2008-10-07 CITY O F
SOUTHLAKE
TEXAS
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 7, 2008
LOCATION: 1400 Main Street, Southlake, Texas
Council Chambers in Town Hall
CITY COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Andy Wambsganss, Mayor Pro Tem John Terrell,
Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Gregory Jones (arrived at 6:08 p.m.) and Councilmembers
Laura K. Hill, Pamela Muller, and Virginia M. Muzyka.
CITY COUNCIL ABSENT: Councilmember Vernon Stansell.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Shana Yelverton, Assistant City Manager Ben
Thatcher, Assistant to the City Manager Alison Ortowski, Community Relations Officer
Pilar Schank, Information Systems Technician Sam Cobb, Interim Director of
Community Services Chris Tribble, Community Services Coordinator Crystal Shafer,
Deputy Director of Community Services Kerry McGeath, Director of Economic
Development Greg Last, Director of Finance Sharen Jackson, Director of Human
Resources Kevin Hugman, Fire Chief Michael Starr, Police Chief Robert Finn,
Lieutenant Ashleigh Douglas, Director of Planning and Development Services Ken
Baker, Planner II Clayton Comstock, Chief Building Official Paul Ward, Director of
Public Works Robert H. Price, Deputy Director of Public Works Gordon Mayer,
Operations Manager Chuck Kendrick, Environmental Coordinator Christi Upton, City
Attorney Tim Sralla and City Secretary Lori Payne.
WORK SESSION:
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to order. The work session was called to order by Mayor
Wambsganss at 5:21 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 2. Invocation. Chaplain Eric Hulet gave the invocation. Mayor
Wambsganss led the pledge of allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3A3. Presentation by Sister Cities Youth Ambassador
Representative. Mayor Wambsganss moved this item to the work session. Ashleigh
Douglas made a presentation about the youth trip to Tome, Japan in July, 2008. Youth
Ambassador Marcella Steele made a presentation as well.
Agenda Item No. 3. Potential Interlocal Agreement with the City of Grapevine. City
Manager Yelverton introduced this item to Council. Director Price, Director Jackson,
Chief Finn, Director Last, and Attorney Sralla presented this item to Council.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES, OCTOBER 7, 2008
Page 1 of 12
Agenda Item No. 4. Discuss all items on tonight's meeting agenda. City Council
reviewed the agenda items with city staff.
Mayor Wambsganss closed the work session at 6:17 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION:
Agenda Item No. 1. CaII to order. The regular session was called to order by Mayor
Wambsganss at 6:17 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 2A. Executive Session. Mayor Wambsganss announced City Council
would be going into Executive Session pursuant to the Texas Government Code
Section 551.071: consultation with attorney; Section 551.072, deliberation regarding
real property matters; and Section 551.087, deliberation regarding economic
development negotiations. City Council adjourned for Executive Session at 6:17 p.m.
Executive Session began at 7:04 p.m. and ended at 7:34 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 2B. Reconvene. Mayor Wambsganss reconvened the regular meeting
at 7:42 p.m. and asked if any action was necessary from Executive Session. No action
was necessary.
Agenda Item No. 3A. Mayor's Report. Mayor Wambsganss announced upcoming
meetings and events.
Agenda Item No. 3A1. Proclamation in recognition of the Southlake Green Dragons
(11U) Baseball Team winning the Triple Crown Summer National Championship.
Mayor Wambsganss presented the proclamation to Coach Terry Cole and the Green
Dragons 11 and Under Baseball team for their win of the national championship. Coach
Cole thanked the Mayor and Council for the recognition and thanked his players for the
great year.
Agenda Item No. 3A2. Recognition of donors — water tower logo project. This item was
not discussed.
Agenda Item No. 3B. City Manager's Report. No report was given.
Agenda Item No. 3C. Local Business Report. Director Last introduced Joe Durant with
Five Guys Burgers and Fries who introduced his new business to Council.
Agenda Item No. 3D. School District Reports. Dr. Karen Rue, Superintendent of the
Northwest Independent School District, reported on the events and activities of her
school district and introduced Manager of Facilities and Construction Dennis McCrary
and Principal Linda Parker.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES, OCTOBER 7, 2008
Page 2 of 12
Dr. David Faltys, Superintendent of the Carroll Independent School District, gave a
report on the events and activities of his school district.
CONSENT AGENDA: Consent agenda items are considered to be routine by the City
Council and are enacted with one motion. The Mayor read the items into the record.
Agenda Item No. 4A. Approve the minutes from the September 16, 2008, regular City
Council meeting. The minutes were approved as presented.
Agenda Item No. 4B. Clarify a motion from the June 5, 2007 City Council meeting
minutes for Ordinance No. 480 -523, 2 Reading (ZA07 -018) Zoning Change and
Development Plan for Tealwood. After discussion, the Council agreed to amend the
motion to remove the word, masonry, relating to the required fence type.
Agenda Item No. 4C. Resolution No. 08 -052, Appoint representatives to serve as liaison
and alternate(s) members to the Texas High Speed Rail and Transportation Corporation
(THSRTC). The Council discussed this item during the work session and appointed
Mayor Pro Tem Terrell to serve as the liaison and Councilmembers Muller and Muzyka
to serve as alternates.
In accordance with Section 4.21 of the City Charter, the caption for this item is listed as
follows:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS,
APPOINTING REPRESENTATIVES TO SERVE AS LIAISON AND ALTERNATE(S)
MEMBERS TO THE TEXAS HIGH SPEED RAIL AND TRANSPORTATION
CORPORATION (THSRTC); AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Agenda Item No. 4D. Approve an interlocal agreement with Tarrant County for the
asphalt overlay of Randol Mill Road from West Southlake Boulevard to north of Brook
Forest Drive and North Carroll Avenue, north from East Southlake Boulevard to Federal
Way. A presentation was not made on this item.
Agenda Item No. 4E. Ratify termination of the professional services agreement with
Graham and Associates, Inc. for the design of White Chapel Boulevard. A presentation
was not made on this item.
Agenda Item No. 4F. Terminate the construction contract with Jackson Construction,
Ltd., in the amount of $891,157.70 for paving, drainage, and utility improvements to
Shumaker Lane and Sunshine Lane. A presentation was not made on this item.
Agenda Item No. 4G. Award construction contract with JLB Contracting in the amount of
$897,191.66 for paving, drainage, and utility improvements to Shumaker Lane and
Sunshine Lane, and provide for construction phase contingencies. A presentation was
not made on this item.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES, OCTOBER 7, 2008
Page 3 of 12
Agenda Item No. 4H. ZA08 -026, Plat Revision for South Village at Watermere being a
revision of a portion of Lot 4, Block 1, Watermere at Southlake Addition and being
approximately 33.72 acres in the Jesse G. Allen Survey, Abstract No. 18 and being
located at 2271 Union Church Road. Current Zoning: S -P -2 Detailed Site Plan District
and R -PUD Residential Planned Unit Development. SPIN Neighborhood #15. A
presentation was not made on this item.
Agenda Item No. 41. ZA08 -077, Plat Revision for Lot 4R, Block 1, Watermere at
Southlake Addition being a revision of a portion of Lot 4, Block 1, Watermere at
Southlake Addition and being located at 301 Watermere Drive. Current Zoning: S -P -2
Detailed Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #15. A presentation was not made on
this item.
Agenda Item No. 4J. ZA07 -033, Plat Extension for Autumn Creek Plat Revision, being
a revision of Lots 5R1 -5R3, Block 1, T.M. Hood, No. 706 Addition, located at 321, 331,
and 333 West Highland Street. Current Zoning: SF -1A Single Family Residential
District. SPIN Neighborhood #10. A presentation was not made on this item.
Agenda Item No. 4K. ZA06 -134, Plat Extension for Morrison Office Park Preliminary
Plat, being approximately 6.14 acres located at 2720 East State Highway 114. Current
Zoning: S -P -2 Generalized Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #6. A presentation
was not made on this item.
Agenda Item No. 4L. ZA06 -154, Plat Extension for Morrison Office Park Final Plat,
located at 2720 East State Highway 114. Current Zoninq: S -P -2 Generalized Site Plan
District. SPIN Neighborhood #6. A presentation was not made on this item.
