The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 6A9 CASE NO: ZA21-0039 SOUTHLA14CE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT January 25, 2022 PROJECT: Site Plan for Mustang Business Park EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On behalf of Wright Mustang Business Park, LLC, Kimley Horn is requesting approval of a Site Plan for Mustang Business Park on property described as Tract 11133, Harrison Decker Survey, Abstract No. 438, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, and located at 1800 S.H. 26, Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: 1-1" Light Industrial District. SPIN Neighborhood #8. DETAILS The project is generally located northwest of the intersection of Southwestern St. and Mustang Ct. "MH" zoned properties on Woodsey Ct. and Timberline Ct. are to the north. The purpose of this request is to seek approval of a Site Plan for three distribution warehouse buildings totaling approximately 340,180 square feet on approximately 26.27 acres. A previous request for a Zoning Change and Site Plan under case number ZA21-0007 was withdrawn at the May 4, 2021 City Council meeting at the applicant's request. The building heights now comply with the 35' maximum height allowed in the 1-1" District, so a zoning change is not required. The private driveways internal to the site have been reconfigured to comply with the Driveway Ordinance No. 634 minimum required stacking depth. Site Data Summary Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning 66 1-11, Gross/Net Acreage 26.24 ac. Open Space Area 7.62 ac. Open Space % 29.06% Imp. Coverage Area 18.61 ac. Imp. Coverage % 70.94% Building 1 Area 174,600 sf Building 2 Area 78,100 sf Building 3 Area 87,480 sf Total Bldg. Area 340,180 sf Parking Required 396 Parking Provided 398 Case No. ZA21-0039 VARIANCE REQUESTED: 1) There is 22.3% of existing tree cover on the property and a minimum of 60% is required to be preserved per Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-E. A variance is requested to allow 27.6% of the existing tree cover to be preserved. ACTION NEEDED: 1) Conduct a public hearing 2) Consider approval of a Site Plan ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information (B) Vicinity Map (C) Revised Site Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated January 25, 2022 (D) Surrounding Property Owners Map & Responses Half Size Plans (for Commission and Council members only) Link to Presentation Link to Applicant's Presentation at June 1, 2021 meeting Link to Variance Reauest Letter Link to Plans Link to Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (pdf only) Link to Draft Traffic Study for Industrial Subarea — Lee Engineering (pdf only) Link to Traffic Consultant Presentation — Lee Engineering Link to Lee Engineering Recommendations May 28, 2021 Link to 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Report Link to SPIN Meeting Report Link to NuStar Presentation at June 1, 21021 meeting Link to Traffic Impact Presentation on behalf of Nustar at June 1, 2021 meeting Link to Safety Health and Welfare Presentation at June 1, 2021 meeting Link to Martin Schellina e-mail received January 27. 2022 STAFF CONTACT: Ken Baker (817) 748-8067 Richard Schell (817) 748-8602 Case No. ZA21-0039 BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNER: Wright Mustang Business Park, LLC APPLICANT: Kimley-Horn PROPERTY SITUATION: 1800 SH 26, generally located northwest of the intersection of Southwestern St. and Mustang Ct. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tract 1 B3, Harrison Decker Survey, Abstract No. 438 LAND USE CATEGORY: Industrial and 100-Year Floodplain CURRENT ZONING: "I-1" Light Industrial District HISTORY: - The property was annexed into the City in 1987. - A zoning change (ZA02-025) from "AG" Agricultural District and "1-2" Heavy Industrial District to "I-1" Light Industrial District was approved by City Council on April 16, 2002. - A Zoning Change and Site Plan (ZA21-0007) from "I-1" Light Industrial District to "S-P-1" Detailed Site Plan District for three distribution warehouse buildings totaling approximately 340,180 square feet on approximately 26.24 acres was withdrawn at City Council on May 4, 2021. SOUTH LAKE 2035 PLAN: Consolidated Future Land Use Plan The 2035 future land use designation for the site is Industrial and 100- Year Floodplain. Industrial Land Use Designation Purpose and Definition: Industrial and business service development that is relatively free of unwanted side effects, such as unsightliness, noise, odor, glare, vibrations, etc., is permitted in the Industrial category. If meeting the qualification of relatively free of unwanted side effects, suitable types of development in the Industrial category can be characterized by the manufacturing, processing, packaging, assembly, storage, warehousing and/or distribution of products. Ancillary commercial and retail activities associated with these uses are permitted. Public Parks / Open Space and Public / Semi -Public activities as described above may be permitted if surrounding industrial uses do not pose hazards and are sufficiently buffered. 