Item 6BCase No.
ZA17-066
S T A F F R E P O R T
February 27, 2018
CASE NO: ZA17-066
PROJECT: Preliminary Plat for Stony Brook
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY: Dolce Investments, LLC is requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat for Stony
Brook (formerly known as Stone Trail and Holmes Builders) on property described
as Tracts 5A, 5C1, 5B, 5A3, and 5A2, Jesse G. Allen Survey, Abstract No. 18, City
of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and Lots 5B and 5A (5A and 5B being
portions of Lot 5), Brock Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant
County, Texas and located at 2607, 2621, 2631, 2641, and 2651 W. Southlake
Blvd. and 400 and 410 Brock Dr., Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: “AG”
Agricultural District and “SF -1A” Single Family Residential District. Proposed
Zoning: “R-PUD” Residential Planned Unit Development District. SPIN
Neighborhood #11.
DETAILS: This project is located south of W. Southlake Blvd. and south and west of Brock Dr.
Lakeside Presbyterian Church is to the west and the Siena subdivision is to the
south.
The applicant is requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat in conjunction with a
request for a Zoning Change and Development Plan (ZA17-064) from “AG”
Agricultural District and “SF-1A” Single Family Residential District to “R-PUD”
Residential Planned Unit Development District for Stony Brook, which includes 47
residential lots and 8 open space lots on approximately 34.73 acres. The
subdivision is proposed as a gated community with private streets. The proposed
gross density and net density is 1.35 units per acre and the percentage of open
space proposed in the subdivision is approximately 27.2% of the gross area.
MODIFICATIONS
REQUESTED: 1) Subdivision Ordinance No. 48 3, as amended, Section 5.04 does not permit
private streets in new subdivisions in which less than 75% of the lots contain
homeowner occupied structures. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow
a gated community with private streets with the initial development.
2) Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, as amended, Section 5.03.I - Generally, a
maximum number of twenty (20) dwelling units should be permitted on a cul-de-
sac street permanently designed as such. Additionally, the length of the Cul -de-
Sac should not exceed 1,000 feet or be less than 150 feet in length. However,
density of development, topography, lot sizes and other significant factors will be
weighed in determining the length of a cul-de-sac street.
Department of Planning & Development Services
Case No.
ZA17-066
3) Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, as amended, Section 5.03.K states that dead
end streets shall be permitted only where a fut ure extension or connection is to
be made. The applicant is requesting a gated emergency only access instead of
a full connection to the street stub from the Siena subdivision to the south.
ACTION NEEDED: Consider Approval of a Preliminary Plat
ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information
(B) Vicinity Map
(C) Plat Review Summary No. 5, dated February 26, 2018
(D) Surrounding Property Owners Map and Responses
Full Size Plans (for Commission and Council members only )
Link to PowerPoint Presentation
Link to Preliminary Plat
Link to Corridor Planning Committee Report
Link to SPIN meeting Report
STAFF CONTACT: Ken Baker (817) 748-8067
Richard Schell (817) 748-8602
Case No. Attachment A
ZA17-066 Page 1
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
OWNER: Margaret J. Haney and Estate of E. I. Wiesman and Glenda Wiesman
APPLICANT: Dolce Investments, LLC
PROPERTY SITUATION: 2607, 2621, 2631, 2641, and 2651 W. Southlake Blvd. and 400 and 410
Brock Dr.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Tracts 5A, 5C1, 5B, 5A3, and 5A2, Jesse G. Allen Survey, Abstract No. 18
and Lots 5B and 5A (5A and 5B being portions of Lot 5), Brock Addition
LAND USE CATEGORY: Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential, 100-Year Floodplain
CURRENT ZONING: “AG” Agricultural District and “SF-1A” Single Family Residential District
PROPOSED ZONING: “R-PUD” Residential Planned Unit Development District.
HISTORY: - The property was annexed into the City in 1956 and given the “AG”
Agricultural District zoning designation.
- A Plat Showing for Brock Addition was filed November 8, 1967.
- The “SF-1A” Single Family Residential District zoning was placed on the
Brock Addition property with the adoption of Ordinance No. 480 and the
Official Zoning Map in September of 1989.
- A Plat Revision for Lots 1R and 3R, Brock Addition was approved
September 2, 1997 and filed November 21, 1997.