Agenda Item No. 4M. Approve Identity Theft Prevention Program. A presentation was
not made on this item.
Agenda Item No. 4N. ZA07 -144, Site Plan for Lot 1, Players Circle on property being
legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Players Circle Addition and being located at 1901
West Southlake Boulevard. Current Zoning: C3 General Commercial District. SPIN
Neighborhood #16. This item and the associated public hearing were tabled to the
November 4, 2008, City Council meeting.
Agenda Item No. 40. Resolution No. 08 -045, Amendments to the City's Mobility and
Master Thoroughfare Plan, an element of the Southlake 2025 Plan, the City's
Comprehensive Master Plan, to include the future alignment of Kirkwood Boulevard,
north of State Highwav 114, and North Carroll Avenue. This item was tabled.
Motion was made to approve consent agenda items 4A; 4B to amend the motion from
the June 5, 2007 City Council meeting minutes for Ordinance No. 480 -523, 2nd Reading
(ZA07 -018) Zoning Change and Development Plan for Tealwood to remove the word,
masonry, relating to the required fence type; 4C to appoint Mayor Pro Tem Terrell to
serve as the liaison and Councilmembers Muller and Muzyka to serve as alternates; 4D;
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES, OCTOBER 7, 2008
Page 4 of 12
•
4E; 4F; 4G; 4H subject to Plat Review Summary No. 3, dated September 12, 2008; 41
subject to Plat Review Summary No. 1, dated September 12, 2008; 4J; 4K; 4L; 4M; to
table item 4N to the November 4, 2008 City Council meeting; and to table item 40 to a
future Council meeting.
Motion: Terrell
Second: Muzyka
Ayes: Hill, Jones, Muller, Muzyka, Terrell, Wambsganss
Nays: None
Approved: 6 -0
REGULAR AGENDA:
Agenda Item No. 5. Public Forum. Mayor Wambsganss opened the Public Forum.
Ray Chancellor, 890 Harbor Court, Southlake, Texas thanked the Council for their
support of the Bob Jones Nature Center and asked for their continued awareness of the
Southlake Cove Ecosystem.
Mayor Wambsganss closed the Public Forum.
Agenda Item No. 6A. Ordinance No. 480 -440a, 2 Reading (ZA08 -076), Zoning
Change and Site Plan for Farpointe Wine Cellar on property located at 721 East
Southlake Boulevard and described as Lot 1, Block 1, Pecan Creek. Current Zoning: S-
P-1 Detailed Site Plan District. Requested Zoning: S -P -1 Detailed Site Plan District.
SPIN Neighborhood #9E. Planner Comstock presented this item to Council. In
accordance with Section 4.21 of the City Charter, the caption for this item is listed as
follows:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 480, AS AMENDED, THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS;
GRANTING A ZONING CHANGE ON A CERTAIN TRACT OR TRACTS OF LAND
WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS BEING LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT
1, BLOCK 1, PECAN CREEK; AND BEING APPROXIMATELY 1.744 ACRES, AND
MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" FROM "S -P -1"
DETAILED SITE PLAN DISTRICT TO "S -P -1" DETAILED SITE PLAN DISTRICT WITH
"C -2" LOCAL RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT USES TO INCLUDE TAVERNS,
CLUBS, AND OTHER COMPARABLE ESTABLISHMENTS ONLY WITH THE
APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TO, "S -P -1" DETAILED SITE PLAN
DISTRICT WITH "C -2" LOCAL RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT USES TO INCLUDE
TAVERNS, CLUBS, AND OTHER COMPARABLE ESTABLISHMENTS ONLY WITH
THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT AND TO ALLOW AN ARBOR
STRUCTURE, AS DEPICTED ON THE APPROVED SITE PLAN ATTACHED HERETO
AND INCORPORATED HEREIN AS EXHIBIT "B ", SUBJECT TO THE SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS ORDINANCE; CORRECTING THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP; PRESERVING ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE; DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, MORALS AND
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES, OCTOBER 7, 2008
Page 5 of 12
GENERAL WELFARE DEMAND THE ZONING CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS
HEREIN MADE; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE CUMULATIVE OF
ALL ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A
PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS HEREOF; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE;
PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER; AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
No one spoke during the Public Hearing.
Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480 -440a, 2 Reading (ZA08 -076), Zoning
Change and Site Plan for Farpointe Wine Cellar.
Motion: Jones
Second: Terrell
Ayes: Hill, Jones, Muller, Muzyka, Terrell, Wambsganss
Nays: None
Approved: 6 -0
Agenda Item No. 6B. ZA08 -079, Site Plan for The Shops of Southlake on property being
described as Lot 5, Block 1 (Buildings Al and A2) and Lot 1, Block 1 (Building E),
Shops of Southlake and being located at 1451 and 1201 East Southlake Boulevard.
Current Zoning: S -P -2 Detailed Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #8. Director
Baker presented this item simultaneously with item 6C. Applicant David Palmer, 3102
Maple Avenue, Dallas, Texas answered Council's questions.
No one spoke during the Public Hearing.
Motion was made to approve ZA08 -079, Site Plan for The Shops of Southlake granting
requested variances; noting Council's preference of the two -toned option for the backs
of the proposed buildings; and subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated
October 1, 2008.
Motion: Terrell
Second: Jones
Ayes: Hill, Jones, Muller, Muzyka, Terrell, Wambsganss
Nays: None
Approved: 6 -0
Agenda Item No. 6C. Consider SP08 -223, Conditional Sign Permit for The Shops at
Southlake located at the southeast corner of South Carroll Avenue and East Southlake
Boulevard. Director Baker presented this item simultaneously with item 6B. Applicant
David Palmer, 3102 Maple Avenue, Dallas, Texas answered Council's questions.
Motion was made to approve SP08 -223, Conditional Sign Permit for The Shops at
Southlake located at the southeast corner of South Carroll Avenue and East Southlake
Boulevard granting the requested variances.
Motion: Terrell
Second: Muzyka
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES, OCTOBER 7, 2008
Page 6 of 12
Ayes: Hill, Jones, Muller, Muzyka, Terrell, Wambsganss
Nays: None
Approved: 6 -0
Agenda Item No. 6D. Resolution No. 08 -051, (ZA08 -082) Specific Use Permit for Chick -
fil-A on property being described as Lot 4, Block 1, Perry/Allen Addition and located at
2301 East Southlake Boulevard. Current Zoning: C3 General Commercial District.
SPIN Neighborhood #7. Planner Comstock presented this item to Council. In
accordance with Section 4.21 of the City Charter, the caption for this item is listed as
follows:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS,
GRANTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING ON NON-
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, LOCATED
AT 2301 E. SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD, BEING LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 4,
BLOCK 1, PERRY /ALLEN ADDITION, MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY
DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A ", AND AS DEPICTED ON THE APPROVED SITE
EXHIBIT ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN AS EXHIBIT "B" AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
No one spoke during the Public Hearing.
Motion was made to approve Resolution No. 08 -051, (ZA08 -082) Specific Use Permit
for Chick -fil -A subject to the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission;
subject to staff's presentation concerning the sidewalks, shrubs, and retaining wall;
subject to staffs request to decrease the width of the roof by one foot; and subject to
Revised Site Plan Review Summary No. 1, dated October 1, 2008.
Motion: Terrell
Second: Jones
Ayes: Hill, Jones, Muller, Muzyka, Terrell, Wambsganss
Nays: None
Approved: 6 -0
Agenda Item No. 6E. Ordinance No. 946, 2 Reading, An ordinance adding Chapter 9.5,
Article VIII to the Code of Ordinances; providing for the regulation of erosion and
sediment control at construction sites within the city of Southlake and establishing an
effective date. Director Price presented this item to Council. In accordance with Section
4.21 of the City Charter, the caption for this item is listed as follows:
AN ORDINANCE ADDING, ARTICLE VIII "EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL TO
CHAPTER 9.5 "ENVIRONMENT" OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE CODE OF
ORDINANCES TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF EROSION PREVENTION
AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AT CONSTRUCTION SITES WITHIN THE CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE CUMULATIVE OF
ALL ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A
PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS HEREOF; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE;
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES, OCTOBER 7, 2008
Page 7 of 12
PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN PAMPHLET FORM; PROVIDING FOR
PUBLICATION IN THE MANNER AUTHORIZED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mayor Wambsganss opened the Public Hearing.
