Loading...
Item 5City of Southlake Department of Planning Case No. ZA 04-047 S T A F F R E P O R T April 1, 2005 CASE NO: ZA04-047 PROJECT: Stonebridge Park REQUEST: Realty Capital Corporation is requesting approval of a rezoning and concept plan for “S-P- 2” generalized site plan district. Eight new office and three new retail/office buildings totaling approximately 74,500 square feet are proposed. Under the “S-P-2” zoning the applicant proposes the following (see Attachment C): • “C-2” Local-Retail Commercial District uses and development regulations on Lots 1 & 6. • “O-1” Office District uses and development regulations on Lots 2R2 through 5R2. • Parking - A parking ratio of 1 space per 201 square feet of building area for the entire site. • Screening – A 6’ wrought iron fence along the specified lot boundaries. • Impervious Coverage – Overall site not to exceed 65%. Individual lots not to exceed 69%. • Setbacks – The setback on Lot 4R2 shall be 33 feet. The setback on Lot 3R1 shall be 17’. • Bufferyards – Bufferyards along interior lot lines shall not be required. In addition to the above regulations, the applicant is requesting the following: • Parking – Required parking shall be permitted within the public street right-of-way. The following variances are being requested (see Attachment C): • Public Street R.OW. – Minimum 60 ft required, 40 ft. R.O.W. with 30 ft. pavement width is proposed. • Driveway Spacing to intersection – Min. 500 ft required on FM 1709. 390 ft proposed. • Driveway Spacing on local streets –Min. 100 feet required, 63 feet and 66 feet proposed. • Driveway Stacking – Min. 28 ft required, 15 ft for drives and 0’ for parking adjacent to the street is proposed. ACTION NEEDED: 1. Conduct public hearing 2. Consider zoning change and concept plan approval ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information (B) Vicinity Map (C) Plans and Support Information (D) Concept Plan Review Summary No. 7, dated April 1, 2005 (E) Surrounding Property Owners Map (F) Surrounding Property Owners Responses (G) Full Size Plans (for Commission and Council Members Only) STAFF CONTACT: Ken Baker (481-2036) Case No. ZA 04-047 Dennis Killough (481-2073) BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNER/APPLICANT: Realty Capital Corporation PROPERTY SITUATION: 150 – 175 Stonebridge Lane and 2340 & 2350 W. Southlake Boulevard LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1 – 6, Block 1, Stonebridge Park LAND USE CATEGORY: Retail Commercial, Office Commercial, and 100-Year Flood Plain CURRENT ZONING: “S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District REQUESTED ZONING: “S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District HISTORY: -A change of zoning to “S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District was approved for Stonebridge Park by City Council on September 18, 1996. -City Council approved a site plan for an animal hospital on August 5, 1997 on what is now Lot 1. -City Council approved a preliminary plat for Stonebridge Park on October 7, 1997. -A final plat for Lot 1 was approved by P&Z on October 23, 1997. -P&Z approved a final plat for Lots 2 – 6 on January 22, 1998. -A revised site plan for the animal hospital on Lot 1 was approved by City Council on March 19, 2002. TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT: Master Thoroughfare Plan The Master Thoroughfare Plan recommends Southlake Boulevard to have 130 feet of right-of-way. Adequate right-of-way exists for this roadway. Existing Area Road Network and Conditions Stonebridge Park has dedicated a street, Stonebridge Lane, which intersects with W. Southlake Boulevard. Only a portion of the street has been built. The applicant is proposing to extend the street but has proposed a right-of-way width of 40 feet with 10-foot utility easements on either side in lieu of the standard right-of-way width of 60 feet for commercial streets. The development also proposes one (1) full access drive directly onto W. Southlake Boulevard for Lot 6 as there is no access to Stonebridge Lane. W. Southlake Boulevard is a five-lane, undivided thoroughfare with a continuous, two-way, center left-turn lane. The width of the roadway is sufficient to be a seven-lane roadway. Case No. Attachment A ZA 04-047 Page 1 Case No. Attachment A ZA 04-047 Page 2 May, 2004 traffic counts on W. Southlake Blvd (between Pearson Ln & F.M. 1938) 24hr West Bound (WB) (16,301) East Bound (EB) (17,090) WB