The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 6B13 SOUTHLAKE 1T F Department of Planning & Development Services STAFF REPORT December 1, 2010 CASE NO: ZA10 -046 PROJECT: Revised Concept Plan for Kimball Circle Estates *A=W1k1I►V /9 SUMMARY: On behalf of Kimball Circle Estates, LLC, JDJR Engineers & Consultants, Inc. is requesting approval of a revised concept plan proposing five (5) residential lots on property located at 703, 722, 730 and 750 S. Kimball Ave, being described as Tracts 6G, 6H and 6K, John A. Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 529 Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and being approximately 4.554 acres. REQUEST DETAILS: The currently approved concept plan for Kimball Circle Estates includes 6 residential lots, the extension of Miracle Pointe Drive from Miracle Pointe subdivision into Kimball Hills subdivision and a cul -de -sac extending east from the Miracle Pointe Drive street extension. Four (4) lots front on the cul -de -sac and two (2) lots front onto Miracle Pointe Drive. One of the four (4) residential lots fronting the cul -de -sac (northeast corner of the site) is the existing home on the site which is to remain. The revised plan eliminates the cul -de -sac extending to the east and eliminates one buildable lot. The resulting plan contains four (4) lots fronting onto the Miracle Pointe Drive street extension, with the lot containing the existing home fronting onto a private access easement which extends to S. Kimball Avenue. Access to the existing home is currently provided through this easement. VARIANCE REQUEST: Subdivision Ord. 483, Section 8.01(A), requires every lot to abut on a public or private street. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the easternmost lot on the plan (Lot 3), which contains an existing residence, to front on a private access drive and easement rather than a public street. The existing private drive and easement extend east to S. Kimball Ave. ACTION NEEDED: 1) Conduct a public hearing 2) Consider approval of a revised concept plan ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) Case No. ZA10 -046 Vicinity Map Plans and Support Information SPIN meeting report dated October 11, 2010 Revised Concept Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated November 12, 2010 Surrounding Property Owners Map Surrounding Property Owners Responses Full Size Plans (for Commission and Council Members Only) STAFF CONTACT: Ken Baker (748 -8067) Richard Schell (748 -8602) Case No. ZA10 -046 BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNER: Kimball Circle Estates, LLC APPLICANT: JDJR Engineers & Consultants, Inc. PROPERTY SITUATION: 703, 722, and 750 S Kimball Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tracts 6G, 6H & 6K, John A. Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 529 LAND USE CATEGORY: Medium Density Residential CURRENT ZONING: SF -20A Single Family Residential District HISTORY: - A zoning change and concept plan from "AG" Agricultural District and "I -1" Light Industrial District to "SF -20A" Single - Family Residential District (ZA08 -052) for Kimball Circle Estates was approved by City Council on October 21, 2008. - A preliminary plat (ZA08 -053) was approved by City Council on October 21, 2008. - A final plat (ZA08 -119) was approved by P &Z January 22, 2009. - A plat extension extending the validity of the preliminary plat until October 21, 2011 was approved by City Council on September 21, 2010. - A plat extension extending the validity of the final plat until January 22, 2011, was approved by City Council on January 19, 2010. - There is one existing home on the property that will remain. TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT: Master Thoroughfare Plan The Master Thoroughfare Plan does not make any recommendations for roadways adjacent to the proposed subdivision. Existing Area Road Network and Conditions The concept plan proposes to connect Miracle Pointe Drive to the existing segments north and south of the property. Miracle Pointe Drive is a two -lane, undivided, local residential street with a fifty foot (50') right -of -way. This development is not expected to warrant expansion of the existing roadway network. There are no traffic counts for this section of Miracle Pointe Drive. Traffic Impact of previously approved concept plan (6 lots) Use # Lots Vtpd* AM- IN AM- OUT PM- IN PM- OUT Single - Family Residential 6 57 1 3 4 2 Case No. Attachment A ZA10 -046 Page 1 Traffic Impact of Revised Concept Plan (5 lots) Use # Lots Vtpd* AM- IN AM- OUT PM- IN PM- OUT Single - Family Residential 5 148 1 3 3 2 *Vehicle Trips Per Day on a weekday **The AM /PM times represent the number of vehicle trips generated during the peak travel times on Miracle Pointe Drive. PATHWAYS MASTER PLAN: Neither the Pathways Plan nor the