Charles Griffith, 2718 York Court, Southlake, Texas and President of the Cambridge
Place Homeowner's Association spoke in support of the proposed ordinance.
Mayor Wambsganss closed the Public Hearing.
Motion to approve Ordinance No. 946, 2 Reading, An ordinance adding Chapter 9.5,
Article VIII to the Code of Ordinances; providing for the regulation of erosion and
sediment control at construction sites within the City of Southlake and establishing an
effective date, as presented.
Motion: Terrell
Second: Muller
Ayes: Hill, Jones, Muller, Muzyka, Terrell, Wambsganss
Nays: None
Approved: 6 -0
Agenda Item No. 6F. Ordinance No 483 -0, 2 " Reading, Amendment to the Subdivision
Ordinance No. 483, as amended, as it pertains to the requirements for the installation of
underground franchise utilities within the City of Southlake. Planner Comstock
presented this item to Council. In accordance with Section 4.21 of the City Charter, the
caption for this item is listed as follows:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 483, AS AMENDED, THE
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS AS IT
PERTAINS TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
UNDERGROUND FRANCHISE UTILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE;
PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE CUMULATIVE OF ALL
ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A
PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS HEREOF; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE;
PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN PAMPHLET FORM; PROVIDING FOR
PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
No one spoke during the Public Hearing.
Motion to approve Ordinance No 483 -0, 2 " Reading, Amendment to the Subdivision
Ordinance No. 483, as amended, as it pertains to the requirements for the installation of
underground franchise utilities within the City of Southlake, as presented.
Motion: Terrell
Second: Muzyka
Ayes: Hill, Jones, Muller, Muzyka, Terrell, Wambsganss
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES, OCTOBER 7, 2008
Page 8 of 12
Nays: None
Approved: 6 -0
Mayor Wambsganss called for a break at 9:06 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:26
p.m.
Agenda Item No. 7A. Ordinance No. 480 -564, 1 Reading (ZA08 -031), Zoning Change
and Development Plan for Carillon Southlake on property located at the northeast
corner of East State Highway 114 and North White Chapel Boulevard and described as
Tracts 1, 2, 3A, 3A1, 3A3, 3A4, 3A4A, 3A5, 3B, 3B1, and 3B2, Larkin H. Chivers
Survey, Abstract No. 300 and Tracts 3 and 4A1, Absolom H. Chivers Survey, Abstract
No. 299. Said property also being currently addressed 1500 and 1900 North Carroll
Avenue, 1801 North White Chapel Boulevard, and 100, 202, 250, 300, 320, and 350
East State Highway 114. Current Zoning: NR -PUD Non - Residential Planned Unit
Development District and C -2 Local Retail Commercial District. Requested Zoning: ECZ
Employment Center Zoning District. SPIN Neighborhood #5. Director Baker presented
this item to Council. Applicant Jeff Kennemer of Hines made a presentation and
answered Council's questions. Danny Opitz reviewed the architectural controls of the
residential and commercial areas. Mark Granlund with Opus answered questions about
gates and street facade design.
Mayor Wambsganss allowed the public to speak.
Lisa Fore, 1101 Bay Meadows Drive, Southlake, Texas, spoke in opposition to the
expansion of Carroll Avenue.
D. Todd Parrish, 1313 Bay Meadows Drive, Southlake, Texas, spoke in opposition to
the density.
Ken Phillips, 774 Castle Rock, Southlake, Texas, spoke in opposition to the density.
Kathleen Simpson, 104 Brentwood Circle, Southlake, Texas, spoke in opposition.
Brian Zvonecek, 513 Fox Glen, Southlake, Texas, spoke in support.
Greg Standerfer spoke in support.
Doug Harsy, 2804 Tyler Street, Southlake, Texas spoke in opposition.
Rebecca Chivers Altey voiced some concerns regarding the development.
Mayor Wambsganss read the names of those who did not wish to speak but wanted to
record their opposition:
Jeff Brennan, 431 Marshall Road, Southlake, Texas;
Octavian Burtea, 1830 Hunter's Creek, Southlake, Texas;
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES, OCTOBER 7, 2008
Page 9 of 12
Terry Cole, 1212 Powder River Trail, Southlake, Texas;
Stan Fore, 1101 Bay Meadows Drive, Southlake, Texas;
Janice L. and Jere Francis, 1211 Ashmoore Court, Southlake, Texas;
Boyd and Susan Herndon, 1201 Ashmoore Court, Southlake, Texas;
Barbara S. and Barry Johnson, 1408 Whispering Dell Court, Southlake, Texas;
Jail Harsy, 2804 Tyler Street, Southlake, Texas;
Glenn and Susan Jost, 116 Brentwood Circle, Southlake, Texas;
Greg and Melanie Lane, 129 Welford Lane, Southlake, Texas;
Justin and Kim Lee, 775 Black Forest Court, Southlake, Texas;
Sara and Sina Matin, 2304 Idlewild Court, Southlake, Texas;
Jeff Pannell, 1418 Whispering Dell Court, Southlake, Texas;
Darrel and Karen Peck, 2803 Linden Lane, Southlake, Texas;
Carla Satterfield, 1035 Carroll Meadows, Southlake, Texas;
Joann Shen, 2105 Woodbine Circle, Southlake, Texas;
Charles Simpson, 104 Brentwood Circle, Southlake, Texas;
Whitney Tong, 1213 Ashmoore Court, Southlake, Texas;
Beckie and John Underwood, 1407 Whispering Dell Court, Southlake, Texas;
Deanne and Vincent Vetter, 2809 Ridgecrest Drive, Southlake, Texas;
Jennifer and Patrick Whitfill, 1421 Whispering Dell Court; Southlake, Texas; and,
Alex, Karen and Karissa Zaal, 1203 Ashmoore Court, Southlake, Texas.
The following people filled out comment cards in support but did not wish to speak:
Brad Cavnar, 1501 Corporate Circle, Suite 100, Southlake, Texas;
Randall McCauley, 2805 Carrick Court, Southlake, Texas;
Michael Mills, 805 Cross Lane, Southlake, Texas;
Giovanna Phillips, 1501 Corporate Circle, Suite 100, Southlake, Texas; and
Michael L. Waldman, 713 Longford Drive, Southlake, Texas.
Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480 -564, 1 Reading (ZA08 -031), Zoning
Change and Development Plan for Carillon Southlake subject to staffs comments and
City Council's comments; incorporating the transcript of tonight's discussions (attached
as Exhibit A) for the second reading which is currently scheduled for the November 18,
2008 City Council meeting; subject to the developer's comments and agreements made
at the last meeting; and subject to Development Plan Review Summary No. 6, dated
October 1, 2008.
Motion: Terrell
Second: Hill
Ayes: Hill, Jones, Muzyka, Terrell, Wambsganss
Nays: Muller
Approved: 5 -1
Mayor Wambsganss called for a break at 11:55 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at
12:13 a.m.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES, OCTOBER 7, 2008
Page 10 of 12
Agenda Item No. 7B. Ordinance No. 480 -569, 1 Reading (ZA08 -052), Zoning Change
and Concept Plan for Miracle Pointe 11 on property being Tracts 6G, 6H and 6K, John A.
Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 529 and being located at 703, 722 and 750 South
Kimball Avenue. Current Zoning: AG Agricultural and 11 Light Industrial. Proposed
Zoning: SF -20A Single Family Residential. SPIN Neighborhood #8. Director Baker and
Deputy Director Mayer presented this item to Council. Applicant Jim Dewey with JDJR
Engineers made a presentation and answered Council's questions.
Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480 -569, 1 Reading (ZA08 -052), Zoning
Change and Concept Plan for Miracle Pointe II noting this development is subject to the
requirements of the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance No. 946 and the applicant
has agreed to proceed with training as soon as it is available, and subject to Concept
Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated September 29, 2008.
