Loading...
Item 6FCase No. ZA15-072 S T A F F R E P O R T January 26, 2016 CASE NO: ZA15-072 PROJECT: Site Plan for Mainstreet Southlake Transitional Facility Care/Post-Acute Care EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On behalf of Mainstreet Investments, Greenberg Farrow, is requesting appro val of a Site Plan for Mainstreet Southlake Transitional Facility Care/Post-Acute Care on property being described as Lot 2, Block 1 of the Bonola Family Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas located at 2540 E. State Highway 114 on 5.68 acres. Current Zoning: “C-3” General Commercial District. SPIN Neighborhood #4. REQUEST DETAILS: The applicant is seeking approval of a site plan for the Mainstreet Southlake Transitional Facility Care/Post-Acute Care to construct an approximately 68,595 square foot, two-story building with one-story wings. The item is being reconsidered by City Council due to a vesting rights claim made by the property owner that the project is subject to the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-B, instead of Ordinance No. 585-D. The City Council considered the site plan on January 5, 2016. Below is a table that summarizes the modifications made to the site plan since that date. January 5th Site Plan February 2nd Site Plan Total Building (square footage) 69,571 68,595 First floor area (square footage) 47,780 42,808 Second floor area 21,790 25,788 Bed Count 102 88 Parking Spaces 98 83 Number of drives 2 1 The building is still proposed to be constructed with stucco and stone façades with an asphalt dimensional shingle roof and will maintain the original architectural style as previously presented to the City. The building meets the vertical and horizontal articulation requirements. Department of Planning & Development Services Case No. ZA15-072 Tree Preservation According to Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-B, the Landscape Administrator shall evaluate any plans required by this ordinance and determine whether the developer has made a good-faith effort to preserve as many protected trees as possible. This analysis is provided to the City Council for their consideration regarding the denial or approval of the site plan. The Landscape Administrator’s analysis is provided on page 2, attachment F of this report. In addition City Council shall take into consideration the criteria listed in section 4.5 of ordinance 585-B in determining whether to deny or approve the site plan. The criteria in section 4.5 of ordinance 585-B is listed below. a.) Whether or not a reasonable accommodation or alternative solution can be made to accomplish the desired activity without the alteration of the tree; b.) The cost of preserving the tree; c.) The increased development costs caused by preserving the tree; d.) Whether the tree is worthy of preservation; e) The effect of the alteration on erosion, soil moisture, retention, flow of surface waters, and drainage systems; f) The need for buffering residential areas from the noise, glare, and visual effects of nonresidential uses; g.) Whether the tree interferes with a utility service; h.) Whether the proposed tree replacement procedures pursuant to Section 7 of this Ordinance adequately mitigate the alteration of the tree; and i.) Whether the alteration adversely affects the public health, safety or welfare. Additional revisions to the Site Plan (2-2-16) include:  Eliminated the driveway entrance/exit from the front of the building. The site will share an existing driveway along the east property line. The driveway ordinance variance request for stacking depth has been removed.  The building width has been reduced 30 feet and has shifted to the west by 10 feet.  The wet detention pond has been reduced in area.  The Tree Preservation Plan has been revised to comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-B. The applicant has indicated that tree mitigation will be provided through a combination of tree planting and payment into the Tree Reforestation Fund. The applicant has a tree mitigation plan which is provided on pages 4 & 5, attachment C.  The number of beds has been reduced from 102 to 88 beds.  The number of parking spaces have been reduced from 98 spaces to 83 spaces (15 spaces).  The variances have been removed from the previous request. Case No. ZA15-072 ACTION: 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 PowerPoint Presentation (D) SPIN Report (E) Site Plan Review Summary No. 7 dated January 26, 2016 (F) Surrounding Property Owners Map (G) Surrounding Property Owners Responses STAFF CONTACT: Ken Baker (817)748-8067 Patty Moos (817)748-8269 Case No. Attachment A ZA15-072 Page 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNERS: Mainstreet Investments APPLICANT: Greenberg Farrow PROPERTY SITUATION: 2540 E State Highway 114 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2, Block 1, Bonola Family Addition LAND USE CATEGORY: Retail Commercial CURRENT ZONING: “C-3” General Commercial District HISTORY: September 19, 1989; City Council approved the “C-3” General Commercial District with the adoption of Zoning Ordinance 480 and the Official Zoning Map. August 5, 2003; City Council approved a Preliminary Plat (5-0) subject to Plat Review Summary No. 3, dated July 11, 2003 (ZA03-038). August 21, 2003; Approved a Final Plat under Planning Case ZA03-056 on the consent agenda of the Planning and Zoning Commission. A final plat (ZA03-056) was filed in Cabinet ‘A’, Slide 8967, on January 30, 2004. SOUTHLAKE 2030 Pathways Master Plan: An 8 ft. sidewalk will be required along E. SH 114 and a 5 ft. sidewalk will be required along Shady Lane. TREE PRESERVATION: See pages 2 - 5 of attachment F. UTILITIES: Water A 24-inch force main water line with taps exists along the south (E. SH 114) and west side (Shady Lane) of the property. Sewer An 8-inch sanitary sewer line exists along the north property line connecting to a 24-inch sewer line along Shady Lane. TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT: Area Road Network and Conditions Mainstreet Southlake Transitional Facility is proposing access through an existing common access drive along the east boundary of the project. This drive way connects to westbound East SH114 access road. The property has access to two additional connections to west bound E. SH 114 through common access easements extending to the east. An evaluation from the City’s Traffic Engineering consultant, Lee Engineering is provided on page 7 of attachment F Case No. Attachment A ZA15-072 Page 2 The East SH114 access road is a 3-lane west bound road along the 6-lane divided SH114. SH114 is a designated as freeway with a variable with 300’- 500’ right-of way. Westbound East SH114 (006W) (between FM 1709 and Kimball Avenue) 24hr West Bound (14,801) AM Peak AM (1,000)8:45 AM– 9:45 AM PM Peak PM (1,393) 6:30 PM – 7:30 PM * Based on the 2015 City of Southlake Traffic Count Report Traffic Impact Use Area Vtpd* AM- IN AM- OUT PM- IN PM- OUT Nursing Home(620) 68,595 sf 209 8 4 11 16 * 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, 7th Edition SPIN MEETING: The SPIN meeting was held on June 9, 2015. The report is located in Attachment D of this report. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: October 8, 2015; Approved (5-1) the motion to deny. October 22, 2015; Approved (3-2) as presented subject to the Staff Report revised dated October 21, 2015 and subject to the Site Plan Review Summary No. 5 dated October 20, 2015; specifically granting the variances noted in the staff report related to residential adjacency, stacking depth, and tree preservation; however, also noting the Commission’s preference that the applicant present a site plan with two alternatives on it, relative to access off SH 114, one version presented tonight in the presentation materials and a separate version that eliminates the westernmost entry point into the site; and specifically noting, if not included in this package tonight and to be shown at Council, a landscape plan that shows a berm along the southern perimeter of the property with evergreen hedges; and noting the applicant’s willingness to present a landscape plan showing the canopy preservation that will take place. CITY COUNCIL: October 20, 2015; Approved (6-0) a motion on the consent agenda to remand the case back to the Planning and Zoning Commission at the October 22, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for consideration. November 3, 2015; Approved (7-0), on the consent agenda, to table the item to the November 17, 2015 City Council meeting. November 17, 2015; Approved (6-0), on the consent agenda, to table the item to the December 1, 2015 City Council meeting. December 1, 2015; Approved (7-0), on the consent agenda, to table the item per the applicant’s request, to the January 5, 2016 City Council meeting. January 5, 2016: Approved (7-0) the motion to deny (the site plan). Case No. Attachment A ZA15-072 Page 3 STAFF COMMENTS: Site Plan Review Summary No. 7 dated January 26, 2016 is attached. Site Plan History for Case ZA15-072: At the October 8, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the applicant had requested approval of a site plan for the Mainstreet Southlake Transitional Care/ Post-Acute Care Facility to construct the approximately 69,571 square foot, two-story building with one-story wings on 5.68 acres. The facility was proposed to contain 102 beds for transitional and post-acute care patients. The building was proposed to include a 47,780 square foot first floor footprint and 21,790 square foot second floor. The second floor was primarily located at the front of the building along E. SH 114 with first floor wings located in the rear of the building. The topography of the site (with the highest point at the east end of the property and sloping primarily to the west), has a substantial grade change of approximately 20-feet across the property. The site will require a retaining wall along the north property line varying in height. The site includes a wet detention pond at the west side of the site. This pond will have landscaping surrounding it. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial at their October 8, 2015 meeting. At the request of the applicant, the City Council at their October 20, 2015 meeting approved (6-0) a motion on the consent agenda to remand the case back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the October 22, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for consideration. For the October 22, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans for the development including a revised site plan, revised tree preservation plan and a revised landscape plan. Revisions presented at the October 22, 2015 Planning and Zoning meeting were as follows: 1. Removed the north parking area and shifted the parking to the east and west sides of the building; 2. Reduced the number of parking spaces on the site from 99 parking spaces to 76 parking spaces; 3. Reduced the height of the north retaining wall from approximately 9- foot maximum to approximately 6-foot maximum and identified the retaining wall material as a Pavestone modular product; 4. Included additional landscaping along the north property line and added a berm and additional landscape screening to the southwest corner of the west parking lot; 5. Increased the overall size of the wet detention pond and modify the shape to preserve existing trees; Case No. Attachment A ZA15-072 Page 4 6. Preserved additional trees along the north property line and increased the total tree preservation from 19% to 30% preservation. 7. Included an extension of the east shared drive to the north Variances 10-22-15 P&Z meeting 1. Residential adjacency 4:1 slope: Section 43.13. A variance is being requested for the proposed structure located adjacent to residential property to the north. A portion of the building in the rear with one story wings and no windows will encroach within the 4:1 setback. Allow to encroach as presented. 2. Stacking Depth: The applicant is seeking a variance to the Driveway Ordinance No. 634 for the driveway stacking depth. The required stacking depth is seventy-five (75) feet and the proposed depth is for an approximately 28-foot stacking depth. 3. Tree Preservation: Previously, the applicant had requested a variance to the required tree preservation of 50% of the existing trees to allow 19% of the existing trees to be preserved on site. With the revised site plan, the applicant is seeking a variance to allow 30% preservation of the existing trees. The Planning and Zoning Commission’s motion at the October 22, 2015 meeting included the following:  granting the variances to residential adjacency, stacking depth, and tree preservation;  the applicant to present a site plan with two alternatives on it, relative to access off SH 114, one version presented with two access points and a separate version that eliminates the westernmost entry point into the site;  the applicant to provide a landscape plan that shows a berm along the southern perimeter of the property with evergreen hedges;  the applicant to present a landscape plan showing the canopy preservation that will take place. Included with the October 22, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting staff report were the requested revisions except the two alternates for the access drives with one drive and two drives and the landscape plan showing the canopy preservation. The revised grading plan provides for the landscape berm along the SH114 frontage. The City Council tabled this item at the November 3, 2015, November 17, 2015 and December 1, 2015 meetings. Following the October 22, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the applicant redesigned the building, the parking lot and driveway for the January 5, 2016 City Council meeting. A revised site plan for the Mainstreet Southlake Transitional Care/ Post-Acute Care Facility included the approximately 69,571 square foot, two-story building with one-story wings. The facility proposed 102 beds for transitional and post-acute care Case No. Attachment A ZA15-072 Page 5 patients. The building has an approximately 47,780 square foot first floor footprint and 21,790 square foot second floor. The applicant redesigned the rear one story wings of the building in order to remove the variance request for the residential adjacency 4:1 slope from the north property line. The revised design reconfigured and shortened all the first floor wings and elongates