Item 6ACase No.
ZA18 -0006
S T A F F R E P O R T
June 13, 2018
CASE NO: ZA18-0006
PROJECT: Zoning Change and Development Plan for Carillon Parc EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY: HCCP Development & Construction is requesting approval of a Zoning Change
and Development Plan for Carillon Parc (Plaza District) on property described as
Tracts 1, 1D, 1E, 1F, 1G, 3A, 3A01, 3A03, 3A04, 3A04A, 3A05, and 3A01B, Larkin
H. Chivers Survey, Abstract No. 300, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and
located at 1775, 1781 and 1801 N. White Chapel Blvd., 1840 Riviera Ln., 201 E.
Kirkwood Blvd., and 100 through 300 E. State HWY 114. Southlake, Texas. SPIN
Neighborhood #3.
DETAILS: The purpose of this item is to seek approval of a Zoning Change and Development
Plan for the Plaza District portion (approximately 42.51 acres) of the Carillon
Development for the purposes of amending the existing district regulations and
approved development plan for this portion of Carillon.
Site Data Summary
Existing Zoning “ECZ” Employment Center
Zoning District
Land Use Designation Mixed Use
Gross Acreage 42.51 Ac. +/-
Approx. ROW Dedication 5.95 Ac. +/-
Approx. Park Dedication 8.90 Ac. +/-
Net Acreage 27.65 Ac. +/-
Percentage of Open Space Minimum 15%
Percentage of Impervious Coverage Maximum 90%
Required Parking TBD with Site Plan
Provided Parking Max. 22% reduction
Percentage of Outside Storage 0%
This application represents a development plan. If this application is
approved (ZA18-0006) and receives zoning entitlement from City
Council, the applicant will be required to submit site plan applications for
all residential lofts and non-residential buildings (excluding kiosks).
VARIANCES
REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting four (4) variances to Driveway Ordinance No. 634
Department of Planning & Development Services
Case No.
ZA18 -0006
Each variance is in regard to the required internal stacking / minimum throat
length for a commercial site with 200+ parking spaces (Section 5.2.d).
1) Driveway 1 (entrance to site from E. Kirkwood Blvd.)
Variance Requested: Allow approximately 143’ of stacking as opposed to the
required 150’.
2) Driveway 2 (northern entrance to site along N. White Chapel Blvd.)
Variance Requested: Allow approximately 122’ of stacking as opposed to the
required 150’.
3) Driveway 3 (southern entrance to site along N. White Chapel Blvd.)
Variance Requested: Allow approximately 122’ of stacking as opposed to the
required 150’.
4) Driveway 4 (entrance to site from SH 114 westbound feeder road)
Variance Requested: Allow approximately 42’ of stacking as opposed to the
required 150’.
REVISIONS: The table below highlights notable changes to the Zoning Document since last
presented to City Council. The applicant also provided a response letter addressing
comments from Development Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated June 12, 2018.
Notable Changes from Previous Submittal
Staff Comment Applicant Response / Change to Zoning Document
Reference that sub-grade retail and office
would be permitted
Page 24 updated to reference the sub-grade non-
residential spaces.
Indicate in legend that Carillon Towers will
be constructed during Phase I Addressed on page 14.
Clarify language about the kiosk use
Addressed on page 19. Reworded to clarify there are
(12) kiosks total with a total cumulative floor area of
1,500 square feet.
Remove wedding chapel from park
dedication area
Addressed on pages 19 and 37. The Wedding Chapel
will not be within the park dedication and revisions
were made to clarify this.
Indicate there will be “no-drive through
facility” (food service uses) if that is the intent
of the applicant
Addressed on page 37. In addition, the bank use was
also identified as “no drive-through facility” as
discussed with staff on 6-12-18.
Outdoor temporary removable displays and
sales for fairs, festivals and other special
events held in outdoor spaces should be
through approval of a Specific Use Permit,
rather than permitted by right.
Addressed on page 37. SUP will be required for this
use.
Add culinary school use to list of permitted
uses
Addressed on page 37. Commercial School, including
trade schools added as a permitted use with a
clarification to the City’s definition for the use in the
Southlake Zoning Ordinance, Section 4, to include
culinary schools.
Clarify note regarding off-street parking
requirements
Addressed on page 35. Parking reduction clarified to
be up to 22% or as shown on an approved site plan
application.
Case No.
