Item 6A -2035 Corridor Committee Meeting Report
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Meeting Report
Meeting 31 – March 30, 2021
MEETING
LOCATION: 100 E. Dove Road, Southlake, Texas 76092
DPS North Training Facility Auditorium
IN
ATTENDANCE:
• City Council Members: Chad Patton, Shawn McCaskill, John Huffman
• Planning & Zoning Commission Members: Daniel Kubiak, Gina Phalen,
Michael Forman, Michael Springer, Austin Reynolds
• Park Board Member: Frances Scharli
• City Staff: Ken Baker, Dennis Killough, Madeline Oujesky, Jerod Potts,
Daniel Cortez, Chris Tribble
AGENDA
ITEMS:
1. Call to Order.
2. Administrative Comments.
3. Review, discuss and make recommendations on the proposed Lake Point
Assisted Living and Memory Care facility being a conversion of an existing
office building for up to 16 memory care units located at 1211 S. White
Chapel Blvd., generally located 300 ft. south of the southeast corner of S.
White Chapel Blvd. and E Continental Blvd.
4. Review, discuss and make recommendations on a proposed 7-Eleven
convenience store and gas station, located at 140 W. SH 114, generally
located at the northwest corner of W. SH 114 and N. White Chapel Blvd.
5. Review, discuss and make recommendations on redevelopment of the
Texaco gas station, convenience store and car wash located at 100 W.
Southlake Blvd into a 4,600 sq. ft. retail building for up to three tenants,
which could include food & beverage with drive -thru service, financial and
general retail uses, being a portion of the Suntree Square Shopping Center
generally located at the northwest corner of W. Southlake Boulevard and N.
White Chapel Blvd.
6. Review, discuss and make recommendations on the proposed
development of The Learning Experience daycare located at 112 River
Oaks Drive, generally located north of the northwest corner of River Oaks
Dr. and W. Southlake Blvd.
7. Review, discuss and make recommendations on the proposed installation
of an above grade detention structure for Methodist Southlake Hospital
located at 441 and 451 E. SH 114, generally located between E. SH 114
and E. Highland St., just east of N. White Chapel Blvd.
8. Review, discuss and make recommendations on the proposed installation
of 3 electric generators and 15 ft. tall screening wall at Central Market within
the Shops of Southlake, located at 1425 E. Southlake Blvd, generally
located at the southwest corner of E. Southlake Blvd. and S. Carroll Ave.
9. Review, discuss and make recommendations on the proposed Verizon
Wireless Campus addition located at 2600 W. Kirkwood Blvd. generally
located northwest of the Verizon Network Equipment Center at 500 W. Dove
Rd
10. Review, discuss and make recommendations on the proposed Extra Space
Storage addition of a 107,010 sq. ft., 3-story climate controlled storage
building at the existing storage facility located at 1928 Brumlow Ave.,
generally located on the west side of Brumlow Ave. approximately 700 ft .
north of SH 26
11. Review, discuss and make recommendations on the proposed Southlake
Town Square Garden District Residences Site Plan located at 351 Central
Ave., generally located on the east side of Central Ave. between Meeting
St. and Park Ridge Blvd
12. Adjournment.
MEETING
OVERVIEW:
On March 30, 2021 the Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee
held their thirty-first meeting. The Committee was sent a packet of
materials prior to the meeting that were to be discussed during the
session. A meeting agenda was posted, and the meeting time was
advertised on the City’s website. The following meeting report focuses on
discussion points made during the meeting by members of the
Committee, public and City staff. This report is neither verbatim nor does
it represent official meeting minutes; rather it serves to inform elected and
appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues and questions
raised by the Committee, City staff, and any attendees of the meeting.
Interested parties are strongly encouraged to follow development cases
through the process. Please visit CityofSouthlake.com/Planning for more
information.
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #7 – MSH Detention Pond
Meeting #31 – March 30, 2021 Page 4
ITEM #7 DISCUSSION – Review, discuss and make recommendations on the
proposed installation of an above grade detention structure for Methodist
Southlake Hospital located at 441 and 451 E. SH 114, generally located between E.
SH 114 and E. Highland St., just east of N. White Chapel Blvd.
Staff presentation: Dennis Killough
• Modify detention structure at Methodist Southlake Hospital
o New above ground detention structure
o Current underground detention structure has failed
• Zoning: S-P-2 480-527 “Generalized Site Plan District”
• Concept / Landscape Plans
o Underground structure will be removed, and above ground structure will
be placed
o Deepest portion of detention pond is approx. 10ft
Questions for staff by the Committee:
Daniel Kubiak: What was the context behind installing the system underground in the
first place?
Dennis Killough: I believe it allowed space to handle the structure with the ability to
have surface paving and parking on top of it.
John Huffman: So, this is a detention pond? For the benefit of the audience can you
explain the difference between detention and retention pond s.