100-Year Floodplain Designation Purpose and Definition: The Floodplain category illustrates areas designated by the August 1995 Federal Emergency Management 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 Case No. ZA21-0039 Attachment A Page 1 accordance 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. Pathways Master Plan & Sidewalk Plan The Pathways Master Plan does not show a sidewalk or trail along Southwestern St. adjacent to the site, so a minimum 5' sidewalk is required per Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 33.19. The required sidewalk is shown on the plans, but it needs to extend to the property line. A sidewalk exists on the southeast side of Southwestern St. and the southwest side of Mustang Ct. An 8' multi -use trail exists along the north side of SH 26 west of the intersection with Mustang Ct. TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT: Area Road Network and Conditions The property is at the end of Mustang Ct., which is a local commercial street with 64' of right of way. Southwestern St. is a local commercial street with 60' of right of way. Traffic Impact A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been submitted (see pdf only attached separately). The Site Plan shows a 60' private street easement with a 37' back of curb to back of curb pavement extending from the end of Mustang Ct. into the development. Access to the three proposed buildings is from driveways off the private street. An emergency only access driveway is provided to Woodsey Ct. to the north and to the City owned property to the west. Table 1 — Trip Generation Land Uses Amount Units ITE Code Daily One -Way Trips AM Peak Hour One -Way Trips PM Peak Hour One -Way Trips IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL Warehousing341,000 SF 150 584 51 15 66 19 50 69 Development Totals Truck Trips (20% of Total Trips):l 117 1 10 3 13 1 4 10 14 Passenger Vehicle Trips:1 467 1 41 12 53 1 15 40 55 Trip Generation rates based on 1TE's Trip Generation Manual, 1001 Edition. Heavy Vehicle Percentages based on ITE's Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition TREE PRESERVATION: There is 22.3% of existing tree cover on the property and a minimum of 60% is required to be preserved per Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-E. A variance is requested to allow 27.6% of the existing tree cover to be preserved. All trees shown in green on a Council approved Tree Conservation Plan are required to be preserved. UTILITIES: The property is served by existing 12" and 8" water lines along the east and north property boundaries and an existing 12" sewer line along the west property boundary. DRAINAGE: Existing drainage is from a high point at the north and center of the site generally sheet flow to the east, west and south across the property. The 100-Year Floodplain runs north and south along the west portion of the Case No. ZA21-0039 Attachment A Page 2 property. CITIZEN INPUT: A SPIN meeting was held for the previous Zoning Change and Site Plan for Mustang Business Park (ZA21-0007) on January 26, 2021. Link to SPIN Report A 2035 Corridor Planning Committee meeting was held for the previous Zoning Change and Site Plan for Mustang Business Park (ZA21-0007) on January 25, 2021. Link to Corridor Planning Committee Report PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION: May 20, 2021; Approved (3-1) (Phalen) referencing the staff report dated May 14, 2021 and Site Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated May 14, 2021: • granting the variance for the tree preservation, • noting the applicant's willingness to review a four or three way stop, whichever will be most acceptable for the traffic flow, • noting the applicant's willingness to discuss with the residents the bufferyards adjoining the residential area, the fence height and materials, the emergency gate height and materials, • and, in the event that the western emergency access is added at some point in time, the northern exit going through the residential area will be closed permanently. Commissioner Phalen was opposed to granting any variances for a development of this density based on the safety issues on Mustang Ct. Vice -Chairman Forman recused himself on this item. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: June 1, 2021; Tabled indefinitely (7-0). STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Revised Site Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated January 25, 2022. Variance Approval Criteria for Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-E: 15.2 VARIANCES: a. 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: Whether a literal enforcement of the Ordinance will create an undue hardship or an unreasonable practical difficulty on the applicant; Whether the situation causing the unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty is unique to the affected property and is not self-imposed; Case No. ZA21-0039 Attachment A Page 3 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; viii. The costs versus the benefits of relocating required utility service infrastructure and easements based on preservation or alteration of protected trees; ix. Whether the proposed tree replacement procedures adequately mitigate the alteration of the tree; x. Whether the alteration adversely affects the public health, safety or welfare; and xi. Whether the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of this Ordinance to the greatest degree reasonably possible. General Development Applies? Comments Standards Overlay Regulations No The property is not in any of the overlay districts. Building Articulation No Masonry Standards Yes South and east facades of Building 3 are subject to Masonry Ord. 557-A and both facades comply. Impervious Coverage Yes Complies Bufferyards Yes Complies subject to review comments being addressed Case No. ZA21-0039 Attachment A Page 4 Interior Landscape Yes Complies subject to review comments being addressed Tree Preservation Yes Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-E applies. A variance is requested. Sidewalks Yes A 5' sidewalk is required along Southwestern St. and the sidewalk is shown on the plan. Case No. ZA21-0039 Attachment A Page 5 Vicinity Map 1800 SH 26 ------------ mm Y% AYJ'TA L--j ZA21-0039 Site Plan Mustang Business Park 0 4CA 920 1.840 Feet 51 Case No. ZA21-0039 Attachment B Page 1 REVISED SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA21-0039 Review No.: Two Date of Review: 01/25/22 Project Name: Site Plan — Mustang Business Park APPLICANT: Patrick Hogan, P.E. OWNER: Kendal Kreamer Kimley-Horn Wright Mustang Business Park, LLC 13455 Noel Dr., Two Galleria Office Tower, Ste. 700 601 W. Wall St. Dallas, TX 75240 Grapevine, TX 76051 Phone: (972) 770-1312 Phone: E-mail: patrick.hogan@kimley-horn.com E-mail: kkreamer@wrightconst.com CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 05/14/21 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT RICHARD SCHELL AT (817) 748-8602. Planning Review 1. The Site Plan must conform to the underlying zoning district. 