Motion: Terrell
Second: Muzyka
Ayes: Hill, Jones, Muller, Muzyka, Terrell, Wambsganss
Nays: None
Approved: 6 -0
Agenda Item No. 7C. Ordinance No. 480 -570, 1 Reading (ZA08 -059), Zoning Change
and Site Plan for The Plaza at Southlake Boulevard on property being described as a
portion of Tract 4G, O.W. Knight Survey, Abstract No. 899 and being located at 400
South Carroll Avenue (per Tarrant County Appraisal District records) and also being at
1001 East Southlake Boulevard (as assigned by the City of Southlake). Current Zoning:
AG Agricultural. Proposed Zoning: S -P -2 Generalized Site Plan District with C2 Uses
Light Retail Commercial District. SPIN Neighborhood #9E. The applicant requested to
table this item.
Motion was made to table Ordinance No. 480 -570, 1 Reading (ZA08 -059), Zoning
Change and Site Plan for The Plaza at Southlake Boulevard to the October 21, 2008
City Council meeting at the applicant's request.
Motion: Terrell
Second: Muzyka
Ayes: Hill, Jones, Muller, Muzyka, Terrell, Wambsganss
Nays: None
Approved: 6 -0
Agenda Item No. 9B. Consider SP08 -161, Variance to the Shady Oaks Office Park
Conditional Sign Permit for Guaranty Bank located at 600 West Southlake Boulevard,
Suite 110. The applicant requested to table this item.
Motion was made to table SP08 -161, Variance to the Shady Oaks Office Park
Conditional Sign Permit for Guaranty Bank to the October 21, 2008 City Council
meeting at the applicant's request.
Motion: Terrell
Second: Jones
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES, OCTOBER 7, 2008
Page 11 of 12
Ayes: Hill, Jones, Muller, Muzyka, Terrell, Wambsganss
Nays: None
Approved: 6 -0
Agenda Item No. 9A. Approve recommendation for the placement of red light cameras
at Carroll Avenue at East Southlake Boulevard — westbound, Kimball Avenue at East
Southlake Boulevard — westbound, Peytonville Avenue at West Southlake Boulevard -
eastbound, and Davis Boulevard at West Southlake Boulevard — northbound. Chief Finn
presented this item to Council and answered questions. Council discussed this item.
Motion was made to approve recommendation for the placement of red light cameras at
Carroll Avenue at East Southlake Boulevard — westbound, Kimball Avenue at East
Southlake Boulevard — westbound, Peytonville Avenue at West Southlake Boulevard -
eastbound, and Davis Boulevard at West Southlake Boulevard — northbound, as
presented.
Motion: Terrell
Second: Hill
Ayes: Hill, Jones, Muller, Muzyka, Terrell, Wambsganss
Nays: None
Approved: 6 -0
Agenda Item No. 11. Meeting adjourned. Mayor Wambsganss adjourned the meeting at
12:44 a.m.
*An audio recording of this meeting will be permanently retained in the City
Secretary's Office.
i
• ndy Wambsganss
Mayor
ATTEST:
i f ``, ,9!! ®1566rp`g`t
Lori Payne, TR f C • •
City Secretary -k
'' / e„ * * * % % %%%%
e ji$fl flI%%
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES, OCTOBER 7, 2008
Page 12 of 12
City Council Carillon Discussion — September 16, 2008
(notes requested by Mayor Pro Tem John Terrell)
Director Ken Baker — Presented item
Applicant, Jeff Kennemer — Presented item
City Councilmember Vernon Stansell — Quick question.
Kennemer — Yes, sir.
Stansell — There can be no more than 3 owners per structure?
Kennemer — That is correct. There is a limitation. You cannot have more than
one resident per floor. We do not have any availability to take these lots and
break them into multiple units. It would be a max of one resident, one dwelling
unit per floor. Now you could have a resident that wanted to buy two floors for a
single loft, but not the other way around. We cannot take a single floor and break
it into multiple units.
Stansell — Okay.
Kennemer — Continued his presentation.
City Councilmember Pamela Muller — On the lofts, what prohibits somebody from
putting an office on the top floor and the lower ones being residential? Is that left
up to whoever purchases?
Kennemer — We don't have a restriction for that currently.
Muller — Will there be any restriction that the lofts be owner occupied?
Kennemer — We'd be happy to place that restriction. I don't know that's possible
to prevent someone who buys a unit from being able to rent. But we have no
intention whatsoever for these being rented, so I don't have a problem with that.
Muller — If there's an office in the development how would the signage work?
Because from what I'm understanding this is supposed to look residential like
townhomes and such.
Kennemer — It does. It would be similar to something you've seen in the
Northeast <inaudible> it would be part of, it would be very nonintrusive, it would
be, I could bring you in our next reading, I'll bring you some examples of what
those look like. I don't have those with me tonight, but it would be sort of like a
very short lamp post with a sign that hangs over <inaudible >.
Muller — And you would regulate that in your...
Kennemer — Yes, it would be part of our regulations.
Muller — Explain what is high -end finish. What materials are those?
Kennemer — Those would be masonry products. It'd be stone, brick, glass,
stucco, I mean it would be similar to...
Muller — Because some of the renditions and pictures you showed actually
showed marble, in some of the pictures in the booklet we received and I don't
think that is what you are referring to.
Kennemer — I'd have to see which picture you're referring to that's marble.
Muller — Well, there's some in the, they looked like they were building renditions
you'd see in France, Paris. They looked like they were about five stories instead
of three in one of the booklets here that you handed us.
Kennemer — We didn't envision any of these to be marble. These would be
stone, brick, masonry, wrought iron work, and then a certain amount of glass.
Mayor Andy Wambsganss — Any EFIS? I know we've had a real issue with
EFIS.
Kennemer — We've agreed not to use EFIS anywhere on our project.
Wambsganss — Okay, and stucco. Which portion, if we're looking at this, would
be stucco versus cast stone or brick?
Kennemer — I'd have to refer to my architect. Anybody want to help me from
Carter and Burgess... <inaudible>
Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Gregory Jones — At the very least, you're either going to
have masonry or your going to have true stucco. Correct?
Kennemer — That is correct.
Jones — Alright. There's no EFIS. Which to me is probably the most important
thing in terms of the quality.
Wambsganss — That is. I just think for, I know, if this moves forward tonight,
there'll be another reading, but if you can kind of identify that, because I think
expansive walls of stucco would kind of take away from that rich look. And then,
one of the real criticisms of a lot of the brownstones has been the siding that was
used on the back, and I'm assuming there's no siding or hardy board.
Kennemer — No siding.
Wambsganss — Okay. Sorry to interrupt you Pam.
Muller — The parking garage, are you planning to dedicate that to the City in the
future? In the commercial area?
Kennemer - The city? Not really. I sense the City probably did not want us to do,
to dedicate the parking garage to the City. We can have those discussions if
that's something the City would like.
Muller — No, the City wouldn't like that. I just wanted to be sure. You brought it
up and that has been an issue here in Town Square.
Kennemer — Sure and let me clarify one other point, too. In terms of the parks
that we show, we've agreed to maintain those through the property owner's
association even if the City chooses to accept dedication.
Muller — And the fountain? Would that be part of the park dedication?
Kennemer — Yes.
Wambsganss — Relating to the maisons, talk about the square footage, the price
points, so forth.
Kennemer — Certainly, the building pads are 32 feet by 89 feet. So these will
handle large, large units. We're envisioning most of the units to be in the 2,800
s.f. to 3,800 s.f. range, although, we have the ability to build them bigger. Same
with the lofts. That is really the range we are anticipating the market to want, but
we could certainly build them bigger.
Councilmember Vernon Stansell - Are you willing to stipulate a minimum?
Kennemer — Certainly.
Stansell — 2,800?
Kennemer — 2,800.
Wambsganss — What is your anticipated price?
Kennemer — The sales price for the maisons and the lofts are anticipated, again
this would be just a one -floor loft. It would obviously be more if someone bought
two. But would be in the $600,000 to $950,000 range.
Stansell — So about $200 a foot?
Kennemer — Yes.
Stansell — While we're on that topic, not to take the Mayor off his stride there, but
what would be the minimum size for the structures on the 45 by 110s?
Kennemer — 2,700 square feet.
Stansell — Want to stipulate 2,800?
Kennemer — Yes, we would be willing to stipulate 2,800 s.f..
Jones — That's on the 45 by 110?
Kennemer — That's correct.
