Item 8 - ZA15-115 ZSP Pinnacle Point
Department of Planning & Development Services
S T A F F R E P O R T
January 29, 2016
CASE NO: ZA15-115
PROJECT: Zoning Change & Concept/Site Plan for Pinnacle Point Office Park
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY:
Brown Company Partners, LLC is requesting approval of a Zoning Change and
Concept/Site Plan from SF-1A Single Family Residential District to S-P-2
Generalized Site Plan District with O-1 Office District uses for Pinnacle Point Office
Parkon property described as Lots 1-3, Meadow Oaks Addition, an addition to the
City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and located at 305, 395 & 405 S. Kimball
Ave., Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: SF-1A Single Family Residential District.
Requested Zoning: S-P-2 Generalized Site Plan District with O-1 Office District
uses. SPIN Neighborhood # 8.
REQUEST
DETAILS:
The applicant is requesting approval of a Zoning Change and Concept Plan from
SF-1A Single Family Residential District to S-P-2 Generalized Site Plan District
with O-1 Office District uses for the development of six (6) lots to accommodate six
(6) single-story office-use buildings ranging in size from 15,500 square feet to
21,500 square feet on approximately eleven (11) acres.
The development is intended to be constructed in phases, starting with a proposed
site plan for Lots 1 and 2 which consists of the main entrance drive, two (2) single-
story office buildings totaling approximately 37,000 square feet, and all other
components as shown on the submitted site plan.
The S-P-2 Generalized Site Plan District zoning is proposed to allow any use
permitted in the O-1 Office District with exception to medical/dental associated
uses as listed in the submitted zoning document. Specific development details for
the property are listed in the proposed S-P-2 zoning document which is included in
Attachment ‘C’, pages 1-2 of this report.
VARIANCES
REQUESTED:
The following variances are requested:
1) The two (2) driveways shown along the eastern boundary that will
connect with the future Village Center Court Rd. do not meet the
minimum required stacking depth of 100’, as required by Driveway
Ordinance No. 634. Approximately 40’ of stacking depth is proposed for
both connections.
2) The Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, as amended, requires that all lots
be fronted on a public or private street. The applicant is requesting
approval of the lot configuration as shown on the proposed concept
Case No.
ZA15-115
plan.
Variance Approval Criteria has been included in Attachment ‘A’, pages 3-4 of this
report.
ACTION NEEDED: 1) Conduct a public hearing
2) Consider approval of a Zoning Change and Concept/Site Plan
ATTACHMENTS:
(A) Background Information
(B) Vicinity Map
(C) Plans and Support Information – Link to PowerPoint Presentation
(D) SPIN Forum Report dated October 13, 2015
(E) 2035 Corridor Committee Meeting Report dated December 2, 2015 – Item #4
(F) Traffic Impact Analysis Review and Response – Link to TIA Report
(G) Concept/Site Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated January 29, 2016
(H) Surrounding Property Owners Map and Responses
(I) Full Size Plans to include hard-copy of TIA (for Commission and Council
Members Only)
STAFF CONTACT:
Dennis Killough (817) 748-8072
Lorrie Fletcher (817) 748-8069
Case No.
ZA15-115
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
OWNERS:
Po Chin, Teresa Floyd, Blaine Thompson
APPLICANT:
Brown Company Partners, LLC
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
305, 395 & 405 S. Kimball Ave.
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION:
Lots 1-3, Meadow Oaks Addition
LAND USE CATEGORY:
Mixed Use
CURRENT ZONING:
SF-1A – Single Family Residential District
REQUESTED ZONING:
S-P-2 – Generalized Site Plan District with O-1 – Office District uses
HISTORY: -
The Meadow Oaks subdivision was zoned A-3 Single Family District and
a Final Plat filed in 1979.
- The SF-1 Single Family District zoning designation was placed on the
property with the adoption of Zoning Ordinance No. 334 in 1986.
- The SF-1A Single Family Residential District zoning designation was
placed on the property with the adoption of Zoning Ordinance No. 480 in
1989.
- A zoning change and site plan for Avanti at Southlake was denied by City
Council May 20, 2014 under Planning Case ZA14-031.
SOUTHLAKE 2030 PLAN:
Future Land Use Plan
The site is designated “Mixed Use”. The purpose of the mixed use
designation is to provide an option for large-scale, master-planned, mixed
use developments that combine land uses such as office facilities,
shopping, dining, parks, and residential uses.
Definition: The range of activities permitted, the diverse natural features,
and the varying proximity to thoroughfares of areas in the Mixed Use
category necessitates comprehensively planned and coordinated
development. New development must be compatible with and not intrusive
to existing development. Further, special attention should be placed on the
design and transition between different uses.
Typically, the Mixed Use designation is intended for medium- to higher-
intensity office buildings, hotels, commercial activities, retail centers, and
residential uses. Nuisance-free, wholly enclosed light manufacturing and
assembly uses that have no outdoor storage are permitted if designed to
be compatible with adjacent uses. Other suitable activities are those
permitted in the Public Parks/Open Space, Public/Semi-Public, Low
Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Retail Commercial, and
Office Commercial categories.
