Item 5 ZA16-008
Department of Planning & Development Services
S T A F F R E P O R T
May 13, 2016
CASE NO: ZA16-008
PROJECT: Zoning Change and Site Plan for KLA School
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY:
On behalf of Mani Jacob, Cooper General Contractors is requesting approval of
a Zoning Change and Site Plan for KLA School on property described as lot
13R, O. W. Knight No. 899, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant
County, Texas, located at 300 Parkwood Drive, Southlake, Texas. Current
Zoning: “S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District; Requested Zoning: “S-P-2”
Generalized Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #9.
REQUEST
DETAILS:
Cooper GC requests approval of a Zoning Change and Site Plan from “S-P-2”
Generalized Site Plan District to “S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District to
develop one single-story building totaling approximately 13,400 square feet on
approximately 2.972 acres. The intended use is day care/preschool with
associated play yards and equipment. The site is accessed from Parkwood
Drive immediately north of the existing turnaround and also through an existing
30’ common access easement with the Calloway’s Nursery Property
immediately to the north.
The proposed “S-P-2” regulations for lot 13R are as follows (new additions in
red):
Lot 13R shall be subject to the development regulations per the City of
Southlake Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended, Chapter 24, for the “B-
1” BUSINESS SERVICE PARK DISTRICT, with the following exceptions:
A “Day Nursery” or equivalent child care facility shall be
o
permitted as a stand-alone use that is not associated with any
office development.
Shade structures shall be allowed as an accessory use to the
o
Child Care facility.
Development Regulations:
This property shall be subject to the development regulations for the
o
“B-1”, BUSINESS SERVICE PARK DISTRICT and all other
applicable regulations with the following exceptions:
The natural tree cover shall be permitted in lieu of the required 8’
screening device adjacent to the single family residential
property for Lot 13R.
That a 5’ Landscape Buffer be allowed in lieu of the required 10’
buffer along the west property line, with the landscaping as
shown or noted on the Landscape Plan.
The “AREA OF NO DISTURBANCE” shall be maintained in
accordance with the City of Southlake’s Tree Preservation
Ordinance and Landscape Ordinance.
Shade Structures shall be membrane-type material.
Lot 13R was originally included in the Concept Plan approved by City Council
November 20, 2007 (ZA07-108). That plan, which is shown in Attachment C,
consisted of a Concept Plan for a single-story office building with surrounding
parking and an area of non-disturbance to the south.
The applicant for KLA School proposes a building of similar scale with
surrounding parking and the same area of non-disturbance as was shown on
the approved Concept Plan. No changes are proposed to lot 12R (Calloway’s
Nursery). Changes or variations to the approved Concept Plan for Lot 13R
include:
The approved concept plan called for 50 parking spaces; KLA is proposing
48 spaces consistent with requirements for Day Care Centers.
The approved use of Lot 13R was for Office; KLA is proposing “Day
Nursery” or Child Care.
Approved zoning is “S-P-2” with “O-1” uses for office; KLA is requesting “S-
P-2” with “B-1” uses to include stand-alone day care use, with shade
structures as a permitted accessory use.
The shade structures will be membrane type material.
The original proposed office building was 12,000 square feet; KLA is
proposing a 13,400 square foot building.
KLA will use the same access drive from the existing mutual access drive
shared with Calloway’s Nursery and Whites Chapel Church.
KLA has added a drive approach onto the existing Parkwood cul-de-sac.
KLA has relabeled the Building Setbacks in the “AREA OF NO
DISTURBANCE” as Landscape Setbacks.
KLA requests to keep the 5’ Landscape Buffer along the west property line
as was approved on the Site Plan in November 200. This is in lieu of the
required 10’ Landscape Buffer. This request is due to (1) the limitations of
the developable area on the site, (2) the need for a substantial retaining wall
along the west property line because of over 20’ of elevation change across
the site, (3) the “AREA OF NO DISTURBANCE” creates its own buffer. KLA
also requests that the landscape requirements along the retaining wall be
limited to what is shown on the plan so that plantings that produce large root
systems will not undermine the structural integrity of the retaining wall.
