Loading...
Items 6A & 6B3/5J13 Ci.southlale.bcus Mail - Fwd: Saxennan Variance Issues SOUTFILAKE Fwd: Savannan Variance Issues (�14 /�08 Ken Baker <kbaker@ci.southlake.tx.us> Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:02 PM To: Alicia Richardson<adchardson@ci.southiake.tx.us>, Holly Blake <hblake@ci.southiake.tx.us>, Matt Jones <mjones@ci.southlake.tx.us> Can you include in the packet or forward to City Council? Thanks. Ken. Forwarded message From: Philip Wise Date: Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:58 PM Subject: Savannan Variance Issues Cc: Anne Wise Hi Ken, Please find Anne and my comments on the variance request for Savannah Estates. For the record, we are not in favor of granting the variance. Density Our primary issue is the density, which translates into more traffic on Dove Road in front of our house. While it is our understanding Dove Road might someday need to be widened, this need is driven by the traffic load on the road. The high density of the proposed edition hastens the need to widen Dove, which is not something we wish. Roundabout While we agree the roundabout is necessary, even without the density this editon would bring, we do not agree that monies from the developer should be used to facilitate the building of the roundabout. When asked directly by a zoning board member about reducing the number of lots and adding on the total revenue lost from lots to the cost of the remaining lots, the developer stated he could not afford to do it, in addition to the many other concessions he was making to the city and some of the affected other residents within the 200' range of the edition. This is an important point, considering we believe he is hampered by costs that should not be his to carry. We believe the burden of cost for the turnabout should be bom 100% by the city, not by the developer. These costs being carried by him are substantial, with the purchase of property on the northwest comer of Dove and Sam School, the agreements to add additional driveways to the two lots south of Dove across from each other on Peytomille, and the restriction to the house across from those two Peytonville lots to one story buildings. All of these things cost money that he could use to make his development less dense. All of these things, except the one story house requirement, should be paid for by the City, not the developer. Buying Votes httpsJ/mail.google.corrJmail/?ui=2&ilFcc737a625d&Heu&=pt&search=inbcx&th=13d1de66c653b1e5 1/3 3/5/13 Ci.southlale.Wis Mail - Fwd: Smennan Variance Issues W6 are conderned the developer has sought out and bought the lack of objection to the development in at least two cases thfit benefit only those property owners, and not the other affected parties. Specifically, it is our understanding both of the property owners on PeytoniAle just mentioned will receive additional driveways and street joins provided by the developer. It is further our understanding the developer will restrict the houses across Dove from these two house to one story buildings. None of the other affected owners have received this level of commitment from the developer, even though every one of the houses on Dove that actually join the development will be MUCH CLOSER to the houses, none of them have a similar one story deed restriction. We wish that either every property owner that has a sight line to the new houses, either have the same qualified view, either one story houses, or no restriction on them. It does not sit will with us that special consideration is being made to only a couple home owners, those who happen to benefiting the most from the developer, with a direct financial commitment. We are aware of a third agreement between the property east of ours with the developer, but without a signed copy of the agreement, we do not know its details. Possibly there are things in that agreement that cost the developer more money that could be used to offset the density calculations. We look to the city to ensure it's not a cost to the developer while appeasing just one property owner. We are also concerned the city has asked the developer to spend considerable money in exchange for anticipated approvals. These include any and all monies for the roundabout and purchase of a currently non- conforming property on Sam School Road. Timing On the chance the development gets approved, and it includes the roundabout, we'd like to be assured the roundabout is constructed in such timing as it is completed prior to the edition begins to be occupied by new owners. Thanks very much for your time. Philip & Anne Wise 982 W . Dove Rd Kenneth M. Baker, AICP Director of Planning and Development Services City of Southlake 1400 Main