Item 12 - Staff Report revised 9-7Case No.
ZA23-0042
REVISED
S T A F F R E P O R T
September 7, 2023
CASE NO: ZA23-0049
PROJECT: Site Plan for Constellation Southlake EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY: Halff Associates, on behalf of Constellation Real Estate Partners, is requesting
approval of a site plan on property described as Tracts 1B01, 1B01B 1B01C,
1B01C1, 1B01C2, 1B01D, Harrison Decker Survey Abstract No. 438, City of
Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, and addressed as 2000, 2100, 2110, 2120
Mustang Court, Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: “I-2” Heavy Industrial District.
SPIN Neighborhood #8.
DETAILS: The property is located just northeast of the State Highway 26 (Ira E. Woods
Avenue) and Mustang Court intersection and the northeast corner of Mustang
Court and Southwestern Street. The purpose of this request is to seek site plan
approval by removing the existing storage tanks and constructing four large
warehouse buildings on the site. Each building will be 35’ in height and meet “I-2”
Heavy Industrial District requirements. The total square footage of the four
buildings is roughly 546,330 square feet.
Primary access to the site will be provided via Mustang Court which has direct
access to SH 26, a state-owned facility. The property will also be served by an
emergency access point located on the adjacent eastern property.
Case No.
ZA23-0042
VARIANCE
REQUESTED: Variance to Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-E. The proposed Tree Conservation
does not comply with the Existing Tree Cover Preservation Requirements of the
Tree Preservation Ordinance. There is 22.95% of existing tree cover on the site
and a minimum of 60% of the existing tree cover is required to be preserved. A
total of 0% of the existing tree cover is proposed to be preserved and the applicant
is proposing a variance to the existing tree cover preservation requirements.
ACTION NEEDED: 1) Conduct a Public Hearing
2) Consider Approval
ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information
(B) Vicinity Map
(C) Revised Site Plan Review Summary No. 1 dated September 1, 2023.
(D) Surrounding Property Owners Responses
(E) Notice Responses
Full Size Plans (for Commission and Council members only)
PowerPoint Presentation
Plans
TIA
Narrative
SPIN Report
Corridor Planning Committee Report
Variance Request Letter
STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough (817)748-8072
Reagan Rothenberger (817)748-8602
Case No. Attachment A
ZA23-0042 Page 1
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Halff Associates, Inc.
OWNER: Constellation Real Estate
PROPERTY SITUATION: 2000, 2100, 2110, 2120 Mustang Court, Southlake, TX, 76092
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tracts 1B01, 1B01B 1B01C, 1B01C1, 1B01C2, 1B01D, Harrison Decker
Survey Abstract No. 438
CURRENT ZONING: “I-2” Heavy Industrial Zoning District
HISTORY: - The properties were annexed into the City in February 1966.
- The zoning designation of “B-1” Business Service Park District was
placed on the property with the adoption of Zoning Ordinance No. 480 in
1989.
- The current Petroleum Operations on the site were approved by the
Zoning Board of Adjustment as a Special Exception Use with Case No.
ZBA-90 on June 4, 1990. A corresponding Site Plan was also approved
with case ZBA-91.
SOUTHLAKE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Consolidated Future Land Use Plan
The Southlake Future Land Use Plan designates this property as Industrial.
Industrial land uses are defined as 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.
Pathways Master Plan & Sidewalk Plan
A minimum 5’ sidewalk will be required along Mustang Court.
TREE PRESERVATION: The proposed Tree Conservation does not comply with the Existing Tree
Cover Preservation Requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance.
There is 22.95% of existing tree cover on the site and a minimum of 60% of
the existing tree cover is proposed to be preserved. A total of 0% of the
existing tree cover is proposed to be preserved and the applicant is
proposing a variance to the existing tree cover preservation requirements.
TRANSPORTATION
ASSESSMENT: Mobility & Master Thoroughfare Plan
Access to the site will be through Mustang Court, which currently has a
single access point to SH 26. Mustang Court intersects with Southwestern
Boulevard, which conceptually, may connect to Brumlow Ave. in the future,
though this is not currently adopted on the Master Throughfare Plan.
Case No. Attachment A
ZA23-0042 Page 2
The Master Thoroughfare Plan shows Mustang Court to be a local
commercial road with 64’ of right of way.
Area Road and Network Conditions
Mustang Court is a local commercial road with two drive lanes and a
central turn lane. The road currently serves a mix of heavy and light
industrial uses.