the center wing to accommodate the additional components of the previous design. It also included the redesign of the rear roof on the center wing to remove the gabled roof to a flat roof design. The building elevations were proposed to be constructed with stucco and stone façades and included an asphalt dimensional shingle roof and maintained the original architectural style as previously presented to the City. The building met the vertical and horizontal articulation requirement for Section 43, Overlay Zones in the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has redesigned the parking lot and the east driveway from the original design adding additional parking in the rear and west side of the building to accommodate staff parking shift changes. The original east parking spaces have been eliminated and the east driveway modified to eliminate the north driveway connecting to the rear portion of the adjacent property to the east. The applicant will have to provide landscape parking islands (1 in the west and 3 in the rear) and two loading zone parking areas in the site plan. The applicant sought two variance requests as shown below: Variances 1. Stacking Depth: The applicant requested approval of a variance to the Driveway Ordinance No. 634 for the driveway stacking depth. The required stacking depth is seventy-five (75) feet and the proposed depth is for an approximately 28-foot stacking depth. 2. Tree Preservation: Previously, the applicant had requested a variance to the required tree preservation of 50% of the existing trees to allow 19% of the existing trees to be preserved on site. With the revised site plan, the applicant sought a variance to allow 32% preservation of the existing trees. As requested by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their October 22, 2015 meeting, the applicant has indicated the proposed canopy cover of the proposed canopy trees and accent trees at 50% maturity is 27%, which brings the proposed development canopy cover to 43%. Case No. Attachment A ZA15-072 Page 6 Comparative Site Data Summary Chart Site Data Summary Previous Site Plan 10-8-15 (P&Z) Proposed Site Plan 10-22-15 (P&Z) Proposed Site Plan 1-5-16 (CC) Proposed Site Plan 2-2-16 (CC) Existing/Proposed Zoning “C-3’ General Commercial “C-3’ General Commercial “C-3’ General Commercial “C-3’ General Commercial Land Use Designation Retail Commercial Retail Commercial Retail Commercial Retail Commercial Gross Acreage 5.68 5.68 5.68 5.68 Number of Proposed Lots 1 1 1 1 Percent of Site Coverage 47% 47% 46% 52% Area of Open Space (acres) 3.01 3.18 3.05 2.73 Percentage of Open Space 53% 47% 46% 48% Area of Impervious Coverage 2.65 (47%) 2.5 (44%) 3.05 (54%) 2.95 (52%) Proposed Building Area (sf) 69,571 69,571 69,571 68,595 Number of Stories 2 2 2 2 Maximum Building Height (ft.) 35 35 35 35 Proposed Beds 102 102 102 88 Required Parking 49 49 49 43 Provided Parking 99 76 98 83 Standard Parking 96 73 94 79 Handicap Parking 3 3 4 4 Case No. Attachment B ZA15-072 Page 1 Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 1 Revised Narrative 2-2-16 January 19, 2016 Ms. Patty Moos Planner 1 City of Southlake Planning & Development Services Re: Mainstreet Southlake- Case # ZA15-072 2540 E. State Highway 114 Proposed Development- Site Plan Project Narrative Dear Ms. Moos: We are submitting this Project Narrative for the subject property located approximately one (1) mile from Baylor Reginal Medical Center in an area that we believe is a recognizable medical corridor along Northwest Parkway in Grapevine and Southlake, located along west bound access road of S.H. 114 and Shady Lane. The property is zoned C-3 Commercial, which includes medical care facilities, nursing homes and care homes as permitted land uses by right. The proposed use by Mainstreet is Transitional Care, also known as Post-Acute Care. The healthcare landscape is rapidly changing, with an intense focus on efficiency, lower cost and better outcomes for consumers. The Transitional Care to be provided at this location will be short -stay therapy for its guest who will rehabilitate until they are ready to transition to their homes. A typical guest will stay for an average of thirty (30) days. After hospital interventions and surgeries such as cardiac events, strokes, or hip/knee replacements, our property offers a transitional platform for these patients with an array of physical rehabilitation needs. As healthcare expenditures rise there is an increasing focus by patients, providers and policymakers on restraining unnecessary resource utilization such as that incurred by preventable re -hospitalization. Transitional Care Centers are an important component in significantly reducing readmits. Since our previous submittal, Mainstreet has gone to great lengths to design a site that will meet all of the City’s codes and requirements with regard to landscape, tree preservation, building size and access. Below is an explanation of the changes made not only to the site, but to the building in addition, to our attempt to address the concerns as expressed by City Council. Building changes: Mainstreet understands the City Council’s stated concern about the size of the building in relation to the size of the property. To address this concern, Mainstreet is committing to shrink the building footprint by reducing the length of the building by slightly over 30’ and by committing to a bed count reduction from 102 beds to 88 beds. Site plan changes: The Mainstreet team has made further adjustments to the site plan by removing the western drive and dropping its request for a variance from the the required 75 ft stacking requirement. All access to the site will now be at the east end of the site via the shared drive with Next Century Dental, located at 2680 E. State Highway 114. One access point that leads across the front of the building to the main entrance sits almost 98’ from the Right of Way. The other is at the northeast corner of the site, just over 326’ from the Right of Way line that leads to the service areas and staff parking at the back of the building. Tree Preservation/Mitigation: Since January 5, 2016 City Council meeting it was discovered that, since the site was platted in 2004 and prior to adoption of the current tree preservation ordinance 585-D, the site should be reviewed under Ordinance 585-B. It is our understanding that this ordinance allows for the removal of the trees necessary for building pad, driveways, and associated parking. We also understand that any trees to be removed will be evaluated by the City’s Landscape Administrator and a determination made in regard to the mitigation required. Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 2 Mainstreet has made a good faith effort to preserve valuable trees on a site that contains many undergrowth trees and brush that should not be considered for preservation. Some of the changes made in an attempt to limit the number of trees that will need to be removed are; reduced the length of the building by 30’ which has allowed us to reduce the paved area of the site as well, and thus reducing the original number of planned parking spaces. The site has been shifted 10’ to the west in effort to save some of the older growth trees at the east end of the building, and remove some of the smaller undergrowth trees in the center of the site. By removing the western drive we are able to redesign the grading along the southern of the site. This will allow us to save additional trees along the site frontage. Grading and Drainage: By changing the building footprint, we are able to grade the site in a manner that reduces the disturbance on the west end of the site leaving more of the natural area. We have removed the berm along the west curb line and decreased the surface area of the pond. We intend to increase the depth of the pond in an effort to maintain a “wet pond” during dryer seasons. This will also allow more area on the site for tree mitigation around the re tention pond. We respectfully request review and approval of the Site Plan submittal for the proposed development by Mainstreet. The development will enhance the corridor and add an exceptional and needed service to the City of Southlake. Regards, Marley Phillips Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 3 Revised Site Plan (2-2-16) Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 4 Revised Landscape Plan (2-2-16) Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 5 Revised Tree Conservation Plan (2-2-16) Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 6 Revised Building Elevations (2-2-16) South Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 7 Revised Building Elevations (2-2-16) North Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 8 Revised Building Elevations (2-2-16) East and West Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 9 4:1 Slope Exhibit (2-2-16) No Variance Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 10 Rendered Revised Building Elevations (2-2-16) South (front) North (rear) Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 11 Site Photographs View northeast from E. SH114 View to the northeast from Shady Lane at E. SH114 Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 12 View to the northwest from E. SH114 View north from E. SH114 access road Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 13 View along north property line (north side) from Shady Lane Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 14 Historical Plans and Support Information Proposed Narrative 10-8-15 September 1, 2015 Ms. Patty Moos Planner 1 City of Southlake Planning & Development Services Re : Mainstreet Southlake- Case # ZA15-072 S.H. 114 and Shady Lane Proposed Development- Site Plan Project Narrative Dear Ms. Moos: We are submitting this Project Narrative and requested variance for the subject property located approximately one (1) mile from Baylor Regional Medical Center in an area that we believe is a recognizable medial corridor along Northwest Parkway in Grapevine and Southlake, located along west bound access road of S.H. 114 and Shady Lane. The current property is zoned C-3 Commercial, which includes medical care facilities, nursing homes and care homes as permitted land uses by right. The proposed use by Mainstreet is Transitional Care, also known as Post- Acute Care. The healthcare landscape is rapidly changing, with an intense focus on efficiency, lower cost and better outcomes for consumers. The Transitional Care to be provided at this location will be short-stay rehabilitation and therapy for its guest who will rehabilitate until they are ready to transition to their homes. A typical guest will stay for an average of thirty (30) days. After hospital interventions and surgeries such as cardiac events, strokes, or hip/knee replacements, our property offers a transitional platform for these patients with complex medical needs. As healthcare expenditures rise at an unsustainable rate there is an increasing focus by patients, providers and policymakers on restraining unnecessary resource utilization such as that incurred by preventable re-hospitalization. Transitional Care Centers are an important component in significantly reducing readmits. Requested Variances: The proposed site presents various site development challenges. All City development codes where attempted to be adhered to. However because of some site constraints, the following variances are being requested. Variances #1: Residential adjacency 4:1 slope setback. Section 43.13 A variance to this regulation is being requested due to existing topography of site, as well as the depth of property from S.H. 114. The proposed structure will have minimal impact on residential adjacency because the portion which encroaches within the 4:1 setback are ends of the one story wings of proposed facility and have no windows. A significant portion is roof line needed for screening of roof top appearances. Also, existing topography of the site is requiring some fill Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 15 in order to bring site to a manageable grades across site based on existing elevations of S.H. 114. Variance #2: Driveway/points of ingress/egress. Driveway Ordinance No. 634 requiring 75 ft. min. Because of the depth of lot and the proposed use and required drive circulation, it is being requested that the main drive be reduced slightly. There will still be adequate stacking drive depth at drive. Variance #3: Existing 50% tree cover preservation. Because a significant amount of the existing trees are located in the middle of the site, preservation is not possible. This issue is caused by both building footprint, and grading/fill required for development of site. All efforts to preserve trees along edges and areas where possible have been done. We respectfully request review and approval of these requested variances as part of the Site Plan submittal for the proposed development by Mainstreet. The development will enhance the corridor and add an exceptional and needed service to the City of Southlake. Regards, Eric Wilhite, AICP Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 16 Additional Narrative 10-22-15 Memorandum October 19, 2015 To City of Southlake Patty Moos Email: pmoos@ci.southlake.tx.us Project Mainstreet- Case No.:ZA15-072 Project # GF 20140730 From Eric Wilhite Re Site Plan Revisions Ms. Moos: The following are primary revisions made to the proposed Mainstreet Site Plan based off of comments and discussion that arose during the October 8, 2015 planning and Zoning Commission hearing. 1. The parking was significantly reduced overall on site from the originally proposed number. The portions of the larger parking area that was indicated on west side, was reduced and spaces completely removed from the north side of development. 2. The wet detention pond configuration was revised. It is now slightly la rger and revised in “shape,” allowing for more existing tree canopy preservation. 3. Trees at north-west corner are being preserved if possible, by realigning the required sidewalk. 4. Percentage of existing tree canopy to be preserved has increased. 5. The landscape buffering along north has been increased by adding additional shrub plantings for vegetative screening. 6. By removing the line of parking the grades have been revised, which made it possible to reduce the overall height of architectural segmental block retaining wall. 7. The small parking area along SH 114, at south-west portion of site is being screened with a small earthen berm as well as shrub and ornamental tree plantings for screening. 