Item 6B CITY OF
SOUTHLAI<,-E
Department of Planning & Development Services
STAFF REPORT
November 23, 2015
CASE NO: ZA15-092
PROJECT: Site Plan for Kimball Highland
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY: On behalf of Kimball Lakes LLC, Prime Advantage Enterprises, Inc. is
requesting approval of a Site Plan for Kimball Highland on property described
as Lot 38, Francis Throop No. 1511 Addition, an addition to the City of
Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and being located at 1200 N. Kimball
Avenue, Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: "B-1" Business Service Park
District. SPIN Neighborhood # 4.
DETAILS: The applicant is requesting approval of a Site Plan for Kimball Highland office
development. The proposal is for four (4) approximately 5,900 square foot
single-story office buildings on approximately 3.2 acres. The construction will be
completed in two phases starting with the two buildings on the north side of the
property identified as buildings 100 and 101 on the submitted site plan, the
internal driveway, and the parking spaces on the north side to accommodate
the medical use of the buildings (approximately 75 spaces).
There is an existing Oncor transmission tower on site that AT&T utilizes for cell
service antennas under an approved Specific Use Permit that was granted in
2013. The transmission tower is located within a 60 foot power line easement
that runs through the property. The parking for this development is proposed to
be constructed on the west side of the property and within the power line
easement. The buildings are proposed to be constructed on the east side along
Kimball Avenue at the 30 foot building setback line.
On October 22, 2015, the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended
approval (5-0) subject to the staff report and site plan review summary;
specifically approving the variances for driveway on Highland Street, the
stacking depth and the fence on the north side; noting the applicant's
willingness to evaluate adding parking lot tree islands, take out a few spaces on
the south end that would alleviate the stacking depth issue and evaluating the
two parking spaces at the southwest corner.
On October 27, 2015, the applicant presented their proposed site plan at a
SPIN Forum meeting. Approximately eleven (11) residents attended; several
residents spoke in opposition to the proposed access onto Highland Street. The
applicant presented an alternative site plan showing a left-out only
configuration. As a result of the residents' concerns, the applicant determined
an additional traffic study analyzing different access configurations should be
done prior to moving forward for City Council consideration.
Case No.
ZA15-092
In response to the Planning & Zoning Commission's recommendations, the
SPIN Forum concerns and the additional traffic study, the applicant has
submitted the following changes to the originally proposed site plan:
o Provided two (2) site plan options; one indicating full access onto
Highland St. and the other indicating a right-in, left-out on Highland St.
o Increased the stacking depth for the driveway off of Highland Street to
approximately 76 feet which eliminated the previously requested
variance regarding stacking
o Reconfigured parking lot resulting in a decrease of parking spaces by
one (1)
o Dressed up doors on east elevation and added overhangs
o Increased stone material on the east elevations
VARIANCE
REQUESTS: Driveway Ordinance No. 634 prohibits a commercial driveway on a collector
street unless the lot has no other public access. Highland Street is identified as
a collector. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow access from
Highland Street and Kimball Avenue. Two access points for this property
currently exist. The applicant is requesting to keep the City installed access on
Kimball Avenue and move the existing driveway on Highland Street
approximately 60 feet west. The relocation of the driveway on Highland Street
will align with the proposed parking area as well as bring the spacing (minimum
150 feet) of the driveway from the intersection at Kimball Avenue into
compliance at a spacing distance of approximately 200 feet.
Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended, Section 39.6(a) requires 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) shall be erected along the side and rear property lines abutting said
residential lot or dwelling to a height of eight (8) feet. The applicant is
requesting not to construct the fence line that is required along the northern
property line. The adjacent property is zoned B-1 Business Service Park
District, however, there is an existing residence on the property. There is also
an existing City installed common access driveway between the properties. The
applicant has purchased the adjacent property and has future plans for
development at which time the required fencing to buffer the northern
residential lot will be installed.
Site Data Summary
Component Proposed
Gross/Net Acreage 3.183 acres
Open Space Percentage 56.24%
Impervious Coverage 43.76%
Total Building Floor Area 23,826 sq. ft.
Required Parking 121 spaces
(11,881sf Gen Office/ 11,945 sf Medical)
Provided Parking 132 spaces
Case No.
ZA15-092
ACTION NEEDED: 1. Conduct a Public Hearing
2. Consider approval of a Site Plan
ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information
(B) Vicinity Map
(C) Plans and Support Information — LINK TO PRESENTATION
(D) SPIN Forum Summary Report
(E) Site Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated November 23, 2015
(F) Surrounding Property Owners Map and Responses
STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough (817) 748-8072
Lorrie Fletcher (817) 748-8069
Case No.
ZA15-092
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
OWNER: Kimball Lakes LLC
APPLICANT: Prime Advantage Enterprises, Inc.; John Dancer
PROPERTY SITUATION: 1200 N Kimball Avenue
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 38, F. Throop No. 1511 Addition
LAND USE CATEGORY: Medium Density Residential
CURRENT ZONING: `B-1' Business Service Park District
HISTORY: March 6, 1984; City Council approved "LC" Light Commercial zoning on
the property under Case ZA84-008;
December 14, 1984; a Building Permit was issued for construction of an
aircraft instrument repair shop;
July 5, 1985; a Certificate of Occupancy was issued for an aircraft
instrument repair shop;
September 19, 1989; City Council approved "B-1" zoning on the
property with approval of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 480
and associated map;
April 17, 2007; City Council approved a site plan for a new 12,675 sf
building and parking area under Case ZA06-187 (never constructed);
June 4, 2013; City Council approved a specific use permit for
telecommunications towers, antennas and ancillary buildings to allow
the construction of an unmanned telecommunications facility and the
placement of six (6) panel antennas on an existing Oncor transmission
tower under Case ZA12-080;
August 14, 2013; a single-lot Plat Showing was filed for Lot 38, F.