Jones — One of the things, in visiting with some of the neighbors that surround,
and I'm happy to report in my business with them they've indicated, at least the
folks that I met with, indicated they really do support the overall project. Their
concerns were addressing some specific concerns that they had in different
areas. But to me the good news was that they felt like the project overall was
good and your company is a fine company. So I think those are positive things.
One of the things that's been raised is a question and I've visited with you about
it a little bit, is the issue of construction entrances. And one of the things I was
going to ask you was if we could basically set for Carroll Avenue, in particular,
because Carroll Avenue has our elementary school on it, if we could basically set
aside Carroll Avenue and agree that there will not be any construction traffic on
Carroll Avenue? And then, in a like manner, from, as we look at this drawing
that's up here now, the plan that's here now, over on White's Chapel if we could
also have an agreement that there will be no construction traffic that will circulate
up north on White's Chapel past your, past the Kirkwood entrance right there? So
that trucks aren't going to be going up White's Chapel and over on Dove and that
type of thing. And try to focus construction entrance activity on 114 and on the
lower part of White's Chapel. Have you had a chance to look at that and see if
that's a possibility?
Kennemer — We would agree to that. We would agree to prohibit construction
traffic to come in on Carroll and I certainly understand why residents in Estes
Park would not want any traffic through their neighborhood. We would certainly
do that.
Jones — Thank you. Another point in sort of addressing the schools here a little
bit is over on Carroll Avenue you have a trail that comes down from the north
along Carroll Avenue and it comes down to your entrance there, and then it
winds its way through the woods, and I noticed, intended to be part of the trail
system and I think the part that winds through the woods you definitely want to
keep that. What I would ask is if you would continue a sidewalk coming down
along Carroll Avenue so that school children could use it if necessary. Bring it
down Carroll Avenue to the point, and Ken, maybe you can help me with this.
That's Whispering Lane over there, is it?
Baker — The sidewalk on Johnson extends north on the Johnson side of the east
side of Carroll there's a sidewalk that extends north to Whispering Lane.
Jones — Okay, so if we can bring that sidewalk down at least as far as your
property runs down there, I think in talking with Ken Baker a little bit, that we
would have a good chance of being able to finish up whatever sidewalk is
necessary so that there is good access to Johnson Elementary coming down that
road. Would you be willing to do that?
Kennemer — We would.
Jones — Another issue that has been raised is the drainage and I know I've had a
chance to visit with you about that a little bit, but actually we talked on many
occasions. And I might point out to people who are here that we have been
engaged in this now for probably going on eight months now of a lot of
discussion a lot of visitation here. One of the things I spoke to our Public Works
Director a little while ago about this, but I wondered if, Bob, in terms of some of
the concerns that have been raised regarding drainage. One of the things I was
pleased to hear was that, first of all, you've been engaged with Hines and have
talked to them for quite a while, have you not?
Director Bob Price — Yes, sir.
Jones — How long you have you been discussing this stuff with them?
Price — We have been meeting with the Hines Group and their engineers, Jacobs
Carter Burgess, for six to eight months.
Jones — Okay, in terms of your working with them, I mean, are there any
outstanding issues right now that are concerned relating to drainage?
Price — None at this point. We are in the entitlement phase and generally a
preliminary amount of engineering goes in at this point. When we move into,
once the entitlements are granted, should they be granted, then we move into a
final engineering design phase and that's the time at which we start looking very
closely at the computer models. Generally speaking, I do have to say that the
Hines Group has done more preliminary engineering at this point than is usually
done at the entitlement phase. They have run several hydraulic models and have
done the more work at this point than is usually done. Usually that work takes
place during the final engineering.
Jones — And I think, actually, this got raised sometime ago by Councilman Terrell
and I know that Councilman Terrell had made a real point of wanting to see some
what we call regional detention and regional drainage issues being addressed by
the Hines Group and did they do that?
Price — Yes, sir they did and just to give you a little background. Several years
ago the City employed the firm of KSA to put together a Master Drainage Plan
and in that plan it called for 43 acre feet of regional detention in this area. At that
time that report refers to it as the Aventerra tract, which was the previous owner.
That 43 acre feet actually is indicated in and is inclusive of the development that
we're looking at here this evening.
Jones — Okay, what type of drainage are they anticipating here?
Price — As I said the KSA report indicates 43 acre feet being required of regional
detention. The Jacobs Carter Burgess Hines development that we are looking at
today is proposing 60 acre feet that is in excess of that 43 acre feet that is
required.
Mayor Pro Tem John Terrell — Councilmember Jones, I think at our last meeting
too, the applicant has agreed they won't do anything less than 60 acre feet, and I
think that should be part of any kind of motion that, if we get to that point.
Jones — I think, so that was already agreed to last meeting then? You're going to
stick with that?
Kennemer — We were. We agreed to stick to 60 acre feet if we could keep the
plan reasonably in tact.
Stansell — So are you qualifying your answer then?
Kennemer — No, I'm not qualifying my answer. There hasn't been any decision
made on number of residential units, so what I said in the last meeting is that we
would certainly be willing to keep it at 60 acre feet as long as the number of
residential units was something we could still bear. There is some point at which
the units will become so few that we will have to utilize some of the other land.
Jones — At this point, though, with what we're dealing with now you're committed
to it?
Kennemer — This plan we're committed to 60 acre feet, yes sir.
Jones — And you'll let us know if that changes?
Kennemer — Yes, sir.
Jones — Okay, good. Alright.
Terrell — Let me back up to the, there's so many different things to talk about.
What are your plans, if for instance, I know all of your plans show a performing
arts center in this area with fountains, and there was some discussion that you
would donate land for that performing arts center?
Kennemer — That is correct.
Terrell — What if that performing arts doesn't happen here? What is your plan and
two, are the fountains and things you've shown in front of that center still going to
happen with some other development of that particular building? Would it be
moved? What I don't want to do is necessarily base a plan on something we
haven't even talked to citizens about and that's a fairly sizable cost. I don't know
if we're going to be able to move as fast as you or if that would even occur at that
location. We just can't say that is going to happen at this point, so what is the
plan? What's the alternative?
Kennemer — Okay, if this is the performing arts center right here, you can see the
retail here in front of the hotel. The hotel was designed to be in close proximity.
If the performing art, this is about a 2 1 /2 acre site here, including some parking for
the performing arts center. If the performing arts center, and we would want there
to be some type of time stipulation. That would be critical to the success of our
development. We're willing to have discussions with Apex and the City to
determine the exact duration of that time frame, but at some point if it looked as if
though the City was not going to be able to, or Apex or some partnership of both
develop the performing arts center we would use this particular site as additional
retail, that would be... we might reconfigure this pad site, but it would add to our
retail configuration.
In terms of the fountain, if there is not going to be a performing arts center there
we would like the flexibility, we would like flexibility to look at potentially an
alternate location for where that would be best located.
Terrell — This is a very small issue to maybe many, but I think a big issue for at
least one of the residents, Mr. Boudreaux who lives over on Carroll Avenue.
There's evidently a bridge that I walked with him. That is an old, dilapidated
bridge on the south side of his house that goes back to Carroll Avenue. What is
your plan on that bridge? It can't support a vehicle, it is pretty much falling down.
The water is eroding away underneath it and it has also eroded away into the
bank of his area. What is your plan, too, for the outfall of the water in that lake?
Is that going to go down into that creek that is right behind his house or is it going
to outfall to that north end?
Kennemer — This lake?
Terrell — Uh -huh.
Kennemer - I would like to ask my engineering firm to answer that question.
Paul McCracken — Paul McCracken with Jacobs, 7950 Elmbrook in Dallas. We
are in our preliminary designs. We are intending to have the outlet structure for
that lake further north. There's a draw that occurs further north and that is the
location for it.
Terrell — From what you know of the outlet flow the water goes through that
creek. Is that going to alleviate some of the erosion issues along the backside of
Mr. Boudreaux's property based on that creek?
McCracken — Yeah, the area that is draining into that lake is a whole lot more
than what is showing up on that screen. It goes a considerable distance up 114
and that area will be routed into these lakes, so the fact that it will be routing into
lakes and release essentially upstream, or downstream of this property, I don't
know the amounts that it would have to reduce what he's seeing right there
adjacent to his property essentially taking it around.
Terrell — Okay.
McCracken — Does that answer your question?
Terrell — I think that helps me at least on the drainage side of it, but I've still got
the question on the bridge structure itself, because that's...
