Item 6F CITY OF
SOUTHLA14CE
Department of Planning & Development Services
STAFF REPORT
August 30, 2016
CASE NO: ZA16-031
PROJECT: Preliminary Plat for Lots land 2, Carillon - Hotel Indigo
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY: On behalf of Hines Southlake Land, LP, Jacobs Engineering, Inc. is requesting
approval of a Preliminary Plat for Lots land 2, Carillon - Hotel Indigo on
approximately 7.485 acres located between the 200 and 400 block of E. State
Hwy. 114, being approximately 1,100 feet east of the northeast corner of E.
State Hwy. 114 and N. White Chapel Blvd. SPIN Neighborhood # 3
DETAILS: Jacobs Engineering Inc. is requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat for Lots
land 2, Carillon - Hotel Indigo on approximately 7.485 acres to create one lot
for a Hotel Indigo boutique hotel with 121 rooms and one lot for offsite common
access easements.
This request is being processed in conjunction with a Site Plan for Hotel Indigo
under Planning Case ZA16-030.
ACTION NEEDED: Consider approval of a Preliminary Plat
ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information
(B) Vicinity Map
(C) Plat Review Summary No. 3, dated August 29, 2016
(D) Surrounding Property Owners Map and Responses
(E) Full Size Plans (for Commissioners and Council Members only)
Link to PowerPoint Presentation
Link to Plat
Link to Corridor Planning CommitteE
Link to SPIN meeting Report
STAFF CONTACT: Ken Baker (817) 748-8067
Richard Schell (817) 748-8602
Case No.
ZA16-031
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
OWNER: Hines Southlake Land, LP
APPLICANT: Jacobs Engineering, Inc.
PROPERTY SITUATION: Located between the 200 and 400 block of E. State Hwy. 114,
being approximately 1 ,100 feet east of the northeast corner of E.
State Hwy. 114 and N. White Chapel Blvd.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portions of Tracts 3A5, 3A3, 3A and 3A1 , Larkin H. Chivers
Survey, Abstract No. 300
LAND USE CATEGORY: Mixed Use
CURRENT ZONING: "ECZ" Employment Center Zoning District
PROPOSED ZONING: "ECZ" Employment Center Zoning District
HISTORY: - On November 18, 2008 the City Council approved a Zoning Change
and Development Plan from `NR-PUD' Non-Residential Planned Unit
Development and `C-2' Local Retail Commercial District to `ECZ'
Employment Center Zoning District for Carillon under Planning Case
ZA08-031 (Ordinance No. 480-564).
- On April 20, 2010 the City Council approved a Site Plan for the
Children's Medical Center at Southlake under Planning Case ZA10-017.
SOUTHLAKE 2030: Consolidated Land Use Plan
The Southlake 2030 }
Future Land Use
Plan designates this - ±�
property as Mixed
Use. The Mixed Use
land use designation
is defined within
Southlake 2030 as
the following:
'mac
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
Case No. Attachment A
ZA16-031 Page 1
Space, Public/Semi-Public, Low Density Residential, Medium Density
Residential, Retail Commercial, and Office Commercial categories
previously discussed."
Urban Design Plan
The Urban Design Plan also includes a few recommendations pertaining
to the State Highway 114 corridor where this site is proposed to be
located. They are as follows:
o Establish appropriate scale and bulk standards for buildings along
the highway, specifically at mid-block locations. Buildings should be
4 — 6 stories tall and step down as they move away from the
highway corridor. Buildings over three stories should be articulated
along the first three floors. Materials on the lower floors should be
brick, stone or other approved masonry. Low-profile, single story pad
buildings that tend to blend into the background and have limited
visibility from the highway are discouraged
o The view of surface parking from the highway should be limited.
Surface parking lots should be designed to be in smaller pods (no
more than 200 parking spaces) with increased landscaping and
pedestrian accessways.
o Structured parking is encouraged over surface parking. Specifically,
shared parking is also encouraged between adjoining
complementary land uses. Special attention should be given to the
design of parking garages to avoid plain facades with views of
parked cars from adjoining properties and rights-of-ways. Fagade
details, vertical and horizontal courses such as cornices, lintels, sills,
and water courses should be used to add interest along facades. To
the extent possible, parking garages should be located behind
principal structures to limit views from the highway.
Master Pathways Plan
The Master Pathways Plan Map shows a >_8' multi-use trail along the S.
H. 114 frontage road and an 8' trail is shown on the Site Plan.
TRANSPORTATION
ASSESSMENT: Area Road Network and Conditions
The proposed development will have two points of access onto Carillon
Court. Carillon Court was designed to accommodate traffic from the
development with the original ECZ zoning approval in 2008.
