Loading...
Item 6A CITY OF S0UTHLA1<,,..E Department of Planning & Development Services STAFF REPORT February 14, 2017 CASE NO: ZA16-100 PROJECT: Site Plan for Verizon Loading Dock EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On behalf of Verizon Wireless Texas, LLC, Griffin Harris, PLLC is requesting approval of a Site Plan for Verizon Wireless to modify an existing loading dock on property described as Lot 1, Block 1, Solana Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake,Tarrant County,Texas and located at 500 W. Dove Rd. Current Zoning: "NR-PUD" Non-residential Planned Unit Development District. SPIN neighborhood #1. DETAILS: This project is located on the north side of W. Dove Rd. between W. S.H. 114 and Kirkwood Blvd. The applicant is requesting approval of a Site Plan to modify an existing loading dock on the east side of the building. The modifications include the following: 1. Level and widen the loading dock drive 2. Install a new electric lift 3. Add a canopy cover (color to match existing canopies) 4. Replace two existing double doors with roll-up doors 5. Enlarge the loading dock area and extend the stairs 6. Add additional railing 7. Add 10' screen walls 8. Add a "Deliveries Only" sign At the direction of the Planning and Zoning Commission at their January 5, 2017 meeting, the applicant added two 10' screen walls to the Site Plan to screen any views of the loading dock or space from all adjacent rights of way and from residential properties within 400' as is required by Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Sections 43.9.c.2(c) and 43.13a(6). The brick and trim on the proposed screen walls are proposed to match the existing screen walls on the site. The applicant has provided exhibits to demonstrate that the proposed screen walls and existing vegetation completely screen the loading dock and loading space from view and that all ordinance requirements are met. City staff is unable to determine from the exhibits provided if the ordinance requirements for screening views of the loading dock and space from all rights of ways and from residential properties within 400' will be met by the existing vegetation and proposed 10' masonry walls, so a variance is requested to allow the 10' masonry walls as shown in the locations on the Site Plan. Case No. ZA16-100 The applicant has also included two alternative options as follows: Alternative 1: If the loading dock and screen walls as proposed are not approved,the applicant is requesting that a variance be granted to allow the use of the existing dock for tractor/semi-trailer deliveries with no screening. This option will also require that an additional variance be granted to allow the existing dock,which is considered to be mechanical equipment, to remain with no screening. Alternative 2: The applicant has also provided an option that includes incorporating an office building for contractors in the screen wall for the loading dock. Approval of this option will require a resubmittal of a Site Plan application by the applicant and renotification of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council public hearings. No other changes to the site are proposed and all previous conditions of approval remain in effect. VARIANCES REQUESTED: Ordinance No. 480, Section 43.9.c.2(c), as amended (Corridor Overlay) requires the following: Loading and Service Areas: Loading and service areas shall be located at the side or rear of buildings. A minimum 10 foot solid screening wall shall be required to screen views of loading docks and loading spaces intended for tractor/semi-trailer delivery from any public right-of-way. This 10 foot wall must screen the entire loading dock or space. Screening materials shall utilize similar masonry materials to the front facade. The accommodation of adequate access for service delivery trucks may be evaluated to determine the extent of screening required. Ordinance No. 480, Section 43.13a(6), as amended (Residential Adjacency Standards) requires the following: Loading and Service Areas: Loading and service areas shall be located at the side or rear of buildings. Where visible, a minimum 10 foot solid screening wall shall be required to screen views of loading docks and loading spaces intended for tractor/semi-trailer delivery. This 10 foot wall must screen the entire loading dock or space. Screening materials shall utilize similar masonry materials to the building's facades. The accommodation of adequate access for service delivery trucks may be evaluated to determine the extent of screening required. Ordinance 480, Section 43.12, as amended, defines Visible as "Capable of being seen at a height of six feet (6) while standing at the highest grade on the residential property line." The applicant is requesting a variance to the 10' screen wall requirement to allow the screen walls in the locations shown on the site plan. If Alternative #1 is approved, the following additional variance would need to be granted: Ordinance No. 480, Section 43.9.c.1.c requires the following: Case No. ZA16-100 Mechanical Equipment Screening: All buildings must be designed such that no mechanical equipment(HVAC, etc.)or satellite dishes shall be visible from SH 114, Carroll Avenue between SH 114 and FM 1709, FM 1709, and FM 1938 and any adjacent public ROW. This shall include equipment on the roof, on the ground or otherwise attached to the building or located on the site. Ordinance No. 480, Section 43.13a(3), as amended (Residential Adjacency Standards) requires the following: Mechanical Equipment Screening: All buildings must be designed such that no mechanical equipment (HVAC, etc.) or satellite dishes shall be visible. This shall include equipment on the roof, on the ground or otherwise attached to the building or located on the site. If Alternative #1 is approved, the applicant is requesting a variance to the mechanical equipment screening requirements above to allow a dock ramp to remain as it exists. ACTION NEEDED: 1) Conduct a Public Hearing 2) Consider Approval of a Site Plan ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information (B) Vicinity Map (C) Site Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated February 2, 2017 (D) Surrounding Property Owners Map and Responses Full Size Plans (for Commission and Council members only) Link to Zon ig Ac lor's Or Link to PowerPoint Presentation Link to Applicant's Presentation Link to Plans Pages 1-2 - Site Plans Page 3 - Roof Plan Page 4 - Elevations ink to SPIN meeting Report STAFF CONTACT: Ken Baker (817) 748-8067 Richard Schell (817) 748-8602 Case No. ZA16-100 BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNER: Verizon Wireless Texas, LLC APPLICANT: Griffin Harris PLLC PROPERTY SITUATION: 500 W. Dove Rd., generally located at the northeast corner of W. S.H 114 and W. Dove Rd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block 1, Solana Addition LAND USE CATEGORY: Mixed Use CURRENT ZONING: "NR-PUD"— Non-Residential Planned Unit Development District HISTORY: -A Rezoning and Concept Plan for Solana (Non-residential) to "NR-PUD" Non-Residential Planned Unit Developmentwith"C-3"General Commercial District, "0-2" Office District, "HC" Hotel District, and "CS Community Service District uses was approved by City Council on October 17, 1995. - A site plan (ZA01-056) was approved by City Council on June 14, 2001. - A preliminary plat (ZA01-058) for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Solana Addition was approved by City Council on June 14, 2001. - A final plat (ZA01-059) for Lot 1, Block 1, Solana Addition was approved June 14, 2001. - A site plan (ZA11-050) to add an approximately 56,529 square foot two- story expansion to the existing Verizon Wireless facility for increased network space and area for infrastructure and a service yard surrounded by a twenty(20) foot wall adjacent to the expansion was approved November 15, 2011. Construction is underway on this expansion. - A site plan (ZA12-096) to add a two-phase, two-story expansion with approximately 5,800 square feet of floor area on each floor and an approximately 6,500 square foot service yard was approved December 4, 2012. SOUTHLAKE 2030 PLAN: Consolidated Future Land Use Plan The 2030 future land use designation for the site is "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. 