Throop No. 1511 Addition.
May 29, 2014; a Demolition Permit was issued to remove all structures
on the property with exception to the telecommunications facility.
CITIZEN INPUT: A SPIN Town Hall Forum summary is included as Attachment `D' of this
report.
SOUTHLAKE 2030: Consolidated Future Land Use
The Southlake 2030 Future Land Use Plan designates this property as
Medium Density Residential. Medium Density Residential as defined
within Southlake 2030:
Case No. Attachment A
ZA15-092 Page 1
The Medium Density Residential category is suitable for any single-
family detached residential development. Other suitable activities are
those permitted in the Public Parks/Open Space and Public/Semi-Public
categories.
Master Thoroughfare Plan
The property is located on the northwest corner of Kimball Avenue and
Highland Street. Kimball Avenue is designated as an 88', 4-lane divided
arterial roadway. Highland Street is designated as a 70', 2-lane
undivided collector roadway.
Pathways/Sidewalk Plan
The City's Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended, Section 33.19
requires sidewalks at a minimum of 5' in width for all development
requiring a City Council approved Site Plan. The applicant shows a 5'
sidewalk on the proposed Site Plan along Highland Street. There is an
8' existing sidewalk along Kimball Avenue.
TRANSPORTATION
ASSESSMENT: Area Road Network and Conditions
The proposed development has existing access onto Kimball Avenue
through a common access drive on the north boundary and proposed
driveway onto Highland Street. The proposed site plan shows the
existing access onto Kimball Avenue to remain and the existing access
onto Highland Street to be relocated approximately 60 feet west of its
current location, providing approximately 200 feet of spacing from the
intersection at Kimball Avenue.
Kimball Avenue(74) Highland Street(31)
(between Highland Street and (between Kimball Avenue and
Dove Road) Carroll Avenue)
North Bound South Bound West Bound East Bound
24hr 4541 4801 504 461
AM Peak AM(260)11:45 Peak AM(624)6:30 Peak AM(64)7:00 Peak AM(61)7:45
AM—12:45 PM AM—7:30 AM AM—8:00 AM AM—8:45 AM
PM Peak PM(544)4:30 Peak PM(344)4:15 Peak PM(60)1:45 Peak PM(50)3:00
PM-5:30 PM PM-5:15 PM PM-2:45 PM PM-4:OOPM
*Based on the 2015 City of Southlake Traffic Count Report
Traffic Impact
Use Area . .
OUT OUT
General Office(710) 11,881 132 16 2 3 15
Medical Office(720) 11,945 434 28 15 21 32
Total 23,826 566 44 17 24 47
* Vehicle Trips Per Day
•AM-In, AM-Out, PM-In and PM-Out are peak hour generators on a weekday
•Based on the ITE: Trip Generation Manual, 7t"Edition
The existing site has a driveway on to Kimball Avenue (along the north
boundary) and driveway onto Highland Street. The applicant has
presented four possible options to provide access to the site. These
four options along with projected level of service with each option are
Case No. Attachment A
ZA15-092 Page 2
provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis dated November 18, 2015. The
hardcopy report and appendix are provided in your packet; they can
also be viewed by clicking the provided report hyperlinks below:
• TIA Report
• TIA Appendix
Below is a summary of the four options:
Base option: Assumes full driveway access along N Kimball Avenue at
Tumbleweed Trail (driveway#2) and full driveway access along E
Highland Street (driveway#3) with all allowable movements permitted.
Option 1: Assumes full driveway access along N Kimball Avenue at
Tumbleweed Trail (driveway#2) and no driveway access along E
Highland Street.
Option 2: Assumes full driveway access along N Kimball Avenue at
Tumbleweed Trail (driveway#2) and a limited right-in, right-out driveway
along N Kimball Avenue (driveway#4).
Option 3: Assumes full driveway access along N Kimball Avenue at
Tumbleweed Trail (driveway#2) and a limited right-in, left-out driveway
along E Highland Street (driveway#3).
1
Z T-EwEEO TRAIL
4 T-L-REEK-L -i
3
2016 Total Traffic Conditions — Intersection Capacity Analysis
Case No. Attachment A
ZA15-092 Page 3
Base — Full driveway access along N Kimball Avenue and Tumbleweed
Trail and full driveway access along E Highland Street with all allowable
movements permitted.
• --N Kimball Avenue and E Highland Street— Based on the total
traffic volumes, the intersection will continue to operate at an
acceptable level of service.
• ❑N Kimball Avenue and Tumbleweed Trail/Driveway 1 — Based
on the total traffic volumes, the intersection will continue to
operate at an acceptable level of service.
• ❑E Highland Street and Driveway 2— Based on the total traffic
volumes, the intersection will operate at an acceptable level of
service.
Option 1 — Full driveway access along N Kimball Avenue at
Tumbleweed Trail and no driveway access along E Highland Street.
• --N Kimball Avenue and E Highland Street— Based on the total
traffic volumes, the intersection will continue to operate at an
acceptable level of service.
• N Kimball Avenue and Site Driveway/Tumbleweed Trail—
Based on the total traffic volumes, the intersection will operate at
an acceptable level of service.
Option 2 — Full driveway access along N Kimball Avenue at
Tumbleweed Trail and limited right-in, right-out driveway access at
second driveway along N Kimball Avenue.