KLA School
Current Zoning“S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan with “O-1” uses
ProposedZoning“S-P-2” with limited “B-1” uses
Gross Site Acreage2.972
Number of Proposed Buildings1
Proposed Building Area (sf)13,400
Area of Open Space (sf) / %88,016 / 68%
Area of Impervious Coverage (sf)54,754
Percentage of Impervious Space
70% max / 32%
Allowed (B-1) / Provided
Max Building Height1 story / 24 feet
Required Parking (§35.6.b.1.e) = Total of 40 spaces
1 space per 5 students
Provided Parking48 Spaces
The building is a single-story structure clad in brick and stone veneer which
meets the Masonry Ordinance and the Residential Overlay. The highest point of
the roof peak is 24 feet, though the roof has multiple hips and peaks of varying
heights. Public entrance is from the east side of the building near the customer
parking and drop off/pick up area as shown on the Pedestrian Access Plan.
Employee parking is on the west/rear side of the building. Play areas on the
south side of the building include facilities for children of multiple ages. The
applicant is requesting through the S-P-2 regulations to allow shade structures
with a membrane material in the play area, which are prohibited by right in the
Residential Overlay.
The natural area which makes up the south half of the property will sit between
the Day Care and the Northwood Park R-PUD and is shown as an Area of No
Disturbance. The applicant is not proposing a trail or any construction within
this area is but is requesting the ability to do limited clearing of underbrush and
dead trees as needed
ACTION NEEDED: 1. Conduct a public hearing
2. Consider approval of a Zoning Change and Site Plan
ATTACHMENTS:
(A) Background Information
(B) Vicinity Map
(C) Plans and Support Information – Link to PowerPoint
(D) SPIN Meeting Report dated January 12, 2016
(E) Site Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated May 13, 2016
(F) Surrounding Property Owners Map and Responses
STAFF CONTACT:
Dennis Killough (817) 748-8072
David Jones (817) 748-8070
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
OWNER:
Mani Jacob
APPLICANT:
Cooper General Contractors
PROPERTY SITUATION:
300 Parkwood Drive
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 13R, O. W. Knight No. 899
LAND USE CATEGORY:
Office Commercial
CURRENT ZONING:
“S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District
PROPOSED ZONING:
“S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District
HISTORY:
-February 3, 1998 – City Council approved ZA97-130 Rezoning and
Concept Plan for French Square Office Complex.
-October 6, 1998 – City Council approved ZA98-058, Site Plan for
French Square Office Complex.
-October 6, 1998 – City Council approved ZA98-083, Plat Showing of
Lots 12, 13, and 14, O.W. Knight No. 899 Addition. This plat was never
filed.
-January of 2000 – City Council decided not to extend Parkwood Drive
from Byron Nelson Parkway to East Southlake Boulevard (FM 1709).
-June 5, 2001 – City Council approved a 2-lot plat showing of Lot 12, 13,
& 14, O.W. Knight No. 899 Addition. The plat was filed on July 18, 2003.
- November 20, 2007 – City Council approved ZA07-108, Zoning
Change and Concept/Site Plan for Calloway’s Nursery which consisted
of a retail nursery on Lot 12R and a single-story office building on Lot
13R. A Site Plan for the office building was never submitted.
CITIZEN INPUT:
A SPIN meeting was held for this project on January 12, 2016. A copy of
the report is included as Attachment D.
SOUTHLAKE 2030 PLAN:
Consolidated Land Use Plan
The Southlake 2030 Comprehensive
Plan designates the property as Office
Commercial. Surrounding properties
are Public/Semi-Public (WC Church
and the former Senior Center) and
Medium Density Residential
(Timarron-Northwood Park).
