Loading...
Item 6ICITY OF S0UTHLA1<,.,E Department of Planning & Development Services STAFF REPORT November 13, 2013 CASE NO: ZA13-011 PROJECT: Concept Plan for the Southlake Town Square Garden District and Brownstones Phase C EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Cooper & Stebbins is requesting approval of a Concept Plan for Southlake Town Square Garden District and Brownstones Phase C to allow the construction of 60 Garden District Residences and 33 Brownstones on property described as Lot 24R and Lots 25-35, Block 24, Lots 1-16 and Lot 38, Block 25 and Lot 1, Block 28, Southlake Town Square, Brownstones at Town Square, Phase B, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and Tracts 2A5 and 2A5E, Richard Eads Survey, Abstract No. 481, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, and generally located along Park Ridge Blvd. and east of Central Ave., Southlake, Texas. The current zoning is "DT" Downtown District. SPIN Neighborhood #8. REQUEST DETAILS: The previously approved Concept Plan for the Garden District (ZA10-069) that was approved by City Council on May 3, 2011 includes 130 Garden District Residences and 10 Brownstones for a total of 140 residential units. The applicant is requesting approval of a revised Concept Plan for the Garden District and Brownstones Phase C to allow construction of 60 Garden District Residences and 33 Brownstones for a total of 93 residential units on approximately 7.472 acres. A Specific Use Permit (ZA13-054) application for 38 residential loft units called The Residences, which are proposed west of Central Ave. across the street from the Garden District, brings the total number of proposed residential units to 131. The previously presented plans for The Residences showed 40 residential loft units. The vacant tract north of Park Ridge Blvd. is included on the Concept Plan to show a possible relocation of Central Ave., which brings the gross acreage of the Concept Plan to approximately 13.61 acres. No development is proposed on the vacant tract at this time. This is a concept plan proposal. Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council review and approval of a site plan, including elevations, is required before construction may commence on the Garden District residences and approval of a Specific Use Permit is required for the Brownstones Phase C (see Case No. ZA13-053). A letter that addresses the questions raised at the September 3, 2013 City Council meeting and that highlights subsequent revisions to the plans is included in Attachment "C" of this report. Included in the letter is a Development Phasing Plan that describes what will be done at each development stage. Revisions to the plans since the September 3, 2013 meeting include the following: Oval Park configuration — moved away from Central Ave. Case No. ZA13-011 Page 1 2. Oval Park sidewalks — connections to Central relocated to line up with art pad (also added). 3. Oval Park West Curve — widened and added park benches. 4. Oval Park Trees — slight change in tree locations on the west side. 5. Oval Park — added bocce court and community garden (See Landscape Plan for SUP - ZA13-053 - both designated as temporary). 6. Dog Park — moved west closer to Oval Park (See Landscape Plan for SUP - ZA13-053 - also temporary). 7. Central Ave Crosswalks — relocated per discussion with City Staff. VARIANCE REQUEST: Section 37.6(a) of Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended, limits the height of residential buildings in the Garden District to three stories and fifty-two feet in height. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a fourth floor on the three Garden District Residence buildings for penthouses. ACTION NEEDED: 1) Conduct a public hearing 2) Consider approval of a Concept Plan ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information (B) Vicinity Map (C) Plans and Support Information — Link to Presentation (D) SPIN Reports: February 11, 2013 and June 10, 2013 (E) Concept Plan Review Summary No. 5, dated November 12, 2013 (F) Surrounding Property Owners Map (G) Surrounding Property Owners Responses (H) Full Size Plans (for Commission and Council Members Only) STAFF CONTACT: Ken Baker (817)748-8067 Richard Schell (817)748-8602 Case No. ZA13-011 Page 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNER: Brownstones at Town Square, LP, Slts Land, LP APPLICANT: Cooper & Stebbins PROPERTY SITUATION: Generally located along Park Ridge Blvd. and east of Central Ave LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 24R and Lots 25-35, Block 24, Lots 1-16 and Lot 38, Block 25 and Lot 1, Block 28, Southlake Town Square, Brownstones at Town Square, Phase B, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and Tracts 2A5 and 2A5E, Richard Eads Survey, Abstract No. 481 LAND USE CATEGORY: Town Center CURRENT ZONING: "DT" Downtown District HISTORY: Key approvals associated with Southlake Town Square and residential development in Town Square: January 7, 1997 (ZA96-145): Original "PUD" Zoning & Concept Plan approved for Southlake Town Square; August 19, 1997 (ZA97-099 and ZA97-100): Southlake Town Square Phase I Development Plan and Site Plan approved; February 4, 2003 (ZA02-104); "DT" Downtown District Zoning & Concept Plan was approved; April 1, 2003 (ZA03-013) Specific Use Permit for the Brownstone residential units was approved. September 7, 2004 (ZA04-057) Preliminary Plat for Block 22, Southlake Town Square was approved. This area has been designated as open space by the approved concept plan, development plan and the previous preliminary plat and has been intended to be dedicated to the City for use as a park. The purpose of this plat is to subdivide the block into two lots so that a final plat may be approved and recorded for the dedication and conveyance of approximately 2 acres of the future 6 acre park in connection with the residential "Brownstone" project. The final platting of the remaining 4 acres is being deferred awaiting further development of the Town Square project. October 5, 2004 (ZA04-066 & ZA04-067): Revised Concept Plan & Site Plan for Southlake Town Square's Grand Avenue District was approved; September 6, 2005 (ZA05-075): Revised Concept Plan for the purpose of relocating open space/park land from Block 22 (3.78 acres open space removed) to Block 19 (2.80 acres open space provided) was approved, which left a shortfall of 0.98 acres of open space. At the time of approval, Cooper & Stebbins was reviewing appropriate potential new park areas in Blocks 11 and 20 and planned to designate new park space in one or both of these blocks, having a combined area of not less than 0.98 acres. Case No. Attachment A ZA13-011 Page 1 July 17, 2007 (ZA07-050): Zoning Change and Revised Concept Plan for the purpose of changing the block configurations and realigning Division and State Streets to accommodate the proposed DPS Central Facility. This plan also relocates open space from the north side of Division Street to the south side directly adjacent to McPherson Park. This relocation results in 0.51 acres of park land being added to McPherson Park. The applicant requested a 0.44 acre open space reduction from the currently approved concept plan, but City Council denied the request and approved the item with the following stipulations: 1) The City will retain 0.44 acres of open space with location to be determined later; 2) Requiring a schematic for the open space to be brought before Council prior to the final approval of the block north of the Brownstones; 3) Requiring the open space north of the Brownstones to be open to the public. May 3, 2011; (ZA10-068) A text amendment to Section 37 ("DT" Downtown District) of Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended, creating new definitions for "Garden District" and "Garden District Residences" as well as providing additional development regulations for such development was approved. May 3, 2011; (ZA10-069) A revised Concept Plan for the Garden District, including 130 Garden District Residences and 10 Brownstones, was approved. SOUTH LAKE 2030 PLAN: Consolidated Land Use Plan The "Town Center" definition in the 2030 Land Use is as follows: The Town Center land use designation is intended to enhance and promote the development of the community's downtown. The goal is to create an attractive, pedestrian -oriented environment that becomes the center of community life in Southlake. It may include compatibly designed retail, office, cultural, civic, recreational, hotel and residential uses. All uses shall be developed with a great attention to design detail and will be integrated into one cohesive district or into distinct sub -districts, each with its own unique characteristics. A mix of different uses is encouraged to create a vibrant, lively, and unique environment. The "Town Center" designation provides the following guidelines for residential uses: • Residential uses are to be located between the proposed office or retail uses and existing residential neighborhoods. These uses are intended to provide a lower intensity transition between existing neighborhoods and commercial uses. • Residential uses should be well integrated with proposed open space and other civic uses to create a sense of place. They should also be integrated with proposed commercial uses in a manner that provides internal automobile and pedestrian access to convenience commercial uses. Case No. Attachment A ZA13-011 Page 2 TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT: PATHWAYS MASTER PLAN WATER & SEWER: TREE PRESERVATION & LANDSCAPE: • Residential uses are recommended to be to the density and scale that is appropriate based on the context and character of the proposed overall development. Traffic Impact: Residential Condominium/Townhouse Use (ITE # 230) Use Units Vtpd* AM -IN AM -OUT PM -IN PM -OUT EXISTING 140 820 11 51 49 27 APPROVAL PROPOSED (Garden District 93 545 7 34 33 18 and Brownstones Phase C ) PROPOSED 38 223 3 14 14 7 (Block 4R1) PROPOSED (Garden District and Brownstones 131 768 10 48 47 25 Phase C + Block 4R1) Net Difference -9 - 52 -1 -3 -2 -2 . Vehicle Trips per Day The Pathways Plan shows an on -street bikeway planned along Central Ave. Sidewalks are shown along all public street frontages on