Case No. Attachment A
ZA15-115 Page 1
Crooked/Kimball Small Area Plan – LINK TO PLAN
The property is also included in the Crooked/Kimball Small Area Plan. The
Future Land Use designation was changed from Low Density Residential to
Mixed Use in 2012 as a result of the recommendations in that plan.
Mobility & Master Thoroughfare Plan
The Mobility and Master Thoroughfare Plan shows S. Kimball Ave. to be a
4-lane divided arterial with 88’ of right of way. The future Village Center
Drive location will be north of the subject property and connect to S. Nolen
Drive; it is planned as a 2-lane undivided collector with 60’ of right of way.
The proposed Village Center Court Rd., as shown on the concept plan, will
connect to the future Village Center Drive at the northeast corner of the
property and run south ending with a cul-de-sac at the southeast corner of
the property.
Pathways Master Plan & Sidewalk Plan
There is an existing 6’ sidewalk along the west side of S. Kimball Avenue.
The proposed concept plan indicates a 6’ sidewalk to be built on the east
side of S. Kimball Avenue along the west boundary of the subject property.
The existing retaining wall is proposed to be replaced with a new
decorative block retaining wall.
TRANSPORTATION
ASSESSMENT:
Area Road Network and Conditions
The proposed development will have access onto S. Kimball Avenue and
future access onto Village Center Drive from Village Center Court Rd. once
Case No. Attachment A
ZA15-115 Page 2
those roadways have been constructed.
S. Kimball Ave.
(between Crooked Ln. & E. Southlake Blvd.)
24hr North Bound (9,194) South Bound (5,286)
AM Peak AM (802) 7:45 AM –8:45 AM Peak AM (680) 7:45 – 8:45 AM
PM Peak PM (914) 4:45 – 5:45 PM Peak PM (493) 3:15 – 4:15 PM
Based on the 2015 City of Southlake Traffic Count Report
*
Traffic Impact
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was submitted for the proposed
development. The TIA review by Lee Engineering and the response letter
submitted by the applicant have been included as Attachment ‘F’ of this
report. A hard-copy of the TIA report has been distributed with the meeting
packet materials. Access a digital copy of the TIA here.
VtpdAM-AM-PM-PM-
Use Area
* IN OUT IN OUT
General Office – Lots 1 & 2 37,000 s.f. 407 50 7 9 46
General Office – Lots 1-6 164 22 30 148
120,000 s.f. 1,321
Vehicle Trips Per Day
*
* AM-In, AM-Out, PM-In and PM-Out are peak hour generators on a weekday
th
* Based on the ITE: Trip Generation Manual, 7 Edition
TREE PRESERVATION:
There is approximately 31.4% of existing tree canopy coverage on the
subject property. The applicant is proposing to preserve approximately
30%. Under straight O-1 Office District zoning, 60% of the existing tree
canopy would be required to be preserved. The existing tree cover is
predominantly located within the development’s frontage adjacent to S.
Kimball Avenue.
CITIZEN INPUT/
BOARD REVIEW:
A SPIN Forum for this project was held October 13, 2015. A summary of
that meeting is included as Attachment ‘D’ of this report. A 2035 Corridor
Committee Meeting was held December 2, 2015. A summary of that
meeting, specific to the proposed project, is included as Attachment ‘E’ of
this report.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Attached is Concept/Site Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated January 29,
2016.
Driveway Ordinance No. 634, Section 8.2 VARIANCES AND APPEALS:
Any applicant who desires a variance or elimination of the requirements
herein, or who desires to appeal a decision of the Director regarding
modifications to this ordinance shall file a written appeal to the Director who
shall place the request on the agenda for consideration by the City Council.
The City Council shall have the authority to grant a variance to this
ordinance. In granting any variance, the City Council shall determine that a
literal enforcement of the regulations herein will create an unnecessary
hardship or practical difficulty on the applicant, that the situation causing
unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty is unique to the affected
property and is not self-imposed, that the variance will not injure and will be
wholly compatible with the use and permitted development of adjacent
properties, and that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the
spirit and purpose of this ordinance. The decision of the City Council shall
Case No. Attachment A
ZA15-115 Page 3
be final.
Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, Section 9.01 Modifications and Variations:
A. Compliance: Where the Council finds that compliance with these
regulations would cause unusual hardship or extraordinary difficulties
because of exceptional and unique conditions of access, location, shape,
size, drainage, or other physical features of the site, the requirements may
be modified to mitigate the hardship, provided that the public interest is
protected and the development is in keeping with the general spirit and
intent of this ordinance.
1) This section shall not be interpreted to permit the development of
land which is inherently unsuitable for the use proposed.
2) Any modification will not have the effect of preventing the orderly
subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the
provisions of this ordinance.
