Loading...
Item 7C (2)CITY OF SOUTHLAKE Department of Planning & Development Services STAFF REPORT August 1, 2012 CASE NO: ZAl2 -058 PROJECT: South Village at Watermere EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Southlake Watermark Holdings, LP is requesting approval of a Zoning Change and Development Plan from "R -PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District and "S -P -2" Generalized Site Plan District to "TZD" Transition Zoning District for the purpose of modifying the development regulations, removing the age restriction on the 38 residential lots west of Watermere Drive, adding approximately 3.7 acres from the Watermere at Southlake development and to remove the approved 28 cottage units to single - family residential lots for a total of 71 single - family residential lots at the South Village at Watermere on approximately 33.72 acres located at 2261, 2271& 2451 Union Church Road and 451 Watermere Drive. SPIN Neighborhood #11. REQUEST DETAILS: Southlake Watermark Holdings, LP is requesting approval of a Zoning Change and Development Plan from "R -PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District to "TZD" Transition Zoning District. The current R -PUD development contains 54 single family residential lots in an age restricted (minimum age 55) gated community. The purpose of this item is to revise the development regulations on the 38 single family detached residential lots located on the west side of the future Watermere Drive and to include 3.7 acres of 28 cottage dwelling units from the Watermere at Southlake development and convert them to single - family residential lots. The primary changes include removing the age restriction and the gated private street on the west side of Watermere Drive and revising setback lines for both the east and west sides of the development. The addition of 3.7 acres to this request alters the zoning boundary for both the South Village and Watermere at Southlake and therefore a separate zoning change and concept plan application is being processed concurrently under Planning Case ZAl2 -059 for Watermere at Southlake. A summary of all the developments specific changes has been provided by the applicant and can be found under Attachment `C' of this staff report. ACTION NEEDED: 1) Consider 1 St Reading Zoning Change and Development Plan Approval Request ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information (B) Vicinity Map (C) Plans and Support Information (D) Development Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated July 9, 2012 Case No. ZAl2 -058 (E) Surrounding Property Owners Map (F) Surrounding Property Owners Responses (G) Full Size Plans (for Commissioners only) STAFF CONTACT: Ken Baker (817) 748 -8067 Daniel Cortez (817) 748 -8070 Case No. ZAl2 -058 BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNER /APPLICANT: Southlake Watermark Holdings, LP & Keller Watermere, LP PROPERTY SITUATION: 2261, 2271 & 2451 Union Church Rd. and 451 Watermere Dr. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tracts 4C and 6A2, and Tract 4D, J.G. Allen Survey, Abstract No. 18 and Lot 4R3, Block 1, Watermere at Southlake Addition LAND USE CATEGORY: Medium Density Residential CURRENT ZONING: "R -PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District and "S -P -2" Generalized Site Plan District REQUESTED ZONING: "TZD" Transition Zoning District HISTORY: - On October 2, 2007 the City Council approved a Zoning Change and Development Plan (Ordinance No. 480 -532) for the South Village at Watermere under Planning Case ZA07 -098. - On October 2, 2007 the City Council approved a Preliminary Plat for the South Village at Watermere under Planning Case ZA07 -099. This plat has since expired and the applicant has filed another Preliminary Plat (ZAl2 -039) being processed concurrently with this zoning change and development plan request. CITIZEN INPUT: A SPIN meeting was held for this proposal on July 9, 2012. A copy of the report can be found under Attachment `C' of this staff report. SOUTHLAKE 2030: Consolidated Land Use Plan The underlying designation is Medium Density Residential. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment application was approved by City Council on October 2, 2007 to change the underlying land use designation from Public /Semi -Pubic to Medium Density Residential under Planning Case CP07 -003. TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT: Case No. ZAl2 -058 Master Thorou_phfare Plan The Master Thoroughfare Plan recommends Union Church Road to be a 2- lane, undivided collector roadway with 84 feet of right -of -way and Watermere Drive to be a 2 -lane, undivided collector roadway with 60 feet of right -of -way. Adequate right -of -way is shown to be dedicated for these roadways. Proposed Area Road Network and Conditions The proposed overall development will extend Watermere Drive to the south which will intersect Union Church Road across from Arcadia Drive in Keller. The development will have three (3) access drives directly onto both sides of Watermere Drive, one (1) private drive on the east side and two (2) public drives on the west side. Attachment A Page 1 WB Peak A.M. (96) 11:00 — 12:00 p.m. Peak P.M. (240) 5:00 — 6:00 p.m. EB I Peak A.M. (250) 7:00 — 8:00 a.m. Peak P.M. (158) 4:30 — 5:30 p.m. Traffic Impact PATHWAYS MASTER PLAN: The Pathways Master Plan recommends a 6 -foot sidewalk along the north side of Union Church Road and an 8 -foot multi -use trail along the east side of Watermere Drive. The sidewalk and trail are both shown on the proposed plan. WATER & SEWER: The site will connect water services to an existing 8" water line along the west side of Watermere Drive to the north. A 10" sanitary sewer line exists along the eastern boundary of the proposed development. DRAINAGE ANALYSIS: The drainage from this site will drain to the proposed retention /detention pond which will ultimately discharge into the existing storm drainage system on the south side Union Church Road. TREE PRESERVATION: There are currently no existing trees on site and any trees that were once located here have been removed as a part of the previously approved plan. There is however one 48 -inch pecan tree on the southwest corner of the development that is proposed to be preserved as indicated on the conceptual landscape plan under Attachment `C' of this staff report. PARKS & RECREATION BOARD: Recommendation on Park Dedication requirements for Watermere South Village — a 54 -unit residential development located at Watermere Drive and Union Church Road. The total required park land dedication for the development is 1.35 acres of public parkland or an alternative fee payment of $162,000. The developer proposed to satisfy the park dedication requirement by dedicating 2.32 acres of public parkland to be maintained by the developer and eventually by the HOA, by installing three (3) park benches along the park trail as approved by the Park Department and the construction of 0.19 miles of concrete trail within the park. The total value of the proposed land, park benches and trail is $305,979, which exceeds the park dedication fee requirement of $162,000 by $143,979. Therefore, the developer also requested $143,979 in credits that may be applied to a future park project to be developed by the same owner /applicant (developer). Additionally, the developer proposed to complete the parking lot on the east Case No. Attachment A ZAl2 -058 Page 2 * Vehicle Trips Per Day * AM In, AM -Out, PM -In and PM -Out are peak hour generators on a weekday side of Watermere Drive as requested by the Park Board at the February 13, 2012 meeting. April 9, 2012, Parks and Recreation Board recommend approval (7 -0) of the proposed park dedication as presented and to grant a credit balance of $143,979 to be applied to the future park development by the owner /applicant. This approval from the Parks & Recreation Board was based on the South Village at Watermere consisting of 54 single - family residential lots. Another meeting with the Parks & Recreation may be required by the applicant prior to a plat being filed. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION: July 19, 2012; Approved (4 -1) subject to the Development Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated July 9, 2012 and referencing the staff report dated July 13, 2012. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Development Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated July 9, 2012. WCommunity DevelopmenhMEMO12012 Cases1058 - ZDP - South Village at WatermerelStaff Report Case No. Attachment A ZAl2 -058 Page 3 Vicinity Map South Village at Watermere 1011M11E11l11l1 City Of Keller ZAl2 -058 Zoning Change & Development Plan 2261 2271 & 2451 Union Church Road and 451 Watermere Drive ti ✓�� 0 350 700 1,400 Feet Case No. ZAl2 -058 Attachment B Page 1 0 Plans and Support Information Approved Overall Watermere Concept Plan 15515TWLMNO EIUILUING F F4-L K. fi ti� t C Y LuAuRV CONDO TOd£R CLL MOUSE SIYGLF F kMILY RE'9IL:1MiLlL PP, SPA ! 4 ■ # *y, �r rt 6 0 4p 0 66 9 • �.� s+� � � COTTAGES # • e _• r a, 1 04 a w # * * f 0 L WE wA1FRME12E i 4 LA it IL Uf#aNl CHURCH ORKE 0 Case No. Attachment C ZAl2 -058 Page 1 Proposed Overall Watermere Plan 0 10 I I � J F PARK � r 24'NIGH NYLL6AP 6'TOME Wl98' w I ,,� wNOUOWrIROM GM Taa ;�� +" ~ J I J — } } a wuea' WwaoucWriRnra EFMCE ('. �. i' WIGW smwE ca.uneYSE { } E4GW DORMER VILLAS- SOUTH TOWER• °E IT EWTRY E %R GATE COTTAGES OPEN SPACE THE ISLE AT WATERMERE- PERSONAL CARE & MEMORYMURSING CENTER NORTH TOWER - INDEPENDENT LIVING, PERSONAL CARE, ASSISTED LIVING, MC, SKILLED NURSING COMMUMIT CENTER OVERALL SITE PLAN , r } 3 J 3 " ----- - Z 3 3 - - -- ----------- - - - - -------- - aJ 3 - - ---- — e i Y Y Case No. Attachment C ZAl2 -058 Page 2 Aonroved Conceptual Landscape Plan Case No. ZAl2-058 South Village at Watermere Proposed Conceptual Landscape Plan ----------- I -------------------------- -- — — it u u is is ff % % Alf -*� L --------------- - At s • � � �tiJl� „ �� �� �� �! � # -Yip �� • I I ---------------------------- -- -------- - South Village at Watermere Proposed Conceptual Landscape Plan ----------- I -------------------------- -- — — it u u is is Ulm M MI IRM IM ■ k ------ ----- . Attachment C Page 3 ff L --------------- - I ---------------------------- -- -------- - Ulm M MI IRM IM ■ k ------ ----- . Attachment C Page 3 Proposed Development Plan - I ----- � T 4 - ---- - 5 __ 1. ­ I r—, .. — 9— ....... !_.y i 11 2 7 ------------- -- --- ---- - -- j4 EA paw, R�A5. PH sp-v-t 9y 3` Lu : ay III `y Opi& 3 --- -------- 9i h K I _v, -------- 1: 1 S� Vu"� - I ----- � T 4 - ---- - 5 __ 1. ­ I r—, .. — 9— ....... !