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 Case No. Attachment A ZA16-100 Page 1 Residential, Retail Commercial, and Office Commercial categories previously discussed. Mobility& Master Thoroughfare Plan The Master Thoroughfare Plan shows W. S.H. 114 to be a variable width freeway with 300' — 500' of right of way. W. Dove Rd. is shown as a four- lane divided arterial with 88' of right of way and Kirkwood Blvd. is shown as a four-lane divided arterial with 100' of right of way. No changes to the existing roadways are required or proposed with this project. Pathways Master Plan & Sidewalk Plan Southlake's Pathway System Master Plan shows a planned ten (10) foot multiuse trail adjacent to the S.H. 114 frontage and an existing eight(8)foot trail adjacent to west Dove Rd.When the site plan for Verizon Wireless was approved in June of 2001, the Council motion stipulated that if the ten (10) foot trail along S.H. 114 was constructed within ten years, the applicant would pay their pro-rata share of the construction. A minimum five (5) foot sidewalk will be constructed with the Kirkwood Blvd. expansion and it will connect the existing trail on W. Dove Rd. to the sidewalk to be constructed with the TD Ameritrade development to the north. TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT: Traffic Impact A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was not required for this project. TREE PRESERVATION: No trees are proposed to be altered with this project. UTILITIES: The only proposed change to the existing utilities is the relocation of an existing fire hydrant. DRAINAGE: There is no change proposed to the existing drainage except for a slight increase in impervious coverage. CITIZEN INPUT: The following meeting was held to discuss the development: A SPIN meeting was held for this project on November 8, 2016. A link to the report is provided. Link to SPIN RE A 2035 Corridor Planning Committee meeting was not held for this project. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION: January 5, 2017; the item was tabled to the February 9, 2017 meeting. February 9, 2017; Approved (4-2)subject to the staff report dated February 3, 2017 and Site Plan Review Summary No. 3 dated February 2, 2017 and specifically granting the applicant's request for a variance to the 10'screen wall requirements to allow the screen walls in the locations shown on the Site Plan, the requirements previously referenced specifically being Ordinance No. 480, Section 43.9.c.2(c) and Ordinance No. 480, Section 43.13a(6) and referencing both walls that are shown on the site plan. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Site Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated February 2, 2017. Case No. Attachment A ZA16-100 Page 2 A variance to the requirement in the Corridor and Residential Adjacency Overlay Districts in Zoning Ordinance No.480,Section 43,Overlay Districts for a 10'solid screen wall for loading docks intended for tractor/semi-trailer delivery is requested. The following criteria pertain to variances to Section 43, Overlay Districts. Section 43.9(b) 1. To receive a variance, the applicant must demonstrate one of the following: a) A variance will reduce the impact of the project on surrounding residential properties; or b) Compliance with this ordinance would impair the architectural design or creativity of the project; or c) A variance is necessary to assure compatibility with surrounding developed properties; or d) The proposed construction is an addition to an existing project that does not meet the requirements of this ordinance. 2. The City Council may grant a variance by an affirmative vote of a majority of the City Council members present and voting on the matter. In order to grant a variance,the City Council must determine that a literal enforcement of the regulations will create an unnecessary hardship or a practical difficulty for the applicant; that the situation causing the unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty is unique to the affected property and is not self-imposed; that the variance will not injure and will be wholly compatible with the use and permitted development of adjacent properties; and that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of this ordinance. 3. If a variance application is denied by the City Council, no other variance of like kind relating to the same project or proposed project shall be considered or acted upon by the City Council for a period of six (6) months subsequent to the denial. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: General Development Standards Applies Comments Overlay Regulations Y Variance Requested (screen wall) Building Articulation Y Complies Masonry Standards Y Complies Impervious Coverage Y Complies Bufferyards NA Not Applicable Interior Landscape NA Not Applicable Tree Preservation Y Complies Sidewalks NA Not Applicable Case No. Attachment A ZA16-100 Page 3 Vicinity Map 500 W. Dave Rd. -,Pee i 0 p � S 3$ i 4 C it k a � � AO LLLY a � Q r,v OC: o b 3 _ N • f t ZA 16-100 Site Pian Verizon Wireless 0 h(I ='?. 1 I��i c R' F F L' t Case No. Attachment B ZA16-100 Page 1 SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA16-100 Review No.: Three Date of Review: 02/02/17 Project Name: Site Plan —Verizon Wireless Loading Dock APPLICANT: Kathy Zibilich OWNER: Verizon Wireless Griffin Harris PLLC Gregory Delmotte 8144 Walnut Hill Ln. # 1080 180 Washington Valley Rd. Dallas, TX 75231 Bedminster, NJ 07921 Phone: 214-534-0900 Phone: (908) 442-2728 E-mail: kzibilich@griffinharris.com E-mail: Gregory.delmotte@verizonwireless.com CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 12/19/16 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. 1. Place the City case number"ZA16-100" in the lower right corner of all plans for ease of reference. The case number must be on the pdf versions of the plans and not hand written. 2. A minimum 10' screening wall is required to screen views of loading docks and loading spaces intended for tractor/semi-trailer deliveries in the Corridor and Residential Adjacency Overlay Districts. A variance request to allow the dock with screen walls as shown on the Site Plan has been submitted. 3. Please provide the Pantone color of the proposed canopy color to ensure that it conforms to Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 33.21 regarding the use of bright colors. If the Pantone color is not permitted by the ordinance, a variance may be granted by City Council. The property is in the Corridor Overlay District. Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 43.9.c.1.f requires exposed structural support columns to constructed of, or clad in, the same masonry material as the principal structure. The required masonry columns are shown on the elevations with brick to match the existing facade. Tree Conservation/Landscape Review E-mail: kmartin@ci.southlake.tx.us Keith Martin Landscape Administrator Phone: (817) 748-8229 LANDSCAPE COMMENTS: 1 . Please ensure that the specified plant material sizes are available and are what is intended. If alternative landscaping instead of the required 10' screen wall is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the applicant will provide documentation that the plant material and sizes are available. Case No. Attachment C ZA16-100 Page 1 2. Please ensure that the existing tree is not too close to the proposed construction and can be properly preserved. The applicant has confirmed that the existing tree will be preserved. Indicates informational comment. # Indicates required items comment. Public Works/Engineering Review Steve Anderson, P.E., CFM Civil Engineer Phone: (817) 748-8101 E-mail: sandersona-ci.southlake.tx.us No comments Fire Department Review Kelly Clements Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal Phone: (817) 748-8233 E-mail: kclements@ci.southlake.tx.us GENERAL COMMENTS: No comments based on submitted information. General Informational Comments A SPIN meeting for this project was held November 8, 2016. 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 from right-of-ways and residential properties in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended. All lighting must comply with the Lighting Ordinance No. 693, as amended. All development must comply with the Drainage Ordinance No.605 and the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance No. 946, as amended. It appears that this property lies within the 65 LDN D/FW Regional Airport Overlay Zone and will require construction standards that meet requirements of the Airport Compatible Land Use Zoning Ordinance No. 479. Development must comply with all requirements in Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 43, Overlay Zones. Denotes Informational Comment Case No. Attachment C ZA16-100 Page 2 SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS MAP & RESPONSES T c a Y ip - s x L a ! 