Item 6A - Presentation•
Item 6A ZA21-0039
Site Plan
Mustang Business Park
FA
ZA21-0039
Future Land Use Land Use Designation:
1800 SH Zia Industrial and
i 100-Year Floodplain
Future Land Use Update
LU—TYPE
100-Year Flood Plain
Corps of Engineers Propeit
- Public ParklOpen Space
Public/Semi-Public
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
g+� Office Commercial
Retail Commercial
Mixed Use
- Town Center
Regional Retail
Industrial
II345 690 lam
Feet
.: IT G ]Ft
y s�
Zoning
1800 S H 26
1-1: Industrial District
0 AG 0 C1
® RE 0 C2
0 SF1A C3
j
0 SF1B C4
® SF2 NR-PUD
;;12
0 SF30 HG
0 SF20A 0 B1
0 SF20B 0 B2
- R-PLIa 0 11
0 MF1 0 12
OMF2 OSP1
�MH OSP2
CS 0 OT
0 01 ® TZO
0 02 0 ECZ
-, --DT.M1 YG=q
11 1
PU❑
i
. L
F'
I k- •
,�11! Erb
�-
1 ONO .• � � � k . f . "�:.
0 I
IJ
,- fn - s
P.
- 14 7.1 �
S • f � ;r� �� �, � _ is � F ,1
�HHE
'LLLLLLLILLLLLLLLU
Aerial View
.!'.pis• ��� , f. .'"�••
I"
C-agonoStadium
t
R
Iva
wMustang,Panther Stadium3
�+ rr'Rse �� ���•� � i 4 sl
-.-Timberline
Ele gy;ary Schvn �41*,,- "
r evine.HIII gh.Sch I
JPS�H~e`althCenter.:
^4 � ►abevinelColleyville
~� > Wilower
Butterfly'Habi 2a
2400 Mustang Cl 9
Southlakojexas 7
♦ Google
(& . street Yew
Street View
�S
� � ! � � �i
_ - �c -- t----gym -- --
o
` Height 39'3„
�i Height 39' g Height 35' Height 35'
I L e II� ,{
I
II g
I ,
�I x
r
1
- -- --- >
``
r �I
v.
' m t
Q
-iC--a Driveway relocated to meet
Height 39'9" -` - stacking depth - min. 150'
�` �'.. Height 35' required and 190' shown
Wig. dl Building heights reduced to 35'
to comply with "I-1" District
April 8, 2021 May 20, 2021
a� 1 ZA21-0039
ZA21-0007
60' private street easement for future access
GENERALSITE DATA
LOT AREA (SQUARE FEET AND ACRES)
1,143,014 SF/ 26.24 A C
EXISTI NG ZON ING
I1(LIGHT INDUSTRIAL)
PROPOSED ZONI N G
11( LIGHT INDUSTRIAL)
EX LAND USE
VACANT
LAND USE DESIGNATION
INDUSTRIAL AND 10I}YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
PROP LAND USE
5PECULATIVE DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSE
BUILDING HEIGHT (#STORIES)
35'-00" / 1 STORY
MAX BUILDING HEIGHT
35 FT
BUILDING AREA
340,1805F
BUILDING AREA BY USE:
OFFICE (7%)
23,813SF
WAREHOUSE (93°%)
316,367 SF
BUILDING COVERAGE AREA
29.90%
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE
70.94%
iMPERVIOUS AREA
810,8545F
PERCENTAGE OPENSPACE
29.06%
AREA OPENSPACE
332,160$F
PARKING
TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED'
396SPACES
TOTAL SPACES PROVIDED
STANDARD
388 SPACES
HANDICAP
10 SPACES (9 RFQUI RFD)
TOTAL
398SPACES
1SPACE PER 1,000SFOF WAREHOUSE
* 1 SPACE PER 300 SF OF OFF I CIF
REQUIRED LOADING SPACES
BUILDING 1:9; BUILOiNG2: 6; BUI WING 3:6
PROVIDED LOADING SPACES(10'X60')
BUILDING 1:38, BUI LDI NG 2: 19; BUI LDI NG 3: 24
AREA OF OUTSI DE STORAGE
OSF
PERCENTAGE OF OUTSIDE STORAGE
0%
ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT
CONSTRUCTION START DATE:
Jan-22
CONSTRUCTION END DATE:
Jun-23
Possible 30' emergency access easement
Emergency only access driveway
a
- a
1
o�
t
�;V�fflmj'+� .. ��srr rrr[rrRr-W <...
