2004-06-21 Meeint Report (Sunshine Rezoning)SPIN Citywide Forum for Neighborhood #5
WL Proposed Rezoning of 17 Acres west of Sunshine at E. Highland Rd.
Monday, June 21, 2004 7:00 p.m.
Summary of Questions and Comments
R You said that you intend to reduce the size of the two lots and allocate this to the size of
the other lots. If you intend to do that, why is it not included on your plan here?
What are the depths of the lots on the west side of the plan?
What are the depths of the lots, you say?
With drainage easement, what is the size of the lots? There is also a drainage easement
through there.
You mention that some partners are home builders. Are they a part of your firm? Are
you developing this or are you building the homes on these lots?
What if you purchased the ten acres next to this property? Is the purchase of this
additional property out of the question?
My concern is the perimeter fencing of the development. I don't know if you have been
around folks that live on the north side of town, but I don't want to have development
that looks like Timarron and "cookie cutter" developments that are on the south side of
town. I would like to have a more "country" feel to the development that fits in with
what is in place on the north side of town.
Do you plan to put a masonry fence all around the perimeter of the property? We have
had issues with some other developments that have put masonry fencing around
perimeters that include floodplain that has increased flooding on people's property. The
major problem we have is the Triple C Subdivision, where it is my understanding that the
City did not obtain a drainage easement to go in and clean out Dove Creek. If you go
developing in the area and put up a masonry fence around the perimeter, it is only going
to compound an existing problem we have in the area. Have you discussed this with the
City?
You mention the brick wall; 1 assume that this is at the front two lots, Do you plan to
have this be a gated community?
There is an issue with traffic in the area, what are you intending to do with the sightlines
and dealing with the traffic that is already in place?
a You are asking for a deviation in the zoning for this project from the Land Use Plan.
Did any of the staff ever mention the word "average" when talking about the Land Use
Plan requirements for you to develop this property? So you are saying that the City Staff
interprets the current Land Use Plan to mean where there is Iow density designated that it
needs to be an "average" of one Iot per acre versus one acre, one dwelling?
We have been fighting this battle for years, and you are proposing a lot size of 0.69 per
acre what happened to one lot, one acre?
I would like to read something from the Land Use Plan, "Texas Government Code,
Section 211.004, Compliance with Comprehensive Plan, differentiates zoning ordinances
from land use (or comprehensive) plans. The generally accepted interpretation of Section
211.004 is that an adopted land use plan (or comprehensive plan) forms a legal basis for
zoning, and therefore, zoning should be in accordance with the land use plan" Do you
think that what you are asking for on this development is compliant with the Land Use
Plan? My issue is not with you, it is with City Star
0 1 think that it is time to discuss the land use plan; we cannot continue to deviate from the
plan says, We need to take this to the City, the people that are being nickel and dimmed,
SPIN Citywide Forum for Neighborhood #5
Tonic Proposed Rezoning of 17 Acres west of Sunshine at E. Highland Rd.
Monday, June 21, 2004 7:00 p.m.
Summary of Questions and Comments
we need to vote on the question of do we want things to be one acre. If we don't, then
make the changes and don't continue to deviate from the Land Use Plan.
The City approved a Land Use Plan because they HAD to as required by law, the City
has to review and adopt a Land Use Plan every five years. What we have here is that the
Land Use Plan has not been interpreted properly to read one lot, one acre.. The
development proposals have all ignored the Land Use Plan; Estes One, Estes Two. The
other thing that is coming up continually is that people show up and refer to "We don't
want a Triple C Ranch" situation, These are people who do not live next to the
subdivision. The people who live next to the subdivision do not have a problem with
Triple C and like it.
My name is Brian Everett. I am the financial planning person behind this proposal. I live
in Southlake on 3 acres. All I can say is don't kill the messenger; we are being told what
is compliant with the Land Use Plan. We will work with PIanning and Zoning and you to
do the right thing. I don't want to make excuses, but what you have across the street is
mixed -use development (audience responded, "don't say that, we have heard this
before and the land use values are going to get so high that you will have a developer
come in the future and make the point that this needs to be a Planned Unit Development
to serve as a buffer to the mixed use development that exists in a flight path. I ,just
encourage you to not beat up Phillip here who is trying to make this development work,
and we are,just doing what we are told by the City is compliant with the Land Use Plan.
I have been at all of these meetings and when the Land Use Plan was passed, it was "one
lot, one acre." We were told that by Ann Creighton and all of the people at Planning and
Zoning when this was adopted and the proposals keep coming in that ignore the lot sizes
stipulated in the Land Use PIan.
Can you explain the sewer line on this development proposal? I have asked this with the
other proposals, can the existing infrastructure handle the additional capacity. The
consistent answer is that it can, but eventually it is going to not be able to handle it and
there will be the need for additional capacity., I think that this is something the City needs
to be paying attention to..