McCracken — Is it on your land <inaudible>
Terrell — It looks like it's on your land.
McCracken — We don't have a use for it.
Kennemer — We don't have a use for it.
Terrell — Will you take that down?
Kennemer - We would.
Jones — While he's writing that one thing, I did want to make clear also, Bob, if
you would just reiterate that any final, before there can be any construction, the
City of Southlake engineering department has to give it's final approval on all
these issues. Correct?
Price — Yes, sir. Generally speaking in most developments we go through a
series of reviews. The design engineer will submit plans. We will review those.
We will also probably use a third party consultant to subsidize our review to make
sure we vet all issues. And then once we come to a conclusion, agreement upon
those we will release them for construction.
Jones — And that will include the drainage issues?
Price — Yes, definitely it will include the drainage issues.
Jones — Do you know at this time who you will plan to use for your...
Price — We have been using third party consultant firm of Teague, Nall and
Perkins for approximately the last year and a half.
Jones — Alright.
Terrell — I've got a few more questions, especially on the commercial side too,
before we get into some of the other areas of the residential. This plans changed
considerably, especially over on the White's Chapel side. It appears there's a lot
more pads, individual pads, instead of longer buildings. I want to make sure of a
couple things. You're agreeable to no fast food restaurants. Right?
Kennemer — Yes.
Terrell — There will be no drive -thru restaurants?
Kennemer — That is correct.
Terrell — How do you envision these, it's kind of a unique alignment of buildings
up the east side of White's Chapel. How do you..
Kennemer — These?
Terrell — All the way up, yeah, along there. Right.
Kennemer — We had a discussion with City staff about this. They were concerned
about the appearance of massing, really wanted it to appear there was continuity
and massing along White Chapel. As you can see, we came back after our
meeting with City staff, and we, we would be willing to put some type of wall
structure, to give that continuity of appearance between the various units.
Stansell — So while he's making his notes there. Just to confirm, we're sitting up
here with two different plans, but you're referring now to the one that's labeled
"Alternative Plaza District Layout Plan."
Kennemer — Yes, sir. That's correct.
Stansell — And that is what you're asking us to consider?
Kennemer — Yes, sir.
Councilmember Laura Hill — I just had an amenity question. Obviously this plan
has gone through a lot of changes and one of the disappointments I've heard
comment about is the corner of White Chapel and 114. That area that started
out to be a welcoming point to your development has shrunk and shrunk and
shrunk. Now that I see the separation of the pad sites it even has the appearance
that corner...
Kennemer — Are you talking about this corner right here?
Hill — Yeah. It started out as an amenity corner and it's really, it doesn't look the
same as it started out, that's for sure. So, do you have anything to show us as to
what that will actually look like, because all the information you've given us, it's
quite a focal point but it doesn't look like it will be anymore?
Kennemer — In the development book there's a rendering of how this particular
area is envisioned to look. We will have a little amenity feature. It's going to sort
of welcome people in to Carillon. I might ask Emily Drake, are you here, do you
want to make a comment? What is envisioned for the entry feature?
Emily Drake — If you take a look at the previous plan, I think you guys have both
in front of you, you'll see that the building layout between the two, as far as there
locations on the plan are fairly similar at that corner. The actual monument that's
located at the corner here, hasn't changed in size in what you see in the two
plans. The monument itself is the exact same size, and we're still incorporating a
25 foot buffer along State Highway 114 with berming and a meandering trail, as
well. What we had initially envisioned and what's in the booklet is a masonry
type wall with that has the entry signage on it "Carillon." And I can find the exact
page in the book in which that's located, if you guys need that page number to
refer to. It also incorporates some trees and some accent planting into the
design as well, and the possibility, in the center of that piece is a focal point,
some public art.
Councilmember Virginia Muzyka — I know you've got a lot of parking that will be
seen.
Drake — There is, there has been a parking field, a small two -bay parking field
that's been added for that piece of retail there, I'm sorry, I keep pointing, I should
use the cursor. This little piece of retail here does have parking in this location.
Previously, there was one bay of parking. And so there is a double bay of parking
now. But this piece here does have some green space intact with it as well as the
buffer along 114 and the buffer along White Chapel that continues north.
Muzyka — Do you anticipate the parking will be behind vegetation, berming, or
something?
Drake — Yes. Yes. Everything along 114 in the corporation district and the plaza
district contains a 25 foot landscape buffer that has berming and planting to
buffer that parking from 114.
Kennemer — You can see too, really, that this particular area here has really been
expanded upon to really be a beautiful entry feature as well.
Stansell — And I, I hear what you're saying and I appreciate the 25 foot buffer and
the berming and all that. I want to make sure we're real clear, we have been from
day one. We don't want to see any parking from 114.
Drake — That's correct. We understand that.
Stansell — Why did, so you reconfigured the retail because staff suggested that?
Why did you reconfigure?
Kennemer — We reconfigured the retail, and I let, if it's ok I'II have Steve Chilton
come up with Opus. I'll allow him explain in greater detail some of the thought
behind breaking up the parking garage and reconfiguring some of the retail.
Stansell — That'd be helpful. Thanks.
Steve Chilton — Steve Chilton with Opus West, 15455 North Dallas Parkway,
Addison, Texas. We've done a number of these lifestyle type projects across the
U.S. and have studied them and Europe and looked at the most successful
projects. Looked at some projects that worked. And what we really, with our
architects and our design staff, have felt that the original plan with the big central
garage was just really too disjointed. There was no sense of pedestrian access,
community feel, avenues, boulevards. It was just basically a big box which you
would have to circumvent around it and not very pedestrian friendly. By breaking
up the parking structure into two parking structures, you can see right here and
right here. It allowed us to bring in this major entrance plaza area up in here and
then have continuous pedestrian access all the way up through the project along
with the east west corridor that was originally planned and saved. So, we think
our retail here and these buildings here will thrive with the pedestrian access all
through this area, and likewise because of the proximity of the garages spread
out we will better to service these other buildings on the peripheral as well.
Stansell — So basically for flow.
Chilton — Flow, yeah.
Terrell — Let me comment on that because and again, I'm going to have to ask
staff to also help me out because I have one plan that is called "Revised
Development Plan" and it's not the same thing. And I have one plan called the
"Alternative Plaza District Layout Plan."
Baker — The plan that the applicant is asking us to consider is the one that was
handed out, it's dated September 15.
Terrell — The one that is stamped?
Baker — Yes.
Wambsganss — It's "Revised Development Plan" but it's got the Alternative Plaza
District on it.
Terrell — Ok.
Baker — Just for clarification, when the two plans submitted in your packet, one
was called the Existing Plan and one was called the Alternative Plan it came in
the Monday before we had to send out the packet. When we saw that we made
some comments regarding the commercial along White Chapel and our
comments were basically the retail is now looked like individual pad sites and
there was quite a bit of space between the buildings. The intent of the EC, and
that would be in the "Alternative Plan ", the intent of the EC district is to create a
pedestrian environment to frame that pedestrian area and to make it more
inviting. In the interim between the initial two plans that are submitted, the
applicant has gone back and made some revisions based on some of our
comments on the alternative development plan which was presented to you this
evening. Staff has not reviewed this plan but the applicant is asking to consider
the plan that is on the slide.
Terrell — Okay, that is what I wanted to make sure of. Staff has not reviewed the
one that is stamped September 15?
Baker — That is correct. We received that late yesterday afternoon.
Terrell — Let me ask the applicant then, the applicant's idea to, and I understand
your thoughts about the plaza in there and separating from one garage to two for
flow, but what was the thought process for separating into individual pad sites all
along the White's Chapel and let me continue with this thought. The way you
have the earlier plan is totally on this hard corner in what now has been created
appears to be probably a restaurant pad that seems to be kind of pulled out and
separated. Part of this whole kind of PUD concept is to make this into a
development that's very cohesive. What that restaurant does is it now pulls out
parking on this hard corner pad and it looks like it is going to be kind of a
separate stand alone building on the hard corner, not really incorporated into the
rest and creating a feel for that corner. Now what we're getting is something
considerably different from just the look and feel as you come up there. I will tell
you I don't like it in terms of that restaurant pad on that hard corner. I much prefer
the way you had, whether you go with two parking garages or one for flow, that
needs to feel like it's all together and I don't get that feel on the hard corner at the
moment.
