Loading...
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?