Item 8Case No.
ZA21-0039
S T A F F R E P O R T
May 14, 2021
CASE NO: ZA21-0039
PROJECT: Site Plan for Mustang Business Park
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY: On behalf of Wright Mustang Business Park, LLC, Kimley Horn is requesting
approval of a Site Plan for Mustang Business Park on property described as Tract
1B3, Harrison Decker Survey, Abstract No. 438, City of Southlake, Tarrant
County, Texas, and located at 1800 S.H. 26, Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning:
“I-1” Light Industrial District. SPIN Neighborhood #8.
DETAILS: The project is generally located northwest of the intersection of Southwestern St.
and Mustang Ct. “MH” zoned properties on Woodsey Ct. and Timberline Ct. are
to the north.
The purpose of this request is to seek approval of a Site Plan for three distribution
warehouse buildings totaling approximately 340,180 square feet on
approximately 26.27 acres. A previous request for a Zoning Change and Site
Plan under case number ZA21-0007 was withdrawn at the May 4, 2021 City
Council meeting at the applicant’s request. The building heights now comply with
the 35’ maximum height allowed in the “I-1” District, so a zoning change is not
required. The private driveways internal to the site have been reconfigured to
comply with the Driveway Ordinance No. 634 minimum required stacking depth.
Site Data Summary
Existing Zoning “I-1”
Proposed Zoning “I-1”
Gross/Net Acreage 26.24 ac.
Open Space Area 7.62 ac.
Open Space % 29.06%
Imp. Coverage Area 18.61 ac.
Imp. Coverage % 70.94%
Building 1 Area 174,600 sf
Building 2 Area 78,100 sf
Building 3 Area 87,480 sf
Total Bldg. Area 340,180 sf
Parking Required 396
Parking Provided 398
VARIANCE
Case No.
ZA21-0039
REQUESTED: 1) There is 22.3% of existing tree cover on the property and a minimum of 60%
is required to be preserved per Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-E. A
variance is requested to allow 27.6% of the existing tree cover to be preserved.
ACTION NEEDED: 1) Conduct a public hearing
2) Consider approval of a Site Plan
ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information
(B) Vicinity Map
(C) Site Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated May 14, 2021
(D) Surrounding Property Owners Map & Responses
Half Size Plans (for Commission and Council members only)
Presentation
Variance Request Letter
Plans
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (pdf only)
2035 Corridor Planning Committee Report
SPIN Meeting Report
STAFF CONTACT: Ken Baker (817) 748-8067
Richard Schell (817) 748-8602
Case No. Attachment A
ZA21-0039 Page 1
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
OWNER: Wright Mustang Business Park, LLC
APPLICANT: Kimley-Horn
PROPERTY SITUATION: 1800 SH 26, generally located northwest of the intersection of
Southwestern St. and Mustang Ct.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tract 1B3, Harrison Decker Survey, Abstract No. 438
LAND USE CATEGORY: Industrial and 100-Year Floodplain
CURRENT ZONING: “I-1” Light Industrial District
HISTORY: - The property was annexed into the City in 1987.
- A zoning change (ZA02-025) from “AG” Agricultural District and “I-2”
Heavy Industrial District to “I-1” Light Industrial District was approved by
City Council on April 16, 2002.
- A Zoning Change and Site Plan (ZA21-0007) from “I-1” Light Industrial
District to “S-P-1” Detailed Site Plan District for three distribution
warehouse buildings totaling approximately 340,180 square feet on
approximately 26.24 acres was withdrawn at City Council on May 4, 2021.
SOUTHLAKE 2035 PLAN: Consolidated Future Land Use Plan
The 2035 future land use designation for the site is Industrial and 100-
Year Floodplain.
Industrial Land Use Designation
Purpose and Definition: Industrial and business service development
that is relatively free of unwanted side effects, such as unsightliness,
noise, odor, glare, vibrations, etc., is permitted in the Industrial category.
If meeting the qualification of relatively free of unwanted side effects,
suitable types of development in the Industrial category can be
characterized by the manufacturing, processing, packaging, assembly,
storage, warehousing and/or distribution of products. Ancillary
commercial and retail activities associated with these uses are permitted.
Public Parks / Open Space and Public / Semi-Public activities as
described above may be permitted if surrounding industrial uses do not
pose hazards and are sufficiently buffered.