8. Proposed landscape plantings of new trees, exceeds what is required by Code. 9. Provide the parking calculations used to determine how much parking is required/ provided. The narrative states 102 beds and the site plan indicates 90. 10. Stop bars and stop signage added to stacking areas of entry drives. 11. The roof material is being evaluated to increase architectural style of shingles used. Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 17 Site Plan (P&Z 10-8-15) Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 18 Building Elevations (P&Z 10-8-15) North and South (Building design had not changed for P&Z meeting 10-22-15) Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 19 Building Elevations 10-8-15 East and West (Building design had not changed for P&Z meeting 10-22-15) Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 20 Rendered Landscape Plan (P&Z meeting 10-8-15) Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 21 4:1 Slope Setback Exhibit for North Property Line (P&Z meeting10-8-15) * Variance Requested Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 22 Tree Preservation (P&Z meeting10-8-15) * Variance Requested Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 23 Variance for Stacking Depth (P&Z meeting10-8-15) * Variance Requested Stacking Depth- approx. 28 ft. Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 24 Revised Site Plan (P&Z meeting10-22-15) Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 25 Revised Landscape Plan (P&Z meeting10-22-15) Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 26 4:1 Slope Setback Exhibit for North Property Line (P&Z meeting10-22-15) * Variance Requested (no change from original variance request) Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 27 Revised Tree Preservation (P&Z meeting10-22-15) * Variance Requested Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 28 Variance for Stacking Depth (P&Z meeting10-22-15) * Variance Requested Stacking Depth- approx. 28 ft. Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 29 Revised Narrative (1-5-16) Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 30 Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 31 Revised Site Plan (1-5-16) Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 32 Revised Landscape Plan (1-5-16) Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 33 Revised 4:1 Slope Exhibit (1-5-16) Meets the Ordinance- No Variance Required Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 34 Revised Tree Conservation Plan (1-5-16) *variance requested Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 35 Revised Building Elevations (1-5-16) South Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 36 Revised Building Elevations (1-5-16) North Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 37 Revised Building Elevations (1-5-16) East and West Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 38 4:1 Slope Exhibit 1-5-16 Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 39 Rendered Revised Building Elevations (1-5-16) South (front) North (rear) Case No. Attachment C ZA15-072 Page 40 Variance for Stacking Depth (1-5-16) * Variance Requested Stacking Depth- approx. 28 ft. Case No. Attachment D ZA15-072 Page 1 SPIN Report SPIN MEETING REPORT SPIN Item Number: SPIN2015-20 Case Number: Pending formal application Project Name: None provided SPIN Neighborhood: SPIN #4 Meeting Date: June 9, 2015 Meeting Location: 1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX City Council Chambers Total Attendance: Nineteen (19) Host: Monique Schill, Community Engagement Committee Applicant(s) Presenting: Dylan Tar, Mainstreet Investment City Staff Present: Lorrie Fletcher, Planner I City Staff Contact: Richard Schell, Principal Planner – rschell@ci.southlake.tx.us Town Hall Forums can be viewed in their entirety by visiting http://www.cityofsouthlake.com and clicking on “Learn More” under Video On Demand; forums are listed under SPIN by meeting date. FORUM SUMMARY Property Situation:  Northeast corner of Shady Lane and State Highway 114 Development Details:  Site plan application proposing the construction of a 69,000 square foot, two-story transitional care / post-acute care facility on approximately 5.67 acres.  Consistent with existing C-3 General Commercial District zoning.  Plan proposes approximately 102 beds. Presented at SPIN: Case No. Attachment D ZA15-072 Page 2 Case No. Attachment D ZA15-072 Page 3 QUESTIONS / CONCERNS:  We are concerned about ambulance traffic. o Patients are transported by ambulance when they leave the hospital and check into our facility. There are no sirens blaring. We don’t anticipate having any of that type of ambulatory traffic.  Are there plans to keep the trees? o The trees are our biggest site plan issue since they are in the middle of the property. We will preserve as much as possible.  Will you utilize the courtyards to save some of the existing trees? o Yes, absolutely.  Your presentation showed an area with exercise equipment. Will that be open for public use? o No, the exercise area is for patients only. However, the restaurants and salons will be open to the public.  We would like to see an access road traffic study conducted.  Is this a rehab facility? o Yes  Do patients drive themselves back and forth? o No – they are generally dropped off, stay two (2) weeks and get picked up.  Is this a retirement home? o No  How many employees will there be? o About 80 to 100 full-time employees  Where is the main entrance? Shady Lane or 114? o There will be entrances from both roadways as shown on the site plan.  We are concerned about the entrance off of Shady Lane and the volume of commercial traffic down a residential street. Can you lose it? Case No. Attachment D ZA15-072 Page 4 o We can look at the possibility.  I see a third drive on the east side. What does that connect to? o Our property backs up to an orthodontist office.  Will you be seeking a zoning change? o No… our use is allowed by right.  Will you be requesting variances? o No.  How close is 114 entrance to Shady? o I’m not certain of specific distance but we will meet city spacing requirement.  Dr. Bonola (property owner to the east) talked about the trees on the north side and how they will be preserved due to residential adjacency standards. Also, trees on both sides of the fence are existing.  What about fencing? o There is an existing chain link / barbed wire fence. We will meet zoning screening and fencing requirements.  Does the acute short-term ever get swapped to long-term? o No. We have some that have but this will not happen here. 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 F ZA15-072 Page 1 SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA15-072 Review No.: Seven Date of Review: 1/26/2016 Project Name: Site Plan for Mainstreet Southlake Transitional Care/ Post-Acute Care Facility APPLICANT: Greenberg Farrow OWNER: Mainstreet Investments Marley Phillips Dylan Tarr 5500 Democracy Drive, Ste. 125 14390 Clay Terrace, Suite 205 Plano, TX 75024 Carmel, IN 46032 Phone: (817) 900-1712 Phone: (317) 582-6967 Email: mphillips@greenbergfarrow.com Email: CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 1/19/2016 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 Patty Moos Planner I Phone: (817) 748-8269 Email: pmoos@ci.southlake.tx.us 1. Label the adjacent property zoning and land use on each property. 