The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 6A CITY OF SOUTHLAKE Department of Planning & Development Services STAFF REPORT March 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 0-1 Office District uses for Pinnacle Point Office Park on 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 0-1 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 0-1 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 0-1 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. On February 18, 2016 the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval (4-1; Springer) subject to the staff report and concept/site plan review summary; noting approval of the requested variance; noting the applicant's willingness to address tree mitigation in the pond area and to address the median by changing the crepe myrtles out to something at a lower level of cover and bringing the details of those items to Council. The applicant has indicated to staff that exhibits for discussion regarding these items will be provided at the City Council meeting March 1 st Case No. ZA15-115 On March 1, 2016 the City Council approved the 1 st reading subject to the staff report and concept/site plan review summary; granting the requested variance; noting the revised landscape plan showing plantings in the detention pond basin; noting the plantings in the median; noting the applicant's agreement to revisit the architectural masonry materials; and, noting the applicant's agreement to consider optional building placement. Applicant's Response to 1St Reading Motion Motion Response Noting City Council accepted the revised The applicant accepts the revised landscape plan showing the additional tree landscape plan as proposed at 1 st plantings in the detention pond basin. reading Noting the Applicant is required to change Crepe Myrtles in the Kimball Avenue The applicant accepts this median north of the drive access and requirement. replace them with lower level plan cover. The Applicant has made the following changes to the building materials: • Darkened the tone of the building colors to match existing neighboring architecture; • Added decorative metal screens to shield meters, etc. at the back of the Noting the Applicant has agreed to revisit buildings from view; the architectural masonry materials, Upgraded all storefront finishes from specifically the board finish concrete, and 0 aluminum finish to bronze finish; Replaced raw board-form concrete present other options at 2nd reading. finish with smooth limestone masonry; • Changed rear doors from hollow metal doors to storefront glass doors; • And, has shown the scale between Buildings 1 and 2 showing trees and human scale depictions for clarity. Noting the Applicant has agreed to The applicant requests to keep the consider potential alternative building placement options at 2nd reading. building configuration as proposed. VARIANCE REQUEST: The following variance is requested: 1) 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 plan. Variance Approval Criteria has been included in Attachment `A', page 4 of this Case No. ZA15-115 report. ACTION NEEDED: 1. Conduct public hearing 2. Consider 2nd reading approval for 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) Village Center Drive Cost Analysis (H) Concept/Site Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated February 11, 2016 (1) Surrounding Property Owners Map and Responses (J) Ordinance No. 480-708 (K) Full Size Plans (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 CURRENTZONING: SF-1A— Single Family Residential District REQUESTED ZONING: S-P-2 — Generalized Site Plan District with limited 0-1 —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 Pagel 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. SOUTHLAKE2030 C ROO KEDIKIMBALL SMALL AREA PLAN BOUNDARIES 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. A proposed drive aisle, as shown on the concept plan, will connect to the future Village Center Drive at the northeast corner of the property. a t . t y+ - oinshre+l�lP1 - i 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; and to escrow funds for sidewalk construction along future Village Center Drive where it is anticipated to go through the northeast corner of the project on Lot 2. 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 Case No. Attachment A ZA15-115 Page 2 future access onto Village Center Drive from the proposed drive aisle once that roadway is constructed. The concept plan also proposes a future access drive to the property to the south at the southeast corner of Lot 3. CrookedS. Kimball Ave. 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. Use Area .. IN OUT OUT General Office—Lots 1 &2 37,000 s.f. 407 50 7 9 46 General Office—Lots 1-6 120,000 s.f. 1,321 164 22 30 148 * 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, 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%. 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. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ACTION: February 4, 2016; Approved to Table (5-0) at the request of the applicant. February 18, 2016; Approved (4-1) subject to the staff report dated February 12, 2016 and the Concept/Site Plan Review Summary No. 4 dated February 11, 2016; noting approval of the requested variance; noting the applicant's willingness to address tree mitigation in the pond area and to address the median by changing the crepe myrtles out to something at a lower level of cover and bringing the details of those items to Council. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: March 1, 2016; Approved 1St reading (6-1) subject to the Staff Report dated February 23, 2016 and Concept Plan/Site Plan Review Summary #4, dated February 11, 2016. Granting the variance to the Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, as amended, requiring that all lots front on a public or private street — the applicant is requesting approval of lot configuration as shown on the proposed Concept Plan. Noting that we are accepting the revised landscape plan showing the additional tree plantings in the detention pond Case No. Attachment A ZA15-115 Page 3 basin; noting that we are requiring the applicant to change Crepe Myrtles in the Kimball Avenue (sic) median north of the drive access and replace them with lower level plant cover; also noting the applicant has agreed to revisit the architectural masonry materials, specifically the board finish concrete, and present other options at 2nd reading; and, noting that the applicant has agreed to consider potential alternative building placement options prior to 2nd reading as well. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Concept/Site Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated February 11, 2016. Variance Criteria: 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 Vicinity Map Pinnacle Point Office Park 2IIO 100 2 2130 ESOUTHLAKE BLVD 2121 a:1 2175 X11 � =512181 _ . 2.;15 s3s [- :231-M 5 VILLAGE _ N Y 210. 2112 16 11 11`. 21� 213G 2105'�pg 211' 2121 2125 2129 =133 213' s N �i '$IS X19 m 21W 2119pnn ' ZA 15-115 Zoning Change and Site Plan/ Concept Plan 600 1,200 2,400 Feet 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 February 18, 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 0-1 Office District as described in Section 18 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Permitted 0-1 uses relative to this application consist of any use permitted in the 0-1 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 "0-1" 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 the use of painted and textured tilt wall as specified on the plans. • 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. • Development of Lots 3-6 will be contingent to any additional access points needed per the TIA. Case No. Attachment C ZA15-115 Page 1 Use and Operation: The project overview is to provide a comprehensive office park similar in nature to recently built office 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 281 spaces. Total required parking for lots 1-6 is 400 spaces while 446 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. Case No. Attachment C ZA15-115 Page 2 1 :r ru.`:, _ :vim • w } � • °I 111 6111 11 11111 1 l,:r.EII 1 IL��—� ,. # Mr�, �I i 1 lill�lll Illli 1 ILLI 111 ■ ��1 11111 11 ILII •n, :, ;o • � � 7 • �a�wAiM \www.L �� - �,�, • Loin IIHIIMII 41112191 m; 11111 1� yll .; s�� I Illrl� •• ,� BILI# 1 ?VIII IIILII 1 Illr '? 1 IIIY 11 11111 o 01 Ro go 00 • ryi �� .,� A AVA f• �. �r �'��1 1111111 °��1111 1 € Ili 1 11111 � - ite]II 11 _11 I��.1 1 I�i111 1 1 1111 l.A/i/.i/�C_x'.�. �r r,�lw6�`da�'/,�i i• ��:�. ��WA�47•�ffI/ii!! .. I/f/.4.�7�/ririr G 0-000©�0 0-0000-- 0-0000-© Site Plan for Lots 1 & 2 Igo :M TIMITTLOT K._ sv.a T as welawaaplr.�s rxn� FFr-8 765 LAN - ---- F UTuRE VILLAGE CENTER RD a- _. > r LOT z ,4aVS.F. "3;. er ra®rMnvavAo®r ceeou� - � Aim R .. .. ...- .. - LOT 2 SITE PLAN PROPOSED TREE PRESERVATION PLAN - -- ------- ---- - 0 i__ DIT f o o I o I yl O O tl O O° t g n I I YO o I I C ISO ° O I i v 1 r _ — 00 O O I ° •e s I I O ° O O O M�11Ifi(] i p I I ¢ C Q I [z 4 I� ® I � � I O ° 0 0 o i ° o t o v I Case No. Attachment C ZA15-115 Page 4 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN ■ } I AliJ ■ `J __ ,�._... � 1 ,r .. LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS for the City of Southlake,TX ALL LOTS COMBINED' REQUIRED PROVIDED Interior Landscape Area Requirements First Floor=105,500 SF x 50%=52750 SF 52,750 SF Canopy Trees(1 per 500 Si 52,750 SF 1500 SF=106 Trees 106 Trees U,derstory Tress(1 per 250 SF) 52,750 SF 1250 SF-211 Trees 211 Trees Shrubs(1 per 40 SF) 52,750 SF 140 SF=1,318 Shmbs 1,318 Shrubs Ground Cover(15%) 52,750 SF x 15%=7,912 SF 7,912 SF Seasonal Cdar(2%) 52,750 SF x 2%-1,055 SF 1,[155 SF 'Ni See sheet LI 2 end Li 31or individual lot-IrLlations Plant Material List City of Reference Rake Reference Recommentled Plant Material List SYM. KEY OTy. COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME O.C. ROOT SIZE NEIGHS SPREAD COMMENT - - Existing Trees - - - - - - - - Canopy Tree NIA Cour[ 4-cal. 1d'min. 8'min. - - - AccentfUnderstary Tree NIA Cori 2-cal. 1Pmin. Fivin. - O00 Shmbs NIA Con[ 5 Gal. 2d'min. 10'min. Groundcoyer,Seasonal Color - - - - - - In Accordance to the Current EdiBon or The American Standard for Nursery Stock Case No. Attachment C ZA15-115 Page 5 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS as shown at 1St reading Building 1 ------------ mammal ' f IIIII I Building 2 IMM LAJ Case No. Attachment C ZA15-115 Page 6 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS REVISED . r ~ t i r t ti ti i Retaining Wall and Dumpster Enclosure Case No. Attachment C ZA15-115 Page 7 ID SOUTHLAKE 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 1; 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: SPIN Meeting Presentation Southlake Oaks Office Campus October 13, 2015 Presented by: David Karr Brown Company Partner, david@browndfw.comf,. (214) 506-3205 " RI DO EE MMONT Adams 6POMN Al 4- 70 eM FIL4ltG V� �l Narrative: \ We would like to develop Southlake Oaks, a six- building office village on S. Kimbail Avenue. The buildings will be built in phases, with two buildings built per phase. Case No. Attachment D ZA15-115 Page 2 Site Location pm 1 rii umiev[s ExxumtivE'� mup T'PE'n ��YLW�f'4C/ o� �� 1 iu _o J� Our Office L07.7Village gt Concept f - - Plan L0, - - 7?Q sF r4n: LI a exuwxr' rr=-�.. Case No. Attachment D ZA15-115 Page 3 � 4 Site Location as shown on the Southlake 2025 Kimball/Crooked .; j Special Plan Area KFmbalUCrooked �eeP1' Special Plan Area N Southlake 2025 Recommendatlans Map 5.1{714 ;r■♦ ''. , • Southlake 2025 Plan shows recommendation 1+, RLconmWellim"6 of land use change } From •• Re to Mixed Use from Residential �htwnmentl cfiangn,q • 7 'Mm IntlitiMal So Yp-Rec 13. lacourgmd changlrg iia iqi` Recomrtrentl changing _ EMWNr rrr.�,r Case No. Attachment D ZA15-115 Page 4 4.0 Small Area Plan Recommendations Our Concept Plan shown within the Southlake 2025 Small Area Plan Recommendations Southlake Oaks is an office use which is 75- compatible with the Mixed-Use land IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIr 1 designation BMW.-MI.IJY ORE �,AB ` p ! 7 FM17 - , er e �a�iy 9�SO�thlak HE �. 65 LDN i PibpQSed Village Center Drive Site Location as shown 0^�4 Q on the Master } 75LbN Thoroughfare Plan Q 6 -Q 65 LDN www.. NPIM. ... Case No. Attachment D ZA15-115 Page 5 PrOpoSP ceo�er4 Our Concept ' Plan showing connectivity r " _ to Proposed Village Center l - Drive and i — e22,W0 SF. adjacent properties a - iar, zz�oo s F � II QJ.1 W 1.60111 111 i 111 111 I � i � amrM r.,M,aRi. Typical Elevations of Buildings cmrnn�w.u, rrmrms, ne.vo.�atwmm y x�. x t 1 f NUi�FlM00./di w[{M$IFO Mtn 51pBo1l w;ssrm m•rC1N KM .. �R,e�•ouc waw w�i¢r Case No. Attachment D ZA15-115 Page 6 sow�i•�c� Davy �'[y! 1 Typical Floor Plan of Buildings . „ EIIOWM C:."MF4Nr jOVVIry a� �,� Rendering North West j: Perspective MGM Case No. Attachment D ZA15-115 Page 7 e h9? Rendering South West . ,p V. t." Perspective L7777 _ 8WM(-,7MPAW Q��A9 Rendering South West >> Bird's Eye View mIpW11"-M=Lt.