ZA18 -0006
ACTION NEEDED: 1) Conduct a Public Hearing
2) Consider 2nd reading approval of the proposed Zoning Change and
Development Plan
ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information
(B) Vicinity Map
(C) Development Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated June 12, 2018
(D) Surrounding Property Owners Map
(E) Surrounding Property Owners Responses
Carillon Zoning Booklet (for City Council Members only)
Link to PowerPoint Presentation
Link to Applicant Presentation – May 17, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission
meeting
Plans / Other Exhibits:
Development Plan
Zoning Document
Ordinance No. 480-564d
Applicant Comment Response Letter
Driveway Exhibit
TIA Vol. 1
TIA Vol. 2
Consultant Review of TIA
Comment Cards – May 17, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Comment Cards – June 5, 2018 City Council meeting
STAFF CONTACT: Ken Baker (817) 748-8067
Jerod Potts (817) 748-8195
Case No. Attachment A
ZA18 -0006 Page 1
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
OWNER: HCCP Property Partners, LLC / The Southlake Salons of Voltera, LLC
APPLICANT: HCCP Development & Construction
PROPERTY SITUATION: Generally located east of N. White Chapel Blvd., south of E. Kirkwood
Blvd., west of Riviera Ln., and north of E. State HWY 114.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tracts 1, 1D, 1E, 1F, 1G, 3A, 3A01, 3A03, 3A04, 3A04A, 3A05, and
3A01B, Larkin H. Chivers Survey, Abstract No. 300, City of Southlake,
Tarrant County, Texas and located at 1775, 1781 and 1801 N. White
Chapel Blvd., 1840 Riviera Ln., 201 E. Kirkwood Blvd., and 100 through
300 E. State HWY 114.
LAND USE CATEGORY: Mixed Use
CURRENT ZONING: “ECZ” Employment Center Zoning District
HISTORY: May 20, 1997; City Council approved a zoning change and concept plan to
“NR-PUD” Non-Residential Planned Unit Development.
December 18, 2001; City Council approved a zoning change and concept
plan requiring a 300 ft. setback on N. Carroll Avenue, subject to City
Council discretion. The purpose of the zoning change and concept plan
was to incorporate newly acquired tracts of land into the existing “NR-PUD”,
revise parcel boundaries and permitted uses within the district.
On November 18, 2008 the City Council approved a Zoning Change and
Development Plan from ‘NR-PUD’ Non-Residential Planned Unit
Development and ‘C-2’ Local Retail Commercial District to ‘ECZ’
Employment Center Zoning District for Carillon under Planning Case ZA08-
031 (Ordinance No. 480-564).
September 4, 2012; City Council approved the request to amend
miscellaneous development regulations in the Carillon Zoning Booklet
under Planning Case ZA12-066 (Ordinance No. 480-564a).
November 6, 2014; Jacobs Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Hines Interest,
LP requested at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on November
6, 2014 to table indefinitely two applications: a Site Plan application for One
Carillon Court (ZA18-085) and a Zoning Change and Development Plan
application for the Carillon Corporate District (ZA14-102).
April 21, 2015; City Council voted to deny a 1st Reading request for a
Zoning Change and Development Plan for Carillon under Planning Case
ZA15-002 (Ordinance No. 564b). The purpose of this request was to
amend the current Carillon Zoning Book to add a roofing material permitted
in the EC Neighborhood - Chateaux District. The proposal intended to add
language that would have allowed metal as a permitted roof material to
Chateaux District.
April 18, 2017; Jacobs Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Hines Interest, LP
Case No. Attachment A
ZA18 -0006 Page 2
requested to withdrawal the following Planning Cases at the April 18, 2017
City Council meeting:
• ZA16-029 (Ordinance. No. 480-564B) – Zoning Change and
Development Plan for Carillon Corporate District
• ZA16-030 – Site Plan for Hotel Indigo Carillon
• ZA16-031 – Preliminary Plat for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Carillon –
Hotel Indigo
• Also at the April 18, 2017 City Council meeting, The City of
Southlake withdrew Planning Case ZA17-071 (Ordinance No. 480-
564C), which was a proposed Zoning Change and Development
Plan for Carillon Plaza District.
The following Planning Cases related to the Carillon Plaza District were
withdrawn by staff due to inactivity; the applicant did not ever make a formal
submittal:
• ZA16-081 – Site Plan for Carillon Salons of Volterra
• ZA16-082 – Site Plan for Carillon Wellness Center and Spa
• ZA16-083 – Preliminary Plat for the Carillon Plaza District
SOUTHLAKE 2030/2035
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: A detailed Comprehensive Plan Review has been prepared for this
development.
Link to Comprehensive Plan Review
TRANSPORTATION
ASSESSMENT: Traffic Impact
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared for this development.
CITIZEN INPUT: A SPIN Town Hall Forum was held for this project on July 15, 2017.
Link to SPIN Report
A Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee meeting was held on
January 10, 2017.
Link to Corridor Planning Committee Meeting Report
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION: May 17, 2018; Approved (6-0) as presented, subject to the revised staff
report dated May 17, 2018, further subject to the revised development plan
review summary no. 2, dated May 17, 2018, specifically granting the four
requested variances relating to driveway stacking, also with the
understanding that the Plaza District will include the EC-Edge uses to allow
the residential villas, Villa “A” as shown on the development plan, modifying
all the standards related to the development design and uses as presented
by the applicant indicated in the Carillon Plaza District Vision Zoning
Booklet dated May 17, 2018, also including in that approval the applicant’s
Tree Conservation Analysis as presented, further noting the applicant is
reviewing screening structures for the north side of the northern parking
garage and will arrive at one or more alternatives for consideration in front
of City Council.
