Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 06 - Stone Bridge OaksTO: HONORABLE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: BRUNO RUMBELOW, CITY MANAGER 16?— SCOTT WILLIAMS, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECHNICAL REPORT OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY PD15-04 STONE BRIDGE OAKS M APPLICANT: Ann Yelkin PROPERTY LOCATION AND SIZE: The subject property is located at 4632 Trevor Trail and is platted as Stone Bridge Oaks Il. The subject property comprises 19.17 acres and has approximately 1,540 feet of frontage along Grapevine -Euless Road and 236 feet of frontage along the south State Highway 360 service road. REQUESTED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND COMMENTS: The applicant is requesting a planned development overlay to amend the previously approved site plan of PD10-04 (Ord. 2010-33) specifically to allow an emergency only access pate on the southbound State Highway 360/Trevor Trail frontage road The applicant intends to construct a six-foot metal, emergency access gate across the Trevor Trail entrance to the subject site to help address concerns about safety, liability, property damage, theft and cut-thru traffic within Stone Bridge Oaks. The subject site is accessed by three private drives including Carly Drive and Noble Oak Drive which are located on the west side of the subdivision and which intersect with Euless -Grapevine Road and Trevor Trail which is located on the northeast side of the subject site and which intersects with the southbound State Highway 360 frontage road. At the request of property owners of the subject site, the City of Grapevine conducted traffic studies in 2011 and 2014. The traffic study included traffic counts from the three 0:2CU/PD015-04.4 1 September 8, 2015 (4:08PM) entrances to the subject site. The average 24-hour traffic counts for the Trevor Trail entrance for 2011 and 2014 respectively were 180 vehicles and 215 vehicles, an increase of 35 vehicles which could indicate the possibility of cut-thru traffic within the subject site. See the attached parking studies. PRESENT ZONING AND USE: The property is currently zoned "R-TH" Townhouse District and "R-5.0" Zero Lot Line District with a planned development overlay and is partially developed. HISTORY OF TRACT AND SURROUNDING AREA: The northern two-thirds of the subject property as well as the property to the north were rezoned in the 1984 City Rezoning from 1-1" Light Industrial District to "PCD", Planned Commerce Development District. The southern third of the subject site and the property to the south were rezoned from "C-2" Community Business District to "PCD" Planned Commerce Development District at that time. The property to the north remains undeveloped. The property to the south was rezoned from "PCD" Planned Commerce Development District to "CN" Neighborhood Commercial District in March 2000 (Z00-05, Ord. No. 00-37). A conditional use permit for a retirement community was approved at that time as well. The site plan for the retirement community has been amended several times since the original approval. The property to the west was zoned "R-7.5" Single Family District and "C-2" Community Business District prior to the 1984 City rezoning, at which time the area zoned for community business was rezoned "R-7.5" Single Family District. The site was subsequently developed with the Glade Woods subdivision. A zone change (Z02-06) was approved on the subject tract at Council's September 17, 2006 meeting rezoning the property from "PCD" Planned Commerce Development District to "R -MF -1' Multifamily District for a 124 -unit condominium project that was deed restricted to no more than six units per acre. The project never moved beyond the initial planning stages. At Council's May 16, 2006 meeting a zone change (Z06-03) and a planned development overlay (PD06-06) was approved on the subject property to allow for the development of 138 townhomes on 23.58 acres that had been previously zoned "R -MF -1" Multifamily District. A subsequent modification to the planned development overlay (PD07- 01) was approved by the Site Plan Review Committee at their March 28, 2007 meeting which allowed for the slight adjustment of the location of lots near the southeast corner of the site to preserve trees. The City Council considered at their April 20, 2010 meeting Planned Development Overlay PD10-02 on the subject property whereby the applicant proposed redeveloping the property to allow for 66 single family lots; the applicant later withdrew the request during the Commission's deliberation. The City Council at the July 20, 2010 meeting approved Z10-02 (Ord. 2010-32) to rezone a portion of the subject site from "R-TH" Townhouse District to "R-5.0" Zero Lot Line District and PD1 0-04 (Ord. 2010- 33) to allow deviation from the front, rear and side yard setback requirements and the 0:/ZCU/PD015-04.4 2 September 8, 2015 (4:08PM) building and impervious coverage requirements within the "R-5.0" Zero Lot Line District standards. SURROUNDING ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE: NORTH: "PCD" Planned Commerce Development District — Southern Baptist Convention office building SOUTH: "CN" Neighborhood Commercial District and "PCD" Planned Commerce Development District — Glade Corner Retirement Community and vacant property EAST: "PCD" Planned Commerce Development District —vacant property WEST: "R-7.5" Single Family District — Glade Woods subdivision s] • . The subject tract is not located within any of the noise zones as defined on the "Aircraft Sound Exposure: Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Airport Environs" map. MASTER PLAN APPLICATION: The Master Plan designates the subject property as a Residential High Density land use The proposed zone change does not comply with this designation. The Thoroughfare Plan designates Euless -Grapevine Road as a Type D Minor Arterial with a minimum 75 -foot right-of-way developed as four lanes. /at 0:/ZCU/PD015-04.4 3 September 8, 2015 (4:08PM) ]127U2O 2sa�IbVli413,-- : Q 1A 26 27 .._.... . _ . _.. t1 ty ._...... 