- A Zoning Change and Development Plan (ZA15 -125) for Stone Trail
Estates from “AG” Agricultural District and “SF -1A” Single Family
Residential District to “R-PUD” Residential Planned Unit Development for
Stone Trail Estates to develop 61 residential lots and 12 open space lots on
approximately 36.03 acres and the associated Preliminary Plat (ZA15 -153)
were denied by City Council on August 2, 2016.
SOUTHLAKE 2030 PLAN: Consolidated Future Land Use Plan
The majority of the site is designated “Medium Density Residential”, which
is suitable for any single-family detached residential development.
Approximately 6.79 acres of the proposed development that is currently in
the Brock Addition has a Low Density Residential designation in the 2030
Land Use Plan. The six (6) lots shown in that portion of the proposed
subdivision comply with the Low Density Residential designation, which
requires a net density of one or fewer dwelling units per acre .
Medium Density Residential:
The purpose of the Medium Density Residential land use category is to
promote a neighborhood setting primarily comprised of single family
detached houses.
Definition: The Medium Density Residential category is suitable for any
single-family detached residential development. Other suitable activities are
Case No. Attachment A
ZA17-066 Page 2
those permitted in the Public Parks/Open Space and Public/Semi-Public
categories previously discussed.
Low Density Residenital:
The purpose of the Low Density Residential land use category is to provide
for and to protect low intensity detached single -family residential
development that promotes the openness and rural character of Southlake.
Definition: The Low Density Residential category is for detached single-
family residential development at a net density of one or fewer dwelling
units per acre. Net density is the number of dwelling units per net acre,
which excludes acreage in all public rights-of-way. Other suitable activities
are those permitted in the Public Parks / Open Space and Public / Semi-
Public categories described previously. The Low Density Residential
category encourages the openness and rural character of the City of
Southlake.
Floodplain
The Floodplain category illustrates areas designated by the August 1995
Federal Emergency Managemen t Agency (FEMA) maps as being in the
100-year floodplain. The “floodplain” is an expanse of natural vegetation
and wildlife, and should be preserved as natural open area. Within the
floodplain is “floodway” that must be kept free of encroachment in order that
the 100-year flood may be carried without harmful increases in the height of
flood waters. Although it is not to be encouraged, the portion of the
floodplain not in the floodway may be reclaimed for development under
certain circumstances if in accorda nce with FEMA regulations. The
designated land use for areas of reclaimed floodplain is that of the
immediately adjacent land use category. This designation may also include
environmentally sensitive areas, habitats, or wetlands that may not be in
FEMA identified floodplains.
Mobility & Master Thoroughfare Plan
The Mobility and Master Thoroughfare Plan shows W. Southlake Blvd. to
be a Farm-to-Market road with 130’ of right of way. Adequate right of way is
shown to be dedicated on the plans.
Pathways Master Plan & Sidewalk Plan
The Pathways Master Plan shows the existing 8’ multi-use trail along the
south side of Southlake Blvd. and a future ≥8’ multi -use trail extending from
W. Southlake Blvd. to Union church Rd. through the floodplain.
Major Corridors Urban Design Plan
The property is in the “Estate Residential” zone in the Major Corridors
Urban Design Plan. The following recommendations pertain to the “Estate
Residential” zone in the plan.
Case No. Attachment A
ZA17-066 Page 3
TRANSPORTATION
ASSESSMENT: Area Road Network and Conditions
The proposed “R-PUD” zoning request has one main entrance onto W.
Southlake Blvd. An emergency only access gate is proposed at the Naples
Dr. connection to the south.
W. Southlake Blvd.
(between Davis Blvd. & S. Pearson Ln.)
24hr East Bound (18,836) West Bound (18,766)
AM Peak AM (2,075)
7:00 AM – 8:00 AM
Peak AM (1,110)
11:30 AM – 12:30 PM
PM Peak PM (1,137)
5:45 PM– 6:45 PM
Peak PM (2,122)
5:00 PM – 6:00 PM
Case No. Attachment A
ZA17-066 Page 4
Traffic Impact
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was not required for this development.