Mobility & Master Thoroughfare Plan
The Mobility and Master Thoroughfare Plan shows Parkwood Drive as a
local street with variable width right of way. A portion of the existing
turnaround currently sits within City-owned property.
Pathways Master Plan &
Sidewalk Plan
The Master Pathways Plan
shows Parkwood Dr between
Byron Nelson Pkwy and FM
1709 as priority corridor #88. As
part of this development, the
applicant will extend 4’ sidewalk
from the northern property
boundary to the center of the
existing cul-de-sac radius.
TRANSPORTATION
ASSESSMENT:
Traffic Impact
The development was found not to meet the traffic impact threshold
necessary for a Traffic Impact Analysis.
F.M. 1709/Southlake Blvd (16)
(Between Byron Nelson and White Chapel)
24hr West Bound (24,299) East Bound (25,189)
AM Peak AM (1496)11:45AM–12:45PM Peak AM (2824) 7:15-8:15AM
PM Peak PM (2454) 4:45–5:45PM Peak PM (1741)12:45–1:45PM
Based on the 2015 City of Southlake Traffic Count Report
*
AM-AM-PM-PM-
Use Sq Ft Vtpd*
IN OUT IN OUT
Day Care Center (565) 13,400 1062 96.3 91.1 93.5 105.4
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
WATER & SEWER: Water
There is an existing 12” water line on the east side of Parkwood Dr that
will serve this property.
Sewer
There is an existing 8” sanitary sewer line on the west side of Parkwood
Dr that will serve this property.
DRAINAGE:
Drainage from this site will flow to the proposed detention area along the
east property line and ultimately to the existing storm sewer system in
Parkwood Drive.
TREE PRESERVATION:
There is approximately 59% existing tree cover on the site, primarily
concentrated on the southern half of the property. Tree Preservation
Ordinance 585-D requires that 50% of the existing canopy be
preserved. The applicant has submitted a Tree Conservation Plan that
shows preservation of 76.2% of existing tree cover.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Attached is Site Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated May 13, 2016.
N:\\Community Development\\MEMO\\2016 Cases\\008 - ZSP - KLA School Child Care\\Staff Report
Case No. Attachment B
ZA16-017 Page 1
Existing S-P-2 Regulations
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-008 Page 1
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-008 Page 2
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-008 Page 3
Narrative and Proposed S-P-2 Regulations
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-008 Page 4
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-008 Page 5
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-008 Page 6
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-008 Page 7
ZA07-108 Concept/Site Plan
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-008 Page 8
Lot 13R Concept Plan
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-008 Page 9
Proposed Site Plan
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-008 Page 10
Pedestrian Access and Traffic Management Plan
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-008 Page 11
Proposed Landscaping Plan
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-008 Page 12
Tree Conservation Plan
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-008 Page 13
Proposed Building Elevations
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-008 Page 14
SPIN Report
SPIN MEETING REPORT
SPIN Item Number:
SPIN2016-01
Project Name:
KLA School
SPIN Neighborhood:
SPIN # 9
Meeting Date:
January 12, 2016
Meeting Location:
1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX
City Council Chambers
Total Attendance:
Seventeen (17)
Host:
Craig Rothmeier, Community Engagement Committee
Applicant(s) Presenting:
Doug Galloway and Gary Wood
City Staff Present:
Jerod Potts, Planner I
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:
300 Parkwood Dr.
Development Details:
Applicant mentioned that the current proposal is for a single-story, 13,000 square foot
daycare facility and this is the property directly behind Calloway’s nursery
The applicant noted that when Calloway’s was originally developed they purchased
the land behind and put a proposed site plan through the City for a 12,000 square foot
single-story office structure
The applicant mentioned that KLA is a Reggio Emilia school; they value very tactile
learning - materials, plants, animals. They offer a number of community outreach
programs, and also include a Spanish immersion in the afternoons
According to the applicant the outline of the school on the site plan almost mirrors
exactly the outline that was previously proposed for the single-story office and the site
plan parking is what was already put through as that previously proposed single-story
structure
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-008 Page 15
The applicant noted that KLA wants to embrace the previously established tree
preservation area at the back; their goal would be to have their playground right up
against the building and have a walking trail/nature trail that might meander through it
The applicant mentioned they are not proposing changes to the cul-de-sac or to the
land owned by the City
The applicant mentioned they are proposing a full masonry structure meeting all the
City requirements
According to the applicant the center would be locally owned
Exhibits presented at SPIN:
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-008 Page 16
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-008 Page 17
QUESTIONS / CONCERNS:
How many children does this facility expect to take care of? How many cars?
The site plan notes 200 children, and when they open they will have to apply for
o
a license with the state. The facility was basically designed for this size. Traffic
is dispersed, rarely do you see cars stacking trying to get out of the parking lot.
There is a 30 foot mutual access to the church that was put in under the original
site plan. There is no left turn out of Parkwood onto Southlake Blvd. They will
turn right once they get to 1709 and exit out that way
There are two Parkwood Drives; could we get the name changed?
The utility road behind the banks, I understand that was built and maintained by the
City – it doesn’t have a name
Given that the Senior Center is empty now, worried that people will park in that lot and
walk up. They will probably cut through the church parking lot too.
As far as the nature area and the trail, one of the promises made was that would be
preserved. This blocks a lot of sound from Southlake Blvd.
Weren’t talking about taking out trees. Think it would be to everyone’s benefit to
o
take out dead trees to get rid of opossums and raccoons. May put in a
decomposed granite trail that is all-weather
Would like some feedback on what the City is going to do with the senior center.
What is the depth of the wilderness area? At one point there was some suggestion of
a 200’ buffer
The original buffer was around 200’. Don’t have an exact dimension.
o
How many parking spots do you have on the site plan?
48-49
o
Do you feel that many parking spots are sufficient for this facility?
Yes
o
Will there be bus pickup from Rockenbaugh? Do you envision some after school
programs as well for this facility?
They will have a small afterschool program. Only have one classroom right now
o
that would probably hold 30-35 children, 40 children. They would probably have
a bus or two.
Would like to find the intent of the closed senior center and the open property that sits
there
The current zoning when Calloway’s had that application, was it rezoned for the office
building?
It is currently zoned S-P-2, O-1 for an office use
o
I’m sure you will have to do a zoning change for this daycare center?
The property itself, they were combined for Calloway’s to have the ability to
o
front Southlake. They were going to move there corporate office there at the
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-008 Page 18
time. So any use besides a single office would require another SP to be
established
There will be zoning hearings and everything else
Absolutely
o
Is the cul-de-sac that is currently closed at Parkwood going to remain closed?
Correct
o
When Calloway’s got the petition to make the office building, how many employees
were you thinking of having?
We were not involved in that submittal, so I do not know what there employee
o
count was
Concerned of the noise level of a playground with 200 kids, is very different from a
contained office where people are inside
In childcare I see 10-20 kids out on the playground. They usually go by class,
o
which usually the class ratios are based on the state regulations for teacher to
child ratios. You wouldn’t see them out early in the morning. They spend the
majority of their time indoors. The age of the children is 3 and 4 year olds
Does Calloway’s own the preservation area?
Calloway’s sold this lot to whoever owns it now
o
So the preservation area wasn’t City?
It is part of the approved site plan now
o
Were under the impression the preservation area could not be touched. What are you
planning to do with the trees? Having the trail takes away privacy
It was established in the zoning that was created. This client is not proposing
o
taking away trees; there are a few dead ones that should be removed for the
healthy trees sake. See the area as a great asset. Would be meandering the
trail through existing tree cover
That preservation area should be no disturbance. By having a trail you are not
preserving the area you are disturbing it
Have to address the need to have a daycare. Why daycare?