Street - Suite 310 Southlake, TX 76092 817-748-8067 Alicia Richardson <aichardson@ci.southlake.tx.us> Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:04 PM To: Ken Baker <kbaker@ci.southlake.tx.us>, Holly Blake <hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us>, Matt Jones <mjones@ci.southlake.tx.us> Ken, httpsJ/mail.google.corrdmail/?ui=2&ik=cc737a62.5d&Aeuw=pt&search=inbox&th=13d1de66c653b1e5 03 3/5/13 Usouthlale.txus Mail - Fwd: Savannah Estates: Done- Peytorndlle Intersection concerns Fwd: Savannah Estates: Dove - Peytonville Intersection Concerns Alicia Richardson <aichardson@ci.southlake.tx.us> Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 3:42 PM To: John Terrell <Mayor-Int@ci.southlake.tx.us> Cc: Ken Baker <kbaker@ci.southlake.tx.us>, Holly Blake <hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us> Please excuse brevity of message or typos ... sent from my Samsung III Thank you, Alicia Richardson Forwarded message From: Date: Mar 4, 2013 2:41 PM Subject: Savannah Estates: Dove - Peytonville Intersection Concerns To: <r-nayora)ci southlake tx us>, <placel(aci.scuthlake.tx_us>, <Dlace2idci.seuthlake tx us>, , ;aka. `s. a >, <� i, .iC,a^n "1_a�- _!'� �� � Cc: Mayor Terrell and Members of the City Council, I am a Southlake resident at 228o N Peytonville (SW Corner of Peytonville and Dove). I have a concern regarding the multi -lane roundabout design that is being discussed for the Peytonville - Dove intersection in conjunction with the planned Savannah Estates development. I am not opposed to the Savannah Estates development itself as I know it brings additional revenue to the City of Southlake. However, I am opposed the traffic design forcing the ioo+ development through one entrance/exit, onto the two lane Sam School Road. When I was considering purchasing my lot several years ago, I asked the city at that time if there were realistic plans on widening Dove or Peytonville in the future. I was told that while there they couldn't say 'never', the rural, tree -lined feel of those streets is something Southlake wants and thus has no plans on widening those roads in the next 15 — 20 years. That rural feel drew me to that area, and the City's answers to my questions, helped me to decide to build my dream home. I asked similar questions about the city's plans on widening the two roads within the past few months and received similar answers. I know that the city does have plans to convert the Peytonville - Dove intersection, along with Sam School Road, into a roundabout in their 2016 budget. With the planned Savannah Estates development, I understand that the City Engineer and the developer are designing the roundabout for earlier development than the original 2016 plan. A roundabout would create safety issues for my family and anyone entering or exiting my driveway as well as those driving on Peytonville. The Developer has been graciously working with me on a solution to address the safety issues for those using my driveway. These changes address the safety issues if the roundabout is single lane. However, I was told that the City Engineer is planning on developing Southlake's first multi -lane roundabout at that intersection. A multi -lane roundabout would create additional safety concerns for my family and others entering or exiting my driveway as the road would be approximately 5 feet from my fence creating a dangerous situation when people pull into my driveway. Additionally, this multi -lane roundabout would seriously decrease the value of my home when the rest of Peytonville and Dove remain two lane roads. https://rnail.goog Ie.corNmail/?ui=2& k=cc737a625d&%iew=pt&search=inbor&th=13d375ad18r419d2 1/3 3/5t13 Ci.southlale.txus Mail - Fwd: Savannah Estates: Dove- Peytonville Intersection Concerns While the City Engineer states that it is to address future traffic growth, I do not believe that traffic at this intersection would be so much worse than the other intersections and roundabouts in Southlake, including the ones at the intersection of Whites Chapel and Continental Blvd where all four corners of that intersection are neighborhoods with a significant number of homes (and thus automobiles) or at the intersection of Continental and Carroll/Brumlow (where Highway 26 essentially feeds into it). If the Peytonville and Dove intersection would be worse than the traffic flow of those intersections, I ask that the city Council review why Savannah Estates is being required to push all traffic in the development through one entrance (Sam School Road) rather than trying to also create an entrance closer to 114 onto Dove Road. A Dove Road entrance would provide quicker access to a major highway and significantly relieving traffic