Case No. Attachment A
ZA15-115 Page 4
Case No. Attachment B
ZA15-115 Page 1
Zoning Document
Pinnacle Point
(formerly called Southlake Oaks)
Proposed Permitted Uses and Development Regulations for “SP-2” Zoning
ZA15-115
January 29, 2016
Permitted Uses:
This property is proposed to be divided into 6 office lots all of which would include limited permitted
uses as found in the O-1 Office District as described in Section 18 of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance.
Permitted O-1 uses relative to this application consist of any use permitted in the O-1 Office District
with the following exceptions:
1.Chiropractors
2.Dentists
3.Optometrists
4.Physicians
5.Podiatrists
6.Psychiatrists
7.Psychologists
Development Regulations:
This property shall be subject to the development regulations for the “O-1” Office District, and all
other applicable regulations with the following exceptions:
Parking agreements will be in place prior to permitting to satisfy the combined parking
requirements for the development.
To facilitate a contiguous development, buffer yards and building setbacks will not be required
along internal boundary lines.
Given the future land use designated in the 2030 plan, of the surrounding properties, allow for
the adjacent screening of SF-1 lots to be screened by the proposed buffer yard plantings only and
for dumpsters to back up to the south bufferyards.
Allow for tilt wall construction within the development.
Allow for the impervious coverage to be calculated for the entire development as opposed to
individual lots.
Total site of impervious coverage on the concept plan is 60%.
Allow tree preservation of approximately 30% of existing tree canopy. Existing tree canopy
coverage is approximately 31.4% and is predominantly located along the western boundary of
the site.
Use and Operation:
The project overview is to provide a comprehensive office park similar in nature to recently built office
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-115 Page 1
buildings along the Kimball Avenue corridor. Current market trends show this product to be in high
demand.
Lots 1-6
Comprised of office-use buildings that will maintain day-time hours consistent with other typical office
locations. For this submittal Lots 1 and 2 will be site planned for approval.
Phasing Intent:
It is the intent of the developer to move forward with construction documents immediately upon Zoning
and Site Plan approval from Council. The entirety of all elements shown on lot 1 and lot 2 will be part of
the construction package and bidding. Building 1 and 2 will be constructed as spec buildings unless a
user is contracted prior to construction. Site plan applications will be submitted on the remaining
buildings as the developer prepares to permit them for construction.
Building 1 is designed to 21,500sf and is parked at a ratio of 1 space/300sf. Building 2 is designed to
15,500sf and is parked at a ratio of 1 space/300sf. Required parking for the two lots respectively are 72
spaces and 52 spaces. Provided parking for the two lots respectively are 98 spaces and 67 spaces.
The remainder of the lots in the concept plan (lots 3-6) combine for a total of 83,000 sf of office space.
At the same parking ratio the required parking would be 277 spaces. Spaces provided for lots 3-6 in the
concept plan total 285 spaces. Total required parking for lots 1-6 is 400 spaces while 450 are provided.
Variances Requested:
All lots will connect by internal access drives (Common Access Easements) to Kimball Avenue and
the future thoroughfare to the north as opposed to having internal right-of-way frontage.
Allow to vary from stacking depth requirement on Village Center Court and allow for 40’ depths.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-115 Page 2
Concept Plan
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-115 Page 3
Site Plan for Lots 1 & 2
PROPOSEDTREE PRESERVATION PLAN
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-115 Page 4
PROPOSEDLANDSCAPE PLAN
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-115 Page 5
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
Building 1
Building 2
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-115 Page 6
Retaining Wall and Dumpster Enclosure
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-115 Page 7
SPIN MEETING REPORT
Case Number: SPIN2015-38
Project Name:
Southlake Oaks – Planning Case ZA15-115
SPIN Neighborhood:
8
Meeting Date:
October 13, 2015
Meeting Location:
1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX
City Council Chambers
Total Attendance:
3
Host:
Sherry Bermann
Applicant(s) Presenting:
David Karr, phone: 214-506-3205, email: david@browndfw.com
City Staff Present:
Patty Moos, Planner I
City Staff Contact:
Lorrie Fletcher, Planner I; phone: 817-748-8069
Attached to the end of this report are the Blackboard Connect Delivery Results for the October 13, 2015 SPIN Town Hall
Forum
Presentation began: 6:05 pm and ended at 6:17 pm
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:
305, 395, and 405 S. Kimball Avenue (3 parcels combined into one site)
Development Details:
Six office building village on S Kimball Avenue built in phases. The buildings will be approximately
20,000 sf each. Two buildings will be built in each phase.
Office use for site.
Construction to begin in February 2016.
Mixed use land use designation and compatible with the Southlake 2025 (2030) Small Area Plan.
Access points to S. Kimball Avenue and the future S. Village Center Drive to the north. North and
south access drives are included in the plan. The Master Thoroughfare plan links S. Village
Center Drive to the property on the north side of the site.