Peak A.M. (852) 11 – 12 a.m. Peak P.M. (1,697) 5 – 6 p.m. EB Peak A.M. (1,581) 7 – 8 a.m. Peak P.M. (1,121) 5 – 6 p.m. Traffic Impact Use Sq. Ft. Vtpd*AM- IN AM- OUT PM- IN PM- OUT General Office 78,863 868 108 15 20 98 *Vehicle Trips Per Day **The AM/PM times represent the number of vehicle trips generated during the peak travel times on W. Southlake Boulevard. PATHWAYS MASTER PLAN: According to the Master Pathways Plan, an 8-foot multi-use trail is planned adjacent to the development along W. Southlake Boulevard. The trail has been constructed and is shown on the site plan. WATER & SEWER: An 8-inch water line currently exists along the north side of W. Southlake Boulevard adjacent to this lot. The applicant is proposing to extend a 6-inch sanitary sewer line from the west. DRAINAGE ANALYSIS: The drainage from this site will be handled with two detention / retention ponds in addition to the existing pond. This includes the increased runoff from development of the site as well as the runoff coming through it. The creek running through this site is part of the floodplain. A conditional letter of Map Revision has been approved by FEMA. TREE PRESERVATION: During the previous submittal we allowed the applicant to submit an aerial photograph in place of the required Tree Survey because the applicant still needed to rezone the property and still has a Site Plan and Grading Plan to submit for formal approval. The aerial photograph that was submitted is not very good quality and it is very difficult, if not impossible, to make out the location of any individual trees that could be preserved on the development site. The applicant has not specified any areas of existing trees or individual trees that would be preserved on the site but has changed the layout of the Concept plan to provide extra green space in Lots 3R1 and 4R1. The majority of “Quality” trees exist in this location as well as next to the existing pond and creek. A Grading Plan has not yet been submitted but the applicant should be able to save a large quantity of trees within these areas. PARKING COMMENTS: Public Works Staff recommends that on-street angled parking not be allowed due to safety concerns. Case No. Attachment A ZA 04-047 Page 3 P&Z ACTION: February 17, 2005; Approved to table (5-0) until March 3, 2005. March 3, 2005; Approved to table (6-0) until April 7, 2005. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Concept Plan Review Summary No. 7, dated April 1, 2005. N:\Community Development\MEMO\2004cases\04-047ZCP.doc Case No. Attachment B ZA 04-047 Page 1 Newly Submitted Plan Case No. Attachment C ZA 04-047 Page 1 Case No. Attachment C ZA 04-047 Page 2 Previously Submitted Plan Case No. Attachment C ZA 04-047 Page 3 Case No. Attachment C ZA 04-047 Page 4 Case No. Attachment C ZA 04-047 Page 5 Case No. Attachment C ZA 04-047 Page 6 Case No. Attachment C ZA 04-047 Page 7 Case No. Attachment C ZA 04-047 Page 8 Previously Approved Concept Plan Approved Site Plan for Lot 1 Case No. Attachment C ZA 04-047 Page 9 Case No. Attachment D ZA 04-047 Page 1 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA04-047 Review No.: Seven Date of Review: 04/01/05 Project Name: Concept Plan – Stonebridge Park APPLICANT: Realty Capital Corporation ENGINEER: BHB Engineering & Surveying Richard Myers / Rory Maguire Konstantine Bakintas, P.E. 32 Village Lane, Suite 200 6300 Ridglea Place, Suite 700 Colleyville, TX 76034 Fort Worth, TX 76116 Phone: (817) 488-4200 Phone: (817) 338-1277 Fax: (817) 424-2448 Fax: (817) 338-9245 CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 03/21/05 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT BEN BRYNER AT (817) 481-2086. 1. Provide a public street meeting the regulations found in Subdivision Ordinance No. 483 for commercial streets. Commercial streets are required a minimum 60’ of R.O.W. (A variance has been requested.) 2. Provide the minimum spacing from a driveway to an intersection on Southlake Boulevard. Spacing from a driveway to an intersection is required to be 500’ on Southlake Boulevard. (A variance has been requested.) 3. Provide the minimum spacing between drives on Stonebridge Lane. Spacing between drives is required to be 100’ for commercial drives on a local street. (A variance has been requested.) 4. Provide the minimum stacking depth for all drives on Stonebridge Lane. A stacking depth of 28’ is required for all drives on Stonebridge Lane. (A variance has been requested.) 