stress at the Dove / Peytonville intersection. Additionally, regardless of how often our police officers try to enforce the speed limits on Dove, there remains a speed issue. A multi -lane roundabout just supports the problem, but having a single -lane roundabout where people know to slow down would actually help our safety issues caused by those regularly exceeding the speed limits down Dove Road I understand once the City widens Peytonville and Dove to four lanes, the round about should be multi- lane also, but right now, one of the key attractions to that area of Southlake (and thus the value to Southlake) is the beauty and feel of a rural, two-lane area. Developing a multi -lane roundabout would detract from that mystic, as well as decrease my home value. I know there are both immediate and long- term costs that the City must consider. To plan for long-term growth, it may make sense to move the utilities to a location that would allow future roundabout expansion, but I am asking the City Council to not approve a multi -lane roundabout for the Peytonville — Dove intersection at this time, and if the City Engineer believes it is necessary for the current Savannah Estates plan, then I ask you to please review their plan to only have a Sam School Road entrance to a >loo home development. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at Sincerely, Jerry Lewis The information transmitted, including any attachments, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited, and all liability arising therefrom is disclaimed. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is a Delaware limited liability partnership. This communication may come from PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP or one of its subsidiaries. Ken Baker <kbaker@ci.southlake.tx.us> To: Holly Blake <hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us> Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:21 PM Forwarded message From: Ken Baker <kbaker@ci.southlake.tx.us> Date: Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 3:55 PM Subject: Fwd: Savannah Estates: Dove - Peytonville Intersection Concerns To: Bob Price <bprice@ci.southlake.tx.us>, Gordon Mayer <gmayer@ci.southlake.tx.us> FYI [Quoted text hidden] htWIrriail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ilrcc737a625d&ie .=pt&search=inbox&th=13d375ad18f419d2 2(3 NOTICE TO WITHDRAWAL OPPOSITION 940 WPRt Dove Rond , T.T.r. Property Owner Name (print) a Delaware limited liability company 940 West Dove Road Address The above property owner requests to withdrawal opposition for the proposed zoning change and development plan of Savannah Estates (ZA12-8$k*-) 03/01/13 Property Owner Signature Date Jermaine O'Neal, Manager Z:\2012\12124\PDF-Submittals\Zoning Development Plan\12124 CEASE OPPOSITION FORM.doc FEB/20/2013/MON 04:20 PM k ti h10, P, 001/001 'Of Address NOTICE TO WITHDRAWAL OPPOSITION The above property owner requeate to u dthdrawal opposition for the proposed atoning change and developmont plan of Sanamah P$t 2-199. dM Prop ne► gnature av#e Z,,\Wj2Wj24APDF4ubM1ttaWbr11ng DMIORMAnt Plan1i2124 LEASE OPPOSMON FORMADC ---------- Forwarded messa e---------- From: Philip Wise Date: Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:58 PM Subject: Savannan Variance Issues To: kbaker@ci.southlake.tx.us Cc: Anne Wise Hi Ken, Please find Anne and my comments on the variance request for Savannah Estates. For the record, we are not in favor of granting the variance. Density Our primary issue is the density, which translates into more traffic on Dove Road in front of our house. While it is our understanding Dove Road might someday need to be widened, this need is driven by the traffic load on the road. The high density of the proposed edition hastens the need to widen Dove, which is not something we wish. Roundabout While we agree the roundabout is necessary, even without the density this editon would bring, we do not agree that monies from the developer should be used to facilitate the building of the roundabout. When asked directly by a zoning board member about reducing the number of lots and adding on the total revenue lost from lots to the cost of the remaining lots, the developer stated he could not afford to do it, in addition to the many other concessions he was making to the city and some of the affected other residents within the 200' range of the edition. This is an important point, considering we believe he is hampered by costs that should not be his to carry. We believe the burden of cost for the turnabout should be born 100% by the city, not by the developer. These costs being carried by him are substantial, with the purchase of property on the northwest corner of Dove