Elevations and floor plans presented with a commercial, modern style.
Vertical and horizontal articulation on all sides of the buildings.
Presentation of renderings to show the materials of painted tilt wall, stone, and wood.
Case No. Attachment D
ZA15-115 Page 1
Presentation:
Case No. Attachment D
ZA15-115 Page 2
Case No. Attachment D
ZA15-115 Page 3
Case No. Attachment D
ZA15-115 Page 4
Case No. Attachment D
ZA15-115 Page 5
Case No. Attachment D
ZA15-115 Page 6
Case No. Attachment D
ZA15-115 Page 7
QUESTIONS / CONCERNS:
No questions or concerns
SPIN Meeting Reports are general observations of SPIN Meetings by City staff and SPIN Representatives. The report is neither verbatim nor official meeting
minutes; rather it serves to inform elected and appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues and questions raised by residents and the general responses
made. Responses as summarized in this report should not be taken as guarantees by the applicant. Interested parties are strongly encouraged to follow the case
through the Planning and Zoning Commission and final action by City Council.
Case No. Attachment D
ZA15-115 Page 8
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Meeting Report
Meeting 1 – December 2, 2015
MEETING
LOCATION
:
Southlake Town Hall
rd
1400 Main Street, 3 Floor Training Rooms C/D
Southlake, Texas, 76092
IN
ATTENDANCE:
City Council Members:
Brandon Bledsoe, Gary Fawks
Planning & Zoning Commission Members:
Michael Springer, Chris Greer
Park Board Member:
Frances Scharli
City Staff:
Ken Baker, Bob Price, Alison Ortowski, Daniel Cortez, Chris Tribble, Shannon
Hamons, David Jones, Lorrie Fletcher, Jerod Potts
Developers/Applicants:
Paul Spain, David Karr, Konstantine Bakintas
Public:
Throughout the meeting there were between one (1) and nine (9) members of the
public present
AGENDA
ITEMS:
1. Call to Order.
2. Review the role and responsibilities of the Corridor Planning Committee.
3. Review and make recommendations on the Stone Acre Estates Concept Plan (proposed
36 acre residential subdivision south of FM 1709 and west of Davis Boulevard).
4. Review and make recommendations on the Kimball Avenue/Crooked Avenue proposed
Office Concept Plan.
5. Discuss the creation of a new Land Use Category (Rural Residential Estate) and Zoning
District (Residential Estate – 2) and possible areas of application in the City.
6. Public Comments.
7. Adjournment.
MEETING
OVERVIEW:
On December 2, 2015 the Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee met for the first
time. The Committee was sent a packet of materials prior to the meeting that were to be
discussed during the session. The packet items were made available to the public and
the meeting itself was open to the public. The following meeting report focuses on
discussion points made during the meeting by members of the Committee, public,
developers, and City staff and only contains information for agenda items 3, 4, and 5.
This report is neither verbatim nor does it represent official meeting minutes; rather it
serves to inform elected and appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues
and questions raised by the Committee, City staff, and any attendees of the meeting.
Interested parties are strongly encouraged to follow development cases through the
process. Please visit CityofSouthlake.com/Planning for more information.
ITEM #4 DISCUSSION – KIMBALL/CROOKED PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN:
Staff presented the project details to the Committee, and there were no immediate questions for
staff.
Case No. Attachment E
ZA15-115 Page 1
The developers of the site, David Karr and Konstantine Bakintas, presented an overview of the
project to the Committee. The following includes comments by the developers:
Project is a partnership between Brown Company Partners and Office Equity Solutions
o
Brown Company partners has (is developing) the northwest development (green on concept plan)
o
and Office Equity Solutions has (is developing) everything else
The northwest piece (green on concept plan) is three tracts which the developer got under
o
contract in February. Were guided by staff to work with neighbors to understand how the entire
development works from a tree preservation perspective but also a mobility, connectivity
perspective
Developer met with (City) staff in June or July regarding the project
o
Indoor tennis court is under contract, and it has some issues. There are adjacent residential lots.