Sidewalk Plan provide any recommendations for this section of Miracle Pointe Drive. The applicant's Concept Plan represents their intent to install the required four -foot sidewalk along both sides of Miracle Pointe Drive upon home construction. WATER & SEWER: Water This site will be serviced by a proposed 8 -inch water line in Miracle Pointe Drive that will connect to existing 8 -inch water lines to the north and south of the property. Sewer The applicant is proposing the installation of an 8" sewer line that will serve the three residential lots east of Miracle Pointe Drive. The proposed sewer line will connect to an existing 8" sewer line in Miracle Pointe Drive to the south of the property. The two lots west of Miracle Pointe Drive will be served by an existing 8" sewer line at the western boundary of the property. DRAINAGE ANALYSIS: The drainage from this development is generally to the west to a detention pond proposed along the western portion of Lot 2, Block 1. Drainage from the detention pond will be to an existing storm sewer pipe located along the south property line of Lot 1, Block 1. TREE PRESERVATION: The proposed development complies with the Existing Tree Cover Preservation Requirements of the Tree Perseveration Ordinance. Compared to the previously approved Tree Conservation Plan, less existing trees are proposed to be removed because the cul -d -sac and Lot 3 have been eliminated from the proposed development. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION: November 18, 2010; Approved (7 -0) subject to Revised Concept Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated November 12, 2010. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Revised Concept Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated November 12, 2010. The motions for the previously approved zoning change and concept plan are below: P &Z - September 18, 2008; Approved (7 -0) subject to Concept Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated September 9, 2008 and recommending that the development be immediately subject to the Erosion Protection and Sediment Control Ordinance 946 upon approval of Ordinance by City Council and that the applicant is to proceed with training as soon as staff is available to provide such training to the applicant regarding compliance with the Erosion Protection and Sediment Control Ordinance 946. Council 1 st Reading October 7, 2008; 1 st Reading Approved (6 -0) subject to the requirements of the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance No. 946 and the Case No. Attachment A ZA10 -046 Page 2 applicant has agreed to proceed with training as soon as it is available, and subject to Concept Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated September 29, 2008. Council 2nd Reading - October 21, 2008; 2nd Reading Approved (5 -0) subject to the requirements of the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance No. 946 and the applicant has agreed to proceed with training as soon as it is available, and subject to Concept Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated September 29, 2008. Case No. Attachment A ZA10 -046 Page 3 Vicinity Map Kimball Circle Estates N I I� 9 r m I� Case No. ZA10 -046 N W E S 550 1,100 Attachment B Page 1 N 0 > 0 (D 6 z 44h 0 a) - 0 (D C4 3 IOOATIT�!AP 8 1�31-OCK 2 ♦ POINTEE FIT Z"M 'R E R [gyp p \..._ LQT 2 - r.... � -_. �- _ - - - - -- BLOCK 1 LOT uz "g RE OR- IOOATIT�!AP 1-7 Q' I., LDT 2 - L - �7 NJ I BLOCK 2 WAH TTpIIYE —D USE —O)L. A p 11 A T AL It MMM — M. l� E LEGEND F CASE NO. 7A DS-052 0 0 0 rF (D 'a 0 (D CL 0 Irt 0 00 " 0 8 1�31-OCK 2 ♦ POINTEE FIT Z"M 'R E R [gyp p \..._ __-� �. a - r.... � -_. �- _ - - - - -- 1-7 Q' I., LDT 2 - L - �7 NJ I BLOCK 2 WAH TTpIIYE —D USE —O)L. A p 11 A T AL It MMM — M. l� E LEGEND F CASE NO. 7A DS-052 0 0 0 rF (D 'a 0 (D CL 0 Irt 0 00 " 0 N 0 > 0 (D 6 z 40k. 0 0') - 0 (D 0 1 .1 1 -C _2 FIT I LIT I'lo�`LF" - 1 T 1, ILII I THI '1.1 111 1 El I T I T 11 T I L11 , Il L11111111L LUI 11T� 1118111 111 11LIL. 11311-ITIAL F 11L, 11. 1 I'll , ` T ILFIEITII I ..... LI I I ILLII IINIIII. ' � T BF� . T lFUl �F 11T �. 11111IF211 IITIT IFIT IlT IITS Il T � —ILI 1 :1: 1 i 700-17V I` ITL111 E.IIEN l 7 1 �l - — — — — — - , " 77 — 7 TT L' ILI' I I I IF lE, I I LIT 1 2_ 1 0 I' IIEI T� F I I T' Il. F E � � 'IT 7 0 I L'T _� ! +' % �� fi 3 e I IL 1 LOT 2 Lo 4 1 111— 11TI 111 EITIL SQUARE FEET 66U 2 34 SQUARE FEET BLOCK 1 I E 1 11 —1-7 LIT �I_ Z UlE LOT 3 I 54,922 SQUARE —T-11E FEET 2 _j FLC IF RELF1111 TI 1111 III III 1 1111 L I LTII W 111111T I SLII 1171 1 1 , x - " - - 1 1 5 , U Z I I P —1.11TI LOT 1 LOT 1 36.300 SQUARE FEET A, I �Ql FEEL U, 2 T BLOCK 2 5 LITILITI —EVE11 11 TI I _I ILI— LET I I IC 4"W 706.9 T T— .1 n ITFI AF Y IIIINIII IILI L11LIUIT [I L F � 1IT ILI �2 I— E11F T I L K 2 I III IIT A �L IF 11 T21lll �IELTLA rsw ILAIE, T IF T AU IVI 1 IILFTI U.T.