Traffic Impact
IN OUT OUT
Hotel (310) 121 1,079 1 43 1 35 1 51 39
* 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 Mammal, 7th Edition
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was conducted in May of 2008 during the
initial proposal of the master planned Carillon development. Since its
approval, an addendum was done in March of 2010 during the proposal
of Children's Medical Center to address the reduction of approximately
Case No. Attachment A
ZA16-031 Page 2
94,000 square feet of office/retail uses and an addition of 70,000 square
feet of a medical center use. Link to 2008 TIA and 2010 Addendum and
.ink to an approval letter from the Texas Department of Transportation
Tx( DOT).
TREE PRESERVATION: A Tree Conservation Plan was approved during the initial approval of
Carillon Zoning Change and Development Plan. All trees on this site
were approved for removal. The Tree Conservation Plan for the hotel
site shows 17% of the existing tree cover to be preserved.
rI ' "` rte+ rte
— --f :.&
n � - � 1 '• � 1 f1•
5 � ,
UTILITIES: Water
The site has access to an existing 12-inch water line along the State
Highway 114 frontage road and an 12-inch water line along Southmont
Drive.
Sewer
The site will have access to an 8-inch sewer line that was installed
during the development of Carillon on Carillon Court.
CITIZEN INPUT: A SPIN meeting was held on March 22, 2016 for the Hotel Indigo —
Carillon, which included some discussion of the proposed amendment
to the `ECZ' corporate District zoning. Link to SPIN Meeting Repoi
The 2035 Corridor Planning Committee discussed the proposed Hotel
Indigo — Carillon at their May 10, 2016 meeting. Link to 2035 Corridor
Planning Committee Report
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION ACTION: May 19, 2016; A motion to deny the item as presented received a (2-2)
vote.
STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Plat Review Summary No. 3, dated August 29, 2016.
Case No. Attachment A
ZA16-031 Page 3
Vicinity Map
Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 , Carillon - Hotel Indigo
T T4G o-xZ.?-i
E CRC W 7 6rA
L
7
D
97
a
sw.
r
_ F-3 KA N7 pT
._4C ST
. r
zA 16-031
Preliminary Plat
q l Oil: ? _110
5
Case No. Attachment B
ZA16-031 Page 1
PLAT REVIEW SUMMARY
Case No.: ZA16-031 Review No.: Three Date of Review: 08/29/16
Project Name: Preliminary Plat— Hotel Indigo - Carillon
APPLICANT: Kevin Kessler OWNER: Jeff Kennemer
Jacobs Engineering Hines Southlake Land LP
1999 Bryan St. Suite 1200 2200 Ross Ave. Suite 4200W
Dallas, TX Dallas, TX
Phone: (214) 920-8106 Phone: (972) 716-2900
E-mail: kevin.kessler@jacobs.com E-mail: jeffAennemer@hines.com
CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY
ON 08/26/16 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 RICHARD SCHELL AT (817) 748-8602 OR DENNIS KILLOUGH AT (817) 748-
8072.
1. The Preliminary Plat must conform to the underlying ECZ zoning and Development Plan for
Carillon. A Final Plat for the hotel lot and offsite easement lot must be recorded with the
County prior to issuance of a building permit.
2. The metes and bounds description will be reviewed at the next submittal.
3. Correct the Land Use Designation (LUD = ) on all adjacent properties. The LUD is Mixed
Use and the Zoning is ECZ on adjacent properties.
4. The following changes are needed with regard to easements:
a. Provide easements for water, sewer and/or drainage in compliance with approved
construction plans.
b. Provide common access easements in accordance with the approved
Development Plan and Site Plan. Common access easements are required on the
driveway to the west and the driveway connection to the east. Please dedicate
easements slightly wider than the proposed driveway widths.
Tree Conservation/Landscape Review
E-mail: kmartin@ci.southlake.tx.us
Keith Martin
Landscape Administrator
Phone: (817) 748-8229
Case No. Attachment C
ZA16-031 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. Match up the Tree Conservation Plan and the Utilities Plan. There is a proposed 24" Storm
Sewer, 18" Storm Sewer, and Storm Sewer Inlet which conflict with the existing trees
proposed to be preserved within the open space area in the north portion of the property.
There is an 8" Sewer Service along the east property line that conflicts with existing trees
shown as boarder line. Please ensure that the proposed utilities and grading do not conflict
with the preservation of the existing trees proposed to be preserved. If existing trees that are
designated to be preserved are altered they will be required to be mitigated in accordance with
the regulations of the Tree Preservation Ordinance.
* The proposed Tree Conservation Plan shows to preserve existing trees that were previously
shown to be removed on the Carillon Tree Conservation Plan. The property contains
approximately 52% of existing tree cover and if this was straight zoning 50% of the tree cover
would be required to be preserved. A total of 17% of the existing tree cover is proposed to be
preserved.