100-Year Floodplain Designation
Purpose and Definition: The Floodplain category illustrates areas
designated by the August 1995 Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) maps as being in the 100-year floodplain. The “floodplain” is an
expanse of natural vegetation and wildlife, and should be preserv ed as
natural open area. Within the floodplain is “floodway” that must be kept
free of encroachment in order that the 100-year flood may be carried
without harmful increases in the height of flood waters. Although it is not
to be encouraged, the portion of the floodplain not in the floodway may
be reclaimed for development under certain circumstances if in
Case No. Attachment A
ZA21-0039 Page 2
accordance with FEMA regulations. The designated land use for areas of
reclaimed floodplain is that of the immediately adjacent land use category.
This designation may also include environmentally sensitive areas,
habitats, or wetlands that may not be in FEMA identified floodplains.
Pathways Master Plan & Sidewalk Plan
The Pathways Master Plan does not show a sidewalk or trail along
Southwestern St. adjacent to the site, so a minimum 5’ sidewalk is
required per Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 33.19. The required
sidewalk is shown on the plans, but it needs to extend to the property line.
A sidewalk exists on the southeast side of Southwestern St. and the
southwest side of Mustang Ct. An 8’ multi-use trail exists along the north
side of SH 26 west of the intersection with Mustang Ct.
TRANSPORTATION
ASSESSMENT: Area Road Network and Conditions
The property is at the end of Mustang Ct., which is a local commercial
street with 64’ of right of way. Southwestern St. is a local commercial
street with 60’ of right of way.
Traffic Impact
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been submitted (see pdf only attached
separately). The Site Plan shows a 60’ private street easement with a 37’
back of curb to back of curb pavement extending from the end of Mustang
Ct. into the development. Access to the three proposed buildings is from
driveways off the private street. An emergency only access driveway is
provided to Woodsey Ct. to the north and to the City owned property to
the west.
TREE PRESERVATION: There is 22.3% of existing tree cover on the property and a minimum of
60% is required to be preserved per Tree Preservation Ordinance No.
585-E. A variance is requested to allow 27.6% of the existing tree cover
to be preserved. All trees shown in green on a Council approved Tree
Conservation Plan are required to be preserved.
UTILITIES: The property is served by existing 12” and 8” water lines along the east
and north property boundaries and an existing 12” sewer line along the
west property boundary.
DRAINAGE: Existing drainage is from a high point at the north and center of the site
generally sheet flow to the east, west and south across the property. The
100-Year Floodplain runs north and south along the west portion of the
Case No. Attachment A
ZA21-0039 Page 3
property.
CITIZEN INPUT: A SPIN meeting was held for the previous Zoning Change and Site Plan
for Mustang Business Park (ZA21-0007) on January 26, 2021. Please see
the report attached separately.
A 2035 Corridor Planning Committee meeting was held for the previous
Zoning Change and Site Plan for Mustang Business Park (ZA21-0007)
on January 25, 2021. Please see the report attached separately.
STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Site Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated May 14, 2021.
A Zoning Change and Site Plan for Mustang Business Park (ZA21-0007)
was presented at the April 8, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting after being tabled at the February 25, 2021 meeting. The motion
and action from that meeting is below for reference:
April 8, 2021; a motion to approve the item subject to the staff report dated
April 1, 2021 and Site Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated March 31, 2021
and granting the stacking variance related to minimum stacking depth
received a (3-3) vote (Dyche, Phalen, Springer). Vice-Chairman Foreman
recused himself on this item.
The applicant is requesting a variance to minimum stacking depth and an
S-P-1 regulation is proposed for maximum building height.
Commissioner Dyche was opposed to the building height and the stacking
depth and he felt that the development will put an undue burden on the
neighbors.
Commissioners Springer and Phalen were more opposed to the stacking
depth than to the height.