-IT EIT ALF 221 I I—T ELL, ET LIT I L 0 0 m 0 CD Irt W r_ cr CD CL 0 0 r+ 110 C) 110 C) _L C) N 0 Q SPIN MEETING REPORT CASE NO. PROJECT NAME SPIN DISTRICT MEETING DATE: MEETING LOCATION ZA10 -046 / ZA10 -047 Kimball Circle Estates SPIN # 8 October 11, 2010 1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX Training Rooms 3C & 3D TOTAL ATTENDANCE: Twenty -four (24) SPIN REPRESENTATIVE(S) PRESENT: Pattie Minder ( #8), Ron Evans ( #10) • APPLICANT(S) PRESENTING: Adel M. Elborai, Kimball Circle Estates, LLC STAFF PRESENT: Clayton Comstock, Planner II STAFF CONTACT: Richard Schell, Planner II, (817)748 -8602; rschellp_ci.southlake.tx.us EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Property Situation The property is located at 703, 722 and 750 S. Kimball Avenue on 4.554 acres between the existing residential neighborhoods of Kimball Hills (SF -20A zoning) and Miracle Pointe (SF -20A zoning). Development Details The property is already zoned "SF -20A" for single - family residential lots of 20,000+ SF lots and has an approved Concept Plan and plat for six lots on a street and cul -de -sac stub that connects the existing neighborhoods of Kimball Hills to the north and Miracle Pointe to the south. Kimball Hills is a 19 -lot cul -de -sac subdivision with a street stubbed to the south. Miracle Pointe is a 12 -lot cul -de -sac subdivision on 7.99 acres with a street stubbed to the north. The applicant is requesting to revise their concept plan from six lots to five lots, with only four lots fronting on the new street connecting the two neighborhoods. The fifth lot (currently occupied with an existing dwelling unit) would continue utilizing their existing access easement directly to Kimball Avenue. The impact of the revised concept plan, therefore, is a decrease in two lots on the new road, but a one -lot decrease overall. Case No. Attachment D ZA10 -046 Page 1 QUESTIONS f CONCERNS • What will you do with the land that's on `Lot 3 ?" It will remain as the residence It is today with access directly to Kimball Avenue through an existing 20' access easement. • Concerns were voiced regarding the safety of the roadway with respect to cut - through traffic, speeding, and school bus drop off procedures. • Specifics regarding the privatization of streets and the creation of gated neighborhoods were discussed. [See Sections 5.04 and 5.05, Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, as amended, for specifics] • Most Miracle Pointe residents present expressed their desire to keep their neighborhood as a cul -de -sac while most Kimball Hills residents present expressed their desire to create the connection between the two neighborhoods through the proposed four lots. SPIN Meeting Reports are general observations of SPIN Meetings by City staff and SPIN Representatives. The report is neither verbatim nor official meeting minutes; rather it serves to inform elected and appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues and questions raised by residents and the general responses made. Responses as summarized in this report should not be taken as guarantees by the applicant. Interested parties are strongly encouraged to follow the case through the Planning and Zoning Commission and final action by City Council. Case No. Attachment D ZA10 -046 Page 2 REVISED CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA10 -046 Review No.: Two Date of Review: 11/12/10 Project Name: Kimball Circle Estates Revised Concept Plan APPLICANT: JDJR Engineers & Consultants Jim Dewey, Jr. 2500 Texas Drive #100 Irving, TX 75062 Phone: (972) 252 -5357 Fax: (972) 252 -8958 e -mail: jdjr @jdjr.com Owner: Kimball Circle Estates Adel M. Elborai 722 S. Kimball Avenue Southlake, TX 76092 Phone: (817) 488 -4444 Fax: (817) 488 -0672 e -mail: adelCo)-memoparts.com aelboraiCc-)Darknatl.com CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 10/20/10 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT RICHARD SCHELL AT (817) 748 -8602 OR DENNIS KILLOUGH AT (817) 748 -8072. Subdivision Ord. No. 483 Section 8.01.A requires that all lots abut a public or private street. Please submit a variance request letter to allow Lot 3, Block 2 to not abut on a public or private street that meets the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2. Please move description for Lot 8, Block 1, Miracle Pointe so that it doesn't overlap the label for the 10' private drainage easement Tree Conservation /Landscape Review Keith Martin Landscape Administrator (817) 748 -8229 kmartinCa)_ci. southlake.tx. us II: 7= I Lois] 011�= I :I %lII[a]L1 Eels] LyiILyil= 1011116 -1 Compared to the previously approved Tree Conservation Plan, less existing trees are proposed to be removed because the cul -d -sac and Lot 3 have been eliminated from the proposed development. The percentage of existing tree cover on