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