60' private street easement for future access
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: BUILDING _ 1
BUILDING - 1: 35'-D"
BUILDING -2: 35'-0"
BUILDING -3: 35'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
Umu-mu ❑I■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ R ❑J ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
WEST ELEVATION
--i
SOUTH ELEVATION
PAINT COLOR SCHEME:
PAINT COLOR SCHEME_
❑WINTER
WHITE
❑
FOGGY GREY
❑
MORTAR GREY
❑
P4 ACCENT
ARCHITECTURAL GRAY
ElP-5
(ACCENT)
KOLIBRI BLUE
MATERIALS
❑
ALUMINUMI
STOREFRONT
GLAZING
CONCRETE TILT -UP
PANEL W! TEXTURED
FINISH
❑
METAL PANEL
®
METAL SIDING
/
NICHIHAACM
■
SPRUCE WOOD
PANEL
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT:
BUILDING - 1: 35'-0"
BUILDING - 2: 35'-0"
BUILDING - 3: 35'-0"
--mill
a RlQME nm
PAINT COLOR SCHEME.
ElPT
WINTER WHITE
❑
FOGGY GREY
■
P-3
MORTAR GREY
■
PA ACCENT
ARCHITECTURAL GR,
■
P-5 (ACCENT)
KOLIBRI BLUE
WEST ELEVATION
m
EEEEEE
EEEEEE
EEEEE®
®®®
EAST ELEVATION
MATERIALS'
ALUMINUM/
STOREFRONT
GLAZING
CONCRETE TILT -UP
PANEL WITEXTURED
FINISH
❑
METAL PANEL
®
METAL SIDING
NICHIHAACM
❑
SPRUCE WOOD
PANEL
SOUTH ELEVATION
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT:
BUILDING - 1: 35'-0"
BUILDING - 2: 35'-0"
BUILDING - 3: 35'-0"
BUILDING - 3
NORTH ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
PAINT COLOR SCHEME.
❑
WINTER WHITE
❑
FOGGY GREY
■
P-3
MORTAR GREY
■
PA ACCENT
ARCHITECTURAL GR,
■
P-5 (ACCENT)
KOLIBRI BLUE
MATERIALS'
ALUMINUM/
STOREFRONT
GLAZING
CONCRETE TILT -UP
PANEL WITEXTURED
FINISH
❑
METAL PANEL
®
METAL SIDING
NICHIHAACM
❑
SPRUCE WOOD
PANEL
WEST ELEVATION
e�
®®®®®®
®®®®®®
®®®®
®
®®®®®
®
SOUTH ELEVATION
View at Entrance
..41
It► ._
Section at North Property Line
Mustang Development — Modified North Emergency Access Gate Brookfield
Emergency Access @ Woodsey Ct. - Upgraded
Benefits
- Robust
- Higher Security — 8' min.