o
Looking for feedback on roadway alignment
Understand in conversations with staff that a connection onto Crooked Lane would probably not
o
be received well
Wanted feedback from Committee on access
o
Developer feels like another access point is needed but don’t feel like it is viable to access onto
o
Nolen. Hoping for small connection onto Crooked Ln. If access cannot be obtained may
reconfigure so there is another access point
Staff has advised not to leave the property owner stranded (red area on concept plan)
o
At Champion Crossing there are circular sidewalks and benches that personalize the space, and
o
maybe we (developer) need to figure out a way to do this in the trees
Do not want six of the same thing; possibly incorporate a Vaquero concept - give the buildings
o
and designers a palate of materials for the area
Will have association that could veto materials that won’t work with the park
o
Have a TIA that is still being done, may need deceleration lane to manage stacking as people
o
turn into the development. Developer worries that as you start cutting into the roots of trees you
start losing them. Losing trees for a deceleration lane is a concern
Do not have ROW north of Village Center, but do to the south
o
Questions for Developer:
Q: Looks like this will be divided to sell the lots
A: Yes
Comments by Committee:
Items in 2030 reiterated
o
Looks like many trees will be preserved
o
I am going to challenge you to take it up a couple notches
o
We often get into the urban design, streetscape, a lot of detail in some of these plans and on
o
these larger plans and because of the environment around you could incorporate some of these
features
Think the concept of splitting the tracts in half to get access to the southern piece eliminates need
o
to get access onto Crooked
Based on previous meetings, would encourage you to take that driveway off Crooked and align
o
access to Nolen
Tennis indoor facilities are big and they end up being a three story structure - in terms of the
o
appropriateness of the use there is virtually no way to articulate it, it is a big building
There is a big complex at Bicentennial (tennis courts). Is there a demand for that? Is this the best
o
concept for this area? If there is not a wait list at Bicentennial you may not have the demand
DEVELOPER RESPONSE:
Tennis court development would be done by a separate entity, not
Office Equity Solutions
There is topography and you took into consideration the trees, but if there was any way to cluster
o
buildings or do certain things to create a marketable product but consider the woodland areas in
Case No. Attachment E
ZA15-115 Page 2
the region - maybe consider the plan area recommendations
May want to utilize the retaining wall and pond area to manicure the entries so it feels like you are
o
entering a campus type area
It would be cool if when you enter the site you drive through the tree area - to force a drive
o
through, which would be a neat approach
DEVELOPER RESPONSE:
A deceleration lane into the site could negatively impact the trees.
Maybe take advantage of tree cover. Maybe pull the sidewalk into the trees and meander it
through there, add benches
Mr. Karr may need more contemporary architecture in nature. I would encourage the developers
o
to work together so the projects are complementary in terms of building materials
Would be a nice touch if the projects feel like they belong together
o
Maybe have a few different elevations to work from
o
Would encourage you to find alternative access
o
Comments by Public:
Crooked Ln. is a historic road
o
Is it possible for temporary access until Village Center Dr. is completed or worked out? Also, I
o
suggest everyone look at traffic when school is being let in and let out
The tennis courts do not make any sense under the 75 LDN. We have tennis courts but they are
o
all outside
Please change the name of Village Center (road) from East / West to something else
o
Comments by Staff:
The majority of the project is in the LDN which prohibits residential development
o
Would have to acquire ROW at S. Village Center – Staff to do cost estimates
o
When you start looking at any possible access points onto Kimball there is a lot of rise and fall on
o
Kimball and there are a number of driveways that have vertical site distance issues to the north
and south...as we get into more detailed discussions staff will look at that but this will benefit us
from an overall mobility standpoint
KIMBALL/CROOKED CONCEPT PLANS / DOCUMENTS SHOWN TO COMMITTEE:
Case No. Attachment E
ZA15-115 Page 3
Case No. Attachment E
ZA15-115 Page 4
TIA DOCUMENTS
TIA Conclusions – Stantec
Case No. Attachment F
ZA15-115 Page 1
City’s Comments – Lee Engineering
Case No. Attachment F
ZA15-115 Page 2
Case No. Attachment F
ZA15-115 Page 3
Case No. Attachment F
ZA15-115 Page 4
Response to Comments – Stantec
Case No. Attachment F
ZA15-115 Page 5
Case No. Attachment F
ZA15-115 Page 6
Case No. Attachment F
ZA15-115 Page 7
Case No. Attachment F
ZA15-115 Page 8
SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY
Case No.: ZA15-115 Review No.: Three Date of Review: 01/29/16
Zoning Change and Concept Plan/Site Plan
Project Name: – Pinnacle Point
APPLICANT: Brown Company Partners ENGINEER: Adams Engineering
David Karr Jimmy Fechter
5440 Harvest Hill Road # 236 910 S. Kimball Avenue
Dallas, TX 75230 Southlake, TX 76092
Phone: 214-506-3205 Phone: 817-328-3200
Email: david@browndfw.com Email: jimmy.fechter@adams-engineering.com
CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 1/29/16 AND WE
OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF SITE PLAN
APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED
FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE STAFF MEMBER.
Planning Review
Lorrie Fletcher
Planner I
Phone: (817) 748-8069
Email:lfletcher@ci.southlake.tx.us
1. The submitted concept plan indicates three (3) driveways; one (1) at Kimball Avenue and two (2)
at the future Village Center Court Rd. Per Driveway Ordinance No. 634, as amended, the
required stacking depth is a minimum of 100 feet. The two (2) driveways shown at Village Center
Court Rd. do not indicate stacking depth measurements, however, they do not appear to meet the
stacking depth requirement. A variance has been requested allowing an approximate 40 foot
stacking depth for the two (2) driveways connecting to the future Village Center Court Rd.