2. Label the street right of way widths on the site plan. 3. Applicant must clarify that the 24 ft. wide east shared driveway extension will be constructed with the construction of this project. Informational Comments * Masonry required for any building in the Corridor Overlay Zone is as follows: *Stucco or plaster shall only be allowed when applied using a 3-step process over diamond metal lath mesh to a 7/8th inch thickness or by other processes producing comparable stucco finish with equal or greater strength and durability specifications. *The use of synthetic products (e.g., EIFS – exterior insulation and finish systems, hardy plank, or other materials) shall not be considered as masonry material. (As amended by Ordinance 480-PPP). * In the Corridor Overlay Zones Section 43.9 Development Regulations; General Development Standards, the building will need to comply with this section including the Case No. Attachment F ZA15-072 Page 2 roof design standards and mechanical equipment screening. (Any variation from this ordinance will require a variance request): Roof Design Standards: In an effort to screen rooftop mechanical equipment, other appurtenances, and flat or built-up roofs, all structures having a 6,000 square feet or less footprint shall be constructed with a pitched roof as defined in Section 43.12 of this ordinance. Those structures having a footprint greater than 6,000 square feet shall be constructed with either a pitched, parapet, or mansard roof system (enclosed on all sides). Standing seam metal roofs shall be constructed of a factory-treated, non-metallic, matte finish. Metal roofs with lapped-seamed construction, bituminous built-up roofs, and flat, membrane-type roofs which are visible from adjacent public ROW shall be prohibited. Mechanical Equipment Screening: All buildings must be designed such that no mechanical equipment (HVAC, etc.) or satellite dishes shall be visible f rom SH 114, Carroll Avenue between SH 114 and FM 1709, FM 1709, and FM 1938 and any adjacent public ROW. This shall include equipment on the roof, on the ground or otherwise attached to the building or located on the site. Rooftop mechanical equipment and / or other rooftop appurtenance screening shall be accomplished by either the construction of 1) the roof systems described in subparagraph (b) above or 2) an architectural feature which is integral to the building’s design and ensures that such equipment is not visible from adjacent public ROW. The fencing of or enclosure of individual mechanical units shall not be permitted except as described above. All rooftop mechanicals or architectural features described herein shall be shown on the required building elevations at the time of site plan approval. * Any retaining wall over 4 ft. in height including footing will require engineered plans for permitting. * The abandonment and relocation of the 10 ft. OnCor easement located on the east side of the property. Abandonment will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. * All lighting must comply with the Lighting Ordinance No. 693, as amended. Tree Conservation/Landscape Review Keith Martin Landscape Administrator Phone: (817) 748-8229 E-mail: kmartin@ci.southlake.tx.us TREE CONSERVATION COMMENTS: * A Preliminary Plat for the property was approved prior to effective date of the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-D, and the property owner and applicant have Case No. Attachment F ZA15-072 Page 3 requested that the project be reviewed under the regulations of the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-B. * Site Description: The existing trees on the site consist of mostly small Cedar Elm and Hackberry, with the larger trees being Post Oak, American Elm, and a few Pecan. The cluster of trees in the middle of the property is mostly made up of Cedar Elms that have voluntarily grown across the site within the past several years from the west to the east, and south toward Hwy E. 114. The larges t trees within the cluster are located on the west side and are mainly Post Oak, Cedar Elm, and Pecan. Trees are proliferated within the center of the property because it is currently a low portion of the property which drains into the detention pond on th e northwest corner of the property. The existing trees along the north property line consist primarily of large Post Oaks, with some Elm and Hackberry scattered among them. Along with a small cluster of trees close to the east property line, these are th e best quality trees on the property. * Development Evaluation: The applicant submitted a Tree Survey compliant with the plan submittal requirements of Ordinance 585-B. Existing trees within the building pad, fire lanes, and required parking are shown to be removed. The removal of existing trees outside of these areas and within additionally provided parking spaces are shown to be mitigated as required by a combination of planting mitigation trees on-site and paying into the City of Southlake Reforestation Fund. The applicant has provided tree removal mitigation calculations on the Overall Landscape Plan but the final required tree removal mitigation will need to be determined with the Building Permit and Plans submittal. Compared to the previously submitted plans the building footprint has been reduced by 4,972 square feet and the second floor area has been increased by 3,998 square feet. The length of the building has also been reduced and shifted west to help preserve existing trees on the east side of the building. The area width of the retention pond has been reduced, and the provided parking has been slightly reduced but is still 40 spaces over parked. The reductions of the building footprint and retention pond areas has also allowed for additional interior landscape area around the building and in the west portion of the property where some of the tree removal mitigation plantings are proposed. The maximum allowed impervious area is 75% and the proposed impervious area across the property is 52%. The applicant is proposing to preserve two clusters of protected trees in the western portion of the property and east of the retention pond, which are made up of Elm and Oak trees. A majority of the trees along the north property line are proposed to be preserved where approximately eight (8) are proposed to be Case No. Attachment F ZA15-072 Page 4 removed because of slope grading and the installation of utilities within the existing utility easement. If a retaining wall could be constructed along the north side of the north access drive, a few more of the trees could possibly be preserved. A small cluster of larger trees is also proposed to be preserved on the east side of the building. Given the location of the existing trees on the property, the applicant has made a good-faith effort to preserve protected trees on the property. It is unfortunate that the mass quantity of existing trees is within the central portion of the property but the applicant has made an attempt to preserve existing trees in areas where removal would most affect adjoining property owners and site visibility. The slope and drainage of the property dictates where the building must be and most any development built on the property would cause for the removal of the same trees and/or more trees as proposed to be removed. The use of retention walls along the north access drive and along the front of the west parking may help a few additional trees to remain but the grade change and construction of the walls would still cause them to be altered. 