• N Kimball Avenue and E Highland Street— Based on the total
traffic volumes (site + 2015 future background), the intersection
will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service.
• N Kimball Avenue and Site Driveway/Tumbleweed Trail—
Based on the total traffic volumes, the intersection will operate at
an acceptable level of service.
• N Kimball Avenue and Site Driveway#3— Based on the total
traffic volumes, the intersection will operate at an acceptable
level of service.
Option 3 — Full driveway access along N Kimball Avenue at
Tumbleweed Trail and limited right-in, left-out driveway access along E
Highland Street.
• N Kimball Avenue and E Highland Street— Based on the total
traffic volumes, the intersection will continue to operate at an
acceptable level of service.
• N Kimball Avenue and Site Driveway/Tumbleweed Trail—
Based on the total traffic volumes, the intersection will operate at
an acceptable level of service.
• E Highland Street and Site Driveway 2— Based on the total
traffic volumes, the intersection will operate at an acceptable
level of service.
Case No. Attachment A
ZA15-092 Page 4
The City's traffic consultant has analyzed the applicant's Traffic Impact
Analysis and has provided comments. Additional comments are
expected from the City's consultant prior to the meeting. Staff will
summarize the driveway access options during its presentation.
The Fire Department has indicated that access onto E. Highland Street
is preferred whether that is achieved through a full access drive, left
hand out drive onto Highland Street, or emergency access through an
emergency gate and grasscrete.
UTILITIES: Water
There is an existing 12-inch water line along the west side of Kimball
Avenue and an existing 6-inch water line along the north side of
Highland Street.
Sewer
An 8-inch sanitary sewer line was recently constructed in the 10-ft utility
easement along the east side of this site.
TREE PRESERVATION: The preservation of the existing tree cover complies with the Existing
Tree Cover Preservation regulations of the Tree Preservation
Ordinance. There is approximately 4.9% of existing tree cover on the
site and 70% of that tree cover is required to be preserved. 30% of the
tree cover is proposed to be removed and 70% is proposed to be
preserved.
The trees proposed to be preserved along the northwest corner of the
property are volunteer trees that have grown along the fence line of the
property. The most dominant tree is Eastern Red Cedar with a mix of an
Oak, Elm, and a Pecan.
PLANNING & ZONING
COMMISSION ACTION: October 22, 2015; Approved (5-0) subject to the Staff Report dated
October 16, 2015 and the Site Plan Review Summary No. 2,
dated October 14, 2016 specifically approving the variances requested
for driveway on Highland Street, the stacking depth and the fence on the
north side; noting the applicant's willingness to evaluate adding parking
lot tree islands, to take out a few spaces on the south end that would
alleviate the stacking depth issue and evaluating the two parking spaces
at the southwest corner that would back into each other.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: November 3, 2015; Approved to table on consent (7-0) until the
November 17, 2015 City Council meeting.
November 17, 2015; Approved to table on consent (6-0) until the
December 1, 2015 City Council meeting.
STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Site Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated November 23,
2015.
Case No. Attachment A
ZA15-092 Page 5
Vicinity Map
Vicinity Map
Kimball Highland
2122
CDU R�v
� O
27
?7g0
2�0
2010 ' ?7� w
7
4
2,Sp ?799 J
m
y
Z
OOL
RR
O
8 �
1255211
2140
1982 g 10 2180
D
1901 1911 1961 1961 1991 2009 2145 2149
SHADYLN
7971 1112 1108 1104al-
2015
200 20
t•\.
ZA 7� 15-092
+r� O A
Vv F ■ V V 2
5 Site Plan
0 200 400 800 1,200
Feet
ti.i
Case No. Attachment B
ZA15-092 Page 1
Letter from the Applicant - Revised 11-18-2015
ADVANTAGE Meeting All Your
ENTERPRISES Ir
F om Start to F Estate Needs
.sh
2001 Creekside (817) 992-5385 metro (off)
Arlington, TX 76013 (817) 451-3221 (fax)
DFWAdvantageRealty.com
City of Southlake
IE: Site Plan and Variance Requests on 1200 N. Kimball Ave.
The Site Plan submittal for this 3.183 acre tract in the Frances Throop Survey at the NW corner of N.
Kimball Ave. and E. Highland zoned B1 in the NE quadrant of the City. Our Plans are for 4
approximately 5900 sq. ft. buildings built in phases starting at the Northern building and coming S. to
Highland. The first phase consists of the Fire Lane from the Access Easement to the North through to
Highland and the parking and buildings for the first 2 buildings on the north. All of the buildings run
along Kimball in front, or to the East of the 60 ft power line easement that runs through the property.
The parking will be in the rear or west side of the property and under the easement much like the
Kimball Lakes project to the South. The buildings will be 100% stone and masonry brick that will
compliment the surrounding neighborhood. There will be the required buffer to the West facing
Residential zoned properties and pleasing elevations to the East facing Kimball. With required
landscaping surrounding the property.
We have conducted a thorough traffic impact analysis and respectfully request the consideration of
full access onto Highland Street as shown on the Base Plan. However, an optional site plan indicating
access with right-in and left-out turning movement onto Highland Street has been provided.
Variances:
1. We do need a variance for an entry and exit point on Highland due to an Ordinance preventing
and entrance on to a residential street. Due to the elevations of the frontage along Kimball,
and the reconstruction of Kimball to a 4 lane Blvd. with access to Highland and a curb cut at
the North end of the property which leads to an access easement that the City put in on this
and the adjoining property. This layout provides the clearest in and out for access to the
property without funneling all the traffic to one entrance and exit. There is an existing access
drive that was there for the previous distribution company that was there for years, we just
need to move it approximately 60 ft. west and incorporate it into our parking and ingress and
egress.