2. An appropriate plat must be processed, approved and recorded with the County prior to the issuance of building permits and, if the buildings are to be placed on separate lots, prior to the conveyance of any of the lots. 3. Please update the case number on the TIA to ZA21-0039. 4. Please provide a 30' wide emergency access easement to the west that aligns with the conceptual driveway location on the City's conceptual plan for a Public Works Operations service center. A 30' wide emergency access easement along the north property line of the conceptual municipal service center plan aligns where a row of trailer parking is shown on the Mustang Business Park plan. Either extend the easement through the trailer parking spaces to connect to the 30' emergency access and utility easement that is currently shown or extend the 30' emergency access to the south on the west side of the trailer parking spaces and connect to either the 30' emergency access and utility easement or to the 60' private access and utility easement. The minimum inside curve radius for the emergency access easement and possible future emergency access driveway is 30'. If the easement is provided to the west of the trailer parking spaces, ensure that the location is feasible since the approximate 100-year floodplain boundary is shown in that location. The number of trailer parking spaces will be reduced at some point in the future if a 30' emergency access driveway is constructed through the trailer spaces to connect to the 30' emergency access and utility easement shown to the west of Building 1. 5. Please make the following changes to the Site Plan. The review comments are based on three buildings on one lot as shown. a. Show, label and dimension the width of any easements on or adjacent to the site, if any. Please see the plat for Lot 1, Block 2, Mustang Business Park. b. Show and label the width and type of bufferyards along each boundary in accordance with Zoning Ord. No. 480, Section 42. The bufferyard labels do not match the bufferyards shown on the Landscape Plan. Case No. Attachment C ZA21-0039 Page 1 c. Provide the bufferyard chart on plan (see attached example in the Landscape Administrator's comments below). d. The calculations for the required number of loading spaces are per building at a ratio of 1 per 15,000 square feet for buildings 50,000 — 99,999 square feet and 1 per 20,000 square feet for buildings 100,000 square feet and up. The required spaces are Building 1 — 9 spaces, Building 2 - 6 spaces and Building 3 — 6 spaces. At least one-half of the loading spaces or truck berths must have a minimum dimension of 10' x 50' each and the remainder must have a minimum dimension of 10' x 25'. Show and label the number of loading spaces or truck berths provided for each building. e. Correct the building setback lines as follows: Minimum building setback lines in the 1-1" Light Industrial zoning district are as follows. A 30' front yard setback is required on the property boundaries abutting a public right of way. The rear lot line is the north property line since is opposite and most distant from the front street line. There shall be a rear yard of not less than ten (10) feet except where the lot abuts property zoned as single-family residential there shall be a rear yard of not less than twenty-five (25) feet. All other property lines will have a side yard setback. There shall be a side yard of not less than fifteen (15) feet except where the lot abuts property zoned as single-family residential there shall be a side yard of not less than twenty-five (25) feet. 6. Sidewalks and/or trails in compliance with the Zoning Ord. No. 480, as amended, Section 33.19, Subdivision Ord. No. 483, as amended, Section 5.06 and the Master Pathways Plan are required. A 5' sidewalk is required along Southwestern St. and a 5' sidewalk is shown on the plan. Please extend the sidewalk to the property boundary. An 8' multi -use trail exists along S.H. 26 and a 5' sidewalk exists along the street frontages of Lot, Block 2, Mustang Business Park to the southeast addressed as 1750 Mustang Ct. 33.19 For all new development or existing development which increases the existing floor area of building(s) or the number of parking spaces by twenty (20) percent or more and require a City Council approved site plan, a five (5)-foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be provided along all adjacent public streets unless identified in the city's Pathways Plan, in which case the Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, as amended, Section 5.06 shall apply. In addition, all non- residential development shall provide pedestrian access to the City's existing or future trail system as identified in any City Council adopted plan. The City Council may grant a variance to this regulation where compliance would present extraordinary difficulties: i. in the use of the property or; ii. to construct due to characteristics of the development or surrounding properties. 