Case No. Attachment A
ZA18 -0006 Page 3
CITY COUNCIL: June 5, 2018; Approved (5-0) 1st Reading subject to the staff report dated
May 30, 2018 and the development plan review summary no. 2, revised -
dated May 17, 2018, granting the following variances all related to
driveways; as it relates to driveway 1 which is the entrance to the site from
E. Kirkwood Blvd. allowing approximately 143’ of stacking as opposed to
the required 150’, as it relates to driveway 2 which is the northern entrance
to the site along N. White Chapel Blvd. allowing approximately 122’ of
stacking as opposed to the required 150’, as it relates to driveway 3 which
is the southern entrance to the site along N. White Chapel Blvd. allowing
approximately 122’ of stacking as opposed to the required 150’ and as it
relates to driveway 4 which is the entrance to the site from SH 114
westbound feeder road allowing approximately 42’ of stacking as opposed
to the required 150’, also granting the following, subject to the Planning &
Zoning Commission motion which stated the following, an understanding
that the Plaza District will include EC Edge uses to allow residential villas,
Villa Type “A” as shown on the development plan, allowing modifications to
all standards related to development design in uses as presented by the
applicant and indicated in the Carillon Plaza District Vision Zoning Booklet
provided in the City Council packet and dated June 5, 2018, allowing the
tree conservation analysis plan as presented, and finally noting that tonight
the applicant agrees that all lofts are owner-occupied and for-sale
properties.
STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Development Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated June 12,
2018.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA18 -0006 Page 0
Case No. Attachment C
ZA18 -0006 Page 1
DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY
Case No.: ZA18-0006 Review No.: 3 Date of Review: 6/12/18
Project Name: Zoning Change and Development Plan – Carillon Parc
APPLICANT: OWNER:
HCCP Development & Construction
HCCP Property Partners, LLC /
The Southlake Salons of Voltera, LLC
Laird Fairchild Laird Fairchild
161 Summit Ave. Ste. 200. Southlake, TX 161 Summit Ave. Ste. 200. Southlake, TX
Phone: (817) 455-9635 Phone: (817) 455-9635
Email: lfairchild@hccp.com Email: lfairchild@hccp.com
CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 5/30/18 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 CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT JEROD POTTS AT (817) 748-8195.
Planning Review
Jerod Potts
Policy & Strategic Initiative Principal Planner
Phone: (817) 748-8195
Email: jpotts@ci.southlake.tx.us
Updated Comments – June 12th
1. If approved by City Council, the applicant will need to submit a final Plaza District Vision Zoning
Booklet that addresses any and all conditions of approval with the City Council motion. City
staff will need to receive at least five (5) hard copies, as well as a PDF copy of this document
no later than 20 days after the date of approval.
2. It appears the quality of images were clearer in the second submittal (booklet dated May 17th)
than they were in the third submittal (booklet dated June 5th). Before printing the final booklet,
(per comment #1 above) please ensure the quality of images is clear, sharp and provide details
that define the architectural vision for the development proposal.
3. Add a reference in a narrative portion of the document that sub-grade retail and office may be
permitted.
4. On page 6 the narrative for 2035 Plan Support references “the table to the left” and this table is
on the right side of the page. Please correct this note.
5. Regarding the District Plan (page 7) please add the yellow dashed line to the narrative on the
right side of the page to demonstrate the EC-Edge (Village District) where Villa A single-family
residential detached product is proposed. The limit of the amended Plaza District is shown with
a white dashed line.
6. On page 8 the narrative for 2035 Land Uses references an Optional Land Use of “Restaurant
and Retail Specialty.” Please correct this reference to state “Restaurant and Specialty Retail
Overlay” to match the plan and exhibit.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA18 -0006 Page 2
7. The Employment Center Zoning District (ECZ) is different from the Employment Center
Optional Land Use Designation. On page 9 the narrative for 2035 Land Uses references “an
optional land use of Employment Center Zoning (ECZ).” Please correct this note to state “an
optional land use designation of Employment Center.” The next paragraph correctly references
ECZ District Zoning. Ensure these two references are correct throughout the Zoning Booklet.
8. On page 10 please reference “Specific Use Permit” rather than “Special Use Permit” in the last
line of the paragraph for Future Garage Redevelopment.
9. Also on page 10, the legend references the letter “L” for Health, Wellness, Fitness Uses,
however, the graphic to the left of the legend does not include this “L.” Please add this
reference / letter to the graphic for clarity.
10. On page 11 (Optional Land Use), please review and correct / revise the second paragraph. It
currently states that “One example of potential reconfiguration are shown to the right…”
however, the exhibit is to the left.
11. Also on page 11 (Optional Land Use), please clarify the last sentence that states “…conditions
and requirements of the amended PD, zoning will need to be met.” It appears that PD should
be replaced with ECZ.
12. The Carillon Parc Pathways exhibit on page 12 currently shows a purple line (Perimeter
Circulation 6’ min.) along the south boundary of the proposal, abutting the SH 114 frontage
road. On previous exhibits line was shown to be a red line (Primary Pathways 8’ min.). Please
revise this exhibit to demonstrate the correct width of this sidewalk per the Pathways Master
Plan.
13. Also on page 12 (Pathways) please correct the first sentence in the second paragraph to
identify the illustration “to the right” as the booklet currently states “to the left.”