�Y 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 1400 Main Street, 3rd 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: o 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) and Office Equity Solutions has (is developing) everything else o The northwest piece (green on concept plan) is three tracts which the developer got under 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 o 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. Looking for feedback on roadway alignment o Understand in conversations with staff that a connection onto Crooked Lane would probably not be received well o 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 Nolen. Hoping for small connection onto Crooked Ln. If access cannot be obtained may reconfigure so there is another access point o 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 maybe we (developer) need to figure out a way to do this in the trees o Do not want six of the same thing; possibly incorporate a Vaquero concept - give the buildings and designers a palate of materials for the area o 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 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 o Do not have ROW north of Village Center, but do to the south • Questions for Developer: Q: Looks like this will be divided to sell the lots A: Yes • Comments by Committee: o 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 these larger plans and because of the environment around you could incorporate some of these features o Think the concept of splitting the tracts in half to get access to the southern piece eliminates need to get access onto Crooked o Based on previous meetings, would encourage you to take that driveway off Crooked and align access to Nolen o Tennis indoor facilities are big and they end up being a three story structure - in terms of the appropriateness of the use there is virtually no way to articulate it, it is a big building o There is a big complex at Bicentennial (tennis courts). Is there a demand for that? Is this the best 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 o There is topography and you took into consideration the trees, but if there was any way to cluster 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 o May want to utilize the retaining wall and pond area to manicure the entries so it feels like you are entering a campus type area o It would be cool if when you enter the site you drive through the tree area - to force a drive 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 o Mr. Karr may need more contemporary architecture in nature. I would encourage the developers to work together so the projects are complementary in terms of building materials o 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 • Comments by Public: o Crooked Ln. is a historic road o Is it possible for temporary access until Village Center Dr. is completed or worked out? Also, I suggest everyone look at traffic when school is being let in and let out o The tennis courts do not make any sense under the 75 LDN. We have tennis courts but they are all outside o Please change the name of Village Center (road) from East /West to something else • Comments by Staff: o 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 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: I" 171OHHHHO - n�. v- - I ------------- . - atWltml gNBA[.L SMELL ANFJ1 PUN CON-A-N � Nov mbar- 3 Case No. Attachment E ZA15-115 Page 3 r i�• t•t _• r .• k n Case • . Attachment E ZA1 5-115 Page TIA DOCUMENTS TIA Conclusions — Stantec Conclusions February 9, 241.6 7.0 CONCLUSIONS The p,oposed Pinnacle Point develop^ient is expected to include sEK office buildings with a total floor area of 120,00) square feet. The first phase of developmert is expected for 2016, and would include two of the six buildings.The full site build-out is expected fo, 201 a_ The First phase of build out of the proposed site would -only include one driveway on the northwest part of the oreposed site along Kimball Avenue_ With the expectea volumes, traffic con d itis n s wo ul d n of wa rra nt a ny Jim provem ents to the d mreway_ At th e drivewa y, sight d ista nce was determined to be inadequate for vehicles turning lei from the site onto Kimball Avenue. Therefore, it is Fec-ommended that the trees located along the median directly north of this interseotion be cleared to provide adequate sight distance for th isvehicle movement_ rhe second phase of the build-out incFudes all six of the site's proposed buildings, as well as the Guild-out of the vacant parcels surrounding the proposed site_ It is assumed that Village Center Dive would be extended From Kimball Avenue to Nolen drive to the east -of the site. The proposed access easement and drive isle would run alongside the easternside of the proposed site, and would access Village Center Drive. The second phase o- build-out would also inclLde two driveways which would access Pie drive isle_ Traffic analyses conducted fo, the two driveways along the drive isle show ed lair congestion and delay fo, those driveways, and further improvements would not be neeaecl. Future traffic capacity +Writ ni n the study area for the existing condition and with the build-out of Phase 1 was determined to be adequate For the projected traffic demand. Therefore. no i-iprovements to the surrounding Kimball Avenue or to the site's driveways would be needea except to remove trees from the Kimball Avenue medisr north of the site driveway for adequate sight distance for left turns exiting the site.. Case No. Attachment F ZA15-115 Page 1 City's Comments — Lee Engineering ARIZONA TEXAS NEW MEXICO OKLAHOMA 7L, c-na linin February 11,2015 Alex Ayala,P.E. City of Southl ake 1400 Main Street,$u ite 320 South lake,Texas 76092 Re. PiOnacfe Potnt 77A Review Dear Ms,Ayala; Per your request, we have completed a preliminary review of the revised traffic impact analysis for the Pinnacle Point development_ The proposed development onnsists of six(6}office buildings,to be located an the east side of Kimball Avenue south ofSouthiake Boulevard(FM 1709)in South lake,Texas_ The study was prepared by Stan tec and dated February 9,2015, our revk:w was focused o n the TIA revisions,the TIA response document,a nd o ur meeti ng with you a nd the developer's englaeers. Comments are numhered for ease of reference and the numbering does not Imply any ranking. We bave divided our comments into two categories—rrrfarwatfaraaf Comments are those that require no action by the city or the applicant. Action Comments are those that require a response or actlon by the Clty or applicant.We offer the following comments on the submitted study. INFORMAPONAL COMMENTS fRJ<QU RE NO ACTION BY CITY OR APPr!