2. We also need a variance for the required fencing that would go on the N property line between
the 2 properties we own, 1360 Kimball is also zoned B1 and owned by Kimball LLC. The fact
that it is rented single family on a month to month would require a fence. We feel that this use
is temporary, and that the common drive access easement that the city put between the
properties makes this un-necessary and difficult. The fact that this will be incorporated in the
second phase and eventually have a decorative fence on the N property line buffer the
residential to the North we request to not put this fence until this lot is developed.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-092 Page 1
We feel that this is a vast improvement to the property, with plans to carry it to the adjoining B1
property to the North once it is platted. For a project that will eventually be 5 Class office buildings to
accommodate the high demand for Medical and Professional offices that we are seeing.
Sincerely,
John K. Dancer, Managing Member
Kimball Lakes LLC.
2001 Dancer Dr.
Arlington, TX 76013
817-992-5385
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-092 Page 2
Site Plan - Shown at P&Z October 22, 2015
F. h4¢+W*Ad Sfroe.' b I
_.® _ �+, +h „G4,YiEJfiQ M � I,Pe1.Y• ]
....... ...... .........
all
all
+ '
IIp
1
!
d.I { I x
_ - • � #� � � *{gam I�� i 3 I _ ••3
cc
2i f0' I x
...a s 9 7e
}• hr - I- f ? I} f
E I Y
4 $ # I I ; ,
k .
e
_ s
sirstAr s err
h � �
r`+,--v/—1—,T•PRT la7 sir i.l L[14 d
40r i7.M F`L
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-092 Page 3
Base Site Plan — Preferred
, . _W �.__
£ �!� _ | a 01 | increased stacking depth m
(�N _ A _ice. _, . . ._ .�_ R P
7E
Wk \
It
% 2 - % -— ■ kIL
P4
»« | x
� - #
- �_ , • � ��_ -
`f ` ■ ` .| .^ ------ I y
is
� , ■ ` % . :
� , -. . .■
� . T . Tu :
�• � k� . . _ � m «
{ �
/
` -- - 2----
� ' | ` \ ?
-- — �|� � ■ ' � -
� 4 � ■ . % ■ f�\ \
. �§| � • • -
| ! � \ ■ ' � •
- � . , n|| 3 �|| | • | .
■ � | � ! ��� |\ | •�-
� ' ` \
: .
..
-
,
71
- . ■ i � �
:2 ----------- ---------
it
- ^ . . \ 2 _ _ _ _ . |` • .
k %
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-92 Page 4
Optional Site Plan
frf.1 as I+Z. I �.,w'—U.0 -
- I Access on Highland Street
shown as right-in and left-
-
.....-----...........................- { i out
:. .,.
11
T Reconfigured overall
parking and reduced by one
space
Ali
F r
■i■
Iq
f�r.......'. F --�
t -------- -----
ip
IL
lob
Iy I
-"., '. �titin'. .-� �§ .� ' � _"• � _
� 3
F I
m i,rr)a�n4�v
a+.+i+4 f.P co r
J Y_qWW
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-092 Page 5
Landscape Plan
��+ EIIFFERYPRI]1m TYPE'F1'
RVOcv tV FeaEA,�ryT 8'YIOCO PRNMV 17 UTILL EFSEMENr NCE rvacv
P MCE P �
g
1
o ..n
5 e yN PRESERVE ME
F'M
AAwrEwu WHEIlEPOSSreLE i
1A- SUMOUNOING ELECTRIC _
—� « v. — �GOIPFiEnT
$ a F
gyp" ,.enaF
- - -F,,,..e. -'-
� 4'
It
Irne ¢ ¢ e
f_
h
C
4
Iy
Z aA21" e1B 3O' Er.N'
W N Kimball Avenue c REUININc �_,,.od,,,„„ �0" ey M,
,.� 1r— 1a ur�rrr EAYEMFxr Hx,3,p1 wx�IN LaseNo-
R,Cw wlrsl Ice
ZA f5-092
Plant Material List w�1 mRemmm—RmIMWYNW
�wnFE CO RCpr VZE 1F iew —s D COMx WT
CAmFYInRn
91NIn9 T,w FP-skF.ype one
gees see u.2
B°"r�9pmmedeym amcX,mm m e M1 xaeAnv.men Fam
NM R.oM�I. ww Cw. ."cFl. t.'mle. !•me owlbmpY,x..fmy.Lpm Fm,m
- �uinFcnsaaXF m mn R cenewxeefy,teen FRm
SN m'g F N NIA -1. —1. 12'm1n. —n. R11 Cental,Hwfn.Ab[d Fdm
RpQye r rypFNIWmp1 xpAOly.opetl Fam
RB - Cenle eenaYmele GmL . mn. 3',an 6npk lmunM
YNe[ UnM HealNy,GeN Fem
�N,pYpmVFFFRW °1 M1 WIML
YP YRv`Ntl� Wx CW. x'cFl. trmn. !'min F�CnPpy xpOy,GIW Fpm
N1u►cuK.lb�t
E.nnJuipmuei�wiime mn. e mm
00 a.wXcns.c:
SV Yan�n nrOwroFl 13' Lan. SOY. sanri. 9Y'eln. NF IbeNY.Pum6rcmA
LN meeryelln �� CenF. 3pM. 9tl'min. gQ'Mn. FuY,Ileeltlrn
TE NpxvANlum/INrwms W - 5gw. 3g"min. 3]'mnn. �Y,HeeMY.Ern GmNm
NY 3p� lee nsNlae 3F' - 3pFl. YCxim. 12'min. al,HeFNy.No&dm Spews
�eR�ignrys dRlnys 29' Some 1C Ilio. Ir.I, II,HeMxy,Erm csw
❑rexnalOre 3�L m welury,F,rcn
HFFAInR OxneWRe FK Paver
ale faiMein9 m w Cw. 3'Y_ iri m. 1SmF. W,.HnMf.E�nnOmM
9J 'NnG., 9Y" Ccnl. 3gY. 2C IN1. 2l'mx. FMeINy,F.rtn GnseN,XMpe
MF
MInG[en fegpM-[ SgY fLA,1MeMY.E'm OnWA
+UiMic i,q mime IT caR. 4saA V.I.. PmMfuR nxlR'Y.Enn oroxm
Tm�nekmmeum evtlwm
� uNLn�e puFceN me H.exnr.F„e.,
e2N1 - PoMMnWe S' LaY. RFI 1.1h 4'- Y,He rnocn
� w,FA Rrm«
%C gF 9eaxnY Cda seven,hcs•>Omv1e.Lo�lY hdexk
RR SIFLadyAwiNle
� LapTl AwkNN
ai DpcmpwsO G�a,ite L�y.raiNmk
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-092 Page 6
Tree Preservation Plan
6u F FERYM0 TYPE F
ia
V CRITICAL ROOT ZONE----
'€ 4 Z ucr I/i2
! Y
w 4t
4 Fio. ei ■ I .g1
90'BUILDING SETBACK
BUFFERYM�T'!PE'E'
wro nwu.{eo.Re.ai.q
{x:�resl
TREE IDENTIFICATION
TAG TYPE SIZE CANOPY ISTATUS TAG ITYPE SIZE SIZE CANOPY STATUS
1 OAK 11" 529 SF PRESERVE 16 CEDAR 6" 6" 163 SF PRESERVE
2 OAK 18" 498 SF PRESERVE 17 CEDAR 5" 5" 1415F PRESERVE
3 ELM 12" 504SF PRESERVE 18 CEDAR 5" 5" 195 SF REMOVE
4 CEDAR 6" 431SF PRESERVE 19 CEDAR 6" 6" 78 SF REMOVE
5 CEDAR 8" 275 SF PRESERVE 20 CEDAR 6" 8" 78 SF REMOVE
6 PECAN T Z75 SF PRESERVE 21 CEDAR 5-6-6" 5-6-6" 2585F REMOVE
7 CEDAR 6" 280 SF PRESERVE Z2 CEDAR 6" 6" 78 SF REMOVE
8 JCFDAR 5" 330 SF IPRESERVE 23 ICEDAR I 1D' 10" 11815F REMOVE
9 CEDAR 8" 231 SF PRESERVE 24 ELM 10458" 10-9-54" 124 SF REMOVE
10 ELM 8" 242 SF PRESERVE 25 CEDAR 18" 18" 542 SF REMOVE
11 CEDAR 8" 1915F PRESERVE 26 HACK 8" 8" 1735F REMOVE
12 CEDAR 6" 162 SF PRESERVE Z7 CEDAR 44" 4-4" 78 SF REMOVE
13 CEDAR G" 1775F PRESERVE 28 OAK 8-5-5-4" 8-55-4" 253 SF REMOVE
14 CEDAR 8" 149 SF PRESERVE TOTAL 6,744SF
15 CEDAR 4" 1128 SF PRESERVE I i
TREE PRESERVATION! SUMMARY
I TREES TO BL1�_NCVL7
TREES TO BE PRESERVED 17
Existing Tree Cover:
i3r�a�cage obis' 139.851 SF
-Arca of uwn..rLg trA*wVLLr ,or sLc. 6.'44 ter!
-Arco of cxI S.-1i[J trod tAVCr re--cJ. Z::?ti 51 i?O'k
•Ar La.fL%I S..r`gtreCC—IOBLpc—r—c 4r;:G; !,::'k
NO-L.- cc cu ioF y:u cL o r s u c uF F oxer-C u L—J or
Lrcc sv vcy uiJ uciul -aye y
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-092 Page 7
Elevations — shown at P&Z
•� g
b® F� ..._ .rn
i
WEST ELEVATION BLDG 102
NORTH ELEVATION BLDG 102
3
4
n d
4
71 b
FACING KIMBALL
EAST ELEVATION BLDG 102 ri° °"°,n a •. r°°�
max•
'v
6OU7I4 ELEVATION BLDG 102
ui wernenaz ere mm.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-092 Page 8
m�
n�
a
WEST ELEVATION BLDG 101 .......... r�r
n
h b g N
NORTH ELEVATION BLDG 101
scuE.q•_�-o
.r
F:
N c tl
FACING KIMBALL
n EAST ELEVATION BLDG 101 R ove,na„es a,e t root.
scaE X•=r-o^
H
4
A 33
h
SOUTH ELEVATION BLDG 101
sratF:X._ •-o^ w ovemaoez a,e i root.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-092 Page 9
1l ELEVATION BLPG 100 4 BLPG 103 All ore.n as R r mw-
A�
NORTH ELEVATION BLDG 100/BLD:s'03
scaE.•_'-o An we.naaaz are I raw.
r
rv1 b
FACING KIMBALL z
EAST ELEVATION BLDG 100 a BLDG 103
of sem•,F.k•_'-O
All
DlANPSTER ENCL05URE ELEVATION
_ ® ok
og
M1«,. 90U7H ELEVATION 9LDCs 100 A 6LOG 103 r�
scare_k•_ -o Al ....h a (—
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-092 Page 10
Elevations • 11-18-2015
1■ - ; '�� 11111 r�lll -- 111 �111�111 � � � 111
IncreasedAll
stone
Dressed • ••• --�.r
All
FACING KIMBALL All
SO-Tq 02
Case No. Attachment C
'.F m@'rP�P m5R'=as=fir.-^_-•e==="_-_� ��_�-_�_�__�_.