Traffic Impact
A Traffic Impact Analysis was provided by Halff and was reviewed by
Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc. (TNP). Some outstanding comments remain
to be addressed, but the information provided is generally sound.
The TIA makes the following general recommendations in the study.
T
h
e
The TIA shows an increase in trip generation with the new development as
shown in the Table 4 below. Existing counts are from the TIA provided and
accepted during the development of Mustang Business Park.
UTILITIES: The Site is served by a 15” Sewer Line and a 12” Water Line.
DRAINAGE: Drainage is proposed to be channeled to a detention pond along the
southern boundary of the site.
VARIANCES
REQUESTED: Variance to Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-E. The proposed Tree
Conservation does not comply with the Existing Tree Cover Preservation
Requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. There is 22.95% of
existing tree cover on the site and a minimum of 60% of the existing tree
cover is required to be preserved. A total of 0% of the existing tree cover is
proposed to be preserved and the applicant is proposing a variance to the
existing tree cover preservation requirements.
PUBLIC INPUT: This item was heard at the August 7, 2023 Corridor Planning Committee
meeting and at the August 8, 2023 SPIN Meeting.
STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Site Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated September 1, 2023.
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
Case No. Attachment A
ZA23-0042 Page 3
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;
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.
Case No. Attachment B
ZA23-0042 Page 1
Case No. Attachment C
ZA23-0042 Page 2
SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY
Case No.: ZA23-0049 Review No.: Two Date of Review: 09/07/23
Project Name: Site Plan – Constellation Southlake
APPLICANT: Kaylie Flynn OWNER: John Delvac
Halff Associates, Inc. Constellation Real Estate Partners
1201 N. Bowser Road 2021 McKinney Ave. STE 300
Richardson, Texas 75081 Dallas, Texas
Phone: (214) 937-3923 Phone: 214.814.4312
E-mail: kflynn@halff.com E-mail: johnd@constellationrep.com
CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON
08/21/23 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 REAGAN ROTHENBERGER AT (817) 748-8602.
Planning Review
1. The Site Plan must conform to the underlying zoning district.
2. Revise the property legal description in the title block. The tract numbers are not correct for the
tracts of record. Correct legal description is: Tracts 1B01, 1B01B 1B01C, 1B01C1, 1B01C2,
1B01D, Harrison Decker Survey Abstract No. 438, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas.
3. Please provide in a revised narrative how cross access is to be provided for neighboring
property and show such access on the Site Plan. Cross access must be provided either via
realigning the private agreement in place or by common access easement.
Informational Comments:
• 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.
• 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
180’.
• Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended, Section 26.5.a regarding building height in the “I-
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 ½) stories or
thirty-five (35) feet in height. The 100’ building line along the western property line is shown on
the Site Plan. The buildings are no taller than thirty-five (35) feet, except for minor decorative
facades at entrances that are as tall as thirty-six (36) feet meeting the Height Exceptions of
Ordinance No. 480, as amended, Section 33.5.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA23-0042 Page 3
• An 8’ solid wood fence is shown along the west boundary per the requirements of
Ordinance 480, Section 39.6.a below since the boundary abuts residential properties:
o 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.
Tree Conservation/Landscape Review
E-mail: kmartin@ci.southlake.tx.us
Keith Martin
Landscape Administrator
Phone: (817) 748-8229
TREE CONSERVATION COMMENTS:
1. Please submit the proposed variance request for the existing tree cover preservation requirements
of the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-E.
2. The proposed Tree Conservation does not comply with the Existing Tree Cover Preservation
Requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. There is 22.95% of existing tree cover on the
site and a minimum of 60% of the existing tree cover is proposed to be preserved. A total of 0% of
the existing tree cover is proposed to be preserved and the applicant is proposing a variance to the
existing tree cover preservation requirements.
* Except as provided by subsection 7.2.b. of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, a Tree Conservation
Analysis or Tree Conservation Plan shall be approved if it will preserve existing tree cover in
accordance with the percentage requirements established by Table 2.0. If the property has
previously received a tree permit related to development, the percentage of existing tree cover at
the time the first such permit was issued shall be used to calculate the minimum existing tree cover
that must be preserved under this section.
Table 2.0 – Existing Tree Cover Preservation Requirements
Percentage of existing tree cover on the entire
site
Minimum percentage of the existing tree
cover to be preserved*
0% – 20% 70%
20.1 – 40% 60%
40.1% - 60% 50%
60.1% - 80% 40%
80.1% - 100% 30%
*The minimum percentage of existing tree cover to be preserved shall exclude any area in public rights-of-way as
approved by City Council.