- Prevents children &
objects from entering site
- Aesthetics - match fence
- *Pending Fire Marshall
Approval
- May be temporary with
potential West Access
` rAd
PWANP
Street View
A �nm r_,.....i
1235 Timberline Ct P
Southlakejexas r
~ i Goo91e
�.Street View
Goggle
Street View
RAM
-:
f t
k 4 /
S. +
Image capture: Qet 2018 & 2021 Goole United States Terms Report a prc€Dlem
• •
A, sl�
• I
Tree Canopy Cover Summary
Total Site Area
1,142,780 (sf)
Total Existing Canopy Coverage (sf)
253,758.5
22.3% of site
Required Preservation
38,063.8
15% of Existing
Canopy
Current Preserved [sf]
70,125.1
27.6% of Existing
Canopy
Tree Inches Being Removed
Total Tree Inches Removed
8,380.1
Total Tree Canopy SF Removed
183,633.4
Total Tree Canopy Percent Removed
72.4% of Existing
Canopy
•`�i' y• ®� - E: �•. ®•�• •••, °.. Refired canopy to be preserved — 60%*
��''• `•� - _ p Pro osed canopy to be preserved — 27.6%
• •.. •
c� _
rr
sW �'�14
l• -4,*"
LEGEND,'�: •, -""��$ �• • BE
EREMOVED YGOVERT9 < Variance Requested
l"- • •
'�` • - ,•*�� �e _ ' ` EXISTING CANOPY COVER TO
I� • � ®�*k BE PROTECTED
•�07
as * Mm EXISTING TREE TO 9E
®�� 3 • • j w;Y REIN1Ym
'• ` �. �, �..4b O
• -- i _ Mm EXISTING OECUNING/HAZARO
::.. • •,�.. `£` �- � �, x, �, �,� ' - i :: TREE 1T} RE REMOVED
• .� aln �, —.:=-� ., -. '`', EXISNNGTREE TO RE
PROTECTEn GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 25 50 100
TREE PROTECTION FENCING,
I _ REF. DETAIL A, THIS SHEET
I--- -- -_-- - --- - --
i
Variance Request IM'11,11
The City Council may authorize a variance to any provision of this Ordinance following a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission. A request for a variance to any provision in this Ordinance shall be accompanied by a Tree Conservation Analysis or Tree
Conservation Plan as outlined in Article 6, or other documentation requested by the Administrative Official, and the following factors shall be
considered in evaluating the variance request:
i. Whether a literal enforcement of the Ordinance will create an undue hardship or an unreasonable practical difficulty on the applicant;
ii. Whether the situation causing the unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty is unique to the affected property and is not self-imposed;
iii. Whether a reasonable accommodation or alternative solution can be made to accomplish the desired activity without the alteration of
the tree;
iv. Whether the variance will injure or be wholly compatible with the use and future or existing development of adjacent properties;
V. Whether the increased development costs caused by preserving the tree create an undue hardship on the development of the site;
vi. Whether there is any identified adverse effect of the alteration or preservation on erosion, soil moisture retention, flow of surface water,
and drainage systems;
vii. Whether there is any substantial impact to the buffering of residential areas from the noise, glare, and visual effects of non-residential
uses;
Whether costs versus the benefits of relocating required utility service infrastructure and easements based on preservation or alteration
of protected trees;
Whether the proposed tree replacement procedures adequately mitigate the alteration of the tree
Whether the alteration adversely affects the public health, safety or welfare; and
Whether the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of this Ordinance to the greatest degree reasonably
possible. -
\�_ \\\1111IIE �IINN/0"
IICITY OF
SOUTHLAKE'
LEGEND
- - —
BUFFER REQUIRED PLANTINGS
SITE REQUIRED PLANTINGS
wlTREE
MITI GATIDN PLANTINGS
� ■
EXISTING TREES-M REMAIN
m
5
Mitigation :ro •
Cagp •-83
Accent - 333
PRCP05EU BUILDING
REF. ARCHITECTURL
� a .i
.. f .... .