2. Provide a colored rendering sample of the proposed decorative retaining wall that is located along
the west boundary. Intersection sight triangles will need to be provided as the retaining wall plans
are developed such that the retaining wall structures do not impede driver visibility.
3. The Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, as amended, requires that all lots front on a public or private
street. A variance has been requested allowing the lot configuration as shown on the
concept plan for the development and site plan for Lots 1 & 2.
4. The S-P-2 zoning as proposed, permits any uses allowed in the O-1 Office District. The
development regulations, as stated under the O-1 Office District, allow for a maximum impervious
coverage of 65%. According to the site data summary provided, Lots 2, 5 and 6 exceed the
allowed maximum. Applicant is requesting approval through S-P-2 zoning for maximum
impervious coverage for the overall S-P-2 boundary to be 60%, the requirement shall not
apply to individual lots within the boundary.
The following are recommendations and observations by staff where your application may
benefit and does not represent a requirement.
Staff recommends providing a materials sample board.
All development must comply with the underlying zoning district regulations.
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-115 Page 1
Tree Conservation/Landscape Review
E-mail: kmartin@ci.southlake.tx.us
Keith Martin
Landscape Administrator
Phone: (817) 748-8229
TREE CONSERVATION COMMENTS:
1. The proposed existing tree cover preservation would not meet the existing tree cover preservation if
the development was proposed with straight zoning. There is 31.2% of existing tree cover on the site,
and 60% of that existing tree cover is proposed to be preserved. 65.4% of the tree cover is proposed
to be removed and 2.9% is proposed as “Marginal”. 31.7% of the existing tree cover is proposed to
remain which is predominantly within the developments frontage adjacent to S. Kimball Avenue.
2. According to the guide for tree preservation, as shown on the table below, for an existing canopy
between 20.1% and 40%, the minimum percentage of the existing tree cover to be preserved is 60%.
Applicant is requesting approval through S-P-2 zoning for tree preservation as proposed.
Percentage of existing tree cover on Minimum percentage of the existing tree
the entire site cover to be preserved*
0% – 20% 70%
20.1 – 40% 60%
40.1% - 60% 50%
60.1% - 80% 40%
80.1% - 100% 30%
*The minimum percentage of existing tree cover to be preserved shall exclude any area in public
rights-of-way as approved by City Council.
3. Ensure that all utilities, storm drains, and grading do not conflict with existing trees proposed to
be preserved.
* For property sought to be zoned for the Downtown zoning district or a planned development
zoning district, including an S-P-1 Site Plan, S-P-2 Site Plan, Transition, Rural Conservation,
Planned Unit Development, or Employment Center zoning district, the City Council shall consider
the application for a Conservation Analysis or Plan in conjunction with the corresponding
development application (as established in Table 1.0). The Planning and Zoning Commission
shall review the application and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the
application. The City Council shall approve the Plan or Analysis if the Council finds that the Plan
or Analysis provides for the:
i. placement of building pads, parking areas, driveways, streets, and utility easements so as
to maximize the preservation of environmental features of the property including mature
tree stands, natural creeks and ponds, and significant grades;
ii. maximizes the preservation of tree cover preservation areas indicated on the
Environmental Resource Protection Map;
iii. maximizes the preservation of existing tree stands with the potential to buffer residential
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-115 Page 2
areas from the noise, glare, and visual effects of nonresidential uses;
iv. maximizes the preservation of existing trees, if any, adjoining a natural or man-made
drainage creek;
v. maximizes the preservation of existing protected trees along rural roadways and other
streets as identified and prioritized in the Street Typology designation; and
vi. mitigation of altered trees through proposed tree replacement procedures pursuant to this
Ordinance.
* Please be aware that all existing trees shown to be preserved on the City Council approved Tree
Conservation Plan must be preserved and protected during all phases and construction of the
development. Alteration or removal of any of the existing trees shown to be preserved on the
approved Tree Conservation Plan is a violation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance and the
zoning as approved by the Southlake City Council. Please ensure that the layout of all structures,
easements, utilities, structures grading, and any other structure proposed to be constructed do
not conflict with existing trees intended to be preserved.
LANDSCAPE COMMENTS:
1. The property is proposed to be platted into six (6) separate lots so bufferyards are required
adjacent to all interior lot lines. If the property was proposed as a leased pad site development,
bufferyards would only be required adjacent to the perimeter lot lines of the development as
shown.
* Indicates informational comment.
# Indicates required items comment.
Public Works/Engineering Review
Alejandra Ayala, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Phone: (817) 748-8274
E-mail: aayala@ci.southlake.tx.us
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. This review is preliminary. Additional requirements may be necessary with the review of civil
construction plans.
2. Traffic Impact Analysis comments from Lee Engineering have been provided under separate
cover. See Attachment ‘F’ of this report for TIA Documents.
3. Dimension the driveway widths around the oval.
4. Show sidewalks along the future Village Center Court.
* Street intersections shall comply with TDLR/ADA accessibility standards.