1. KIRKWOOD HOLLOW HO ASSOC RPUD 2819 TYLER ST 1.17 O 2. MESENBRINK, DANIELS RPUD 2801 TYLER ST 0.67 O 3. KIRKWOOD HOLLOW HO ASSOC RPUD 2800 TYLER ST 0.70 O 4. KIRKWOOD HOLLOW HO ASSOC RPUD 2798 TYLER ST 0.09 O 5. KIRKWOOD HOLLOW HO ASSOC RPUD 416 ORCHARD HILL DR 0.46 O 6. KIRKWOOD HOLLOW HO ASSOC RPUD 420 ORCHARD HILL DR 0.14 O 7. JASTI,VENKATA RPUD 417 ORCHARD HILL DR 0.51 O 8. KIRKWOOD HOLLOW HO ASSOC RPUD 421 ORCHARD HILL DR 0.74 O 9. SCOTT,EVAN RPUD 422 COPPERFIELD ST 0.44 O 10. FINCHER, RYAN RPUD 421 COPPERFIELD ST 0.40 NR 11. AGUALIMPIA,JUAN RPUD 420 STOCKTON DR 0.38 NR 12. MANSOOR,SHADAN RPUD 2308 IDLEWILD CT 0.40 NR 13. KIRKWOOD HOLLOW HO ASSOC RPUD 425 STOCKTON DR 0.32 O 14. BOLLINI,SASHIDHAR RPUD 2304 IDLEWILD CT 0.37 NR 15. MORALES, MICHAEL D RPUD 2300 IDLEWILD CT 0.38 NR Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 1 16. SOUTHLAKE,CITY OF RPUD 150 W DOVE RD 0.44 NR 17. 114 LA PALOMA HOLDINGS LLC AG 2001 SHADY OAKS DR 5.64 NR 18. VERIZON WIRELESS TEXAS LLC NRPUD 500 W DOVE RD 24.86 NR 19. DALLAS MTA LP NRPUD 747 W STATE 114 HWY 19.99 NR SOUTHLAKE DOVE ASSOCIATES 20. LLC SP2 500 W SH 114 29.49 F SOUTHLAKE DOVE ASSOCIATES 21. LLC SP2 500 W SH 114 24.95 F 22. NEILL, ROSEMMA SF1-A 2201 SHADY OAKS DR 1.50 NR 23. TOLL DALLAS TX LLC RPUD 2413 AMELIA ISLAND PATH 12.90 NR Notices Sent: Fifteen (15) Responses Received within 200' — Six (6)—Attached Responses Received Outside 200' —Two (2) Attached Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 2 Notification Response Form ZA16-100 Meeting Date: January 6, 2017 at 6:30 PM SOUTHLA KE DOVE ASSOCIATES LLC 4500 BISSONNET ST STE 300 BELLAIRE TX 77401 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 Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Date: Additional Signature: Date: Printed Name(s): /5.z ■.� blast he property ownerfsj v,t+ow narne(s:are pnnted aloti CmenvlSe CoILad,the P14r•imiy Dnpaibneni o!w'oi in pe+properly Phone Number (optional), 2l Y Yo S, too Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 3 la?OT7 0 sw"sue tx t.a Mail-Fwd:Vwl z n OpposlWn to Cabe NG ZA16.100 IPOry 011 SOUTHLAM Richard Scholl <rschelt@ci.soulltlake.tat.uV Fwd: Verizon Opposition to Case No. ZA16-100 . messw Kan Baker<kbaker@ci.soutnlako.It.uss Tue.Jan 3, 2017 at 11:42 AM To: Selera Sonviin i issermno*ci.Scluthlake.tx.us?. Richard Schell snachs0Gci.9nulhlake,tx.usa Forwarded mess Frorn:Vankalta K-Jami Date: Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 10:44 AM Subject; Verizon opposition to Case No. ZA16-100 To: mayorandcitycouncil3cLsout,ilake..x-us, planningandzomng&i.southrake.tx.us, koakefQci-southlake.tx-us CC:Dougtas Harsy Mayor,Clry Council, Planning 6 Zoning Comm ssion, and Planting and Devaiopment Services, Please accept this emael as oprx)xtton to Verizon's request for vanance regarding Carse No ZA16-100 Regards. `Jemmin Jasti 417 Orchard Hit Dr, 5outhlake, TX 16092 Kenneth M. Baker, A)CP Senior Director of Planning and Development Services City of Southiake 1400 Main Street-Suite 310 Southlake, TX 76092 817.748-8067 httpa#r^a1,yaxyliLoxnMwlvl?%-2Lke178t9UMMAW,-0%&f xcn-r-C!C-&n= ;i9F_SEcc 187'st9dhsimI=•S%56cc'dM'aw' Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 4 ?*Zv Cizojiltdl &.6%Mal-Fwd'finzonOppoohpnb Cue OLA1rrW-MrkwoX1101mM0A CrrY Ot 5OUTHLAKF Richard Schell srschel10ci snuth1ake.tx.us7 Fwd: Verizon Opposition to Case #ZA16-100 - Kirkwood Hallow HOA i�IESS�rJr Ken Baker<kbaker&i.srxrthlake.tx.us} Tue.Jan 3, 2017 at 2:48 PAA To Selo^a Serrano tsserrano4ti.9outhlake.tx.usi,Rrchard Schell vschell(gci.southlake tx.us> Funvarded mussage From: Kw*n VAcks-1-righart bate.Tue.Jan 3. 2017 at 2:18 PM Subleci Vedzor Opposition to Case#ZAttrtgt}-Kirkwood Hollow HOA To:"mayorandClt1jccunc(t4c:.8puthiake.tx.us*smayors"fdci"ouncil*ci.southlake.tx.us�,"meyorgci.southlake.tx us" crr4yor@cj.s04,t'1lake.tx IIS ,`plarxangard&oning@)cr.southiake.tit.Lis"4c l ningandzwtrgaci.southiake.tx.us�, 'kbaker ra.soutnlako.m.us'ikbaker ci.soutllE a rx.us> Goad aftemoon Mayor. City Council. Piarning&Zwwx3 Commission, and Ptanning& Devalapmelm Services The Kwkwood Hot low Homoowners-Associatior is requesting that yo i cc ore aur apposiIion'.❑the vanance request by Vertz(xr wilh regards to Case r1 7A19-1W This ngxi,[xution applies to the following adrtr+�sr s: • 2819 Tyler St^eet ■ 2800 Tyler Street 2798 Tyler Street lb 416 Orchard Hill Drive 420 Or'hani Hill Drive 421 Orchard Hilt Drive • 425 Stockton Drive Please contact me wlt7 any questions. Thank you. Kaf". CMC W Associaxion Manager RT/Community Management Associates,Inc.."CMA" Winner of the Amerman Business Ethics Award and Greater Dallas Business Ethics rhvand 2555 SW CoVevine Pkwy Ste.300 hlfQe:7rrar i goopaaarNmetlArtYli.i=26rk=17t18Y�0E0Ar►aw�prleaerdrudacd�1�9614e26eimi•f SB9617C125II30�[.�2 '7 Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 5 IW717 Ci sWhi#e%.us hies-Fwd verwon CiWomman to Case 4ZA16-100-W,Imaod I.ldlow HOA Umpev iuc TX 76051 Phone: (817)310-6905 Fax:(817)310-6953 Customu Service:www.cmamunagemcnt-coni PRIV1LEGFD AhD COhrlDENTIAL This electronit mensade and any attachments thereto is intendW only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is add^essed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from cisclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disseripativn, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. if yea have received this communication in error, please notify us Immediately by ttiephone or email and delete the message. Kenneth M- Baker- AJCP Senior Director of Planning and Development Services City of Southlake 1400 Main Street-Suite 310 Sauthlake, TX 75092 817.748.8057 Efts,Ynatgoogiacorn,"ai rG'W-Z&klpr&aewch-irbmW I%- W17U2503B.tWftrnI-i5W61707`ONW2 21 Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 6 IWMI? Gi acuiNaka.lx"tA Mail-Fw7 Ver2ar r-Vpcstm m Gale No LA I&100 I Cm OF SCUTHLAKE Richar'd Schell�rsthellq?ci"soarthiake.tx.►as� Fund: Verizon apposklon to Case No.ZAi 6.100 1 message kbakar@d.southlako.'bLus ckbaker@ci.scuWaka.b[,us,> Tti*.Jan 3.2017 at 9:32 PM To: Ric;httrd Schell trscheN@;:r.scuthlake.tx..ja3>, Selena Sarno<ssenranc{96 soult>♦ake.tx.w- Sent from my iPnone Begin torwardeo message. From:Evan Scott Date:Jwxwy 3. Ta: is,planningand7aning6:4Cr sourhlake Ix .m. kbake -0.soutnlake-Ix"us I Su on Oppov 10on to Gaso No.ZA16.100 Daar Mayor. City Godncil.Planning&Zoning Commission,and Planning and Deve�lapmem Servlces We live nghl amass tha Venron auHding, and woald be one of the houses mast atlected Cy the variance. Since Iii be on business travail. I will not aboe to pantiflale in the meeting to discuss wsth residents" PleasQ swept this email as op.-Asdio-1 to Vori,7oq's rp,(Nest frx vanawA-rogag*N Case No. 21116.100. Thark you for your consideration, anc for your leadership in issues like Ihese that malts,most to Sauttrlake 'asiderds, Regards, Eyap Soots 422 C-Woerf saki Ct Southiake, TX 76092 tflRs:'+n�i4o4eum'm4tM1lJ71�=78ik=1?H°34?96dviiw+=GrBseorCxra�adlF�ls5fi7Ta1srR Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 7 WWI i hu-M;]kt.L%ui%TaI.Fw6 C?lSe I,a LA:&I C 0 � Or S �F{LAKE Richard Schell crschetl@ci_south lake,tx.us? Fwd: Case No. ZA16-100 1 rneasage Ken Baker tktakL-r@ci.snut.nlake.tx.ua> Wed.Jan 4,2417 at 5:44 Pt to_ Richard ScWt<rschel@ci.soulhlato.tx.us>, Selena Serrano"sorrano@ci.southlakeAx.us> Forwarded From. K$ty Scott Date- Wed, Jan 4,41Met Sukject- Caen No. ZA &144 To: plannngano-zoniig@ci.souNake.tx.us, mayorandcitycvunciig?ci.southiake.N.us Dear Mayor, City Council.Planning& Zoning Commission, and Pfanning and Development Services PWese aooept this email as opposition to Venzori s request for vanance regarding Case No. ZA'b-1 W. Wo live Close enough to see the Verizon plant from our house and this project would have a negative etfect on our oualry of life And properly value. Cord ally. Katy scot: 422 Cooperfield Cl SmAhlake. TX 76092 Kenneth M. Baker, AICP Senior Dl rector of Planning and Development Services City of Southlake 1400 Main Streel-Suite 310 5outhlake, TX 76Q92 817.748-8067 ��aa�hneil_t�noyle.a:mtnntlha�'7J=7Rdk=178f9.'ia06fi(f.