* Except as provided by subsection 7.2.b. of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, a Tree
Conservation Analysis or Tree Conservation Plan shall be approved if it will preserve existing
tree cover in accordance with the percentage requirements established by Table 2.0. If the
property has previously received a tree permit related to development, the percentage of
existing tree cover at the time the first such permit was issued shall be used to calculate the
minimum existing tree cover that must be preserved under this section.
Table 2.0 — Existing Tree Cover Preservation Requirements
Percentage of existing tree cover on Minimum percentage of the existing
the entire site tree cover to be preserved*
0% -20% 70%
20.1 —40% 60%
40.1% - 60% 50%
60.1% - 80% 40%
80.1% - 100% 30%
Case No. Attachment C
ZA16-031 Page 2
*The minimum percentage of existing tree cover to be preserved shall exclude any area in
public rights-of-way as approved by City Council.
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.
Public Works/Engineering Review
Steve Anderson, P.E., CFM
Civil Engineer
Phone: (817) 748-8101
Case No. Attachment C
ZA16-031 Page 3
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.
2. 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 removal of controls. SWPPP shall be submitted by second review of the
civil construction plans.
3. NEW REQUIREMENT: Submit with Civil Construction Plans a Retaining Wall Layout sheet.
4. Retaining walls greater than 4-feet including the footing shall require structural plans prepared
by a registered engineer in the State of Texas. Retaining walls shall require a permit from the
Building Inspections Department prior to construction.
5. Construction within SH 114 right of way shall require a permit from TxDOT. Submit permit
application prior to site plan approval.
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.cityofsouthlake.com/index.aspx?NID=266
EASEMENTS:
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 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 COMMENTS:
1. Minimum size for water lines is 8".
Case No. Attachment C
ZA16-031 Page 4
2. All water line stubs must have 2 joints past the valve with a 2" blow-off per the City's details.
Water lines cannot cross property lines without being in an easement or right of way.
The size of the water service tap must match the size of the meter. There are no reducers
allowed before the meter on the public side. A one inch meter must have a one inch tap, etc.
Water meters and fire hydrants shall be located in an easement or right of way.
Fire lines shall be separate from service lines.
SANITARY SEWER COMMENTS:
3. Minimum size for sanitary sewer is 8". Sanitary sewer service lines shall connect to public
sanitary sewer system built to City standards.
4. Proposed sanitary sewer shall be located in parkway - not under pavement, except for
crossings.
5. Add a note: Private sanitary sewer services need a plumbing permit and must be inspected by
building inspections prior to burial.
Sanitary sewer in easements or right of way shall be constructed to City standards.
DRAINAGE COMMENTS:
1. Clearly label all private and public storm lines.
2. Easements outside of right of way shall be required for proposed storm sewer. Storm sewer
must be installed outside the edge of pavement. Ordinance #605 defines easement
requirements for storm sewer:
30" RCP and under- 15' easement
42" —54" RCP - 20' easement
60" —66" RCP - 25' easement
72" — 102" RCP - 30' easement
Over 102" RCP — 3.5 times diameter
Calculations will be required to verify capacity of proposed curb inlets.
Storm sewers collecting runoff from public streets shall be RCP and constructed to City
standards. The proposed flume will not be allowed.
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
Case No. Attachment C
ZA16-031 Page 5
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.
* Access permit is required prior to construction of the driveway on FM 1709, FM 1938 or SH
114. Permit approval is required before beginning construction. Submit application and plans
directly to TxDOT for review.
* 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
Assistant Fire Marshal
Phone: (817) 748-8671
E-mail: kclements@ci.southlake.tx.us
GENERAL COMMENTS:
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.
The Fire Department Connection for the sprinkler system must be within 100 feet of a fire
hydrant. (A remote FDC is acceptable to meet the requirement)(FDC not shown on plans)
FIRE LANE COMMENTS:
Fire lanes require a minimum 30 foot inside turn radius and a minimum 54 foot outside turn
radius. (Per 2012 I.F.C. Sec. 503.2.4)
Case No. Attachment C
ZA16-031 Page 6
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) (Label all fire lanes)
____=====The following should be informational comments only
A SPIN meeting for this project was held on March 22, 2016.
A Developers Agreement is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure. The
Developer's Agreement for this addition should consider streets, drainage, park dedication
requirements and fees, off-site sewer extensions, off-site drainage and utility easements and
impact fees.
All development must comply with the Drainage Ordinance No. 605 and the Erosion and
Sediment Control Ordinance No. 946, as amended.