the entire site is (67,239/198,354) x 100 = 33.9 %. Please change the "Percentage of Existing Tree Cover on Lots" to "Percentage of Existing Tree Cover on the Entire Site" and use 33.9% in place of 88 %. The percentage of existing tree cover to be preserved will be the total canopy area of the existing trees to be preserved (in green) divided by the total tree canopy on the entire site minus the canopy in the R.O.W. 67,239 — 7,500 = 59,739. That is the number that has to be at least 60 %. Please be aware that all existing trees shown to be preserved on the City Council approved Tree Conservation Plan must be preserved and protected during all phases and construction of the development. Alteration or removal of any of the existing trees shown to be preserved on the approved Tree Conservation Plan is a violation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance and the zoning as approved by the Southlake City Council. Please ensure that the layout of all structures, easements, utilities, structures grading, and any other structure proposed to be constructed do not conflict with existing trees intended to be preserved. Case No. Attachment E ZA10 -046 Page 1 Public Works /Engineering Review Steve Anderson Civil Engineer (817) 748 -8077 sandersonAci. south lake.tx.us GENERAL COMMENTS: Provide all necessary easements if needed for public water, sanitary sewer and drainage. Easements shall be 15' minimum and located on one lot — not centered on the property line. A minimum 20' easement is required if both storm sewer and sanitary sewer will be located within the easement. WATER AND SANITARY SEWER COMMENTS: 1. Clearly label all public and private lines. Note that Lots 1 & 2, Block 1 must be sewered from the rear. Water meters and fire hydrants shall be located in an easement or in the ROW. All water and sanitary sewer lines in easements or in the ROW must be constructed to City standards. The Fire Marshal reserves the right to require fire protection to Lot 3 Block 2 should that lot be subdivided, redeveloped or a new structure is constructed. 3]:L1101 Five] Lois] JihyiI A 01111611 1. Clearly label all public and private storm lines. 2. It should be clearly noted that the property owner(s) shall be responsible for maintaining the detention system. 3. Drainage Areas Al & A2 appear to drain to the adjacent properties to the north. Please ensure these areas do not drain to the Kimball Hills subdivision. 4. In the Summary of Detention Calculations, the 40 minute, 100 -yr calcs are hidden under the shading. A more detailed review of the detention system will be performed once civil plans are submitted for review. Verify that the size, shape, and /or location of the detention pond, as depicted on the concept plan, will be adequate to meet the detention requirements. Any changes to the size, shape, and /or location of the proposed pond(s) may require a revision to the concept plan and may need to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. A copy of the SWPPP, if required, will need to be submitted to the Public Works department and approved prior to a pre construction meeting being scheduled. The discharge of post development runoff must have no adverse impact on downstream properties and meet the provisions of Ordinance # 605. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS: Submit 3 copies of the civil construction plans (22" X 34" full size sheets) and a completed Construction Plan Checklist as part of the first submittal for review directly to the Public Works Administration Department. The plans shall conform to the most recent construction plan checklist, standard details and general notes which are located on the City's website. http:// www. cityofsouthlake. com/ PublicWorks /engineeringdesign.asp A Developer's Agreement may be required for this development and may need to be approved by the City Council prior to any construction of public infrastructure. Construction plans for these improvements must be acceptable to Public Works prior to placing the Developer's Agreement on the City Council agenda for consideration. Additional comments may need to be addressed once detailed engineering is completed and construction plans submitted to the Public Works department for a more detailed review. Any hazardous waste being discharged must be pretreated Ordinance No. 836. Case No. Attachment E ZA10 -046 Page 2 *Denotes informational comment. Informational Comments: * No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan. A separate building permit is required prior to construction of any signs. * All lighting must comply with the Lighting Ordinance No. 693, as amended. * All development must comply with the Drainage Ordinance No. 605, as amended. * It appears that this property lies within the 65 LDN D /FW Regional Airport Overlay Zone and will require construction standards that meet requirements of the Airport Compatible Land Use Zoning Ordinance No. 479. * The applicant should be aware that prior to issuance of a building permit a Plat must be processed and filed in the County Plat Records, a fully corrected site plan, landscape plan, irrigation plan, and building plans, must be submitted for approval and all required fees must be paid. This may include but not be limited to the following fees: Park Fee, Perimeter Street Fee, Water & Sewer Impact and Tap Fees, and related Permit Fees. * Denotes Informational Comment Case No. Attachment E ZA10 -046 Page 3 Surrounding Property Owners SPO Owner Zoning Land Use Acres Response 1. 