Hill — Right. And that's where my comments came from on that corner, because
that corner was really highlighted and now you surrounded it by smaller pad sites
it really takes away. And added parking on top of that to that corner.
Terrell — And before you respond, let me just say another thing. I also realize this
is to 285 acres. Normally, this would come in small sections and we would be
looking at each one of these buildings very closely. We've got one shot to make
sure this entire thing is right, so while we may appear to be..
Hill — nitpicking
Terrell — on these things. We would be nitpicking each one of these with separate
developers. We're really, once we kind of, if we end up getting you something out
here, that's pretty much it. Then you're going to be able to go in and do what we
have given you the ok to do. It's now that we've got to put on whatever criteria we
need in terms looks, feels and everything else and so take it for what it is. We
are having to look at this in considerable detail. This is a big project.
Muzyka — One more question in that particular corridor. The last building on the
north side looks like you've added a drive -thru or something onto the building.
The last pink building as you go up to Kirkwood Boulevard. It wasn't on there
before.
Hill — Is that a bank? Imagine that.
Muzyka — Is it for a bank? It wasn't there on this one.
Kennemer — I would let the designer address that. We really could see a financial
institution or two intermingled in the project. The comment to drive -thrus I've
agreed we wouldn't do that. That just might be an error design there.
Terrell — Do you have a picture of the old retail that we can look at? Because I
think when you look at the just prior plan, while you may be able to do a few
things to make it flow better. It had a sense of everything was together. It was
part of one retail, restaurant, commercial type development. What you've just
now proposed is a bunch of individual pad sites up all along White's Chapel and
along frontage on 114 Service Road, which is an entirely different feel than those
buildings all being together. Everybody else jump in if you disagree, but I just get
a different feel from this new plan.
Chilton — Let me back up and give you the 1,000 foot aerial shot of how we view
the retail, the users and the come in and answer some of these questions. When
Hines developed this project they really did a very good job in the massing and
the amount of office and retail in the commercial district. We came in and wanted
to massage it and tweak it to make it more pedestrian feeling and create a sense
of place. We did market studies. We think there's probably close to 300,000
square feet of retail that's being developed here. In that 300,000 square feet we
could conceivably see as much as 40 -50% of that retail in being restaurants.
mean large, nice, exclusive, high end sit down restaurants. In talking to these
folks, they all have individual building identities that they like to maintain. They
like to have outdoor seating areas. Putting some breaks in those buildings
allowing for the outdoor seating areas versus having them on the sidewalk street
sides. Having space between the buildings as well, allowing us to enhance that
through hardscape and landscape. We also, are from this plan, if you look at the
hard corner there, we've got a single row of parking next to the retail, so you're
seeing the buildings there. That's nice, but you don't see anything beyond, if
your on that hard corner, you don't see anything beyond that first building. With
the way we have the pads there we have u- corridors into the projects that you
can look in and see several different layers of retail in here for us to go and
experience.
Stansell — In candor, there's lots of developments that have continuous form,
including the one you're standing in and are still pedestrian friendly. My concern,
and I think some of the other members concern is, I agree with John completely,
this is just a bunch of pad sites. It is in no way related to what we were originally
shown.
Chilton — We can certainly stack all of the buildings together, maybe get a couple
of breaks in there for patio seating areas.
Jones — I don't mean to interrupt, but if you take a minute and go over to Central
Market and so on, and you see the way they have done their buildings. They
have areas that they have built in where you can have outdoor seating or you
can have that, but they still maintain sort of a continuous look. I don't really
understand how breaking this into individual pads, and I don't see sidewalks
there, but maybe they are in the front I suppose, but I don't understand how that
makes it more pedestrian friendly to separate things as opposed to having them
together. I think you get the sense of what we all want to avoid and what we all
want to not see happen is have a bunch of individual pad sites where you're
selling them off one after another. Not that you can't sell off individual pad sites,
but at least your bringing it together in a way that is more cohesive and it has a
look to it that is less of what you see as the standard sort of commercial look as
you drive down the street to Grapevine and you see one restaurant pad after
another, whether it's Chili's, Macaroni Grill, or whatever.
Chilton — I see yall's comments and your points, and we can certainly pull several
of those buildings together, do some massing of several of those buildings
together, but at the same time still having some space in between a few of them,
if for nothing else for view corridors and a sense of place.
Stansell — You can accommodate that and get where we want to be, too.
Wambsganss — And Town Square for the most part has been that continuous,
you can have a couple of premium stand atones also. Just go down Grand
Avenue and you got a Truluck's stand alone, but I think just a row of potential
restaurants isn't the vision.
Chilton — We want to be sensitive to the restaurateurs' sense of identity at the
same time creating a sense of place for the entire development and it's very...
When we look at a plan like this and we show a bunch of buildings, it's almost
like an unanchored strip center from a retailer's perspective. Ok, this guy gets an
end cap and this guy gets an end cap and I'm in the middle of a basically a strip
retail thing here...
Terrell — Let me tell you one thing ends up like a strip retail, we're going to have
some problems. For you to even say that...
Chilton — We understand. I'm just taking about an aerial site plan looking down
on it and selling off the site plan. The guys that end up in the middle of that
space, if we got a Three Forks, we've got a space right here between these two
retailers there going to get lost in the sense of identity.
Terrell — Let me say, too...I know when we review these on smaller projects.
Right now we are just focused on the retail and commercial corner. In order for
us to get a good feel for what's it going to look like. We need some visuals. And
right now it's very difficult for us to see what your thinking about this looks like
with an overhead shot of some brown squares on paper. We're going to have to
have a lot more information to move this forward and make motions that say this
is going to look like "x ". And we just now get this one separated and to be quite
honest with you it's a little surprising at the last minute to get these separate pad
sites, which is not something I've been looking at, and have these discussion and
to not get something at the minimum a rendering of what your concept of these
individual sites would like to from down the street. From overhead, that just looks
like, you've got a bank, you got an individual restaurant, one or two little
individual retail sites, and then to the Mayor's comment about Truluck's. Yes,
Truluck's is a stand alone separate pad, but it is integrated into the project. The
street that runs from the hotel to the theater runs right in front of it and its pushed
up to the street just like the rest of them. The restaurant you have out here on the
hard corner, is separate stand alone and is not part of the rest of the
development. You haven't incorporated it into the rest of the development. It's
basically a pad site for a big restaurant. You can have some of those look good,
but that is not what we were, at least not what I was expecting to see on the
corner. I was looking for something that has been previously submitted which
was an overall development concept that brings all of it together, not individual
sites in a commercial pad.
Jones — Part of the concern, I'm agreeing with John here, part of the concern is
when you came in and presented this as part of the Carillon development, it
would have this French flavor to it and so on. Now if Three Forks comes into it
and they want to have their own brand on it, there going to want to have their
own building look to it, I'm guessing it is not going to have a whole of French
flavor to it. Not that that is necessarily horrible, but you are going to start loosing
that character and identity that you were trying to create initially. Your having
these streetscapes that you were showing us in these initial photographs that
flavor and look to it. I agree with John, I need to have some sense of what your
talking about doing with some of these other sites. If they are separated, give us
some sense of how they are connected and what the connectedness is and what
the architectural standards are going to be for those buildings so we know what
we're getting.
Chilton — From an elevations standpoint and materials were not varying in any
way from what was presented to you initially. We are wholly buying into that
concept and we will set our store front standards and architectural standards and
sign standards to reflect all of that.
Terrell — Even from what was originally presented, there's not a whole lot of
detail. There is one page that shows some renderings, but usually when you
come in with a plan, and I took that as your initial idea give us a general idea of
what it's going to look like.
Chilton — Concept Plan
Terrell — Right, but we're going to need something more than that if we're going
to approve this long term and you go out and build it we've got to have a lot more
details. I realize it's early, but we can have some significant more information and
renderings that will help us get comfortable with it. I think your going to do a
great project and I know Hines is very qualified, but we've got to have it on paper
so later on, three years from now when all of us have forgotten what has
happened in the meetings we can point back at a piece of paper and say this is
what we all agreed on, and that's what I'm look for just so we don't have
discussions later that we had confusion, that we had misunderstandings, we got
something on paper that says this is what it was supposed to look like.