8 �? 28pmaQ bse��V`� 11 12 73 74 15 R�g� pGR.`'.`r�k�iQNe t 10 _. _..29 JQ �S\tvG� .r4®® 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 30 1 1 3.795 @ post Oak 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Q DP e�.4 5 6.., .�Xi�• S p't�3y0 30 31 32 33 :•• 3� ••• 1N 5 15399 :......... ... 1 1 % 50 49 48 X47 46 45 44 43 42 41 :::3.::: 'Q 4S 47 '4645 44 43 42 ... 3. ... ... • ..' :. 7II.13 1 jXa� �5fp'C��0 41 12 13 14 { � �17 18 '19 2021 22 8 7 6 2 5 3 CC Feet 0 150 300 450 600 G VII�4 E N T F X A w -Q y E Date Prepared: 9/1/2015 CN 1 1 9.64 @ TR 284 5.75 @ 4.44 @, \ TR 281 C \\l` 4.066 @ C TR 2B 1 A2 2.37@ TR 2B1 A2 Stone Bridge O a This data has been compiled by the City of Grapevine IT/GIS department. Various official and unofficial sources were used to gather this information. Every effort was made to ensure the accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given or implied as to the accuracy of said data. 0 rAim M ' •�• !0+ ■ 20 :19 O :. 3 .i9::' .. •4::: " .::::::.. ..... � ■� rt 4 i 20... . .... ... c • _-_.._ •' :•... t3@7lt1....19::: tC: CI7S:7t ■ �• :�. ....... ....: o : . 2 3 8 ........ wp• ■ 1110 - • " 12 13 14 { � �17 18 '19 2021 22 8 7 6 2 5 3 CC Feet 0 150 300 450 600 G VII�4 E N T F X A w -Q y E Date Prepared: 9/1/2015 CN 1 1 9.64 @ TR 284 5.75 @ 4.44 @, \ TR 281 C \\l` 4.066 @ C TR 2B 1 A2 2.37@ TR 2B1 A2 Stone Bridge O a This data has been compiled by the City of Grapevine IT/GIS department. Various official and unofficial sources were used to gather this information. Every effort was made to ensure the accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given or implied as to the accuracy of said data. 0 26 125 24 23 22 21 20 :19 O :. 3 .i9::' .. •4::: " .::::::.. ..... :" 27 4 ........ .. ...•.. ....::: 20... . .... ... _-_.._ •' :•... t3@7lt1....19::: tC: CI7S:7t :�. ....... ....: o : . 2 3 8 ........ wp• 15 14 13 12 1110 - • " g: ........... ... 11............... .... ...... :10 11 12 13 14 .... ... •.... 7 .: .. ...... ::... ............. i9 1 23 2 22 .... .... ........ CIIZ}. +�. ::::: .............. 9> ACT' 21 ::::::: .... g ::: .. ....... ...... ..... ... ....... ...... ..... .. ..... .. 1A C 20 '19 18 17 ; 16 15 3 .... .. 12... i MMON AREA 14 13 12 111 10 �9 8,7 6 '' 5 1 �- 22 23 24 25 26 Cj®� 4 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 ; 12 13 14 { � �17 18 '19 2021 22 8 7 6 2 5 3 CC Feet 0 150 300 450 600 G VII�4 E N T F X A w -Q y E Date Prepared: 9/1/2015 CN 1 1 9.64 @ TR 284 5.75 @ 4.44 @, \ TR 281 C \\l` 4.066 @ C TR 2B 1 A2 2.37@ TR 2B1 A2 Stone Bridge O a This data has been compiled by the City of Grapevine IT/GIS department. Various official and unofficial sources were used to gather this information. Every effort was made to ensure the accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given or implied as to the accuracy of said data. SOM 0AZCLA1 Forrns\app.pd.doc 7/17/2014 T7, JUL IS 2015 ❑ Submit a letter describing the proposed Planned Development and note the request on the site plan document. ❑ Describe any special requirements or conditions that require deviation of the zoning district regulations. ❑ Describe whether the proposed overlay will, or will not cause substantial harm to the value, use or enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood. ❑ Describe how the proposed planned development will add to the value, use or enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood. ❑ The site elan submission shall meet the re uirements of Section 47, Site Plan Requirements. ❑ All planned development overlay applications are assumed to be complete when filed and wilt be placed on the agenda for public hearing at the discretion of the staff. Based on the size of the agenda, your application may be scheduled to a tater date. ❑ All public hearings will be opened and testimony given by applicants and interested citizenry. Public hearings maybe continued to the next public hearing. Public hearings will not be tabled. ❑ Any changes to a site plan (no matter how minor or major) approved with a planned development overlay can only be approved by city council through the public hearing process. ❑ 1 have read and understand all the requirements as set forth by the application for planned development overlay and acknowledge that all re uirements of this application have been met at the time of submittal. PART 4. SIGNATURE TO AUTHORIZE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY REQUEST AND PLACE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY REQUEST SIGN ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY n E' k-116? Print Applicant s Nam Applicant's Signatu The State Of Tevc C S County Of T�(.Y'V-e'\ � Before Me �'�� h �c( q� r, (notary) on this day personally appeared (applicant) known to me (orproved to me on the oath of card or other document) to ba the person whose name is subscribed acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed. (Seal) Given under my hand and seal of office this day of IA(y 0 a`y� gj,q� g��pP ppy , A.D. JOHN AWsON Notary Public. State at Texas Y COmmiss{an Expires April 24, 2014 t Notary In For State Of Texas P rty Ownegnature: The State Of�Bt_� County of.. ' Before me Ltr)����� on this day personalty appeared (notary) /,. known to me (or proved (Pr rty owner) acknowledged to me that the executed the same for the purposes and consido me on the Oath of card or other document) to er tion the person ie hose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and essed the foregoing instrument and xp (Seal) Given under my hand and seal of office this — Z2 day of A.D. JILL ROMN My Commission 'S February 23, 0:\ZCIA1 Forms\app.pd.doc 7/17/2014 State df Texas pjSt5-0q ApplicationsAll Planned Development Overlay date.Will be placed on the agenda for public hearing at the discretion of the staff. Based on the size of the agenda, Your application may be scheduled to a later All public hearings will be opened • testimony given by applicants and interested citizen,. ContinuedPublic hearings may be to the next ,hearing. • •hearings• be tabled. • Any changes to a site plan (no matter how minoror •r) appro ved with a planned development overlay can only be • t • • •citcouncilthrough♦ • c zoningAny application for a change in Or foramendment have, from the date of submittal, a • • Of , months to request agenda before the Planning • Zoning Commission and City Council. If after said period four months an application has not been scheduled before withdrawn,application shall be considered •; along with the required filing fee may be resubmitted any time thereafter for reconsideratio PlanningDelays in scheduling applications before the ,;• e' • • not be ' •' • • Cit considered a part of I have read and understand all of ♦, • . • • • , ®ate: O:\ZCIni Forms\app.pd.doc 7/17/2014 {{ 4 r- . Gb=\—UL� Stone Bridge Oaks isato,vuhonocand garden home development inGrapevine just north ofGlade Road and just west n[Highway 3h0. The property has been under slow development since 2O06under several ownerships. The subject of this proposal to the city is to ask for consideration by the Council for approvulnfa c|oued/cnncrgeooy-onlygate a1the Trevor Trail entrance off nfHwy 36O. The Stone Bridge Oaks Homeowners Association hc|icvco that numerous factors related to safety, liability, property damage and theft contribute to the need of such controlled access. The following presentation will detail the rational and detail of the request for uc)os«d The development was originally planned usunall iownhomcdevelopment starting io 2006. After bankruptcy hvthe original dcvc|operinZO09,GrouodicxHonlcatook ownership of the development and rezoned the remaining lots for Patio Homes. As of today, the development is now 90Y6built out with the remaining nine lots under construction. There have been two traffic studies completed on the property. The original study was completed prior to 50% build -out and showed excessive traffic in and out of the nei0hborhood. There was concern by the city that a lot of the traffic was due to construction; therefore, another study was conducted when the neighborhood was at almost 90% build -out. Many people from other neighborhoods use Trevor Trail as a cut through to Hw,y. 360 and the neighboring office building. This has been confirmed by one of our neighbors taking a poll for several days during morning traffic hours. In addition to the extra traffic, many were traveling at excessive speeds as witnessed by many residents. The results of the traffic study are as follows: The results were that traffic is Stone Bridge Oaks is used by non- significantly more than expected for Actual Expected % over the number of resident in the 8�9 562 147% community. This demonstrates that M-111 building facing 360 just outside the Stone cut -through traffic is excessive and 75 44 170% related to non-resident traffic. 95 57 166% r f s ®u gaff c Stone Bridge Oaks is used by non- residents to create a short cut from surrounding residential neighborhoods to bypass traffic lights at 360 & Glade Road and 360 & Euless -Grapevine Road. In addition, there is an office park_11I M-111 building facing 360 just outside the Stone Bridge Oaks property. Daily there are l approximately 30 plus autos in their parking lot. Many get to that parking lot by cutting through Stone Bridge Oaks l; property causing excessive wear on our private roads.; Easy access to Hwy 360 makes it an easy target for criminals. We have had several break-ins and thefts. Uncontrolled Intersections through roe y As traffic cuts through Stone Bridge Oaks, there are no controlled intersections. Traffic cutting through the neighborhood is excessive at estimated speeds of 30-40mph. Since these are private streets, Grapevine Police have indicated that they cannot make traffic stops to control speed. Privately Constructed Streets Stone Bridge Oaks streets were designed and approved by City Council as