Variance Approval Criteria for Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-E:
15.2 VARIANCES:
a. The City Council may authorize a variance to any provision of this
Ordinance following a recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Commission. A request for a variance to any provision in this
Ordinance shall be accompanied by a Tree Conservation Analysis or
Tree Conservation Plan as outlined in Article 6, or other
documentation requested by the Administrative Official, and the
following factors shall be considered in evaluating the variance
request:
i. Whether a literal enforcement of the Ordinance will create an
undue hardship or an unreasonable practical difficulty on the
applicant;
ii. Whether the situation causing the unnecessary hardship or
practical difficulty is unique to the affected property and is not
self-imposed;
Case No. Attachment A
ZA21-0039 Page 4
iii. Whether a reasonable accommodation or alternative solution can
be made to accomplish the desired activity without the alteration
of the tree;
iv. Whether the variance will injure or be wholly compatible with the
use and future or existing development of adjacent properties;
v. Whether the increased development costs caused by preserving
the tree create an undue hardship on the development of the site;
vi. Whether there is any identified adverse effect of the alteration or
preservation on erosion, soil moisture retention, flow of surface
water, and drainage systems;
vii. Whether there is any substantial impact to the buffering of
residential areas from the noise, glare, and visual effects of non-
residential uses;
viii. The costs versus the benefits of relocating required utility service
infrastructure and easements based on preservation or alteration
of protected trees;
ix. Whether the proposed tree replacement procedures adequately
mitigate the alteration of the tree;
x. Whether the alteration adversely affects the public health, safety
or welfare; and
xi. Whether the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the
spirit and purpose of this Ordinance to the greatest degree
reasonably possible.
General
Development
Standards
Applies? Comments
Overlay Regulations No The property is not in any of the overlay districts.
Building Articulation No
Masonry Standards Yes South and east facades of Building 3 are subject to Masonry
Ord. 557-A and both facades comply.
Impervious Coverage Yes Complies
Bufferyards Yes Complies subject to review comments being addressed
Case No. Attachment A
ZA21-0039 Page 5
Interior Landscape Yes Complies subject to review comments being addressed
Tree Preservation Yes Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-E applies. A variance is
requested.
Sidewalks Yes A 5’ sidewalk is required along Southwestern St. and the
sidewalk is shown on the plan.
Case No. Attachment B
ZA21-0039 Page 1
Case No. Attachment C
ZA21-0039 Page 1
SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY
Case No.: ZA21-0039 Review No.: Two Date of Review: 05/14/21
Project Name: Site Plan – Mustang Business Park
APPLICANT: Patrick Hogan, P.E. OWNER: Kendal Kreamer
Kimley-Horn Wright Mustang Business Park, LLC
13455 Noel Dr., Two Galleria Office Tower, Ste. 700 601 W. Wall St.
Dallas, TX 75240 Grapevine, TX 76051
Phone: (972) 770-1312 Phone:
E-mail: patrick.hogan@kimley-horn.com E-mail: kkreamer@wrightconst.com
CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON
05/14/21 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) 748-8602.
Planning Review
1. The Site Plan must conform to the underlying zoning district.
2. An appropriate plat must be processed, approved and recorded with the County prior to the
issuance of building permits and, if the buildings are to be placed on separate lots, prior to the
conveyance of any of the lots.
3. . Please update the case number on the TIA to ZA21-0039.
4. Please ensure that the access easement to the west aligns with the conceptual driveway location
on the City’s conceptual plan for a Public Works Operations service center. Change the
easement type to an emergency access easement.
5. Please make the following changes to the Site Plan. The review comments are based on three
buildings on one lot as shown.
a. Show, label and dimension the width of any easements on or adjacent to the site, if
any. Please see the plat for Lot 1, Block 2, Mustang Business Park.
b. Show and label the width and type of bufferyards along each boundary in accordance
with Zoning Ord. No. 480, Section 42. The bufferyard labels do not match the bufferyards
shown on the Landscape Plan.
c. Provide the bufferyard chart on plan (see attached example in the Landscape
Administrator’s comments below).
d. The calculations for the required number of loading spaces are per building at a ratio of
1 per 15,000 square feet for buildings 50,000 – 99,999 square feet and 1 per 20,000
square feet for buildings 100,000 square feet and up. The required spaces are Building
1 – 9 spaces, Building 2 - 6 spaces and Building 3 – 6 spaces. At least one-half of the
loading spaces or truck berths must have a minimum dimension of 10’ x 50’ each and
the remainder must have a minimum dimension of 10’ x 25’. Show and label the number
of loading spaces or truck berths provided for each building.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA21-0039 Page 2
e. Correct the building setback lines as follows:
Minimum building setback lines in the “I-1” Light Industrial zoning district are as follows.
A 30’ front yard setback is required on the property boundaries abutting a public right of
way. The rear lot line is the north property line since is opposite and most distant from
the front street line. There shall be a rear yard of not less than ten (10) feet except where
the lot abuts property zoned as single-family residential there shall be a rear yard of not
less than twenty-five (25) feet. All other property lines will have a side yard setback.