LANDSCAPE COMMENTS:
1. Please provide a color rendition of the Landscape Plans.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA23-0042 Page 4
2. Within the Interior Landscape Summary Chart, the “Required” interior landscape area is slightly
low. Based on 15% of the buildings total floor area the required interior landscape area is 81,950
square feet. The required ground cover and seasonal color are also slightly incorrect.
3. In the Bufferyards Summary Chart, the locations of the bufferyards are incorrect. For example, the
south bufferyard is adjacent to Hwy 26.
4. There will be two (2) bufferyard designations for the west bufferyard. The bufferyard is required to
be the minimum of a 10’-F1 where adjacent to the residential MH zoned properties, and a 5’-A
where adjacent to the I1 zoned property.
5. The parking landscape islands in the southwest parking area are less than 12’ wide from back-
of-curb to back-of-curb. Parking lot islands shall have a minimum width of 12’ back-to-back if
curbed or 13’ edge-to-edge if no curb is intended and shall be equal to the length of the parking
stall.
6. All parking planter islands in parking areas shall contain a minimum of one (1) canopy tree with
the remaining area in shrubs, ground cover, ornamental grasses, or seasonal color. Planter islands
which have light poles for lighting the parking areas may substitute two (2) understory/accent trees
for the required canopy tree. This includes landscape areas at the end of rows of parking.
* Indicates informational comment.
# Indicates required items comment.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA23-0042 Page 5
Public Works/Engineering Review
Sandy Endy, P.E.
Development Engineer
Phone: (817) 748-8033
E-mail: sendy@ci.southlake.tx.us
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. Retaining walls greater than 4’ in height measured from the top of wall to the bottom of footing shall
require a separate permit.
2. Verify that the site triangle is not being impeded upon at the new driveway intersection with
Mustang Ct.
DRAINAGE COMMENTS:
3. I-values for both pre and post do not match the most current values from the ISWM manual.
4. The total drainage area for both pre and post do not match. * Check the cross slopes at the
northwest corner of the property along the drive.
UTILITY COMMENTS:
5. 4” sewer service lines shall connect directly to the sewer main. 6” or larger service line shall
connect to the manhole.
INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS:
* The existing water and sanitary sewer lines that are being relocated shall remain in service until the
relocated lines have been installed and accepted by the City. The utility lines to be relocated shall be
completed and accepted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
* Existing water meters that are not being used shall be capped and abandoned.
* Utility easements will be required to be modified prior to obtaining final acceptance of the public
water and sewer.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA23-0042 Page 6
Fire Department Review
Kelly Clements
Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal
Phone: (817) 748-8233
E-mail: kclements@ci.southlake.tx.us
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. 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)
2. 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).
3. Fire hydrants are required at a maximum spacing of 500 feet for commercial locations with
completely sprinkled buildings. (Fire hydrants on the property exceed the maximum spacing
allowances)
Case No. Attachment C
ZA23-0042 Page 7
General Informational Comments
* The Development Review Committee (DRC) has determined that this pre-submittal is sufficient
for formal consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z).
* 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 right-of-ways and residential properties
in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended.
* All lighting must comply with the Lighting Ordinance No. 693, as amended.
* All development must comply with the Drainage Ordinance No. 605 and the Erosion and Sediment
Control Ordinance No. 946, as amended.