the concept plan with additional sidewalks shown throughout the open space areas. All necessary public water and sewer infrastructure are currently in place for this development. There are no existing trees on the site except those that the developer has planted, including Live Oaks and Magnolias. The preliminary landscape design is consistent with the Town Square theme. CITIZEN INPUT: Two SPIN meetings were held. The first SPIN meeting was held Monday, February 11, 2013. And a second SPIN meeting was held Monday, June 10, 2013. SPIN Meeting Reports for both meetings are included as Attachment "D" of this report. COMMISSION: August 8, 2013; Approved (5-0) subject to Revised Concept Plan Review Summary No. 4 and Staff Report dated August 8, 2013 with the variance to allow a fourth floor in the Garden District Residences for penthouses, and to include the applicant's willingness to landscape and irrigate the property north of Main if construction does not begin within 12 months. COUNCIL ACTION: August 20, 2013; Tabled to the September 3, 2013 meeting. September 3, 2013; Tabled to the September 17, 2013 meeting. Case No. Attachment A ZA13-011 Page 3 September 17, 2013; Tabled to the October 1, 2013 meeting. October 1, 2013; Tabled to the October 15, 2013 meeting. October 15, 2013; Tabled to the November 19, 2013 meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Concept Plan Review Summary No. 5, dated November 12, 2013. Case No. Attachment A ZA13-011 Page 4 Vicinity Map Southlake Town Square Garden District and Brownstones Phase C a CO CIVIC PL w w o ry ❑¢ J Q FOUNTAIN PL z w O FM. 1709 E SOUTH LAKE BLVD N W -* I E 0 S ZA13-011 Concept Plan 450 900 1,800 m Feet Case No. ZA13-011 Attachment B Page 1 Plans and Support Information Letter Addressing Questions at September 3, 2013 City Council Meeting Case No. Attachment C ZA13-053 Page 1 COOPER AND STEBBINS November 11, 2013 Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Director Planning & Development City of Southlake 1400 Main Street, Suite 310 Southlake, TX 76092 Re: Garden District: Specific Use Permit - Case ZA13-053 Revised Concept Plan - Case ZA13-011 Revised Preliminary Plat- Case ZA13-012 Plat Revision - Case ZA13-080 Dear Ken: At the September 3, 2013 City Council meeting, we presented applications related to the Garden District and The Residences (Block 4R1). Council asked a number of questions, some of which were answered during the presentation, but many of which required further research and/or discussion. As a result, we requested to table both applications to September 17, 2013. All related applications have since been tabled to the City Council meeting scheduled for November 19, 2013. In support of that meeting, updated copies of the Garden District Site Plan and Concept Plan have been forwarded to you. Detailed below are responses to the questions/comments regarding the Garden District raised at the September 3 meeting, along with additional updates as appropriate from progress made since that time. For ease of reference, responses are in a Q&A format organized by topic. GARDEN DISTRICT CONCEPT PLAN AND SITE PLAN QUESTIONS A. Garden District Street Design and Traffic 1. Did we consider not extending Summit Avenue through to Meeting Street? We studied both options. The extension of Summit Avenue to Meeting Street is consistent with the originally approved Brownstone plan, and was the preferred option among the majority of Brownstone residents. It also provides shorter connections to new residents' garages, making access more convenient and reducing projected traffic in the alley. What happens to Park Ridge Boulevard if Central Avenue is relocated? Park Ridge Boulevard will extend north from Main Street to Meeting Street in all scenarios. From there, the plan has been designed with the flexibility to keep, relocate, or eliminate - in whole or in part -the northern and westerly extension of Park Ridge Boulevard from Meeting Street to Central Avenue in order to accommodate future development to the north. Initially, we'll keep the northern extension as far as the northern alley entry. COOPER & STEBBINS L.P., 1256 MAIN STREET, SUITE 240, SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS 76092 T: 817-329-8400 F: 817-251-8717 W W W.SOUTHLAKETOW NSQ.UAPE.COM Case No. Attachment C ZA13-053 Page 2 City of Southlake Garden District Page (2 3. Have we considered traffic calming options along Central Avenue? Yes. Town Square's right-of-way design facilitates traffic calming: Curb extensions or "neckdowns" are created near intersections and crosswalks by eliminating some on -street parking, improving pedestrian circulation and space. Neckdowns reduce the roadway width from curb to curb, calming traffic. They "pedestrianize" intersections by shortening crossing distances for pedestrians and drawing attention to pedestrians via raised peninsulas. They also tighten the curb radii at the corners, reducing the speeds of turning vehicles. Special paving treatments are provided at crosswalks, further drawing attention to pedestrians and calming traffic speeds in these locations. These design elements were included in the applications for the Garden District and The Residences. We've continued to work with the Planning Department and Public Works to further enhance the street and sidewalk network, and have realigned and simplified new sidewalks to provide crossings at more predictable locations and to enhance pedestrian connectivity in the areas of Meeting Street and Federal Way. These are highlighted an the attached close-up of Central Avenue. Garden District Open Space 1. Is the open space part of the upfront phasing? Yes. Meeting Street, the Oval Park and the "Phase 1" landscaping will be completed as part of the initial phase of Brownstone construction. Additional landscaping will be provided in later phases. The Oval Park has been modified slightly since the original application, including changes to the sidewalk connections to Central Avenue and the addition of park benches along the Oval Park sidewalk. Temporary areas have been provided for a bocce court, a community garden and the Dog Park (which has been moved closer to the Oval Park from its previous location). The attached revised Landscape Plans show these changes and the phases of development. Will the Oval Park and other park space be publicly or privately owned? The Oval Park and other park space will be privately owned by a Homeowner's Association, but will be open and available to the public. 3. How will the Oval Park's northern edge change if Central Avenue is relocated? If Central Avenue is relocated, the elevation change to the Oval Park would be addressed with steps (and possibly a ramp), with railings and transitional landscaping as appropriate. 4. How does the area of open space in this plan compare to the previously approved plan for the Garden District? The originally approved Garden District Concept Plan included 2.34 acres of open space. The new plan being proposed has 2.29 acres of open space. However this plan includes 0.73 acres of "temporary" open space in the potential future R.O.W. for Central Avenue. If Central Avenue is relocated, Garden District open space is projected to decrease to 1.56 acres. The area lost could be made up in future Town Square development. Case No. Attachment C ZA13-053 Page 3 City of Southlake Garden District Page 13 Note that the 2011 Garden District plan featured condominium buildings fronting directly onto a park space. Changing from condominiums to Brownstones along the alley necessitated the addition of Meeting Street to the development plan, which replaced 0.80 acres of park space with a new public street. While the area of technical open space is less, this walkable street adds an important new amenity to Town Square. The change to Brownstones along the alley also shifted approximately 0.22 acres of open space on the original plan into private courtyards for individual residences. While not "open," these courtyards are a desirable amenity for the development and its residents. C. Brownstone Phasing and Future Garden District Residential Development 1. What will the initial Brownstone Phase include? What is planned for future Phases? There are 33 Brownstones planned in Phase 1. Phase 1-Stage 1 will begin with all site work, road construction and the construction start of a model Brownstone and spec Brownstone. Phase 1-Stage 2 will consist of the Oval Park and associated landscaping per the Phase 1 Landscape Plan, and will be finished prior to the completion of the first Brownstones. We will progressively develop additional Garden District Brownstones, Park Ridge Brownstones and larger custom Brownstones as dictated by market demand. Phase 2 would add the Garden District Residences at a time that is dependent on the ultimate positioning of Central Avenue and the future development of the High Street commercial district. A detailed Phasing Plan is included in the attachments. 2. If Central Avenue is relocated, does the location of the future Garden District Residences change? This is a possibility. The Site Plan has been designed to accommodate a relocation of Central Avenue. The final location of Garden District Residence buildings will depend on whether and to what extent Central Avenue is relocated. 3. Have we considered doing more Brownstones instead of Garden District Residences? Site design and economic feasibility limit Brownstones to the areas shown in the Site Plan. GARDEN DISTRICT BROWNSTONE SUP QUESTIONS D. Garden District Brownstones Are the front porches and terraces wood or masonry materials? Like the original Main Street Brownstones, the front porches and terraces will be constructed using approved masonry materials. 