'tea--.���_.•-fF=eelT�•`- _. � � � __end.=- _--'_--'d,__=m=a
1■ —� ;�=_1■ � 111 ■1 a el -■I�v =� 1 6_
0. . . • 11
-
Lu=3-r r E/4-11 LDG 101 ki .—h-g.—I-t.
io
Increased stone material
Dressed up doorways
NORTP--l-EVA71ON FJ-DC 10
—E V—
FACING KIMBALL
F117-�-Fll 11 ILI:�l III
rOUTP FLF,471,�N F!LrDr,101
Case No. Attachment C
ZA1 5-092 Page 12
• 1 i
I
Increased stone materiall
Dressed • doorways
FACING KIMBALL
Case No. Attachment C
'®
I
0. . . . 13
-
ZISOUTHLAKE
SPIN MEETING REPORT
SPIN Item Number: SPIN2015-41
Planning Case Number: ZA15-092
Project Name: Kimball Highland Offices
SPIN Neighborhood: SPIN #4
Meeting Date: October 27, 2015
Meeting Location: 1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX
City Council Chambers
Total Attendance: Eleven (11)
Host: Randy Robbins, Community Engagement Committee
Applicant(s) Presenting: John Dancer
City Staff Present: Lorrie Fletcher, Planner I
City Staff Contact: Lorrie Fletcher, Planner I —817.748.8069 or Ifletcher ci.southlake.tx.us
Town Hall Forums can be viewed in their entirety by visiting http://www.citVofsouthlake.com and clicking on "Learn More" under
Video On Demand; forums are listed under SPIN by meeting date.
FORUM SUMMARY
Property Situation:
• 1200 North Kimball Avenue
Development Details:
• The subject property is approximately 3.2 acres, platted as a single lot and zoned B1 —
Business Service Park District.
• Proposed four (4) approximately 5,900 square foot single-story office buildings. Construction
will be completed in two phases starting with the internal driveway, the two (2) buildings on the
north side of the property (buildings 100 & 101) and the parking spaces to accommodate those
first two (2) buildings.
• Site plan proposes two (2) points of access; one off of Highland Street and the other off of
Kimball Avenue.
Case No. Attachment D
ZA15-092 Page 1
Exhibits presented at SPIN:
4
•y
� w
1, t'6 a:
2A06-187
`11 Ig T i Approved 2007
t -x � �('jNkTld��.....b 3umWrYl011
SIN 0010 SumiaY bl Z
`yam
Case No. Attachment D
ZA15-092 Page 2
�� I i�: : - ... - it •.,. .... .... (-�.-
r '+ ate: - _ JU
Optional Drive
Configuration showing
right in / left out on
Highland
_ •J I.f.J.I.�I.y -1 tj„i.t...i.l.�1s� - .l.•'1
- ..
M•F•V
Case No. Attachment D
ZA15-092 Page 3
t, t
I
t
rt
1
V-, ....9. ._"'
1M.. n.
wnr•��. Wiw..r•r-�
I
t
J
QUESTIONS / CONCERNS:
• The property is elevated. Will it be built at current level?
o We will work with existing elevations as much as possible. We like the existing
retaining wall.
• Not in favor of the drive onto Highland.
o We feel the traffic will flow better. Don't feel traffic will increase on Highland.
• The office will be much more active and generate more traffic than the Mesco property.
• 1 object to driveway on Highland... was not built for commercial.
Case No. Attachment D
ZA15-092 Page 4
• What prevents them from turning right?
o A curb would be built forcing left turn out only.
• Still think connection is unnecessary. You are giving people a reason to use Highland. I don't
see why you need to access Highland. Build a second drive onto Kimball.
o That wouldn't work with elevation change or spacing requirements. We are looking
closer at any possibilities.
• 1 do not want the variance.
o So the left turn only wouldn't help?
o People will still turn right.
• My son and many children walk down Highland; joggers, bikes, etc. All traffic will be off 114
and Kimball. They will use the first access they see which is off Highland which is a small
residential street. We have a quality of life in Southlake.
o Professionals like the simple access. Worse thing to happen is a development with no
tenants.
• Nobody's opposed to the buildings. We just don't want to see connection on Highland. We are
concerned about the hill and traffic coming too fast.
• 1 am in support of the project. Would be concerned about an exit drive between the buildings
onto Kimball. You'd have two blind spots which would cause a dangerous situation. I feel the
175 feet along Highland and connection with left out isn't going to cause problems. This isn't a
high traffic development.
o Yes. Traffic trickles in and out during the day. Garden offices work that way.
• My concern is these are meant to be a buffer to residential. These office complexes can serve
as noise buffers. Your landscape plan looks well tree'd... is that what we're really going to get?
o We plant 3 caliper inch trees.
o Will that serve as a sound barrier?
o We are using the City's recommended list.
• Your drive on Kimball matches up with driveways across street. Does that create a false 4-
way? Dangerous situations? Instead of having offset?
o Median cuts are already in place.
• Mesco didn't generate traffic. Access on Highland will cause dangerous situation... lots of kids.
I've watched it for years. More and more traffic all the time. No longer a safe street and it will
get worse.