Denotes Informational Comment
Case No. Attachment C
ZA16-031 Page 7
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS MAP & RESPONSES
Hotel Indigo - Carillon
�a3{f �,,
"MiCi µvi] 4 r.
t
,Y Ry ru.
u' ,r,•
X0 717
1 k}
an r
rh
rIC
4•y _
T i
,
N
�e r
'r q ¢ tr F Mi0►nANl7�r
r�
1. HINES SOUTHLAKE LAND LP ECZ r 250 E SH 114 3.62 NR
2. HINES SOUTHLAKE LAND LP ECZ 100 E SH 114 5.06 NR
3. HINES SOUTHLAKE LAND LP 7 ECZ 200 E SH 114 1.04 NR
4. HINES SOUTHLAKE LAND LP ECZ 190 E SH 114 1.27 NR
5. HINES SOUTHLAKE LAND LP ECZ 240 E SH 114 0.74 NR
6. DOMINION SOUTHLAKE PROPERTIES C3 101 E SH 114 0.40 NR
7. DOMINION SOUTHLAKE PROPERTIES C3 201 E SH 114 0.08 NR
8. DOMINION SOUTHLAKE PROPERTIES C3 1350 N WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 6.33 NR
9. HINES SOUTHLAKE LAND LP ECZ 400 E SH 114 0.06 NR
10. HINES SOUTHLAKE LAND LP ECZ 430 E SH 114 0.53 NR
11. DOMINION SOUTHLAKE PROPERTIES C3 301 E SH 114 2.70 NR
12. DOMINION SOUTHLAKE PROPERTIES C3 319 E SH 114 2.86 NR
13. BIEKER,RON ECZ 1621 RIVIERA LN 0.12 NR
14. MCCAW,NEIL ECZ 1617 RIVIERA LN 0.12 NR
15. RUCCI,COREY ECZ 1613 RIVIERA LN 0.12 NR
16. BOISSEVAIN,DAVID ECZ 1609 RIVIERA LN 0.12 NR
17. K HOVNANIAN HOMES-DFW LLC ECZ 1601 RIVIERA LN 0.21 NR
18. K HOVNANIAN HOMES-DFW LLC ECZ 1605 RIVIERA LN 0.12 NR
19. PERRY,RICHARD B ECZ 308 MONTPELIER DR 0.13 F
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-031 Page 1
20. HINES SOUTHLAKE LAND LP ECZ 300 CARILLON CT 0.15 NR
21. HINES SOUTHLAKE LAND LP ECZ 1500 LE MANS LN 0.20 NR
22. HINES SOUTHLAKE LAND LP ECZ 400 CARILLON CT 1.46 NR
23. HINES SOUTHLAKE LAND LP ECZ 401 MONTPELIER DR 0.19 NR
24. K HOVNANIAN HOMES DFW LLC ECZ 301 MONTPELIER DR 0.19 NR
25. K HOVNANIAN HOMES DFW LLC ECZ 303 MONTPELIER DR 0.15 NR
26. K HOVNANIAN HOMES DFW LLC ECZ 305 MONTPELIER DR 0.16 NR
27. K HOVNANIAN HOMES DFW LLC ECZ 307 MONTPELIER DR 0.14 NR
28. K HOVNANIAN HOMES DFW LLC ECZ 1508 LE MANS LN 0.14 NR
29. K HOVNANIAN HOMES DFW LLC ECZ 1504 LE MANS LN 0.14 NR
30. K HOVNANIAN HOMES-DFW LLC ECZ 300 MONTPELIER DR 0.24 NR
31. PATEL,TEJAL ECZ 304 MONTPELIER DR 0.15 NR
32. K HOVNANIAN HOMES-DFW LLC ECZ 306 MONTPELIER DR 0.13 NR
33. HINES SOUTHLAKE LAND LP ECZ 833 ORLEANS DR 0.07 NR
34. HINES SOUTHLAKE LAND LP ECZ 1700 N CARROLL AVE 20.94 NR
35. DEORA,JITENDRA ECZ 829 ORLEANS DR 0.25 NR
36. K HOVNANIAN HOMES DFW LLC ECZ 1513 LE MANS LN 0.14 NR
37. K HOVNANIAN HOMES DFW LLC ECZ 1509 LE MANS LN 0.18 NR
38. K HOVNANIAN HOMES-DFW LLC ECZ 1505 LE MANS LN 0.24 NR
39. MERITAGE HOMES OF TEXAS LLC ECZ 817 ORLEANS DR 0.19 NR
40. MERITAGE HOMES OF TEXAS LLC ECZ 821 ORLEANS DR 0.19 NR
41. CHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER ECZ 470 E SH 114 9.80 NR
K HOVNANIAN HOMES DFW LLC
42. (Hymen and Nakorsri) ECZ 1501 LE MANS LN 0.33 O
43. HINES SOUTHLAKE LAND LP ECZ 629 ORLEANS DR 0.54 NR
44. MERITAGE HOMES OF TEXAS LLC ECZ 825 ORLEANS DR 0.18 NR
45. SOUTHLAKE TX MEDICAL BLDG I LP SP2 431 E SH 114 2.70 NR
46. SOUTHLAKE LAND HOLDINGS LP SP2 451 E SH 114 2.73 NR
47. SOUTHLAKE LAND HOLDINGS LP SP2 401 E SH 114 1.88 NR
48. SOUTHLAKE LAND HOLDINGS LP SP2 335 E SH 114 15.09 NR
F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response
Notices Sent: Forty-Eight (48)
Responses Received within 200': Two (2)
Responses Received outside 200': Two (2)
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-031 Page 2
Responses Received Within 200'
030 Southlake Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
031 Public Comment Form
Plea9e print. Retum completed form to Sccretarr prior to sw of regular st' u,k .