Use Units Vtpd* AM-
IN
AM-
OUT
PM-
IN
PM-
OUT
ITE Code (210) 47 450 9 27 31 17
* Vehicle Trips Per Day
* AM-In, AM-Out, PM-In and PM-Out are peak hour generators on a weekday
* Based on the ITE: Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition
The City Engineer has provided the following comments:
From a mobility perspective, it would be preferred to have a second, full
access point into this subdivision. The current proposal to force all 57 lots
to a right-in/right-out drive on FM 1709 is less than ideal and will only result
in more congestion. We do not believe that TxDOT is likely to permi t a
hooded left median opening on FM 1709, which will certainly result in u-turn
movements at the existing openings creating a safety concern. The
preferred connection would be to Naples Drive, which was stubbed out
from the Siena subdivision and planned for future extension. This
connection would give the residents access to traffic signals at Davis,
Watermere, or Pearson for a much safer scenario to head west on FM
1709 if desired. The next best option would be to extend access and
connect to Brock Drive. While this would not provide access to a signal , it
would give full access to FM 1709 to go east or west as well as allow for
safe entrance for westbound traffic. The final option would be a plan for
future connection directly to Davis Boulevard. This connection should be
planned to line up with a future median opening on Davis, preferably line up
with Sunset Way, allowing full access for north and south movements. This
is also the least likely since this extension would require the crossing of the
flood plain which will likely be cost prohibitive and is not currently planned
as a capital improvement project.
TREE PRESERVATION: The site is subject to the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585 -D
since the property is being rezoned.
There is approximately 40.1% existing tree cover on the site, of which,
approximately 57.9% is proposed to be preserved. A standard zoning
district would require that a minimum 50% of existing tree cover be
preserved.
For property sought to be zoned for the Downtown zoning district or a
planned development zoning district, including an S-P-1 Site Plan, S-P-
2 Site Plan, Transition, Rural Conservation, Planned Unit Development,
or Employment Center zoning district, the City Council shall consider
the application for a Conservation Analysis or Plan in conjunction with
the corresponding development application.
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:
Case No. Attachment A
ZA17-066 Page 5
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.
UTILITIES: The property proposes to connect to an existing 12” water line in W.
Southlake Blvd. to the north and to an existing 8” water line in Na ples Dr. to
the south. Sanitary sewer for the development is proposed to connect to an
existing 8” sewer line in Naples Dr to the south.
DRAINAGE: Drainage on the property is generally north to south and east to the creek
that runs through the southeast portion of the property.
CITIZEN INPUT: The following meetings were held to discuss the development:
A SPIN meeting was held for this project on September 12, 2017.
Link to September 12, 2017 SPIN Report
A 2035 Corridor Planning Committee meeting was held on August 7, 2017.
Link to Corridor Planning Committee Report
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION: October 5, 2017; A motion to table the item to the October 19, 2017
meeting was approved (6-0).
October 19, 2017; Approved (4-2) subject to the Staff Report dated
October 19, 2017; further subject to the Plat Review Summary No. 4
dated October 19, 2017; further subject to the conditions all which
are attached to previous Item No. 8 that were voted, and approved.
STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Plat Review Summary No. 5, dated February 26, 2018.
Subdivision Ord. No. 483, as amended, Section 9.01 regarding
modifications and variations is below:
Section 9.01 Modifications and Variations:
A. Compliance: Where the Council finds that compliance with the se
regulations would cause unusual hardship or extraordinary difficulties
because of exceptional and unique conditions of access, location,
shape, size, drainage, or other physical features of the site, the
Case No. Attachment A
ZA17-066 Page 6
requirements may be modified to mitigate the hardship, provided that
the public interest is protected and the development is in keeping with
the general spirit and intent of this ordinance.
1. This section shall not be interpreted to permit the development of
land which is inherently unsuitable for the use proposed.
2. Any modification will not have the effect of preventing the orderly
subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the
provisions of this ordinance.
B. Discretion of Council: At the discretion of the Council, the normal
standards and requirements of this ordinance may also be modified in
the case of a Planned Unit Development. Such departures from the
standards specified may be made only when the Council finds that the
plan provides for convenience and safe access, adequate s pace for
recreation, and provision for light and air, and offers all essential utility
services and necessary public and other facilities, and is in
conformance with all provisions of the City Code which specifically
apply to Planned Unit Development.