7. The elevations must comply with Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended, Section 33.21, Building Color Standards for Non -Residential Buildings. Please submit a physical material sample board in addition to the images. Driveway Ord. No. 634, Section 5.2.d. requires a minimum stacking depth of 150'. The only connection to a public street is the proposed private street connection to Mustang Ct. The stacking distance from the right of way/property line to the first turning movement is shown at 1901. Case No. Attachment C ZA21-0039 Page 2 Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended, Section 26.5.a regarding building height in the 1-1" Light Industrial Zoning District states that no building or structure which lies within one hundred (100) feet of any area zoned in a residential classification shall exceed one (1) story or twenty (20) feet in height. Any building lying more than one hundred (100) feet from any area zoned in a residential classification shall not exceed two and one-half (2'/2) stories or thirty-five (35) feet in height. The 100' building line along the north property line is shown on the Site Plan. An 8' solid wood fence is shown along the north boundary per the requirements of Ordinance 480, Section 39.6.a below since the boundary abuts residential properties. 39.6.a Where a non-residential use abuts a residentially zoned lot or tract or lot having an occupied residential dwelling, a solid fence meeting the material standards of Section 39.2(b) shall be erected along the side and rear property lines abutting said residential lot or dwelling to a height of eight (8) feet. A variance to this section may be approved by the City Council during its review of any concept plan, development plan, or site plan requiring review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approval by the City Council, or by the Board of Adjustment for all other concept plans, development plans, or site plans. (As amended by Ordinance No. 480- UUU.) The property must comply with Masonry Ordinance 557-A. Sections 1.b and 1.d. of the ordinance are below. The elevations as shown comply with the requirements. 1.b. Buildings requiring masonry along street frontage only: All buildings constructed on property zoned 1-1 or 1-2 under the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance shall be constructed of masonry materials, wood, glass, or decorative metal (non -galvanized finish); provided, however, any exterior wall fronting on any street shall be constructed of masonry materials or glass, covering at least eighty percent (80%) of said wall, exclusive of all doors. 1.d. State highways and F.M. roads: With the exception of barns and storage buildings in the "AG" zoning district, all nonresidential buildings located within 500 feet of the R.O.W. line along State Highway No. 114 and within 300 feet of the R.O.W. line along State Highway No. 26, Farm -to -Market Road 1709 and Farm -to -Market Road 1938 shall have at least eighty percent (80%) of all exterior walls, excluding doors, constructed of masonry materials or glass. The property does not lie within any of the overlay zones in Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended, Section 43-Overlay Zones. Per Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended, Section 26.5.i, outdoor storage of trash receptacles shall be at the side or rear of the site and shall be totally encircled or screened by fence, planting or other suitable visual barrier. Per Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 39.6.c, outside storage of trash/recycling receptacles or any garbage, refuse and trash/recycling collection and storage areas shall be at the side or rear of the building, shall be totally encircled or screened by fence, planting or other suitable visual barrier six feet (6) in height and shall have a metal door which shall remain closed at all times. These areas or receptacles shall not encroach into any required bufferyard. (As amended by Ordinance No. 480-HH.) Tree Conservation/Landscape Review E-mail: kmartin@ci.southlake.tx.us Keith Martin Landscape Administrator Phone: (817) 748-8229 TREE CONSERVATION COMMENTS: Case No. Attachment C ZA21-0039 Page 3 In the Tree Canopy Cover Summary chart on the Tree Conservation Plan, change the amount of Required Preservation to 60%. The Existing Tree Cover Preservation Requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-E requires that sites with 20.1 % - 40.0% of existing tree cover preserve at least a minimum of 60% of the existing tree cover. A variance must be requested and granted by City Council to preserve less than the minimum required amount of existing tree cover on a developing site. 2. The proposed preservation of the existing tree cover does not comply with the Preservation of Existing Tree Cover Requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-E. There is 22.3% of existing tree cover on the property and a minimum of 60% of the existing tree cover is required to be preserved. The applicant is proposing to preserve 27.6% of the existing tree cover. The applicant is proposing to plant 80 canopy trees and 328 accent trees towards mitigating the removal of protected trees. We normally require that any trees planted toward tree removal mitigation be canopy tree species or an equivalent species as listed within the Landscape Ordinance 544-B. 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. 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 COMMENTS: On the Site Plan please label all required bufferyards in accor 2. All of the proposed trees are proposed to be 4" caliper. Nursery stock standards for accent/understory/ornamental trees such as Crape Myrtles, Vitex, Rusty Blackhaw Viburnum, and Yaupon Holly are generally provided as container size, height, and width, and do not come Case No. Attachment C ZA21-0039 Page 4 in a caliper size unless they are sold as standard single trunk. 3. In the "Provided" sections of the Interior Landscape Summary Chart show the exact amount of interior landscape area provided, and the exact amount of plant material provided instead of showing matching quantities. 4. The "Required" plant material quantities within the north bufferyard section of the Bufferyards Summary Chart are incorrect. The required amounts for a 1,112 If. 10' — F1 bufferyard are, 33 canopy trees, 67 accent trees, 89 shrubs. 