2. How are we buffering the back of the Park Ridge Brownstones from the back of the Home Depot development to the east? There is an existing fence in the approximate 12" gap between the eastern alley and the retaining wail on the property boundary. Residential garages back up to this alley at the first level. Bedrooms and bathrooms'are at the back of the residence on upper floors. Window type and placement will be combined with sound engineering to manage views and sound. Case No. Attachment C ZA13-053 Page 4 City of Southlake Garden District Page 14 3. Will a common wall or a two -wall approach be used between adjacent Brownstones? Like the Main Street Brownstones, a two -wall approach will be employed. GARDEN DISTRICT RESIDENCES QUESTIONS E. Garden District Residences 1. Are the garages underground with semi -private direct access elevators, as shown in the 2011 Concept Plan approval? Yes. 2. Will there be a Garden District Clubhouse, as shown in the 2011 plan? Yes. The Clubhouse is part of the Garden District Residence plan and would be located on the ground floor of Building B. 3. Explain the difference between the Penthouses identified on the Garden District Residences and the Rooftop Terrace shown on The Residences building in Block 41111. The penthouses are condominium homes on the top floor of the Garden District Residences. Located on the proposed 4th floor of each of the three buildings, the penthouse homes are setback from the building edges. The Rooftop Terrace is located on the top of The Residences building on Block 4111, and would be a common amenity for all residents to enjoy. Please let me know if you have any questions or are in need of additional information. We look forward to reviewing the additional information with you at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Frank L. Bliss President Cc: Mr. Dennis Killough, Deputy Director Larry Corson Case No. Attachment C ZA13-053 Page 5 PRIVATE -FrI SPACE #BOTH ARE WCLOp(p IN V 0M, SPACE AREA 3N sUYYARY d ART Revised Concept Plan Submitted November 8, 2013 .. N 0 60 120 180 \ GRAPHIC $GALE BLOCK 1BR LEYXHV BLOCK 14 ` � P �a T.�JL ::F.._L �n.�-�..Zi..Iw� �L,'.�ii[Hk...—..aF � i.'�l�l aT.i•"wa. _.ray .ii . !� _ I NOME Case No. Attachment C ZA13-053 Page 6 Narrative and Variance Request The Garden District Team ■ Cooper and Stebbins — Frank Bliss, Larry Corson ■ Balfour Beatty— Residential Construction/Underground Garages ■ David M. Schwarz Architects — Master Plan, Elevations ■ Bennett Benner & Pettit — Site Plan, Brownstone Design ■ Brockette Davis Drake —Site Engineering ■ TBG Partners — Landscape Planning ■ Rendition Luxury Homes — Brownstone Construction Planning ■ Tracy Cross & Associates — Market Research Case No. Attachment C ZA13-053 Page 7 TOWN SQUARE LIVING ■ Since opening in 2006, the Brownstones have established Town Square as a desirable residential address. ■ 2012 saw increases in transaction volume and home prices ■ 2013 market— limited availability ■ Owner and buyer feedback has shown a demand for additional residential options and features: • Single level residences • MBR on the main living area • 3 car garage option • Additional light • Home size variety • Bigger closets, storage options ■ Garden District plan has evolved to meet demand while responding to development criteria and specific site opportunities and constraints THE GARDEN DISTRICT Concept Plan — May 2011 n � AM tigo 31 ac r 130 Condominium Residences in 10 Buildings 10 Brownstones on Park Ridge Blvd. • 2.35 Acres of Open Space Park Ridge Boulevard Simplified (median removed) Case No. Attachment C ZA13-053 Page 8 THE GARDEN DISTRICT New Concept Plan — Mav 2013 • 33 Brownstones in 4 Configurations 60 Garden District Residences in 3 Buildings The Garden District Evolution 2011 Concept Plan 2013 Concept Plan Total Residences 140 133 Garden District Residences (incl. Block 4) 130 100 Garden District Residences (Buildings) 10 4 Brownstones 10 33 Open Space 2.35 Acres 2.29 Acres* * Initial open space is 1.56 acres, additional open space to be provided in future phases Case No. Attachment C ZA13-053 Page 9 _ • - ��`h trpb sbam �r gg _ � o r a I i 4A . AN.� •J r!iter. lip•. i �: TOWN SQUARE MASTER PLAN Showing Potential Relocation of Central Ave. ■ Enhances High Street Development options ■ High Street Mix Department Store Specialty Retail and Restaurants Potential 2"d Anchor 2"d Department Store Corporate Office HQ Boutique Hotel ■ Requires flexibility in future routing of Central Avenue ■ Improves "360 degree" walkability of Town Square THE GARDEN DISTRICT Open Space Map ■ Initial open space of 1.56 acres (orange + red) impacted by: - allowance for potential Central Ave. relocation - Addition of Meeting Street - relocation of open space Into private courtyards ■ Full open space allocation of 2.35 acres to be provided in future phases Case No. Attachment C ZA13-053 Page 10 Garden District Evolution: 2011— 2013 Key Site Plan Changes ■ Addition of Meeting Street ■ Park Ridge Boulevard Simplified ■ Main Street Alley Extended ■ Variance request for 41h Floor Penthouses setback from building edges ■ Open space is equivalent to 2.29 acres offset by 0.73 acres for potential future realignment of Central Avenue corridor ■ Landscape plan uses native Texas plantings, formal lines ■ Oval Park • Dog Park (temporary location) ■ Walking Paths THE GARDEN DISTRICT Garden Brownstones — Concept 21 Brownstones Facing Park Constructed in Pods of 1-3 Homes (added light, construction efficiency) • Slightly Wider Lots — 26 Feet 2 Stories with Partial 311 Floor Available Case No. Attachment C ZA13-053 Page 11 THE GARDEN DISTRICT Garden Brownstones - Concept Homes Sites: 2,700 to 3,500 SF 3 Bedrooms with 41h Bedroom Option MBR on 2"d Floor Living Space Above Garage Attached to 2"d Floor Living Area Garden Brownstone Features ■ Post WWI design approach (sloped roofs, porches, terraces) ■ Pod Approach • Construction Efficiency • Side Accent Light • Extended Courtyards, Wrap -Around Front Porches • Marketing Simplicity ■ Two -Story living with 3rd Floor Options ■ Enlarged Master Bathroom and Closets ■ 26'-3" width allows for 2nd floor connection Case No. Attachment C ZA13-053 Page 12 Vf THE GARDEN DISTRICT Park Ridge East Brownstones - Concept d. iZ Ate. . _ 9 Brownstones on Park Ridge Boulevard 3,800 to 4,800 SF Pods of 3 Homes on 35' Lots 4 Bedrooms with 511' Bedroom Option 3 Car Tuck -Under Garage Choice of MBR on lit or 2"d Floor Three Stories with Front Attic Options 2"d Floor Terrace Park Ridge Brownstone Features ■ 35' Wide Homes allows: • 3-car tuck -under garage • Option of Master Bedroom up or down • Larger Courtyard • 2nd Floor Terrace ■ Similar pod approach ■ Flexibility to combine lots Case No. Attachment C ZA13-053 Page 13 GARDEN DISTRICT CONCEPT PLAN Plan "B" Option '►r i I 15� erl W : z z., ' film AMMILL- I MMMNM art THE GARDEN DISTRICT Garden District Residences - Concept F 1- 3 Bedrooms 11 Floor Terraces —Garden Access 1,500— 3,500 SF High Quality Finishes and Appliances ■ Potential transaction to sell southernmost Brownstone lot on west side of Park Ridge Boulevard ■ Revised Plan Benefits: Allows development of larger custom villa(s) with private side yard Potential to combine remaining two Brownstone lots 7 Case No. Attachment C ZA13-053 Page 14 The Garden District Residences — Overview ■ 60 Residences in 3 buildings ■ 1,500 SF to 3,500 SF ■ 4th Floor Penthouses (setback from building edge) ■ Phased to accommodate future High Street retail anchor/requirements THE GARDEN DISTRICT New Concept Plan — Mav 2013 • 33 Brownstones in 4 Configurations 60 Garden District Residences in 3 Buildings Case No. Attachment C ZA13-053 Page 15 Phasing and Timeline ■ Four month land development schedule ■ Immediate start of model and speculative home ■ Garden Brownstones develop west to east ■ Park Ridge Brownstones develop south to north ■ Brownstone construction process — 8 to 10 months ■ First residents by late 2014 Total Existing and Proposed Future Open Space to be Provided (Location to be Determined) Case No. Attachment C ZA13-053 Page 16 1st SPIN MEETING REPORT El SOUTHLAKE SPIN MEETING REPORT CASE NO. N/A PROJECT NAME: The Garden District — Southlake Town Square SPIN DISTRICT: SPIN #8 MEETING DATE: February 11, 2013; 8:00 PM MEETING LOCATION: 1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX Training Rooms 3A — 3B TOTAL ATTENDANCE: Twenty-six (26) • SPIN REPRESENTATIVE(S) PRESENT: Vic Awtry (#7) APPLICANT(S) PRESENTING: Frank Bliss, Cooper & Stebbins; et al five (5) • STAFF PRESENT: Lorrie Fletcher. Planner I STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough: (817)748-8072 or dkilloughcw_ci.southlake.tx.us EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Property Situation • The property is located at Southlake Town Square; generally the northeast corner of East Southlake Boulevard and Carroll Avenue. Development Details • The original concept plan was approved in May 2011 — 130 Condominiums, 10 Brownstones and 2.4 acres of open space. • The applicant is requesting a revised concept plan to include: 28 Brownstones in 3 configurations 0 7 Custom Villa Homes (6 detached) o 83 Garden District Residences in 5 buildings o 2.2 acres of open space o Amenities to include: • Sidewalks • Landscape • River bend stream / meditation area • Spanish steps common area • Pet playground Case No. Attachment D ZA13-011 Page 1 Exhibits presented at SPIN: New Plan 1 1 2011 Plan Garden District Residences 83 130 Park Ridge Brownstones 9 10 Brownstones in the Garden 19 0 Park Ridge Villas 7 0 TOTAL 118 140 QUESTIONS / CONCERNS • Will the city maintain the central park area? No, the park area will be maintained by the HOA — it is a private open space that is open to the public. If the HOA pays, are they going to keep the public out? No, it is not gated... accessible to the public. • We are concerned the park will become a teenage hangout? We feel the environment will be accessible but secure, well managed and well lit. It is an urban environment — urban suburbia. • 1 live in one of the Brownstones and these issues have been addressed well. Kids figure it out... no problem. Case No. Attachment D ZA13-011 Page 2 • Is this development accessible to wheel chairs? The Spanish steps? It looks like it doesn't work. We have engineered 7 different points of access; only 2 are not ADA accessible. o Each condo has an elevator from the garage — the ability is there. SPIN Meeting Reports are general observations of SPIN Meetings by City staff and SPIN Representatives_ The report is neither verbatim nor official meeting minutes; rather it serves to inform elected and appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues and questions raised by residents and the general responses made. Responses as summarized in this