14. On page 13 (Development Plan) please clarify the first sentence, as it appears it should read
“and plans shown ‘on’ this sheet are for reference only.”
15. On page 14 (Phasing Plan), please indicate in the legend that the Carillon towers are intended
to be constructed during Phase I, as mentioned in the narrative on the left side of the page, as
well as page 28 of the zoning booklet.
16. On page 14 (Phasing Plan), please match the wording of the legend for Future Phases with the
narrative and development plan. The legend just references “retail” but the development plan
shows these buildings to be “Retail, Restaurant, Office.”
17. On page 15 (Streets) please note that the City of Southlake does not maintain private streets /
alleys. The narrative currently notes that the “alley serving the single-family will be maintained
by the HOA.” However, let this comment serve to notify the developer that they are responsible
for the maintenance and upkeep on any private street / alley.
18. On page 15 (Streets) there do not appear to be any bollards adjacent to Palladian Dr. where
the 8’ Primary Pathway is shown from the street to the center of the development. The
applicant will need to indicate either graphically, in narrative form, or both how vehicular traffic
will be kept from this entrance. This can be indicated at site plan submittal.
19. Also on page 15 (Streets) please correct the spelling of Fire Marshal.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA18 -0006 Page 3
20. On page 15 (Carillon Parc Circulation Plan) there is a reference to an “E” street. However,
there is no section for “E” labeled on page 16.
21. On page 17 (Entries) please clarify the final sentence in the second paragraph. It appears the
sentence should state “and access ‘to’ proposed uses to the north.”
22. On page 18 (Park Dedication) please correct the second sentence that currently states “The
large central fountain is primary focal point for the central plaza…” It appears this should say
“fountain is ‘a’ primary focal point…”
23. Also on page 18 please correct and clarify the final paragraph / sentence within the exhibit for
the Park Dedication as it currently states “The tree island park area….from the parking areas
to through the restaurant cluster to the main park.”
24. Regarding the Kiosks on page 19, reword the description of the total square footage allowed
as well as the location of the kiosks. As currently written, the developer is capped in terms of
kiosk square footage and restricted to the number of kiosks by location.
25. On page 19 (Kiosks), the first paragraph states “as illustrated on page 22 in the Carillon Parc
District Vision Zoning Booklet…” Please confirm this page reference is correct. It appears the
applicant meant to reference page 28.
26. Regarding the Wedding Chapel on page 19, it appears this portion of the development was
removed from park dedication (as shown on pages 18 and 27). If it is in fact the intent of the
developer to remove this from the park dedication, please clarify.
27. In the Architectural Vision exhibit pages (pages 29 – 32) the twelfth item refers to “Enhances
Walkway.” This may or may not have meant to be “Enhanced Walkway.” Consider revising if
applicable.
28. On page 34 (Appendix A) under 1.0 – Street Design Standards, please correct the spelling for
right-of-way. It currently says “right-ow-way.”
29. On page 35 (Appendix A) under Lighting (the third row in the table), the note references “As a
part of the “development plan application…” Please revise this wording to state “site plan
application.”
30. On page 36 (Appendix A) under 7.2 (Chapel – Materials), please clarify if the developer
intended for the material to read “painted and textured concrete panels” or as it currently reads
“painted, textured concrete panels.”
31. On page 36 (Appendix A) under 7.2 (Chapel – Awnings / Canopies), after the words galvanized
tin is the semicolon symbol “;” whereas the intention may have been to include a comma “,”
symbol. Please revise if necessary.
32. On page 37 (Appendix B) (Commercial Uses – Food Service Uses) please add “no-drive
through facility” to the second row as indicated on the third row.
33. On page 37 (Appendix B) the fourth item in the first table (Accessory Buildings) is followed by a
superscript “1” referencing the notes in the bottom right corner of the page. Was this
superscript reference to these notes intentional for this item?
Case No. Attachment C
ZA18 -0006 Page 4
34. On page 37 (Appendix B) the first table (Commercial Uses – Retail Sales or Service) appears
to be cut-off at the very bottom. Was there supposed to be another row in this table? If not,
please delete this row.
35. The final use listed in the table on page 37 (Appendix B) is for outdoor temporary removable
displays. The use status for this should reference being contingent upon approval of a Specific
Use Permit (SUP).
36. On page 37 (Appendix B) the wording for the fourth note at the bottom right of the page states
that “The wedding chapel may be developed as a permitted use within the park boundary or
outside the park boundary…” If the intention is to completely remove the wedding chapel from
the dedicated park space, this note should be revised.
37. In the Tree Conservation Analysis (Appendix C) on page 38, the description / text for items 5
through 8 appears to be cut-off. Please clarify these statements in the table or reformat so the
original statements are legible.
38. In the legend on page 38 (Appendix C) where Environmental Resource Protection Zone is
shown please correct the first bullet-point; revise “2030 Southlake Sustainable Master Plan to
“Southlake 2030 Sustainability Master Plan.”
Public Works/Engineering Review
Steve Anderson, P.E.
Deputy City Engineer
Phone: (817) 748-8101
Fax: (817) 748-8077
E-mail: sanderson@ci.southlake.tx.us
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. This review is preliminary. Additional requirements may be necessary with the review of civil
construction plans.