�Grx+p.Rs�errhair�eecRlnl�tle0e�e2r8e0aiRiml•199R�dorfua:h-fiaD�7 I ' Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 8 rrsrzo t7 Ciwahiake.tx us Flail-Fwd Hlnran Vw6w ra Req est Crrr or SO(T[„AKE Richard Schell -zrscholl@ci,soutlilake.tx.us> Fwd; Verizon Variance Request 1 rrestixge Kan Baker<kbakor4cl.southlake.tx.u!z> Thu, Jan 5,2011 at 3.29 P4f To:$alma Soriano<ssorranr,&i.sWNake.tx,us7, Richard Schell Crschel3@c-.southl"e.1x.us> Forwarded rnessago From:Michelle Mesenbrink Date-Trxw,Jan 5. 2917 at 3-18 PM Sutrd-,Verizon Vananoo Request ptanrrngandzon+ng@ci.southlake Ix uS,kbakw@ci."Naka.fx us Dear Mayor, City Council, otanning 6 Zoning Com misaron.ane Planrang and Developrrertf Services. We We r-ghi across the street from the Verizon bulldinig,and would be one of the houses most affected by the van ance since we live in the 2OD ft red lus of this request. I will be unavailable and urte6le to pacicpate In the meeting-o disci ss with residents.Please accept this email as opposition to Venzon's request for vanance regarding Case No-ZA1G0O_ Thank yuu for your cons iderst ion.and for you lewership in issues like Ihese Ihe! matter moss to Southiake res dents. Regards. Sccot 8, Michalko Wsurb rink 2801 Tyler St. South ake, TX 76092 Kenneth M.Baker,AiCP Senior Director of PIanrurig and OuveIopment Services City of Southlake 1400 Main Street-Suite 310 Southlake,TX 76092 817-748-8067 wm^aH4po scowmwK*Wu-2&k= Ot%w&ffv=I 5BW-VQdO&W0c"-' 1 597009WO&Aft Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 9 Responses Received from Outside 200' 115W17 Ci.solHake.rx.us Mail•FwdVen xanCase ZA 10-100 Variance❑mal Request y n SOLJTHLAU Richard Schell<rscheil@ci.southlake.tx.us> Fwd: Verizon Case ZA 16-100 Variance Denial Request 1 message Ken Baker<kDaker@ci.southlake.tx.us> Thu,Jan 5, 2017 at 8:23 AM To: Richard Schell Srschell@ci.southlake_tx.us> Forwarded messa e From: Douglas Harsy Date:Wed, Jan 4, 201 at Subject Verizon Case ZA 16-100 Variance Denial Request To: mayorandcitycouncil@ci.southlake.tx.us, planningandzoning@ci.southiake.tx.us Mayor, City Council Members, Planning and Zoning Commissioners. I apologize for the late notice requesting denial of the Variance request for Verizon Case ZA 16.100. With the packet release late last week. i have had limited time to review all the pertinent documents and case files in order to provide a thorough reasoning for my request. My hope is that you have a chance to review this document previous to the Planning and Zoning meeting tomorrow evening. Should you have any question in the interim? Fool free to contact me. Regards, Doug Harsy 2804 Tyler Street Southlake. TX 76092 2141793-5530 Kenneth M. Baker,AICD Senior Director of Planning and Development Services City of Southlake 1400 Main Street-Suite 310 Southlake, TX 76092 817.74$$057 4n Verizon ZA16.100 Variance Denial Request.pdf 1177K hltp Jmaixj"e.=hnaiIlArkm=2&k=17Br93A0BUwary=M&a;grch=irptoAth-1596rQ2190MSRAsimt=159W2IW- IcGO Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 10 January 4,2017 Mayor of 5outhlake 5outhlake City Council Members 5outhlake Planning and Zoning Commissioners Request I am writing to you asking for your support to deny Verizon's varwnce request with regards to Case No ZA16-100. I am asking for the following reasons: • Case No.ZA01.05fi Ju ly ODI. The planning R Development Services Department violated ordinance 48Q_Sectlon 40.6.a.1 and Section 40.6.a.6 when they administratively approved a site plan withxxrt presenting it the Planning and Zoning Commission then the City Council. • Case No.ZA 11- Verizon,the applicant,did riot adhere to the required procedures with regards to the following changes to their preexisting site plan. Request to change the"Receiving Area"to a"Loading Dock"_ Request the addition of an"Electric Hoist"at the receiving area. Request"Additional Concrete"added to the receiving area. ■ Case No,ZA 11-050 The Planning&Development 5efvices Department did not disclose the following site plan changes to neither the Planning&Zoning Commission nor the City Council. Request to change the"Receiving Area"to a"Loading Dock" Request the addition of an"Electric Hoist"at the receiving area. Request"Additional Concrete"added to the receiving area. • As a result of Verizon not adhering to the required site plan procedures and the Planning& Development Department not disclosing the above site plans to P&Z and City Council with regards to Case No.7A 11-OSO.the Verizon receiving area was not property approved and did not receive the required variance approvals to build the electric lift;therefore,Version is 1n violation of Ordinance 480Section 43 Corridor Orrerl Zone section 43.9.c.1. c Mechanical Equipment Screening. Additionally,Venron should not be afforded the rights to uses of a loading dock on the east side of the building ■ Case No.ZA 16.100, The Verizon application as stated is in violation of Ordinance 480.Section 43 Corridor Overlay Zone ection j3,j,cj,(S)MjcbJ0101 Equipment 5cfeen'in We believe that a variance is required in order for this application to be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council ■ The additional head light pollution generated by the leveling of the concrete pad. ■ The increased usage of the loading dock area since additional types of vehicles would be allowed Recently,Verizon has toren increasrng use and adding to the receiving area on the east side of their tiuild;ng directly facing Kirkwood Hallow. Additions include the following: ■ Adding neon green Semi 1 ractor Trader cushions with the number"4"to the concrete!made. • Adding black rubber Semi Tractor Trailer bumpers to the concrete fa4ade. Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 11 The changes have made this area unsightly to the adjacent neighborhood(Exhibit A—Loading Dock Photo). Instead of correcting these issues,Verizon is now looking to further develop this loading dock. They are asking for a variance that if approved,would be the first time a loading dock has ever been approved without masonry screening when directly adjacent to a residential community. I am asking you to decline this variance request and ask Verizon to comply with the intent of our residential adjacency standards and build a masonry screening wall per our ordinance whether or riot they choose to move forward with this request. Background Our Planning&Zoning Commission and City Council members are dependent on our Planning and Development 5ervices Department to provide many key functions such as: • Apply applicable zoning ordinances and variances. • Fully vet and disclose applicants'site plan changes to the Planning and zoning Commission,the City Council and the Citizens of Southlake. ■ Confirm that the applicants'requests provide full disclosure by vetting site plans cross referenced to applicants'site plan change requests. ■ Determine any and all applicable variances based on applicants site plan change requests. When these functions are not performed,approval of developments and or specific portions of developments will not meet or convey the developmental direction that our elected and appointed officials desire for the overall health,safety and welfare of the citizens of Southlake. The loading dock on the eastern side of the Verizon Wireless building is an example of what can occur when this process falters,or when all information is not fully disclosed properly to our Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Case ZA 01-056 Case ZA 01-056 was a"fast track"case presented jointly to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council on June 14,2001.This case was heard for over 6 hours that evening resulting in a site plan and assurances from Verizon that the site plan incorporate a number of key components that were negotiated by Mayor Stacy, Planning and Zoning,City Council,and requests from Kirkwood Hallow homeowners. Some of these include the following: + Only one formal loading dock located at the north end of the building. (Exhibit B—Audio of 6/14/2001 Joint P&Z/City Council Meeting Southlake Council Chambers_200101514-1833-01 The 19:30 minute mark. I will bring to the P&Z Meeting) • No receiving areas on the eastern side of the building facing Kirkwood Hollow. • All other receiving areas consisting of exit doors facing south(screened by elevation from Dove Rd)or west(screened by elevation from Hwy 114)as shown on the site plan. ■ Verizon to meet with Kirkwood Hollow homeowners on June 19`6 regarding the use of recessed brick,21 fake