It is a different learning environment. They have the ability to have bilingual
o
learning. They have very strong beliefs in that tactile learning, adapting to
specific needs of that child
Could I see what the need is to have a daycare?
The owners went after this site, felt this was a good place for it
o
Why don’t they go to a place where there are already buildings? This is a
neighborhood.
This was previously zoned when Calloway’s was established as an office
o
The access is on Parkwood Drive?
Yeah
o
Has it been considered to close off the senior center parking lot access? So there isn’t
extra traffic?
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-008 Page 19
We were unaware that it was a utility road that was connecting behind the
o
senior center
It seems the design is putting playgrounds on the nature buffers, and I agree the
nature trail will destroy the buffer effect. Think your ideas of parking are crazy. When
you have 200 kids you are going to have 200 or 400 parents wanting to show up at
some event. The people will park in the senior center parking lot and will be coming
through our neighborhood to get there. I think a 12,000 square foot office and a 13,000
square foot daycare are night and day different. Worried about the traffic
If they are having programs at Christmas and things of that nature I would
o
guess the entire center isn’t having a program all at one time. If parking was a
problem there is additional parking adjacent to Calloway’s, there is parking
where the church is. I would guess there is parking along Parkwood Drive
Little Sunshine has been open for a year now and only 40% full. It is a Reggio Emilia
school as well. Have 160 students
Are you considering any other areas?
Saw a number of different sites in a number of neighboring cities and they felt
o
very strongly that this was one that not only fit a daycare but specifically fit what
they wanted
What are the City’s plans for Parkwood Drive?
Did you say the owners are Southlake residents?
Yes
o
So why aren’t they here tonight?
They were unable to be here
o
Can you explain the building line and drainage easement?
Part of the plat, the survey. Cannot put any building in that area, between there
o
and the property line
Right now there is a brush and grass, we want it left untouched. If you clean out the
underbrush and grass that adds to the noise penetration of that lot
We are not proposing any playground equipment
o
You do have a playground and you haven’t given us the outline of the playground so
we don’t know how far that playground goes into that trail area
Playground equipment comes very late in the design phase
o
Can the area for the zoning application be expanded for the entire neighborhood?
(Northwood Park)
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
ZA16-008 Page 20
Blackboard Connect Delivery Results for January 12, 2016 SPIN Meeting
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-008 Page 21
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-008 Page 22
SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY
Case No.: ZA16-008 Review No.: Four Date of Review: 05/13/16
Zoning Change and Site Plan
Project Name: – KLA School Child Care
APPLICANT: Doug Galloway OWNERS: Mani Jacob
Cooper General Contractors Office at the Park, LLC
1225 E Crosby Road, Suite A1 14455 Webb Chapel
Carrollton, Texas 75006 Farmers Branch, Texas 75234
Phone: 972-245-7960 Phone: 214-244-3332
Email: dgalloway@coopergencon.com Email: mani@beamrealestate.com
CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 05/02/16 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
David Jones, AICP
Principal Planner
Phone: (817) 748-8070
Email:djones@ci.southlake.tx.us
1. Correct “O-1” zoning on all sheets to read “S-P-2”. In places where “S-P-2 with O-1 uses”
appears, amend to “S-P-2 with B-1 uses”. List requested zoning on Site Data Summary Table.
2. Move play area that is currently shown within the west bufferyard.
3. Reword permitted uses to make clear the only permitted uses shall be stand-alone day
nursery or equivalent child care facility and accessory shade structure.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Tree Conservation/Landscape Review
E-mail: kmartin@ci.southlake.tx.us
Keith Martin
Landscape Administrator
Phone: (817) 748-8229
TREE CONSERVATION COMMENTS:
1. The amount to be preserved appears to be incorrect. The preservation calculation is based
upon the amount of tree cover being saved and not on the percentage of the site with
remaining tree cover. Based on the difference between 59% and 45% it appears the
percentage being preserved is approximately 76%. Revise the calculation accordingly.