2. New Requirement: Provide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan per TXR150000. The plan
must include all required elements in Part III, Section F of the permit. The City of Southlake
especially reviews Part III, Section F, (1) (g), Maps. The review is for completeness of a plan to
prevent pollution (especially sediment) to the Separate Storm Sewer System. It is highly
recommended the project manager provide a series of maps for complex projects, including one
map showing controls during mass grading and infrastructure, one map showing controls during
vertical construction, and one map showing final stabilization (may be but not always equitable to
the landscape plan). Please include timelines in relation to the project activities for installation and
removal of controls. SWPPP shall be submitted by second review of the civil construction
plans.
3. NEW REQUIREMENT: Submit with Civil Construction Plans a Retaining Wall Layout sheet.
4. Retaining walls greater than 4-feet including the footing shall require structural plans prepared by a
registered engineer in the State of Texas. Retaining walls shall require a permit from the Building
Inspections Department prior to construction.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA18 -0006 Page 5
SANITARY SEWER:
1. Be mindful of sanitary sewer manhole locations in the public gathering areas.
INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS:
* Submit 22”x34” civil construction plans and a completed Construction Plan Checklist directly to
the Public Works Administration Department for review. Please allow 15 business days for
review. The plans shall conform to the most recent construction plan checklist, standard
details and general notes which are located on the City’s website:
https://www.cityofsouthlake.com/152/Engineering-Design-Standards
* Submit with Civil Construction Plans a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan which outlines
pre-construction, construction and post-construction erosion control measures.
* 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.
Tree Conservation/Landscape Review
Keith Martin
Landscape Administrator
Phone: (817) 748-8229
Fax: (817) 481-5713
E-mail: kmartin@ci.southlake.tx.us
TREE CONSERVATION COMMENTS:
* The proposed development is consistent with the approved comprehensive Carillon Tree
Conservation Analysis but if it was conventional zoning it would not comply with the Existing Tree
Conservation Preservation Requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance.
There is 38.4% of existing tree cover on the site and under conventional zoning 60% of the
existing tree cover is required to be preserved. The applicant is proposing to preserve 33% of the
existing tree cover.
* 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.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA18 -0006 Page 6
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.
For property sought to be zoned for the Downtown zoning district or a planned development zoning
district, including an S-P-1 Site Plan, S-P-2 Site Plan, Transition, Rural Conservation, Planned Unit
Development, or Employment Center zoning district, the City Council shall consider the application
for a Conservation Analysis or Plan in conjunction with the corresponding development application
(as established in Table 1.0). The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the application
and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the application. The City Council shall
approve the Plan or Analysis if the Council finds that the Plan or Analysis provides for the:
i. placement of building pads, parking areas, driveways, streets, and utility easements so as
to maximize the preservation of environmental features of the property including mature
tree stands, natural creeks and ponds, and significant grades;
ii. maximizes the preservation of tree cover preservation areas indicated on the
Environmental Resource Protection Map;
iii. maximizes the preservation of existing tree stands with the potential to buffer residential
areas from the noise, glare, and visual effects of nonresidential uses;
iv. maximizes the preservation of existing trees, if any, adjoining a natural or man-made
drainage creek;
v. maximizes the preservation of existing protected trees along rural roadways and other
streets as identified and prioritized in the Street Typology designation; and
vi. mitigation of altered trees through proposed tree replacement procedures pursuant to this
Ordinance.
* Please be aware that all existing trees shown to be preserved on the City Council approved Tree
Conservation Plan must be preserved and protected during all phases and construction of the
development. Alteration or removal of any of the existing trees shown to be preserved on the
approved Tree Conservation Plan is a violation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance and the zoning
as approved by the Southlake City Council. Please ensure that the layout of all structures,
easements, utilities, structures grading, and any other structure proposed to be constructed do not
conflict with existing trees intended to be preserved.
LANDSCAPE, PARKING, AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS:
1. In the Surface parking lot minimum interior landscaping portion of the Development Standards, it
says that landscape islands shall be a minimum of 12’ in width on the ends of parking space
groups and 10’ in width internal to the parking, and parking space groups shall be no more than 20
Case No. Attachment C
ZA18 -0006 Page 7
spaces long without a landscape island.
There are numerous landscape islands that are slightly below 12’ in width and rows of parking
which exceed 20 spaces long which are not broken by an internal landscape island.
2. The tree wells or continuous planters are proposed to be minimum 5’ x 5’. Please ensure when
trees are provided within tree wells that the length and width of the tree wells is at least 6’ x 6’ or 8’
x 4’, or provide a planting strip consistent with the Streetscape Standards within Section 49, Table
49-2, of the Zoning Ordinance.
* Indicates informational comment.