&AM 1. The analysis has been revised to address our prevlous comments. A comment response has been provlded by Stantec that adequately clarifies the Issues related to aur original comments_ ACTION COMMEN TS(REQUiRE RESPONSE ORACi7QNBY fTYORAPPL;CANTJ 2. The TIA states that the developer will not develop the additional buildings on the site unless the surroundingroadwayssuch asViIlageCenterDrWeareInplace- As a result,th e discre pancy between the assumed roadway connections for Phase 2 does riot need resolved. o The CITY should require any additional development on the site or adjoining parcels that have access to the proposed driveway on Klmball submit a revised TIA at the time they are proposed in order to evaluate operations If the additional roadways are not yet in place. The develo pe r has comm itted to not developing addition al phases to t his site withD ut t he Village Center drive connection to Nolen and Kimball Iri place. 3034 L6!Freeway,Suite 1W,Dallas,TX 75234 072)248-3006 office (972)248-3855 fax i www,ieeerrgi rt ring,[om Pale 1 o f 7 Case No. Attachment F ZA15-115 Page 2 No additional ao*si5 is necessary at this time, The TIA dated outMde February 9 and accompanylas comment response Is acceptable. if you Nage any questlons, please contact me at (972) 248-3006- We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services aril are available to address any additional comments ar Concerns. 5incerely� John Denholm III,PX,PTOE Project ManagEr Lee fngineering TAPE Firm F-454 Case No. Attachment F ZA15-115 Page 3 Response to Comments — Stantec F enruary 9,20 i 6 File: 19811 0064 Attention: JIMMY Fechter, RLA Adams I Enginee-ing & Development Consultants 910 S. Kimball Avenue Southlake.Texas 76092 Dear Mr. Fechter, Reference: Responses to Lee Engineering Comments for Pinnacle Point TIA This letter contains responses to the comments about the Pinnacle Point TIA,submAted January 19, 201 d. Lee Engineerirg has eviewecl the study, and submitted comments on Jcinuciry 28, 2016. For each of the "action comments" Iwnich require a -espouse or action by city or applicant) made, our response is giver below {Nate that time was not available to make Updates to hard copies of fhe TIA submitfea earlier today)= 1-3: These were informational comments,which did not require action. 4: The TO states that Me extension of Soulh VAUge Center Drive east of iCirnbaH Avenue has an estirrrefed rmpiementaWn date at feast 7 years in the future(page 1.2). which would be 2022. However, $,ite trafUC Lvas assumed to have access fo South Vifiage Genfer Drive at site buWd-md in 2018. The TL4 should not incfude frafc aasignmenfs to V+iiage Center Drhm or Vbtage Cenfer Court for the 20 f 9 bua7dout analysis unless those roadways w X be in piaee by then_ The developer's intent at the'rime the TIA was scopea was to evaluate an ideal scenario where all buildings could be constructed to meet presLmea market demana by 2018 and thus ilustrate to the City the utility of having the new roadways in place_ If no furling is available for roadway cons ruction until 2022 or later. fh,e developeF is committed to delay Phase 2 anti such ti^ie as the new roads will be in place. S: No 20 19 background analysis is pravrded for fine fGmbart driveway intersection. We did riot scope 2018 background analysis at the Kimball d,iveway inte'seetion since IitMe If any meaningful information would come from it. It would be similar to the existing condition where no side street traffic is approaching. The school would continue to be one- way in,there'd be no d-iv etway on the east side, and so no delay would occur for anyone except small delay to-ro,thbound left turns into the school_ $: The TM says We assumed background retail development rwdhwesf ofsite inatudea 23,OCO fig remaining (page 3.2).but the fnp generation spreadsheet fn Appen6x C uses 20,000 ftp_ Cesig n with community in mrd Case No. Attachment F ZA15-115 Page 4 February 9.2DI6 Jimmy Fechter,R_A Page 2 o 4 Reference= Responses to lee Engineering Comments for Pinnacle Point TIA The trip generation worksheet in Apaendix C had 20,301)square feet entered, but the value in the spreadsheet was displayed as rounded to 20,001). This was Faced in the worksheet to show the nonfaunale d value_ The report was also changed accordingly to show the correct square footage of 20,300_ 7: The AM peak hour capacity analysis utdfzed peak hourfactors of 0.92 fo 1.0_ This peak hour factor wall nod account for the peak Aow characie6K!iss of the sc,hoal drivevray€hal'shares the median gven ng rurth Me pmpased development driveway_ The analysis should be revised to use peals hour factors that consider school fraft oyaWjona. The peak hour factors along Kimball Avenue were not carried over from the previous submission to the revised Pinnacle Point TIA. After entering the correct peak hours, the Synchro analysis was rerun for both phases_ In Phase 1, the worst movement dek3y at the study intersection increases from 40 seconds to 44 seconds for the AM westbound left tum from the site driveway. The result -emains LOS E. and none of the other movements have worse LOS after the correction. In Phase 2,the westbound left tum out of the site driveway onto Kimball Avenue had ❑ delay increase of around 2D-30 seconds for each peak hour, nowever, this movement was already operating at LOS F. Otherwise, delay and queues remained nearly identical,arid the conclusions of the study would not need revision_ $: There rs a mundabouflaval rnteraectiarr wrthrn Jhe site.Autotum exhrbrfs€ar a 5U 40 and W8 50 design vehie,e were provided. No Aufoturn exh2W for a SouWake Jere department vehicle was provrded_ ■ Dfie rntema� fntersectian should he revfsed to better accommodate fhe varkuE desrgrr vehicles artl'rcipal'ed far the srfe.. • The layout should be revrevfied by the Fire Deparlment to determrne rP r7 is acceptable. Comment noted_ Consjullant to coordinate with City staff. 