1. The applicants’ Site Tree Coverage Calculations indicate that the total trees removed and to be mitigated is three-hundred-twenty-two inches (322”). However this did not include trees within the additional parking spaces over and above the minimum required. After totaling the existing trees within parking spaces provided over the required parking spaces (138”), and trees removed that are in areas not exempt from removal (284”), the total amount of tree removal required to be mitigated appears to be approximately four-hundred-twenty-two inches (422”). 2. Please look into the possibility of constructing retaining walls along the north side of the north access drive and west side of the west access drive in order to maximize tree preservation and reduce slope erosion and maintenance. * 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, grading, and any other structure proposed to be constructed do not conflict with existing trees intended to be preserved. LANDSCAPE & BUFFERYARDS COMMENTS: 1. Provide the lot dimensions on the plans. 2. The south bufferyard plant material calculations are incorrect. Within the Bufferyards Summary Chart correct the plant material calculations. Case No. Attachment F ZA15-072 Page 5 31 – Canopy Trees 23 – Accent Trees 108 - Shrubs 3. Provide matching subscript in the “Provided” calculations of the Interior Landscape and Bufferyards Summary Charts that correspond with the existing tree credits proposed to be taken in the Credits and Calculations section of the charts. * Existing tree credits are proposed to be taken for required interior and bufferyards landscaping. 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. * Indicates informational comment. # Indicates required items comment. Public Works Review Om Gharty Chhetri, P.E., CFM Civil Engineer Phone: (817) 748-8089 E-mail: ochhetri@ci.southlake.tx.us GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. This site plan approval shall be contingent upon all required easement abandonment and relocations. 2. This review is preliminary. Additional requirements may be necessary with the review of civil construction plans. * One of the three threshold criteria requiring a TIA, the development exceeds parking 100 spaces average per driveway was met. The Driveway Ordinance, No. 634 states that the Director of Public Works has the authority to allow a variance to the requirements of the Ordinance under certain conditions. Based upon findings of the City's Traffic Engineering consultant (See attached) and the following facts: 1) the driveway for the proposed development is an existing driveway before your development is constructed; 2) the presence of cross access to additional driveways on the adjacent property to the east; 3) the existing driveway is connecting to a State owned and operated facility which is under TxDOT authority; 4) the fact that a TIA prepared at most may call for a deceleration lane; and finally, 5) the fact that SH114 westbound frontage road adjacent to the proposed facility is currently striped with a shoulder that is available for the restriping of a deceleration and or acceleration lane if warranted, I find no reason to require the preparation of a Traffic Impact Analysis in conjunction with the prop osed Main Street Transitional Center development. Case No. Attachment F ZA15-072 Page 6 * Street intersections shall comply with TDLR/ADA accessibility standards. * Sight distances shall comply with AASHTO guidelines. * 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 EASEMENTS: 3. Show and label all the existing drainage and sewer easement and the proposed easements. Easements shall be 15’ minimum. 4. Detention ponds shall be dedicated by plat as drainage easements. The following note shall be added to the plat: Compliance with the provisions of the city’s Storm Drainage Policy does not relieve a person of the responsibility of complying with all other applicable laws, including, but not limited to, Section 11.086, Texas Water Code. 5. Clarify if the existing drainage easement being abandoned or modified. 6. A common access easement shall be obtained from the adjacent owner for the proposed shared driveway access prior to construction. Case No. Attachment F ZA15-072 Page 7 Case No. Attachment F ZA15-072 Page 8 Fire Department Review Kelly Clements Assistant Fire Marshal Phone: (817) 748-8671 E-mail: kclements@ci.southlake.tx.us GENERAL COMMENTS: Fire department sprinkler connections, FDC, are to be a five inch Storz connection with a 30 degree down elbow and a Knox locking cap. (Plans show 2, 2 ½ inch connections) FIRE LANE COMMENTS: Fire lanes require a minimum 30 foot inside turn radius and a minimum 54 foot outside turn radius. (Per 2012 I.F.C. Sec. 503.2.4) Community Services Review Peter Kao Construction Manager 817-748-8607 E-mail : pkao@ci.southlake.tx.us Park Board comments or recommendations: All applicants are required to appear before the Park Board to discuss park dedication issues if requesting fee payments or fee credits. Please contact the Community Services Department at (817) 748-8607 for further details. Land/park dedication requirements: Non-residential developments must provide dedicated parks and/or open space at a ratio of one (1) acre of park land for every fifty (50) non-residential gross acres of development. If fee payment is approved by City Council in lieu of land dedication, non-residential park dedication fees in the amount of $2400 per gross acre x 5.6775 acres= $13,626.00 will be required. Fees will be collected with the approved developer’s agreement or prior to any permit being issued. Pathway Comments: 8ft wide pathway should be provided along Hwy 114. Pathway should be provided from building to sidewalk on Hwy 114 . Sidewalk should be provided on Shady Lane. Should provide pathways consistent with Southlake Master Pathways Plan. Should provide pedestrian access from each building to Trail System or sidewalk connections and between buildings. Should provide 4ft+ concrete sidewalks on both sides of all public and private streets consistent with Article V Street and Right-Of-Way Requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance Case No. Attachment F ZA15-072 Page 9 and all State of Texas accessibility requirements. General Informational Comments * An opinion letter from Ken Baker, AICP, Sr. Director of Planning and Development Services was issued on March 26, 2015, with a determination that this development as proposed falls under the category of a nursing and care home which is a permitted use in the “C-3” General Commercial District. Verification of the State Licensing confirming type of medical use remains compliant with the underlying zoning district