# Indicates required items comment.
Fire Department Review
Kelly Clements
Fire Marshal
Phone: (817) 748-8233
Fax: (817) 748-8181
E-mail: kclements@ci.southlake.tx.us
GENERAL COMMENTS:
The required backflow protection (double check valve) for the sprinkler systems can be located
on the riser if the riser is within 100 feet of the water main, measured linearly along the length
of the pipe. If the riser is further than 100 feet from the main, the double check valve shall be
in a vault. Riser rooms shall be a minimum of 5’X5’ if the double check is not located on the
riser, or a minimum of 6’X6’ if it is located on the riser. (Riser room locations not indicated on
plans)
FIRE HYDRANT COMMENTS:
Fire Department Connections for sprinkler systems must be within 100 feet of a fire hydrant,
and within 50 feet of fire department fire lane access. (Fire Department Connection locations
not indicated on plans) Add FDC locations, which can be a wall mount FDC or a remote FDC
connection, and ensure fire hydrants on the property are spaced as necessary to meet the
requirements)
Fire hydrants are required at a maximum spacing of 500 feet for commercial locations that
contain fully sprinkled buildings. (Fire hydrant locations not indicated on plans)
FIRE LANE COMMENTS:
Fire apparatus access, needs to be an all-weather surface, asphalt or concrete, a minimum of
24 feet wide in access areas provided for low rise structures and a minimum of 26 feet wide in
access areas provided for high rise structures, with 6 inch red striping that contains 4 inch
white lettering that states “FIRE LANE NO PARKING” every 25 feet. The fire lane access
areas must be able to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus. (Minimum of 85,000
pounds GVW) (Both high rise structures in Carillon Parc are required to have the 26 feet wide
fire lane access) (Also, the fire lane in the Piazza does not meet the 24 foot minimum
requirements, and if the Piazza is the access for the Boutique Hotel the width must be 26 feet
wide on the side fronting the hotel)
Case No. Attachment C
ZA18 -0006 Page 8
Fire lanes require a minimum 30 foot inside turn radius and a minimum 54 foot outside turn
radius. (Per 2015 I.F.C. Sec. 503.2.4)
Community Service / Parks Department Review
Candice Edmonson
Deputy Director
Phone: (817) 748-8311
Fax: (817) 748-8027
Email: cedmonson@ci.southlake.tx.us
Comments will be provided to the applicant at a later date.
Informational Comments:
* The residential Villas will be served by a private alley – the developer / applicant should reach
out to Republic Waste Services to determine the needs for garbage / recycling access. The
number for customer service is (817) 317-2424.
* No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan. A separate building permit is
required prior to construction of any signs.
* On each exhibit, please label all streets and drives for clarity of reference with name, letter or
number.
* All mechanical equipment must be screened of view right-of-ways and residential properties in
accordance with the Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended.
* Show any intended lighting. All lighting must comply with the Lighting Ordinance No. 693, as
amended with regard to type of lighting, intensity, glare and spill-over. 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 a portion of 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.
* Masonry materials shall mean and include brick, stucco, plaster, cement, concrete tilt wall, stone,
rock or other masonry material of equal characteristics. Stucco and plaster shall only be
considered a masonry material when applied using a 3-step process over diamond metal lath
mesh to a 7/8th inch thickness or by other processes producing comparable cement stucco finish
with equal or greater strength and durability specifications. Synthetic products (e.g., EIFS –exterior
insulation and finish systems, hardi plank, or other materials of similar characteristics) shall not be
considered a masonry material.
* Development must comply with all requirements in Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 33.21,
Building Color Standards for Non-Residential Buildings.
* 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,
Case No. Attachment C
ZA18 -0006 Page 9
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.
* All driveways/points of ingress/egress must comply with the Driveway Ordinance No. 634, as
amended). The applicant is requesting approval of all streets and driveways as represented on
the development plan.
* Staff recommends providing a materials sample board.
* All development must comply with the underlying zoning district regulations.
* With Site Plan and/or Plat submittal an open space management plan may be required.
* Consider adding a note that states all square footage, building heights, stories, etc. illustrated
on the plan are representative only.
* Please ensure that all typographic errors and misspellings are corrected within the Carillon
Zoning Booklet before the next submittal.
