Item 7A - SPIN ReportJUSOUTHLAKE
SPIN MEETING REPORT
SPIN Item Number: SPIN2024-10
City Case Number: ZA24-0042
Project Name: Carillon Parc
SPIN Neighborhood: 3
Meeting Date: June 25, 2024
Meeting Location: 1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX
City Council Chambers
Total Attendance: 23
Hosts: Madeline Prater
Applicant Presenting: John Terrell
City Staff Present: Madeline Prater, Business Manager
FORUM SUMMARY:
Property Situation: Northeast corner of N. White Chapel Blvd. and E. Kirkwood Blvd.
Development Details:
• REVISION #1 Change dedication of portion of public park space to Open Space
• REVISION #2 "Allow the developer flexibility to develop retail restaurant, office,
or private club if Public Library is not built within the development, leaving option
for library or performing arts use."
• REVISION #3 "Developer to combine two buildings into one building, allowing for
potential underground parking." Will bring with future site plan.
• REVISION #4 "Optional detention/retention pond with fountain if needed for
storm drainage. If built, developer will assume cost of maintenance of the pond
and fountain." Built as aesthetic amenity and with support and input from
community.
• REVISION #5 "Change dedication of public road to private drive for future valet,
and drop-off with speed ramp into the garage."
• REVISION #6 "Requesting second entrance pending on Hwy 114 frontage road
upon TXDOT approval."
• REVISION #7 "Change unit size from 2,300 SF minimum to 2,300 SF average
with a minimum of 2,000 SF. The number of units will remain at 50 maximum."
Presentation:
JIM
solFw
*� '-
,�.:.
- �"��+� � � � �; � .•. Corridor Committee
�.Z►y w . 't i y' t.!sb � _ �t _- cy. oa.os.mza
'1 Kimleyol
��'."' llnvwwrW��lo
E. K RK%000 8Lvo
111JJ�1JJJJ J --I __j,
��J1J.�WJJJJJJ
3 �_Ll_1.1_�JJJJJ_l_L11 � J
_ T
^� 7� J
3 C
rr
+r Nw,.17v
rvoam rv.LS
In
PROPOSED REVISIONS
REVISION #1 Change dedication of portion of public park space to Open Space
REVISION #2 "Allow the developer flexibility to develop retall restaurant, office,
or private club if Public Library is not built within the development, leaving option
for library or performing arts use."
REVISION #3 "Developer to combine two buildings into one building, allowing for
potential underground parking." Will bring with future site plan.
REVISION #4 "Optional detention/retention pond with fountain if needed for
storm drainage. If built, developer will assume cost of maintenance of the pond
and fountain." Built as aesthetic amenity and with support and input from
community.
REVISION #5 "Change dedication of public road to private drive for future valet,
and drop-off with speed ramp into the garage."
REVISION #6 "Requesting second entrance pending on Hwy 114 frontage road
upon TXDOT approval"
REVISION #7 "Change unit size from 2,300 SF minimum to 2,300 SF average with
a minimum of 2,000 SF. The number of units will remain at 50 maximum."
IGmil PEEBSTMnN
uuuarexawn
PROPOSED REVISION #1 Change dedication of public park space to Open Space
j
f�
J ; h
LU
I
i s
Approved Concept Plan
:Q JJJJJJJJJ J
I_LI_IJ.LI_.1_LI_I_!_1
J
J
14
MOA7X N.FS
�_ E MIRKWWPHivP.
III h JJJJ J `
W JJJJJJ -W 13 I .
N.TS
Proposed Concept Plan
PROPOSED REVISION #1
Change dedication of portion of public park to Open Space
Area inside jug handle to remain dedicated Park
Portion of public park dedication to Open Space
(If city elects to build library or performing arts, the needed
area would be dedicated to the city.
• Developer to pay for infrastructure (road, utilities) to
access but would receive credit for that area as Open
Space
• Modified Incentive Agreement to remove City 50%
obligation to build and maintain park
• Creates additional sales taxes and property taxes
• No requirement for separate park
management/programming agreement and allows
developer to better program events and water feature and
manage 12 approved kiosks
• Allows for future modifications to site planning without
triggering issues associated with dedicated public parks
E. VRRWOOD BLVD.
� J
11I1I11111 1
J `
-1.11.11 L1.1_I I.I� J
IIIIIIIII�_�1�11 �
4
_L-7J{�
2`1
NMM
N.TS ,
ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN
nxw [.0
E. K�Rxw000 Rcvo.
J J
J11111111_1 J
l-l.l-l_l_11_l_I 1 LH J
I I I I I I 1111JJ1 ,
r y I
1 1 f I
r
NORTH NTs
ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN
PROPOSED REVISION #2
'Allow the developer flexibility for the option to develop retail
restaurant, office, private club, or public library/performing arts
on the east side of the water feature."