Name: ,-, Vqirvr#Y n � Door:
Address: _Lt rr*r\� S . . Pbno:-3 It 922
�F [Inclaula C.:nurrd Starr)
1 wish to share my yiews on an,agenda[tem:
Agenda[tem?T' I+Z)
I will spctk in SUPPOlt'I'of this item
--'I will speak in OPPOSITION to this item
I do not wish to speak.but picaw record my
SUPPORT OPPOSMON
Citizen Comments(for anltCln UA 3 cn&.) — A,,, Y1C r YY�P1h
❑.�,r Cir �1Ip.- :pc > ►�'- Ja,� arz beEn 15r.r� -}.�
Signature• C rrs��r► t.. -.rn Dlt+��a�'�'f
Rrquirrd: Lands r!!1 net tie rred" ricin d4�r�•curd anlr_c<h is.r�►►.r�
z.4 r 6—010
2.41d-0-7, Southlake Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Public Comment Form
Please print. Reim completed farm to Secretary prior to start ofrgular sesaan.
r
Nmw _ C&2'h Narorhsri - Date: 3 1I1;
Address: 1501 La.l4 �� 5 e hKEA ke.
(Iwjwk efty and-%w)
Uu t wish to share my views on an AgwWa Item:
Agenda Item#-110
I will speak in SUPPORT of this item
Iwill speak in OPPOSMON to this item
do not wish to speak but pleased coy
SttPPORT V OPPOSI'I70N
YCitizen Comments(for an item on this agen&)
,L,a.accaa- .c� '�7r►``r Ct`�.- •(N"�L .�irr�w•'''''-�'��►R..�G
Signature;
ttvgx red: C:,dr wo W1 Err read lam the record r,dew it 1.1 -i r 4 .��:�
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-031 Page 3
Notification Response Form
Direct questions and mail resportum to:
IA16-031 City of Southlake
Meeting Date: May 19, 2016 at 6:30 PM Planning & Development Services
Notification Response
1400 Main 5t; Ste 310
PERRY, RICHARD B SoiMlake,TX 76092
308 MUNTPELLER DR Phone: (817)748-8621
SOUTHLAKE. TX 76092 Fax: (817)748-8077
PLEASE 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
in favor of opposed to undecided about
(circle or underline one)
the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above.
Space for comments regarding your position:
Signature: Date: 1�
Additional Signature: a •� Date: Sf 6��6
Printed Name(s): ° r
Must be property ov wi,si oft"nml7taw and prtted at Wp. otherw�w contact the Planing Depa One form per property
Phone Number (optional): 9-f 7_q2-' 1
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-031 Page 4
Responses Received Outside 200'
5'19121V16 i aoAtl nkdata.� Ma Fwc Casm2A16-C25,2AI&DWI82A1&671
IDSOJTHLAKE Holly Slake<hblake@cl.aouthlake.1x use
Fwd: Cases ZA16-029, ZA16-030, & ZA16-031
kbaker(gci-southlake.tx.us-kbaker(Mci.southdake-tx_us� Thu,May 19,2016 at 12:22 PM
To Fbctwd Schell •rscheil(g�ci southiake Ix us>- Holly Blake-hblakenCi.snulhlake.tx.us>
Sent from my iPhone
Begin lorNarded message
From: MaryLee Alford
Date:May 19, 2016 at
To:Traci Flendemoo<1henderson@ci soulhlake tx use•"kbaker@cl souttllake Ix us"
� ike1&i.SoLdI Aak e.tx us>
Cc:Cart Alford con•
Subject Cases ZA16429,2A16-030, &7A1"31
ftply-To_Maryt�ee Artord
To the City of Southlake Planning & Zoning
Commission-.
We are unable to attend the P&Z meeting tonight.
We are 100% in favor of the plans submitted by the
Indigo Hotel developer as shown in cases ZA16-029,
ZA16-030, & ZA16-031 .