Case No. Attachment B
ZA17-066 Page 1
Case No. Attachment C
ZA17-066 Page 1
PLAT REVIEW SUMMARY
Case No.: ZA17-066 Review No.: Five Date of Review: 02/26/18
Project Name: Preliminary Plat – Stony Brook
APPLICANT: Terry Holmes Engineer: Jimmy Fechter
Dolce Investments, LLC Adams Engineering
225 E. State Hwy. 121, Suite 120 8951 Cypress Waters Blvd. Suite 150
Coppell, TX 75019 Dallas, TX 75019
Phone: (214) 488-5200 Phone: (817) 328-3215
E-mail: terry@theholmesbuilders.com E-mail: jimmy.fechter@adams-engineering.com
CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENC ED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON
02/26/18 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 CLARIFICAT ION, PLEASE
CONTACT RICHARD SCHELL AT (817) 748 -8602.
1. A Preliminary Plat that conforms to the R-PUD district zoning must be processed and approved
and then a Final Plat (or Plat Revision) processed and recorded prior to the conveyance of any
lots or the issuance of any building permits. Portions of the property are already platted in the
Brock Addition, so a Plat Revision must be processed and recorded in place of a Final Plat or a
Plat Vacation must be processed and recorded prior to approval and recor ding of a Final Plat.
2. The Preliminary Plat must comply with the underlying zoning district.
3. The driveway for Lot 4, Brock Addition (Harold McCall property) is located in Lot 5B, Brock
Addition, which is part of the property being developed. The plans show that the existing driveway
is to be replaced by a 24’ wide emergency access driveway with a gate in a 24’ emergency access
easement. A maintenance agreement stating that the HOA is responsible for maintaining the
entirety of the emergency access drivewa y is required.
4. Clearly show, label and dimension the width of any easements on or adjacent to the site. The
extents of the existing easements are not clear. There is a 30’ road access easement and a 15’
utility easement across Lot 5, Brock Addition.
5. The sidewalk connection to the Siena subdivision to the south must be in a pedestrian access
easement that connects to the right of way for Naples Dr. Please show and label the 12’
pedestrian access easement on the Preliminary Plat and the Pedestrian Access Plan.
6. Please revise the development plan, the fence plan and the pedestrian access plan to show
the walls and fences with pedestrian access gates at the main entrance and at Naples Dr.
7. Approval of a modification to the Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, Sect ion 5.04 requirement by
the City Council will be required to allow private streets in a new subdivision. A request for a
modification has been submitted.
8. Dead-end streets are permitted only where future connection is to be made (Subdivision
Ordinance No. 483, Section 5.03.K). City Council approval of a variance is required to allow
Case No. Attachment C
ZA17-066 Page 2
emergency access only at the southern entrance instead of a full connection to the street stub
from the Siena subdivision to the south. A request for a modification to the Subdi vision
Ordinance has been submitted.
9. A maximum of 20 dwelling units is generally allowed on a cul-de-sac street, which is defined as
that street or part of a street having one common entry and exit and no other entry and/or exit
(Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, Section 5.03.I) Approval of an R-PUD regulation to allow one
entry/exit by City Council is required to allow the southern connection to be an emergency
access only.
10. Per the City of Southlake Driveway Ordinance No. 634, a deceleration lane is required if the
site peak period ingress movement is greater than 40 veh/ hr. The TIA threshold worksheet
shows 61.2 trips in the design hour. If a deceleration lane is required, a shorter deceleration
lane than TxDOT requirements may be required due to the geo graphical challenges with
respect to the distance to the adjacent western church driveway. This requirement will be
contingent on TxDOT’s willingness to amend their access requirement.
Tree Conservation/Landscape Review
E-mail: kmartin@ci.southlake.tx.us
Keith Martin
Landscape Administrator
Phone: (817) 748-8229
TREE CONSERVATION COMMENTS:
1. Ensure that trees which are shown to be preserved are not within potential house pad areas.
* A Tree Conservation Analysis was submitted. The existing tree c over is shown to be 43.1% and
under straight zoning a minimum 50% of the existing tree cover is required to be preserved. The
applicant is proposing to preserve 5 7.9% of the existing tree cover so the existing tree cover
preservation would comply with the existing tree cover preservation requirements.