* The existing tree cover is stated to be 59%. If the zoning were proposed straight B-1, the
minimum percentage of existing tree cover to be preserved would be 50%. The applicant is
Case No. Attachment E
ZA16-008 Page 1
proposing to preserve 45% of the total existing tree cover. (See comment #1)
* 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 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. On the Site Plan and Landscape Plan identify and label all bufferyards.
2. The “Required” Interior Landscape area is incorrect. The building square footage on the Site
Plan is 13,400 square feet. Based on 30% of the building square footage the “Required”
interior landscape area is 4,020 square feet. The “Required” shrubs, ground cover, and
seasonal color calculations are also incorrect.
3. A 10’-C bufferyard is required to be provided along the west property line and 5’-A bufferyard
is proposed to be provided. The applicant may choose to provide a more intense bufferyard
than the required bufferyard, but not provide a less intense bufferyard than required.
* Existing tree credits are proposed to be taken for existing trees within the preserve area of the
Case No. Attachment E
ZA16-008 Page 2
west, east 2, and south bufferyards. Please ensure that all existing trees that are being taken
credit for required landscaping are in healthy condition and can be properly protected and
preserved during and after the site construction. Existing tree credits shall only be granted if
the tree/s are in healthy condition and all requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance
have been met as determined at the time of inspection for a Permanent Certificate of
Occupancy.
* Indicates informational comment.
# Indicates required items comment.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Public Works/Engineering Review
Steven Anderson, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Phone: (817) 748-8101
E-mail: sanderson@ci.southlake.tx.us
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. This review is preliminary. Additional requirements may be necessary with the review of civil
construction plans.
NEW REQUIREMENT:
2. Submit with Civil Construction Plans a Retaining Wall Layout sheet.
3. 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.
4. Due to public feedback concerning traffic within the City, be prepared to speak to the traffic
this site will generate.
* Sight distances shall comply with AASHTO guidelines on adjacent collectors and arterials.
EASEMENTS:
1. Provide all necessary easements for water, sanitary sewer and drainage. Easements shall be
15’ minimum and located on one lot – not centered on the property line. A 20’ easement is
required if both storm sewer and sanitary sewer will be located within the easement.
WATER COMMENTS:
2. Minimum size for water lines is 8”.
3. Commercial and industrial developments require fire hydrant spacing of 300’ maximum for
non-sprinkled buildings or 600’ for sprinkled buildings.
Case No. Attachment E
ZA16-008 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 COMMENTS:
4. Add a note: Private sanitary sewer services need a plumbing permit and must be inspected by
building inspections prior to burial.
DRAINAGE COMMENTS:
1. Differences between pre- and post- development runoff shall be captured in detention pond(s).
Proposed detention ponds shall control the discharge of the 1, 10 and 100- year storm events.
Please calculate control of the 1-yr storm event.
2. Verify size, shape, and/or location of the detention pond (as depicted on the
site/concept/development plan). Any changes to size, shape, and/or location of the proposed
pond(s) may require a revision to the concept/site/development plan and may need to be
approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council.
3. Curb inlet capacity calculation for DA-H indicates use 5-ft length curb inlet. Plan call-out is for
a 10-ft length curb inlet. Please clarify.
* 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.
* 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.
Case No. Attachment E
ZA16-008 Page 4
*=Denotes informational comment.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Fire Department Review
Kelly Clements
Fire Marshal
Phone: (817) 748-8233
E-mail: kclements@ci.southlake.tx.us
GENERAL COMMENTS:
Fire apparatus access needs to be an all-weather surface, asphalt or concrete, a minimum of
24 feet wide with 6 inch red striping that contains 4 inch white lettering that states “FIRE LANE
NO PARKING” every 25 feet, and able to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus. (A
minimum of 85,000 pounds GVW)
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.
(Riser is further than 100 feet, linearly along the pipe, from the City Water Main. Double check
valve must be installed in a vault.)