5. Remove the on-street parking from the plan. No required off-street parking space shall be located within any public highway, street or alley right-of-way. Additionally, Public Works Staff recommends that on-street angled parking not be allowed due to safety concerns. (The applicant is requesting that on-street parking be allowed.) If on-street parking is approved, add a regulation stating that required parking shall be permitted within and along the public street right-of-way. 6. Extend the drive lanes and common access easements to the property lines to provide connection into the east and west adjacent properties. 7. Sufficient parking must be provided per individual lot unless a written agreement is properly executed and filed as outlined in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended (Sec 35.2.b). A reciprocal shared parking and access agreement must be provided to the City prior to issuance of a building permit for any building. Case No. Attachment D ZA 04-047 Page 2 INFORMATIONAL COM should be aware that a building perm processed and filed in the County Plat Records, and a site plan, landscape plan, irrigation plan, and val 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 licability of the reside nded by Ordinance Part III “Residential Adjacen verlay Zone ction 43, Part II. Although no review of the following issues is provided with this applicant must evaluate the site bmittal of the site plan. A be submitted and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council asonry Ordinance No. l Equipment Screening per § 43.13c, Ordinance 480, as amended. areas intended for MENTS * The applicant prior to issuance of it a revised Plat must be building plans, must be submitted for appro Tap Fees, and related Permit Fees. he app* This site falls within t 43, ntial adjacency standards as ame he Corridor O480-CC, Section cy Standards” as well as t regulations in Se theconcept plan, Site Plan must for compliance prior to su prior to issuance of a building permit. Note that these issues are only the major areas of site plan review and that the applicant is responsible for compliance with all site plan requirements: • Masonry requirements per §43.13a, Ordinance 480, as amended and M 557, as amended. • Roof design standards per § 43.13b, Ordinance 480, as amended • Mechanica • Vertical and horizontal building articulation (required on all building facades) per §43.13d, Ordinance 480, as amended. • Building setback standards as per § 43.13h and as shown in exhibit 43-E, Ordinance 480, as amended. • Spill-over lighting and noise per §43.13i and §43.13j, Ordinance 480, as amended. • Off-street parking requirements per §35, Ordinance 480, as amended. All vehicular use must be of an all weather surface material in accordance with the Ordinance No. 480, as amended. • Screening as per §39.4, Ordinance 480, as amended. • Interior landscaping per Landscape Ordinance No. 544. • Fire lanes must be approved by the City Fire Department. Case No. Attachment D ZA 04-047 Page 3 PRESERVATION ANALYSIS (Non-Residential Development) Case: 0 TREE 4-047 Date of Review: March 24, 2005 Number of Pages: 1 t Name: Projec Stone Bridge Park (Concept Plan) WNER \ DEVELOPER PREPARED BY: Phone: O Reality Capital Corporation Baird, Hampton & Brown, Inc. (817) 488-4200 Phone: (817) 338-1277 Fax: (817) 424-2448 Fax: (817) 338-9245 THIS ANALYSIS IS PREPARED AT THE TIME OF REVIEW OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT AND IS TO PROVID PROTEC ANDS E AN ANALYSIS OF THE PLAN OR SURVEY AND THE IMPACT OF CONSTRUCTION ON ANY TED TREES ON THE SITE. FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATION CONTACT KEITH MARTIN, CAPE ADMINISTRATOR AT (817) 481-5640 L TREE PRESERVATION COMMENTS: 1. photograph in place of the required Tree Survey because the applicant still needed to rezone the property and still has a Site Plan ted is not very good quality and it is very difficult if not impossible to make out the location of any individual trees trees or individual trees that would be preserved on the site but has changed the layout of the Concept plan to provide extra green space in Lots 3R1 and 4R1. The majority of “Quality” trees are existing in is loc but the applicant should be able to save a large quantity of trees within these areas. hat the O.W nes, r exempt ree Pre ce. Any protected trees within these areas that the Landscape Administrator term tree protection requirements listed in