CAUSE AND EFFECT -Every action has a reaction. If Carillon Court is not finished as
planned,I wonder how the corporate district would adjust. Perhaps the corporate
office buildings would have to he moved more to the north, nearer the homes in the
residential district,in order to provide good traffic flow for the corporate district-
Without Carillon Court going through,would the effect be more traffic through the
residential district? We still have Southmont.Would people who turn on Southmont
find that, because they couldn't get through on Carillon Court,to continue their route,
they must now drive up Riviera,Le Mans,or Orleans? Look at the other exits from the
h%nma19"a cvrvm01.A0 ho-Z&A-cc737a625adr4w-a&+as ch-1rbu&l"i 54ce6e7M'e26d&vm I-154cad OWIeM
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-031 Page 5
S 19-20 r5 C I svu141a4u.Le Mail•Fwd Cans ZA1"29.ZA 16-030 6 Z 16031
retail district. Without Carillon Court going from Southmont to the retail district,
shoppers leaving the retail district to the east will be forced to drive in the residential
district. We personally believe, not allowing Carillon Court to flow directly into the retail
district will generate MORE traffic into the residential district,
We want the hotel and retail because:
1. LIFESTYLE-We didn't pay the exact same price for our tiny villa lot that we
paid for 220 acres just north of here for dirt;we bought a LIFESTYLE. Southlake
Town Center is very similar, residential is adjacent to retail,which is what we
want however,we wanted an individual,detached home. Southlake Town
Center has a hotel, retail, restaurants, and residential. It's all beautifully master-
planned. In the same way that Central bisects the residential from the retail
areas of Southlake Town Center;Carillon Court bisects the Corporate District
from the residential district in Carillon. We've not seen a great deal of retail
traffic driving through the residential district in Southlake Town Center. Carillon
Court does not go through the residential district in Carillon, it skirts the
residential district to the south, separating the Corporate from the residential,
and serves the corporate district.
2. PERFORMING ARTS CENTER—A Performing Arts Center(PAC) has been on
the plans since 2009,which was exciting to us when we reviewed the
development plans at the City BEFORE we bought in Carillon. It is part of the
lifestyle we purchased. Now that I'm more involved in the local arts, I hear that
Grapevine wants the PAC,and there is a group in Westlake desiring to put their
Arts League back together who would like to see the PAC built in Entrada. After
talking to Terri Messing with APEX Arts League,she insists that the PAC must be
near a hotel so that the hotel can cater to the PAC. Without the hotel,there is a
strong,and likely possibility that we will also not have the PAC. We want to be
able to walk to the type of entertainment APEX and a PAC would bring to
Southlake.
3. PERSONAL SAVINGS—Our villa is our second"downsize". Since It's just the
two of us, it no longer made sense to spend money on a Huge home to house
overnight or vacationing guests who rarely visit. If we need extra space,it's more
cost effective to have visitors practically next door in a hotel.They have greater
reps naii 9*w4.[Uri•Im&,W0-,vA%2&k-et737a625Abv Pr83*aom nbox&"Isk&0*'09916260"1 M•1W-&0*7c%111"54
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-031 Page 6
5t42015 C-vamialk e.cV5Llai-F::;CaseeZA1"29.ZA1&030.32A16.031
privacy, can be more comfortable about throwing towels on the floor,go to the
bar for late night drinks, come and go as they want, etc.They can walk to our
home to visit,we can meet at the hotel or other restaurants,and we don't spend
the money on construction, maintenance, and taxes, on space we rarely use.
4. BENEFIT TO SOUTHLAKE& RETAIL—The French architecture of this Indigo
Hotel is rich and classic, like no other in Southlake. We are firm believers of the
"if you build it,they will come" philosophy. For example, after 7 years of not
attracting retail,once the hotei was under contract,a new business has already
been announced! It's just the beginning of the retail we've been waiting for.
Regarding the dog park,it is not something the hotel developers specifically wanted.
They included it In the plans as an "option" in case they needed it in the future for
clients because this hotel wilt allow people to bring their dog pets. The developer
simply does not want to have to return to P&Z in the future if they find that the dog
park would be needed.We have no problem with a dog park. We met most of our
neighbors by walking Coco and often knew the names of our dog neighbors long before
we actually knew the names of their people parents. We have a lot of dogs In the Villa
District. Car!and I personally would love to have a dog park within walking distance so
Coco could be off leash and able to play with our other dog neighbors. Since the dog
park would be In the Corporate District,I think It would be maintained by the POA
(Professional Owners Association) rather than the HOA. Although I believe the
developer will not Initially build the dog park, and may never if there is not a perceived
need, we would love to have a dog park.
Thank you for your service to our city and your consideration of these comments.
Best regard.
t'arl and ylarvLee Alford
P 0. Box 92 s 17
1812 St. Philip Ati•e
Southlake. PC 76091
(817) 980-5028
h�i.llmall.�ooyfa=mMM1.VU'hX=2&x=cr?37aL25aYiQ =P%seffC-monstt+=I$ka08*(Mt926asIM=VW3067M1e2w N.
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-031 Page 7
5102wiG C1 qoLM-*a Ix us Mad Ra HcAd IndSlo-Venous{:ardi[n k951der1C5 Upria6
USOUTHLAKL Richard Schell <rschell@ci.southlake-tx-use
Re: Hotel Indigo-Various Carillon Residents Opinions
Tom Plimpton Thu, May 18, 2016 at 11:38 AM
To: rschell@ci,southlaKe_tx.us
Here is a late response...a MAYBE YES
I apologize for the late reply, and hope this can still be sent to the P&Z committee, as 1 am unsure of
where to send it myself-Thanks for taking the time to put this together.