5. Provide a color -coded rendition of the Landscape Plan. Delineate plant material provided towards interior landscaping, bufferyards, and tree removal mitigation. The applicant is proposing to take existing trees credits for preserving existing trees with the north, west, and east bufferyards. The west is located within an existing floodplain in which no construction is proposed. Indicates informational comment. # Indicates required items comment. Public Works/Engineering Review Sandy Endy, P.E. Development Engineer Phone: (817) 748-8033 E-mail: sendy@ci.southlake.tx.us Comments to follow Fire Department Review Kelly Clements Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal Phone: (817) 748-8233 E-mail: klements@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 located in a vault, or a minimum of 6'X6' if it is located on the riser. (Label riser room locations to determine termination point of riser piping, and indicate size of the riser rooms, no room sizes indicated) The Fire Department Connection for the sprinkler system must be within 100 feet of a fire hydrant, and within 50 feet of fire department fire lanes on the property. (The FDC for Building 3 is not within 50 feet of fire lane access) FIRE HYDRANT COMMENTS: Fire hydrants are required at a maximum spacing of 500 feet for commercial locations with Case No. Attachment C ZA21-0039 Page 5 completely sprinkled buildings. (Fire hydrants located on the property do not meet the spacing requirements) (Add a fire hydrant as required, north side of building 2) FIRE LANE COMMENTS: Fire apparatus access needs to be an all-weather surface, asphalt or concrete, 24 feet wide and able to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus. (Minimum of 85,000 pounds GVW) (Ensure fire lane is provided completely around building 2) General Informational Comments A SPIN meeting was held on January 26, 2021 and a 2035 Corridor Planning Committee meeting was held on January 25, 2021 for the previous Zoning Change and Site Plan (ZA21- 0007). No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan. A separate building permit is required prior to construction of any signs. All mechanical equipment must be screened of view from rights -of -way 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. 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. Denotes Informational Comment Case No. Attachment C ZA21-0039 Page 6 SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS MAP & RESPONSES SPO # Owner Zoning Physical Address Acreage Response 1. PENEDO, AIDA DEL C MH 1232 TIMBERLINE CT 0.43 O 2. KYLE, KRAIG MH 1232 WOODSEY CT 0.51 NR 3. PEARSON, CAREY O (HUTTON) MH 1234 TIMBERLINE CT 0.50 O 4. DE ANDA, VICTORIA MH 1234 WOODSEY CT 0.48 O 5. GUILER PROPERTIES LLC MH 1236 TIMBERLINE CT 0.48 U 6. AULD, LYNN V MH 1236 WOODSEY CT 0.46 O 7. NUSTAR LOGISTICS LP 12 1700 MUSTANG DR 27.09 O 8. PS LPT PROPERTIES INVESTORS 11 1750 MUSTANG CT 3.03 NR 9. PETROLEUM CO OF TEXAS ETAL 11 1800 STATE HWY 26 0.19 NR 10. WRIGHT, JOE L 11 2400 SH 26 0.06 NR 11. WRIGHT, BELLA AG 1719 E CONTINENTAL BLVD 31.81 NR 12. MAGELLAN PIPELINE TERMINALS LP 12 2110 MUSTANG CT 0.70 U 13. MAGELLAN PIPELINE TERMINALS LP 12 2110 MUSTANG CT 1.25 U 14. MAGELLAN PIPELINE TERMINALS LP 12 2100 MUSTANG CT 14.16 U 15. OSTUNI, REXANA E MH 1233 TIMBERLINE CT 0.42 O 16. OSTUNI, REXANA E MH 1233 TIMBERLINE CT 0.08 O 17. MARTINEZ, MAURO MH 1235 TIMBERLINE CT 0.39 O 18. MARTINEZ, MAURO MH 1235 TIMBERLINE CT 0.08 O 19. JTK DYER GROUP LLC (ALFREDO, ACERES, TREJO) MH 1237 TIMBERLINE CT 0.40 O 20. WRIGHT, BALLA C 11 1800 SH 26 26.42 NR Case No. ZA21-0039 Attachment D Page 1 JTK DYER GROUP LLC (ALFREDO, 21. ACERES, TREJO) 22. AMERICORP LLC MH 1237 TIMBERLINE CT 0.09 O MH 1233 WOODSEY CT 0.52 NR 23. WOROBIEC, KAMIL MH 1235 WOODSEY CT 0.43 O 24. XU, H M MH 1237 WOODSEY CT 0.47 NR Responses: F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response Notices Sent: Nineteen (19) Responses Received within 200': Eleven (11) — Attached (including response forms, petition signatures and meeting comment cards) Responses Received outside 200': Twenty-nine (29) — including twenty-seven (27) signatures on a signed petition and two (2) other responses - Attached Case No. Attachment D ZA21-0039 Page 2 Responses Received within 200' Notification Response Form ZA21-0039 Meeting Date: May 20, 2021 at 6:30 PM AULD, LYNN V 1236 WOODSEY CT SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092 Direct questions and mail responses to: City of Southlake Planning 8r Development Services Notification Response 1400 Main St; Ste 310 Southlake, TX 76092 Phone: (817)748-8621 Fax: (817)748-8077 E-mail: rschell@ci.southiake.tx.us PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: C OL - A 2 - S4 c-. 19�V40 nJD , rr C -7- 19 C Y ,,�F/ / -77, /,A%A- 4',-:- .AID 0-641E,1?-2 S Signature: a'-c Date: 5 / 2z�,2-1 Additional Signature: Date; Printed Name(s): Z-IIVA� f/ A UI-fJ Must be property owner(s) whose name(s) are printed at top. Otherwise contact the Planring Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): 917 �'75 7,3/j Case No. Attachment D ZA21-0039 Page 3 Notification Response Form ZA21-0039 Meeting Date: May 20, 2021 at 6:30 PM DE ANDA, VICTORIA 2222 SANDSHELL ST BEDFORD, TX 76021 Direct questions and mail responses to: City of Southlake Planning & Development Services Notification Response 1400 Main St; Ste 310 Southlake, TX 76092 Phone: (817)748-8621 Fax: (817)748-8077 E-mail: rschell@ci.southlake.tx.us PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of &'�_01 posed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: \I i UMr10 Chi%( Date: 2.0ZI Additional Signature: Date: Printed Name(s): 1' Must be property owner(s) whose ame(s) are printed top. Otherwise contact the Planning Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment D ZA21-0039 Page 4 'j Notification Response Form V 4D CV ZA21-0039 Meeting Date: May 20, 2021 at 6:30 PM _T_ OSTUNI, REXANA E 1233 TIMBERLINE CT SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092 Direct questions and mail responses to: City of Southlake Planning & Development Services Notification Response 1400 Main St; Ste 310 Southlake, TX 76092 Phone: (817)748-8621 Fax: (817)748-8077 E-mail: rschell@ci.southlake.tx.us PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: vca C. min Signature: Additional Signature: y, Date: Printed Name(s): _ Must be property owner(s) whose q a printed at top. Otherwise contact the Planning Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): 9i'�)-��/_ -_>o117 y/ Case No. Attachment D ZA21-0039 Page 5 Notification Response Form ZA21-0039 Meeting Date: May 20, 2021 at 6:30 PM PENEDO, AIDA DEL C 1232 TIMBERLINE CT SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092 Direct questions and mail responses to: City of Southlake Planning & Development Services Notification Response 1400 Main St; Ste 310 Southlake, TX 76092 Phone: (817)748-8621 Pax: (817)748-8077 E-mail: rschell@ci.southlake_tx.us PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FOE S VIA MAIL, LED PUBLOIC H ND RING. DELIVERY BEFORE THE START O Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: 'Z�4- Signature- Additional Signature: Date. cvrE Datez _� L- �- f &Printed Name(S) ntedattop. Otherwise contact the Planning Department. Oneto-perproperty Mast be property owners; v,hoe na e(s Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment D ZA21-0039 Page 6 Notification Response Form ZA21-QQ39 -Meeting Date: May 20, 2021 at 6:30 PM GUILER PROPERTIES LLC 405 SHADY LN SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092 10 Direct questions and mail responses to; City of Southlake Planning & Development Services Notification Response 1400 Main St; Ste 310 Southlake, TX 76092 Phone: (817)748-8621 Fax: (817)748-8077 E-mail: rschell@ci.southlakeAx.us PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: �-� 70o0J�6q '�_; Signature: Additional Signature: Date: il_ Date: Printed Name(s): 6� r J CoH (; L.r (� - Must he property owner(s) whose names) are printed at top. Otherwise contact the Planning Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment D ZA21-0039 Page 7 1PJ MMAGELLIDSTREAM RAN" Bruce W. Heine Vice President Government and Media Affairs One Williams Center Tulsa, OK 74172 May 27, 2021 City Council City of Southlake 1400 Main Street Southlake, TX 76092 Re: Opposition to item ZA21-0039 Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. owns and operates a petroleum storage and distribution terminal in Southlake and we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this important issue before the Council. Since 2008, the Magellan Southlake terminal every day fuels tens of thousands of vehicles in Southlake, Grapevine and other DFW communities with gasoline and diesel fuel as a tax paying corporate citizen of Southlake. I am writing to voice Magellan's opposition to item Z,42I-0039 concerning the development of Mustang Business Park. Magellan's primary reason for opposing this development is that it creates an extremely unsafe traffic situation at the intersection of Mustang Court and Highway 26. We are asking for the City to take the lead in addressing these safety concerns. Cause of Concern The proposed development, a 341,000 square foot warehouse space on 26 acres northwest of Mustang Court with only one public ingress/egress, is undesirable. The result is hundreds of additional trips per day to and from Highway 26 at Mustang Court. The developer cannot accurately predict the tenants use of the lease space. It is relatively easy to imagine the logistical and safety problems created by a single access development with an undersized street crossing a railway with a short light phase onto a major highway. This is particularly true if the development is being used similar to an Amazon fulfillment center or retail showroom warehouse. Conflicts with Existing Uses on Mustang Court Doubling or tripling the traffic on Mustang Court with no additional relief will create a hardship on the existing uses that rely on Mustang Court for access. The Mustang Business Park Development as proposed conflicts with the single access points for the Magellan terminal as well as neighboring NuStar Energy terminals and the Public Storage facility. As it stands today, only two fuel trucks are able to safely exit Mustang Court onto Highway 26 every 2-minute light cycle. The City of Grapevine has no plans at this time to increase green light time at the intersection. Additionally, the Trinity Metro train causes additional light disruptions every hour for fuel trucks exiting Mustang Court. Case No. ZA21-0039 Attachment D Page 8 Mustang Court Safety Issues There are three primary safety concerns related to the Highway 26 intersection with Mustang Court. First, the Highway 26 right hand exit onto Mustang Court has a very tight of a turning radius for tractor trailers to safely maneuver onto Mustang Court. The trucks are forced to either turn tight going over the curb and hitting the traffic light box or turn wide into the oncoming left- hand turn lane of Mustang Court. The wide turn requires either the truck exiting Highway 26 to back up or the left turning Mustang Court vehicle to back up. The second safety issue is that a truck exiting off of Highway 26 being forced to stop to avoid oncoming traffic is forced to stop on the Trinity Metro tracks. The third safety concern is the light phase on Mustang Court is tied to the Highway 26 coordinated light cycle. The light time allotted for Mustang Court ranges between 7 and 11 seconds. Only one truck will make the light; the second vehicle is forced to run a yellow or red light. This matter must be resolved to reduce the safety risk for all stakeholders. Emergency Response Conflicts In the event of an emergency at either the proposed