_.y i 11 2 7 ------------- -- --- ---- - -- V Oli J L - - - - - - - - - - UL - - - - - - - - - - - - All Z; r ---------- w il 10 - --------- "Ji ii - --------- 1 s3 I J - L7— 14 Rq pi - ---- ----- ,r ------------ Case No. Attachment C ZA1 2-058 Page 4 EA paw, R�A5. PH sp-v-t 111u); Lu : ay Opi& 3 9i K I _v, -------- A V Oli J L - - - - - - - - - - UL - - - - - - - - - - - - All Z; r ---------- w il 10 - --------- "Ji ii - --------- 1 s3 I J - L7— 14 Rq pi - ---- ----- ,r ------------ Case No. Attachment C ZA1 2-058 Page 4 EXHIBIT "B" Developer's \arrative Letter South Village at Watermere Request for Zouin2 Chanu from "R -PL and "SP -2" to Proposed Transitional Zoning District (TZD) August I, 2012 This proposal is berg made by Southlake Watermark Holdings, LP, to amend the existing "R -PUB" Residential Planned Unit Development District zoning approved tender City of Southlake Ordinance No. 480 -532 and the "SP -2" Generalized Site Plan District zoning under City of Southlake Ordinance No. 480 -476b to Transitional Zoning District within the land boundary of South Village at Watermere. South Village at Watei here was originally planned and approved as an age restricted gate comrnruiity with 30.02 acres of "R -PUD" with maximtunn density of 54 single fancily detached dwelling units (i.e. 1.8 dwelling units per acre) and 3.70 acres of "SP-2" with seven (7) four -plea buildings (i.e. total of 28 dwelling units or 7.57 dwelling units per acre). The total number of dwelling units currently approved in South Village is 82 dwelling units (or 2.43 dwelling runts per acre). Based on current market conditions/demand, higher interest by local builders for residential lots (age restricted and non -age restricted) and further study of our current development plan for South Village at Waterunere, we feel our zoning change request from R -PUD and SP -2 to TZD will allow us more flexibility within our overall Watermere at Southlake Community. Under our proposed TZD zoning change, we are requesting to eliminate the seven (7) four -plex buildings (i.e. 28 dwelling tent) current planned on the 3.70 acres of "SP -2" located on the east and south sides of the existing lake and add seventeen (17) single family lots for seniors. We feel this change will provide a more cohesive plan of single family lots for the seniors that would like lake views on private lots. The total dwelling units proposed is 71 dwelling units instead of 82 dwelling units (a reduction of 11 dwelling units). The density within South Village will be decrease from 2.43 dwelling units per acre to 2.10 dwelling units per acre. We are aware that the maximtml density allowed under City of Southlake TZD zoning guidelines is 2.0 dwelling units per acre. Under our current zoning ( "R -PUD and "SP -2 "), our overall density is 2.43 dwelling runts per acre and above the maximum allowed under TZD zoning guidelines. We feel our proposed reduction in overall site density to 2.10 dwelling runts per acre is very much appropriate and fits the general guidelines established for the TZD zoning and do request approval of this slight variance. It is also important to note that the elimination of the 3.70 acres of "SP -2" area within South Village at Waterrnere requires us to amend the existing "SP -2" Generalized Site Plan District that was previously approved for the entire Water7nnere at Southlake Commmunity under City of Southlake Ordinance No. 480 -476b (i.e. current land area within the "SP -2" for Waterniere development is 35.51 acres — render our proposed amendment the land area within the "SP -2" will be 31.81 acres). We have prepared Case No. Attachment C ZAl2 -058 Page 5 separate applications;`plans for "SP -2" submittal and it will be tracking con-currently with our proposed TZD zoning change request. Linder our proposed TZD zoning change we are also requesting to remove the age restriction on the 3 8 single family residential lots on the west side of Watermere Drive. The proposed streets on the west side of Watermere Drive are proposed to be public and will not be gated. The park along the west side of Watermere Drive will also be dedicated as a public park. We feel that Watelluere Drive and the public park act as a nice transitional buffer between the non age restricted lots and the age restricted lots on the east side of Waterinere Drive. This presentation to the City of Southlake will document and provide information on: 1. Existing site conditions and adjacent property uses and zoiung_ 2. Description of the proposed development concept and the amended Development Regulations for the all residential lots and open space lots located within South Village at Watermere; 3. Description of the development improvements including paving, storm drainage, water and sanitary sewer facilities. Proiect Location The South Village at Watermere is located oil the north side of Union Church Road and east of Pearson Lane. The western property line abuts the Chesapeake Place subdivision which is zoned "R -PUD." The southern property line is the northern right -of -way line for Union Church Road. Hidden Lakes, a 1,000 -acre residential development in the City of Keller, is located on the south side of Union Chuuch. The northwest property line abuts undeveloped property and the east property line abuts a tract of land this is currently being used as a nursery. The north and northeast property lines abut Watermere at Southlake that is currently under development. Ownership The property is currently owned by Keller Waterin7ere, LP, and Southlake Watermark Holdings, LP. Existing Zonine and Land Use South Village at Watertnere contains 33.72 acres. The existing zoning within the South Village at Watermere is defined as follows: 30.02 acres of "R -PUD" Residential Planaied Unit Development Zoning District and 3.70 acres of - SP-2 - Generalized Site Plan Zoning District. The City of Soutlitake's Land Use Map designation for South Village at Watermere is Medium Density Residential. 2 Case No. Attachment C ZAl2 -058 Page 6 Purpose and Intent of Proposed District It is a goal that the proposed neighborhood be well integrated into the surrounding areas by extending thoroughfares and pedestrian paths throughout the site. The 33.72 acre site will be developed as single - family detached lrousing. The residential lots on the east side of Watermere Drive will be deed restricted to residents ages 55 and older and will be gated with 31' B -B private streets. The residential lots on the west side of Watermere Drive will not be age restricted to seniors and will not be gated. All of the streets on the west side of Watermere Drive are proposed to be 31' B -B public streets located in a 50' public right of way. The private streets on the east side of Watermere Drive will be maintained by the existing W atennere at Southlake Homeowners Association. All public streets and all public water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage facilities will be owned and maintained by the City of Southlake. The existing "R -PUD" Zoning District (i.e. 30.02 acres) and the existing "SP -2" Zonuig District (i.e. 3.70 acres) within South Village at Watermere shall be changed to a Transitional Zoning District (TZD). Unless otherwise stipulated in this proposed TZD zoning request, all other development standards previously approved under City of Southlake Ordinance No. 480 -532 shall remain in effect. Development Concept The South Village at Watermere will continue the quality development of Watermere at Southlake and add to the already diverse and vibrant area. All residents of the South Village at Watermere west of Watermere Drive that (at their sole option) qualify as seniors and pay appropriate association/club membership dues will have access to the clubhouse and other amenities within the Watermere at Southlake development. A separate Homeowners Association will be established for residents on the west side of Watermere Drive. All housing on the east side of Watermere Drive will be deed restricted to residents ages 55 and older to maintain the atmosphere of the Watermere development and will be required to be members of the existing Watermere at Southlake Homeowners Association. Watermere Drive divides the property and will have. private and public open space on both sides of the street. The open space on the east side of Watermere Drive will be private and have the following amenities: one tennis court, one pavilion, one putting green, one shuffleboard, one horseshoe pit, and one trellis. There will also be a 6' , ATought iron fence around the private amenities, one fountain within the existing lake. one parking lot with approximately 30 parking spaces and 5' wide sidewalks at locations shown on the development plan. The open space on the west side of Watermere Drive will be dedicated to the City of Southlake as a public park. The public park on the west side of Watermere Drive will feature a 0.25 mile looped walking trail and large amounts of green space. All proposed private and public open space areas will be landscaped and irrigated. Case No. Attachment C ZAl2 -058 Page 7 The Homeowners Association established on the west side of Watermere Drive will be responsible for maintenance of the public park (i.e. Lot 9X, Block 2). tile private open space lots (i.e. Lots 1X & 25X, Block I and Lot 17X, Block 2). The existing Watermere at Southlake Homeowners Association shall be responsible for maintenance of the private open space lots (i.e. Lots IX & SX, Block 3 and Lot IX, Block 4) the private street lot (i.e. Lot L Block 5) and the two median areas within Watermere Drive. Development Standards The following Development standards shall apply to the proposed Transitional Zoning District (TZD): Street Design Standards (East of Watermere Drive) a. Street Right-of-way i. Private Residential Street - 50' utility, drainage. common & emergency access easement- 31' B-B pavement ii. Watermere Drive - 60'Right-of-way, 37'B-B pavement b. On-street Parking i. Parallel parking spaces shalt be allowed within the 50' utility, drainage, common & emergency access easement. No Alleys d. Pavement Surfaces i. All streets and sidewalks shall be constructed with reinforced concrete. ii. The 6' crosswalk at the intersection of Watemere Drive and Union Church Road will be stamped and stained concrete pavement. All other crosswalks and street entryway(s) will not be required to be stamped or stained concrete pavement. 2. Street Design Standards (West of Watermere Drive) a. Street Right-of-way i. Public Residential Street - 50' Right -of -way, 31'B-B pavement ii. Watermere Drive - 60'Right-of-way, 37'B-B pavement b. On-street Parking i. Parallel parking shall be allowed on one side of the street. c. No Alleys d. Pavement Surfaces i. All streets and sidewalks shall be constructed with reinforced concrete. ii. The 6' crosswalk at the 'intersection of Watermere Drive and Union. Church Road will be stamped and stahiled concrete pavement. All other crosswalks and street entry %vay(s) will not be required to be stamped or stained concrete pavement. 4 Case No. Attachment C ZA1 2-058 Page 8 3. Streetscape Standards (East and West of Watermere Drive) a. Sidewalks i. Residential - 4' sidewalk. ii. Watermere Drive - Meandering 5' sidewalk on west side, 8' sidewalk on east side. iii. Union Church Road - 6' sidewalk b. Street Trees i. There shall be three (3) four inch caliper trees with at least one or two trees located between the back of club and the city sidewalk per each residential lot. Tl3ree (3) ornamental trees shall be equivalent to one (1) tree. Street trees shall be Live Oaks, Red Oaks or American Elms. 4. Open Space (East of Watermere Drive) a. Private open space to consist of green space with walkways. The amenities within Lot 1X, Block 4 shall consist of the following: one tennis court, one pavilion, one putting green. one shuffleboard coiu one horseshoe pit and one trellis. The will also be a 6' wrought iron fence aroruid the private amenities area, one fountain within the lake, one parking lot with approximately 30 parking spaces and 5' wide sidewalks at locations shown on the development plan. b. The private open space shall be frilly landscaped and irrigated. c. Maintenance shall be provided by the existing Watermere at Southlake Homeowners Association that has required membership of all residents. The Homeowners Association shall have fine and lien rights as permitted by law to enforce compliance with the rules and regulations of the association. 