There shall be a side yard of not less than fifteen (15) feet except where the lot abuts
property zoned as single-family residential there shall be a side yard of not less than
twenty-five (25) feet.
6. Sidewalks and/or trails in compliance with the Zoning Ord. No. 480, as amended, Section 33.19,
Subdivision Ord. No. 483, as amended, Section 5.06 and the Master Pathways Plan are
required. A 5’ sidewalk is required along Southwestern St. and a 5’ sidewalk is shown on the
plan. Please extend the sidewalk to the property boundary. An 8’ multi-use trail exists along S.H.
26 and a 5’ sidewalk exists along the street frontages of Lot, Block 2, Mustang Business Park
to the southeast addressed as 1750 Mustang Ct.
33.19 For all new development or existing development which increases the existing floor area
of building(s) or the number of parking spaces by twenty (20) percent or more and requi re a
City Council approved site plan, a five (5)-foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be provided along
all adjacent public streets unless identified in the city’s Pathways Plan, in which case the
Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, as amended, Section 5.06 shall apply. In addition, all non-
residential development shall provide pedestrian access to the City’s existing or future trail
system as identified in any City Council adopted plan.
The City Council may grant a variance to this regulation where compliance wou ld present
extraordinary difficulties:
i. in the use of the property or;
ii. to construct due to characteristics of the development or surrounding properties.
7. The elevations must comply with Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended, Section 33.21,
Building Color Standards for Non-Residential Buildings. Please submit a physical material
sample board in addition to the images.
* Driveway Ord. No. 634, Section 5.2.d. requires a minimum stacking depth of 150’. The only
connection to a public street is the proposed private street connection to Mustang Ct. The
stacking distance from the right of way/property line to the first turning movement is shown at
190’.
* Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended, Section 26.5.a regarding building height in the “I-1”
Light Industrial Zoning District states that no building or structure which lies within one hundred
(100) feet of any area zoned in a residential classification shall exceed one (1) st ory or twenty
(20) feet in height. Any building lying more than one hundred (100) feet from any area zoned in
a residential classification shall not exceed two and one-half (2 ½) stories or thirty-five (35) feet
in height. The 100’ building line along the north property line is shown on the Site Plan.
* An 8’ solid wood fence is shown along the north boundary per the requirements of Ordinance
480, Section 39.6.a below since the boundary abuts residential properties.
39.6.a Where a non-residential use abuts a residentially zoned lot or tract or lot having an
occupied residential dwelling, a solid fence meeting the material standards of Section 39.2(b)
Case No. Attachment C
ZA21-0039 Page 3
shall be erected along the side and rear property lines abutting said residential lot or dwelling to
a height of eight (8) feet. A variance to this section may be approved by the City Council during
its review of any concept plan, development plan, or site plan requiring review by the Planning
and Zoning Commission and approval by the City Council, or by the Board of Adjustment for all
other concept plans, development plans, or site plans. (As amended by Ordinance No. 480-
UUU.)
* The property must comply with Masonry Ordinance 557-A. Sections 1.b and 1.d. of the
ordinance are below. The elevations as shown comply with the requirements.
1.b. Buildings requiring masonry along street frontage only: All buildings constructed on property
zoned I-1 or 1-2 under the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance shall be constructed of
masonry materials, wood, glass, or decorative metal (non-galvanized finish); provided, however,
any exterior wall fronting on any street shall be constructed of masonry materials or glass,
covering at least eighty percent (80%) of said wall, exclusive of all doors.
1.d. State highways and F.M. roads: With the exception of barns and storage buildings in the
"AG" zoning district, all nonresidential buildings located within 500 feet of the R.O.W. line along
State Highway No. 114 and within 300 feet of the R.O.W. line along State H ighway No. 26,
Farm-to-Market Road 1709 and Farm-to-Market Road 1938 shall have at least eighty percent
(80%) of all exterior walls, excluding doors, constructed of masonry materials or glass.
* The property does not lie within any of the overlay zones in Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as
amended, Section 43-Overlay Zones.
* Per Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended, Section 26.5.i, outdoor storage of trash
receptacles shall be at the side or rear of the site and shall be totally encircled or screened by
fence, planting or other suitable visual barrier. Per Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 39.6.c,
outside storage of trash/recycling receptacles or any garbage, refuse and trash/recycling
collection and storage areas shall be at the side or rear of the building, shall be totally encircled
or screened by fence, planting or other suitable visual barrier six feet (6') in height and shall
have a metal door which shall remain closed at all times. These areas or receptacles shall not
encroach into any required bufferyard. (As amended by Ordinance No. 480-HH.)