I
.\
El. r r m M M, m
III
BUILDING PROPOSED1
REF. ARCHITECTUREED
I
`
1
I
I
1
PROPOSEDBUILDING
REP, ARCHITECTURE
PROPOSED BUILOING
I
°`
REF. ARCHITECTLIRE
E
F
O'6'O
Trip Generation Averages vs Variability
• Average numbers are used from a nationwide data set
• Actual counts have variability
• Based on Sizes of development
• Based on specific Land Use Selected
• Based on specific tenant type
• Based on success/ market economics
110 General Light Industrial
130 Industrial Park
140 Manufacturing
150 Warehousing
151 Mini Warehousing
154 High Cube Warehousing Transload / Shori
155 High Cube Fulfillment Center SORT
155 High Cube Fulfillment Center NON - SORT
156 High Cube Parcel Hub
157 High Cube Cold Storage
160 Data Center
170 Utility
180 Soecialty Trade
Industrial Park
6,000
5,000
4,000
w
3,000
2,000
1,000
00
500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
X=1000Sq. Ft. GFA
Wa rehousi ng1:51-11:1
w
a
L
F-
500
0 200 400 600 800 1,000
X = 1000 Sq. R. GFA
Reset Zoom Restore
x Skud;� Site I fitted Curve - - - Average Rate
Trip Generation Comparison
to an existing Industrial Site on Kimbal
s r
` + O Pk A h�j
rIt
,yam
Existing Kimball Industrial Site
• Existing site is not fully leased
• AM / PM Peak Count Only
• Buildings total approximately 338,000 SF — Similar in total size to Mustang site
Kimball Site (May 26, 2021)
AM Peak Hour
117
19
136
PM Peak Hour
29
93
122
Mustang Project (Warehousing — from TIA)
AM Peak Hour
51
15
66
PM Peak Hour
19
50
69
Turning Radius Concerns
• Southbound SH 26 to westbound Mustang Ct is approximately 80'
radius.
• Right -turn is into a single westbound travel lane.
• Over -tracking into opposing lanes is necessary.
• Verified in field with observations
• Verified with Autoturn simulation software
• Right -turn vehicles can queue in SB SH 26 right -turn lane and wait if opposing
vehicle obstructs turn
• This conflict will increase as truck and traffic load increases
Example Turn Radii
Movement swings into oncoming lanes on Mustang Movement swings into SB SH 26 Thru lane
and oncoming lanes on Mustang
Turning Radius Improvements
1. Restripe eastbound approach —11' travel lanes for right and left lane — would allow for
an 18 wide entry lane.
a. Coordinate with TxDOT and Rail to determine if lane striping is necessary between tracks and
SH 26. Creating an unstriped neutral area between tracks and 26 would facilitate larger and
faster over -tracking
2. Restripe eastbound approach to a single outbound lane
a. Would accommodate all trucks inbound
b. Would require additional signal cycle time beyond any previous estimates in TIA
3. Complete reconstruction of approach
a. Widen entry lanes/radius to better accommodate inbound right -turns
a. Would require all new crossing equipment etc.
b. Major construction project requiring coordination with Railroad, TxDOT, and City of Grapevine
b. Would need to consider if any improvement alternatives are available on east side as well with
the goal to eliminate E/W Mustang split phasing and to allow Eastbound Mustang dual left to
be served during track dwell phase.
C. TxDOT may be unwilling to consider a major project due to relative age of SH 26 improvements.
Recommendations
Based on further information gathering and field observations in response
to public comments
1. Work with TxDOT and City of Grapevine to adjust existing eastbound Mustang
Ct signal split time to allow for better accommodation of existing traffic.
2. Based on trip generation of similar site on Kimball, warehousing use for trip
generation may be low if uses are not restricted to warehouse. If uses can not
be restricted, TIA may need adjusted to reflect maximum uses allowable
under zoning.
3. Make site plan conditional on obtaining approvals from TxDOT, Trinity Metro
and City of Grapevine for restriping the eastbound approach to better
facilitate inbound truck movements.
4. Develop new coordinated signal timing plans approved by TxDOT and City of
Grapevine that accommodate the development traffic. The signal timing will
likely require multiple rounds of fine tuning/timing and detection adjustment
as site builds out.
City Council Action
CITY OF
SOUTHL,A
Questions?