5. Open Space (West of Watermere Drive) a. Private open space to consist of green space with walkways. b. The private open space shall be fiuly landscaped and irrigated. c. Maintenance shall be provided by the separate Homeowners Association that will be established for residents on the west side of Watermere Drive. All residents on the west side of Watermere Drive are required to be members on the Homeowners Association. The Homeowners Association shall have tine and lien rights as permitted by law to enforce compliance with the slues and regulations of the association. d. Public open? space (i.e. public park) to consist of green space with a. minimum of a 0.25 mile looped walking trail. The maintenance of the public open space shall be provided by the separate Homeowners Association that will be established for residents on the west side of Watermere Drive. 6. Black and Lot Standards (East of Watermere Drive) a. Minimum Lot area- 7,400 square feet b. Minimum Lot Width- 65 feet at building lime Case No. Attachment C ZAl2 -058 Page 9 c. Minimum Lot Depth- 115 feet; except for Lots 17 & 18, Block 4 where a minilnulll lot depth shall be 100 feet. d. Maximum Lot Coverage — 60% Block and Lot Standards (West of Watermere Drive) a. Minimum Lot area- 9,800 square feet b. Minimum Lot Width- 70 feet at buitding like c. Minimum Lot Depth- 130 feet d. Maximum Lot Coverage — 60% 8. Building Standards (East of Watermere Drive) a. Maximum Building Height— 35' or 2 stories (excluding basements) b. Mlllmlllm Building Floor Area — 2,500 sf c. Setbacks i. Front Yard - 20 feet ii. Rear Yard — 20 feet iii. Side Yard — 10% of lot width iv. Side Yard Adjacent to Street - 15 feet v. Garage Setbacks — 20 feet for forward facing and 20 feet for swing d. Buildilg Facade i. All facades shall consist of stucco_ buck and/or stone. Stucco is considered a masonry material. EFIS or synthetic stucco will not be allowed. See Material Percentages below. Front Elevation = 90% Brick/Stone/Stucco Rear Elevation = 10% Siding Side Elevation(s) = 90% Brick/Stone/Stucco 10% Siding 90% Brick/Stone /Stucco 10% Siding ii. All roof material shall be a minumim of 35 year composition and consistent throughout the development. e. Garage Doors 1. All garage doors shall be clad with cedar material. ii. No driveway access from Union Church Road shall be allowed. f. Minimum Finish Floor Elevation — The first floor elevation of the residential structuue shall be a ininilnum of one (1) foot above the finished level of the public sidewalk in front of the residential structure. 9. Building Standards (West of Watermere Drive) a. Maximum Building Height — 35' or 2 stories (excluding basements); except for Lots 2 -4, Block 1 shall be limited to one story b. Minimum Budding Floor Area — 2,500 sf c. Maximum Air- Conditioned (AC) Square Footage — 3,700 sf d. Setbacks i. Front , Yard - 20 feet ii. Rear Yard — 20 feet ro Case No. Attachment C ZAl2 -058 Page 10 iii. Side yard — a) Side setbacks shall be one foot (1') maxirnlull on one side and nine feet (9') minimum on the opposite side. The dwelling shall be no closer than ten feet (10') between the face of exterior of neighboring dwelling units. The side of the lot of the 9 -foot or 1 -foot setback can be adjusted as needed when development begins to occur. b) The closest exterior roof line to an adjacent property shall be glittered if the general slope of the roof falls toward the neighboring property. c) Each adjacent lot shall provide an access and maintenance easement, a lnuullitim of 9 feet (9'). adjacent to the "zero" (one -foot) side to allow the property owner access for maintenance of his dwelling. d) The majority of one side of the structure shall be located within three feet (3') of one side lot line. The building wall which faces the "zero" side of the lot shall not have any doors, ducts, grills, vents or other openings; with the exception of small windows located a minimum of S feet above finish floor of dwelling. iv. Side Yard Adjacent to Street - 15 feet v. Garage Setbacks — 20 feet forward facing and 20 feet for swing e. Building Facade i. All facades shall consist of stucco, brick and/or stone. Stucco is considered a masonry material. EFIS or synthetic stucco will not be allowed. See Material Percentages below. Front Elevation = 90% Brick/Stone /Stucco Rear Elevation = 10 % Siding Side Elevation(s) = 90% Brick/Stone /Stucco 10% Siding 90 %p Bllck/Stone /Stucco 10% Siding ii. All roof material shall be a minimum of 35 year composition and consistent throughout the development. f Garage Doors i. All garage doors shall be clad with cedar material. ii. No driveway access fi - om Union Church Road shall be allowed. g. Miniminu Finish Floor Elevation — The first floor elevation of the residential structure shall be a minimum of one (1) foot above the finished level of the public sidewalk in front of the residential structure. 10. Site Design Standards (East and West of Waterinere Drive) a. i. Union Church Road - 6' Masonry Screening Wall; with 6' Wrought Iron Fencing shall be allowed adjacent to open space lots. Case No. Attachment C ZAl2 -058 Page 11 ii. Watermere Drive - Open Space Buffer and 6 2 lasonryfWrought Iron Screening Wall (i.e. combination — 2' masonry & 4' wrought iron) along east frontage of Waterniere Drive located in Lot 1X, Block 4. iii. Chesapeake Place — G' stonecrete fence (or equivalent) to be coordinated with Chesapeake Place HDA. iv. Fencing along north property line (Lots 5 thili 9, Block 1) shall be G' wrought iron or 6' stonecrete fence sinnilar to 6' stonecrete fence along Chesapeake Place (i.e. a combination of both will not be allowed). b. Fencing i. All interior fencing between lots shall be wrought iron and a inninnun of 4.5 feet in height. No wood fencing will be allowed. c. Lighting i. Street lights shall follow City of Southlake standards. ii. Light posts shall be consistent with the existing Watermere at Southlake. d. Signs i. All street signs shall be consistent with the existing Waterniere at Southlake. Permitted Uses 1. Residential Uses - Single Family Dwellings 2. Public, seini- public and private parks. 3. Recreational facilities and open space improvements including playgrounds, parkways, greenbelts, ponds and lakes, botanical gardens, pedestrian paths, bicycle paths. 4. Other uses of a similar nature and character. Homeowners Association The residents on the east side of Watermere Drive within South Village at Watertnere will be part of the existing Homeowners Association that has been established for the Watermere at Southlake development. The existing Waterniere at Southlake Homeowners Association will be responsible for maintaining all private open spaces, amenities, private streets, 111 - 1gatlon, landscaping, signage and fencing for Lots 1X & 8X, Block 3, Lot 1X, Block 4 and Lot 1. Block 5. and the two median areas in Watermere Drive. The residents on the west side of Watermere Drive within South Village at Waterniere will establish a separate Homeowners Assocation. The Homeowners Association on the west side of Watermere Drive will be responsible for maintenance of all public and 8 Case No. Attachment C ZAl2 -058 Page 12 private open spaces, amenities, 11TIgation, landscaping, signage and fencing for Lot 1X & 25X, Block 1, Lots 9X & 17X, Block 2. Oye11 Space Mana2einent Plan All private open spaces lots and the private street lot on the east side of Waterneere Drive within the Transitional Zoning District shall be owned and maintained by the existing Waterinere at Southlake Homeowners Association. The two median areas within Watermere Drive shall also be maintained by the existing Watennere at Southlake Homeowners Association. A separate Homeowners Association will be established for the lots on the west side of Watermere Drive and this Homeowners Association will own and maintain all private open space lots on the west side of Watermere Drive. The HOA on the west side of Waterniere Drive will also be responsible for maintaining the public park lot. Both of the Homeowners Associations shall have mandatory membership for all the homeowners in their respective neighborhoods. Dues shall be assessed and collected so that the property under the control of the Association(s) can be maintained in a high quality condition. The deed restrictions and collection of dues shall be enforceable through lien rights and assessment of fines and penalties as allowed by law. Enaineerine Analysis Roadways South Village at Watermere is bounded by Union Church Road to the south where ingress and egress will be provided for a south entrance. Waterrnere Drive, a public street, will be extended from the north through the subject property and connect to Union Church Road. This connection will provide north/south ingress and egress from Union Church Road to Southlake Boulevard. The individual lots on the east side of Watermere Drive will be served by private streets that are gated. The residents on the east side of Watermere Drive will have cross - access ri-Ats onto Lot 4R2, Block 1 of Wateimere at Southlake (and vice - versa). The individual lots on the west side of Watermere Drive will be served by public streets and will not be gated. A traffic impact analysis was completed for this project back in 2007 at the time of the original zoning change of this property to "R -PUD ". The traffic report showed that there would be minir urn impact to Union Church Road. Drainage The South Village at Watermere is located in the Big Bear Creek Watershed and generally drains from the north to the south. The three -acre pond will act as a detention system for the storm water runoff before the storm water runoff is discharged across Union Church Road. The detention system has been designed so that downstream properties will not be adversely affected by the development of the South Village at Watermere. It is important to note that detailed drainage plans/studies were completed on the original South Village at Watermere and reviewed by the City of Southlake Public 9 Case No. Attachment C ZAl2 -058 Page 13 Works Department back in 2010. Updated detailed construction plans for the drainage will be submitted to the city for review at the appropriate time. It is impoltant to point out that the master drainage plan /concept of South Village at Waterinere under this zoning change request is not changing and will still meet all City of Southlake drainage regulations. Water Distribution and Sewage Collection Systems With this development, a new 12" waterline will be constructed along the frontage of Union Church Road and connect to the existing 12" waterline in front of the Chesapeake Place neighborhood. An 8" waterline will be extended along the Waterniere Drive with 8" waterlines extending into the public and private streets.. The development will be served by the existing sanitary sewer line that inns through the eastern portion of the property. A portion of the existing sanitary sewer line running along the frontage of Lots 8 -14. Block 4 of South Village at Watermere may need to be relocated to avoid conflict with proposed building pads. It is important to note that detailed construction plans were completed on the original South Village at Watermere and reviewed by the City of Southlake Public Works Department back in 2010. Updated detailed construction plans for the utilities will be submitted to the city for review at the appropriate time. Summary of Amendments to the Existinij Zoning Development Standards Linder City of Southlake Ordinance - -No. 480 -532 and Ordinance NO. 4804761} Proposed Residential Lots ('Vest Side of Watermere Drive) 1. Remove resident age restriction of fifty -five (55) years. 