ent requirements listed in the development shall be subject to During the previous submittal we allowed the applicant to submit an aerial and Grading Plan to submit for formal approval. The aerial photograph that was submit that could be preserved on the development site. The applicant has not specified any areas of existing th ation as well as next to the existing pond and creek. A Grading Plan has not yet been submitted * Non-residential Development: In a non-residential development, all protected trees t Landscape Administrator determines must be altered in order to install utility lines within public R. . or public utility or drainage easements as shown on an approved Final Plat, or to install fire la equired parking areas and building pad sites as shown on an approved Site Plan, shall be from the tree protection and tree replacement requirements listed in Sections 7 and 8 of the servation OrdinanT de ines do not have to be altered shall be subject to the Section 8 of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, but not to the tree replacem Section 7 of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. All other areas of both the tree replacement and the tree protection requirements, and all other provisions of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Case No. Attachment D ZA 04-047 Page 4 M E M O R A N D U M Dennis Killough, Senior Planner .E., City Engineer ge Park the should be a public street or not. The issues were as ollows: . The developer wanted it to be a fire lane and access easement to reduce the burden of the set back 2. The issues w buildin It was wide ri 60’ righ rking is ove The an maneuv downto downto against To: Ken baker, Planning Director From: Charlie Thomas, P Subject: Stonebrid Recently, I met with the Planning Staff, David Barnes, Fire Marshal and the developer and discussed issue as to whether the extension of Stonebridge Lane f 1 requirements and had shown it that way on the Concept Plan that we reviewed. Fire Marshal wanted the extension of Stonebridge Lane to be a public street so that there were no ith who would be responsible for maintaining the pavement in the fire lane and the individual gs would be addressed on that street and not Southlake Blvd. suggested that the developer might ask for the approval of constructing the extension within a 40’ ght of way and provide a 10’ utility easement on both sides of the right of way in lieu of required t of way. The Public Works Staff supports this suggestion if the angled on-street pa rem d from the street. gled on-street parking is a hazard and allows the developer to utilize the public street for ering as part of his parking lot. Historically, angled on-street parking is only allowed in the wn commercial districts and angled on-street parking is not allowed in areas away from the wn commercial district. The City Engineer and Public Works Director recommend, strongly, allowing angled on-street parking on any public street. City of Southlake, Texas Surrounding Property Owners Lots 1-6, Block 1, Stonebridge Park Owner Zoning Land Use Acreage 1. Miller, Rheta Mae “AG” Low Density Residential 2.710 2. Miller, Rheta Mae “AG” Low Density Residential & 100 6.990 Year Flood Plain 3. Bedgood, James E “SF-1A” Low Density Residential & 100 Year Flood Plain 4.957 4. Garner, Robert & Billie “SF-1A” Low Density Residential 3.264 5. Collins, Ottis F. Sr “SF-1A” Low Density Residential 3.189 6. Brown, David L “SF-1A” Office Commercial 3.247 7. Martin, James H “C-3” Retail Commercial 3.206 8. Shunail Corp Inc. “C-3” Retail Commercial 1.082 9. Southlake Crossing Ani Clinic “C-3” Retail Commercial 0.531 10. Stanley Crossing, Lp “C-2” Retail Commercial 1.341 11. Wendy’s International Inc “C-2” Retail Commercial & 10 0.751 0 Year Flood Plain 12. Daily Six Texas Inc “S-P-1” 100 Year Flood Plain 0.491 13. Drew Realty Group “C-2” 100 Year Flood Plain 0.989 14. Lam, Conner “AG” Office Commercial & 100 Year Flood Plain 2.550 15. Hallmark, Clara Maye Est “SF-1A” Low Density Residential 1.284 16. Southlake Church of Christ “CS” Public/Semi-Public 9.817 17. Stonebridge Monticello Pt Ltd “S-P-2” Retail & Office Commercial & 100 Year Flood Plain NA 18. NTVMG Llp “S-P-2” Retail & Office Commercial & 100 Year Flood Plain NA Case No. Attachment E ZA 04-047 Page 1 Case No. Attachment F ZA 04-047 Page 1 Surrounding Property Owner Responses Lots 1-6, Block 1, Stonebridge Park Notices Sent: Eighteen (18) Responses: None (0)