report should not be taken as guarantees by the applicant_ Interested parties are strongly encouraged to follow the case through the Planning and Zoning Commission and final action by City Council_ Case No. Attachment D ZA13-011 Page 3 2nd SPIN MEETING REPORT USOUTHLAKE SPIN MEETING REPORT CASE NO. ZA13-011 PROJECT NAME: The Garden District — Southlake Town Square MEETING DATE: June 10, 2013; 7:00 PM MEETING LOCATION: 1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX Training Rooms 3A — 3B TOTAL ATTENDANCE: Thirty-three (33) • SPIN REPRESENTATIVE(S) PRESENT: Matt Shurly (#8) and Vic Awtry (#7) • APPLICANT(S) PRESENTING: Larry Corsin, Cooper & Stebbins; et al five (5) • STAFF PRESENT: Lorrie Fletcher, Planner I STAFF CONTACT: Richard Schell: (817)748-8602 or rschellaci.southlake.tx.us EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Property Situation • The property is located at Southlake Town Square; generally the northeast corner of East Southlake Boulevard and Carroll Avenue. Development Details • The original concept plan was approved in May 2011 — 130 Condominiums, 10 Brownstones and 2.4 acres of open space. • In February 2013; the applicant proposed the following revised concept plan to SPIN: 0 28 Brownstones in 3 configurations 0 7 Custom Villa Homes (6 detached) 0 83 Garden District Residences in 5 buildings 0 2.2 acres of open space o Amenities to include: ■ Sidewalks ■ Landscape ■ River bend stream / meditation area ■ Spanish steps common area ■ Pet playground • Currently, the applicant is requesting a revised concept plan to include: 0 33 Brownstones in 3 configurations 0 100 Garden District Residences in 4 buildings o ± 3 acres of open space Case No. Attachment D ZA13-011 Page 4 Exhibits presented at SPIN: Garden Brownstones 21 0 Park Ridge East Brownstones 9 9 Park Ridge West Brownstones 3 1 Garden District Residences 60 130 Central Avenue Residences 40 0 TOTAL 133 140 Eliminates Garden District Residence buildings on the Main Street alley and the west side of Park Ridge, which allows this area to be developed independently, and sooner New plan made possible by eliminating buildings and individual garages in favor of clustering a mix of 3 and 4-story residences over larger central garages on north side Density reduced; broader offering of residential options; responsive to market demand; phaseable Open space reorganized but substantially same scale QUESTIONS/CONCERNS • What is the ratio of 1 — 2 — 3 bedrooms? 40 — 40 — 20% total • How many Brownstones? 33 Case No. Attachment D ZA13-011 Page 5 • 1500 square feet is basically apartment size... 1500 square feet was approved by City Council in 2011 • What was the density in 2011 plan? Minimum square footage of 1500; no more than 25% of total can be 1500 square feet • What about parking? 80 parking spaces; we are currently over parked by 600 parking spaces for Southlake Town Square. The parking garages are underutilized. • What is the price point? $325 - $350 per square foot • Will these be owner occupied or leased? These will be sold. We have no holding company or comps in this area. • So you won't have any restrictions against renting? People own and rent property throughout the city • Why is the construction so expensive? It is Cooper & Stebbins quality expectation and commitment made from the beginning • There are two different housing products. Is the condo HOA different from the Brownstones? The HOA(s) can set rules that protect value. We are discussing the best approach regarding the HOA. • According to your new plan, Summit Avenue no longer dead ends and is now a through street. We are concerned about 1709 cut through. There is a safety concern and may be increased traffic from those seeking parking. You have made good comments... I love the concept. There is a great need for condos. SPIN Meeting Reports are general observations of SPIN Meetings by City staff and SPIN Representatives. The report is neither verbatim nor official meeting minutes; rather it serves to inform elected and appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues and questions raised by residents and the general responses made. Responses as summarized in this report should not be taken as guarantees by the applicant. Interested parties are strongly encouraged to follow the case through the Planning and Zoning Commission and final action by City Council. Case No. Attachment D ZA13-011 Page 6 REVISED CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA13-011 Review No.: Five Date of Review: 11/12/13 Project Name: Concept Plan — Southlake Town Square Garden District and Brownstones Phase C APPLICANT: Frank Bliss Engineer: Jim Riley Cooper and Stebbins Brockette Davis Drake, Inc. 1256 Main St. Suite 240 Southlake, TX 76092 Phone: (817) 329-8400 Phone: (214) 824-3647 E-mail: fbliss@southlaketownsquare.com E-mail: jriley@bddeng.com CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 11/08/13 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT RICHARD SCHELL AT (817) 748-8072. Update the Open Space acreage and percentage in the Site Data Summary Chart based on the open space exhibit submitted August 8, 2013 that shows a total open space of 2.35 acres, not including the courtyard areas in the Brownstones. Update the open space in the narrative booklet to 2.35 acres instead of 2.84 acres, which included the courtyard areas in the brownstones. 3. Revise the language in the narrative and on the concept plan to state that the Property Owners Association will be responsible for maintenance of landscaping, irrigation and open space areas. 4. Remove "Block 19" in the title under the open space exhibit. 5. Change the number of stories in the site data summary chart to 4 (Variance Requested). 6. A portion of Lot 35R as shown on the preliminary plat is not included on the concept plan, so the gross acreage should be approximately 0.3 acres less on the Concept Plan. Change the area in the Site Data Summary Chart to include on the portion of Lot 35R shown on the Concept Plan and Change "Platted Area" in the Gross Acreage row to "Phase 1" or "Current Phase" to avoid confusion with the Concept Plan acreage not matching the gross acreage of the Preliminary Plat. The Gross Acreage row for the entire concept plan should be called "Phases I & II" or "Current and Future Phases". 7. The Downtown District zoning regulations limit the height to 52' and the number of stories to three (3) stories for both the brownstones and Garden District units. A variance has been requested on the page in the narrative booklet titled "The Garden District Evolution — 2011 to 2013" to allow the Garden District Residences to have fourth floor penthouses that are set back from the building front. 8. Please note the following sections from Southlake Ordinance 880-A moving forward with platting and permitting of this project: Sec. 9.5-298. Subdivision of property burdened by pipeline. When one or more residential lots in a proposed subdivision are crossed or come by or come within 100 feet of any existing oil or gas pipeline or pipeline easement, the subdivider shall, priorto and as a condition of city approval of the subdivision, execute the following waiver and hold harmless agreement, which shall be duly acknowledged in the manner provided by law, and which shall thereafter be recorded in the appropriate deed or other permanent county records: "[Subdivider Name], by and through its duly undersigned and authorized officer, does hereby state Case No. Attachment E ZA13-011 Page 1 that it fully realizes that it is applying for a permit from the City of Southlake to build within 100 feet of an existing oil or gas pipeline or pipeline easement, and that the City of Southlake considers building near such pipeline or pipeline easement to have certain inherent dangers, including but not limited to explosion and release of noxious, toxic and flammable substances. For the aforementioned reasons [Subdivider Name] hereby RELEASES and agrees to forever HOLD HARMLESS the City of Southlake, Texas, its officers, officials, employees, successors and assigns from all liability in any way arising from the building, use or habitation of [structure described in the said permit]." Sec. 9.5-299. Waiver/hold harmless agreement required for issuance of building permit. (a) Any person, firm or corporation wishing to obtain a building permit for the erection, construction, reconstruction or expansion of any structure, of which any portion of such erection, construction, reconstruction or expansion would occur within 100 feet of an existing oil or gas pipeline or pipeline easement shall, prior to and as a condition of the issuance of such building permit, execute the following waiver and hold harmless agreement, which shall be duly acknowledged in the manner provided by law and which shall thereafter be notarized and recorded in the appropriate deed or other permanent county records: "I, [Applicant's Name], do hereby state, on my oath, that I fully realize I am applying for a permit from the City of Southlake to build within 100 feet of an existing oil or gas pipeline easement; that I am fully aware of the dangers inherent in building near such pipeline or easement, including but not limited to explosion and release of noxious, toxic and flammable substances; and, further, that I do hereby RELEASE and agree to forever HOLD HARMLESS the City of Southlake, Texas, its officers, officials, employees, successors and assigns from all liability in any way arising from the building, use or habitation of the structure described in the said permit." (b) Prior to beginning any excavation, trenching or digging using powered equipment or hand tools that may damage a pipeline, any person within the city shall be required to contact the one call system and any other appropriate underground utility coordinating systems and determine if there are any pipelines or public utilities in the vicinity of the proposed activities. (c) If physical contact is made with a pipeline during any excavation, trenching or digging, the pipeline operator must be notified by the person or agency making the physical contact with the pipeline for any necessary pipeline inspection or repair. Tree Conservation/Landscape Review E-mail: kmartin@ci.southlake.tx.us Keith Martin