development, the NuStar terminal, or the Magellan terminal, it could be difficult to evacuate the entire area and hundreds of vehicles through Mustang Court while first responders are attempting to reach the emergency. Couple this with the vastly increased likelihood of an accident involving a fuel truck or even the train and this development is creating an absolute recipe for an unsafe situation not only for Magellan, but for the intersection at Mustang Court; for the residents to the north of the proposed development; and for the residents of Southlake and the surrounding communities that rely on Magellan gasoline every day of the year. Hardship on Existing Uses In addition to the safety concerns, the development as proposed will severely restrict the ability of Magellan and NuStar to conduct their operations. Magellan and NuStar were required to condense down to the new Mustang Court as a single point of access in consideration of the Trinity Metro light rail to the benefit of the developing landowner. As proposed, the new development would receive complete priority of ingress and egress onto Highway 26 while fuel trucks loading fuel at NuStar and Magellan will be left waiting at stop signs that only affect these critical energy facilities. Landowner /Developer Existing Alternatives to Public Access The same landowner for the proposed development also owns adjacent tracts leading both to Brumlow Avenue and Continental Boulevard and the developer has stated that it is already in consultation with city staff on additional emergency access to Brumlow, rather than the current single emergency access into the residential street of Woodsey Court to the north. Alternative or additional ingress and egress to and from Brumlow Avenue to the west or Continental Boulevard to the north should be a condition for Council approval. Solution Considerations to Safety Issues In order of importance, there are three safety improvements to facilitate a successful Mustang Business Park development. The most important and logical safety improvement is to require Mustang Business Park to provide for secondary access across to Brumlow Avenue on common controlled property of the seller. The next most important safety improvement is to widen and reconfigure Mustang Court 1 State Highway 26 access. The final safety improvement is to Case No. ZA21-0039 Attachment D Page 9 reconfigure the Mustang Court 1 State Highway 26 light cycle to increase the Mustang Court light phase. At the very least, if the proposed development is approved, the Council should require an alternative entrance for the proposed development. Additionally, an alternative entrance into the development off of Southwestern Street rather than directly from Mustang Court should be considered. It does not seem just for the tax paying corporate citizens of Southlake whose facilities have served Southlake's needs for more than two decades should be disadvantaged in favor of the new development. We believe this is the only option to protect public safety while maintaining the operations of critical energy infrastructure which Southlake citizens depend upon daily. Magellan works hard to maintain our standing as good corporate citizen of Southlake. We look forward to a mutually beneficial relationship for years to come. If I may answer questions or be of assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bruce W. Heine CC: Planning & Development Services Department Case No. Attachment D ZA21-0039 Page 10 Notification Response Form ZA21-0039 Meeting Date: February 1, 2022 at 5:30 PM MAGELLAN PIPELINE TERMINALS LP PO BOX 22186 TULSA, OK 74121 Direct questions and mail responses to: City of Southlake Planning S Development Services Notification Response 1400 Main St; Ste 310 Southlake, TX 76092 Phone: (817)748-8621 Fax: (817)748-8077 E-mail: rschell@ci.southlake.tx.us PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to ndecided abou (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Magellan rescinds its previous opposition to this matter. Magellan is currently in the erocess of reevaluating its position on the proposed Site Plan. . y f Signature; Additional Signature: et'L �&- Date: 01-25-2022 Date. Printed Name(s): Mike McCann, authorized signatory, Magellan Pipeline Terminals, LP Must be property owner(s) whose names) are printed at top. Otherwise contact the Planning [Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional) Case No. Attachment D ZA21-0039 Page 11 Southlake Planning and Zoning Meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to Commission Secretary prior to start of regular session Name:='- Address: Phone: qD Z Date: I wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: I will speak in SUPPORT oCthis item _k_I will speak in OPPOSf1'ION of this item s�� S oo cat C+� d� L 4 z- I- ()(3cl Signature: Required • Cads will not be read in the record unless it Asigned. SOLLthlake Planning and Zoning Meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed form to Commission Seer=Qa prior to start of regular session Name: M Fz— 11:�Corr1r•7 Address: Z I Oyr- Phone: Date: 7-10 z-1 wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: will siveak in SUPPORT of this item I will speak in OPPOSITION of this item I do not wish ro snr-ak. hnr with rn rPrnrrl my ST TPPCIRTI C]PPCI.STTICIN Signature: ICJ- Required• Cars will not be read into the record unless it IS Case No. Attachment D ZA21-0039 Page 12 Southlake Planning and Zoning Meeting Public Comment Form Please Print, Return completed form to Commission Secretary prior to start of regular session. Name Addre Phone Date: ^� �Q wish to share my views on an Agenda Item: _ r (� A ZA �J 0 I will speak in SUPPORT of this item 60' 1 willspeak in OPPOSITION of this item I do not wish to sneJk. h1it wish rri record my SUPPORTI OPPOSMON Signature: Required• Cards will ❑ot he -A)" to the record unless it is