2. Change fiont building setback line to 20'. 3. Change garage setback line to 20' (front facing or swung). 4. Change side yard setback line as follows: 1. Side setbacks shall be one foot (1') maximum on one side and nine feet (9') minim on the opposite side. The dwelling shall be no closer than ten feet (10') between the face of exterior of neighboring dwelling units. The side of the lot of the 9 -foot or 1 -foot setback can be adjusted as needed when development begins to occur. 2. The closest exterior roof line to an adjacent property shall be guttered if the general slope of the roof falls toward the neighboring property. 3. Each adjacent lot shall provide an access and maintenance easement, a Minimum ofrnune feet (9'), adjacent to the ,, zero" (one -foot) side to allow the property owner access for maintenance of his dwelling. 4. The majority of one side of the structure shall be located within three feet (3') of one side lot line. The building wall which faces the "zero" side of the lot shall not have any doors, ducts, grills, vents or other openings, with the exception of small windows located a minimum of 8 feet above finish floor of dwelling. 10 Case No. Attachment C ZAl2 -058 Page 14 5. Change 27' B -B private streets to 31' B -B public streets. 6. Remove Gates — Remove gates across the public streets located west of Watermere Drive. 7. Private Open Space to Public Open Space — Change the private open space west of Watermere Drive to public park (i.e. Lot 9X, Block 1 of South Village at Watel mere). The public park shall have a minimum of 0.25 mile walking trails and landscape/irrigated green space. The Homeowners Association established for lots west of Watermere Drive shall be responsible for maintenance of the public park and private open space lots (i.e. Lots 1X & 25X, Block 1 and Lot 17X, Block 2). 8. Maximum Air - Conditioned (AC) Square Footage — 3,700 square feet. 9. Change maximum building height to 35' or 2 stories (excluding basements) and Lots 2 -4. Block 1 shall be one (1) story homes. 10. All garage doors shall be clad with cedar material. 11. Street Trees (specify number /size/type) — Three (3) four inch caliper trees with at least one or two trees located between the back of crab and the city sidewalk per each residential lot. Three (3) ornamental trees shall be equivalent to one (1) tree. Street trees shall be Live Oaks, Red Oaks or American Elms. 12. The 6' crosswalk at the intersection of Waterinere Drive and Union Church Road will be stamped and stained concrete pavement. All other crosswalks and street entryways) are not required to be stamped or stained concrete pavement. 13. Roof Material — All roof material shall be a minimum of 35 year composition and consistent throughout the development. 14. Change 5' sidewalks to 4' sidewalks along all residential streets. 15. All interior fencing between lots shall be wrought iron and a minim of 4.5 feet in height. No wood fencing will be allowed. 16. Change minimum rear yarn fencing to 20 feet. Proposed Residential Lots (East Side of Watermere Drive) 1. Change minimum lot size to 7,400 square feet. 2. Change minimum lot width to 65 feet at fiont building line. 3. Change minimum lot depth to 115 feet:. except for Lots 17 & 18, Block 4 where minimum lot depth shall be 100 feet. 4. Change miirimurm front yard to 20 feet. 5. Change minimum side yard to 10 %© of the lot width. 6. Change minimum rear yard to 20 feet. 7. Change minimum garage setback to 20 feet (front facing or swing). 8. All garage doors shall be clad with cedar material. 9. The proposed private amenities within Lot 1X, Block 4 shall include one tennis court. one pavilion, on punting green, one shuffleboard court, one horseshoe pit and one trellis. There shall also be a 6' wrought iron fence around the private amenities, one fountain within the lake, one parking lot with approximately 30 parking spaces and 5' sidewalks within Lot 1X, Block 4 at locations shown on the development plan. 10. Street Trees (specify number/size/type) — There shall be three (3) four inch caliper trees with at least one or two trees located between the back of curb and the city 11 Case No. Attachment C ZAl2 -058 Page 15 sidewalk per each residential lot. Three (3) ornamental trees shall be equivalent to one (1) tree. Street trees shall be Live Oaks, Red Oaks or American Elms. 11. Roof Material — All roof material shall be a minimum of 35 year composition and consistent throughout the development. 12. All residents shall have access across Lot 4R2, Block 1 of Watermere at Southlake Addition. 13. Eliminate the seven (7) four -plea buildings (i.e. 28 dwelling units) around the east and south sides of the lake and add seventeen (17) single family lots. 14. Change maximum building height to 35' or 2 stories (excluding basements). 15. The 6' crosswalk at the intersection of Watermere Drive and Union Church Road will be stamped and stained concrete pavement. All other crosswalks and street entryway(s) are not required to be stamped or stained concrete pavement. 16. Change 5' sidewalks to 4' sidewalks along all residential streets. 17. All interior fencing between lots shall be iviought iron and a minimum of 4.5 feet in height. No wood fencing will be allowed. Note: The existing "R -PUD" zoning district (i.e. 30.02 acres) and the existing "SP -2" zoning district (i.e. 3.70 acres) within South Village at Watelmere shall be changed to a Transitional Zoning District (TZD). Unless stated above, all other development standards previously approved under City of Southlake Ordinance No. 480 -532 shall remain in effect within the limits of the proposed TZD for South Village at Watermere. Summary The South Village at Watermere is designed to be an extension of the Watermere at Southlake development and to transition from Watermere at Southlake development to the existing sru7ounding single - family developments. The South Village at Watelmere will be a positive addition to this part of Southlake and to the neighbors in Feller. We respectfully request the City of Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council approve the zoning change for South Village at Watelmere from "R -PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development and - SP-2 - Generalized Site Plan District to a Transitional Zoning District (TZD) as presented herein. 12. Case No. Attachment C ZAl2 -058 Page 16 Comparison Summary of Zoning Change Requests Case No. Attachment C ZAl2 -058 Page 17 � a _ a w E N 'a L � € �. m oam 9 3 eo ,� ti K �3 m c m N E 75 9 L Z N 6 c4 o u'c �a C N m `5 Q v o w U O Q 2 a Q �'i E °-' n c a �" a m y c m E o E b� » N A r v ��0a a ai E¢ win a m ¢a zzR ��� °��' t o._ ._ ��._ ._a._Za.__ p c m m m Cl ^ » m° `gr =0 za CL nOQM o oo0p a Nr n ed .d u-6 N ni .d ti d U of 0 F F Q s d W y v a a m v a c� c a o c _ m .5 Q .°n n ® E a Y o imi m y vj i m E a E m amr�`i m M 15 v N m a N 3 M CO a v = z ro 7L Ms.- G etf a p ° uri p - N m ?2 m a E a - a a .a w >.. E d wv E 'e > p3 ba 80 E 6 _ - My o ° ' a`" �i d oo n w� n °� ° o� c on x a ma 3°1 u v x - a " m g. o 'C -aim in�wEQdd�rn Q'C a QQ� � _ enN ¢�¢ Q rn�a °¢a Ow o6dN �> > zd' = d� - O :2 IL ._ .0 n o° °o 9 N O a g-- ai ih a x1 7�ii m a c� 'o �%�N a q v v� E tO tam m E � maEim � a N o O � m O d v t u d co i. m = _ N 3 c a> -° .. N M in Z o W a. m'fr' N °S o y.y+ m >, ag Ov N c r u ii o o v :a m0 co.G� c " m - 3j Q a 4 v°cn�am Rz ca�L'oE 2 m N U j m D W Q m a c �d 0 �n Ni t ®� o Q ¢ c a O +s m N z co �zj a s @ _ N N a N° L6 O -1 W N vti b ii i 2'fAFF� aaaa e aaa w z wto NQ LU LL 00 = ,N a O_ d' LU W m� NF m Q iM W J 0 L° m oO a$ o in -J m N O 2 W Z U) J Z G Z3 G O G CY) Case No. Attachment C ZAl2 -058 Page 17 Case No. Attachment C ZAl2 -058 Page 18 a9 Y Y d T p d N d N b i QCEd ° ^ E� �. �. o € O - 'IZ 2,E c d mrn03E , Y_�'o ?s3 ;� . E a,Ldv Y.E 3 Z5 dov Z . m D 3 i tic m c - ma 2 ma 8i mL k �_'c J t O d ° m m C Q p d d 3 E c l6 a1 d N m - G u� o J 4 w iR �+ N L l9 ui w d R N O K .ayvm� d C E os O w N eC . 5 H A M N l.0 C L rt`1 M w . Y 9`] �cc6JJ 0_ 3 5, .8 t E d � 4 � 9 'p T _ a d ° 2 @ d. ©2 � m C '2 yy . � — 'O L m L L E 3 - da L m 21 ° oo O�m�o ° I! wym, vD m yy t] yy UN1 N R Q _� W S N L C N' d A2 > C A6 C d y P d L __ n L v eO T P e L O j �� Z '] T Q'CN° �2w CWdJ a R� 0 3 l6 C n,. p_tONNO3d �Upy�L -aENE O U C d �$ O C h Q x L b 2 m N Y E¢ U D_ Ci 4 C m �' d �' LLL> ma_ryryY c as C S6 C] d V a d }> O V m o m o b d m m m a J fn O J O J O N � inY�� o d d d L ` ¢ 'w 7 A Bt o o x` N -o co m .�y 4a ° a' d d d N L N N a5 v t d w J u� "�._ piaw � $° E o E j j '�E O� FA K9 .-. wn3n �� _.c — a.z E d ° ?) $ t 13 0 6 O a Ec,EE C Ex "e R - 'C C C R _ [/�._ - .e N._ Co d N. O+i ° oHL a1 OL N 2 Q 2 4E CL E nQ 'L i O cn cc .6 y m a S Q td ri ° 'o U UO —�° u s u zi (p Q V N M M Q Q C m m - d cn =m`o 0 d 79 w� 2wl 2 _ N 9 R r d L d E w - S'oM,2-E.— mm y m a 3 E a' t° H m 3 c ani a1 d m`o'tes, m� c Tt CL "o = d'&-�mamod d a� ; wNffi,N ° m F _ W o E�y� —m= E 2.2s E— a o__ n a °i. $ d c° o'n O41 .z m� ad ° na . v<� WN �d�crS �"� o� rQi� �. a �_mo witii E' o.m c'2 wU 3: fir° C� ma y asdrn NNn Qd m - u w m�v��,c 3 �. `m c�aioacs_L yJJJO C7� a d Ia `m yo2saA �cc� —`ao d -'mm E °z — _QEmmo om a n 8. 3 J > >E o a m x m° a i m s E E,E l o Q 7 uj 9 O Aa v ne a v m CA N Q Z a o 3 Nu 0 a d n'Ta an 3,P 4 3 N Y `a a m t c � � m .o b E 0 U 9 O p L a E d� C 0 a d c a3i $s a =,2 Ica d'n c Ta m me d n. tO a.-o Sid M a m Q ° itl ro OJ2O I Z NC 'C NLS.�iU �tiN K 0 o I z m ~ m E aa1 m p} N 3: 0 V (L a md °��c va-m cad J EEEE wp EEE E- .� d T3 y y L m L a - - Y C _U C CL m in O Aa ti CO ni ei -a C Q a 1i c e Case No. Attachment C ZAl2 -058 Page 18 0 3 Z'5 Z � pI N R � E L W (n O CL d a `? N IL R z d Lb L r Z w� Q � (? n z z o N " o E a z O CL m c m v C R z� 2 N � c d z CL � O W 3 a C� CL CL � � d o m o a d c y = o T N : E = y t a T o 2 o t rn¢ w j2 � mm c� mL°Ii .f" v E' m�1Y9 A 0. ¢ Q �<z -E� a @ p, 0 oa Q 9 a g .n o a ° �'a $ $ $ NN 6 � - 0 E2 - 0 0 O ry ... Q - E' o •- �, m � m N N N T E E Y }} } Y rnIi R o p° `> a�L"rnw�mc ° . atL cc (0 U) (D "a4 ¢ 4z 'd xi ° ro N 0 0 c a � � Q a ,Q p c _ C c _ oa ova a mZ o= m a o o coo 3 E n� S9 49 � } R m DEo� ovo�m o a�a$c�i.nm s °i `o �o Fib y I ° O P m eu p 1 6 Qy c�ay� mvaa'c Z o,�on ° oyx o S '$i °E �-s 5Tc °i E....Ea+`oo °m - 0 _ R 4 9 W N 19 n S J - 2 aL �y a J �f + W N O U V mJm Q �E,gEE�aar v�'c $'C�$'H rncw `aS9Er�S >o L° E" E mli 1Y N a a N CO a E o `m omy Eo'v ag� m c E ' E 5'- `o Ii "a 6" m m m a' w ti 6 c.. o a R o N 2 g y 3 m °° a 2 �� _z `n `R ' QO Q f9 t N= C C C N E O L C 9 d E O CO 6 5 rn S "�.` slam mrn a, ?'rn�w�� } } rte c v �' H me EHS:F > o Y rnIi m Case No. ZAl2 -058 Attachment C Page 19 q hg a s N N c m E p � i iu o 1° a C O N 12 m ^^ v a a v o s p2 d r LU o - a` Y c � U1 m E 20 0 o° oa v v'm �n u o rn a 2 u ud t � ' at am E °� 4 4m Ec*n c�E No a aRi��Arn e.cD nxE�°R��mv(� a a$���� aS : E = y t a T o 2 o t rn¢ w j2 � mm c� mL°Ii .f" v E' m�1Y9 A 0. ¢ Q �<z -E� a @ p, 0 oa Q 9 a g .n o a ° �'a $ $ $ NN 6 � - 0 E2 - 0 0 O ry ... Q - E' o •- �, m � m N N N T E E Y }} } Y rnIi R o p° `> a�L"rnw�mc ° . atL cc (0 U) (D "a4 ¢ 4z 'd xi ° ro N 0 0 c a � � Q a ,Q p c _ C c _ oa ova a mZ o= m a o o coo 3 E n� S9 49 � } R m DEo� ovo�m o a�a$c�i.nm s °i `o �o Fib y I ° O P m eu p 1 6 Qy c�ay� mvaa'c Z o,�on ° oyx o S '$i °E �-s 5Tc °i E....Ea+`oo °m - 0 _ R 4 9 W N 19 n S J - 2 aL �y a J �f + W N O U V mJm Q �E,gEE�aar v�'c $'C�$'H rncw `aS9Er�S >o L° E" E mli 1Y N a a N CO a E o `m omy Eo'v ag� m c E ' E 5'- `o Ii "a 6" m m m a' w ti 6 c.. o a R o N 2 g y 3 m °° a 2 �� _z `n `R ' QO Q f9 t N= C C C N E O L C 9 d E O CO 6 5 rn S "�.