windows,and Austin stone,and regarding the architecture and location of the tower,and planting 22 trees along Kirkwood Drive. Refer to City of Southlake SP1,SP2A,SP213,SP3,5P4,5P5,5P6,5P7—Dated 5/21/2001 Refer to City of Southlake SP1,SP2A,SP2B—Dated 7/23/2001 Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 12 As a result taking into account the above issues,the follow motion and approval by the City Council brought and approved. "Motion was made to approve ZA01-056 subject to Site Plan Review Summary No.2,dated June 8, 17 2001,deleting variance request no. 1,subject to staff recommendations 2,3, and 4,requiring the 18 Applicant to plant trees at the southeast corner of the tract, plant landscape diamonds in the north 19 parking lot,and complete dove to Kirkwood beyond their entry, seeking future reimbursement from 20 the City.Further requiring the Applicant to meet with residents regarding the use of recessed brick,21 fake windows,and Austin stone,regarding the architecture and location of the tower,and planting 22 trees along the drive to Kirkwood." Subsequent to the City Council approval,Verizon submitted a revised site plan to the Planning& Developmental Services Department on 7/23/01. This site plan transposed the NOC wing and the DATA wing(Please Refer to City of Southlake Site Plans previously mentioned). Mr. Baker states in his opinion letter dated 12/13/2016 that"the site plan was administratively approved by the Zoning Administrator and the facility,including the"receiving"area was built in conformance with this plan", I have located one document in that file that has any reference to the administratively approved 7/23/01 site plan. It is site plan review summary#3 that shows a checked box indicating residential adjacency applies and that this site plan conforms. There were no documents,notes,etc. that compared and contrasted the 2 site plans. There were no documents that indicated any attention was considered to whether the site plan changes between these two site plans meet the"minor"change requirement which would allow the Planning and Development to independently approve these changes without presenting to the P&Z Commission and City Council. In order for the Planning&Developmental Services Department to approve this Site Plan,they must have determined that these than es were"minor"per Ordinance 480 Section 40.6.a.6. There is no documentation or notes that address the status of these changes. It is clear after comparing the previously City Council approved site plan with this revised site plan,that major changes were requested. Those major changes included the following: • Addition of a receiving area located on the eastern side of the building facing Kirkwood Hollow. • Elevation changes on the eastern side to accommodate the addition of the receiving area. • Site plan review summary#3 submitted with the revised site plan change indicated the 7/23/01 site plan was governed under residency adjacency requirements and met them although no documentation is available to verify that Verizon was notified of these requirements in the Staff Report. In fact, according to recent documentation from Verizon's representative Ms.Ziblilich, stated that Verizon believes that this site plan permitted the receiving area for tractor/semi- trailer deliveries. She stated the following: Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 13 "Loading dock#4 was always designed and intended far large heavy loads for this part of the building. Each loading dock will continue to be used only for the area of the building that was designed to be associated with that dock,•these modifications will not change the designed flow". Ms.Zibilich also stated "Dock#4 is an essential part of the design of this facility,so it will continue to operate whether or not the changes are approved by the City. If the changes ore not approved,the neighbors will lose the opportunity to have the improvements to dock #4 with the corresponding increase in the speed of lining up the trucks at the dock and unloading of materials,lowered height of the rear of the trucks when at the dock, and additional landscaping". Case ZA 11-050 Case ZA 11-050 was presented to P&Z on 11/3/2011 and City Council on 11/15/2011. This case further exacerbated the receiving area problem due to the following occurrences: • Vernon Wireless's application did not state their request to change the"receiving area" to a "loading dock". htt weblink.ctt ofsouthiakt,.com/WebLink8/0/doc/447845/Pagel.asl)- • Verizon Wireless's application did not state their request include the addition of an "electrical lift"and"additional concrete"to be added to the receiving area. o htt weblink.cit of southlake.com WebLinkB Q doc 447845 Pa e1.as x • The Planning and Development Services Department presented the case in error to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council at the public meetings as Follows: o Misrepresented the"Existing Site Plan"in slide number 11. Staff exhibited the site plan approved by City Council on 6/14/2001 rather than the 7/23/2001 Planning and Developmental Services Department administratively approved site plan as the"Existing Site Plan"thus complicating the issue. ■ http.,//webi i nk.citof south lake.com Webtlnk8 Q doc 447850 Pa e1.as x ■ The Planning and Development Services Department did not present the wording changes, electrical lift,or the concrete addition to P&Z nor City Council. o https:/Isouthlaketx,swagit.com/play/OS162012-939 Item 8 o https:llsouthlaketx.swagit.com/12lay/O5162012.801 Item 6e Subsequently,The Planning&Development Services Department never addressed any and all variances applicable to these changes in their Site Plan Review Summary#2 dated 10/28/2011 or the Staff Report dated 11/9/2011 that was submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council even though at a minimum,the addition of an electrical lift would have triggered a screening requirement per our Ordinance 480. Mr. Baker states in his opinion letter dated 12/13/2016 that the paving plan detailed the changes regarding the receiving area to a loading dock,addition of an electrical lift,and the additional concrete. Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 14 It is highly irregular far City Staff to utilize a paving plan as the primary exhibit to detail site plan changes unless it directly relates to the materials used for paving. This paving plan►vas not part of the present at ton to P&Z nor City Council. Mr Baker's Exhibit E was never a document that was provided in the packet,p►esentation,nor the site plan review summary. Exhibit 0 1 n merely a magnified version of Exhibit C Casa IA 12-0% Case ZA 12•D46 was presented to P&Z on 11/8/12 and City Council on 12/04/12 Mr Baker's opinion letter states the approved site plan identifies the"loading dock'on the east side of the building At this point,the city staff is just citing"previously approved site plans". Again,the electric lilt is still in violation of our Ordinance 480 since no request for variance with regards to screening of mechanical equipment has been requested. Summary There is no precedent in the City of Soul NAP chat allows a loading dock in direct adjacency to a residential development without masonry screening Unfortunately,we now have one that 15 unsightly and needs to ire addressed. It is clear that the development of the east side of the Verizon building requires additional scrutiny. After a complete review of the Venron cases,it is my hope that you will agree that the current loading dock is in violation of our current ordinances as it stands today. I am asking for your support to require Verizon to build a masonry screening wall whether or not they move forward with this request. Regards, Doug Harsy Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 15 1 a w • w ■ � _ I 4 w 4 • s r r r January 4,2017 Revised January 5 2017 lRevisions filighlighted in Green Mayor of Southlake Southiake City Council Members South iake Planning and Zoning Commissioners Req Uest We are writing to you asking for your support to deny Verizon's variance request with regards to Case No.ZA16-100. We are asking forthe following reasons: ■ Case No.ZA 01.056 July 20Q2. The Planning&Development Services Department violated Ordinance 480,Section 40.6.a-1 and Section 40.6.a.6 when they administratively approved a site plan without presenting it the Planning and Zoning Commission then the City Council. • Case No.2A 11-050. Vpri?on,the applicant,did not adhere to the required procedures with regards to the following changes to their preexisting site plan, a Request to change the"Receiving Area"to a "Loading Dock". o Request the addition of an"Electric Hoist"at the receiving area. o Request"Additional Concrete"added to the receiving area, • Case No.ZA 11-050. The Planning&Development Services Department did not disclose the following site plan changes to neither the Planning&Zoning Commission nor the City Council. o Request to change the "Receiving Area"to a"Loading Dock". * Request the addition of an"Electric Hoist"at the receiving area. o Request"Additional Concrete"added to the receiving area. • As a result of Verizon not adhering to the required site plan procedures and the Planning& Development Department not disclosing the above site plans to P&Z and City Council with regards to Case No.ZA 11-050,the Verizon receiving area was not properly approved and did not receive the required variance approvals to build the electric lift;therefore,Verizon is in violation of Ordinance 480,Section 43,Corridor Overlay Zone,section 43.9.c.1.