signed. Nan Add Pho Dati wish to share my views on an Agenda Item:�Q��I 6W SOLlthlake Planning and Zoning Meeting Public Comment Form Please print. Return completed Form to Commission Secretaryprior to start of re,gUlar scssion JMgnature: Required: Cards will he read inta the record unless it is signed. Case No. Attachment D ZA21-0039 Page 13 Timberline Court and W Street # + Name, Zip Code 0, 340ft M 32,926 De, ey Court Residents 0- )used to ZA2I-0039 City of Grapevine, Tarrant County G Case No. Attachment D ZA21-0039 Page 14 PETITION OPPOSING ITEM ZA21-0039 We, the residents of Woodsey Court and Timberline Court, Southlake, Texas are OPPOSED to item ZA21-0039, regarding the Site Plan for Mustang Business Park. NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE TA W 00r>5 Ci e" 7- 9 too 0 5'e C -r v wt)C; C-f r 3 Cj vq�l i� b Case No. ZA21-0039 Attachment D Page 15 PETITION OPPOSING ITEM ZA2.1-0039 We, the residents of Woodsey Court and Timbezline Court, Southlake, Texas are OPPOSED to item ZA21-0039, regarding the Site Plan for Mustang Business Park. NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE � d ld��r �I�v�T"�►9 I�3 ��sryGf i�� r C1l'Y�q �17Ur�nf� Su Case No. Attachment D ZA21-0039 Page 16 PETITION OPPOSING ITEM ZA21-0039 We, the residents of Woodsey Court and Timberline Court, Southlake, Texas are OPPOSED to item ZA21-0039, regarding the Site Plan for Mustang Business Park. NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE C�J �•- M(k � w I rn, 4tNt w Cod U'� t .tea i zu� C7 MR Case No. Attachment D ZA21-0039 Page 17 PETITION OPPOSING ITEM ZA21-0039 We, the residents of Woodsey Cow-t and Timberline Court, Southlake, Texas are OPPOSED to item ZA21-0039, regarding the Site Plan for Mustang Business Park. NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE u� 7r� r� 2 7 i 1"o e Cf- Y ,a.s &eqQ5 �.j 0 rn�'rc i2� �' �7� c� /' ►7 e a ire r n Uz 7 ea 1/r+ d- JQsc �. Heir?rnde 1. 2-7 I )OG Ti M bYr I ; vt e C 1. -- -- or�� P �► 1 �c Case No. Attachment D ZA21-0039 Page 18 PETITION OPPOSING ITEM ZA21-0039 We, the residents of Woodsey Court and Timberline Court, Southtake, Texas are OPPOSED to item ZA21-0039, regarding the Site Plan for Mustang Business Park. NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE YVtiCk C. AUA-p NAO( = Q-35 �'► ,27r %v,p 4 T-4 6e( katcj Acic*�42/4 Case No. Attachment D ZA21-0039 Page 19 Responses Received outside 200' My name is Greg Billingsly, and I reside at 1217 Woodsey Court. Back in 2002 when the city changed the MH zoning requirements, there were quite a few city council meetings. They were all televised. In at least one of the meetings, a neighbor asked Mayor Rick Stacey if the proposed zoning change would lead to making the road go through on Woodsey Court. The Mayor guaranteed that would NEVER happen. I am opposed to the road going through or even being an emergency route. There have been industrial operations at that location since the founding of this area.... and they have not had an exit from Grapevine into Southlake. We like this quiet street the way it is and do not welcome any more encroachment of our peace, serenity and peace ❑f mind, Additionally, if they do move forward with this development I would implore the city to insist upon a 14" tall permanent / decorative stone or masonry wall to prevent unsightly business, noise and noise pollution. ' �► n Case No. Attachment D ZA21-0039 Page 20 Richard Scheli From: Salowa Alam Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 4:14 PM To: Richard Schell Subject: Woodsy ct Good evening! Hope everything is going good. There is an issue I was recently made aware of on Woodsey Ct. Apparently the city is wanting to add an exit for some warehouse on our street. Of course over time this will end up becoming busy with big trucks. I believe this will greatly hamper the value of this residential area since eventually the homes here have a high likelihood of being torn down to build new higher end homes. I currently own one lot on Woodsey Ct and am planning to build a home valued at least $1.5 million. There are also some new builds in that neighborhood and this will cause a huge issue among the neighbors and value of their property. Over the years I have received your help for my projects and am blessed to have no difficulty navigating any issues with the city. Please take this into consideration when coming to a decision. Thank you, Samantha 972-915-1592 Sent from my iPhone 12 ProMax Case No. Attachment D ZA21-0039 Page 21 From: noreplyC@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 20214:01 PM To: PilarSchank<pschank@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Stacey Black<sblack@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Melody Andersen <MAndersen@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Randi Fracassi <RFracassi@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Lydia Ruiz <Iruiz@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Jerod Potts <ipotts@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Ken Baker <kbaker@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Mike White <mwhite@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Madeline Oujesky <mouiesky@ci.southlake.tx.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact the City Contact the City Contact Us The City of Southlake welcomes comments, suggestions and concerns. We will respond to your email within 48 hours. To call the City, please dial (817) 748-8400 during regular business hours. Thank you for your submission. First Name Salowa Last Name Alam Email Select A Planning and Development Services Department/Service Message to the City There is meeting about opening up Woodsey Ct. for an emergency exit for some warehouse being built. This a quite residential street. I am oppose to decision. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Case No. Attachment D ZA21-0039 Page 22