Tree Conservation/Landscape Review
E-mail: kmartin@ci.southlake.tx.us
Keith Martin
Landscape Administrator
Phone: (817) 748-8229
TREE CONSERVATION COMMENTS:
1. In the Tree Canopy Cover Summary chart on the Tree Conservation Plan, change the amount
of Required Preservation to 60%. The Existing Tree Cover Preservation Requirements of the
Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-E requires that sites with 20.1% - 40.0% of existing tree cover
preserve at least a minimum of 60% of the existing tree cover. A variance must be requested
and granted by City Council to preserve less than the minimum required amount of existing tree
cover on a developing site.
2. The proposed preservation of the existing tree cover does not comply with the Preservation of
Existing Tree Cover Requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-E. There is 22.3%
of existing tree cover on the property and a minimum of 60% of the existing tree cover is required
to be preserved. The applicant is proposing to preserve 27.6% of the existing tree cover.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA21-0039 Page 4
* The applicant is proposing to plant 80 canopy trees and 328 accent trees towards mitigating the
removal of protected trees. We normally require that any trees planted toward tree removal
mitigation be canopy tree species or an equivalent species as listed within the Landscape
Ordinance 544-B.
* Except as provided by subsection 7.2.b. of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, a Tree
Conservation Analysis or Tree Conservation Plan shall be approved if it will preserve existing
tree cover in accordance with the percentage requirements established by Table 2.0. If the
property has previously received a tree permit related to development, the percentage of existing
tree cover at the time the first such permit was issued shall be used to calculate the minimum
existing tree cover that must be preserved under this section.
Table 2.0 – Existing Tree Cover Preservation Requirements
Percentage of existing tree cover on
the entire site
Minimum percentage of the
existing tree cover to be
preserved*
0% – 20% 70%
20.1 – 40% 60%
40.1% - 60% 50%
60.1% - 80% 40%
80.1% - 100% 30%
*The minimum percentage of existing tree cover to be preserved shall exclude any area in
public rights-of-way as approved by City Council.
* Please be aware that all existing trees shown to be preserved on the City Council approved Tree
Conservation Plan must be preserved and protected during all phases and construction of the
development. Alteration or removal of any of the existing trees shown to be preserved on the
approved Tree Conservation Plan is a violation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance and the
zoning as approved by the Southlake City Council. Please ensure that the layout of all structures,
easements, utilities, structures grading, and any other structure proposed to be constructed do
not conflict with existing trees intended to be preserved.
LANDSCAPE COMMENTS:
1. On the Site Plan please label all required bufferyards in accor
2. All of the proposed trees are proposed to be 4” caliper. Nursery stock standards for
accent/understory/ornamental trees such as Crape Myrtles, Vitex, Rusty Blackhaw Viburnum,
and Yaupon Holly are generally provided as container size, height, and width, and do not come
in a caliper size unless they are sold as standard single trunk.
3. In the “Provided” sections of the Interior Landscape Summary Chart show the exact amount of
interior landscape area provided, and the exact amount of plant material provided instead of
showing matching quantities.
4. The “Required” plant material quantities within the north bufferyard section of the Bufferyards
Summary Chart are incorrect. The required amounts for a 1,112 lf. 10’ – F1 bufferyard are, 33
canopy trees, 67 accent trees, 89 shrubs.
5. Provide a color-coded rendition of the Landscape Plan. Delineate plant material provided
towards interior landscaping, bufferyards, and tree removal mitigation.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA21-0039 Page 5
* The applicant is proposing to take existing trees credits for preserving existing trees with the
north, west, and east bufferyards. The west is located within an existing floodplain in which no
construction is proposed.
* Indicates informational comment.
# Indicates required items comment.
Public Works/Engineering Review
Sandy Endy, P.E.