Landscape Administrator Phone: (817) 748-8229 A_1kiI11:10fe1 Alois] iyiIiyi1:4q&13 A conceptual landscape plan has been submitted that meets the requirements of the concept plan application. Public Works/Engineering Review Steve Anderson, P.E., CFM Civil Engineer Phone: (817) 748-8101 E-mail: sanderson@ci.southlake.tx.us GENERAL COMMENTS: Provide all necessary easements for water, sanitary sewer and drainage. Easements shall be 15' minimum and located on one lot — not centered on the property line. Case No. Attachment E ZA13-011 Page 2 Label utilities has "Public" or "Private". INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS: Submit 4 copies of the civil construction plans (22" X 34" full size sheets) and a completed Construction Plan Checklist as part of the first submittal for review directly to the Public Works Administration Department. The plans shall conform to the most recent construction plan checklist, standard details and general notes which are located on the City's website. A ROW permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Operations Department (817) 748-8082 to connect to the City's sewer, water or storm sewer system. A Developer's Agreement will be required for this development and may need to be approved by the City Council prior to any construction of public infrastructure. Construction plans for these improvements must be acceptable to Public Works prior to placing the Developer's Agreement on the City Council agenda for consideration. A separate bond will be required for the Maintenance Bond and bound only unto the City of Southlake for a period of two years for all development projects. The Maintenance Bond cannot be tied to the Performance and Payment Bond in any way. Any hazardous waste being discharged must be pretreated Ordinance No. 836. Fire Marshal Review Kelly Clements Assistant Fire Marshal (817) 748-8671 kclements61ci.southlake.tx.us GENERAL COMMENTS: An automatic fire sprinkler system will be required for each individual residential unit due to the limited fire apparatus access based on the minimal street widths. Submit plans to Reed Fire Protection, 14135 Midway Road, Suite G260, Addison, Texas 75001. Phone 214-638-7599. Each individual residential unit must be supplied with an exterior horn/strobe that is tied into the water flow switch of the sprinkler system for that unit to provide audible notification in the event that a fire occurs. FIRE LANE COMMENTS: Fire apparatus access needs to be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus (minimum of 80,000 Ibs GVW). Fire access roads have been increased from the previous width of 20 feet wide with an additional 8 feet of parallel parking in the existing Brownstones, to 22 feet wide with an additional 8 feet of parallel parking. Fire lanes require minimum 30 ft. inside turn radius and minimum 54 ft. outside turn radius. FIRE HYDRANT COMMENTS: Hydrants required at a maximum spacing of 400 feet for these multi -story residential structures. (Identical to the spacing for the existing Brownstones) Case No. Attachment E ZA13-011 Page 3 Hydrants are also required at intersecting streets and at intermediate locations between as prescribed above, measured as the hose would be laid. Informational Comments: SPIN meetings for this development were held February 11, 2013 and June 10, 2013. The proposed brownstones in the Garden District are subject to approval of a specific use permit. The Garden District Residence units will require approval of a site plan prior to issuance of a building permit. 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 from 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. Provide sidewalks and/or trails in compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, as amended and the Master Pathways Plan. It appears that this property lies within the 65 LDN D/FW Regional Airport Overlay Zone and will require construction standards that meet requirements of the Airport Compatible Land Use Zoning Ordinance No. 479. 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. Please contact City staff to schedule a formal submittal date. Denotes Informational Comment Case No. Attachment E ZA13-011 Page 4 Surrounding Property Owners Garden District Residences and Phase C Brownstones MI SPO # Owner Zoning Land Use Acreage Response 1. Town Square Ventures Lp DT Town Center 0.48 NR 2. Sits Grand Avenue Lp DT Town Center 2.44 NR 3. Sits Grand Avenue Lp DT Town Center 0.58 NR 4. Southlake, City Of DT Town Center 1.37 NR 5. Town Square Ventures Lp DT Town Center 3.62 NR 6. Sits Grand Avenue Lp DT Town Center 2.96 NR 7. Sits Grand Avenue Lp DT Town Center 2.55 NR 8. Southlake, City Of DT Town Center 2.07 NR 9. Town Square Ventures V Lp DT Town Center 1.10 NR 10. Town Square Ventures Lp DT Town Center 2.27 NR 11. Early, Fidelma DT Town Center 0.07 NR 12. Smith, Ryan DT Town Center 0.06 NR 13. Gray, Tim A DT Town Center 0.06 NR 14. Mills, Michael D Etux Rita DT Town Center 0.06 F* 15. Wang, Tzuchung S & Julia Huang DT Town Center 0.06 NR 16. Lewis, Terry W Etux Debra K DT Town Center 0.06 NR 17. Pekowski Family 1998 Trust DT Town Center 0.06 NR 18. Hale, Genevieve Etvir John DT Town Center 0.06 F 19. Kienast, Joseph P Etux Deanna DT Town Center 0.06 F 20. Nelson, Kenneth R Etux Sharon DT Town Center 0.06 NR 21. Posey, James H DT Town Center 0.06 NR 22. Schirle, Joseph L Jr Living Tr DT Town Center 0.06 NR 23. Vance, Frederick Etux Carol DT Town Center 0.06 NR 24. Talkington, Timothy J DT Town Center 0.06 NR 25. Ware, Demarcus O DT Town Center 0.06 NR 26. Julia, Thomas Etux Mary Jane DT Town Center 0.06 NR 27. Durant, Tom & Susan Durant DT Town Center 0.13 NR 28. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.16 NR Case No. Attachment F ZA13-011 Page 1 29. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.07 NR 30. Williams, Herbert S III DT Town Center 0.04 NR 31. Raif, Thomas V Jr & Jennifer DT Town Center 0.04 NR 32. Torres, Carlos DT Town Center 0.04 NR 33. Wandschneider, Gary K DT Town Center 0.06 NR 34. Visosky, Mark DT Town Center 0.07 NR 35. Ducharme, Paul E Etux Marianne DT Town Center 0.07 NR 36. Jackson, Charles B Jr & Cathy DT Town Center 0.07 NR 37. Ryne, Wallace R DT Town Center 0.08 NR 38. Francis, Tim D Etux Pamela D DT Town Center 0.09 NR 39. Faulkner, Sandra Potter DT Town Center 0.09 NR 40. Angeluna Properties Llc DT Town Center 0.08 NR 41. Smith, Pete DT Town Center 0.08 F 42. Fout, April R Etvir George D DT Town Center 0.08 NR 43. Osorio, Federico G Etux Paula DT Town Center 0.08 NR 44. Martin, John Etux Patricia D DT Town Center 0.08 NR 45. Shetterly, Mark Etux Kathern DT Town Center 0.08 NR 46. Leaf, Makram J Etux Caroline M DT Town Center 0.07 NR 47. Depperman, Chris DT Town Center 0.07 NR 48. Biersmith, Mark A Etux Sally A DT Town Center 0.07 49. Cranston, James Etux Etal DT Town Center 0.08 NR 50. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.12 NR 51. Arnold, William Etux Joanna DT Town Center 0.08 NR 52. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 53. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 54. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 55. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.05 NR 56. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 57. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 58. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 59. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 60. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 61. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 62. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 63. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.65 NR 64. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.13 NR 65. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.09 NR 66. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.08 NR 67. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.07 NR 68. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.08 NR 69. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 70. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 71. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 72. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 73. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 74. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 75. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 76. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 77. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 78. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 79. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.08 NR 80. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.08 NR 81. Smith, Ryan Taylor & Catherine DT Town Center 0.10 NR 82. Fields, Jennifer DT Town Center 0.06 NR 83. Coons, Robert & Kathy DT Town Center 0.06 NR Case No. Attachment F ZA13-011 Page 2 84. Alexander, Stanley Etux Lisa DT Town Center 0.06 F 85. Cardillo, Valentino Etux S DT Town Center 0.08 O 86. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.13 NR 87. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.10 NR 88. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.12 NR 89. Cole Mp Pm Portfolio Llc C3 Town Center 4.66 NR 90. Hd Development Propertiex, Lp C3 Town Center 11.60 NR 91 Shamrock Pipeline Corp, The (Response form received from Kelly McAlister with NuStar Energy) C3 Town Center 0.41 F 92. Slts Land Lp DT Town Center 5.35 NR 93. Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 4.31 NR 94. Chesapeake Land Dev Co Llc AG Mixed Use 3.09 NR 95. H D Development Properties Lp C3 Town Center 0.20 NR 96. Chesapeake Land Dev Co Llc AG Mixed Use 8.08 NR 97. Chesapeake Land Dev Co Llc AG Mixed Use 1.11 NR Responses: F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided F*: In Favor with Conditions Notices Sent: Ninety-seven (97) NR: No Response Responses Received: Seven (7) — Attached (Note: Valentino And Shawna Cardillo submitted a Notification Response Form and an e-mail in opposition) Case No. Attachment F ZA13-011 Page 3 Notification III *Ung -Date. August $. 