` slam mrn a, ?'rn�w�� } } rte c v �' H me EHS:F > o Y rnIi m Case No. ZAl2 -058 Attachment C Page 19 a E o `m omy Eo'v ag� m c E ' E 5'- `o Ii "a 6" m m m a' w ti 6 c.. o a R o N 2 g y 3 m °° a 2 �� _z `n `R ' QO Q f9 t N= C C C N E O L C 9 d E O CO 6 5 rn S "�.` slam mrn a, ?'rn�w�� } } rte c v �' H me EHS:F > o Y rnIi m Case No. ZAl2 -058 Attachment C Page 19 Case No. Attachment C ZAl2 -058 Page 20 B.Y a mm v. L app =c com v$. co Easy 6 b 3 yro�R rnrn a mN y - cm mw - 3KQ fA U5 �•-. fn o o 20_ I a t 4 _. Q c m a ie E- _ b °_ aLLNa O $wc EE pi a I c aON - ' ' �� .� = EP a 3U ~'E 2 E me � =M' 1 .a= mmc » cp d 2a,_db �o mz c vQ a N m` Inc - nm E� E3 ° a a -moo yam 'S m q a o a o b 14 w '� a p' o m.�'x - y a« ° c L . L 't3 'In vE a o.m C 0 II II II s - 30 y W m �p as G E i0 1 a y mo b E C C o + oa O b tc LL - _ p 9 N R� U'C L o a L _ ran C_ yp�i� .L.. 22 1Y O Z a 3 x�, `o c ry tma3 ° o n a LU E� orn 3c mm a =yac o n m m .a a aL mw is O oao ¢SS'LLDf'u� ° a ¢8R'az,�e CO E mva+wn c� °cm�.oz °pciQo�= eE cw2.opo m o m m m�¢ 4 u�ma " 2rnw v Ld CO i a Er O o� ti y d V C = � U o -° m of a S o m �yi ct E° a ro Q m u_ a E j S pl V C R 6 L e v a 'u Z n 2 m io m 7 w on' m e U c �. m •- a k_ W u m N m � l U ve a 'Q a � n a a m m m 2. o L m c U aN ?: ate• : �rn�a w E n ro a w <n moLL N m mO n L w� a L m� y:tl E �cin `o Z < <?<Z 5 a��si o - - (7 E a m O N v (If a K n 7.Q Q) as a u 'o 11 cJ c+i a (L 7 L m v `w m S9r wm z z d R 3mo 2 a° m F� m T3 c$ 10 lw - m .¢ #' U) -ci mo wm . L m in m rn Loit 3 .E a a m w n C O O L lL 7 b N G R ry N � N G o = I U n O a - �. - w m d a - O W w m Z� 0 = c a 3 cE m c vi -p pyn m O �,�� G Y° : `'. y5 .4� . SQL O Z 7 pa=p U qn cn o li v r"n :a c 'ao V 2 - N m v p m i1v -� Oa m. _ .= u �' .= v). .€ 2 a' � as S IK a`m i9 eu ti - o a Pi of a IL r` Case No. Attachment C ZAl2 -058 Page 20 Case No. Attachment C ZAl2 -058 Page 21 X R E ii v o E L 12 . w. 3 Q S N O d a0 > to M Y b a ' w °' 3 ° m E E2 m d. ya ��w�q coo a O p C7 7 NY NL R y — w o J N ` p CL . o y o O Q' U d m y a Y m o j O y ern J p N p 2X M N m� N on E2 3 Gl @ CO a m 5 � � ~O 0 C6 R _025 0 C a `92 2 d N E� x = a 14 3 3 � m e°5' rn E E a M EO w Y�1 �] t0 tri (J C _ __ N U = m m Z Q '] N R N C '2� a H G 1 O m N ... E O E o Q + to L t V O a: ¢ a E O R °' a� O 1= x oo°E U _ If O L 3 O C R 12 C7 Q L.. N o rs� CL ° } �O � �aRN uj o d SJ3 L V N R [ii d � Q Case No. Attachment C ZAl2 -058 Page 21 Q SPIN MEETING REPORT CASE NO. PROJECT NAME: SPIN DISTRICT: MEETING DATE: MEETING LOCATION: ZAl2 -058 & ZAl2 -059 South Village at Watermere SPIN #11 July 9, 2012; 7 :00 PM 1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX Training Rooms 3A — 3B TOTAL ATTENDANCE: Sixteen (18) • SPIN REPRESENTATIVE(S) PRESENT: Monique Schill - #11 • APPLICANT(S) PRESENT: Scott and Rick Simmons, Southlake Watermark Holdings, L.P.; Larry Dilzell, Darling Homes • STAFF PRESENT: Lorrie Fletcher, Planner I STAFF CONTACT: Daniel Cortez, Planner I, (817)748 -8070; dcortez(cDci. south lake. tx.us EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Property Situation • The property is located on the north side of Union Church Road and east of Pearson Lane with western property line abutting Chesapeake Place addition. Development Details • The applicant is proposing a site plan and zoning changes to the South Village at Watermere that if approved, would result in thirty -two (32) gated age - restricted single family residential lots along the east side of Watermere Drive and thirty -eight (38) non- age restricted single family residential lots along the west side of Watermere Drive. • The main change to the concept plan from the previous plan considered earlier this year is the replacement of seven (7) four -plex buildings (28 units) with seventeen (17) age - restricted single family lots /homes. The following exhibits were distributed during the meeting: Case No. Attachment C ZAl2 -058 Page 22 QUESTIONS 1 CONCERNS • Are these single story homes? Some will be single story and some 1 '/a story: zero lot fines • How are you getting lower density and what are villas? Our plan is going from twenty -eight (281 dwelling units to seventeen (17) dwelling units. The four - plexes %were described as villas: these new single family homes are described as cottages. The cottages will be limited in size; from 2500 to 3700 square feet. • Is this a change for the west side? No.. it is the same as when presented six (6) , ,veeks ago. o But changed from the original plan? Yes, the age restriction was removed due to the housing needs changing- • Are there any non -age restricted homes presently? Case No. Attachment C ZAl2 -058 Page 23 o No The City used to be very concerned about high density. Is this still a concern? o All of our lots are the same size or larger. We have a lot invested in this project; the goal is in keeping up with an active adult community. The target for the west side is towards empty nesters not families. Not many young families will want a two or three bedroom home with small square footage as well as Keller school district when they could spend the same amount of money (500 -900K) for a larger home outside of this development. • You talked about zero lot lines, what are the setbacks? o The front and rear yards will be 20 feet and there will be approximately 14 feet between the homes which provides room for a patio, garden or nice yard area. • Have you considered expanding your market by building something more affordable? o No, we don't think they want that here. Is the east side gated? o Yes • Will the age restriction for that portion lift off in the future? o No • Will the west side have a separate HOA? o Yes • 5o what is the total density? • South village is going from 82 units to 71 units • The east side was "unknown" at the time the west side came in; we currently have approval for the seven (7) four - plexes. Then we made the decision to lift the age restriction on the west side and propose single family cottages on the east side. Once this goes through the process, we are done... this is it. • When would you begin construction? o Immediately What type fencing? • We plan for a six (6) foot stone wall along Union Church • No wood fencing • All wrought iron on the east side • A two (2) foot wall along Watermere Drive which is consistent with the existing wall We are worried about this setting a precedent o Nothing is changing in lot size by removing the age restriction. No one in this room should be worried about this project. We have more to lose than anyone. Will you be putting speed bumps on Watermere Drive? We are worried about cut - through traffic. o There will be a stop sign and a lowered speed limit SPIN Meeting Retorts 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 C ZAl2 -058 Page 24 DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZAl2 -058 Review No.: Two Date of Review: 07/09/12 Project Name: South Village at Watermere APPLICANT: Southlake Watermark Holdings, LP Richard Simmons 3110 E. Southlake Blvd., Ste. 120 Southlake, TX 76092 Phone: (817) 742 -1851 Fax: ENGINEER: Burgess & Niple Joseph Reue 10701 Corporate Dr., Ste. 290 Stafford, TX 77477 Phone: (281) 980 -7705 Fax: CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 04/16/12 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT DANIEL CORTEZ AT (817) 748 -8070 or dcortez(a�ci.southlake.tx.us Informational Comments Street widths must meet minimum fire safety and emergency access standards. Permissible on- street parking will be dependent upon ultimate street width. Please contact the City's Fire Marshall pertaining to any on street parking requirements. The applicant should be aware that another Parks & Recreation Board Meeting may need to be held for the change in number of dwelling units from 54 to 71. Contact Kari Happold in Community Services at (817) 748 -8018 for further information. No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan. A separate building permit is required prior to construction of any signs. All mechanical equipment must be screened of view right -of -ways and residential properties in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended. All lighting must comply with the Lighting Ordinance No. 693, as amended. All development must comply with the Drainage Ordinance No. 605 and the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance No. 946, as amended. 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 D ZAl2 -058 Page 1 Surrounding Property Owners South Village at Watermere FR 29 25 26 22 34 -130 21 20 24 19 R�4 18 IE 15 FT 14 23 13 28 32 12 27 11 10 31 30 9 8 131 SPO # Owner Zoning Land Use Acreage Response 1. Burroughs, Steve Etux Rachael RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.37 NR 2. Miller, Howard W Etux Cherri RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.33 NR 3. Cammarata, Patrick R RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.33 NR 4. Rodriguez, Laurie J RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.37 NR 5. Song, Chi C RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.35 NR 6. Beathard, David W Etux Judy RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.40 NR 7. Dickens, Jason D Etux Adrienne RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.46 NR 8. Parrish, Jeff Etux Julie Ann RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.44 NR 9. Lee, Bob EtuxJane Ho RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.40 NR 10. Suydam, Ryck D Etux Brenda RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.37 O 11. Schnacke, Alan R Etux Michelle RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.37 NR 12. Kuelbs, Leo G RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.37 NR 13. Phillips, David W Etux Yolanda RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.37 NR 14. Jankowski, Ronald & Durell RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.38 NR 15. Heath, Kevin A & Meagan Heath RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.58 NR 16. McDowell, Carl L RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.41 NR 17. Derry, Jason Etux Alicia RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.37 NR 18. Follis, Mark A RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.47 NR 19. Behrens, Jay A Etux Deborah J RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.45 NR 20. Barnes, Reginald K Etux E RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.47 NR 21. Altay, Tayfun RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.55 NR 22. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential 3.65 NR 23. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential 1.70 NR 24. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential 14.90 NR Case No. Attachment E ZAl2 -058 Page 1 SPO # Owner Zoning Land Use Acreage Response 25. Lee, Jane S Etvir James AG Medium Density Residential 1.94 NR 26. Lee, Jane S Etvir James AG Medium Density Residential 1.99 NR 27. Keller Watermere Lp RPUD Medium Density Residential 10.07 NR 28. Keller Watermere Lp RPUD Medium Density Residential 20.39 NR 29. Schaefer, Paul J AG Medium Density Residential 4.33 NR 30. Mortazavi, Joseph Etux Kimiela AG Medium Density Residential 3.45 O 31. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp RPUD Medium Density Residential 2.06 NR 32. Mortazavi, Joseph A & Kimiela AG Medium Density Residential 2.73 O 33. Mortazavi, Joseph A & Kimiela AG Medium Density Residential 0.36 O 34. Smyth, Henry C Etux Monica SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 35. Crosser, Larry Etux Karen SP2 Medium Density Residential NR 36. Woodard, Carl D & Ruby K SP2 Medium Density Residential NR 37. Herdman, Arnold Etux Louise SP2 Medium Density Residential - F 38. Roberts, David Etux Sheryl SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 39. Jones, Don L & Dorothy H SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 40. Twining, John D & Lynn SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 41. Sisco, William T Etux Mary E SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 42. Bonner, Michael E & Janet K SP2 Medium Density Residential - O 43. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 44. Johnston, Richard Etux Matalyn SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 45. Wilson, Dwight L Etux Barbara SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 46. Feazell, Samuel Etux Pamela SP2 Medium Density Residential - F 47. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 48. Wilson, Helen Z SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 49. Standbridge, Peter T & Jean S SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 50. Rattarree, Lloyd W Jr Etux G G SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 51. Holley, Shirley C SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 52. Brian, Adrian Etal SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 53. Wileman, Walter Etux Mary SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 54. Pendley, J Evelyn SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 55. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 56. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 57. Ger /Dar Llc SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 58. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 59. Schmidt, R M SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 60. Parr, Jay C & Margene SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 61. Schultz, Blanche SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 62. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 63. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 64. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 65. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 66. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 67. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 68. Irby, Earline D SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 69. Katen, Luella M Trust SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 70. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 71. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 72. Brown Living Trust SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 73. Goad, Doris J SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 74. Miller, Jimmie P Etux Rosamond SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 75. Larson, Alice M SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 76. Frame, Lucile SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR Case No. Attachment E ZAl2 -058 Page 2 SPO # Owner Zoning Land Use Acreage Response 77. Hottenstein, Mary Jo SP2 Medium Density Residential NR 78. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential NR 79. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential NR 80. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential NR 81. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential NR 82. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential NR 83. Robertson, Lula Marie SP2 Medium Density Residential NR 84. Mullelly, Virginia M SP2 Medium Density Residential NR 85. Flynn, Joan E Tr SP2 Medium Density Residential - F 86. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 87. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 88. Miller, Fred J Jr Etux Betty SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 89. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 90. Johnson, Gladys M SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 91. Hubbs, Patricia Lee SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 92. Elm, Mary Jo SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 93. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 94. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 95. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 96. Smith, Royal D SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 97. Fera, Anthony S Etal SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 98. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 99. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 100. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 101. Thomas, William G SP2 Medium Density Residential - F 102. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 103. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 104. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 105. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 106. Morris, Peggy Lee SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 107. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 108. Cary, Lois SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 109. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 110. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 111. Ferney, Stephen J & Sandra F SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 112. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 113. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 114. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 115. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 116. Smith, Eleanor SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 117. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 118. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 119. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 120. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 121. Edwards, John III & Barbara SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 122. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 123. Jeffery, Keith A & Stella Tr SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 124. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 125. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 126. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 127. Southlake Watermark Holdings L SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR 128. Keene, Leona C SP2 Medium Density Residential - NR Case No. Attachment E ZAl2 -058 Page 3 SPO # Owner Zoning Land Use Acreage Response 129. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential NR 130. Southlake Watermark Holding Lp SP2 Medium Density Residential NR 131. City of Keller NR Responses: F: In Favor O: Opposed U: Undecided NR: No Response Notices Sent: Responses Received: Case No. ZAl2 -058 Seventy -Five (75) Seven (7) Attachment E Page 4 Surrounding Property Owner Responses Jul 1712 09:59a Banner r3 - r r .'4a 1 • ;Da 9.'7 Notification Response Form ZAl2 -068 Meeting Date: July 19, 2012 at 6.30 PM Donner, Michael E & Janet K. 316 Wawnxnere Dr 5outhlake Tx, 76092 P./ PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAID, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Beim the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of ppsed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Zoning Change and Development Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Additional Signature: Printed Must be property owner(s) whose rarre(s). are printed at tour. 01hervuise contact the Planning Date: Date: One form per property. Phone Number (optional). 9 ) 7 V - f, 572/,. Case No. ZAl2 -058 Attachment F Page 1 07/11 Notification Response Form ZAl2 -0 Meeting Date: July 19, 2012 at 6:30 PM Suydam, Ryck D Etux (Brenda 545 Chesapeake Ln. Southlake Tx, 76992 71840 2 3 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA. MAIL, FAX OR HAND( DELIVERY` - BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the Property so noted above, are hereby in factor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Zoning Change and Development Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position. 1 Q� C7wr 4 �` t t1 G'� i 1 -tAyl S o e-.rf w v \ we Lk _ c e S Co F1 SLC ��t ! snS� �`IC tares �"3C V @l t t fad n04 a r e S � fie.• �nouLCx �'] C ^ti E S 4 u2 V 0 nA Signature: [date: Additional Signature: Date: li L, L Printed Name(s):'6Tev1 cC +� ..� -k. 4a Must be property nuuner(s) whom names ) are prirrterl at top, envise contact the Planning D rtment. one form er r � P properly, Phone Number (optional): 1 i-7 - 3 L j. (, 091 Case No. Attachment F ZAl2 -058 Page 2 LAW OFFICES of BRADLEY LUCE BRADLEY A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP 1756 MAIN STREET . SUITE 252 SD1 THLAKE, TEXAS 76092 W.A. (BRAD) BRADLEY' • Also Adrrittcd to Practice in California and Massachusetts • Fellow of The College of the State Bar of Texas • Attorney — Mediator July 30, 2012 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL 7011 0470 0001 1023 9130 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED; and, VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION TO (817) 748 -8010; and VIA E-MAIL TO SYELVERTON CI.SOUTHLAKE.TX.US Ms. Shana K. Yelverton, City Manager City of Southlake 1400 Main Street, Ste. 460 Southlake, TX 76092 t8 1 7) 488 -UD45 Direct Dial Extensiom19 PAX t8 1 71 481 -5430 E- MAIL: BRADLEY557@AOL.COM Re: Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Mortazavi, 2651 Union Church Road, Southlake, TX 76092; and, Keller Wateremere, L.P. and Southlake Watermark Holdings, L.P., 3110 W. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120, Southlake, TX 76092 (collectively referred to herein as "Watermere '} Dear Ms. Yelverton: As you know, I have been retained by Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Mortazavi to represent their interests in regard to the matters contained herein. A quick review of your file in this case will no doubt refresh your memory concerning the controversy between my clients and Watermare that has been simmering since 2007. For your information, and to reiterate my clients' claims, l have enclosed copies of my letters to you dated September, 17, 2007 and December 3, 2007. By way of update I have also enclosed copies of Mr. Mortazavi's letter to City of Southlake Planning & Development Services dated July 16, 2012 and his letter to me rated July 25, 2012. I understand Case ZA -12 -058, in which Watermere requests the City's approval of a Zoning Change and Development Plan from "R -PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District to "TZD" Transition Zoning District, will be considered by the City Council on August 7, 2012. Case No. Attachment F ZAl2 -058 Page 3 Ms. Shana Yelverton July 30, 2012 Page 2 Due to the continuing flow of damage producing water on to my clients' property and the similarly continuous flow of un -kept promises from Wat ere my clients have been forced into a position that necessitates that they seek imm ate injunctive relief and a ultimate judicial resolution in this matter. I hope that you will pass along these concei and to Watermere as well. Thank you in advance matter. Should you have any questions pleased t hearing from you soon. BK131cac enclosures appropriate public officials iticipated cooperation in this to call me. I look forward to cc: Mayor John Terrell City of Southlake 1400 Main Street, Ste. 460 Southlake, TX 76092 Via E -mail Transmission to mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us and iterrell(a_) dfwairport.com VIA CERTIFIED MAIL 7011 0470 0001 1.023 9147 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. Richard E. Simmons Southlake Watermere Holdings, L.P. 3110 E. Southlake Blvd., Ste. 120 Southlake, TX 76092 and VIA E -Mail Transmission to richardesimmons@integratedreg.co rn Mr. & Mrs. Joseph. Mortazavi 2651 Union Church Road Southlake, TX 76092 Case No. Attachment F ZAl2 -058 Page 4 LAW OFFICES OF B RADLEY L UCE B RADLEY A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP 1256 MAIN STREET - SUITE 252 SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS 76092 W.A. (BRAD) BRAD4EY- Also Admitted to Practice in i8 1 71 488 -8648 Califnrnla and Massachusetts Direct dial 1:xCEnSivlls 19 • Feitvw of The College of the State Bar of Trxac FAX 18 1 7Y 481.5230 ' Attu tncp— fvSe$i8[Oi EMAIL: 8RAC1LE�'857 A10L.COM December 3, 2007 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL 7003 0220 0000 8390 2271 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Ms. Shana Yelverton, City Manager City of Southlake 1400 Main Street Southlake, TX 76092 Re: Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Mortazavi, 2651 Union Church Road, Southlake, TY 76092 and Feller Watermere, L.P. and Southlake Watermark Holdings, L.P. 3110 W. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120, Southlake, TX 76092 (collectively referred to herein as "Watermere" ). Dear Ms. Yelverton: As you know, I have been retained by the Mortzavi's to represent their interests in regard to the matters contained herein. Mr. & Mrs. Mortazavi have asked that I reiterate the concerns expressed in my September 27, 2007 letter to you in which I indicated that my clients were experiencing sufficient flooding caused by the development of the Watermere project to the north of their property. Since that tirne, we have met with Mr. Richard Simmons of Waterrnere on two separate occasions in an effort to find a mutually satisfactory resolution to this problem. No solution has been found. The Mortazavi's believe that Watermere is currently in violation of X111.086 of the Texas Water Code in that it has diverted the natural flow of surface water in a manner that has, and continues to, damage my client's property by the overflow of the water so diverted. Mr. & Mrs. Mortazavi further believe that Watermete has not complied with §5.01 A of Southlake Ordinance No. 605 in that it has failed to design on -site improvements sufficient to handle all storm drainage flowing on its property. The Mortazavi's wish me to again relay their concern that if Watertnere is permitted to develop, as currently planned, their property will suffer catastrophic water damage at some point in the future. Case No. Attachment F ZAl2 -058 Page 5 Ms. Shana Yelvexton December. 3, 2007 Page 2 Please convey the Mortazavi's concerns to yo r M or, Council and appropriate city departments and advise me of Southlake's position this atter at your earliest convenience. Thank you in advance for your anticipated coop tion, .look forward to hearing from you soon_ 1 yours, BICB f cac CC! Addressee via Regular Mail VIA CERTIFIED MAIL 7007 0220 0000 83 0 2288 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. Richard Simmons 3110 w. Southlake Blvd., Ste. 120 Southlake, TX 76092 Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Mortazavi 2651 Union Church Road Southlake, TX 76092 Case No. Attachment F ZAl2 -058 Page 6 September 17, 2007 14AND DELIVERED Ms. Shana Yelverton, City Manager City of Southlake 1400 Main Street Southlake, Texas 76092 Re: Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Mortazavi. 2651 Union Church Road, Southlake, Texas Dear Ms. Yelverton: I want to take this opportunity to thank you and Mr. Allen Taylor for taking titne on Frday afternoon to meet with me and my clients, Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Mortazavi, to discuss their ongoing drainage problems. As we explained to you, m clients own a nursery located on Union Church Road, which adjoins the Watermere project on its south side. The Mortazavi's ate currently experiencing signi.5cant drainage problems which they suspect are the result of Watermere and they feat that they will suffer catastrophic damage in the future if Watermerre's owners fail to address their concerns in their development plans. Mx. Moxtazavi has attempted to contact Mr. Richard Simmons to discuss this situation without success. At the suggestion of you and Mr. Taylor I called Mr. Simons on Friday to schedule a meeting on this matter. I was not successful in speaking to Mr. Simmons but I did leave a voice message requesting a conference at his earliest convenience. Please convey my clienes concerns to your Mayor and Council prior to Tuesday's Council Meeting. Thank you for your kind assistance in this matter. I look forward to working with you to find a resolution. Case No. Attachment F ZAl2 -058 Page 7 M5, Shana Yelverton September 17, 2007 Page 2 Very tl* pours, Brad Bradley BI<B /cac cc: Addresses via Regular Mail VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, 7003 1680 0000 4859 0184 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. Richard Simmons 3110 W. Soudilake Blvd. Southlake, Tai 76092 (arid via Regular Mail) Mir. & Mrs. Joseph Mortazavi 2651 Union Church Road Southlake, Texas 76092 Case No. Attachment F ZAl2 -058 Page 8 July 16, 2012 Joseph & Kimiela Mortaxavi 2499 Union Church Road Keller, TX 76248 City of Southlake Planning & Development Services 1400 Main Street, Suite 310 Southlake, TX 76U92 Dcar P & Z Commission Board Members and fellow Southlake residents This letter serves as written communication of our adamant opposition to any and all of the proposed changes to the current zoning and concept plans for Watermere at Southlake (referred to in Public Hearing Notice ZAl2 -059) and for South Village at Watermere (referred to in Public Hearing Notice ZAl2 -058). We must take this position because of the developer's history of noncompliance with the current concept plans and failure to honor commitments made to us as bordering property owners which is further compounded by the City of Southlake's slow response and ineffectual enforcement of compliance issues related to the Watermere development. The most recent example of this began again in May. We noticed that trucks were once again dumping fill dirt along our west boundary with the Watermere development. We called the City of Southlake and informed them of the activity. We were told an earth disturbance permit had not been issued and that the matter would be looked into promptly. The next week the fill dirt was spread by bobcat machinery. Once that dirt was spread trucks began to bring more fill dirt to the site. Can May 15 we took a couple of pictures of the site with the new stacks of dumped soil_ We once again called the City of Southlake and were more insistent that an inspector come to the site. Mr. Paul Ward came to the site and posted a "Work Stoppage" notice. Mr. Ward notified us a day or two later that he had spoken with the developers and that they indicated that they knew nothing about the soil being dumped there and claimed it was a case of illegal dumping. We indicated our skepticism of this explanation because machinery had been brought in and the first truckloads of soil were spread and graded. The trucks did, however, stop so we did not pursue the issue and left the matter to the City of Southlake to resolve- Today trucks began dumping fill dirt in the same area again. We contacted the City of Southlake and informed them that the activity had resumed. Mr. Ward then contacted the Watermere developers. He called us back and stated that the Watermere developers now claimed the work they were doing was completion of prior work covered in the concept plan. Mr. Wade also stated we would like whatthey were doing because the lots would eventually be graded to drain into the Watermere Lake. We reminded Mr. Wade of the prior claim made in May that the work was done without Case No. Attachment F ZAl2 -058 Page 9 the Watermere developers' knowledge or permission. We also pointed out that, according to the concept plan, there was supposed to be a 20 foot buffer yard between our property and the development which was not being observed. Furthermore, the land on the Watermere property was lower than our property when the development first began —it now is as high as or higher than the top of our 4' cyclone fence. The property stretching from the Chesapeake subdivision to our property line is now 4' -6' higher than it was prior to the beginning of construction. [wring the original P & 2 hearings, -one of the commitments made by both Watermere engineers and 5outhlake City engineers to the surrounding property owners was that the drainage issues would be adequately addressed. It was claimed that not only would the development not add to drainage problems, but it would correct existing issues. At that time runoff did not drain through our property from the north or west property line, but did track up from the creek across Union Church Road on the south side of our property during very heavy rains. Now almost every substantial rain results in flooding in our greenhouses and outside production areas from the north and west property lines. This has severely impacted our business in the spring — our busiest season. We have sustained crop damage during heavy rains. There were times this spring when our back greenhouses could only be entered wearing knee -high boots. We were assured this would not happen. Now we are being told that all this added fill dirt will not aggravate this problem and, indeed, asked to believe that this new grading will lessen or even eliminate it. We fail to understand how being placed inside what can literally be described as a large bowl can alleviate the drainage problems this development has caused to our property. This should not have been allowed to happen. We have no idea what these requested zoning and concept plan changes are the prelude for — but prior experience has taught us to be cautious. We have been treated in the past like unreasonable individuals for requesting what should have been minimally offered in the situation. Our business has been negatively impacted by this development. Our property has been de- valued. We realize that because of our location directly to the south of this development we are probably the most negatively affected of all the surrounding property owners. The other property owners that would have suffered these effects were bought out by the Watermere developers. That does not lessen the responsibility of the city engineers to protect our rights as property owners; nor, does it lessen Watermere °s obligation to behave responsibly. We are not against progress. We, tike all our neighbors, want to see our part of Southlake grow and prosper. Over the years we have worked hard to share in that vision of growth. We oppose this because we see it as a significant impedirnerit to our business. Joseph & Kimiela Mortazavi Property Owners 2499 Union Church Road Case No. Attachment F ZAl2 -058 Page 10 July 25, 2012 Joseph Mortazavi 2499 Union Church Road Keller, TX 75248 Brae! Bradley Law Offices of Bradley Luce Atkerson 1256 Main Street Suite 252 Southlake, TX 76092 Dear Mr. Bradley This letter is written as per your assistant's request to outline the events that have transpired since my last meetings in your law office with