(c)Mechanical Equipment Screening, Additionally,Verizon should not be afforded the rights to uses of a loading dock on the east side of the building. • Case No.ZA 16•100, 1 he Verizon application as stated is in violation of Ordinance 480 Section 43 Corridor Overlay Zone section 43.9.c.110 Mechanical Equipment Screenin We believe that a variance is required in order for this application to be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. • The additional head Ilght pollution generated by the leveling of the concrete pad. • The increased usage of the loading dock area since additional types of vehicles would be allowed. Recently,Verizon has been increasing use and adding to the receiving area on the east side of their building directly facing Kirkwood Hollow. Additions include the following: ■ Adding neon green Semi Tractor Trailer cushions with the number"4" to the concrete facade. • Adding black rubber Semi Tractor Trailer bumpers to the concrete facade. Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 17 The changes have made this area unsightly to the adjacent neighborhood(Exhibit A-Loading Dock Photo). Instead of correcting these issues,Verizon is now looking to further develop this loading dock. They are asking far a variance that if approved,would be the first time a loading dock has ever been approved without masonry screening when directly adjacent to a residential community. We are asking you to decline this variance request and ask Verizon to comply with the intent of our residential adjacency standards and build a masonry screening wall per our ordinance whether or not they choose to move forward with this request. Background Our Planning&Zoning Commission and City Council members are dependent on our Planning and Development Services Department to provide many key functions such as: • Apply applicable zoning ordinances and variances. • Fully vet and disclose applicants'site plan changes to the Planning and Zoning Commission,the City Council and the Citizens of Southlake. • Confirm that the applicants' requests provide full disclosure by vetting site plans cross referenced to applicants'site pian change requests. • Determine any and all applicable variances based on appiicants site plan change requests. When these functions are not performed,approval of developments and or specific portions of developments will not meet or convey the developmental direction that out elected and appointed officials desire for the overall health,safety and welfare of the citizens of Southlake. The loading dock on the eastern side of the Verizon Wireless building is an example of what can occur when this process falters,or when all information is not fully disclosed properly to our Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Case ZA 01-056 Case ZA 01.156 was a"fast track"case presented jointly to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council on June 14,2001. This case was heard for over 6 hours that evening resulting in a site plan and assurances from Verizon that the site plan incorporate a number of key components that were negotiated by Mayor Stacy, Planning and Zoning,City Council,and requests from Kirkwood Hollow homeowners. Some of these include the following- On ly ollowing:Only one formal loading dock located at the north end of the building, ❑ (Lxhibit B-Audio of 6/14/2001 Joint P&Z/City Council Meeting Southlake Council Chambers-20010614-1833_01 The 19.30 minute mark. I will bring to the P&Z Meeting) • No receiving areas on the eastern side of the building facing Kirkwood Hollow. • All other receiving areas conslsting of exit doors face south(screened by elevation from Dove Rd) or west(screened by elevation from Hwy 114) as shown on the site pian. ■ Verizon to meet with Kirkwood Hollow homeowners on June 19"'regarding the use of recessed brick,21 fake windows,and Austin stone,and regarding the architecture and location of the tower,and planting 22 trees along Kirkwood Drive. o Refer to City of Southlake SP] SP2A,SP2B,SP3,SM,SPS,SP6.5P7-Dated 5/21/2001 o Refer to City of Southlake SP1,SP2A,SP2B-Dated 7/23/2001 Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 18 As a result taking into account the above issues,the follow motion and approval by the City Council brought and approved. "Motion was made to approve ZA01-056 subject to Site Plan Review Summary No.2,dated lune 8, 17 2001,deleting variance request no. 1,subject to staff recommPndmions 2, 3, and 4, requiring the 18 Applicant to plant trees at the southeast corner of the tract, plant landscape diamonds In the north 19 parking lot,and complete Dove to Kirkwood beyond their entry, seeking future reimbursement from 20 the City.Further requiring the Applicant to meet with residents regarding the use of recessed brick,21 fake windows,and Austin stone,regarding the architecture and location of the tower,and planting 22 trees along the drive to Kirkwood." Verizon met with the Kirkwood Hollow Homeowners and stated the following according to the 6/18/2001 Spin meeting notes placed into the City Council meeting minutes dated 6/19/2001: • Verizon agrees that all docks are positioned away from residential development. • Vernon confirms that the loading docks will beat the present location or on the north side of the development. According to the 6/18/2001 Spin meeting notes scribed by Veriron,they state the following JExhibit C—Spin Neighborhood Meeting Report Form): "Delivery trucks will enter and exit only form Dave road. Darks are currently positioned away from residential development. The loading darks will be at the present location or on the north side of the Data Center If N.p.C.C.and Data enter are reversed". Subsequent to the City Councll approval and the melting with Kirkwood Hallow Homeowners,Verizon submitted a revised site pian to the Planning&Developmental Services Department on 7/23/01. This site plan transposed the NOC wing and the DATA wing(Piease Refer to City of South lake Site Plans previously mivntloned). Mr, Baker states in his opinion letter dated 12/13/2016 that"the site plan was administratively approved by the Zoning Administrator and the facility, including the"receiving"area was built In conformance with this plan". We have located one document in that file that has any reference to the administratively approved 7/23/01 site plan_ tt is site plan review summary#3 that shows a checked box indicating residential adjacency applies and that this site plan conforms, There were no documents,notes,etc.that compared and contrasted the 2 site plans. There were no documents that Indicated any attention was considered to whether the site plan changes between these two site plans meet the"minor"change requirement which would allow the Planning and Development to independently approve these changes without presenting to the P&Z Commission and City Council. In order for the Planning&Developmental Services Department to approve this Site Pian,they must have dtlermined that these than es were"minor"per QtclinanCe 480 Section 40.6.a.6. There is no documentation or notes that addrrss the status of these changes. It is clear afte-comparing the Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 19 previously City Council approved site plan with this re%nsed site plan,that major changes were requested. Those major changes included thr following ■ Addition of a receiving area located on the eastem side of the building facing Kirkwood Hallow. • Elevation changes on the eastern side to accommodate the addition of the receiving area ■ Site plan review summary#3 submitted with the revised site plan change indicated the 7/23/01 site plan was governed under residency adjacency requirements and met them although no documentation is available to verify that Verizon was notified of these requirements in the Staff Report. In fact,according to recent documentation from Verizon's representative Ms.Zlblllich, stated that Verizon believes that this site plan permitted the receiving area for tractor/semi- trailer deliveries. She stated the following: "Loading dock M4 was always designed and intended jar large heavy roods for this part of the building. Each loading dock will continue to be used only Jar the area of the building that was designed to be associated with that dock;these modifications wlif not change the designed flow". Ms.Zlblllch also stated "Dock 04 is on essential purr of the design of this facility,so it will continue to operate whether or not the changes are approved by the City. If the changes are not opproved, the neighbors will lose the opportunity to have the improvements to dock#4 with the corresponding increase in the s peed of lining up the trucks at the dock and unloading of materials,lowered height of the rear of the trucks when or the dock,and additional landscaping". Case ZA 11-050 Case ZA 11-050 was presented to P&Z on 11/3/2011 and City Council on 11/15/2011. This case further exacerbated the receiving area problem due to the following occurrences: ■ Verizon Wireless's application did not state their request to change the"receiving arra"to a "loading dock". o htt webUnk.cit ofsouthlake.c m IWOU nkoldo-c]44 784 5J Pae s x • Verizon Wireless's application did not state their request Include the addition of an"electrical lift"and"additional concrete"to be added to the receiving area. ❑ htt wen: nk.cit of south Iake.c m ebL inkfi/O/docJ44 784 51 Pa z J.a5p • The Planning and Development Services Department presented the case in error to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council at the public meetings as follows: o Misrepresented the"Existing Site Plan"In slide number 11. Staff exhibited the site plan approved by City Council on 6/14/2001 rather than the 7/23/2001 Planning and Developments{Services Department administratively approved site plan as the"Existing Site Plan"thus complicating the issue. • ht _ w b[:n �t afs u h{ake.co a in 44185D l'a el.is x r The Planning and Development Services Department did not present the wording changes, electrical lift,or this concrete addition to P&Z nor City Council. Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 20 o htt s: southiaketx.swagit.comZglav/05162012-939 Item 8 ❑ https://southlaketx.swagit.com/play/05162012-801 Item fie Subsequently,The Planning& Development Services Department never addressed any and all variances applicable to these changes in their Site Plan Review Summary#2 dated 10/28/2011 or the Staff Report dated 11/9/2011 that was submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council even though at a minimum,the addition of an electrical lift would have triggered a screening requirement per our Ordinance 480. Mr. Baker states in his opinion letter dated 12/13/2016 that the paving plan detailed the changes regarding the receiving area to a loading dock,addition of an electrical lift,and the additional concrete. It is highly irregular for City Staff to utilize a paving plan as the primary exhibit to detail site plan changes unless it directly relates to the materials used for paving. This paving plan was not part of the presentation to P&Z nor City Council. Mr. Baker's Exhibit E was never a document that was provided in the packet, presentation, nor the site plan review summary. Exhibit D in merely a magnified version of Exhibit C, Case ZA 12-096 Case ZA 12-096 was presented to P&Z on 11/8/12 and City Council on 12/04/12. Mr. Baker's opinion letter states the approved site plan identifies the "loading dock'on the east side of the building. At this point,the city staff is just citing"previously approved site plans". Again,the electric lift is still in violation of our Ordinance 480 since no request for variance with regards to screening of mechanical equipment has been requested. Summary There is no precedent in the City of SouthIake that allows a loading dock in direct adjacency to a residential development without masonry screening. Unfortunately, we now have one that is unsightly and needs to be addressed. It is clear that the development of the east side of the Verizon building requires additional scrutiny. After a complete review of the Verizon cases,it is our hope that you will agree that the current loading dock is in violation of our current ordinances as it stands today. We are asking for your support to require Verizon to build a masonry screening wall whether or not they move forward with this request. Regards, Kirkwood Hallow homeowners Association Gabriella Miller Dona Robinson Andrea Martinez Farhan Farooqui Doug liarsy Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 21 e r 'ht R 1 T � �. $ •.r_r• tiro , �r- w Lr t 'I+ L A 'r t .�.♦ah�� 11 ' . • 22 - Neighborhood Meeting 4MSP1N Report Form diq#A SPIN Neighborhood# 2 Meeting Date: fit18/01 Meeting Topic and Description: Verizon Building Architect Meeting Featured Speakers: Doug Cohen-Kitchen & Associates Number of neighbors attending: Approx. 45 Location of meeting: Kirkwood Hollow Model Home Notification Process: SPIN Sign at pool entrance to Kirkwood Hollow & Flyers on Kirkwood Ilollow resident mai]boxes Key Discussion Points, Issues & Follow-Up Information: Mr. Cohen presented the plan with revisions to date to the neighbors who then posed questions and suggestions. The issues raised fell into three categories: • Architectural Materials for the Building ■ Landscaping - especially along the perimeter ofthe property along Kirkwood and at the northeast corner of the property across from Kirkwood Hollow's main entrance. ■ Parking 1,01 - placement, material and lighting Please see the attached recap of the issues raised during the meeting in the order that they were discussed. The residents were pleased by Veriznn's interest in their input but wanted assurances that the efforts would continue with support from City Council. The residents will attend the Council meeting on 6;19/01 to convey their concerns. A follow- up meeting has been scheduled for 719/01 at 6:30PM at the Kirkwood model home. Sig"ure Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 23 VERLZON RESPONSE TO Dotes from Verizon 1 Kirkwood Hallow Home4rw iter,, Monday,.lune 18, 2001 Kirkw(md Hollow Model Home ■ Nk hat will change in the future? Is Phase II build-out defined? Cat) these }dans be locked down now? (The plans for Phases I and 11 will he filed with the Cin, .simultaneously.) ■ Rooftop erluipmcnt - would like to have minimal equipment on the roof(Two vents for fresh air and small exhaust fan,► will he the only equipment, plus a small 7V satellite dish) ■ Emergency Generators - There will be mgfJlers and underground firel tanks with .spill r nntainment prPrnutions. What are the generator testing times?