and Sam School, the agreements to add additional driveways to the two lots south of Dove across from each other on Peytonville, and the restriction to the house across from those two Peytonville lots to one story buildings. All of these things cost money that he could use to make his development less dense. All of these things, except the one story house requirement, should be paid for by the City, not the developer. Buying Votes We are concerned the developer has sought out and bought the lack of objection to the development in at least two cases that benefit only those property owners, and not the other affected parties. Specifically, it is our understanding both of the property owners on Peytonville just mentioned will receive additional driveways and street joins provided by the developer. It is further our understanding the developer will restrict the houses across Dove from these two house to one story buildings. None of the other affected owners have received this level of commitment from the developer, even though every one of the houses on Dove that actually join the development will be MUCH CLOSER to the houses, none of them have a similar one story deed restriction. We wish that either every property owner that has a sight line to the new houses, either have the same qualified view, either one story houses, or no restriction on them. It does not sit will with us that special consideration is being made to only a couple home owners, those who happen to benefiting the most from the developer, with a direct financial commitment. We are aware of a third agreement between the property east of ours with the developer, but without a signed copy of the agreement, we do not know its details. Possibly there are things in that agreement that cost the developer more money that could be used to offset the density calculations. We look to the city to ensure it's not a cost to the developer while appeasing just one property owner. We are also concerned the city has asked the developer to spend considerable money in exchange for anticipated approvals. These include any and all monies for the roundabout and purchase of a currently non -conforming property on Sam School Road. Timing On the chance the development gets approved, and it includes the roundabout, we'd like to be assured the roundabout is constructed in such timing as it is completed prior to the edition begins to be occupied by new owners. Thanks very much for your time. Philip & Anne Wise 982 W. Dove Rd Kenneth M. Baker, AICP Director of Planning and Development Services City of Southlake 1400 Main Street - Suite 310 Southlake, TX 76092 817-748-8067 FINAL DRAFT 03.04.13 Development Standards Residential Planned Unit Development District Savannah Estates + / - 77.05 Acres I. PURPOSE AND INTENT The purpose and intent of the Residential Planned Unit Development District (RPUD) is to provide for medium density single family uses and open space uses by incorporating specific development standards. II. PERMITTED USES The following uses shall be permitted uses in the RPUD District for Savannah Estates: a. All uses permitted under Section 14.2 of the City of Southlake Zoning Ordinance, "SF-20A Single Family Residential District". III. ACCESSORY USES All accessory uses listed under Section 34 of the City of Southlake Zoning Ordinance for the SF-20A Zoning District shall be authorized as accessory uses in RPUD District IV. SPECIFIC USE PERMITS Specific use permits may be approved by the City Council following a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission as specifically authorized in Section 45 of the City of Southlake Zoning Ordinance, subject to full and complete compliance with any and all conditions required in Section 45, together with any conditions the City Council may impose. Any use accessory to an approved specific use permit shall be permitted without specific approval if it complies with the conditions for an accessory use as defined the City of Southlake Zoning Ordinance. V. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS In this RPUD District , the following development regulations shall be applicable: a. Height: 1. No building or structure shall exceed two and one-half stories, nor shall it exceed thirty-five (35) feet except for those buildings or structures adjacent to the proposed roundabout at Sam School Road/Dove Road/Peytonville Road shall be only one (1) story. More specifically, those lots are numbered as Lot 8-11 of Block C, as shown on the Development Plan. 2. Height will be measured from the finished lot grade to the midpoint of the highest main pitched or hipped roof above. b. Front Yard: There shall be a minimum front yard setback of twenty five (25) feet. c. Side Yard: There shall be a minimum side yard setback of fifteen (15) feet. Corner lots shall also have a minimum side yard setback of fifteen (15) feet. Key lots, or lots that have a side yard along those streets which other lots front onto and are not separated by a block break or street intersection, shall have a minimum side yard setback of twenty five (25) feet. d. Rear Yard: There shall be a minimum rear yard setback of thirty (30) feet. For lots fronting onto a cul-de-sac, there shall be a minimum rear yard setback of twenty five (25) feet. For lots adjacent to existing residential uses in Southlake, the minimum rear yard setback shall be fifty (50) feet. e. Maximum Lot Coverage: All buildings or structures shall have a maximum lot coverage not to exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot area. f. Lot Area: 1. Except as provided, the minimum lot area shall be fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet for all residential lots. The lot area shall also be within ten percent (10%) of the lot area shown on the approved development plan, except as provided in f(3), below, where the lot size may not be reduced. If the lot, area does not meet this criterion, then a zoning change application will be required for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council 2. Except as provided, this shall also apply to lots adjacent to existing residential uses, including those adjacent to the Single Family 1 Acre (SF1A) zoning district. 3. The minimum lot area abutting the twenty -foot (20') tree buffer zone shall be no less than the lot sizes shown on the attached development plan. g. Lot Dimensions: Each residential lot shall have a minimum width of one hundred (100) feet to be measured at the front yard setback line. This shall also apply to lots adjacent to existing residential uses, including those adjacent to the Single Family 1 Acre (SF1A) zoning district. The minimum depth of a residential lot shall be one hundred (100) feet. h. Floor Area: For a single story home, the main residence shall contain a minimum of three thousand (3,000) square feet of floor area. For a two-story home, the main residence shall contain a minimum of three thousand and five hundred (3,500) square feet. i. Maximum Residential Density: The maximum number of dwelling units per acre shall not exceed 1.2. VI. OPEN SPACE, TRAIL, SCREENING AND BUFFERYARD REQUIREMENTS a. Common Open Space Areas: 1. The minimum amount of common open space area within the development shall not be less than fifteen percent (15%) of the gross site area. 2. Common open space areas shall consist of those areas used as landscape buffers, open space lots, amenity lots, pedestrian access, greenbelts, FEMA floodplain, and/or drainage areas. 3. Common open space areas shall be owned and maintained by the homeowner's association. b. Public Trails: 1. An eight -foot (8') public multi -use trail shall be provided along SH 114 within the open space lot. 2. The multi -use trail shall not be required to be located directly along the property line fronting onto SH 114; but shall meander away from the highway and into the open space area to create a more enjoyable walking/hiking experience. 3. The trail shall provide a future connection point along the north property line in visible proximity to SH 114. c. Screening: 1. A minimum eight (8) foot concrete screening wall must be constructed on the property line of the lots shown on the Fencing and Wall Concept Plan. A. The fence must be concrete with double -sided "fencestone" and have stone columns evenly spaced, not more than one hundred (100) feet apart. B. A set of construction plans, sealed by a structural engineer, must be delivered to the owner of Lot 181 of R.P. Estes Subdivision, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas not less than two (2) weeks prior to the commencement of construction. d. Bufferyards: 1. The open space lot along SH 114 shall be a variable width bufferyard. The existing trees and native grasses shall be left in their natural state and the City required plantings for a Type G Bufferyard shall not be required with this RPUD. 2. A minimum twenty (20) foot tree buffer zone must be maintained in the area shown on the Tree Conservation Management Plan. VII. TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS The following tree preservation requirements shall be applicable to the Savannah Estates RPUD District: a. Development Plan/Preliminary Plat Tree Preservation Requirements: A Tree Conservation Analysis with an Alternative to a Tree Survey shall be required for all Development Plan and Preliminary Plat applications for Savannah Estates. b. Final Plat Tree Preservation Requirements: A Tree Conservation Plan shall be required for all Final Plat application for Savannah Estates and shall exclude the following areas from the Tree Survey and Tree Replacement requirements: 1. All residential lot building pads plus 15 feet on all sides. 