Meeting adjourned 7:01 PM
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
ZA15-092 Page 5
SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY
Case No.: ZA15-092 Review No.: Four Date of Review: 11/23/15
Project Name: Site Plan — Kimball Highland
APPLICANT: Prime Advantage Enterprises, Inc. ENGINEER: Stovall-James & Assoc., Inc.
John K. Dancer Elliott Stovall, P.E.
2001 Dancer Dr. 6318 Merritt Way Ct.
Arlington, TX 76013 Arlington, TX 76018
Phone: 817-992-5385 Phone: 817-879-1808
Email: advantageprime@gmail.com Email: estoval13@sbcglobal.net
CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 11/18/15 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 THE APPROPRIATE STAFF MEMBER.
Planning Review
Lorrie Fletcher
Planner I
Phone: (817) 748-8069
Email:lfletcher ci.southlake.tx.us
1. TIA currently pending further third party review.
2. Include the name and address of owner on the site plan exhibit.
3. A commercial driveway is not permitted on a collector street unless the lot has no other public
access (Driveway Ord. 634 § 5). East Highland Street is categorized as a collector. A
variance has been requested.
4. Please make the following changes to the Site Data Summary Chart:
a. Please provide the correct net acreage. The net acreage is the gross acreage minus
any area dedicated for right of way. If no property is being dedicated for right of way,
the net acreage will equal the gross acreage.
b. Please provide the area and percentage of open space. The open space area when
summed with the impervious area must equal the net acreage and the percent open
space when added to the percent impervious coverage must total 100%.
c. Add the number of loading spaces required and provided (None required and none
provided).
d. Correct the number of parking spaces provided. The submitted site plan indicates 132.
5. 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) shall be
erected to a height of eight (8) feet (Zoning Ord. 480 § 39.6(a)). The submitted site plan does
not show the required fencing along the northern boundary. A variance has been requested.
Case No. Attachment E
ZA15-092 Page 1
• Provide a materials sample board. The board provided at SPIN was damaged during your
presentation.
• All development must comply with the underlying B-1 — Business Service Park zoning district
regulations.
Tree Conservation/Landscape Review
E-mail: kmartin ci.southlake.tx.us
Keith Martin
Landscape Administrator
Phone: (817) 748-8229
TREE CONSERVATION COMMENTS:
1. The preservation of the existing tree cover complies with the Existing Tree Cover Preservation
regulations of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. There is approximately 4.9% of existing tree
cover on the site and 70% of that tree cover is required to be preserved. 30% of the tree cover
is proposed to be removed and 70% is proposed to be preserved.
The trees proposed to be preserved along the northwest corner of the property are volunteer
trees that have grown along the fence line of the property. The most dominant tree is Eastern
Red Cedar with a mix of an Oak, Elm, and a Pecan.
Please be aware that all existing trees shown to be preserved on an 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 AND BUFFERYARDS COMMENTS:
1. Existing tree credits are proposed to be taken for required canopy trees in the north and south
bufferyards. Please ensure that all existing trees taken credits for are in healthy condition and
no grading and/or utilities will alter them. Credits shall only be granted if the tree/s are in
healthy condition and all requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance have been met as
determined at the time of inspection for a Permanent Certificate of Occupancy.
2. Please make sure that all AC Units and mechanical equipment are not located on the N.
Kimball sides of the buildings and are sufficiently screened from view from all right-of-ways.
Canopy trees are normally required to be planted within the parking lot landscape islands the
central portion of the parking lot is located within the 60' Power Easement and only accent
trees may be planted within the easement. Canopy trees are proposed to be planted within the
islands outside of the easement.
Indicates informational comment.
# Indicates required items comment.
Case No. Attachment E
ZA15-092 Page 2
Public Works/Engineering Review
Steve Anderson, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Phone: (817) 748-8101
E-mail: sandersona-ci.southlake.tx.us
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. This review is preliminary. Additional requirements may be necessary with the review of civil
construction plans.
2. New Requirement: Provide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan per TXR150000. The plan
must include all required elements in Part III, Section F of the permit. The City of Southlake
especially reviews Part III, Section F, (1) (g), Maps. The review is for completeness of a plan
to prevent pollution (especially sediment) to the Separate Storm Sewer System. It is highly
recommended the project manager provide a series of maps for complex projects, including
one map showing controls during mass grading and infrastructure, one map showing controls
during vertical construction, and one map showing final stabilization (may be but not always
equitable to the landscape plan). Please include timelines in relation to the project activities for
installation and removal of controls. SWPPP shall be submitted by second review of the
civil construction plans.
3. NEW REQUIREMENT: Submit with Civil Construction Plans a Retaining Wall Layout sheet.
4. Retaining walls greater than 4-feet including the footing shall require structural plans prepared
by a registered engineer in the State of Texas. Retaining walls shall require a permit from the
Building Inspections Department prior to construction.
5. Trip generation rates should be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. The TIA worksheet analysis
submitted is pending further third party review.
Street intersections shall comply with TDLR/ADA accessibility standards.
Sight distances shall comply with AASHTO guidelines on adjacent collectors and arterials.
Sidewalk widths shall conform to the Southlake Pathways Plan.
Use the City of Southlake GPS monuments whenever possible. Monument locations can be
found in the City of Southlake website:
http://www.cityofsouthlake.com/index.aspx?NID=266
WATER COMMENTS:
1. Indicate meter sizes. The sub-meters will be private.
The size of the water service tap must match the size of the meter. There are no reducers
allowed before the meter on the public side. A one inch meter must have a one inch tap, etc.