1) The City of Southlake made the decision to remove the Public
Library/Performing Arts from the earlier zoning approval, based on concerns
related to the economy and other financial implications.
2) The developer is requesting to substitute another architecturally significant
facility at the same location where the library was being proposed. In the
developer's proposal, the building would be approved for a tax generating
specialty retail, restaurant, office, private club, or a UBRARY/Performing
Arts facility, within the previously proposed 8-9 acre park.
3) The developer proposes to include the library/performing arts as a permitted
use as there may be an opportunity to re -address the issue should the
economy not be as volatile in late 2024/2025 (when that building would be
constructed), thereby preserving the option for the uses to be,)ocated.in
Carillon Parc should financial conditions change for the city. As the city's
study showed, the best location for the library is at Carillon Parc.
4) The required Open Space would be reduced to allow for the new
library/performing arts/commercial building. Should the city and developer
mutually agree upon terms to construct the library in the coming six months,
the developer would agree to dedicate the land back to the city. The
roadway and utilities to serve and access the building(s) would be paid for by
the developer.
Kimley »IiOfD PE EASTMAN
Glull.oM crtoWN
PROPOSED REVISION #3
"The developer plans to combine the two buildings into one
building, allowing for potential underground parking."
1) If the buildings remain as currently approved, underground parking cannot
be achieved
2) It is the goal of the developer to achieve more square footage with a larger
building )possible 3 stories) while providing much needed parking on this
western side of the project.
3) Developer will bring site plan at,a.later,date,
Kimleyoftn PEEASTMAN
i � �, KIAKW06o BEND. 1
�
11JJJJJJIJ J
J
--I
m � J_L1_Ll_L1J_l_1.1_l.1
I]]]] rM113J
llllllllllll�l �
�
------------
NpnB NTS
ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN
t, ,,joOD BLvo.
JJIJJIJIJJ J �
ITT
J J
o
"4
® 4J
Npni N.TS
ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN
ao�ax o.o[
PROPOSED REVISION 94
Optional detention/retention pond with fountain if needed for
storm drainage. If built, developer will assume cost of
maintenance of the fountain."
This option would only be necessary if the developer cannot
obtain or create rights across the adjoining 10 acre tract to
convey storm water to the existing Carillon lakes as
contemplated in the original Carillon development plans
approved by the city in 2008.
Optional detention/retention pond
Kimley Morn PERKINS—
EASTMAN
uRuancAown
PROPOSED REVISION #5
"Change dedication of public road to private drive for future
valet, and drop-off with speed romp into the garage."
1) City staff suggested and agrees maintaining the valet/drop-oft
area as a private drive
2) Reduces future maintenance cost to the city
3) Improves operations for restaurants and retail uses
• Ability to have one-way traffic with two lanes or, two way
depending on business volumes, events, etc.
• Ability to segregate self parking traffic from valet traffic
• Creates a safer environment not co -mingling valet traffic with self -
parking traffic
• Creates an 'exclusive feel' for those that choose to utilize va;et
4) Provides better convenience to general_pu6lic
• Reduces congestions and frustration for the 'self -parking guest'
` that does not want to 'enter into' the valet area or traffic
. 5) To be constructed as part of Phase 1A
KlmleyoHorn PEEA TMAN
Gk[IJDN CxNWN
17
E.IURKWO�D �t
JJJJJJJJJJ J �L
I J
W JJJJJJJI�� ,
m
YT�s it -to, ..
® .
NanTH NTs -
ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN
Airwrciry orsourwcsw rerhs
PROPOSED REVISION #5
"Change dedication of public road to private drive for future
valet and drop-off with speed romp into the garage."