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
the entire site
Minimum percentage of the
existing tree cover to be
preserved*
0% – 20% 70%
20.1 – 40% 60%
40.1% - 60% 50%
60.1% - 80% 40%
80.1% - 100% 30%
*The minimum percentage of existing tree cover to be preserved shall exclude any area in
public rights-of-way as approved by City Council.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA17-066 Page 3
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 applicatio n. 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 environm ental 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 th e 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.
* Indicates informational comment.
# Indicates required items comment.
Public Works/Engineering Review
Alex Ayala, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Phone: (817) 748-8274
E-mail: aayala@ci.southlake.tx.us
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. This review is preliminary. Additional requirements may be necessary with the review of civil
construction plans.
2. Show sidewalks on both sides of the main street entrance. Sidewalks are required on both sides
of public streets.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA17-066 Page 4
3. Construction within FM 1709/right of way shall require a permit from TxDOT. Approval is required
before beginning construction.
4. Lot 12, Block 1 is encumbered by 15’ sanitary sewer easement along northern property line.
Encroachment agreement shall be required with building permit.
5. Label street widths on Site Plan. Residential streets shall be constructed to 31’ B -B. All curb
returns shall be 30’ minimum. Fire lane radii shall be 30’ minimum.
6. Public walking trails located within floodplain must be ADA compliant. Decomposed granite is not
a suitable material meeting ADA requirements. Alterations to natural ground to meet ADA grades
within floodplain will require a LOMR. City of Southlake will not accept walking trails not meeting
ADA requirements. Further review will be required during civil construction plan review.
* Street intersections shall comply with TDLR/ADA accessibility s tandards.
* 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
DRAINAGE COMMENTS:
7. Public walking trails located within floodplain must be ADA compliant. Decom posed granite is not
a suitable material meeting ADA requirements. Alterations to natural ground to meet ADA grades
within floodplain will require a LOMR. Further review will be required during civil construction plan
review.
1. Documentation supporting and certifying that detention is not necessary will be required prior to
approval of construction plans.
2. Timing study maybe required with the submittal of civil construction plans.
3. Label Stream BB-9 and include FIRM panel number and effective date for the floodplain. Show
effective floodway and BFE cross sections.
4. Reclamation or fill within any portion of the effective floodplain will require hydraulic modeling and a
LOMR. LOMR shall be obtained prior to acceptance of the subdivision and placing homes ne ar
floodplain.
5. Storm drain inlets are required at intersecting streets.
6. Turn off development plan on Pre-developed Drainage Area Map.
7. Post-development Drainage Area Map does not account for offsite drainage areas.
* 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.
* Property drains into a Critical Drainage Structure #18 and require s a fee to be paid prior to
Case No. Attachment C
ZA17-066 Page 5
beginning construction ($212.61/AC).
* Discharge of post development runoff must have no adverse impact on downstream properties
and meet the provisions of Ordinance No. 605.
EASEMENTS:
1. Provide all necessary easements for water, sanitary sewer and drainage. Easements shall be 15’
minimum and located on one lot – not centered on the property line. A 20’ easement is required if
both storm sewer and sanitary sewer will be located within the easement.
2. Provide corner clips at the intersection of Southlake Blvd and proposed street. Corner clips shall
be shown on the plat. Refer to Ordinance No. 483.
* Verify if easement of water/sanitary sewer/storm sewer crossing the site is in an 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 AND SEWER COMMENTS:
3. Minimum size of public water and sanitary sewer mains is 8”.
4. Single family residential developments require fire hydrant spacing of 400’ maximum hose -lay
length for non-sprinkled residences or 600’ for sprinkled residences.
5. Proposed sanitary sewer shall be located in the parkway, not under pave ments, except at
crossings.
* 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.
INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS:
* Submit 22”x34” civil construction plan s and a completed Construction Plan Checklist directly to
the Public Works Administration Department for review. Please allow 15 business days for
review. The plans shall conform to the most recent construction plan checklist, standard
details and general notes which are located on the City’s website:
http://www.cityofsouthlake.com/PublicWorks/engineeringdesign.asp
* 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
Case No. Attachment C
ZA17-066 Page 6
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.
* Submit with Civil Construction Plans a Retaining Wall Layout sheet. 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.
