Loading...
Item 6C -2035 Corridor Committee Meeting ReportCITY OF SOUTHLAKE Q J 0**I— V)2035 Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Meeting Report Meeting 31 — March 30, 2021 MEETING LOCATION: 100 E. Dove Road, Southlake, Texas 76092 DPS North Training Facility Auditorium IN ATTENDANCE: • City Council Members: Chad Patton, Shawn McCaskill, John Huffman • Planning & Zoning Commission Members: Daniel Kubiak, Gina Phalen, Michael Forman, Michael Springer, Austin Reynolds • Park Board Member: Frances Scharli • City Staff: Ken Baker, Dennis Killough, Madeline Oujesky, Jerod Potts, Daniel Cortez, Chris Tribble AGENDA ITEMS: 1. Call to Order. 2. Administrative Comments. 3. Review, discuss and make recommendations on the proposed Lake Point Assisted Living and Memory Care facility being a conversion of an existing office building for up to 16 memory care units located at 1211 S. White Chapel Blvd., generally located 300 ft. south of the southeast corner of S. White Chapel Blvd. and E Continental Blvd. 4. Review, discuss and make recommendations on a proposed 7-Eleven convenience store and gas station, located at 140 W. SH 114, generally located at the northwest corner of W. SH 114 and N. White Chapel Blvd. 5. Review, discuss and make recommendations on redevelopment of the Texaco gas station, convenience store and car wash located at 100 W. Southlake Blvd into a 4,600 sq. ft. retail building for up to three tenants, which could include food & beverage with drive-thru service, financial and general retail uses, being a portion of the Suntree Square Shopping Center generally located at the northwest corner of W. Southlake Boulevard and N. White Chapel Blvd. 6. Review, discuss and make recommendations on the proposed development of The Learning Experience daycare located at 112 River Oaks Drive, generally located north of the northwest corner of River Oaks Dr. and W. Southlake Blvd. 7. Review, discuss and make recommendations on the proposed installation of an above grade detention structure for Methodist Southlake Hospital located at 441 and 451 E. SH 114, generally located between E. SH 114 and E. Highland St., just east of N. White Chapel Blvd. 8. Review, discuss and make recommendations on the proposed installation of 3 electric generators and 15 ft. tall screening wall at Central Market within the Shops of Southlake, located at 1425 E. Southlake Blvd, generally located at the southwest corner of E. Southlake Blvd. and S. Carroll Ave. 9. Review, discuss and make recommendations on the proposed Verizon Wireless Campus addition located at 2600 W. Kirkwood Blvd. generally located northwest of the Verizon Network Equipment Center at 500 W. Dove Rd 10. Review, discuss and make recommendations on the proposed Extra Space Storage addition of a 107,010 sq. ft., 3-story climate controlled storage building at the existing storage facility located at 1928 Brumlow Ave., generally located on the west side of Brumlow Ave. approximately 700 ft. north of SH 26 11. Review, discuss and make recommendations on the proposed Southlake Town Square Garden District Residences Site Plan located at 351 Central Ave., generally located on the east side of Central Ave. between Meeting St. and Park Ridge Blvd 12. Adjournment. MEETING OVERVIEW: On March 30, 2021 the Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee held their thirty-first meeting. The Committee was sent a packet of materials prior to the meeting that were to be discussed during the session. A meeting agenda was posted, and the meeting time was advertised on the City's website. The following meeting report focuses on discussion points made during the meeting by members of the Committee, public and City staff. This report is neither verbatim nor does it represent official meeting minutes; rather it serves to inform elected and appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues and questions raised by the Committee, City staff, and any attendees of the meeting. Interested parties are strongly encouraged to follow development cases through the process. Please visit CityofSouthlake.com/Planning for more information. CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 0 ITEM #7 DISCUSSION — Review, discuss and make recommendations on the proposed installation of an above grade detention structure for Methodist Southlake Hospital located at 441 and 451 E. SH 114, generally located between E. SH 114 and E. Highland St., just east of N. White Chapel Blvd. Staff presentation: Dennis Killough • Modify detention structure at Methodist Southlake Hospital o New above ground detention structure o Current underground detention structure has failed • Zoning: S-P-2 480-527 "Generalized Site Plan District" Concept / Landscape Plans o Underground structure will be removed, and above ground structure will be placed o Deepest portion of detention pond is approx. 1 Oft Questions for staff by the Committee: Daniel Kubiak: What was the context behind installing the system underground in the first place? Dennis Killough: I believe it allowed space to handle the structure with the ability to have surface paving and parking on top of it. John Huffman: So, this is a detention pond? For the benefit of the audience can you explain the difference between detention and retention ponds. Dennis Killough: Yes. Detention pond is primarily dry unless there are rain events. Retention ponds will keep a certain water surface elevation throughout the year. John Huffman: So, when we drive around Southlake, developments with ponds (i.e., filled with water) are normally retention ponds? Dennis Killough: Yes, that is correct. There is a fair number of them around Southlake. Applicant presentation: David Ransom • Approved detention pond in 2009 o The system was placed underground to maximize the developable property on the 30-acre site. • There is a failure in the portion of the system and