will be required prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. * If any deceleration lanes are required by TxDOT, approval of a revised site plan may be required. * No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan, including monument signs. A separate building permit is required prior to construction of any signs. * It appears that this property lies within the 65 LDN D/FW Regional Airport Overlay Zone and will require construction standards that meet requirements of the Airport Compatible Land Use Zoning Ordinance No. 479. * 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. * Development must comply with all requirements in Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 43, Overlay Zones. * The applicant should be aware that prior to issuance of a building permit, 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. * Masonry required for any building in the Corridor Overlay Zone is as follows: *Stucco or plaster shall only be allowed when applied using a 3-step process over diamond metal lath mesh to a 7/8th inch thickness or by other processes producing comparable stucco finish with equal or greater strength and durability specifications. *The use of synthetic products (e.g., EIFS – exterior insulation and finish systems, hardy plank, or other materials) shall not be considered as masonry material. (As amended by Ordinance 480-PPP). Case No. Attachment F ZA15-072 Page 10 * In the Corridor Overlay Zones Section 43.9 Development Regulations; General Development Standards, the building will need to comply with this section including the roof design standards and mechanical equipment screening. (Any variation from this ordinance will require a variance request): Roof Design Standards: In an effort to screen rooftop mechanical equipment, other appurtenances, and flat or built-up roofs, all structures having a 6,000 square feet or less footprint shall be constructed with a pitched roof as defined in Section 43.12 of this ordinance. Those structures having a footprint greater than 6,000 square feet shall be constructed with either a pitched, parapet, or mansard roof system (enclosed on all sides). Standing seam metal roofs shall be constructed of a factory-treated, non-metallic, matte finish. Metal roofs with lapped-seamed construction, bituminous built-up roofs, and flat, membrane-type roofs which are visible from adjacent public ROW shall be prohibited. Mechanical Equipment Screening: All buildings must be designed such that no mechanical equipment (HVAC, etc.) or satellite dishes shall be visible from SH 114, Carroll Avenue between SH 114 and FM 1709, FM 1709, and FM 1938 and any adjacent public ROW. This shall include equipment on the roof, on the ground or otherwise attached to the building or located on the site. Rooftop mechanical equipment and / or other rooftop appurtenance screening shall be accomplished by either the construction of 1) the roof systems described in subparagraph (b) above or 2) an architectural feature which is integral to the building’s design and ensures that such equipment is not visible from adjacent public ROW. The fencing of or enclosure of individual mechanical units shall not be permitted except as described above. All rooftop mechanicals or architectural features described herein shall be shown on the required building elevations at the time of site plan approval. * Any retaining wall over 4 ft. in height including footing will require engineered plans for permitting. * Denotes Informational Comment Surrounding Property Owners Case No. Attachment F ZA15-072 Page 11 SPO # Owner Zoning Address Acreage Respons e 1. BONOLA FAMILY LTD PRTNSHP C3 2540 E STATE 114 HWY 1.15 NR 2. BONOLA FAMILY LTD PRTNSHP C3 2540 E STATE 114 HWY 5.64 NR 3. MLCFC 2007-9 SOUTHLAKE RETAIL SP1 2370 E STATE 114 HWY 1.45 NR 4. BONOLA FAMILY LTD PRTNSHP C3 2600 E STATE 114 HWY 1.25 NR 5. CHAMATHIL, VARGHESE SF1-A 328 SHADY LN 1.44 NR 6. BRADFORD, TIM D SF1-A 405 SHADY LN 2.08 NR 7. ABSHER, KAY BLANKENSHIP SF1-A 410 SHADY LN 1.69 O 8. CLARY, RICHARD E SF1-A 415 SHADY LN 1.88 O 9. MERTZ, JAMES N AG 409 SHADY LN 8.66 NR 10. LANCE, CAROL ANN AG 413 SHADY LN 2.85 U 11. Superintendent of Carroll ISD NR 12. Superintendent of Grapevine Colleyville ISD NR 13. Superintendent of Northwest ISD NR 14. Superintendent of Keller ISD NR Responses: F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response Notices Sent: Eight (8) Responses: In favor: 2 Opposed: 2 Undecided: 1 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 1 Surrounding Property Owners Responses Within 200 ft. Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 2 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 3 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 4 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 5 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 6 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 7 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 8 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 9 Outside 200 ft. Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 10 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 11 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 12 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 13 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 14 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 15 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 16 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 17 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 18 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 19 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 20 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 21 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 22 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 23 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 24 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 25 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 26 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 27 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 28 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 29 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 30 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 31 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 32 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 33 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 34 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 35 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 36 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 37 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 38 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 39 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 40 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 41 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 42 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 43 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 44 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 45 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 46 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 47 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-072 Page 48