9: Table 7 in the TlA addresses lrtfersedian Sight Distance. However,it is unclear where Me recommended slopping sight distance in the table�s coming From as rf does nor makh AASHTO tnfersecfron Sight Distance orSltopoing Srgtrf Distance for the pasted 35 mph orsfated 40 mph design speed. + Dfie sto-pprng sfghf dratance For a 40 mph design speed is 305 feef. + intersection sight distance for a 40 rrmph design speed fo%r Me Jeff tarn from fhe minor roadway, case B?,with an B_0 secand trine gap due to the 4 Larne divided roadway is 475 Feet. Stopping sight distarces had been aajustea for a 3%gra ce in previous versions of the report_ We agree that intersection sight distarce is more appropriate and that stopping sight distance was included it the previa us reports in error_ ■ For left toms from a minor roadway. case B 1,a tim a gap of 8.5 seconds;co nsidering the median as an "additional lane" to cross), and desigr speed of 40^iph. Design with community in rrrird Case No. Attachment F ZA15-115 Page 5 February F,2D16 Jimmy Fechter,R-A Page 3 of 4 Reference: Responses to Lee Engineering Commenhfor Pin nacle Point TIA ,eco^imended intersection sight distance is 500 feet,which will be Iercyided only if the existing median street trees are removed o,replaced with trees having a higher canopy as noted. Fo, right turns From a minor maclway, case B2_. a time gap of 6.5 seconds (grade is 3%or less),and design steed of 40moh,recommended intersection sight distance is 335 feet_ The 470 Feet of available sight distarce is stil sof fent compared to the corrected, higher recommenced th-eshold. 10: The T!A indicated that if deft tum egress from fhe rwrfhern drfi+a?wway is alfowed,!herr the mediart landscapirrg north of the site wall require modi8'caUon_ We concur with this moommendw on. The botfom of the tree canopy should be at least 7'above the cruris elevafion Additiorrad}; rre shrubs or bushes should be facer than 24" above the lower roadway E eva€ion. Na action is neeaed for the TIA since this comment agrees with Stantec's reccm mend aticn. 1 1: Retaining`raft iS Sfrowrr an the site plan wiM height etc. TBO.lrrferseePon sight hfangles wffl meed to be provided as the retaining watt plans are developed such that the retain ng wall sfruArres do riot fn7pede driver visibrfity. Comment noted. Consultant to coordinate with City stat. 12: No crass access is shown to adjoining properties. Cross access is generally daskabie_ Cross access to the south should be eonardered so thaf future access to a second median opening sound be c"Wairred of the ede to the soruth redavetops. Comment noted_ Corsultant to coordinate with City stat. 13: The drrveways fe Village Center Court have throat depths that do not safWy the driveway oradinance. They wifi negufre variances_Based on fhe informatfon in rhe TiA fine lengths show``in the site plan should operale satisfactorily. Kimball does not have a E uffocienf throaf depth. ■ ifbOdout of the site occurs before Vfrlage Center Drive and Wage Center Court are consfnscied then the driveway to tGmball does not have a sufffcr nt throat depfh since 450 parking spaces w`o`uld be served by a srngle driveway. This is ars issue more about trrWng than throat depfh as fhe 100'throat depth shown in the site plan is sufcient once the I/Nage Cenfer Drive and fhe Vojage Center Court roadways are in place_ ■ The 100'throat depth would be appropdafe it buildout occurs prier to the adichIning raadways if fhe secondary access an t{lrnbafi is provided_ Variances will not be required since the developer does not intend for full build-out prior to construction of the new roadways. See response to Comment#4 above. ❑esi�n with community in rrhiid Case No. Attachment F ZA15-115 Page 6 February 9.201.6 Jimmy Fechter,RLA Page A of 4 Reference: Responses to lee Engineering Com menis for Pinnacle Paint TIA 14: There do appear to be any sidewalk cor nections shown from KimbaJJ Avenue or VMage Gender fff k2k the aRe. Comment not&d. CDPsu,'ci it to coordinate with CIty start. If you have any questions. Iclease feel free to contact me at214-468-8' 00-Ext. 1104. Sincerely Josh.S^iith, P.E., PTO Project Manager Phone:214-468-B20D Ext. 1 104 Fax:21446Er-8266 Josh,Smith@sta ntec_com Case No. Attachment F ZA15-115 Page 7 VILLAGE CENTER DRIVE COST ANALYSIS BPC-VillageCent-erDrSoudhlake Baird.Hampton&Brown 1118!2016 Engineering&Surveying 4550 SH 360,Ste.150,Grapevine,TX 70,051 Tel 617-251-8550,wwwr.bhbinc.com Engineers Preliminary Concept Opinion of Probable Cost for Village Center Drive fromS.Kimball Rd_to S.Nolen Dr. City of Southlake,Texas January I.B.2016 Item Number Descri tion Unit Quantity Unit Price Extended Price A.Roadway Improvements 1 Project Sign =A. 2 $ 450.69 y :'.� 2 ErosiorContro Measures k10 8 $ 3997.C3 S _-1 C.7 3 Trafw--onrol Measures k10 8 $ 1.007 C_ S 5 C.7 4 Remove Fence LF 839 $ 1.xC 3 1==5 5 Remove Elam Structure EA. 1 $ 5,600.C3 3 5('D 6 Tree Preservation EA. 10 $ 450.C3 3 4 c'.7 7 Tree Removal EA. 30 $ 450.C3 5 13-X:.7 8 Site Clearing AC 2.25 $ 2,500.C3 S 5,825 9 Undasified Roadway Excavation CY 5506 $ 18.C3 S 98,000 10 Embankment CY 1169 $ 8.C3 5 8,890 11 6'Lime Treatrnent SY 7159 $ 3.D9 5 21,450 12 Hydrated Lime(at 40 LbsFSY) TN 143 $ 150.69 $ 21,450 5 6'Reinforced Concrete Pvmt SY 8869 $ 90.69 b 408,090 0 6'Concrete Curb LF 3369 $ 8.69 b 26,400 7 ADA Compliant Sidewalk Ramp EA 6 $ 1,250.69 b 10.6170 8 6'Concrete Driveway SF 360 $ 8.69 $ 2,190 9 4'Reinforced Coro S idewal K.5'Wide SF 10590 $ 5.69 F 92,500 16 Roadway Signage&Striping Improvements LF 1659 $ 25.139 F 41,250 11 Street Light Poles&Fixture EA. 17 $ 9.X37 C2 5 144,500 12 Pier Foundation for Street Lights EA. 17 $ 3 X-C7.Cc S 59,590 13 Electrical Conduit&Conductor far Street Lights LF 3366 $ 25.C-- " 92,500 14 Irrigation System jone system&controller per 174 mile,minimum) EA. 2 $ 15,690_C9 3 30,1390 15 Imported Topsoil(9"Thick in Sod Areas) C=' 460 $ 25_C9 3 10,090 16 Block Sod Placement(Parkway) SY 23617 $ 5.130 3 11,900 17 Plant 2"Tree =A. 35 $ 25C-CD S 8,750 13 Fence,Type TBD LF 2955 $ 12.1317 3 35,590 19 Fence,Stone Masonry 2049 $ 25.69 $ 51,090 Subtotal Roadway Improvements $ 1,201,510 Contingency b 240,490 Total Roadway Improvements $ 13dd2,001) B.Drainage Improvements 2C T-afi::Corrol Measures k10 2 $ 1,50C.Co S 4 9.7 21 Tre-icnSa-ety LF 1-c? $ 2.CC S 3Z- 22 -22 5'Storm Junction Box EA. -,1 $ 5,D00.C-- 5 55,C03 23 19"RCP,Class III LF 403 $ 50.CC S 23,150 24 24"RCP,Class III LF 3W $ 70.CC 3 27,020 25 30"RCP,Class III LF 182 $ 90.C3 5 14,590 28 33"RCP,Class III LF 148 $ 1 X.C3 S 14,5170 27 39"RCP,Class III LF 251 $ 110_DO $ 27,810 26 42"RCP,Class III LF 343 $ 125.69 b 42,875 20 Connect to Exist.wlConorete-Cd lar EA. 2 $ 2,D00.00 b 4.C77 30 10'Recessed Curti Inlet EA. 12 $ 3,D09.60 L 39 C'.7 Subtotal Drainage Improvements $ 253;'1 Contingency 235 $ 50,959 Total Drainage Improvements 304 000 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-142 Page 1 Item Number Deacrl than Llnit 4uenllly Unli Price Exiended Price C.Water Improvement 31 -mncr Safely LF 1317 5 2.60 $ 2,624 32 Install 9W'Tapping SleE':e&Valve EA 2 5 2,506.1-2 S ..0_0 33 Installs'Water Plpe,,PVC S[1R16.CZ00) LF 1317 5 35.1= ` =c.C_. ail Installs'FJr Release Valae wlth Box EA 1 5 3,50x.