* Denotes Informational Comment
Case No. Attachment D
ZA18 -0006 Page 1
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS
Carillon Parc – Plaza District
SPO # Owner Zoning Property Address Acreage Response
1. ALEXANDER TRUST ECZ 1804 ST. PHILIP AVE 0.19945
158 NR
2. ALFORD, CARL S* ECZ 1812 ST. PHILIP AVE 0.18305
543 F
3. BANK OF THE OZARKS ECZ 105 ST. TROPEZ DR 0.36645
567 NR
4. BENOIT, ROBERT ECZ 1813 RIVIERA LN 0.12002
864 F
5. BERNHARD, ANTHONY
(DUNCAN, BRIAN)* ECZ 1625 RIVIERA LN 0.12025
610 F
6. BIEKER, RON ECZ 1621 RIVIERA LN 0.12136
792 F
7. BOISSEVAIN, DAVID ECZ 1609 RIVIERA LN 0.11872
522 NR
8. BRENSINGER, PATRICK ECZ 300 ORLEANS DR 0.48284
587 F
9. BRYCE, DANIEL L ECZ 1825 RIVIERA LN 0.12128
616 NR
10. BURCH, MIKE J ECZ 1633 RIVIERA LN 0.16446
477 NR
11. CARILLON HOME OWNERS
ASSOCIATI ECZ 1750 LE MANS LN 0.47625
315 NR
Case No. Attachment D
ZA18 -0006 Page 2
SPO # Owner Zoning Property Address Acreage Response
12. CARILLON HOME OWNERS
ASSOCIATI ECZ 1650 LE MANS LN 0.35808
190 NR
13. CARILLON HOME OWNERS
ASSOCIATI ECZ 300 CARILLON CT 0.15378
321 NR
14. CARILLON HOME OWNERS
ASSOCIATI ECZ 350 ORLEANS DR 0.83220
465 NR
15. CARILLON HOME OWNERS
ASSOCIATI ECZ 401 E KIRKWOOD BLVD 0.66753
260 NR
16. CHAPEL OWNER LP SP2 101 W SH 114 6.16280
419 NR
17. CLARK, JAMES C ECZ 1805 RIVIERA LN 0.13046
004 NR
18. CLARK, ROBERT K ECZ 1701 RIVIERA LN 0.16632
808 NR
19. DAVENPORT, DANIEL F ECZ 104 ST. TROPEZ DR 0.36088
599 F
20. DOMINION SOUTHLAKE
PROPERTIES SP2 101 E SH 114 0.40400
000 NR
21. DOMINION SOUTHLAKE
PROPERTIES SP2 201 E SH 114 0.07800
000 NR
22. DOMINION SOUTHLAKE
PROPERTIES SP2 301 E SH 114 2.69787
560 NR
23. DOMINION SOUTHLAKE
PROPERTIES SP2 319 E SH 114 2.85980
238 NR
24. DOMINION SOUTHLAKE
PROPERTIES SP2 1350 N WHITE CHAPEL
BLVD
6.33041
384 NR
25. EAMSHERANGKOON, KRIDDANAT ECZ 401 MONTE CARLO DR 0.18936
396 NR
26. ELBORAI, EMILY ECZ 1717 RIVIERA LN 0.14925
475 NR
27. ELIESON, JOHN C ECZ 1808 ST. PHILIP AVE 0.17904
708 NR
28. ELVING, CARL ECZ 1709 RIVIERA LN 0.12305
784 NR
29. FLURY, JANE ECZ 1809 RIVIERA LN 0.12660
996 NR
30. GOLLA, HEMANTHA ECZ 101 ST. TROPEZ DR 0.36601
488 NR
31. GUTHRIE, JACQUELINE* ECZ 1833 RIVIERA LN 0.12142
453 F
32. HCCP PROPERTY PARTNERS LLC ECZ 1840 RIVIERA LN 2.33098
844 F
33. HINES SOUTHLAKE LAND LP ECZ 360 E SH 114 9.02049
048 NR
34. HOPKINS DALLAS PROPERTIES LTD C2 140 W SH 114 0.84700
000 NR
35. HUSAIN, ASIF ECZ 1801 RIVIERA LN 0.14272
695 NR
Case No. Attachment D
ZA18 -0006 Page 3
SPO # Owner Zoning Property Address Acreage Response
36. KELLY, LAURA ECZ 1601 RIVIERA LN 0.20868
408 NR
37. LEE, ERVING ECZ 1821 RIVIERA LN 0.12104
266 NR
38. LEE, SANG ECZ 1705 RIVIERA LN 0.11939
082 O
39. LY, LIEM ECZ 1841 RIVIERA LN 0.11960
453 NR
40. MARINELLI, RODNEY ECZ 301 ST. TROPEZ DR 0.36061
990 NR
41. MARTIN, MARGARET ECZ 1820 ST. PHILIP AVE 0.25555
319 NR
42. MATOUSEK, TIMOTHY P ECZ 1713 RIVIERA LN 0.12173
280 NR
43. MAY, MARTHA L ECZ 1837 RIVIERA LN 0.12048
323 NR
44. MCCAW, NEIL ECZ 1617 RIVIERA LN 0.12024
092 NR
45. MEAD, MICHAEL E* ECZ 1829 RIVIERA LN 0.12123
364 F
46. MEISNER, JEFFREY* ECZ 401 PALLADIAN BLVD 0.15747
883 F
47. MICHELSEN, ROBIN M ECZ 1800 ST. PHILIP AVE 0.19666
672 NR
48. ORTIZ, LOUIS M ECZ 400 PALLADIAN BLVD 0.15394
665 F
49. PATEL, PARESH ECZ 1816 ST. PHILIP AVE 0.18175
905 NR
50. PATEL, TEJAL ECZ 304 MONTPELIER DR 0.14853
104 NR
51. PERRY, RICHARD B ECZ 308 MONTPELIER DR 0.12745
968 F
52. PLIMPTON, THOMAS E ECZ 1817 RIVIERA LN 0.11925
504 NR
53. PREMO, DAVID** ECZ 1605 RIVIERA LN 0.12249