* Sight distances shall comply with AASHTO guidelines on adjacent collectors and arterials.
* Sidewalk widths shall conform to the Southlake Pathways Plan.
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-115 Page 3
* 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:
* Water and sanitary sewer cannot cross property lines without being in an easement or right of
way. All waterlines, sanitary sewer and storm sewer in easements or right of ways must be
constructed to City standards.
WATER AND SEWER COMMENTS:
* Water and sewer lines cannot cross property lines without being in an easement or right of way.
* The size of the water service tap must match the size of the meter. There are no reducers
allowed before the meter on the public side. A one inch meter must have a one inch tap, etc.
* Water meters and fire hydrants shall be located in an easement or right of way.
* Fire lines shall be separate from service lines.
* Sanitary sewer in easements or right of way shall be constructed to City standards.
DRAINAGE COMMENTS:
* Differences between pre- and post- development runoff shall be captured in detention pond(s).
Proposed detention ponds shall control the discharge of the 2, 10 and 100- year storm events.
* Verify size, shape, and/or location of the detention pond (as depicted on the concept plan). Any
changes to size, shape, and/or location of the proposed pond(s) may require a revision to the
concept plan and may need to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City
Council.
* Storm sewers collecting runoff from public streets shall be RCP and constructed to City
standards.
* Property drains into a Critical Drainage Structure #15 and requires a fee to be paid prior to
beginning construction ($406.50/Acre).
* Discharge of post development runoff must have no adverse impact on downstream properties
and meet the provisions of Ordinance No. 605.
INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS:
* Submit 22”x34” civil construction plans and a completed Construction Plan Checklist directly to
the Public Works Administration Department for review. Please allow 15 business days for
review. The plans shall conform to the most recent construction plan checklist, standard details
and general notes which are located on the City’s website:
http://www.cityofsouthlake.com/PublicWorks/engineeringdesign.asp
* Submit with Civil Construction Plans a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan which outlines pre-
construction, construction and post-construction erosion control measures.
* A geotechnical report will be required for all private and public roadways. The geotechnical report
shall include pavement design parameters for subgrade stabilization.
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-115 Page 4
* Retaining walls greater than 4-feet including the footing shall require structural plans prepared by
a registered engineer in the State of Texas. Retaining walls shall require a permit from the
Building Inspections Department prior to construction.
* New Requirement:
Provide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan per TXR150000. The plan
must include all required elements in Part III, Section F of the permit. The City of Southlake
especially reviews Part III, Section F, (1) (g), Maps. The review is for completeness of a plan to
prevent pollution (especially sediment) to the Separate Storm Sewer System. It is highly
recommended the project manager provide a series of maps for complex projects, including one
map showing controls during mass grading and infrastructure, one map showing controls during
vertical construction, and one map showing final stabilization (may be but not always equitable to
the landscape plan). Please include timelines in relation to the project activities for installation and
SWPPP shall be submitted by second review of the civil construction
removal of controls.
plans.
* NEW REQUIREMENT:
Submit with Civil Construction Plans a Retaining Wall Layout sheet.
* A right of way permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Operations Department (817) 748-
8082 to connect to the City’s sewer, water or storm sewer system.
* A Developer Agreement may be required for this development and may need to be approved by
the City Council prior to any construction of public infrastructure. Construction plans for these
improvements must be acceptable to Public Works prior to placing the Developer’s Agreement on
the City Council agenda for consideration.
* Any hazardous waste being discharged must be pretreated per Ordinance No. 836.
*=Denotes informational comment.
Fire Department Review
Kelly Clements
Fire Marshal
Phone: (817) 748-8233
E-mail: kclements@ci.southlake.tx.us
GENERAL COMMENTS:
Automatic fire sprinkler system will be required for buildings over 6,000 square feet, with sprinkler
protection continued into the attic space and porches if applicable. (Per 2012 I.F.C. Sec.
903.2.11.9 as amended) Submit plans to Reed Fire Protection, 14135 Midway Road, Suite
G260, Addison, Texas 75001. Phone 214-638-7599.
The required backflow protection (double check valve) for the sprinkler system can be located on
the riser if the riser is within 100 feet of the water main. If the riser is further than 100 feet from
the main, the double check valve shall be in a pit. Riser rooms shall be a minimum of 5’X5’ if the
double check is not located on the riser, or a minimum of 6’X6’ if it is on the riser.
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-115 Page 5
Fire department sprinkler connections, FDC, are to be a five inch Storz connection with a 30
degree down elbow and a Knox locking cap.
All sprinkled buildings are required to be equipped with a fire alarm in compliance with NFPA 72,
the 2012 International Fire Code, and the City of Southlake amendments.
An exterior audible/visual fire alarm device must be installed above the Fire Department
Connection to indicate when a fire alarm condition is present in the building, or located as near as
possible to the FDC, on the building, if the FDC is installed remotely.