Dennis Killough: Yes. Detention pond is primarily dry unless there are rain events.
Retention ponds will keep a certain water surface elevation throughout the year.
John Huffman: So, when we drive around Southlake, developments with ponds (i.e.,
filled with water) are normally retention ponds?
Dennis Killough: Yes, that is correct. There is a fair number of them around Southlake.
Applicant presentation: David Ransom
• Approved detention pond in 2009
o The system was placed underground to maximize the developable
property on the 30-acre site.
• There is a failure in the portion of the system and the other portion is likely to fail
in the future – it must be removed
• Simplest solution is to replace the current system with a surface detention
system, which is a structure that is not subject to everything that has adversely
affected the underground structure
• Damage – excess settling on the fire lane, as well as water ponding
o Diminished capacity inside system, breeches, and chamber wracking to
address
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #7 – MSH Detention Pond
Meeting #31 – March 30, 2021 Page 5
• Conclusions – whole system needs to be replaced
• Fix – installation of new surface detention system and removal of old system
o Including grounding stone, retaining walls, safety fence, and new
landscape of buffer yard requirements on East side of the site
o Also fixing damage to fire lane, landscaping, and irrigation
• Adding capacity to the floodplain
Questions for applicant by the Committee:
Michael Springer: What was the root cause of the failure?
Applicant: There were several issues. Specifically, design, construction, and
appropriateness of the system for this soil formation.
Daniel Kubiak: I understand goal of project; however, especially along SH 114, the
designs look too utilitarian. Can you not accomplish the same thing with a retention
pond and landscaping to make it an attractive feature?
Applicant: With the elevation and capacity in the basin, filling the area with water will
not create a visible feature. Therefore, a retention pond is not reasonably feasible for
the solution. The detention basin is utilitarian and a functionary piece. We are open to
adding additional landscaping to screen along SH 114 corridor to help soften the look.
Daniel Kubiak: Is this an SUP request?
Dennis Killough: Site plan application.
Daniel Kubiak: Is there a variance within it? Do we have to grant this or stick with the
original system that was approved?
Ken Baker: If the proposal is inconsistent with the original concept plan, then that may
give you some basis.
Shawn McCaskill: Personally, I can't imagine approving something like this along SH
114. I would like to see a retention concept or some sort of hybrid. We understand there
is a big problem, but we cannot accept this proposal as is. I suggest not wasting more
time and energy on this concept.
John Huffman: Agreed.
Applicant: This detention system is standard and where you would see everywhere as
a depression in the ground. This is what was approved as part of phase I in 2009. We
were hoping for some consideration. Since the underground system has failed, we do
not want to repeat that system and suffer the same fate time and time again.
John Huffman: Is retention pond not possible?
Applicant: We have not discussed this, but do not see a retention system as being
viable compared to a detention system. If we allow this to be retention will need to go
deeper. The storage you see currently in the aerials is needed for storage of the water
now. Additional water would be deeper. It would not create an amenity, just a deeper
hole with a deeper pond.
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #7 – MSH Detention Pond
Meeting #31 – March 30, 2021 Page 6
Michael Springer: So, we would not be able to see a retention feature anyway because
it would need to be deeper?
Applicant: Correct. It is vertical now because we need the storage. We just don’t have
the space for a slopped feature.
John Huffman: We understand the predicament, but I agree with Councilmember
McCaskill that I can’t imagine where I vote for that. It is unattractive and it's along our
corridor. This is a key piece of property on a key corridor. Our interest is maintaining this
site. Maybe there’s an opportunity to provide options to review?
Shawn McCaskill: We are willing to be flexible with the bigger picture to make this
work. Converse with staff to help think of creative ideas to make this space attractive.
Applicant: Will more substantial landscape screening work?
John Huffman: I think additional landscaping is a default to cover ugly spaces. We
have been promised big landscaping packages in the past that have not come through,
so we are hesitant to approve something like this with the promise that landscaping
would come through.
Shawn McCaskill: I recommend thinking of creative solutions. We are willing to work to
find a solution.
Applicant: We want to work with you to find a viable solution.
Daniel Kubiak: I assume this proposal is the most efficient cost-effective solution for
the site?
Applicant: Yes, cost is an issue. This project is a significant investment to replace this
system. We will need to regroup and strategize to address your concerns presented.
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #7 – MSH Detention Pond
Meeting #31 – March 30, 2021 Page 7
STAFF PRESENTATION SHOWN TO COMMITTEE:
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #7 – MSH Detention Pond
Meeting #31 – March 30, 2021 Page 8
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #7 – MSH Detention Pond
Meeting #31 – March 30, 2021 Page 9
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #7 – MSH Detention Pond
Meeting #31 – March 30, 2021 Page 10
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #7 – MSH Detention Pond
Meeting #31 – March 30, 2021 Page 11
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #7 – MSH Detention Pond
Meeting #31 – March 30, 2021 Page 12