209 3 Alt $:3o Pld Cardillo, Valentino Elux S 1500 Wain St South lake Tx, 76092 39618E 25 22 PLEASE PROVIDE. COMPLETED FORMS.1.1►4 MAI �, FAX OR HAIL DELIVERY BEFORE THE. START OF THE: SC1 DULE PUBLIC HEAFUNQ Being the owner(s) of the property so note 0. hereby in favor of aPpOadded about '�Wjced on-- the proposed Ct cip 5k above. Space fof commerits regarding your per ; s�11tE[WEI.W. %-,NA 6- Signature:` Additional Signature: TN�� Printed Narne(s):.\J(-)-et"�Vanc Must be properly ovme0s) whose names) are printed 91 top - Phone Number (optional): Q�7(Q -. the Date: 14 Date: e form per properly, Case No. ZA13-011 Attachment F Page 4 811/13 Ci.southlal�.b,us Mail - SaAfilak Town Square Garden District & Brownstones CITY Oi' SOUTHLAKE Southlake Town Square Garden District S Brownstones Shawna Cardillo W Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:39 PM To: "mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us <mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us>, "placel@ci.southlake.tx.us" <place1@ci.southlake.tx.us>, "place2@ci.southlake.tx.us" <place2@ci.southlake.tx.us>, "place3@ci.southlake.tx.us" <place3@ci.southlake.tx.us>, "place4@ci.southlake.tx.us" <place4@ci.southlake.tx.us>, "place5@ci.southlake.tx.us" <place5@ci.southlake.tx.us>, "place6@ci.southlake.tx.us" <place6@ci.southlake.tx.us>, "hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us" <hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us> Cc: Valentino Cardillo (Sent via Email and Hand Delivered) August 1, 2013 Southlake Planning & Zoning Members and Southlake City Council Members, This communication is in reference to the proposed Garden District development which will be reviewed at the August 8th P&Z public meeting. This is an extremely difficult topic to cover succinctly via email 1 letter communication or via a three minute discussion at the meeting. Therefore, we have attached three plan documents to be referenced concurrently with this letter. Additionally, in an effort to keep it simple, we have outlined our concerns in bullet point format below. At the highest level we have two major concerns: 1) The inclusion to tum Summit Avenue into a through -street. Previously the plan was Summit Avenue would D21 be a through -street to the Garden District, 2) The addition of condominiums to the Southlake Town Square area. 1) Summit Avenue as a Pass -Through Street vs. Dead -End (Exhibit 2 and 3 yellow vertical line) • The plans presented in January called for Summit Avenue to be blocked via barricades prior to entering the center of the Garden District and not be a through -street. (Exhibit 1, red horizontal line) • On May 29th we met with Lawrence Corson, Director of Residential Development and Sales, of Cooper and Stebbins Development. He stated there was no reason Summit Avenue has to be a through -street in order to complete the remainder of the Garden District development plans. This is a very key point to this topic as no other development would be delayed with this modification. Case No. Attachment F ZA13-011 Page 5 811/13 Ci.southlake.txus Mail - Soulhlake Tmn Square Garden District & Bromstones • Critical Point #1: This will create an extremely hazardous pedestrian and vehicular situation at the intersection of Highway 1709. As the volume of traffic increases significantly attempting to exit and enter from Summit Avenue via a stop sign a serious, or potentially fatal accident occurring Is only a matter of time (Exhibit 3, lime green "X"). The already established traffic signal, no more than a tenth of a mile up from Summit Avenue, on to Central Avenue should continue to be the main access way to the new retail development. (Exhibit 3, orange colored line; including planned expansion/right turn of Central Avenue across from Federal Way to Hwy 114. Planned retail expansion noted as well) • Critical Point #2: This will turn the Brownstone residential neighborhood into a very busy vehicular "pass through" to the planned retail expansion behind, and adjacent to, the Garden District. (Exhibit 2 and 3, teal blue colored line) • The rebuttal offered by some is: traffic already enters Summit Avenue today and exits via Main Street to Central. This is true; however, volume is light compared to what will occur with a formal cut -through street. If Summit Avenue is not cut -through and someone does turn on to it with the hopes of passing to Meeting Street, they will quickly learn this is not possible and return to the designed Central Avenue controlled traffic light the next time. • Traffic will increase drastically in the existing alley behind all the current Brownstones (and future Brownstones) as it will become a passage way for vehicles circling trying to find parking on the new Meeting Street which will run in front of the new Brownstones. This creates a dangerous situation for all residents in the new and existing Brownstones trying to exit and enter their garages. It also creates eminent traffic danger to all pedestrians but especially children, and or pets, exiting their garages or utilizing the alley for some form of recreation, i.e., basketball or skateboarding. (Exhibit 2 purple colored line) • Visitors will search for parking when curb -side Meeting Street parking is full. Vehicles will be less likely to circle to Main Street if they cannot cut -through via Summit Avenue. According to Cooper and Stebbins, the-Southlake Fire Department is apathetic to this pass -through of Summit Avenue. It is not required for any reason. • It appears too easy for the section between Meeting Street and the Central Avenue extension to Hwy 114 to be extended through the park area from the Summit Avenue extension (Exhibit 2 and 3, pinkish red colored line), making the scenarios outlined above an even greater concern. This section is cleverly disguised on the diagram with trees as is the Summit Avenue cut -through. As time progresses many will find a way to utilize this cut -through; not only as a means to get to retail shopping, but potentially as a short cut to other events, including their place of work, all having nothing at all to do with Southlake Town Square. • Residential traffic will increase substantially. Estimating 33 new Brownstones, and four new condo buildings with 60 units each, will total 273 more residential units. If each home averages two vehicles this alone could increase traffic flow on Summit Avenue by a large portion of 546+ vehicles daily. Case No. Attachment F ZA13-011 Page 6 • Not only will residential traffic increase but commercial vehicles (delivery trucks and semis) will utilize passage 24X7 through a residential community with children. Proposed Solution: The passage way from Summit Avenue to Meeting Street should be closed. (Exhibit 2 and 3 yellow colored line, dead-end at horizontal yellow line) This should be filled with an additional Brownstone unit to ensure this issue is not continued at a later date. 2) Addition of Condominiums to the Southlake Town Square Area • Critical Point #1: If the proposed units are approved they should be approved as Co-ops vs. Condos. (including, three Garden District Buildings, a building in the surface parking lot next to the movie theater which is scheduled to be built first, and future surface parking lot proposals throughout the Town Square.) (Exhibit 2 and 3, marked as Condo 14) • Critical Point #2: Southlake schools are a large draw to this community. What an excellent way to get your child into the Southlake school district via uncontrolled rent rates; rent a 1700 sq. ft., or less, condnminium. • At a recent SPIN meeting Cooper and Stebbins indicated they most likely would hold a large portion of ownership of the condos. Thus, they plan to lease/rent these as they see fit. This is the definition of an apartment building. • The rebuttal Cooper and Stebbins will offer is Brownstones, and/or homes can be rented in Southlake. This is true; however the rental fee typically carries a high premium of around $5,000+ per month. A company in business (Cooper and Stebbins, or any other) that needs to rent 60+ units at a time has much different motives than an individual renting a Brownstone or two. In a co-op, all your neighbors have been screened by a board. They are financially stable, they can afford their home, and they have letters of reference from a variety of sources. They have agreed to abide by house rules. Rental activity is tightly controlled, not totally forbidden, usually, but controlled. You don't have to worry about your "owner -mostly building" turning into a "renter -mostly building". If a resident is being obnoxious, you can actually take action that works. • If a large percentage of condo units go into foreclosure, the remaining residents are going to have to pay higher monthly costs and/or the building is going to deteriorate. Also, the condo building is not first in line when it comes to recovering from the foreclosed property. The equivalent of foreclosure in co-ops is rare, because of the screening process, and the co-op building is first in line when it comes to recovering funds if an owner does get into trouble. • One of the advantages with a co-op is specific to sub -leasing. After the owner has resided in the co-op for one or two years typically, most co-ops allow the owners to sublease for one to two years, and then they must move back into the co-op. The renters oftentimes have to be interviewed by the board and disclose their finances Case No. Attachment F ZA13-011 Page 7 • Despite the fact many condo associations contend they are empowered to either approve or disapprove the transfer of ownership, the reality is they have little power at all. Co-ops on the other hand have the right to approve or deny the sale of shares on the basis, for example of the buyer's perceived inability to meet financial obligations. Parking will be greatly compromised by eliminating the existing surface parking and forcing more cars to completely fill or overflow the existing parking decks. This very easily could have a reverse effect on retail shop success as consumers look for convenient parking, not a long walk from the top of a parking deck. (Exhibit 2 and 3, Condo 1) Proposed Solution: No condominiums should be allowed. If passed in the existing architectural format these should be co-op managed buildings. Another alternative is to go to 100% high value Brownstone units with no condominium buildings. Recent Brownstone sales are turning rapidly. We need to be cognizant of both issues to guard against property devaluation in a city with a history of home ownership value maximization and appreciation. Respectfully, Valentino and Shawna Cardillo 1560 Main Street Southlake, TX 76092 3 attachments Exhibit 1.pdf 279K Exhibit 2.pdf 362 K Exhibit 3.pdf 397K Case No. Attachment F ZA13-011 Page 8 i a4 W CL O (D CL M� A rF M y O � A O (D 0 13 c C � 0 1 fD (Q r *-.