private roads. These streets do not meet code for width, load, or curbing and will not withstand public traffic without constant repair in the near future. There are islands on the property that create confusion and have caused several mailboxes to be hit by cars. Our roads are getting excessive non - neighborhood traffic, causing damage to the roads. This cost will be the responsibility of the HOA. t o r i ting n 1 i e ar i Street lighting was installed by the property developer but has not proven to be sufficient lighting of the property. Because the lighting is inadequate we frequently have cars that enter into Stone Bridge Oaks at night and park and turn off their lights. Sometimes a second car pulls up and turns off their lights. By the time police arrive they are gone. im The Lust Few Homes STONE BRIDGE OAKS H Bra5ord D 4629 Trevor (Saxton 11) 4711 Taylor (Saxton 11) •"' "A 4703 Taylor (Saxton) Plills, P-dmv .11d >Pdf—fMm smbj-f 1, b—ge vfi— STONE BRIDGE 0.4 KS 11 116 LOTS SINGLF FAWL V 5 LOTS OPEA'SPACE 2 LOTSPRIV,17FACCEZ The request for an emergency -only gate at the Hwy. 360 and Trevor Trail entrance to the private property of Stone Bridge Oaks has the majority support of the homeowners of the property. A petition was circulated at an HOA meeting and signatures were recorded according to address. Remaining signatures were obtained by door to door visits to the homeowners. A true and correct copy of the petition and signatures are attached to this proposal and request. The homeowners voted at an HOA meeting in favor of installing a closed gate at Hwy. 360, and the vote was unanimous for a CLOSED/EMERGENCY gate at 360. The homeowners of Stone Bridge Oaks respectfully submit that of 15 apartment complexes inside the City of Grapevine that have similar community amenities and private roadways, nine of those apartment complexes have controlled access gates for their residents. Stone Bridge Oaks is not a typical public street community, but rather a townhome/garden home property much like an apartment complex property with many similarities. We are simply requesting one gate in order to reduce the traffic and destruction to our roads rather than all three entrances that would completely block traffic. The Stone Bridge Oaks HOA hopes that the City Council will consider and approve this very important request based on the *bJective information submitted in this document. Regards, Members of the Stone Bridge Oaks HOA v, 'r` t ''% � _ � r ,_ 1 :,: Stone •.' OaksGate Committee and Hom eo n.ers p� I5 -oil cn 0 L. CD = CTJ %+- 0 -, L6 - 0 E 70 C) N U) cu 06 CD LO 0 CD M 04 r. 0 r o 0 LE :3 cm D :3 ■0 LM E 0 E 0 70 IM 0 L- 0 ca 0 C-) 0to 4-0a) Cl) E 0 0 +- C M O a) 4-1 cu = 0 cr :3 Co Lo O -0 > 4) cz CL Wc O m E C\j CU U- (D E C U) -0-0, b 70 U) (D 0 C:> E 0 N 0 0 C o > co a) 0o z C) C15 0 C) 0) m T-, co p� I5 -oil cn 0 L. CD = CTJ %+- 0 -, L6 - -�e E 70 C) U) cu CD 0 CD M cn 0 LE :3 cm D :3 E 0 E L- 0 ca 0 C-) 0 0 +- C M a) 4-1 cu = 0 cr :3 Co Lo -0 Q) Wc O C15 C\j E b 70 cz C 0 0 Lo > co a) C) C15 0 CIO CD > -0 M > as 0 > C (z L— 0 -C _0 Cl) 0 0 (1) 4- C M =3 0 (D co U) C CIO C) E cum (D C (0 M 0 M C 3: 0 a) O(D O +- CU L- .0) C ca (c$ .0 cn 0 ca co c + a) 1-0 _0 0 -+� co C.) L- 0- co a) tv 0 — co 00, a) a) 0 0) a) m f.- a) a) LO 0 0 0 C> a) 4— E N4� ca cz cu U) W 0) U) a) a) (D 0) L. -1.- 0 1-1 -0 0 2) 0 co a) co c a) L) -0 E C15 t-- co -I.- c 0 w Cc ) L) O CU CO +- Co 4� CZ C/) E co 0 EO CD W a) 4� a) 75 cn 0 C: 0 a) -C (D C: (D CQ C: 0 C- 0 -0 — cz cz c 0 > a) Em 4) 0 r- 0 0 a) L) cn ca C: a) 0.- ®® -0 -0 = CU E 0 Cc - o L- CIO Co cz 0 co 70 cn E 0 cu > a) 0 0 0 =3 0 (D 0 = C13 4) > > > m 0 >1 :3 (D 4�-j >,, I- IL 76 I NC) I I Co 1 C.0 -f- a) :t- Q cn -0 0 9 -0 (o L. a) < 6- :3 —cn Cl) = z LO r- C f- (D AS pp�s-oy Prepared by: Bill Behrens, 4702 Trevor Trail Date: August 11, 2015 Subject: Meeting with Randie Frisinger, Deputy Chief Fire Marshal, Grapevine TX to review options and concerns for gate at 360 entrance/exit to Stonebridge Oaks Meeting Held: 8:OOAM August 11, 2015 Proposed gate location off 360 access road Attendees: Randie Frisinger, Deputy Chief Fire Marshal, Grapevine, TX Gerald Jones, Resident, 4723 Taylor Lane Bill Behrens, Resident, 4702 Trevor Trail Linda Broom, Gate Committee, 4721 Trevor Trail (joined discussion later due to previous morning commitment) Background: Gerald had requested a meeting with Randie to review plans for the proposed gate at the 360 access road entrance. I attended the meeting at Linda's request. Randie, Gerald, and I met at 8:OOAM to go over the plans for the proposed gate and discuss the concerns and recommendations of the Fire Department regarding our application. In addition to the actual gate to be installed a number of ancillary issues were discussed as follows: 1. Fire Lane clearance - the red lines indicate the boundaries of the fire lane and any gate has to be behind those lines. All (3) types of gates originally proposed meet this criteria. 2. Drive Arounds -- Randie indicated based on his experience that we would need to insure that no one was able to "drive around" the gates through a homeowner's yard. This can be accommodated. 