2. All vehicular rights -of -ways. 3. All utility and drainage easements. 4. All floodplain areas. 5. All areas identified on the Tree Conservation Management Plan as areas to be "preserved". A. The tree buffer zone must be a minimum of twenty (20) feet. B. A minimum of one (1) four (4) inch caliper tree, in any and all areas within the tree buffer zone consisting of a fifteen (15) foot radius where there is not currently an existing tree. C. No bike or walking paths will be maintained in or through the tree buffer zone. 6. All areas identified on the Tree Conservation Management Plan as areas to be "altered". 7. All areas identified on the Tree Conservation Management Plan as "marginal" shall have all protected trees surveyed and identified and shall require tree replacements when required by the Tree Preservation Ordinance. The marginal tree coverage category shall be counted towards the minimum tree coverage to be preserved. VIII. ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS: a. Roof: 1. Moderate to steep roofs are encouraged and flat roofs are discouraged. The roof must show matching pitches at all visible hips. 2. Metal roofing is allowed in small areas as a detail element and should typically be made of copper or metal standing seam. Dimensional or High Definition thirty-five (35) year warranty composition shingle roofing, concrete or clay barrel tile or slate roofing is acceptable. b. Exterior Walls and Finishes: 1. Acceptable Materials: A. Brick B. Stone C. Cast Stone D. Stucco -Concrete Only E. Wood 4,2. Unacceptable Materials: A. E.F.I.S. -2-3. Front Elevations: A. If there is a blend of natural stone and brick, there will be a minimum of six hundred (600) square feet of stone. B. If the front elevation is all brick, there may be cast stone surrounds on the windows and the entry porch. Brick sliced corbels and accent pieces are encouraged. Ic. Doors & Windows: 1. Acceptable Windows: A. All windows must be wood or wood -clad or vinyl or vinyl clad. B. All windows on the front of the residence must have exterior muntins made of either wood or vinyl. All other windows do not require exterior muntins. 2. Doors: A. All doors shall be recessed and not "flush" to show wall depth. B. Front Doors shall be a minimum of three (3) feet wide by eight (8) feet tall and be made of wrought iron or paneled hardwood. I d. Garage Doors: 1. All homes must have a three (3) car garage. 2. All garage doors shall be sectional wood or wood -clad. 3. Garage doors shall be recessed a minimum of six (6) inches to create more wall depth and lessen the focus on the garage door. 4. Garage doors shall be placed at right angles. e. Driveways, Sidewalks, and Parking 1. All driveways, sidewalks, and parking areas shall be made of concrete, stone, or pavestone and shall be exposed aggregate, salt seeded finish, patterned or stained textured. f. Landscaping: 2. Each lot shall contain no less than three (3), four (4) inch to five (5) inch minimum caliper trees. This can be accomplished through the use of existing or new trees. IX. MISCELLANEOUS REQUIREMENTS: a. The RPUD Zoning shall not be required to comply with Section 8.01, Lotting Requirements, Article VIII of the City's Subdivision Ordinance, specifically the following items: 1. Item D which requires all lot lines to be perpendicular or radial to the ROW. The lot lines of the RPUD shall either be perpendicular, radial or match existing bearings of other lots to maintain consistency. 2. Item E which requires a minimum lot width of one hundred and twenty five feet (125') for lots adjacent to existing residential uses of one acre or larger. The lots in this RPUD shall meet the minimum lot width requirements listed above, in Section V.g. Lot Dimensions. 3. The subdivision plat will be delivered to the owner of Lot 181 of the R.P. Estes Subdivision, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas not less than one (1) week prior to filing with the City. 4.6 Outdoor Living Spaces & Detached Structures a. All outdoor living spaces and detached structures shall meet the requirements of the City of Southlake Zoning Ordinance. b. The maximum height of all detached structures shall be no more than 18' -0" or unless approved by the DRC. c. The design of all structures on the lot shall reflect the architectural styling, material selection, quality, and colors of the primary residence. 