LEGEND
Phase 1
Site Infrastructure
Roadways
utilities
Phase lA
Park
Proposed Open Space
Phase 1A Bu i Idings & Roads
Primary Carillon Bell Tcwer
Secondary Carillon Bell Tower
_ Propcsed Private Drive — Valet — Speed Ramp
Future Phase
_ Future Phase Buiidings
Future Phase Roads
RKI�. ,rttis Kimley,»Horn PEEAShTMAN
PROPOSED REVISION #G
"Future project entrance pending TXDOT construction of
planned Hwy 114 Romp Reversals"
1) Improves operations, access and mobility
2) TxDOT has fully funded design
3} Construction is not yet fully funded
4) Could construct within 2 years if funded
5} TXDQT Public Meeting 5/9/24 — Developer Requested
• Advanced approval for a second access drive along the Carillon
Parc service road frontage
• Consideration to advance the ramp to the earliest possible time
in the overall SH 114 Main Lanes and Ramp Reversal project.
Future project entrance
'W Kimley li0rst pEEASTMAN
CA0.n10N C N
�t Second Access Drive
tz
nowrN nTs
E. OWN0099LVP
I frUrrUrl.J I
�
_ J
�11�LW�1��s J
II �
7101rrH NTS v
ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN
1
E'
PROPOSED REVISION #6
"Future project entrance pending TXDOT approval and
funding."
Carillon Crown Property Owner Requests:
• Approve second access point into the 41 acre, $400
Carillon Parc development
• Expedite romp reversals on North side of Hwy 114
(between Carroll Ave and Whites Chapet Blvd
-Carillon Parc development
(42 acre tract)
Owner: Carillon Crown
KimleyoHorn PEKINS—
EASTMAN
PROPOSED REVISION 117
"Change unit size from 2,300 SF minimum to Z300 SF average
with a minimum of 2,000 SF. The number of units will remain at
50 maximum."
1. Improves marketability and provides more floorplan options
2. Allows flexibility in design to accommodate other uses
(ie. Office, private club, common areas)
3. Does not impact maximum number of units or the total
square footage (115,000sf)
Kimley»)Horn PEEASTMAN
uuu.oH cxoHm
r16
-
_ 'Jk-
"7bhT-l--
�!' #
c �
A it
t�
n !I Il 11H All 011 Al A, '� �► ���'�L
�1.1 All.
--fill
n`'Se Em
lip
II: f
» q
aim ,, -
lik Kimley»>Horn PERKINS-
CARILLON CROWN EASTMAN
Comments, Questions, and Concerns:
Question: Anticipated construction for ramp reversals along SH 114?
Answer: They (TxDOT) are working on the schedule right now, but it's not decided.
Question: Maintenance of open space — since it'll be removed from the city, where is
the revenue going to come from to maintain the space?
Answer: The developer will maintain it through a POA - tenant rents.
Question: If the city decides to place the new Library at this location, where would the
loss revenue from that building be made up for the POA?
Answer: POA — if the city decided not to do the library, we're asking for an allowance to
change that building to a revenue generating space. It'll generate more taxes and
revenue for the city, which will help the POA. If the city does not do the library and does
not allow the additional building, then that will be an issue.
Question: Carillon's HOA — the proposed villas that are in the process of being built, will
they be part of the HOA? Will they contribute to the HOA financially?
Answer: Carillon HOA would be willing to accept the villas if we roll it in.
Question: Condominiums — will they allow any type of short-term rentals?
Answer: No.
Question: Highway reversal — trying to put another entrance to Carillon Parc, how far
East will that be?
Answer: We would only be adding a driveway at this location. It does not change traffic
flow.
Question: How does making the land open space vs. park land improve the overall
financials of this project?
Answer: City -side — If we change the land from park to open space, the city and
citizens will not have to pay 50% of the cost, will not have long term maintenance
impacts, and will not need extra staff to program and manage the activities of the park.
Developer side — It does not directly impact the finances other than being able to give
assurances to the tenants that we are in control of the operations of the fountain, kiosks,
etc.
Question: Will there still be a gate for residents to go through?
Answer: Yes
Question: Phase I is almost ready for builders to start. Where I can't make the
connection is between Phase I and Phase II — what is appealing is the lots being close
to immersible stuff (restaurants and shops). Phase 11 seems like it has a lot of hurdles
for your team to go through. When do you expect Phase II to be completed? Do you
have a legal obligation to do Phase II even if City Council rejects everything you do?
Answer: No.
Question: Got it, you don't have a legal obligation. So, you could finish all the
residential pieces, releasing it, and Phase II could remain as it is now if you can't get
your approvals or come to an agreement.
Answer: Technically, that's the case. Reality is that this developer has invested millions
of dollars in the commercial side, not just residential. The city has been a great partner,
but this developer is committed to completing this project. We would love to see the
city's public library in this space — it gives it a different feel, but we understand that City
Council has control of what is in the best interest of the future.