3. Truck Access if Permanent fixed gate is installed -- Gerald indicated that he had contacted the waste management company and that they did not have a problem with their trucks backing up the street during trash collection as they now do for the other two dead end streets in Stonebridge Oaks. If a permanent gate is installed it will also be necessary for FEDEX, UPS, etc., trucks to turn around in a drive or back up the street. This should not be a problem. 4. If powered gates are installed two types of locks will need to be installed that the Fire Department can open. A Knox lock and an Opticon keyswitch were mentioned by Randie. He can provide full information on these. If a manual, fixed gate is installed just the Knox lock would be required. 5. Randie was asked what type of gate he preferred for Fire Dept. use and in order he said: a. Electrical Sliding Gate b. Electrical Swinging Gate c. Manual Locked Swinging Gate He also emphasized that any of the (3) gates were totally acceptable to the Fire Department as long as they met the regulations and that it was up to us to determine which option to install. 6. Additionally it was pointed out that each of the gates had their strengths and weaknesses. Electrical powered gates require considerable maintenance and upkeep while the fixed gate is the lowest cost option but may require monitoring to insure that the gate doesn't sag and drag in the middle. At the end of the meeting I told Randie that I would email him and asked that he send me a copy of the rules and regulations which I would then send on to Linda and Gerald although the Committee appears to have the most current version. As I am not a member of the Committee I can only offer my perspective as a homeowner: 1. All (3) gates originally considered meet Fire Department code and regulations if installed properly. 2. Maintenance costs of the (2) moving, electrical gates is much higher than the maintenance of a fixed manual gate. 3. As it is apparent that our HOA dues will increase in January; and that future increases will be needed to cover operating and reserve costs, I personally feel that the manual gate is the best, most cost effective option at this time. I have signed the petition to support this. 4. Grenadier is not going to be here forever. They hope to have the remaining units sold by year end and to complete the transition soon after. As they are willing to pay for the installation of the gate (but not the ongoing maintenance) we need to continue to press forward to get City Council approval and get a gate installed as soon as possible. The sooner the gate is installed, the sooner the "excess traffic" is eliminated reducing wear and tear on our streets, and increasing security by eliminating access to 360. Respectfully Submitted: William H. Behrens August 11, 2015 U C O O N N Q Ln L Q N C Y 3 N O to N � Y Q f6 O N 4A .2 2 cc N C O L L O rte+ v L H 06 O m a 3 v aA O Z = v v co O O u cw cu OA i m N C c L N O Qj c ~ w c o � 'wo O c O 3 cco L � V Q O m O C Q Q Q0 c m`L° T co Z 0 N v � bA L u O On t9 W a E v � L (v O N O L u H Q co LI R C LE d) 3 C u e4 N L O L U m v N E N N N U C fp v Y C (,7 f616 > � 6 U- V v > J D N LL E co W E (0 N Q '� W 9C N m W c O v U. C E t0 V v v v Q U U U U U O O c L L c LO N N ON v i O c cl -It cr J ct L d N O L v N m U O Y Ln c c L L c c N N '� v -Q O c LL mU J J L J In v u v v CL .G v - L N v c C u O N V C N N N c c c v c0 co to 7 J J J c O T T L f0 f6 <O Y Y Y U N to ON l00 t00 t00 qr d d et u u ►ii u c O c O O C •,, O N v � c O L b�A N N 00 y Y cu _ .i O D M \ u aVF+ J Q •� 0 LL cc_m f6 _ .1i •y i ^ U ¢ fY ,p m U f0 (6 � v }A+ v C 0 O 'O i-+ O c l0 N m V O O N C9 N co w OC C7 U U v v v v v v v v c c c c c c c c c c J J J J J J J O O Y Y Y Y � Y Y m m i" 00 r•I N O 14 Iq r -I N N N M tD LD ,It -t ct d d ch ct ct V C C O M) u O N N Q Lr) N � C) O N O qbp ro Q O (U on m v C O V) N u: P (,� � s Fcq i 3 C C i N N C ® N O L O N 41 C +�-+ L E O = w aLn v 0 75 aa)i co fu E Lnu u O N z v v = Q) J to Q O W W O -C co V v v v v v v v C c C c c c J J J J J J N O N O O O O O O F- {- f" F Q lD l0 l0 1l n rl (� CP' CP ct cf' Ct c7 Ct P (,� � s Fcq a LE H Q 6 � (� � (3 - c) q ^j. L a 75 4w M 3 O O U ac J m v c N +� = a o a� L 3 ° `° O 10 cm om @ 3 y O ca .CL N Q O M O M Y 0 Ln Q Q L O N c U c m L V Q) .5 W O m � O m m N pxp D ? m v > O m V a Q) aci = vt Q� cn c v a Q) c O �' U 0 L ca v L O N L t° a y vii w @) Q1 tw v c J Q) a� a, c N v c :> m c L O O O U = 0 O m O O m ko � V) O m O a L O m L O m I— � L -aL 0 0 a O L 4 06 a LE H Q 6 � (� � (3 - c) q a a J J M M i H i c -p .m U c m L V Q) .5 W c m L V Q) . V) 4- —) m � CL O �^ c Q) N m m h bA -� — 'b_A >_ C u H 7 L ~ hp > C UC > O — v > O m V a Q) aci = vt Q� cn c v a Q) c O �' U 0 L ca v L O N L t° a y vii v c m J cu c m J v c m J v c J c a, c c v c c c O O O O O m .moi O m O m O m ko L O m O m L O m L O m I— V c 0 'u O N N d Lr) L O GJ N C ,a, o GL0 N le m Q l0 O aJ CLO 72 m v c O U) iii u pp�s-oy ISS vN m v uC @ LL aC ] a w =4-1 'L N c Q Z � N ca u z � 0 m vci > ca c v O } t 0 >, L E Y O. c E Y E c a O zo d to bx4 as f c C: 19 c J c J co F co F m F O > O T O A F O > F- 0 O O (31 O 00 W O .-i e -i CD I -t .