4.7 Tree Preservation a. Tree preservation must adhere to the requirements of the City of Southlake Tree Preservation Ordinance. b. All efforts should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the landscape and thus preserving as many trees as possible. c. Each lot shall contain no less than three, 4" minimum caliper trees. This can be accomplished through the use of existing or new trees. 4.8 Pool & Spa a. Pools shall be a minimum of 10' -0" from the property lines. b. With consideration to adjacent estates pools, spas, and any game courts or recreational equipment should be located so as to be screened fiom view from neighboring lots and streets. All are subject to the approval of the DRC. c. Pool and recreational lighting shall not exceed two foot candles at property lines. d. Pool lines must be tied into the sewer line. e. Pools must be fenced in compliance with National pool safety laws. 4.9 Service Yards & Utility Areas a. A service yard is an area designated for the storage of trash, maintenance tools, firewood, pool equipment, air conditioning equipment, mechanical equipment, etc. These areas must be screened from public view by a 6-0" minimum mature height landscaping material. b. Only storage buildings designed by a Registered Architect and submitted to the DRC for --approval will be allowed. 4.1---9 Walls &Fencing -a Front yard walls or-fences-thatire visible from the street shall be a minimum of 6' -0" in height and must be constructed of wrought irarfencirig b. Side and rear property line fencing shall be�a minimum height of 6' -0" and:�construeted of wrought iron.— 4.11 Lighting a. All exterior lighting must be decorative style fixtures. b. Any lighting that is used to accent landscaping, residential wall features, etc. must be ground mounted up -lighting with shields to block glare from the street or adjacent properties. 4.12 Residence Identification a. Each residence shall have a standard cast stone address number block located on the front elevation. b. Standard cast iron mailboxes shall be located at each U.S. Postal approved location. CENTURION A M E R I C A N February 22, 2013 Mr. Jerry Lewis 2280 N. Peytonville Ave. Southlake, TX 76092 RE: DRIVEWAY IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT Dear Mr. Lewis: This letter shall serve as an agreement between Centurion American and the above mentioned property owner and is contingent upon the approval of the zoning application for Savannah Estates (ZA12-088). As part of our discussions regarding your existing driveway location along N. Peytonville, Centurion American has agreed to provide a second driveway on your property in order for you and your guests to have an additional point of access for more efficient ingress/egress onto said street. More specifically, Centurion has agreed to be responsible for the following: 1. Install an additional driveway to match existing pavement at the approximate location shown on the attached exhibit; 2. Install a gated entrance to snatch existing gates; 3. Design, permit, and construct said improvements; 4. Pay associated costs for said improvements; 5. Address drainage issues related to the improvements or the roundabout; 6. Repair the affected area either with landscape or sod or other approved material; and 7. Install the above improvements prior to the construction of the roundabout 8. Provide an option for a solid sections of masonry type fence per attached exhibit If an exception from city code is necessary for the improvements to occur, then the property owner shall assist Centurion American with seeking a variance request from the City Council. By signing below both parties hereby agree to the above terms and this agreement shall be rendered valid. -11-�Lz-j '� Mehrdad Moayedl Centurion American Development Group Jerry is ("Prop, ty Owner") Date Date ' Z:\2012\12124\PDF-Submittals\Zoning Development Plan\12124 LEWIS LTR 022113.doc CE(ATUR10 MER10,A:N a C) F-,;Irlrk t. � � _i 1221 11H 35E. SUI i = 200 ® CARROLLTON, TX 75006 = (0) 4S9.892.7200 , (F) 4-69.892.7201 ac =�' ,r��• � �� � '��. % it-. ��. �� r. f LEWIS 20' —�'I' PROPERTY Peytonvfle Ave_ I v x 6 PROPOSED DRIVEWAY I o TOM MATCH EXISTING � EEO! I ±1,398 SF xt PROPOSED GA +t 1 MAtCH 7 , TA a ^r, EXHIBIT- OPTION #1 PROPOSED DRIVEWAY IMPROVEMENTS Lewis Property in th-, c.:iy o Tarrant C-70UN T `»'', TE:/-:t.S DRIVEWAY SPACING REQUIREMENTS: Arterial - 100' Min. (Center to Center) Collector - 40' Min. (Center to Center) r SrrEPLANNWG CWMENGRUIMNG PLATTING CONSULTANTS, LLC LANDSMEYING LANDSCAPEARCFIlTEMM 111 Hillside Drive • Lewisville, TX 75057 • P: 972.436.9712 • F: 972.436.9715 TBPE Firm 611 Dallas Drive, Suite 114 • Roanoke, TX 76262 • P: 682.831.9712 • F: $17.890.4043 No. 1798 C'R:.V:id BY: PR D1 E_ / 6; 13 aLF 1"— i0 JQ3. 140.12124