* Submit with Civil Construction Plans a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan which outlines
pre-construction, construction and post-construction erosion control measures.
* A geotechnical report will be required for all private and public roadways. The geotechnical
report shall include pavement design parameters for subgrade stabilization.
* A right of way permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Operations Departme nt (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
FIRE LANE COMMENTS:
The entry appears to be designed to accommodate gated access, if requested and approved by city
council, the gate must be equipped with an Opticom or KS -2 switch for opening the gate electronically,
as well as a means for manual opening.
Fire apparatus access needs to be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire
apparatus (A minimum of 85,000 lbs GVW). Fire access roads must be at least 31 ft. back of curb to
back of curb. (Standard street width) (Some streets appear to have medians, which would not provide
the approved widths)
Cul-de-Sacs must have 30 ft. inside turn radius and 50 foot radius (100 foot diameter) pavement,
unobstructed, for approved turnaround. (Plans do not indicate approved dimensions) (Some cul -de-
sacs appear to have medians, which would not allow for approved unobstructed radius)
FIRE HYDRANT COMMENTS:
Hydrants required at maximum spacing for R -3 Occupancies is 400 feet for subdivisions with un-
sprinkled homes and 600 feet for subdivisions that are completely sprinkled. (Hydrants are over -
Case No. Attachment C
ZA17-066 Page 7
spaced at several locations, relocate and/or add hydrants as necess ary to meet the requirements)
General Informational Comments
* Properties within Corridor Overlay Zone see Ord. 480 -S § 43.9.c.1(e) for design criteria. Zoning
Ordinance No. 480, Section 39.5(4) requires fences along W. Southlake Blvd. to comply with
the Architectural Fencing requirements of the Corridor Overlay District. (Section43.9(c)1(f),
which states “All architectural fencing which runs roughly parallel to the SH 114, Carroll
Ave.FM 1709, FM 1938, rights of way shall be constructed of the primary ma terials of the
building, wrought iron or living plant material. It shall not run in a straight line without being
offset by a minimum of 6 feet every 60 feet. It shall be located no closer to the right of way than
one half the width of the required bufferyard.
* Park Board comments or recommendations:
All applicants are required to appear before the Park Board to discuss park dedication issues if
requesting fee payments or fee credits. Please contact the Community Services Department at
(817) 748-8607 for further details.
* Land/park dedication requirements:
Residential developments must provide dedicated parks and/or open space at a ratio of one (1)
acre of park land for every forty (40) dwelling units.
If fee payment is approved by City Council in lieu of land dedication, residential park dedication
fees in the amount of $6250 per dwelling unit x 59 dwelling units = $368,750.00.
* No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan. A separate building permit is
required prior to construction of any signs.
* Any 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.
* Development must comply with all requirements in Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 43,
Overlay Zones.
* The applicant should be aware that prior to issuance of a building permit a Plat must be
processed and filed in the County Plat Records, a fully corrected site plan, landscape plan,
irrigation plan, and building plans, must be submitted for approval and all required fees must be
paid. This may include but not be limited to the following fees: Park Fee, Perimeter Street
Fee, Water & Sewer Impact and Tap Fees, and related Permit Fees.
* In addition to the City of Southlake impact fees, please be aware that through the wholesale water
customer contract with the City of Fort Worth, all new water connections are required to pay the
City of Fort Worth impact fee. The City of Fort Worth impact fee assessment is based on the final
plat recordation date and building permit issuance. The applicant is encouraged to review the City
of Fort Worth's assessment and collection of Impact Fees Guide to determine the fee amount.
