2011-05-23 Meeting Report (East Haven)
SPIN MEETING REPORT
CASE NO.
ZA11-015
PROJECT NAME:
1021 E Continental East Haven
SPIN DISTRICT:
SPIN # 9
MEETING DATE:
May 23, 2011; 6 PM
MEETING LOCATION:
1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX
Training Rooms 3A 3B
TOTAL ATTENDANCE:
Ten (10)
SPIN REPRESENTATIVE(S) PRESENT:
Ray Tremain (#9)
APPLICANT(S) PRESENTING:
Ottis Lee w/ Baird, Hampton and Brown, Inc.
STAFF PRESENT:
Lorrie Fletcher, Planner I
STAFF CONTACT:
Richard Schell, Planner II, (817)748-8602; rschell@ci.southlake.tx.us
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Property Situation
The property is located at 841 S. White Chapel Blvd.
Development Details
The applicant is requesting approval of a zoning change and concept/development plan
from --
-in order
to remove Lot 1R, Block 2, East Haven Addition from the existing East Haven
Residential Pl-
Residential District. The base zoning in the existing R--
Residential.
-
regard to the size of accessory structures and the permitted accessory uses. The
minimum lot size allowed in the SF-2 district is two acres. The lot proposed to be
rezoned to SF-2 is approximately 3.097 acres. The proposed removal of one lot from the
East Haven R-PUD requires approval of a development plan showing the revised R-
PUD boundary No changes are proposed to the existing R-PUD regulations or lot
boundaries. The revised development plan shows a gross density of 1.71 dwelling units
per acre, which complies with the 1.80 maximum density allowed in Section 30.5 of
Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended, for R-PUDs. With the removal of the
approximately three acre lot from the R-PUD, the open space percentage increases from
3.7% to 8.8%.
QUESTIONS / CONCERNS
Are horses allowed?
Yes, the SF-2 zoning district allows for one 500-pound animal per 15,000 square
Î
feet of grazable land.
Will the owner have any ties to East Haven?
Probably does not want to join the East Haven H.O.A..
Î
I am concerned with the additional buildings shown on the plan. What will they be used
for?
The zoning allows for single-out buildings up to 3,600 square feet. This concept
Î
plan is just a sample. The plan has not been formalized yet.
SF-2 is a broad category; I am concerned about the possible uses.
Is this the only zoning that would get the owner what they want?
The intention is to add value to the property. As SF-2, they will not be able to
Î
subdivide it; they just want to build a large home.
to build this house?
That is correct but he wants to prevent multiple lots.
Î
I am opposed to this SF-2 zoning.
Are there any restrictions on the out-buildings?
The use will have to comply with the zoning district.
Î
Can this be a multiple dwelling?
No
Î
The surrounding area is all custom homes. I am concerned that the use will generate
noise, odor, etc.
Does the owner have to decide the use of the out-building during the zoning approval
process?
No, as long as it is not commercial and complies with the zoning district. The
Î
same is true for any residential property.
Does he plan to build this immediately?
This plan is just an example; we are required to show a concept plan and tree
Î
Bosworth was not forthcoming. We have been deceived in the past which causes us to
have trust issues.
This example is just showing the maximum possibility. The setbacks are actually
Î
greater in SF-2. It is more valuable to the owner to have one large single lot with
large setbacks and lower floor area.
We moved here because of the city ordinances and high quality. We want to ensure we
are not affected by this. We are just worried about what they can do with that building.
What about fences?
There is an existing fence on the west; a fence will be built on the east; and
Î
probably wrought iron along the drainage area.
Is that area buildable?
No, they cannot build in the drainage easement.
Î
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.