_________________________________________________________________________________
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.
* This development must comply with Residential Adjacency Overlay Regulations, Section
43.13.
* 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.
* Stucco 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.
* Denotes Informational Comment
Case No. Attachment E
ZA16-008 Page 5
Case No. Attachment E
ZA16-008 Page 6
Surrounding Property Owners
KLA School
SPO Owner Zoning Physical Address Acreage Response
#
1. ALLEN, ANDREW RPUD 600 NORTHWOOD CT 0.239 NR
2. ANDERSEN, MICHAEL RPUD 601 NORTHWOOD CT 0.287 NR
3. BRONSON, THOMAS A RPUD 506 NORTHWOOD TRL 0.258 NR
4. BURKE, ROGER RPUD 514 NORTHWOOD TRL 0.238 NR
5. CALLOWAY'S NURSERY INC SP2 291 E SOUTHLAKE BLVD 3.107 NR
6. CALLOWAY'S NURSERY INC SP2 300 PARKWOOD DR 2.791 NR
7. CHOI, JOU-YOUNG RPUD 507 NORTHWOOD TRL 0.343 O
8. CREST SECURITIES LTD SP2 241 E SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.802 NR
9. DRILL FILL AND BILL LP SP2 271 E SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.541 NR
10.FRITH, JOHN D SP2 261 E SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.567 NR
11.GROSSKOPF, SCOTT RPUD 516 NORTHWOOD TRL 0.402 NR
12.HERRERA, FELIPE RPUD 510 NORTHWOOD TRL 0.241 NR
13.HP TEXAS I LLC RPUD 501 NORTHWOOD TRL 0.328 NR
14.HUSAIN, MUSTAFA RPUD 505 NORTHWOOD TRL 0.249 NR
15.JOHNSTON, DON A SF1-A 817 PEARL DR 0.715 NR
16.MCKENZIE, GRAEME A RPUD 508 NORTHWOOD TRL 0.262 NR
MICHAEL A ROSS REVOCABLE NR
17.
TRUST RPUD 503 NORTHWOOD TRL 0.244
18.OBERDICK, JONATHAN RPUD 502 NORTHWOOD TRL 0.261 NR
Case No. Attachment F
ZA16-008 Page 1
19. PASKVAN, THEODORE RPUD 517 NORTHWOOD TRL 0.296 O
20.PHILIP, ISAAC J SF1-A 821 PEARL DR 1.253 NR
21.PROVIDENCE BANCSHARES CORP SP2 315 E SOUTHLAKE BLVD 1.072 NR
22.QIAN, YANLIN SF1-A 819 PEARL DR 0.725 NR
23.SAHBA, SHAHRIAR RPUD 512 NORTHWOOD TRL 0.263 NR
24.SAKHONKO, EVGENY RPUD 500 NORTHWOOD TRL 0.286 NR
25.SCHUMM, ZACHARY RPUD 518 NORTHWOOD TRL 0.244 NR
26.SOUIMANIPHANN, THONGDAM SF1-A 815 PEARL DR 0.832 NR
27.SOUTHLAKE, CITY OF CS 307 PARKWOOD DR 12.685 NR
28.STEEP HOT & PRESS LLC SP2 251 E SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.937 NR
29.WHITE'S CHAPEL METHODIST CH CS 185 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 24.382 NR
30.SUPERINTENDENT OF CARROLL ISD NR
SUPERINTENDENT OF GRAPEVINE NR
31.
COLLEYVILLE ISD
32.SUPERINTENDENT OF KELLER ISD NR
SUPERINTENDENT OF NORTHWEST NR
33.
ISD
Responses: F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response
Notices Sent:
Thirty-One (31)
Responses Received:
Two (2) – Opposed
Case No. Attachment F
ZA16-008 Page 2
Surrounding Property Owner Responses
Case No. Attachment F
ZA16-008 Page 3
Case No. Attachment F
ZA16-008 Page 4