the other portion is likely to fail in the future — it must be removed • Simplest solution is to replace the current system with a surface detention system, which is a structure that is not subject to everything that has adversely affected the underground structure • Damage — excess settling on the fire lane, as well as water ponding o Diminished capacity inside system, breeches, and chamber wracking to address Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #7 — MSH Detention Pond Meeting #31— March 30, 2021 Page 4 Conclusions — whole system needs to be replaced Fix — installation of new surface detention system and removal of old system o Including grounding stone, retaining walls, safety fence, and new landscape of buffer yard requirements on East side of the site o Also fixing damage to fire lane, landscaping, and irrigation Adding capacity to the floodplain Questions for applicant by the Committee: Michael Springer: What was the root cause of the failure? Applicant: There were several issues. Specifically, design, construction, and appropriateness of the system for this soil formation. Daniel Kubiak: I understand goal of project; however, especially along SH 114, the designs look too utilitarian. Can you not accomplish the same thing with a retention pond and landscaping to make it an attractive feature? Applicant: With the elevation and capacity in the basin, filling the area with water will not create a visible feature. Therefore, a retention pond is not reasonably feasible for the solution. The detention basin is utilitarian and a functionary piece. We are open to adding additional landscaping to screen along SH 114 corridor to help soften the look. Daniel Kubiak: Is this an SUP request? Dennis Killough: Site plan application. Daniel Kubiak: Is there a variance within it? Do we have to grant this or stick with the original system that was approved? Ken Baker: If the proposal is inconsistent with the original concept plan, then that may give you some basis. Shawn McCaskill: Personally, I can't imagine approving something like this along SH 114. 1 would like to see a retention concept or some sort of hybrid. We understand there is a big problem, but we cannot accept this proposal as is. I suggest not wasting more time and energy on this concept. John Huffman: Agreed. Applicant: This detention system is standard and where you would see everywhere as a depression in the ground. This is what was approved as part of phase I in 2009. We were hoping for some consideration. Since the underground system has failed, we do not want to repeat that system and suffer the same fate time and time again. John Huffman: Is retention pond not possible? Applicant: We have not discussed this, but do not see a retention system as being viable compared to a detention system. If we allow this to be retention will need to go deeper. The storage you see currently in the aerials is needed for storage of the water now. Additional water would be deeper. It would not create an amenity, just a deeper hole with a deeper pond. Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #7 — MSH Detention Pond Meeting #31— March 30, 2021 Page 5 Michael Springer: So, we would not be able to see a retention feature anyway because it would need to be deeper? Applicant: Correct. It is vertical now because we need the storage. We just don't have the space for a slopped feature. John Huffman: We understand the predicament, but I agree with Councilmember McCaskill that I can't imagine where I vote for that. It is unattractive and it's along our corridor. This is a key piece of property on a key corridor. Our interest is maintaining this site. Maybe there's an opportunity to provide options to review? Shawn McCaskill: We are willing to be flexible with the bigger picture to make this work. Converse with staff to help think of creative ideas to make this space attractive. Applicant: Will more substantial landscape screening work? John Huffman: I think additional landscaping is a default to cover ugly spaces. We have been promised big landscaping packages in the past that have not come through, so we are hesitant to approve something like this with the promise that landscaping would come through. Shawn McCaskill: I recommend thinking of creative solutions. We are willing to work to find a solution. Applicant: We want to work with you to find a viable solution. Daniel Kubiak: I assume this proposal is the most efficient cost-effective solution for the site? Applicant: Yes, cost is an issue. This project is a significant investment to replace this system. We will need to regroup and strategize to address your concerns presented. Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #7 — MSH Detention Pond Meeting #31— March 30, 2021 Page 6 STAFF PRESENTATION SHOWN TO COMMITTEE: C'ITY OF 1 S0UTHLA1<,E Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #7 — MSH Detention Pond Meeting #31— March 30, 2021 Page 7 SP1 eNolb? 4M3288 = R•s120'.22n gN eRn-.is SP1 80.148 a2'a599J4 SP-1 480E72 , • _ r .I �J RL aea ass 51W o 9F2D-B ti Zoning y Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #7 — MSH Detention Pond Meeting #31— March 30, 2021 Page 8 rMg Detention Basin Rendering —View from Hwy. 114 Methodist Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #7 — MSH Detention Pond Meeting #31— March 30, 2021 Page 9 rmg Detention Basin Rendering —View West 0 Methodist I t�i•� 7OY114LAXI n0Tp11L1 Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #7 — MSH Detention Pond Meeting #31— March 30, 2021 Page 10 _ ..,iililpiiillrl[IIlIIII., ... f+r!j+�r� :r l � :;*RE s ■ r � �IlI1f7.f.. ii17� rk`l � 11di� ■iii' - - - �id 1 _r • Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #7 — MSH Detention Pond Meeting #31— March 30, 2021 Page 11 `.. 0 � � II lift Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #7 — MSH Detention Pond Meeting #31— March 30, 2021 Page 12