[= ` 3.1;=C 35 Install.0'6xe Vat:e Kith 3uc EA 2 5 656.0= ` 1.-=C 36 1islall Fire Hydrartl i.max 3a[-r spacing firwrnmendalhltlg,ra sprinklers; EA S 5 3,506.[= -.c=C 37 17s1all 5'Ga-.=va':e Wth 3uc EA 5 5 750.0= { 5.7?C 38 V:3-.=r Servlce-aP EA 5 5 256.0= .c.0 39 V:3-.=r S=rvlce LnE- L= 1Ea 5 26.0= ` 3.c=C 40 V;3:=r hlele-Bo[ EA 6 5 250.177 1.1;_C 41 DLC111E Irar FnU s'M:h:teshaht -ON OS 5 5,480.0(I # 2.7=C Subimal Wafer lmprooEmenta CmUngerov 2c96 - Talal laielar Improvements 07.00 D.Sewer Improvements 42 -rench Safely L= 56a 5 21= S 1,136 43 1istall 91 Sanitary Sewer DIpe{PVC 313119.35 t1 0-E depth) L= 56a 5 d6.[= ` 22,720 U van:3rySE- erServiceTap EA 4 5 450.0= ` 1,600 45 van:arySE- er Service Line L= 137 5 30.[= f 3,690 45 Install 4'Diameter Manhole Imax 570-tspwing,aterda,Innectltln S bentl; EA 4 5 3,600.[= ` -_.0.0 47 Vacuum Test SS Ms EA 4 5 3E6.G= ` .-=C 48 Fast-CCTV Inspection IsarKa sew L= 5E8 5 - - 3ubiccal SE%,er Impraverrerds E 3.7_= CoriPn"erov 2196 z 5.'=c Total Sewer Improvemenle. f 13.0c E.Slgnallzatlon or IniersecUnn at S.Kimball Rd. 49 SI rallxa:lor o'InLersEctlar a:S.Kimball Rd. EA 1 5 2?6.C'C C' ` 273.0_[ Cubimal Slgnall=Dn Imprwements E 276.0-0 Contl ercv 2E% -alai SlgosllZ& Dn ImpFuvementa 334,00G Total Construction of Improvements with 20%Contingency I Se--Ii:ns A-E) S 2,238,000 F.Pra%eslonal and MISC811aneous Services 50 EnghE-Ering Servlres 0.0=01 : 223,6.0 Si GealEwn"l,maesuyatlon 'S 1.1% 6 22,350 52 Land Survey 'S 0.6% 5 11,190 S3 Cm5tNCtlDn$MalM3V TEs-.Ing =S 1.6 5 33,540 5d Cmstruetlon Stating 1.1 S 22,350 55 CmstructlonAdminVlratlar 2.1 S 44,720 Subimal Dreresslonal and MlsoEllaneous 3erolce5 E. 3`-r.--C, Cmtl erav E i6.'=C Tom ror Proreae Inne1 and lfteesllaneoua S ervlcee 534,1�c G.Right-W-Way 8 Easement AcquMlhon 55 ROW Acgaleltlm,Surrey&DaeLmerd Preparatlar 15 Darcels) EA S 5 4,[=C_ E. 2C-.C-:C 57 ROW Acgaleltlm,Legal fees(4 Owners EA 4 5 M.0:0- E. 120,0=C 58 ROW DL-base+TAD apprals3 '-alLe)-Cam 1(Wes;) SF 21,7a[l 5 3.1. E. MUG 59 ROW}L-base'TAD appral53 aIL12)-Carr2(east♦ SF 18.731 5 3.1= 56,193 EA ROW}L-chase+TAD appral53 '-alLe)-Chin SF 10.019 5 1.'.E 13,600 51 RCW}L-base'TAD appral53 '-alLe)-CEaantler SF 10,019 5 8.1= ` 30,0``-6 52 RC'.'1 DL-chase TAD ap rals3 '-31Le)-3hanklir SF 16,117 5 4.1= { EC-9 63 -eTpa•aryCmstructivn=as=r7E1t-6�ASaL:hlateMOB,Shanklln SF 5,B90 5 1.1= 6.Z'C E� -eT c,•ary Const-u ll:-"=as=r7Ent.Legal'42es'1 OPareri EA 1 5 3,[•70.[. E 5.0-C vJbia:3 ?gl-.-OM 3}L=as=rieitACgLlsltlorE 379.-=c Coitn"ercv 2x76 + 76.'`' Total ror Rig h1-or-Wap&Easement Acqu lelilan } 45.c K Engineer's Budgetary Opinion of Probable Project Cost Total (Sections A-G) $ 3,088,000 Case No. Attachment G ZA15-142 Page 2 SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA15-115 Review No.: Four Date of Review: 02/11/16 Project Name: Zoning Change and Concept Plan/Site Plan — 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 2/10/16 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(a)ci.southlake.tx.us 1. 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. 2. Label and designate all driveways that provide or will provide connection to and/or through adjoining lots as "Common Access Easements". 3. The S-P-2 zoning as proposed, permits any uses allowed in the 0-1 Office District. The development regulations, as stated under the 0-1 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 H 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 for an existing canopy between 20.1% and 40%, the minimum percentage of the existing tree cover to be preserved is 60% under a standard zoning district. However, the applicant is requesting approval through S-P-2 zoning for tree preservation as proposed. 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 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 Case No. Attachment H ZA15-115 Page 2 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. 3. Ensure that all utilities, storm drains, and grading do not conflict with existing trees proposed to be preserved. Applicant is proposing that no interior bufferyards be required in the S-P-2 regulations. 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: aayalaa-ci.southlake.tx.us GENERAL COMMENTS: This review is preliminary. Additional requirements may be necessary with the review of civil construction plans. Traffic Impact Analysis comments from Lee Engineering have been provided under separate cover. Street intersections shall comply with TDLR/ADA accessibility standards. Sight distances shall comply with AASHTO guidelines on adjacent collectors and arterials. Sidewalk widths shall conform to the Southlake Pathways Plan. Use the City of Southlake GPS monuments whenever possible. Monument locations can be found in the City of Southlake website: http://www.citvofsouthlake.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. Case No. Attachment H ZA15-115 Page 3 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. 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. 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 Case No. Attachment H ZA15-115 Page 4 removal of controls. SWPPP shall be submitted by second review of the civil construction 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(a)ci.south lake.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. 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: Case No. Attachment H ZA15-115 Page 5 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. It appears that this property lies within the 65 and 75 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. 