject: Estes Park Phase II RE- Estes Park Phase II Reference: Case No. ZA03 -096 or ZA03 -097 We, Samuel and Christine Teng, 2089 North Carroll Avenue, Southlake, TX 76092, were sent notice of this regest for zoning change. We oppose the request for zoning change for the following reasons: 1. The lots in the planned subdivision are less than one acre, averaging 112 acre, and many of them as small as 113 acre. All of us in the area that precede this subdivision have invested In our properties at values consistent with properties 1 acre and large. Allowing lots less than one acre undermines the value of our properties, and the value of property in Southlake, in this area as whole. 2. If the anly access to the Estes Park II subdivision is an Carroll Avenue, this would be a prolbem. There are between 80 and 90 lots in the subdivision. Carroll Avenue is already inadequate for the traffic that's on it. There are two schools an the street with 20 mph speed zones. The police well know that cars tend to want to drive 50 mph on Carroll. It's too narrow and there are too many cars on it during busy times of the day. Only one access point for that many homes onto Carroll could get hazardous. 3. The subdivision access onto Carroll looks too narrow at the mouth. Allowing for the island In the middle of the access also turning into or out of the subdivision an acute angle, making cars have to slow down more to take the turn. Carroll Avenue isn't wide enough to pass on. It looks like cars trying to turn left and right onto Carroll would try to squeeze up and both turn at once. Visibility is restricted in the area because of rows of large trees. 4. unfortunately the design looks like it calls for removal of some of Southlake's largest and beautiful trees. These would be the ones lining Carroll at the entrance to the subdivision. Anyone driving dawn Carroll in the summer can't help but appreciate these trees. Losing any number of them just isn't acceptable. 5. The street entering the subdlvison, one way each direction, looks narrower than the rest of the streets, must be a no parking zone, certainly would aggravate traffic if cars parked or stopped there. 6. The watershed map shows that most of the runoff water from the Estes Park Phase II subdvision funnels into entrance of the subdivision at Carroll Avenue. Storm sewers are already inadequate on this part of Carroll Avenue. In a heavy rain this section of Carroll already floods on both sides of the street. Our driveway is already getting washed out. Louie, I am sending this information to you because you were so helpful last time with the subdvision behind our property, and you knew how to get the Information to the right people. Also, you were able to e-mail me an electronic version of the proposed subdivision_ The details and writing is too small to read on the copies we were sent. If we need to do something different, let me know. Thanks, Sam Teng 8'17 -598 -5232 Work 817- 329 -1550 Nome sategjamak..com a -mail address at work Case No. Attachment F ZA 03 -096 Page 12 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 SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS BEING LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS TRACTS IA1B, IA1D, IAIE, IAIEI, 1B, 2A, 2A1, 2A2, 2C1 AND 2C3, SITUATED IN THE A. CHIVERS SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 299, AND BEING APPROXIMATELY 57.36 ACRES, 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 AS DEPICTED ON THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, INCLUDING PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN AS EXHIBIT "B ", SUBJECT TO THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS ORDINANCE; CORRECTING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PRESERVING ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE; DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE DEMAND THE ZONING CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS HEREIN MADE; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE CUMULATIVE OF ALL ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS HEREOF; PROVIDINGA 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 X1, 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 forthe 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 "AG" Agricultural District and "R - PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District under the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; and Case No. Attachment G ZA03 -096 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, li�Iting 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, Case No. Attachment G ZA03 -096 Page 2 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. 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 Tracts lA1B, lA1D, lAlE, lAlEl, 1B, 2A, 2A1, 2A2, 2C1 and 2C3, situatedintheA. Chivers Survey, Abstract No. 299, and being approximately 57.36 acres, 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 as depicted on the approved Development Plan, including PUD development standards, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B ", and subject to the specific conditions established in the motion of the City Council and attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C." Case No. Attachment G ZA03 -096 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 shallbe subjectto 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 ligIt 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 throua lout 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 Case No. Attachment G ZA03 -096 Page 4 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 Case No. Attachment G ZA03 -096 Page 5 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 1st reading the day of , 2004. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the day of , 2004. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY Case No. ZA03 -096 Attachment G Page 6 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CITY ATTORNEY DATE: ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: Case No. ZA03 -096 Attachment G Page 7 EXHIBIT "A" Being Tracts lA1B, IAID, IAIE, lAlEl, 1B, 2A, 2AI, 2A2, 2CI and 20, situated in the A. Chivers Survey, Abstract No. 299, and being approximately 57.36 acres. Area ,Surveying, Inc. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS 155 S9i Mad Dire rnn WordL TX 76134 1117 - 2935664 FIELD NOTES Description for a tract of land in the A. H. Childers 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 11110, 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 Walter 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, CAR ROLL 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 888.58 feet to the southwest corner of said Frank tract; THENCE North 00 degree 12 minutes ill 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 of Case No. ZA03 -096 Attachment G Page 8 Area Surveying, Inc. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS 135 Skffida D'iv Fat Worth, TX 76134 $17- 1734684 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 174.33 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 C V+rgnt#aiEelea Pa* Dowtswe Park Field Noses dac Pate 2 of Case No. Attachment G ZA03 -096 Page 9 o� 00 i Mir ESTES PPRK EMASE II arms x -ax !C", E rp.�LT uMY W 0E w AN LF�1FH: SW�E r. -@5ra4LT hp y9p 0.11E OF PAEPARAI M 4 RECD MAY 12 204 .1{ -" i —c - 1 4 i 1 r] aA.e d = b'IrkrP?: x -..s v x uww a w*. e•xs MW "I'v I'm nlizouiv B pg PR DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT •� , ", iws ream a wn .� ll M � W 1.N O 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 No. 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. ZA03s096 -t a9 RECD APR 0 8 2004 Case No. Attachment G ZA03 -096 Page 11 EXHIBIT "C" This page reserved for the City Council motion. Case No. Attachment G ZA 03 -096 Page 12