017 F
54. ROSS, FREDRICK J ECZ 1629 RIVIERA LN 0.12054
022 NR
55. RUCCI, COREY ECZ 1613 RIVIERA LN 0.12119
434 NR
56. SATANI, DHAVAL D ECZ 209 ST. TROPEZ DR 0.36229
041 NR
57. SAULS, MARIA ECZ 400 MONTPELIER DR 0.35649
091 NR
58. SHARON R. BELL LIVING TRUST ECZ 306 MONTPELIER DR 0.12574
742 NR
59. SHIVERS FAMILY PTNRSHIP LTD AG 1900 N WHITE CHAPEL
BLVD
39.5380
0000 NR
Case No. Attachment D
ZA18 -0006 Page 4
SPO # Owner Zoning Property Address Acreage Response
60. SHIVERS, FRANCES BIRD EST AG 1800 N WHITE CHAPEL
BLVD
1.19700
000 NR
61. SOLEIL DEVELOPMENT LLC ECZ 1845 RIVIERA LN 0.13577
306 NR
62. SOUTHLAKE LAND HOLDINGS LP SP2 335 E SH 114 15.0880
7843 NR
63. SOUTHLAKE SALONS OF VOLTERRA
L ECZ 201 E KIRKWOOD BLVD 1.68742
609 F
64. SOUTHLAKE, CITY OF ECZ 100 E KIRKWOOD BLVD 0.63163
791 NR
65. SOUTHLAKE, CITY OF ECZ 400 E KIRKWOOD BLVD 4.91215
960 NR
66. STEWART, KRISTOPHER* ECZ 100 ST. TROPEZ DR 0.38562
905 F
67. SUMMIT QI PROPERTIES LLC ECZ 250 E SH 114 3.62391
723 F
68. SUMMIT QI PROPERTIES LLC ECZ 1700 N CARROLL AVE 8.01443
171 F
69. SUMMIT QI PROPERTIES LLC ECZ 300 E SH 114 3.93653
770 F
70. SUMMIT QI PROPERTIES LLC ECZ 1801 N WHITE CHAPEL
BLVD
10.5042
2183 F
71. SUMMIT QI PROPERTIES LLC ECZ 1781 N WHITE CHAPEL
BLVD
3.07031
526 F
72. SUMMIT QI PROPERTIES LLC ECZ 1775 N WHITE CHAPEL
BLVD
0.32161
557 F
73. SUMMIT QI PROPERTIES LLC ECZ 100 E SH 114 4.60200
383 F
74. SUMMIT QI PROPERTIES LLC ECZ 190 E SH 114 1.29411
695 F
75. SUMMIT QI PROPERTIES LLC ECZ 200 E SH 114 1.04816
289 F
76. SUMMIT QI PROPERTIES LLC ECZ 240 E SH 114 0.75731
557 F
77. Superintendent of Carroll ISD NR
78. Superintendent of Grapevine
Colleyville ISD NR
79. Superintendent of Keller ISD NR
80. Superintendent of Northwest ISD NR
81. THRASHER, WESLEY AG 1965 N WHITE CHAPEL
BLVD
1.85499
578 NR
82. THRASHER, WESLEY A AG 1975 N WHITE CHAPEL
BLVD
1.17954
781 NR
83. VISSERS, EMILY ECZ 310 MONTPELIER DR 0.17258
057 NR
84. WALKER, ANDREW T ECZ 213 ST. TROPEZ DR 0.36128
293 F
Case No. Attachment D
ZA18 -0006 Page 5
SPO # Owner Zoning Property Address Acreage Response
85. WEISS, SCOTT* ECZ 300 MONTPELIER DR 0.24349
511 NC
86. ZVONECEK, BRIAN C2 1700 N WHITE CHAPEL
BLVD
1.63600
000 NR
Responses: F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response NC: No Comment
Notices Sent: Sixty-Seven (67)
Responses Received 200’: Twenty-eight (28)
In Favor: Twenty-six (26)
Opposed: One (1)
Undecided: NR
No Response: Thirty-nine (39)
No Comment: One (1)
*Public Comment Card received during the May 17, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission
meeting
**Public Comment Card received during the June 5, 2018 City Council meeting (1st Reading)
Case No. Attachment E
ZA18 -0006 Page 1
Case No. Attachment E
ZA18 -0006 Page 2
Case No. Attachment E
ZA18 -0006 Page 3
Case No. Attachment E
ZA18 -0006 Page 4
Case No. Attachment E
ZA18 -0006 Page 5
Case No. Attachment E
ZA18 -0006 Page 6
Case No. Attachment E
ZA18 -0006 Page 7
Case No. Attachment E
ZA18 -0006 Page 8
Case No. Attachment E
ZA18 -0006 Page 9
Case No. Attachment E
ZA18 -0006 Page 10
Case No. Attachment E
ZA18 -0006 Page 11
Case No. Attachment E
ZA18 -0006 Page 12
Case No. Attachment E
ZA18 -0006 Page 13
Case No. Attachment E
ZA18 -0006 Page 14
Case No. Attachment E
ZA18 -0006 Page 15
Case No. Attachment E
ZA18 -0006 Page 16
Case No. Attachment E
ZA18 -0006 Page 17
Case No. Attachment E
ZA18 -0006 Page 18
Case No. Attachment E
ZA18 -0006 Page 19
Case No. Attachment E
ZA18 -0006 Page 20
Case No. Attachment E
ZA18 -0006 Page 21