* The proposed street connection on Southlake Blvd. requires TXDOT approval.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA17-066 Page 8
* Denotes Informational Comment
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-064 Page 1
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS MAP & RESPONSES
SPO # Owner Zoning Physical Address Acreage Response
1 HALL, JERRY G SF1-A 102 JELLICO CIR 1.24 NR
2 WIESMAN, GLENDA AG 2607 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.88 NR
3 GLENDA WIESMAN TRUST AG 2641 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.39 NR
4 MCCALL, HAROLD L SF1-A 320 BROCK DR 1.33 NR
5 LOWMAN, MIKE SF20A 711 PORTOFINO PL 0.47 O
6 FRANKS, NINA SF20A 700 VENICE AVE 0.47 O
7 BEENE, LORI DAMRON SF20A 719 PORTOFINO PL 0.46 O
8 FAZEN, MARK A SF20A 720 PORTOFINO PL 0.46 NR
9 HARIDAS, RAGHAVEN SF20A 701 VENICE AVE 0.46 NR
10 QUINN, WILLIAM AG 2435 MICHAEL DR 0.55 NR
11 C&T LAWNS LLC AG 2440 MICHAEL DR 1.13 NR
12 C&T LAWNS LLC AG 2425 MICHAEL DR 1.11 NR
13 SMYTH, HENRY C SP2 301 WATERMERE DR 6.37 NR
14 MULLENIX, DAVID W SF20A 701 PORTOFINO PL 0.59 NR
15 SMYTH, HENRY C SP2 301 WATERMERE DR 8.90 NR
16 JOHNSON, GEORGE AG 2390 MICHAEL DR 1.13 NR
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-064 Page 2
17
GLENDA WIESMAN TRUST
(Sandra Bagwell) AG 2621 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 9.22
F
18
GLENDA WIESMAN TRUST
(Sandra Bagwell) AG 2631 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 3.50
F
19 BYLER, JOHN R SF20A 705 PORTOFINO PL 0.46 NR
20 COMER, JACK SF20A 707 PORTOFINO PL 0.47 NR
21 YOUNG, MICHAEL M SF20A 715 PORTOFINO PL 0.52 NR
22 QUINN, WILLIAM AG 2445 MICHAEL DR 0.57 NR
23 MURWAY, DEBBIE SF2 829 SIENA DR 2.37 NR
24 SOUTHLAKE CHURCH OF CHRIST CS 2417 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 9.82 NR
25 GLENDA WIESMAN TRUST SF1-A 250 BROCK DR 1.53 NR
26 GLENDA WIESMAN TRUST AG 2651 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 13.18 NR
27 LAKESIDE PRESBYTERAN CHURCH CS 2701 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 7.43 NR
28 NADO I LLC SP1 2530 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 1.92 NR
29 NADO I LLC SP1 2580 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 1.71 NR
30 BONOLA FAMILY LTD PRTNSHP SF1-A 2608 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 1.78 NR
31 TAK ENTERPRISES INC SP1 2419 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 1.06 NR
32 QUINONES, MICHAEL C SF1-A 105 BROCK DR 0.52 NR
33 VARGAS, PERRY W SF1-A 209 BROCK DR 1.05 O
34 HOWARD, EMMA L SF1-A 303 BROCK DR 1.09 O
35 PAPILLARD, MARJORIE S SF1-A 319 BROCK DR 0.65 NR
36 PAPILLARD, MARJORIE A SF1-A 329 BROCK DR 0.69 NR
37 KUELBS, GREGORY G RE5 500 DAVIS BLVD 5.57 NR
38 KUELBS, GREGORY G RE5 504 DAVIS BLVD 2.10 NR
39 HANEY, ARVEL W EST SF1-A 400 BROCK DR 4.73 F
40 HANEY, MARGARET SF1-A 410 BROCK DR 1.67 F
41 KUELBS, GREGORY G SF1-A 684 DAVIS BLVD 5.09 NR
42 CT PLUS 4 LLC AG 2420 MICHAEL DR 1.13 NR
43 QUINONES, MICHAEL C SF1-A 109 BROCK DR 0.57 NR
Responses: F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response
Notices Sent: Thirty-seven (37)
Responses Received
within the notification boundary: Eight (8) – Attached
Responses Received
outside the notification boundary: Three (3) e-mails - Attached
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-064 Page 3
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-064 Page 4
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-064 Page 5
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-064 Page 6
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-064 Page 7
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-064 Page 8
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-064 Page 9
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-064 Page 10
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-064 Page 11
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-064 Page 12
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-064 Page 13
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-064 Page 14
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-064 Page 15
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-064 Page 16
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-064 Page 17
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-064 Page 18
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-064 Page 19
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-064 Page 20
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-064 Page 21
Responses Received outside Notification Boundary
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-064 Page 22
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-064 Page 23
Case No. Attachment D
ZA17-066 Page 0