% N O N M x Cr r+ Case No. Attachment F ZA13-011 Page 9 Case No. Attachment F ZA13-011 Page 10 Exhibit: 3 Retail Case No. Attachment F ZA13-011 Page 11 Notification Response Fo ZA13.011 Meeting Date: August 8, 2013 at 8:30 PM Hale, Genevieve Etvir John PO Box 92163 Southlake Tx. 76C92 39618E 21 21 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAIK OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START Or THE SCHEDULED PU LIC HEARING. Being the owner(&) of -the property so noted abo e, are hereby in favor apposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Concept Plan referenced Bove. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: - Additional Signature: Printed Narme(s): Must he Property owner(c) whoae remo(s) see, pffted attop< OMerwiee owon a Phone Number (optional): (�' qj S.it) -- Gate: '7A r1a Date'. por PMPArty. Case No. ZA13-011 Attachment F Page 12 Notification Response Form ZA13-011 Meeting Date: August 8, 2013 at 6:30 PM Kienast, Joseph P Etux Deanna 1518 Main St Southlake Tx, 76092 39618B 21 22 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 n favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Concept Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Date: Additional Signature:. - Date: �T 3 d • ! 3 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 Number (optional): Case No. Attachment F ZA13-011 Page 13 Aug.07.2013 11:20 AM Notification Response Form ZA13-011 Meeting Date: August 8, 2013 at 6:30 PM Mills, Michael D Etux Rita 1528 Main St Southlake Tx, 76092 396188 21 17 PAGE. 8/ 8 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owners of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of posed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Concept Plan referenced above. for comments regarding your position: (e,- '0'Mz"owwn) 11:6ff1;'-q maRE- 6cp? IPE=:% JAI A fir! G. Signature: Date: 20)3 Additional Signature: �. j� Date: Printed Name(s): _ Must be property owners) whose are printed at top. Otherwise contact the Planning Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): 817 401 41 '�5 2- to ,6)-, • c-,cny',-7 Case No. Attachment F ZA13-011 Page 14 Notification Response Form ZA13412 MeaUng Date_ August S, 2013 at 6-20 Peal Shamrock Pipeline Cb p, The PC Box 780339 Say+ Antonfc Tx, MM A 4al 2A01 PLEASE PROVIDE MMPLETEa FORMS VIA IIl AIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY FORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBUC HEARING. e� ' s o the property s€ noted ba3�ve, a I reby in furor of oppo d to undedded about �- (circle or uriderii!ne ope) tl-e pmpcsed Predimirrary Piet referenced above. Snacit! fir can ents moaMina vaur nosition., iglu: - Date:7-Zle-13 Add1#lonaa i 1'iature: Data, _--� Printed Na c(s): k�°16, Mm4 beproperty D nw(Q rrhow ramvDz) amp eE bp- O&wwrae oazc[ih& PfanNnt De"ar:+ent Omfwn peT PraP241Y. Phone Number (optional), Case No. Attachment F ZA13-011 Page 15 Notification Response Form ZA13-012 Meeting Date: August 8, 2013 at 6:30 PM Kienast, Joseph P Etux Deanna 1518 Main St Southlake Tx, 76092 39618B 21 22 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 Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Additiona Date: zo�v-/J 1. ignature:�iN� Date: '7 3d /'3 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 Number (optional): Case No. Attachment F ZA13-011 Page 16 Aug.07.2013 11:18 AM Notification Response Form ZA13-012 Meeting Date: August 8, 2013 at 6:30 PM Mills, Michael D Etux Rita 1528 Main St Southlake Tx, 76092 396186 21 17 PAGE. 4/ 8 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the own perty so noted above, are hereby in favor of 4 pposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Date:3 Additional Signature��- / 'f Date: Printed Names):Az-nwn 1> Must be property owner(s) whose name(s) are printed at top. Otherwise contact the Planning Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): 817 461 41-52- Case No. Attachment F ZA13-011 Page 17 Aug.07.2013 11:17 AM 7 August 2013 To, Planning & Zoning Commission City Council Ref: .Z,A 13-011f012/054f080 and the residential development of Town Square in general PAGE. 1/ 8 we to prior out of town commitments I will not be available to speakk in gcrson at the upcoming P&Z and potential Council meetings concerning this subject and so will brietly provide my oomments in writing. pirst and foremost T am an avid supporter of continued development of the residential element to the Town Square District. The concept components proportions are consistent with successful uftn designs and with all that I learned while earning an undergraduate deter from the UW School of, Architecture and Urban Design. We currently have an unfinislsed project that has much upside remaining. Given the confusing narning and numbering scheme of the 5 current cases (e.g. it is not clear to me even if the "Site Plan" requirements arc included in these cases)1 will not attempt to comment on the cases individually but rather make overall comments on the project. ley points are as follows: A Ay Width It is not clear to me what the current state of play is on this subject. however, I want to make it clear that I do t►ot su pclrwiden the existing alleyp�yemant tyond its existing 16 feet. 7'11e arguments for status quo are many and. compelblig (visual appearance of an off center Swale; useful life degradation due to scabbing on extra pavement to that which exists; ownership issues since the additional width would be owned by a different HOA than the existing; increased maintenance cost due to chipping that occurs at seams; increased speed of traffic and accident risks on private property, there is no longer a public safety access issue pertaining to the Garden District; etc. eic.). if for some remon a disc ion is held about widening the pavemea then the exiting HOA, as theowner of the existing; alley land and pavement, needs to Officially be a part of that discussion. My position would be that to avvid economic damage to our HOA property any widening of the alley would have to be Clone by removing the existing pavement and consuuctxng a new alley with a monolithic pour side to side. Relo"ti©n vc CeAtral ArLenye While 1 am not necessarily against relocating the pa& of this street in concopt, nor do 1 in concept oppose filling in the drainage areas just north of the Original/Existing Brownstone District (i.e. the original. 114 homes plan approved to 2003), I am opposed to any changes to the Open Space created in perpetuity as a northern buffer between this residential district and the commercial area, as was created in 2004 at the time that Case No. Attachment F ZA13-011 Page 18 Auto. Q7.2013 11:18 AM PAGE. 2/ 8 Summit Park was reduced from approximately S aMs (Le. going all the way south to 1709) to its current sizr). In August of2004 the developer came to the .Parks Board (can which I served at that time) proposing a widening of the narrow buffer on the north end of the Brownstones District ai; a tradeoff for reducing the size of Summit Park. It was the Parks Board intent, as included in the passed motion and recommendation to MZ/Council that this widened buffer not be subject to future change. The Developer agreed. Although I have not gone with my own eyes tO verify, I w83 advised a couple of months later by the then. Community Services Director that this to perpetuity stipulation was carded fonvvard and approved through the test of the process. Criven that action and that it was a key element in approving the reduction in the size of Summit Park I do not believe it is appropriate to change that which wm intended to be permanent without significant vetting. I would also point out that the changes involved appear to excbange C`publip-' open space for "Private' open space which is two dill nt considerations (artless the city is going; to maintain the private open space that is replacing the public open space). Building Itei _ to With in the Garden District (i.c. the 2003 approved Brownstone District) I am opposed to any building height (above sea level not just above grade) exceeding that included in The approved 2003 Brownstones Plan. My pusitian is that there should not be any building Dither above sea level by location within the original Brownstones District than approved previously. Said another way it is not j ust the height of the building itself but also the heights above sea level and the setbacks. While I have no empathy for those wto lorry homes without doing cline diligence as to what may be built next to than, we did our due diligence and based our purchases on what was approved for construction adjacent to our hotlnes... and now that is being revised so I art asking that our site lines as approved in 2003 he respected and protected. I think the developer is cousidering that, but 1 did notice a reference to'141 Story Penthouses.... while that might not be problematic as it pterWns to the ntw area being considered adjacent to the existing Bast Ptrtking Owase, it is of concern if it is being considered in the 2003 Brownstone District. East End of il+ltain.street This I do :not believe is a developer issue but rather an issue between the city and the HQA. The current cases create and excellent opportunity to clean up a situation that you probably do not even know exists... i.e. the HDA awns the street which is the last block on the east end of Maw while the city owns the rest of Main. The original documents show that area as being a landscaped "count At some paint it became obvious that a se -_On l mess point was :needec#. to the alley in that area until further development occurred... so this court was turned into a. sheet but the ownership stayed with the HOA. if there is some technicality for this unusual ownership the technicality needs to be resolved and this ownership converted to the city. With the legal documents all open at the moment for other dltatiges this