My parents live on LeMans, off Carillon Court, and I live in the estate section of Carillon- We do support
the hotel, but I agree with the concerns others have raised about the traffsc flow. It is true that when
people purchased In the vilias section, there was a plan for development off 114; however, those plans
indicated an office space there. The traffic flow for an office space Is very different from that of a hotel.
especially for evenings and weekends_Additionally, we are concerned that future development in the
area will further increase traffic, and now is the opportunity to address that.My young children
frequently walk or bike in that area, and we are concemed that the increased traffic flow would be a
safety risk. We are in favor of the hotel, but strongly support efforts to minimize the traffic flow through
the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration-
That makes 24 responses-
Thanks
On Thu, May 19, 201$at 10:04 AM, Tom Plimpton <tplimptnntx@gmad,com?wrote:
Bear Richard,
Thank you for taking my call this morning.
Attached is a document summarizing the feelings of 22 of our Carillon residents regarding the
proposed Hotel Indigo that will be discussed tonight, As we discussed, our community has a
website for discussion of activities, etc. I posted the question on the hoard yesterday which
you can see on page one of the document. I asked for one of three possible answers. A vote
of YES means in favor of the hotel, A vote of MAYBE YES means in favor of the hotel but with
reconsideration of traffic flows in and around Carillon. A vote of Na means not in favor of the
hotel.
As you can see, the vast majority of respondents favor the hotel but with further
work/planning on the traffic flows and congestion in and around Carillon.
Thank you for your time and effort to get this information to the Commissioners,
Tom Plimpton
1817 Riviera Ln
425-891.5467
PS...please let me know that you received this email.
has..rnsail 904e CCMtrn8bWW?W-Z&k=I MRWWAvc,s=ps&yearrb=&msq-154c942_%*� yr,1.-154c9@2%83V1xW
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-031 Page 8
91WA16 Ci.Sal ABLm,ui MO-UpdWdCvnowAsaiHLxd VO w
OSOLITHLAKT Richard Schell <rschell(dd.southlake.tx_us>
Updated Comments on Hotel indigo
Tom Plimptar Thu, May 19,2016 at 1:14 PM
To r5Ghell@cl.auuuarunq.1A.ue
I received a few more comments. Attached is a complete list. Sorry for the stragglers.
This is my final list.
Thanks
Tom Plimpton
P&Z Opinions UpdaW 1pm.d=
140K
11")1Ra all Qx4e.00mxna Id.alA'71.si=2&k-'7M34OW&Yiaw=V search=i rbox&th-154Cs3a'Sle5efi7e 1"m I.15k as7B5la&. 7e1 111
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-031 Page 9
Shall we let the P&Z Committee know how we feel?
Tom Plimpton tram Carillon posted....
Here is an idea.
We all have opinions on this issue. We are using this forum to vent, express our
feelings and, to some degree, try to influence each other. Since we have over 300
members/users on this site, why don't we all just post our feelings in one of three
ways. 4;�
1. Yes. This means you are in favor of the project as being presented to the P&Z
committee tomorrow night.`
Oa..,-7
2. Yes, but with a desire to see more work on traffic flow and congestion. This means
the same as above but with reservations about traffic.o:i
OR..J.
.�..�,
--
3. No. This means you are not in favor of a hotel in our neighborhood..tgpC
The packet for the meeting can be viewed
at...*'o"milittp.//weblink.cityotsouthlake.commebLi... i18:
As we saw at last night's HOA meeting, we had about 75 of the 500 homeowners in
attendance. So, it is not likely many will make it to tomorrow nights P&Z meeting. Yet,
they need to hear our feelings.,
So, IF you want to, reply to this post as YES, MAYBE YES or NO and we Can get this
to the P&Z along with the definitions of what those short answers mean.
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-031 Page 10
If you do not want to post publicly (which I can fully understand). Send me a private
message and I will add in to the results. Or, make up your own short version of your
feelings. . KA11 just an idea....if you don't like it.--I am OK with that as well. Just trying
to help out. Sort of like an online petition so to speak.
RESPONSE #1-MAYBE YES
I am a maybe. Traffic is a concern as is the rest of the development. I am curious
how the entire retail plan changes as a result of moving the hotel from the middle to
the proposed location. Not only how this impacts the layout of future
stores/restaurants but more importantly where the various future entrances will be.
My concern is that regardless where the hotel is the main points of entrance will
always be Carillon Court and Kirkwood "7 :,I am also a maybe in that I do not believe
that building a hotel will attract future retail development and have concerns that the
hotel will not be sustainable (given other hotels either being built or being proposed)
in Southlake/West Lake/Trophy Club.