710 Kimball Llc 01 Medium Density Residential 0.13 NR 2. Jolley, Monte G SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.52 NR 3. Moore, Neil Etux Ashley SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.53 NR 4. Taylor, Bradley P Etux Deane SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.68 NR 5. Gerlach, Roger T Sr Etux Jeann SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.55 NR 6. Cook, Earl TJr Etux Deborah J SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.61 NR 7. Beanland, Peter L Etux Ame E SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.72 NR 8. Memo -Omega Manufacturing Inc 11 Medium Density Residential 3.72 NR 9. Aryan, John Etux April SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.46 NR 10. Stoyanoff, Michael Etux Pamela SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.46 NR 11. Tbd Capital Investments Llc SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.46 NR 12. McSweeney, John SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.46 NR 13. Stonaker, William E Etux P N SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.46 NR 14. Pisati, Jayasudha SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.47 NR Case No. Attachment F ZA10 -046 Page 1 15. Rivertree Custom Homes Inc SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.48 NR 16. Roussos, Christopher Etux Kare SF20A Medium Density Residential 1.39 NR 17. Jamik Properties SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.55 NR 18. Young, Diana Lynn SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.48 NR 19. K Stone Company SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.46 NR 20. C Scott Lewis Homes Inc SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.46 NR 21. Donohue Family Trust SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.46 NR 22. Mark, Robert Etux Carrie SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.46 NR 23. Prokopeas, Chris SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.46 NR 24. Hryorchuk, John SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.46 NR 25. Andrews, Dustin Etux Ashley SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.51 NR 26. Hill, Timothy A Etux Kathy M SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.49 NR 27. Fields, Troy SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.48 NR 28. Fields, Troy SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.50 NR 29. Miracle Pointe Development Lp SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.50 NR 30. Luber, Ronald W SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.44 NR 31. Harris, Bradford B SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.48 NR 32. Miracle Pointe Development Lp SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.93 NR 33. Denis, Melisa EtvirJean -Franc SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.68 NR 34. 710 Kimball Llc 01 Medium Density Residential 1.01 NR 35. Elborai, Adel M SF20A Medium Density Residential 2.05 NR 36. Kimball Circle Estates Llc SF20A Medium Density Residential 1.93 NR 37. Elborai, Adel M SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.65 NR Responses: F: In Favor Case No. ZA10 -046 O: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response Attachment F Page 2 Surrounding Property Owner Responses Kimball Circle Estates Notices Sent within 200': Thirty -seven (37) Responses Received Within 200': None (0) Responses Received Outside 200' One (1) Attached Case No. Attachment G ZA10 -046 Page 1 Responses Received Outside 200' Stephanie Breit From: contact @ cityof south lake-corn Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 3:01 PM To: Ken Baker; Stephanie Breitbarth; Lorrie Fletcher Subject: Website Contact Form: Director This is an automated email generated from the Contact Us page on GtyOf5outhlake.com. PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE': SEPLY TO SENDER'S EMAIL ADDRESS BELOW! From Naine: Scott White E -mail: Phone: 8174557237 Comments: Hello, I am a home owner at 2109 Miracle Pointe Dr. I have a concern about a proposed through street. Be is a letter that I am sending to all the home owners in Kimball Hills subdivision. My point is that I do not beleive that the Home Owners of Miracle Pointe are be heard and understood on this issue. I would like the opportnuity to discuss with the planning services department. Dear Kimball Hills home owner, I am writing this letter to give you some awareness of a challenge I am experiencing. My name is Scott White and I live at 2109 Miracle Pointe Dr. in the Miracle Pointe subdivision. My family includes my wife Christy and my three daughters Delaney (15), Kayla (12,) and Avery (7). 