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. Case No. Attachment H ZA15-115 Page 6 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 H ZA15-115 Page 7 SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS Pinnacle Point 218 2245 2 X15 2 Po �,S h9q rebs b� 2435 2535 21312235 11l1 2TOT z325 ubs zsb B1W zazr 5 VILLAGE CENTER OR z1s) zrir nn 2) zBp1 az1 2eos o 2717 N $Q �` 2855 F N 2850 8)0 0 5ry Ic 2999 28]5 g ry' % 2 2118 2124 21 2 210 21092117 2121 2125 2120 2139 213) P � 8 iw S ]10 2000 talo 11 G yp5 ]89 Q � ¢ � 12^1p � � 2815 2918 5 2635 2945 2855 2885 28 `b u 2102105 s - 1. DOWNEY ENTERPRISES LLC C2 2545 E SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.92 U 2. DREAM 7 EQUITIES LLC C2 2445 E SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.68 NR 3. CESANDER, LAURENCE P 01 2485 E SOUTHLAKE BLVD 1.59 NR 4. THOMPSON,TERESA JANE SF1-A 395 S KIMBALL AVE 4.09 NR 5. PO, CHIN SF1-A 307 S KIMBALL AVE 0.05 NR 6. PO, CHIN SF1-A 305 S KIMBALL AVE 3.51 NR 7. PEARSON,CAREY SF1-A 695 S KIMBALL AVE 2.08 F 8. PEARSON,CAREY SF1-A 2300 CROOKED LN 2.22 F 9. FOX,TODD SF1-A 605 S KIMBALL AVE 2.41 NR 10. WOOD, CHARLES W SF1-A 2350 CROOKED LN 2.30 NR 11. MULLER, RICHARD J SF1-A 2400 CROOKED LN 2.16 NR 12. TRI DAL REAL ESTATE LTD SF1-A 505 S KIMBALL AVE 4.03 NR 13. THOMPSON,WM B SF1-A 405 S KIMBALL AVE 3.95 NR 14. SHANKLIN, HAROLD EST AG 2627 E SOUTHLAKE BLVD 4.26 NR 15. WILLIAMS, ROGER GLENN ETAL AG 320 S NOLEN DR 1.75 NR 16. WHITE, ELBERT CLARK AG 2450 CROOKED LN 15.85 NR 17. API-SOUTH NOLEN LP SF1-A 495 S KIMBALL AVE 3.89 NR 18. CHURCH OF CHRIST OUR KING SP1 595 S KIMBALL AVE 3.96 NR 19. CARROLL, ISD CS 400 S KIMBALL AVE 35.39 NR 20. CARR, HOWARD E SF1-A 285 S KIMBALL AVE 2.86 NR 21. CARR, HOWARD E AG 311 S KIMBALL AVE 5.82 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 I ZA15-115 Page 1 Notification Response Form MOA aq parte: Jotntsary 7. 2016 at 6:30 PM DOWNE.Y E 1 «ES LLC 2545 E SOUTHL,AI4E BLVD SSOUTHLA4 E.TX 7fii092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED 6ORMS VIA ML, PUBLIC OHA D DELIVERY BEFORE `tHE START OF T HE Being the owner(s)of the PraP8rty noted above, are hereby ir+ favor of opposed to undecided ahoUt C 312O15,Agq (circle�or underline onB) the proposed Zoning Change aM itL- PlanlConoeiat flan referenced al�ave- Sped for comments regarding your position-, eu OL al, n y h 'S Signature'. — -- pati: 4 Date, Additional Signature: Printed Narne(s)= �A3 lG anefinMJPMDJ: h- MUM ba properly nvruer S)whoao nsme{s)pre prnw attop. O(harwigs elon EKtthlE Pin Ing Phone Number (optional,). Case No. Attachment I ZA15-115 Page 2 Notification Response Form ZA15-115 Meeting Date: January 7, 2016 at 6:30 PM - PEARSW CAREY 695 S KIMBALL AVrE OUTHLAKE, TX 76092 'LEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted Above, are hereby GH? opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Zoning Change and Site Plan/Concept Plan referenced above- Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Date: Additional Signature: _ Date: Printed Name(s): Must be propa-Ly okwar(s}whose narne(s)are p.rig&d ar t p. henwise contact the Planning pepartmant. One`nem per p.aperty. Phone Number (optional): 151 Case No. Attachment I ZA15-115 Page 3 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS ORDINANCE NO. 480-708 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 480, AS AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS; GRANTING A ZONING CHANGE ON A CERTAIN TRACT OR TRACTS OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS BEING LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1-3, MEADOW OAKS ADDITION, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING APPROXIMATELY 11 ACRES, AND MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" FROM "SF-1A" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO "S-P-2" GENERALIZED SITE PLAN DISTRICT WITH LIMITED "0-1" OFFICE DISTRICT USES, AS DEPICTED ON THE APPROVED CONCEPT AND SITE PLANS ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN AS EXHIBIT "B", SUBJECT TO THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS ORDINANCE; CORRECTING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PRESERVING ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE; DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE DEMAND THE ZONING CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS HEREIN MADE; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE CUMULATIVE OF ALL ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS HEREOF; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Southlake, Texas is a home rule City acting under its Charter adopted by the electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 9 of the Texas Local Government Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code, the City has the authority to adopt a comprehensive zoning ordinance and map regulating the location and use of buildings, other structures and land for business, industrial, residential and other purposes, and to amend said ordinance and map for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals and general welfare, all in accordance with a comprehensive plan; and, WHEREAS, the hereinafter described property is currently zoned as "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District under the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; and, Case No. Attachment J ZA15-115 Page 1 WHEREAS, a change in the zoning classification of said property was requested by a person or corporation having a proprietary interest in said property; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, at a public hearing called by the City Council did consider the following factors in making a determination as to whether these changes should be granted or denied: safety of the motoring public and the pedestrians using the facilities in the area immediately surrounding the sites; safety from fire hazards and damages; noise producing elements and glare of the vehicular and stationary lights and effect of such lights on established character of the neighborhood; location, lighting and types of signs and relation of signs to traffic control and adjacent property, street size and adequacy of width for traffic reasonably expected to be generated by the proposed use around the site and in the immediate neighborhood; adequacy of parking as determined by requirements of this ordinance for off-street parking facilities; location of ingress and egress points for parking and off-street loading spaces, and protection of public health by surfacing on all parking areas to control dust; effect on the promotion of health and the general welfare; effect on light and air; effect on the over-crowding of the land; effect on the concentration of population, and effect on transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public facilities; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, further considered among other things the character of the districts and their peculiar suitability for particular uses and the view to conserve the value of the buildings, and encourage the most appropriate use of the land throughout this City; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that there is a public necessity for the zoning changes, that the public demands them, that the public interest clearly requires the amendments, and that the zoning changes do not unreasonably invade the rights of those who