Response #2-MAYBE YES
I am a #2 Yes with reservations about traffic flow_
Response #3-MAYBE YES
Great suggestion! #2
Response #4-MAYBE YES
#2- yes with better traffic flow
Response #5-MAYBE YES
Yes, maybe, regarding traffic flow and possible new entrance
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-031 Page 11
Response #6-MAYBE YES
Yes #2 concerned about traffic need more study.
Response #7-MAYBE YES
#2 - yes with better traffic flow
Response #8-YES
Yes.
Response #9-MAYBE YES
#2, yes in favor of hotel but have concerns about proposed traffic flow re: accessing
from Carillon Ct. Would much prefer egress from 114 access road, new road through
what might be retail/commercial in the future or White's Chapel. Unfortunately, we'll
be unable to attend tomorrows P&Z. Thanks so much for suggesting this forum so
those that can't attend have a voice, Time permitting, I'll try to access the website &
submit my concerns.
Response #10-MAYBE YES
Tom -42 option I like_
Response #11-YES
Yes
Response #12-MAYBE YES
XXX and I agree with #2, yes to hotel but would like a different traffic flow option to
bypass access to the neighborhood. Thank you'
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-031 Page 12
Response #13-MAYBE YES
Creat idea Tom, Yes for #2 option
Response #14-MAYBE YES
#2. I am also unable to attend due to kids' activities. Thank you for suggesting this
option to share our opinions.
Response #15-MAYBE YES
Agree with 42--want traffic flow to bypass access to the neighborhood as others have
expressed above
Response #16-MAYBE YES
Maybe yes
Response #17-MAYBE YES
#2, thanks for posting
Response #18-MAYBE YES
I'm just concerned about the traffic also. It looks like a beautiful hotel but would hate
to have the majority of the traffics for it flowing thru Carillon Court
Response #19-MAYBE YES
02. t will not be able to attend tonight, so thank you for posting this, as it enables my
voice to be heard
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-031 Page 13
Response #20-ND but could be a MAYBE YES
Tom, thanks for the "summary". Not sure I can attend the meeting but I did want to
let you know My wife & I oppose the hotel or at a minimum there shouldn't be direct
access to our neighborhood. Access from the 114 access road only makes the most
sense.
Hopefully we can work out an advantageous option assuming the city hasn't already
rubber stamped this
Thanks again,
Response #21-Na
#3 No
Response #22-YES or MAYBE YES
Either i or 2. If the second entrance off the 114 service road is built in conjunction
with the hotel (Attachment E, page 3), then that will likely be the most used access to
& from the hotel. The traffic flow onto Carillon Ct, then into the hotel would not flow
by existing homes. Users entering the hotel on Southmont to Carillon Ct. from 114
would have to take the Carroll exit and sit through a stoplight. If that second
entrance is not built in conjunction with the hotel, then traffic flows should be
assessed.
Response #23-MAYBE YES
My vote is 42. so up to my vote, there are the following votes:
1. 2 Votes
2. 14 Votes
3. 0 Votes
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-031 Page 14
there were 2 Maybes
Of those who voted, there is an overwhelming majority who want to limit access to
the development. However, in the P&Z process, a majority vote {such as occurred}
does not necessarily equate to the P&Z accepting our views automatically. So
attendance tonight is important to make sure our voices are heard.
I was also trying to think of a comparison and if you look at the "Central Market"
development, it is very successful and even smaller in size than our proposed area. If
you have ever tried to weave your way through and out of that area, there is a lot of
traffic. So it's not just the hotel...it's everything that comes after. If it is a successful
retail endeavor this is the potential amount of traffic that could be coming in and out
of the retail space. Contrast that to the new retail across the street (by Michaels etc.)
where no traffic can exit directly to the adjoining residential development without
having to go down a separate road.
Response #24-MAYBE YES
#2, Thanks for posting the options.
Response #25-YES
#1 - because of cause and effect - see my reasoning in a separate post.
Response #26-MAYBE YES
2 for me please
Response #27-MAYBE YES
I apologize for the late reply, and hope this can still be sent to the P&Z committee, as
I am unsure of where to send it myself. Thanks for taking the time to put this
together.
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-031 Page 15
My parents live on LeMans, off Carillon Court, and I live in the estate section of
Carillon. We do support the hotel, but I agree with the concerns others have raised
about the traffic flow. It is true that when people purchased in the villas section, there
was a plan For development off 114, however, those plans indicated an office space
there. The traffic flow for an office space is very different from that of a hotel,
especially for evenings and weekends. Additionally, we are concerned that future
development in the area will further increase traffic, and now is the opportunity to
address that. My young children frequently walk or bike in that area, and we are
concerned that the increased traffic flow would be a safety risk. We are in favor of the
hotel, but strongly support efforts to minimize the traffic flow through the
neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration.
Case No. Attachment D
ZA16-031 Page 16