would be an elf dent time to fix it. To leave it like it is will create ongoing problems of maintenance, replacement, liability, etc. etc, While it is unlikely the 140A would want to close this street: and vuntveA it to a "court I do Case No. Attachment F ZA13-011 Page 19 Aug.07.2013 11:18 AM PAGE. 3J 9 believe that ante the alley has a new entrance to the north an arp ent could be made to do so. °fly you for taking the time to read my information anal for your efforts to Balance the protection of exisaing owners with chat of continuing appropriate development of our district and of our community, Mehael D, Mills 1528 Main Street Soathlake, TX 76092 CC: The Bmwnstontes at Town. Square 140A Boad of Directors France Bliss Larry Corson Case No. Attachment F ZA13-011 Page 20 Mr. Mayor and City Council: Due to prior commitments I was not in town to attend last Thursday's P&Z meeting which included the consideration of 5 cases associated with The Brownstones District and a parcel to the immediate west across Central Avenue. I did provide a letter in advance to P&Z and yourselves (attached below) with my comments and have reviewed the meeting subsequently via Vol). Since I also have out of town commitments on the 22nd when 4 of these cases may be considered by council I am writing to emphasize 5 points: Building Heights/Site Lines I Since original Brownstone buyers purchased their property with the full Brownstone (114 Brownstones) District approved as Brownstones with building locations and sizes known, I ask that the these site lines be protected by not allowing any structure (including penthouse or mechanical equipment) to negatively impact the site lines as approved by the city prior to our home investment transactions. To accomplish this both the heights of the new structures need to be considered (relative to sea level —not just structure height since grade levels may also be changing) AND set backs (the combination of height above sea level and distance from the existing homes). Oven Space Rcauirements x It seems that during the Concept Plan reviews about two years ago when the remainder of The Brownstone District was renamed The Garden District, the Public Open Space just north of and outside The (original) Brownstone District boundary was exchanged for Private Open Space within The Garden District (aka The Brownstone District). This Public Open Space just North of Case No. Attachment F ZA13-011 Page 21 and outside the original Brownstone District was put in place in 2004 as a buffer between residential property and the planned commercial area along the 114 Frontage Road and was the quid pro quo for reducing the size of Summit Park from about 5 acres to about 2.2 acres. This exchange was a win win since it made more sense to -have commercial along 1709 rather than open space/park and instead have an open space buffer to the north between residential and commercial. To have one side of this trade undone concerns me, particularly since my recollection is (from the discussion at the Parks Board meeting) that it was understood that the buffer being created to the north of the Brownstones District would not be considered for future movement/change/exchange. I have reviewed the written minutes from that meeting but they do not include the discussion that occurred so I will listen to the audio tape of the meeting when I am next in town. While I not necessarily against considering a reroute of Central Avenue I would point out that placing it on an approved Concept Plan gives it traction/momentum, as shown cuts into the originally approved Brownstone District with an arterial type road in a residential area rather than bordering a residential area, and since it isolates as an island the NW part of the original Brownstone district it invites an argument for changing that piece to commercial from residential. HOA owned alley paralleling Main Street The current proposal calls for extending this existing alley to the east to connect with Park Ridge. To avoid this private alley from being a 3 block straight shot from Park Ridge to Central I request that bollards be placed preventing traffic from being able to access the alley from Park Ridge and visa. -a -versa. Main Street east, of Park Ridge At some point this area was changed from being a landscaped court (as shown in pre 2005 documents) to being a street:. I believe this was done to provide a second access point to the alley paralleling the south side of Main Street at the east end since until a subsequent Brownstone phase was completed there would only be one access point. However, for some reason the land that this city street is on was never transferred to the city and remains under HOA ownership. This situation just invites issues to arise (e.g. Maintenance, repair, replacement, liability, etc.) that will be problematic for both the city and the HOA. Now, while the governing documents are being revised as part of these applications, would be the most efficient opportunity to fix this situation by moving this public street to city ownership. Traffic Calming During the P&Z meeting there was a discussion about placing traffic calming devices on Summit Avenue and perhaps the proposed Meeting Street. While I am not sure these devices are needed, Case No. Attachment F ZA13-011 Page 22 I would request that if they are placed elsewhere they also be placed on Main Street to the east of Central. Otherwise, traffic that would otherwise logically take other routes will opt for Main as the path of least resistance and Main east of Central is no less of a residential street than Summit. Thank you, Mike Mills PS The best way to reach me with any questions over the next few weeks is by email, but unfortunately my access is going to be spotty at times. <Garden District Comments (August 2013).docx> Case No. Attachment F ZA13-011 Page 23 Notification Response Form ZA13.011 Meeting Data: August 8, 2013 at 6:30 PM Shamrock Pipeline Corp, The Pd Box 780339 San Antonio Tx, 78278 A 481 2A01 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HANG? 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 Concept Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: j Signature: %' Dater 5 f3 Additional Signature: Date: Printed Name(s): ,� / M6 &sz Must be properly owner($) whose namo(s) are &gad at tap. Otherwise cwtad the Manning Departrmrt One form per propeily. Phone [Number (optional): Case No. Attachment F ZA13-011 Page 24 Notification Response Form ZA13-011 Meeting Date: August 8, 2013 at 6:30 PM Smith, Pete 1575 Main St Southlake Tx, 76092 39618B 24 13 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 Concept Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Additional Signature: 0 Printed Name(s): e-f wr Must be property owner(s) whose name(s) are printed at Date: 7r� Date: Otherwise contact the Planning Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): 21-:2 . 2 - ,, 4 P, Case No. ZA13-011 Attachment F Page 25 Alicia Richardson From; Lisa Alexander Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 8:58 AM To: mayor@ci.southiake.tx.us Subject: Garden District Plans Hi Mayor Terrell - I have been to just a few Council meetings but I want to tell you that the few I have been to I have really enjoyed the way you have run them. Thank you. I wanted to email you and some of the other council members with a couple more comments I have on some of the issues that were brought up last right. 1. Home Depot - I would like to see the city pass an ordinance similar to what they passed behind Central Market. That will solve the problem, No wall was required when Bill Arnold's home was built backing up to Home Depot - no wall was built when the other brownstones were built down by Home Depot. To require a wall now seems a bit odd when the problem is with the time of day those trucks are using that area - Please consider passing a noise ordinance restricting trucks during times as was done behind Central Market 2. Summit Avenue - Planning and Zoning heard a 19 minute presentation on why one brownstone resident doesn't want Summit to be extended to Meeting Street. P&Z determined it was better for Summit to be a through street. I live at the corner of Summit and Main Street. Currently we have daily traffic that . turns to go down Summit expecting Summit to continue. They make the turn and then are stuck. They either turn around in our alley or go through the alley to exit. Summit was never designed not to be a through street - otherwise the City would have made it a cul-de-sac. If you do not extend Summit to Meeting cars will still turn off of 1709 onto Summit you will just be increasing the traffic on Main Street. The cars are going to see brownstones they want to get to and will try to get there the most logical way - following Summit. By not putting Summit through to Meeting you will be forcing more cars on Main Street both East. and West of Summit and adding to the traffic already on that road. You would be helping ouc brownstone owner by not irioreasing traffic by their front door but you would be doing so by adding more traffic to everyone else. I by the way would benefit from Summit staying a dead end. But I do not feel it benefits the entire neighborhood. 3. Residence Building - I think adding a residence building in the parking lot is a great idea. Pulling the side walk into Central Avenue more will close down that street to fast traffic, open it up to a more friendly walking environment and ascetically look better by hiding the garage behind the 5 story building. 4. Dog Park - Coopers & Stebbins mentioned putting a small dog park in at the same time as creating that oval park. I did not hear that mentioned but given the enormously high percentage of dog owners the current brownstone owners have (I count 12 just off the top of my head in 44 units) and no place to go and let the dogs play I feel this would be a wonderful addition to the area. Please make sure this is part of the plan. Thank you for taking the time to read my email - I know you must get a ton of these. Thank you also for serving our City with great integrity and professionalism. It does not go unnoticeV Case No. Attachment F ZA13-011 Page 26 '171aiiks!! Lisa Alexander 1562 Alain Street Case No. Attachment F ZA13-011 Page 27