* 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 D
ZA23-0042 Page 1
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS MAP & RESPONSES
SPO # Owner Zoning Address Acrea
ge
Resp
onse
1 EXPLORER PIPELINE CO I2 2200 MUSTANG CT 6.60 NR
2 ZEM PROPERTIES INC I1 0.05 NR
3 MDC COAST 17 LLC I1
2201 E CONTINENTAL
BLVD 0.00 NR
4 NUSTAR LOGISTICS LP I2 2400 MUSTANG DR 2.85 NR
5 ZEM PROPERTIES INC I1 1211 TIMBERLINE CT 0.05 NR
6 ZEM PROPERTIES INC I1 0.08 NR
7 ZEM PROPERTIES INC I1 1213 TIMBERLINE CT 0.21 NR
8 ZEM PROPERTIES INC I1 0.07 NR
9 ZEM PROPERTIES INC I1 1215 TIMBERLINE CT 0.25 NR
10 ZEM PROPERTIES INC I1 0.09 NR
11 ZEM PROPERTIES INC I1 1217 TIMBERLINE CT 0.30 NR
12 TEXMNG LLC MH 1219 TIMBERLINE CT 0.35 NR
13 WILLOUGHBY, MARK D MH 0.08 NR
14 WILLOUGHBY, MARK D MH 1221 TIMBERLINE CT 0.29 NR
15 ALAM, SHAMSUL MH 1223 TIMBERLINE CT 0.32 NR
16 GUTIERREZ, EUSTOLIO C MH 0.09 NR
17 GUTIERREZ, EUSTOLIO C MH 1225 TIMBERLINE CT 0.30 NR
18 WANG, JENNIFER MH 0.09 NR
19 WANG, JENNIFER MH 1227 TIMBERLINE CT 0.30 NR
20 RAMIREZ, ROSALBA MH 0.07 NR
Case No. Attachment D
ZA23-0042 Page 2
21 RAMIREZ, ROSALBA MH 1229 TIMBERLINE CT 0.23 NR
22 NEWTON, RALPH K MH 0.09 NR
23 NEWTON, RALPH K MH 1231 TIMBERLINE CT 0.30 NR
24 OSTUNI, REXANA E MH 0.08 NR
25 OSTUNI, REXANA E MH 1233 TIMBERLINE CT 0.29 NR
26
FLINT HILLS RESOURCES
CORPUS C I2 2350 SH 26 0.84 NR
27 MARTINEZ, MAURO MH 0.08 NR
28 MARTINEZ, MAURO MH 1235 TIMBERLINE CT 0.28 NR
29 JTK DYER GROUP LLC MH 0.09 NR
30 JTK DYER GROUP LLC MH 1237 TIMBERLINE CT 0.29 NR
31
WRIGHT MUSTANG BUSINESS
PARK L I1 1800 SH 26 3.17 NR
32
PETROLEUM CO OF TEXAS
ETAL I1 SH 26 0.19 NR
33 WRIGHT, JOE L I1 2400 SH 26 0.06 NR
34 PS LPT PROPERTIES INVESTORS I1 1750 MUSTANG CT 0.63 NR
35 JOLLY, MALWINDER BAWA MH 1214 TIMBERLINE CT 0.49 NR
36 GUO, HONGLIN MH 1220 TIMBERLINE CT 1.39 NR
37 ZEM PROPERTIES INC MH 1222 TIMBERLINE CT 0.48 NR
38 TISCHER ENERGY FAMILY LP MH 1224 TIMBERLINE CT 0.49 NR
39 TREVINO, ROMEO MH 1226 TIMBERLINE CT 0.46 NR
40
MUTUAL HOLDINGS SERIES E
LLC MH 1228 TIMBERLINE CT 0.54 NR
40
MUTUAL HOLDINGS SERIES E
LLC MH 1228 TIMBERLINE CT 0.54 NR
40 TREVINO, ZOILA Z MH 1228 TIMBERLINE CT 0.54 NR
40 MUTUAL HOLDINGS LLC MH 1228 TIMBERLINE CT 0.54 NR
41 EDWARDS, FRED L MH 1230 TIMBERLINE CT 0.44 NR
42 PENEDO, AIDA DEL C MH 1232 TIMBERLINE CT 0.43 NR
43 BLANCO, MARIO ALBERTO MH 1234 TIMBERLINE CT 0.50 NR
44 KOSS, TIMOTHY MH 1236 TIMBERLINE CT 0.48 NR
45 MCCLELLAN, TOMMIE LEE MH 1216 TIMBERLINE CT 0.48 NR
46 ZEM PROPERTIES INC I1 1207 TIMBERLINE CT 0.88 NR
1000
MAGELLAN PIPELINE
TERMINALS LP I2 2110 MUSTANG CT 0.70 U
1001
MAGELLAN PIPELINE
TERMINALS LP I2 2110 MUSTANG DR 0.86 U
1002
MAGELLAN PIPELINE
TERMINALS LP I2 2110 MUSTANG CT 1.25 U
1003
MAGELLAN PIPELINE
TERMINALS LP I2 2100 MUSTANG CT 14.16 U
1004 MAGELLAN PIPELINE I2 0.63 U
Case No. Attachment D
ZA23-0042 Page 3
TERMINALS LP
1005
MAGELLAN PIPELINE
TERMINALS LP I2 2120 MUSTANG CT 15.60 U
F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response
Notices Sent: Fifty-two (52)
Responses Received: In Favor: Opposed: Undecided: No Response:
Surrounding Property Owner Responses
No responses to date
Case No. Attachment E
ZA23-0005 Page 1
NOTICE RESPONSES
None Received