FIRE LANE COMMENTS:
Fire apparatus access needs to be an all-weather surface, asphalt or concrete, 24 feet wide and
able to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus. (A minimum of 85,000 pounds GVW)(Fire
Lanes obstructed by several interior raised medians)
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) (Need to label on plans)
FIRE HYDRANT COMMENTS:
Hydrants are required at a maximum spacing of 300 feet for commercial locations that contain
un-sprinkled buildings and a maximum spacing of 500 feet for commercial locations with
completely sprinkled buildings. (Hydrant spacing does not meet the requirements)
Fire Department Connections for sprinkler systems must be within 100 feet of a fire hydrant, and
within 50 feet of fire department fire lanes. (FDC locations not indicated on plans) Add FDC
locations, wall mount or remote connection, and fire hydrants as necessary.
INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS:
All commercial buildings are required to a have Knox Box rapid entry system installed near the
entrance to the sprinkler riser room. Boxes can be ordered at www.knoxbox.com.
General Informational Comments:
* No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan. A separate building permit is required
prior to construction of any signs.
* All mechanical equipment must be screened of view right-of-ways and residential properties in
accordance with the Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended.
* All lighting must comply with the Lighting Ordinance No. 693, as amended.
* All development must comply with the Drainage Ordinance No. 605 and the Erosion and
Sediment Control Ordinance No. 946, as amended.
65 or 75
* It appears that this property lies within the 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.
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-115 Page 6
* Development must comply with all requirements in Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 43,
Overlay Zones.
* Masonry materials shall mean and include brick, stucco, plaster, cement, concrete tilt wall, stone,
rock or other masonry material of equal characteristics. Stucco and plaster shall only be
considered a masonry material when applied using a 3-step process over diamond metal lath
mesh to a 7/8th inch thickness or by other processes producing comparable cement stucco finish
with equal or greater strength and durability specifications. Synthetic products (e.g., EIFS –
exterior insulation and finish systems, hardi plank, or other materials of similar characteristics)
shall not be considered a masonry material.
* Development must comply with all requirements in Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 33.21,
Building Color Standards for Non-Residential Buildings.
* The applicant should be aware that prior to issuance of a building permit a Plat must be
processed and filed in the County Plat Records, a fully corrected site plan, landscape plan,
irrigation plan, and building plans, must be submitted for approval and all required fees must be
paid. This may include but not be limited to the following fees: Park Fee, Perimeter Street Fee,
Water & Sewer Impact and Tap Fees, and related Permit Fees.
* Denotes Informational Comment
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-115 Page 7
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS
Pinnacle Point
Owner Zoning Address Acreage Response
DOWNEY ENTERPRISES LLC C2 2545 E SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.92
1. U
DREAM 7 EQUITIES LLC C2 2445 E SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.68
2. NR
CESANDER, LAURENCE P O1 2485 E SOUTHLAKE BLVD 1.59
3. NR
THOMPSON, TERESA JANE SF1-A 395 S KIMBALL AVE 4.09
4. NR
PO, CHIN SF1-A 307 S KIMBALL AVE 0.05
5. NR
PO, CHIN SF1-A 305 S KIMBALL AVE 3.51
6. NR
PEARSON, CAREY SF1-A 695 S KIMBALL AVE 2.08
7. F
PEARSON, CAREY SF1-A 2300 CROOKED LN 2.22
8. F
FOX, TODD SF1-A 605 S KIMBALL AVE 2.41
9. NR
WOOD, CHARLES W SF1-A 2350 CROOKED LN 2.30
10. NR
MULLER, RICHARD J SF1-A 2400 CROOKED LN 2.16
11. NR
TRI DAL REAL ESTATE LTD SF1-A 505 S KIMBALL AVE 4.03
12. NR
THOMPSON, WM B SF1-A 405 S KIMBALL AVE 3.95
13. NR
SHANKLIN, HAROLD EST AG 2627 E SOUTHLAKE BLVD 4.26
14. NR
WILLIAMS, ROGER GLENN ETAL AG 320 S NOLEN DR 1.75
15. NR
WHITE, ELBERT CLARK AG 2450 CROOKED LN 15.85
16. NR
API-SOUTH NOLEN LP SF1-A 495 S KIMBALL AVE 3.89
17. NR
CHURCH OF CHRIST OUR KING SP1 595 S KIMBALL AVE 3.96
18. NR
CARROLL, ISD CS 400 S KIMBALL AVE 35.39
19. NR
CARR, HOWARD E SF1-A 285 S KIMBALL AVE 2.86
20. NR
CARR, HOWARD E AG 311 S KIMBALL AVE 5.82
21. NR
Responses: F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response
Notices Sent Within 200’:
Twenty-one (21)
Responses Received:
Two (2) - Attached
Case No. Attachment H
ZA15-115 Page 1
Case No. Attachment H
ZA15-115 Page 2
Case No. Attachment H
ZA15-115 Page 3