-i O N u O M v O N N Q Ln a � N C 4� 3 v, O M m d 0 W W '2 M a) C O N L O a) L i- O M S a-+ N ++ m to O Z a o 3 _ w- = @;' w Yo ro'3 O a v w W L c I- so L +� L Q (U 3 0 CO C C O c CL U O M Y ON C Q Q O k M m 3 v s o @j a M 0o Q L U 0 Q) "O tw m W a E a) a L a)Qto O V F - Q o2S `l m C u u a) 3 m C ti d J J O en M C C U O w O - m V a 4� O m a) °) w ! a) V C O_ v V C Q o m } � 7 m Y •�'' N m a1 1- m N S T m Uq W 4! N et M Itt ct d -C N O m m L L L a a y y Q N N Ln N ct d' Ct N 0 2 E Y H L O f" W N d' 0i Q J O M C 4� a) °) w ! a) V C O_ v Y N C Q o m } � 7 m Y •�'' N m O'1 cY N et M Itt ct d I, CO d et PL ,�c y �\ M ( \ k ■� c } 2 % Q) F- 0 2 \ $ c % f ° c& / C -6 « 2 } m k 0 } ® c ) § \ \ c k J 6 J ) = ƒ R 2 / \ e # \ e / \ e \ En § 0 / / « _ 0 § \ # & / \ # b § \ # / \ < \ 0 k z m [ / u ` 3 3 J \ A §/£ \ / / 3 ® » G a � 0 0 0 0 \ca / V) t F-e ID \ 0 \ \ Cc://\f \ 0 c 0 _$ c o % < o 0 % / < 2 § ^ f k \ { Ln < / c f E / \- e 0 \2 Ln ; £ PL ,�c y �\ ( \ k ■� c 2 2 % Q) bo c 0 2 \ $ c % f ° c& / § / c 2 } m k 0 } ® c ) § \ \ c ƒ Ln» J 6 J ) = ƒ R 2 / \ e # \ e \ e \ e En § 0 / / « 0 \ 0 § \ # & / \ & \ � b § \ # PL ,�c y �\ ( \ \ Q) 1 \ \ / \ 4 2 » & § \ \ \ \ k \ m [ / u ` 3 3 J \ \ / / 0 0 0 # F-e ID \ \ k \ ^ -4j � ~ . \ ƒ t a 3 a @ 6 %/o§u } E77// t \ ƒ & m f >__= c 0 ƒ/) / e t z % \ \ � 2 A § { - 0 ° _$ m o % 7 k a \ o 0 0 j e © \ % / < 2 § > \ e � ~ ~ / m F- g \ # \ k f in b 2 « :3cu > % . G / e g $ & ! # 2 \ / c f � / to k m : o /k to § \2 �! t c 2 o ( �¢ < 4 \ ^ -4j � ~ . t E^ } f a @ E c $ k / e t z % \ 5 \ 3 { - m Lnm 2 / 5 /2 7 k a / $ _ C.c / a & 2 » j e © \ 4-1 � & © \ © 2 � > \ e � / # ~ / m F- g \ # \ g 2 « 0 & / F- / $ b / e Q $ b / e $ $ G / e g $ & ! # 2 \ \ ^ -4j � ~ . t } a @ E c $ k / e t z % \ } \ CL / j \ § » \ [ < > § / m \ m Lnm 2 / \ @ $ 0 \ \ # ¥ \ e / \ e \ \ e / # / # / # \ # / # \ 7 PE \� o q * \ \» / 0 / m a 9 ® 2 G k } / %foEu u t m \ CL E/7 2 / �7 / . \ [ / -he $ 7 a / m k 3 3 \ c \ / / p c • i a)7 No / \ co \ \ k < 0 Ln } % / < 7 § ~ 4 q 3 f k \I % c 2 2 k< 2 �\ a _ \ / 0 co m 3 t f t a 2 • \� e / m Q)/ y = /k m § § 2 77 < m Ln u \ 2 [ c 0 a)0 \ - & j J / < 4 3 % \ 7 PE \� o q 3 \» / 0 / m k } / u t m \ CL 2 �7 / ) / -he cu 3 3 / c \ / / / E& } \ } 4 q 3 E 0 % c 2 2 2 3 CL E& E 0 c & a / 0 co m 3 t » 2 \ m Q)/ y = % m m 2 @ < m \ 2 [ c 0 j J / 2 3 % \ a- 2 m m m \ \ m e e & e ¥ 4 } \ \ \ ( \ { e & w & e \ \ \ \ \ \ L; \ / § « § R O k O tto m / 3 V) Ln 0 / \ _ \� c LE m 2 LE (� � �) -C) Ll � 2 0 o / t ƒ \ 0 \ \ t \ ) \ / ƒ ® $ } } / / \ \ \ \ $ « e A e (n e S $ & & (� � �) -C) Ll August 10, 2015 Grapevine City Council Planning and Zoning Grapevine, TX 76051 Planning and Zoning: We are out of town until October so please use this as our proxy for the petition for Stone Bridge Oaks HOA Gate petition. The undersigned prefer a closed/emergency gate at 360 and Trevor Trail. Thank you. Lawrence B. Van Ingen Laurie N. Van Ingen 4654 Trevor Trail Grapevine, 76051 Lawrence B. Van Ingen Laurie N. Van Ingen ORDINANCE No. s AN ORDINANCE ISSUING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 41 OF ORDINANCE NO. 82-73, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, SAME BEING ALSO KNOWN AS APPENDIX "D" OF THE CITY CODE, BY GRANTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY PD15-04 TO AMEND THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN OF PD10-04 (ORDINANCE NO. 2010-33) TO ALLOW AN EMERGENCY ONLY ACCESS GATE ON THE SOUTHBOUND STATE HIGHWAY 360 FRONTAGE ROAD ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH A SITE PLAN APPROVED PURSUANT TO SECTION 47 OF ORDINANCE NO. 82-73 AND ALL OTHER CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND SAFEGUARDS IMPOSED HEREIN; CORRECTING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PRESERVING ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE; PROVIDING A CLAUSE RELATING TO SEVERABILITY; DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTERESTS, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE DEMAND THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY PERMIT; PROVIDING A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) AND A SEPARATE OFFENSE SHALL BE DEEMED COMMITTED UPON EACH DAY DURING OR ON WHICH A VIOLATION OCCURS; DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, an application was made requesting issuance of a planned development overlay by making applications for same with the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Grapevine, Texas, as required by State statutes and the zoning ordinance of the City of Grapevine, Texas, and all the legal requirements, conditions and prerequisites having been complied with, the case having come before the City Council of the City of Grapevine, Texas, after all legal notices requirements, conditions and prerequisites having been complied with; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Grapevine, Texas, at a public hearing called by the City Council did consider the following factors in making a determination as to whether this requested planned development overlay should be granted or denied: safety of the motoring public and the pedestrians using the facilities in the area immediately surrounding the site; safety from fire hazards and measures for fire control; protection of adjacent property from flood or water damages, noise producing elements, and glare of the vehicular and stationary lights and effect of such lights on established character of the neighborhood; location, lighting, and types of signs and relation of signs to traffic control and adjacent property; street size and adequacy of width for traffic reasonably expected to be generated by the proposed use around the site and in the immediate neighborhood; adequacy of parking as