1 am a Sr. Executive with Accenture, a large consulting company, and have been with them for over 21 years. I went to school at Texas Tech where I met Christy. After living in a number of different places, Christy and I moved to Southlake in July 1997, originally to a home in South Hollow Estates off of Continental. Delaney was a kindergartner in Old Union the first year the school opened. Christy has been an active volunteer in the Carroll Schools ever since. In 2006 we purchased a lot in Miracle Point from the Denis' and built our dream home. We were the first home built in the subdivision and called this part of the world home before anyone else concerned in this matter. You can spot our home from Crooked Lane as we are the first house on the left side of the street. I am writing to you about the proposed opening between the Miracle Pointe Subdivision and the Kimball Hill subdivision. I was unable to attend the SPIN meeting on Oct 1 I as I was out of town on business. Christy attended and shared with me some of the discussion that occurred during the meeting. I understand that there is strong support for opening the road between Miracle Pointe and Kimball Hills by the home owners in Kimball Hills. Miracle Pointe home owners have the opposite opinion. The main reasons that Kimball Hills home owners support opening the road included: - School Bus — the current school bus route stops at the end of Kimball Hill's subdivision on S. Kimball. As S. Kimball is a busy street, there is concern for children as they load and unload off the bus. - Access for Emergency Services — In case of fire or emergency the service vehicles could reach Kimball Hills homes faster if the connection to MP was opened, reducing the concern for turning around in the cul -de -sac. What was not said in the meeting was the "real" reason the Kimball Hills home owners would like to open the road. I suspect the real reason is that you would enjoy easier access to your homes from the south side of Southlake. With the current configuration, you need to go out Crooked Lane or S. Kimball, turn left into potentially busy traffic on S. Kimball (i.e. waiting at the stop sign for some time) and then take a U -turn to cuter the subdivision. There is also a challenge when you exit Kimball Hills and wish to turn left. I understand that the plan for Miracle Pointe was for a temporary cul -de -sac with a plan for future connection to the other properties. There is always the argument that I knew this was going to happen someday. I admit that it has taken recent events to "wake me up" from my slumber on this important issue. My argument back is that things have changed and what once seem acceptable now has significant disadvantages. Here is my concern. This gain in KH convenience comes at a steep loss to me. Let ine explain. Increased Traffic - I predict that I will see a significant increase in the number of vehicles that drive in Case No. Attachment G ZA10 -046 Page 2 front of my home on a daily basis. After taking a few measurements over the past few weeks, I generally see 3- 5 cars per hour. This is broken roughly equal into service calls, current residences, and some sightseers. Now if the road were opened, with the 20 homes in Kimball Hills and the assumption that you would see about the same amount of traffic, the assumption that half of the Kimball Hills traffic would now go though MP, I expect to see an additional 5 -10 cars per hour for a 100 - 200% increase in vehicle traffic. Additionally, I expect a new traffic patter to emerge. Currently during peak traffic times the intersection, at Crooked Lane and S. Kimball gets backed up. I expect that cars that wish to turn left at this intersection will start making a loop though the MP and KH subdivision so that they can then turn left at Kimball Hills and S. Kimball. This will put additional rush hour traffic into both subdivisions and exasperate the problem at Crooked Lane and Kimball as it will further reduce windows for cars to turn left on this intersection. It goes without saying that the more vehicle traffic you have in the street in front of your home the higher the risk of children, pets, or property getting hurt. I am righteously afraid that once opened the street in front of my house will become much more dangerous. I also would anticipate that a long