Can you review the sewer easement again?
I really thank that the City is setting a precedent regarding lot sizes and I think that this
issue really needs to be put to the voters and vote on what they want to see on lot sizes. If
people want lot sizes Iess than one acre, then we need to change the Land Use Plan.
I think that the other thing besides the lot size and the traffic issue is the drainage issue.
In order to address the drainage issue you are going to have to take some land off these
lots to use for drainage, When you factor in the drainage and traffic allocations, you are
going to be left with lots much smaller than what you show here. I guess what I am
saying is that, right now you are just on the border of what would be allowed regarding
square footage. I think by what the room is saying that would not be acceptable. But the
net result of this is that the small lots that people don't like are only going to get smaller.
Did the City take any property for the future expansion of Highland. That may be a
problem in regards to this development.
SPIN Citywide Forum for Neighborhood 95
Topic Proposed Rezoning of 17 Acres west of Sunshine at E. Highland Rd.
Monday, June 21, 2004 7:00 p.m.
Summary of Questions and Comments
I do want to clarify with you that the zoning that you are asking for does not comply with
the Land Use Plan of Single Family, One Acre.
Across the road to the south of you, about ten years ago, myself and a couple of others
had participated in development around there and made a deal regarding setbacks and
land use, etc. We need to mare sure that the new owners are held to the conditions that
were agreed upon with the old owner of the property.
I remember Stanhope; we looked at that when we bought our house. You are putting
homes that size on the small lots and it will lead to nothing but concrete and masonry.,
I think that the drainage is going to be the biggest concern; we had a lot of discussion on
this when Triple C went in and that they were going to go in and clean out the Dove
Creek. Your development is only going to increase the runoff and there is no way to get
into Dove Creek and clean it out, That is going to leave those in Hunters Ridge with
increasing drainage problems from the runoff and you are not going to be able to do
anything to address Dove Creek issues because you don't have access to the creek.
The pond or the lake was to stay in the long -haul development plan to handle the runoff.
Someone is going to have to do something because the pond seeps water throughout the
year,.
We are going to have issues with those of us that still have septic tanks; these are
eventually going to fill up unless we can get the City to do something regarding sewer
installation in our area.
You are going to have to research the sewer line; I don't believe that with these additional
houses that the sewer line will be able to handle it.
I understand that you are getting pasted by transgressions of others that have nothing to
do with your project, but we are continuing to have the same issues.
You got a total of 17 lots here, if you made adjustments to lot nine and shaved the other
two lots, how many lots would be on the plan? So you would in fact lose three lots by
making those adjustments?
Actually, why don't you cut up Jim's lot into three one acre lots? I can tell you right
now as the money person on this project that if we can lose a lot to make you happy with
this project, we will find a way to do that. But financially, losing more than one lot will
make this project financially hard to complete.
Can you explain the saying that the saying that the size of the lots drives the pricing of
the house?
With the drainage and traffic issues and the land that it will take to address those issues,
you will be losing at least one lot anyway..
Let's say that the property that you say is out of question to purchase sells to someone
else and the developer comes in and proposes 1 14 acre lots. What is your position on that
scenario?
The 17 acres here axe not going to impact the drainage, the 250 acre site at Carroll and
State Highway 114 is going to be the real issue if the City does not deal with this in the
right way,
I went through the Pulte development, and what will happen in that development is going
to be what happened in Arlington about ten years ago. In five years, people will buy
SPIN Citywide Forum for Neighborhood #5
Tonic Proposed Rezoning of 17 Acres west of Sunshine at E. Highland Rd.
Monday, June 2X, 2004 7 :00 p.m.
Summary of Questions and Comments
those homes and not maintain those yards, and it will look like a blighted development
and a disaster.
Can you explain where you live again (responded that he lives south of White Chapel
United Methodist Church)„ We have had others coming in and using Triple C Ranch as a
,justification for doing what you want to do with your property that does not ft the Land
Use Plan. There is nobody that owns property next to Triple C Ranch that has an issue
with that development; it is always people that do not live around the development that
takes issue with the subdivision. We have more problems with your development than
we do with Triple C Ranch.
If you like that development you will see more like it.
You ,just said that you cannot make it work with one acre, now you are saying that you
can!
We can do a development like Triple C Ranch and the wooden fencing and the lack of
amenities like that all day long!
Who will be the builders that you are dealing with?
Can we have a SPIN meeting and invite the P &Z members and make sure that they are
there and have this discussion about the Land Use Plan.
This is the best one of all of the ones that has come forward; I would say that this one is
the best attempt to meet the standards. We have to quit making exceptions or change the
Land Use Plan accordingly..
You speak about the traffic on Highland, but let's not forget the traffic on Sunshine also.
Was it not that the City told us that there would be no access on Highland from that 250
acre site?