determined by requirements of this ordinance for off-street parking facilities; location of ingress and egress points for parking and off-street locating spaces, and protection of public health by surfacing on all parking areas to control dust; effect on the promotion of health and the general welfare; effect on light and air; the effect on the overcrowding of the land; the effect on the concentration of population; the effect on the transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other facilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Grapevine, Texas, at a public hearing called by the City Council of the City of Grapevine, Texas, did consider the following factors in making a determination as to whether this requested planned development overlay should be granted or denied; effect on the congestion of the streets, the fire hazards, panics and other dangers possibly present in the securing of safety from same, the effect on the promotion of health and the general welfare, effect on adequate light and air, the effect on the overcrowding of the land, the effect on the concentration of population, the effect on the transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public facilities; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements of Section 41 of Ordinance No. 82-73 have been satisfied by the submission of evidence at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council further considered among other things the character of the existing zoning district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses and with the view to conserve the value of buildings and encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout this City; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Grapevine, Texas, does find that there is a public necessity for the granting of this planned development overlay, that the public demands it, that the public interest clearly requires the amendment, that the zoning changes do not unreasonably invade the rights of those who bought or improved property with reference to the classification which existed at the time their original investment was made; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Grapevine, Texas, does find that the planned development overlay lessens the congestion in the streets, helps secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers, prevents the overcrowding of land, avoids undue concentration of population, facilitates the adequate provisions of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Grapevine, Texas, has determined that there is a necessity and need for this planned development overlay and has also found and determined that there has been a change in the conditions of the property surrounding and in close proximity to the property requested for a change since this property was originally classified and, therefore, feels that the issuance of this planned development overlay for the particular piece of property is needed, is called for, and is in the best interest of the ORD. NO. 2 public at large, the citizens of the City of Grapevine, Texas, and helps promote the general health, safety and welfare of this community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS: Section 1. That the City does hereby issue a planned development overlay in accordance with Section 41 of Ordinance No. 82-73, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Grapevine, Texas, same being also known as Appendix "D" of the City Code, by granting Planned Development Overlay PD1 5-04 to amend the previously approved site plan of Planned Development Overlay PD10-04 (Ordinance No. 2010-33) to allow an emergency only access gate on the southbound State Highway 360 frontage road within the following described property: Stone Bridge Oaks Addition (4632 Trevor Trail) all in accordance with a site plan approved pursuant to Section 47 of Ordinance No. 82-73, attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A", and all other conditions, restrictions, and safeguards imposed herein, including but not limited to the following: None. Section 2. The City Manager is hereby directed to amend the official zoning map of the City of Grapevine, Texas, to reflect the herein planned development overlay. Section 3. That in all other respects the use of the tract or tracts of land herein above described shall be subject to all the applicable regulations contained in said City of Grapevine zoning ordinance and all other applicable and pertinent ordinances of the City of Grapevine, Texas. Section 4. That the zoning regulations and districts as herein established have been made in accordance with the comprehensive plan for the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals and the general welfare of the community. They have been designed with respect to both present conditions and the conditions reasonably anticipated to exist in the foreseeable future; to lessen congestion in the streets; to secure safely from fire, panic, flood and other dangers; provide adequate light and air; to prevent overcrowding of land, to avoid undue concentration of population; facilitate the adequate provisions of transportation, water, sewerage, drainage and surface water, parks and other public requirements, and to make adequate provisions for the normal business, commercial needs and development