SANITARY SEWER COMMENTS:
Case No. Attachment E
ZA15-092 Page 3
2. An 8-in sanitary sewer line was recently constructed in the 10-ft utility easement along the east
side of this site. Two deep service taps are existing for this site. Adding two additional deep
service taps as needed may be easier and less costly.
3. If routing the sewer as shown, the line either needs to be 8-in and public in an easement, or
the 6-in is private to be installed by a licensed plumber and will require a plumbing permit prior
to installation.
DRAINAGE COMMENTS:
1. Pre- and Post-Development Drainage Plans indicate the site is receiving runoff from the west.
Please account for all runoff crossing this site.
2. Differences between pre- and post- development runoff shall be captured in detention pond(s).
Proposed detention ponds shall control the discharge of the 2, 10 and 100- year storm events.
Detention may be required with any new proposed building construction. Describe how
increased runoff from site is being handled. Access easements are needed for maintenance
of detention ponds.
3. Documentation supporting and certifying that detention is not necessary will be required prior
to approval of construction plans.
Discharge of post development runoff must have no adverse impact on downstream properties
and meet the provisions of Ordinance No. 605.
INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS:
Submit 22"x34" civil construction plans and a completed Construction Plan Checklist directly to
the Public Works Administration Department for review. Please allow 15 business days for
review. The plans shall conform to the most recent construction plan checklist, standard
details and general notes which are located on the City's website:
http://www.cityofsouthlake.com/PublicWorks/engineeringdesign.asp
Submit with Civil Construction Plans a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan which outlines
pre-construction, construction and post-construction erosion control measures.
A right of way 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 Agreement may 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.
Fire Department Review
Kelly Clements
Fire Marshal
Phone: (817) 748-8233
E-mail: kclementsa-ci.southlake.tx.us
GENERAL COMMENTS:
Case No. Attachment E
ZA15-092 Page 4
* No comments based on submitted information.
Informational Comments:
* 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 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.
* Development must comply with all requirements in Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 43,
Overlay Zones.
* Masonry materials shall mean and include brick, stucco, plaster, cement, concrete tilt wall,
stone, rock or other masonry material of equal characteristics. Stucco and plaster shall only be
considered a masonry material when applied using a 3-step process over diamond metal lath
mesh to a 7/8th inch thickness or by other processes producing comparable cement stucco
finish with equal or greater strength and durability specifications. Synthetic products (e.g.,
EIFS —exterior insulation and finish systems, hardi plank, or other materials of similar
characteristics) shall not be considered a masonry material.
* Mechanical Equipment Screening: All buildings must be designed such that no mechanical
equipment (HVAC, etc.) or satellite dishes shall be visible from any rights-of-way as defined in
Section 43.19.d. This shall include equipment on the roof, on the ground or otherwise attached
to the building or located on the site.
* Development must comply with all requirements in Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 33.21,
Building Color Standards for Non-Residential Buildings.
* 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.
* Denotes Informational Comment
Case No. Attachment E
ZA15-092 Page 5
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS MAP & RESPONSES
Kimball Highland
Rp
W Ljl
� v
tsez � to zteo
D
1 t 198t 2008 110.8 1f OB _ _.
1111 1 1100 t100
A15
13
Q 18
8 05 OB g
13
880 .1 E
'1106
F. MAddress Acreage Response
V ata � 8
a01 a05 ase a13 q n
Q &
J�
1. 7GRAHAM,
GERALD C&GRAHAM,
BARBARA SF1-A 1380 N KIMBALL AVE 0.42 NR
GRAHAM,GERALD C&GRAHAM,
2. NR
BARBARA SF1-A 0.44
GRAHAM,GERALD C&GRAHAM,
3. NR
BARBARA SF1-A 0.44
GRAHAM,GERALD C&GRAHAM,
4. NR
BARBARA SF1-A 0.42
GRAHAM,GERALD C&GRAHAM,
5. NR
BARBARA SF1-A 0.15
GRAHAM,GERALD C&GRAHAM,
6. NR
BARBARA SF1-A 0.16
7. PATTERSON,BURTON SF1-A 2160 E HIGHLAND ST 2.44 NR
8. HOLLIDAY, RICHARD B1 1360 N KIMBALL AVE 0.68 NR
9. MASSEY,JEFF B1 1200 N KIMBALL AVE 3.18 NR
10. HUNING,ERIC SF1-A 2145 E HIGHLAND ST 2.61 NR
11. PATTERSON,BURTON SF1-A 1.11 NR
12. PATTERSON,BURTON SF1-A 0.44 NR
13. 1 PATTERSON,BURTON AG 2149 E HIGHLAND ST 6.06 NR
F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response
Notices Sent: Thirteen (13)
Responses Received: None (0) within 200 feet
One (1) outside 200 feet— see attached
Case No. Attachment F
ZA15-092 Page 1
Monday,October 26, 2015
To: Mayor, City Council, &SPIN District 4
From: Tim &Christen O'Hare
606 Heatherglen Drive
5outhlake,TX 76092
We are building a home at 1961 E. Highland Street and are adamantly opposed to the variance
request to allow a developer to place an entrance from Highland to his proposed office complex
at Highland and Kimball.
We appreciate the vigilance and standards you maintain for our city and thank you for your
consideration of our request to keep Highland a residential street only.We believe this would
change the character of the street, would create traffic issues both in the morning and evening,
and would add additional cut through traffic to the street every weekday.
Feel free to contact me at 214.724.7001 or tlm@oharelaufirm.com if you have any questions
for us.
Thank you,
Tim& Christen O'Hare
Case No. Attachment F
ZA15-092 Page 2