Timing - Start to go vertical beginning of next year with an 18-month to 2-year schedule
for completion.
Question: When you went to City Council last time, they did not bless the changes that
were proposed, and some of these changes look very similar if not identical to last time.
So, what has changed since you're bringing it back again?
Answer: There were some behind the scenes issues with the St. Jude 5-lot homes that
we wanted advanced release of. Because of this issue with the custom home builders,
City Council decided not to approve anything.
Question: How much more infrastructure needs to go in to support the 79 homes?
Answer: We got stalled a little bit by a drainage issue, but most of the infrastructure is
in place now — utilities, grading, landscaping, screening wall, etc.
SPIN Meeting Reports are general observations of SPIN Meetings by City staff and SPIN Representatives. The report is neither
verbatim nor official meeting minutes; rather it serves to inform elected and appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues
and questions raised by residents and the general responses made. Responses as summarized in this report should not be taken as
guarantees by the applicant. Interested parties are strongly encouraged to follow the case through the Planning and Zoning
Commission and final action by City Council.
Southlake Connect Results for the June 25, 2024 SPIN Town Hall Forum
9/3/24, 10:10 AM
Everbridge - Reports
EverbridgeSu.,t
city-. -- --- --
eia
♦k
Dashboard Universe
Notifications Incidents Contacts Reports Settings Access
Reports > Detailed Notification Analysis > SPIN Town Hall Forum -June 25th
Detailed Notification Analysis
SPIN Town Hall Forum - June 25th
DETAILS
■ 248 (2.12%) Attempted -
Notifrcation 10 1707027772473928
Confrmed
Notification
8701 (74.31%)Attempted
Mode Live
i+
- Not Confirmed
0251 (2.14%) Attempted -
Notification
Noti Standard
Not Connected
Type
2411 (20.59%) Not
Start Date Jun 18, 2024
Attempted
Start Ttme 14:39:42 CDT
■ 98 (0.84%) Other
Confirmation Yes
Hide Details
Requested
Call Throttling Yes
Call Results(per Delivery Path)
Total
of Total
Duration 5 hr(s)
Message
Attempted -Confirmed
Voice/Text
Formal
Voicemall Message Only
Confirmed
248
2.12%
Preference
Delivery Order Organaation Default
Attempted - Not Confirmed
Delivery Methods
Organization Contacts
1.Primary SMS
Delivered
105
0.90%
2.SeoondarySMS
3.Primary Email
4.Primary Mobile
Delivered -To Voicemail
1688
14,42%
5.Seoondary Email
6.Seoondary Mobile
7.Home Phone
Not Delivered - NO Answer
139
1.19%
8.Home Plane #2
9.ausiness Phone
10.TTY 7 TTD Device
Delivered -To Handset
2921
24.95%
11.Everbridge MobileAp
Resident Connection
1.VOI P
Not Delivered - Voicemail Hung
160
1.37%
2.Landline
Up
Not Delivered - Recipient Hung Up
384
3,28%
Sent
3304
28.22%
Attempted- Not Connected
Not Delivered -Invalid Number
64
0.55%
Not Delivered - Out of Service
98
0,84%
Not Delivered - Carrier Expired
17
0.15%
Not Delivered - Downstream
65
0.56%
Communication Error
https:limanager.everbridge.nettreportstnaUfleation/view/i 707027772473928
Q
1/2
9/3124, 10:10AM Everbridge - Reports
Call Results(per Delivery Path)
Total
%of Total
Not Delivered - Carrier Rejected
1
0.01 %
Not Delivered - Line Busy
6
0.05%
Not Attempted - Inactive Path
255
2.18%
Not Attempted - Unsubscdbed
1345
11,49%
Not Delivered - Contact Path Not
8
0.07%
Defined
Not Delivered - Duplicate Path
803
6.86%
Not Delivered - Bounced Email
92
0.79%
Not Delivered - Contact
6
0.05%
Unavailable
Attempts Over Time
7.5k
Sk ,
2.Sk
Ok
b h 3
A
Show Details
"eeverbridge-
PrIv Y Pollcy _ Terms of use ' ® 2024 Everbddge, Inc.
24.6.0.5-5f7ala32024-08-15-17:00 FE-VERSIONS ebs-manager-portal-ff867f95d-7ghkq
https://monager.everbridge.net/reports/notificationtview/1707027772473928
2/2