you, the Southlake City mayor and lawyer, Southlake City engineer Gordon Mayer, and Mr. Richard Simmons of the Watermere development. Subsequent to the last meeting in which Mr. Richard Simmons refused to sign the document drawn up by your law firm, I had a conversation with him in which he stated he would appropriately address the drainage issues in question. He assured me there was no need to involve lawyers further and that he would do the right thing. As you know, Southlake City officials also assured us that they would monitor adherence to drainage plans and that these plans would improve, not increase, these drainage issues. I, thus, did not pursue my objections to this project. When the Watermere developers began construction work to the north of my property line, I suddenly had a large amount of water being discharged onto my property. There had been no rain, but my whole property, including houses and greenhouses, was flooded. I believe the Couch property to the east of me experienced the same problem to a lesser degree. I notified the City of Southlake. I believe Mr. Couch did also. A Southlake City official and the Watermere property supervisor at the time came to investigate the problem. The Watermere supervisor apologized and stated that one of the construction workers had mistakenly pumped water toward our property that was supposed to be directed into the Watermere Lake. He also stated that the project plan was to run a culvert from east to west along the south side of their property line that would drain the lots to the north of our property and empty into Watermere Lake. Again, based on these assurances, I cleaned up the mess created and did not pursue further action. As the project construction work continued, Watermere developers began to dump large amounts of soil along their east property line which bordered my property and began a gradual Case No. Attachment F ZAl2 -058 Page 11 buildup of their elevation -5`to 6' higher than previously in some areas. I called the City of Southlake and city engineer Mr. Gordon Mayer came to investigate this time. He validated that the engineering plans called for a 20' buffer yard between my property line and the Watermere elevation. He asked me to be patient and assured me that as construction progressed, the Watermere developers would do appropriate grading and drainage work that would ensure that most of the water flow from the Watermere development would be directed into Watermere Lake. He also indicated that Watermere developers would ensure that water flow along my west side of our mutual property boundary would be directed from north to south —not east onto my property. Prior to the Simmons' acquisition, the Watermere development was owned by Owens' Properties who purchased the property to the immediate north and west of my property. The property to my west, leased to Greg Delgado at the time, had an existing house, horse barn, gazebo, and small riding arena. As soon as the Simmons acquired the property Mr. Delgado started dumping many loads of soil and diverting the water toward my property. When I confronted him regarding the matter, he said that Watermere's new owners had given him permission to divert the water to the east corner of the property and then they would complete the drainage work. I have pictures that illustrate the land elevations prior to both the Owens' and the Simmons' acquisition of the Watermere property. These pictures repudiate the claims made by the Simmons and their engineers that this property naturally had a higher elevation than my property. They also document the fact that the Simmons' Watermere developers have significantly raised their property elevations in the preceding years. Over the past four to five years the Watermere development work has resulted in intermittent flooding of my property; but I have tried to do as asked and be patient in the belief that the Watermere developers would eventually do as they claimed they would and address the water being diverted from their land onto mine. The flooding has been so bad that in December 2012 1 demolished one of the houses on my property because water consistently ran underneath the house causing damage and rendering the septic system inoperable. I have another building on the west side of my property that is basically unusable because the septic system no longer functions properly and water stands underneath the home and in the driveway when it rains. At this juncture, I refer you to my letter to the City of Southlake Planning & Zoning Commission dated July 16, 2012 which details the negative impact this development has had on my business and to the value of my property. This letter was submitted for the board's review in reference to the Watermere development's request for zoning and concept plan changes being considered for approval by the board on July 19, 2012. As per the previously cited letter, soil dumping along my west property line was reinitiated in May 2012. It stopped for approximately a month and a half after a work stoppage notice was issued by the City of Southlake_ It resumed in mid -July, this time with an earth disturbance permit posted with an expiration date of December 2 012. When we contacted the City of South lake, they in turn referred the issue to the Watermere developers. Scott Simmons came to the dumping site. I talked to him and we walked along our mutual property boundary lines. I Case No. Attachment F ZAl2 -058 Page 12 pointed out my concerns and the damage my property was sustaining. Several remedies were discussed during this conversation, such as, using the 20' easement along their east property line to divert their water flow toward Watermere Lake by way of a culvert or fixing a rock lined drain in this easement to channel the water south toward Union Church's existing drainage system.. Scott said he would consult with his brother Richard Simmons regarding the matter and get back with me. I next saw the Simmons brothers at the City of Southlake town hall at the Planning & Zoning meeting on July 19` At the meeting, my wife and I expressed our concerns and presented some pictures indicative of the property elevation buildup during the open hearing portion for the requested changes in zoning and concept plan for the Watermere development. The Simmons did not address our concerns until the open hearing portion of the meeting was closed. They were then asked by one of the board members to speak to our concerns. Mr. Richard Simmons then stated that this was an old issue that was being rehashed. He stated that plans were already approved and required no changes. One of the commission board members made the statement that he could not believe the City of 5outhlake had approved for the property elevation to be raised as much as it had been without consideration given to the consequences to the bordering property. Mr. Richard Simmons' statements included comments such as he couldn't make water run up hill and the Mortazavis wanted him to solve their property`s drainage problems. He also stated that his brother would like to build a retaining wall along our mutual property line and grade their eastern lots toward Watermere Lake, but that Mr. Mortazavi would not agree to this. This has never been presented to me as an option. Mr. Simmons quickly backed away from this idea when the board starting asking questions about possible implementation of this plan. Mr. Simmons also claimed their project, according to their engineers, had overall decreased water fiowto our property by a certain percentage. I don't recall the exact percentage he claimed, but the statement is entirely false regardless of the percentage he quoted. When I tried to rebuttal Mr. Simmons' statements I was informed that 1 could no longer comment because the open hearing was closed at this point. Another board member did make the comment that he dial not hear us asking that our property be drained, only a request to stop the development's drainage onto our property. The zoning and concept changes were approved with only one against vote. After the P &Z meeting closed, I talked to the board members and was told that the next meeting regarding the project was a city council meeting in August (I believe the date was the 9` but am not positive). I have presented the events since our last meetings in as much detail as possible in this letter. I believe this should bring you up to date. If you have questions regarding any item in this letter, please contact me at the 817.703.5430. Joseph Mortazavi 2499 Union Church Road Case No. Attachment F ZAl2 -058 Page 13 324 Waterrnere Drive Southlake, TX 76092 July 17, 2012 Planning & Development Services City of Southlake 1400 Main Street, Suite 310 Southlake, TX 76092 Re: Zoning Changes and Development Plains ZAl2 -058 and ZAl2 -059 Ladies and Centleme% We are writing to herein express our unqualified and enthusiastic support for the above - cited Zoning Changes and Development Plans for the South Village at Watermem and for Watermere- at- Souddake respectively. We have lived at Waturmcm- at- Southlake since January 1, 2009, and have thoroughly enjoyed tieing residents of this growing community and the City of Southlake.. The proposed zoning changes and development plains now before you are in keeping with the plans we have always understood and expected for the continued growth and development of Waterme.re -at Southlake. We also want to share with you how very much we value and appreciatc the interest and support the developers of Watermere-ax- Southlake have consistently devoted to the well- being of this community and to the City of Southlake. We sincerely hope the Planning and Zoning Commission will act to approve both of the above -cited Zoning Changes and Development Flans. Tbank you for your time and favorable consideration. Respectfully, Sara and Pam Feazell Case No. Attachment F ZAl2 -058 Page 14 Notification Response Form ZAl2 -058 Meeting [Mite: July 19, 2012 at 6:30 PM Flynn, Joan € fir 301 Watermere Dr Apt 301 Southlake Tx, 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FARMS VIA, FAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Zoning Change and Development Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Additional Signature: Date: 6 Date: Printed Name(s): Must be property owner(s) whose name(s) are printed at top. Otherwise contact the Planning Department. One form per property. Phone dumber (optional): Case No. Attachment F ZAl2 -058 Page 15 Notification Response Form ZAl2 -058 Meeting Date: July 19, 2012 at 6:50 PM Herdman, oulse 306 Waterrnere Dr Southlake Tx, 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Zoning Change and Development Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Additional Signature: Date: Date: Printed Name(s): Must be property owner(s) whose name(s) are printed at top. Otherwise contact the Planning Department. One farm per property. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment F ZAl2 -058 Page 16 -° Notification Response Form ZAl2 -058 Meeting Date: July 19, 2012 at 6:30 PM Thomas, William G 301 Watermere Dr Unit 317 Southlake Tx, 7$092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Zoning Change and Development Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Additional Signature: Date: + r PM Printed Name(s): 0, r_, o% Must be property owner(s) whose name (s) are printed at top. Otherwise contact the Planning Department. One form per property- Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment F ZAl2 -058 Page 17