of the community. They have been made with reasonable consideration, among other things, of the character of the district, and its peculiar suitability for the particular uses and with a view of conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the community. Section 5. This ordinance shall be cumulative of all other ordinances of the City of Grapevine, Texas, affecting zoning and shall not repeal any of the provisions of said ordinances except in those instances where provisions of those ordinances which are in direct conflict with the provisions of this ordinance. ORD. NO. 3 Section 6. That the terms and provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be severable and that if the validity of the zoning affecting any portion of the tract or tracts of land described herein shall be declared to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the zoning of the balance of the tract or tracts of land described herein. Section 7. Any person violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum not to exceed Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) and a separate offense shall be deemed committed upon each day during or on which a violation occurs or continues. Section 8. The fact that the present ordinances and regulations of the City of Grapevine, Texas, are inadequate to properly safeguard the health, safety, morals, peace and general welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Grapevine, Texas, creates an emergency for the immediate preservation of the public business, property, health, safety and general welfare of the public which requires that this ordinance shall become effective from and after the date of its final passage, and it is accordingly so ordained. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS on this the 15th day of September, 2015. ATTEST: ORD. NO. 4 GRQ. Noll 360 PGG/WSJ//, 1 \ JF TREE LIST I �� ,crus ("nmmnn lame IIoranrcul lom.o!r+ Free Rald Cypress Rundir.m Ji.Hirhnm Trec 1'es Bur Oak Chrererrs muCru<nryrr Tree Yes Qllnkapia Oak Q.en.r. mnhlerrhergii Tree Yes Cedar0, L'Imuserm Mir. T— Y. Chin ePistnehe Pi.rrura.hine .. Tree Nn Des m Willow f'hiop.rir liurru Tre Yes Psuem Red Cd,, Jrrniperus rirXiniana Tree Yes Lacey Oak (hrercus Xlor.coides Tee Yn Lacebark Eh (:Inmsp... iir'liri Tec Y'es Magnolia. Southcm Naynnlirr er.rndiHuro Tree Y. Red Oak [h.ereu.s rxmnu TreeYes Eld.nc. Pine 1'In.wcldncIcu S-1,— No Japanese Bb,k Pine Pinusrh--'Pisan nmlllree No Eve s Neck6ce Sirplraro �n]s Smsll tr« 1'es Mein. n PI.. P. na SH 11— Yes P.—H,IH, HUily 11er d' id., 5-11 Y'es Redbud'Oldahuma' (.'rrriseunadsnsiav.'—'ends TlA'luh— 5-11Hee 1'es Yaupor. Hully 11ea'r'—H-iJ Smalltrce Yes KEY "' TRpJ1 SR�VOR._rs� oR VP NOTES GENERAL LANDSCAPE L PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY PDI(I-(E2 IS A REQUEST TO AMEND THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SEL. PLAN OF PD0&06 (ORD. 06-31) FOR TOWNHOUSE ADDITION. SPECIFICALLY TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF 66 SINGLE FAMILI'LOTS. 2. EXISTING ENTRY LANDSCAPE AND SIGNAGE 10 REMAIN. 3. All, PERIMETERIEXISTING OLD FOREST TREES TO BE PRESERVED. 4. ALL EXISTING PLANTED TREES TO BE PRES_ERV'ED. 3. ALL COMMUNITY CENTER PLANTING AND AMENITIES TO REMAIN, 6, WALK ALONG EULESS GRAPEVINF, ROAD TO REMAIN. 7. EVERGREEN SCREEN ALONG EULESS-GRAPEVINE ROAD TO R FMA IN. N. EXISTING IRON FENCE. TO REMAIN. 9. NEW TRAIL WITH BENCHES. 10 TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL HOME — I TREE PER LOT I I. TYPICAL IRON FENCING BEHIND HOMES. 12. TYPICAL WOOD PRIVACY FENCE BETWEEN HOMES. Jurisdiction of Project P—LATORY 1I1TiOR1T1£1. CITY TRAPE\'EVF PtANNLS`G 6 J�NING s;l 11113113 TtNA9 DEPARTMIixl OF LLL-ENSING AND A£G4LAl I'll L-NAT.—OF ARl'HITEC'fI:RAt BARRIERS LO I Tl— SON [TATE OFF'I('E DL`ILD1N(r 9]a(;Of.ORA- rN, TEXw3 -R)al ri121 a"S-13A6 rPAkI Landscaping Requirements A''.. AP— ER CIT4OF (IRAPEVOBO OTNAC'E SECHON ¢ "PD`PLA.n'NED DF\'ELOPNF.NT O\FAIRY "'05 REQOtP,EMENT3 FOA OPEN SPACE nNU RFi0.L�lION wRL4S SECTIO. 5i. LANDS"'PE RF03LATIONS A PIn—, OT 9 ARRIN'G SPACE A) IDED-9 PFA LL.FI (.ak C P RA O: W L (n -HT PR 11 01 S-11 AR.I Q 1' N1T P(;RLTC OR'STRPET PARRIN'O: -Nh B P RR T'G LUT TREES'&V.I^AE AYARRINi AALAS \tF.FT ID'%. LlLIVLNG tA'+DSt'APF REQI.RIEMFN'[5. PARRL�O AAPA3?tEt�'1 PARRIN'G TREE eEO�"IHEMENYS C. 'HN -VEHICULAR OPEN. SPACETREE REQLIAEREENTS AVERAGE HONE FRONT) 'ARD ^Ma SQ FT I STRE£T TREE PER FRONT —D PROVIDED D All HOMFSTODELAN'DSC'APEDINFRO—ARD E. LANDC PF DF41G. E[ S.. OT TO IA TR T THrVIEWAT F - RIC\ D SNIT F TRIT M AT .'ODP)RF ITAEE R 141.1 RFO Y@E 1RlCT.Gu A T F '--.'(0! TR:+ 1 ED 't TF G.1-1, GRHL SD ALTO TIL SPRISAL FIF T. BL P IDID 1111-11D All ED DY L I J tRRIC. R. 313TE1t ITOC ONRAll TI) TT'PO "TANDARDS r Mq Q. 1 f Vl-D • IIQ FT re 1 A-1tOPESSIA" tRO\fDED + IIPRF\'IOUs Pp DEVELOPMENT Pl>SOPEN 3PA(k� Al kFr LLr!!✓.'.w..nl..'r�y4'e�q�`a1sz'+�s IK - 2 u Y Q O W m O Z mm► -VA TREVOR TRAIL EULESS GRAPEVINE- r-"\ SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN EMERGENCY GATE 4. HWY 360 - EXIT ONLY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY PD1 5-04 IS A REQUEST TO AMEND THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN OF PDI0-04 (ORD. 10-33) SPECIFICALLY TO ALLOW AN EMERGENCY ONLY ACCESS GATE ON THE SOUTHBOUND STATE HIGHWAY 360 FRONTAGE ROAD. FILE NUMBER PD15-04