(rhe times are once a month for each of 4 generators. They, will he tested in pairs for a period of 112 hour. One pair will he during the day and the other at night.) Will noise from these items comply with City noise ordinances? (Yes) ■ Who will own the property? (Verizon will own the land and the building.) ■ Other Uses -- What other uses could this building house if the N.O.C.C. goes away? (It is perfect for a Data Center-Banking, etc) ■ Driveway and Parking_ Lot Materials To include concrete and/or blacktoplasphalt. Will there be pavestone incorporated into these areas? (Not at this time) Can there be some fore) of treatment to minimize heat and glare from the sun off'the pavement? (Tree islands in the}Tont parking lot should minimize) ■ Is there potentia] to construct a parking deck along Highway 114? (ho) ■ Light Pollution from the North Parkin Lai-Can Verizon look at incorporating Smaller light poles, not 30' light poles, into the design, and add more poles if necessary versus what is currently proposed? The issue is to subdue the Iighting away from the Single Family Residential Neighborhood. (Current plat will create 'Zero Foot Candles at the property line,) ■ What is the design Ilan for Kirkwood? (Not determined yet,.. it needs to he engineered). ■ Berm issues - How can the berm be kept on Kirkwood when the road is constructed to ultimate design? If this can't be done, can Verizon construct a berm along their property - especially in northeast corner - 4' to 5' high to obscure the development? (Verizon is planning a combination of berm and landscaping in this area.) If constructed on Verizon property, would they maintain the berm with landscaping that provides a "High" (trees) and "low" Verizon Mlirelem.Re,_Wnse to Kirkwood HDA Comments - June I�,200; Pap I of 4 Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 24 VERIZON RESPONSE TO Notes from Verizon 1 Kirkwood Hollow Homeowners Monday,June 18,2001 Kirkwood Hollow Model Home (bushes) coverage buffer? (Yes.) How about a serpentine bush line along the berm with trees? (Will consider.) ■ Delivery Trucks 1 Loading Dock issues -- Delivery trucks would need to enter off of Dove only. Can the loading docks be placed as far from Kirkwood as possible to ensure this? (Delivery trucks will enter and exit only from Dove Road Docks are currently positinned away from residential development. The loading docks will be at the present location or on the north side 9f the Data Center if NO.C.C. and Data Center are reversed[see below].) Can Verizon commit to restrict delivery times to business hours only? (Deliveries will he made during normal business hours.). ■ Construction Traffic - Can Verizon restrict construction traffic through the Dove Entrance? (Dove will he the construction entrance.) ■ Issues related to Access from Kirkwood - Can Verizon commit to having a controlled access gate at the Kirkwood entrance with card key for authorized entry? (No commitment can be made.) ■ Landscaped Bufferin Issues - The need for increased landscape screening around the utility yard exists-- can it be altered to look nicer and provide more of a buffer? Verizon needs to provide increased landscaping on the Kirkwood driveway. Northeast comer of property, across from the Kirkwood Hollow entrance/pool needs to have a lot of landscaping to make the detention pond appealing. (Verizon was open to adjusting the landscaping) Landscaping_for Parking Areas - Verizon needs to plant mature trees that are evergreen in the parking areas, Not only does there need to be more trees, they need to be native (ex. Live Oak, cypress, etc.) - No cedar or mesquite trees. More landscaping(trees) need to be added in the northeast corner of the project to buffer the adjacent residential areas. (Relying on local landscape)lass te) design. Will comply with City ordinances on tree size but will increase the number of trees.) ■ Roof Materials and Color - (Considering a ".slate like" material or similar effect.) Architectural Features - Were other accents considered? Design should incorporate an abundance of Austin Stonc(limestone). Coloring of bricks is too dark-puts forth a"institutional" feel - brick color needs to be softened through utilization of a lighter coloring and contrasts of tan or colored bricks, including the use of"tumbled bricks". The complex needs to have more of a"Texas" feel and vernacular (make it applicable to Texas, and more specifically to Vwhon Wireless Response to Kirkwood HOA Comments - June 19,2001 - P41!t 2 of 4 Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 25 VERIZON RESPONSE TO Notes from Verizon 1 Kirkwood Hollow Homeowners Monday,June 18, 2001 Kirkwood Hollow Model Home Southlake- examples cited include the Fidelity campus in Westlake, styles associated with the University of Texas at Austin, etc.), and a design concept that incorporates the use of landscaping. (An attempt is being made to "soften" the architectural appearance, lighten the calor of the brick fafade and to use stone or other non-brick accents - revised design to be available for the 91' of July meeting.) ■ Kirkwood Phase III view- What would the building look like from Phase III? (The landscape plan currently provides screening). ■ Detention Pond Issues- What is the purpose? Can this feature be incorporated into an amenity versus leaving it as proposed? Featurrs mentioned as desirable include fencing the perimeter for security, irrigation, leaving the area full -and utilizing a fountain 1 aeration system, limestone waterfall, landscaping (plant hedge) around the perimeter. (Will consider hedge I landscaping but the ,function must remain... a detention pond) ■ Tower Issues - Can the tower be relocated to the other side of the building to separate it further from the homes? Can this be a "clock" tower to screen the actual "dish?" (Height may be less than 90' and will investigate the clock option.) ■ Proposal for Windows -- Can Verizon include false windows - brick trimmed out to look like a window? The residents would prefer the incorporation of true windows to make it look and feel more like an office building. {Any type of glass used would need to have non-reflective glass and black triol. Do not recommend true glass false windows. Will be adding features to look like windows acrd feather break-up the walls.) ■ Signage issues -- Can Vcrizon commit to no signage on the property higher than a 6' monument sign at the main entry (Dove Road access point)? (Monument sign will be the only signage. &etimated size should fall below 6'.) ■ Trash Container-Are the proposed trash container areas to be masonry? If not, can they be constructed of masonry material(s)? (Yes, they are to be masonry.) ■ Parking Area Construction -Can the parking area in the Southwest Parking Lot be constructed first, delaying the construction of the northeast parking area? (Verizon will construct the southwest parking area in lieu of the northeast area far Phase 1 if P and Z will approve reversing the ill.O.CC. and Data Center wings of the complex. In such event. Verizon will designate the southwest parking area for N.D.C C.parking only so as to further minimize the use of the Kirkwood Exit from the Complex) Verizon Wlrelrss.Response to Kirkwocxf 11OA Com men ss - June 19,20[.'1 - Page 3 of 4 Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 26 VERIZON RESPONSE TO Notes from Verizon 1 Kirkwood Hollow lJorneow•ners Monday,June 18, 2001 Kirkwood Hollow Model Hume ■ Can Verizon increase the utilization of underground}parking areas in the project proposal? (No.) Grading Plan — Will Verizon be importing or exporting soil? (Unknown, but desire to neither import or export,) * Construction Timing — What is the project timeline to construct this project if approved? (13-15 month timeline) Has Verizon requested any variances to construction start and stop times(i.e. dawn to dark)? (No, the construction will conform to current City Ordinances—Mon-Sat dawn to dusk do no construction on Sundays.) Note: All changes and proposals are subject to planning and zoning departmenticommission approval, as well as any other regulatory or statutory requirements applicable to the site or its anticipated use. Verizon Wireless:Response to Kirkwood 110A Commmts June 14,2DQ I - Page A of 4 Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 27 Ci.SCUhlAke.Ix i5 W k -Fwd 0;nxnilwto-NeNo.LA16-IMVaiim �OT iLAKE Richard Schell<rschellgD.ci,southfake.tx.us> Fwd: Opposition to Case No. ZA16-100 Verizon � mggc Ken Baker 4kbakcr,§ci.sout hlaka.tx.:isI ue, Jan 3, 2011 at 1 46 7-1M lu Selnna Sertano<ssexranDQc.southiake.tx.us>, Richard Schell�rschellgci.soulhlake.tx.us> --- Fmwameel rn From-Mopfar,John Date Tue, Jan 3, 2017 a: 1:14 M SuMect. apposition to Case No. 2A16-100 Verizon To. `m ayoranccitycouncd0ki.southlime.:x us'<mayorandcitVC- tXJ citjf,�cr 3cuthlake.Lx.us>,"abaker@ci southlake.tx.us' �xbak--alcr,soul hlake tx.i,s>," [anrnrx rndzonirfgfe cr,saetMake.fx us"<plannirgarezorrrgc ei.southlake Ix.us> Dear Mayor, City Council, Planning&Zoning Commission, and Planning and Develop rnenI Services, saw the signs to our neighborhood regarding the proposal. Please accept this email as opposition to Verizon's request for variance regarding Case No. ZA16-100. Regards, Jahn and Karen Klopfer 413 Orchard Hill Dr Southlake, TX 76492 682-502-4079 Kenneth M. Bakes AICP Senior DIFector of Planning acrd Development Servrces City of Southiake 1400 Main Seroet-Sulte 314 Southtake,TX 76092 817.748-aO67 h%x.,MLBll.go30e.cvr maWtY,j=2&*=Wat'3Lle[hDWie!w=int£sear:IFi,63kU, 169Zdw16M701-E&m•='Y?ri5Dw%X7&9 Case No. Attachment D ZA16-100 Page 28