street with a downward slope in KH will to allow vehicles to reach a high rate of speed and would have thought this would be concerning for most folks in KHs. In short, opening the street is zny direct loss, as I will endure significantly higher volume of traffic in front of my home and Miracle Pointe Dr. will become statistically much more dangerous. Property Value — Everyone knows that homes on cul -de- sacs are worth more and retain their value better then ones not on a cul -de -sac. I spent about 1.1 MUSD to build my home. With the changes in the economy, that value has probably dropped to about 850K. I anticipate that by moving my home to a through street it will reduce my property value by another 30 -50 thousand dollars. I would also expect that homes in Kimball Hills subdivision that are not on the cul -de -sac at the end of the street to experience that same loss. Of the 20 homes in KH, I would anticipate that 4 would gain property value and 16 would lose property value due to opening the street. All the homes in MP would lose property value, I wanted to return to the two arguments for Kimball Hills regarding the school bus and emergency vehicle access.. - School Bus — my children have all ridden the bus over years. The pattern for a bus rider is clear_ Children ride the bus in grades K -4 when they are going to Old Union. As Eubanks and Dawson are so close they become car riders or walkers. Once they reach high school in 9th grade they are car riders primarily for social reasons. After that, they drive themselves. So the bus topic is specifically for K-4 graders. When taking a look at the current Home Owners of Kimball Hills, there are only a few children that attend Old Union. Bus riding children are accompanied by a parent to the bus stop. Between the parental concern for safety and the bus driver concern for safety, there is only a very remote chance that the higher traffic on the Kimball Hills bus stop would ever result in an accident. Also, if a parent is truly concerned about the safety, then they would just drive the child to school in the first place. In short, it is hard to by the bus argument because a) the bus is not being used by most KH residences and b) if there really is a safety concern then a parent could choose to take the child to school. I agree that it might be more convenient for children who currently do not ride the bus to have it stop in front of their home. Most likely, the KM residences would have the same pattern of bus riders if the street were opened, However even if the bus carne though the neighborhood it is highly doubtful that it would change the habits of many families. - Emergency Vehicle Access -- the second concern was access for Emergency vehicles. The risk is that if for some reason the front of the KH is blocked off and an emergency was happening at the other end of the street there would be another way to access the homes. In my opinion there is a very limited risk of having this combination of events happening at the same time. Many streets in Southlake are set up in a similar manner to KH (see Cambridge Place). Also, if a Emergency Vehicle needed to access KH, they would access the property from. Kimball as that would be faster than going through Miracle Pointe. Winners and Losers In short, if the street is opened the homes in KH in the cul -de -sac benefit the most as they keep their cul -de -sac status and gain greater access to their property. The next level of benefit goes to the rest of the KH neighborhood for better access but with the cost of reduced property values and increased vehicle traffic. I would argue that the loss in property value would make most folks in KH against the plan as well. The biggest losers are the MP home owners due to lower property values by not being on a cul -de -sac and significantly higher vehicle traffic and associated danger. Suggested resolution: - Keep the through street closed - KH to decide between connecting to the new lots or converting the existing stub street back into green space or park. - Lower the cost to Memo by cutting down fewer trees and pouring less concrete on the new property - Opening a walking path easement between the two subdivisions so we can become better neighbors - Request the city to change the KH Case No. Attachment G ZA10 -046 Page 3 exit to allow for both a right and left turn. - Keep KH status as a cul -de -sac and lower vehicle traffic in the neighborhood. - Financial Payment — As I stand to have a financial loss and this means so much to me, I offer up $1,000 to each home owner in KH who supports keeping the street closed. This could go to individual home owners or could be used to convert the stub street back to green space. Please call me or stop by my home to discuss. Best Regards, Scott White 817 455 7237 Case No. Attachment G ZA10 -046 Page 4