bought or improved property with reference to the classification which existed at the time their original investment was made; and, Case No. Attachment J ZA15-115 Page 2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that the changes in zoning lessen the congestion in the streets, helps secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers, promotes the health and the general welfare, provides adequate light and air, prevents the over-crowding of land, avoids undue concentration of population, and facilitates the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, has determined that there is a necessity and need for the changes in zoning and has also found and determined that there has been a change in the conditions of the property surrounding and in close proximity to the tract or tracts of land requested for a change since the tract or tracts of land were originally classified and therefore feels that the respective changes in zoning classification for the tract or tracts of land are needed, are called for, and are in the best interest of the public at large, the citizens of the city of Southlake, Texas, and helps promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That Ordinance No. 480, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Southlake, Texas, passed on the 19th day of September, 1989, as originally adopted and amended, is hereby amended so that the permitted uses in the hereinafter described areas be altered, changed and amended as shown and described below: Being described as Tracts 3A1A and 3A2A, Thomas Mahan Survey, Abstract No. 1049, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, being approximately 15.518 acres, and more fully and completely described in Exhibit "A" from "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District to "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District as depicted on the approved Concept and Site Plans attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B", and subject to the following conditions: Case No. Attachment J ZA15-115 Page 3 SECTION 2. That the City Manager is hereby directed to correct the Official Zoning map of the City of Southlake, Texas, to reflect the herein changes in zoning. SECTION 3. That in all other respects the use of the tract or tracts of land herein above described shall be subject to all the applicable regulations contained in said Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable and pertinent ordinances for the City of Southlake, Texas. All existing sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, words, phrases and definitions of said Zoning Ordinance are not amended hereby, but remain intact and are hereby ratified, verified, and affirmed. SECTION 4. That the zoning regulations and districts as herein established have been made in accordance with the comprehensive plan for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals and the general welfare of the community. They have been designed, with respect to both present conditions and the conditions reasonably anticipated to exist in the foreseeable future; to lessen congestion in the streets; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent over-crowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; and to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, drainage and surface water, parks and other commercial needs and development of the community. They have been made after a full and complete hearing with reasonable consideration among other things of the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for the particular uses and with a view of conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the community. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall be cumulative of all other ordinances of the City of Southlake, Texas, affecting zoning and shall not repeal any of the provisions of said ordinances except in those instances where provisions of those ordinances are in direct conflict with the provisions of Case No. Attachment J ZA15-115 Page 4 this ordinance. SECTION 6. That the terms and provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be severable and that if the validity of the zoning affecting any portion of the tract or tracts of land described herein shall be declared to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the zoning of the balance of said tract or tracts of land described herein. SECTION 7. Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply with or who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be fined not more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Each day that a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense. SECTION 8. All rights and remedies of the City of Southlake are expressly saved as to any and all violations of the provisions of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, or any other ordinances affecting zoning which have accrued at the time of the effective date of this ordinance; and, as to such accrued violations and all pending litigation, both civil and criminal, whether pending in court or not, under such ordinances, same shall not be affected by this ordinance but may be prosecuted until final disposition by the courts. SECTION 9. The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to post the proposed ordinance in its entirety on the City website together with a notice setting out the time and place for a public hearing thereon at least ten (10) days before the second reading of this ordinance, and if this ordinance provides for the imposition of any penalty, fine or forfeiture for any violation of any of its provisions, then the City Secretary shall additionally publish this ordinance in the official City newspaper one time within ten (10) days after passage of this ordinance, as required Case No. Attachment J ZA15-115 Page 5 by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake. SECTION 10. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law, and it is so ordained. PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1St reading the day of , 2016. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the day of , 2016. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CITY ATTORNEY DATE: ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: Case No. Attachment J ZA15-115 Page 6 EXHIBIT "A" Being described as Lots 1-3, Meadow Oaks Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas. Reserved for legal description EXHIBIT "B" Reserved for approved zoning document and associated plans Case No. Attachment J ZA15-115 Page 7