Development Engineer
Phone: (817) 748-8033
E-mail: sendy@ci.southlake.tx.us
Comments to follow
Fire Department Review
Kelly Clements
Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal
Phone: (817) 748-8233
E-mail: kclements@ci.southlake.tx.us
GENERAL COMMENTS:
The required backflow protection (double check valve) for the sprinkler systems can be located
on the riser if the riser is within 100 feet of the water main, measured linearly along the length
of the pipe. If the riser is further than 100 feet from the main, the double check valve shall be in
a vault. Riser rooms shall be a minimum of 5’X5’ if the double check is located in a vault, or a
minimum of 6’X6’ if it is located on the riser. (Label riser room locations to determine termination
point of riser piping, and indicate size of the riser rooms, no room sizes indicated)
The Fire Department Connection for the sprinkler system must be within 100 feet of a fire
hydrant, and within 50 feet of fire department fire lanes on the property. (The FDC for Building
3 is not within 50 feet of fire lane access)
FIRE HYDRANT COMMENTS:
Fire hydrants are required at a maximum spacing of 500 feet for commercial locations with
completely sprinkled buildings. (Fire hydrants located on the property do not meet the spacing
requirements) (Add a fire hydrant as required, north side of building 2)
FIRE LANE COMMENTS:
Fire apparatus access needs to be an all-weather surface, asphalt or concrete, 24 feet wide
and able to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus. (Minimum of 85,000 pounds GVW)
(Ensure fire lane is provided completely around building 2)
General Informational Comments
Case No. Attachment C
ZA21-0039 Page 6
* A SPIN meeting was held on January 26, 2021 and a 2035 Corridor Planning Committee
meeting was held on January 25, 2021 for the previous Zoning Change and Site Plan (ZA21-
0007).
* 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.
* 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.
* In addition to the City of Southlake impact fees, please be aware that through the wholesale
water customer contract with the City of Fort Worth, all new water connections are required to
pay the City of Fort Worth impact fee. The City of Fort Worth impact fee assessment is based
on the final plat recordation date and building permit issuance. The applicant is encouraged to
review the City of Fort Worth's assessment and collection of Impac t Fees Guide to determine
the fee amount.
* Denotes Informational Comment
Case No. Attachment D
ZA21-0039 Page 1
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS MAP & RESPONSES
SPO # Owner Zoning Physical Address Acreage Response
1. PENEDO, AIDA DEL C MH 1232 TIMBERLINE CT 0.43 NR
2. KYLE, KRAIG MH 1232 WOODSEY CT 0.51 NR
3. PEARSON, CAREY O MH 1234 TIMBERLINE CT 0.50 NR
4. DE ANDA, VICTORIA MH 1234 WOODSEY CT 0.48 O
5. GUILER PROPERTIES LLC MH 1236 TIMBERLINE CT 0.48 NR
6. AULD, LYNN V MH 1236 WOODSEY CT 0.46 O
7. NUSTAR LOGISTICS LP I2 1700 MUSTANG DR 27.09 NR
8. PS LPT PROPERTIES INVESTORS I1 1750 MUSTANG CT 3.03 NR
9. PETROLEUM CO OF TEXAS ETAL I1 1800 STATE HWY 26 0.19 NR
10. WRIGHT, JOE L I1 2400 SH 26 0.06 NR
11. WRIGHT, BELLA AG 1719 E CONTINENTAL BLVD 31.81 NR
12. MAGELLAN PIPELINE TERMINALS LP I2 2110 MUSTANG CT 0.70 NR
13. MAGELLAN PIPELINE TERMINALS LP I2 2110 MUSTANG CT 1.25 NR
14. MAGELLAN PIPELINE TERMINALS LP I2 2100 MUSTANG CT 14.16 NR
15. OSTUNI, REXANA E MH 1233 TIMBERLINE CT 0.42 O
16. OSTUNI, REXANA E MH 1233 TIMBERLINE CT 0.08 O
17. MARTINEZ, MAURO MH 1235 TIMBERLINE CT 0.39 NR
18. MARTINEZ, MAURO MH 1235 TIMBERLINE CT 0.08 NR
19. JTK DYER GROUP LLC MH 1237 TIMBERLINE CT 0.40 NR
20. WRIGHT, BALLA C I1 1800 SH 26 26.42 NR
21. JTK DYER GROUP LLC MH 1237 TIMBERLINE CT 0.09 NR
Case No. Attachment D
ZA21-0039 Page 2
22. AMERICORP LLC MH 1233 WOODSEY CT 0.52 NR
23. WOROBIEC, KAMIL MH 1235 WOODSEY CT 0.43 NR
24. XU, H M MH 1237 WOODSEY CT 0.47 NR
Responses: F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response
Notices Sent: Twenty (20)
Responses Received: Three (3) – Attached
Case No. Attachment D
ZA21-0039 Page 3
Case No. Attachment D
ZA21-0039 Page 4
Case No. Attachment D
ZA21-0039 Page 5