Muzyka — And on that same vein, on the corner of White Chapel and 114 you
made a significant difference to me in changing that up with the pad sites, but yet
the one we got today, not the one from yesterday, you've got all the open spaces
taken care of that you've done a little bit of difference to shown them and
everything, but nothing is done on that one, and I think it should have been
considering the changes that were made. It may look the same on that little
corner, but it's not really the same. Giving us one of these on that corner would
be good too.
Chilton — Sure.
Jones — Along those same lines, and Mr. Kennemer you and I have spoken
about this, but one of the things we have done in the past, and were looking
forward to hopefully doing in this situation, maybe would address some of these
other issues having to detail with details, you are in the process of creating
CCR's, Covenants and Restrictions, things of that nature, and architectural
guidelines that would relate to the various districts. Correct? And I assume would
relate to the commercial districts as well, would they not?
Kennemer — We have CC &R's that relate to the residential and design guidelines
that <inaudible>
Jones — Okay, I understand. And one of the things that I had asked of you was
that I would like to go over and see those. What we've done in the past is take
those guidelines and as we look at those we then incorporate them into the
zoning ordinance for the site so it becomes a part of the zoning. With regards to
that, obviously we don't have those tonight, but is there some way you can give
us a sense of what those guidelines are, for example, so that people who are
sitting here want to understand the quality you guys are going to put into,
especially these residential units. Is there some way we can see that so we can
take a look at it and see what it is?
Kennemer — We can create the CC &Rs for <inaudible>
Jones — Okay.
Wambsganss — Let me give my impressions. I know we been two three weeks
now focusing on drainage, impact on schools, impact on roads all that and ya'll
have made good progress in that direction and I know there are those in the
community who think you've done well in that regard, others who don't think
you've done enough, but I would say 95% of the focus has been on that. Kind of
for us to get yesterday, a substantial change in the retail and there are still details
to come, but I really don't know that we're in a good position tonight to be able to
evaluate the overall plan with that big of a change in the plaza district coming in
right now. Obviously, throw that out to Council, but that's kind of where we are at
tonight. I don't know that we're realty in a position to move the ball forward giving
kind of where we're at.
Terrell — I would tend to agree. I do think we ought to talk about some of the
residential side while we've got everybody here. So that everyone has an
opportunity to speak. I know there has been a lot of planning and discussions, I
think we ought to at least, I think you got pretty clear indication on the
commercial retail side, but we're going to have some more discussion there and
maybe look at some more pictures, but I think we ought to at least address some
of the residential.
Wambsganss — I don't disagree. Only thing I only do want to do in deference to
everyone's time. Where we are going tonight, I think this item is going to be
tabled regardless of what the residential issues are but in order to get a clearer
view of the plaza district and get a feel for where this has evolved and is still
evolving in a sense. Anyway, with that being said, any other questions of the
developer's right now? I'd like to get to the citizen's comments. This isn't a public
hearing because we have to get through a couple of readings, so I would like to
keep the process moving fairly quickly tonight. Mr. Stansell?
Stansell — I just had a couple of quick follow -ons here. For the maisons, just
confirm through your presentation floors two and three cannot be accessed from
the garage, directly from the owner's garage, they have to go out into a common
entry.
Kennemer — That is correct.
Stansell — Giving the economic times we are in, what part of the development
and I know you talked about this months ago, just out of curiosity, what part of
the overall development has firm commitments in place? If you can say.
Kennemer — Certainly, we have the...Opus West has committed to the retail
piece of this project. Hines has committed to, this is all under contract, Hines
Office Group will build the office part of the project. We are in the process of
gathering together our builders for the residential. We are still pulling all that
together to get it under contract, but all aspects of the project are going well at
this point.
Stansell — That's all.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Wambsganss — allowed the public to speak
Wambsganss — read through the comment cards from people who did not wish to
speak
Terrell — I would personally like a copy of the Power point presentations that
made by the folks this evening because I didn't have time to take down all the
notes and I want to make sure I didn't miss anything so if I could get a copy of
that I would appreciate it.
Wambsganss — Any other questions or comments?
Muller - I just have a comment to make. Again, what I'm hearing is that
everybody is in support of Hines and of this development. The biggest concern is
the density. For myself personally, though, and I think some people agree that I
have a lot of problems with these maisons. They call them lofts or offices. The
bottom line and it's been stated here, we don't have control that they are just
owner occupied. That they are basically just a type of apartment and I personally
cannot support those at all. I will look at other mixtures but as far as the town
homes and these lofts...
Terrell — Just one more comment, too, I know that the residents have indicated
an interest in getting with Hines and I certainly encourage that. I think there has
been some meetings. I think there has been some concern that the meetings
may have occurred a little late. I think everyone going forward needs to have
good intentions in mind. The developer is not going to want to meet with
residents if basically you are going in with a demand list and everything you are
wanting and there is no bend and /or no discussion. Why meet if all you are going
to do get harassed and banged about the head with a bat. But I would also
encourage the Hine folks to sit down and really have open dialogue and
discussion about this development. If I'm available, I am happy to meet as well
as I have offered in the past. But I would encourage it to be real discussion and
not something where you just go in and beat up on the developer where you
have him 50 to 1. So, those are all my comments.
Wambsganss — Okay, anything further? If not, do I have a motion?
Terrell — Mayor, I'd like to move we table Ordinance No. 480 -564 until the next
regularly scheduled Council meeting.
Muzyka — Second — tabled 7 -0
' t
City Council Carillon Discussion Between Applicant and City Council
October 7, 2008
(notes requested by Mayor Pro Tem John Terrell)
Director Ken Baker — Presented item
Applicant, Jeff Kennemer — Good evening Honorable Mayor and members of the
Council. My name is Jeff Kennemer. I'm with Hines Interest. Our business
resides at 5215 North O'Connor Boulevard in Las Colinas. What I'd like to do this
evening instead of going to and spend a lot of time talking about what we've
talked about before, I'd like to go back to the 9 -16 Council meeting and rehash
what was agreed to. Ken already touched on that. We agreed to extend the
sidewalk along Carroll through the lake park. We agreed to restrict the
construction traffic from entering Carillon except from 114 or except from White
Chapel up to Kirkwood. We agreed to restrict the size of the villas and the
maisons to 2800 sf minimum. We agreed to expand the area for the Carillon
entry feature at State Highway 114 and White Chapel. We agreed to provide
continuous massing for the retail along White Chapel and provide renderings of
what that would look like and we'll do that in just a moment. We agreed to
provide architectural controls as part of the development plan and we'll also be
going over that this evening. Since our meeting, I met with Mr. Boudreaux and
talked about his concern with regard to the parking area that was in the lake park
south of his property. After that discussion, we agreed to move that parking lot,
as Ken showed you, to the north end of the lake park. Real quickly, we already
went over this, but, before the parking lot was here and we moved it up to here.
Since the last City Council meeting, we were encouraged to meet with the
neighborhood groups that had concerns regarding our project. We've done that.
We met with them at length one evening and have had follow up conversations
as well. I wanted to point out really several areas that came about as a result of
some of those conversations. Areas that we would like to talk about this evening.
One of the dialogues dealt with looking at alternatives to increasing the lot sizes
of some of the lots in the chateaux district. As we've talked about before, we've
really got three lot types in the chateaux district. All of these lots are estate lots
as well as this row along the northern boundary. The estate lots range in size
from .37 acres to the largest which is right here, it is .71 acres. A lot of the lots
are .36 acres about 25% are oversized and run in that range from .36 to .71. The
second lot type is the lake lots which border the lake right here. These lots,
again, some of them are oversized but the smaller ones along here are 120 X
140. Finally, the third lot product are the chateaux district lots in this area right
here, these lots — the smallest are .27 acres which are 90 X 130 and there are
some that go as large as .33 acres. So, in having conversations with the
neighborhood groups, their concern was "How can we reduce the number of
these chateaux district lots that are in this center area ?" One of the ideas we had
was to take one of these two parks, I chose the northern park, and by removing
this park and taking that acreage and spreading it over this group of chateaux
lots here, you can in essence convert those to lots that are .36 of an acre or
higher, some of them were over .4 and some as high as .5. What that essentially
did was it got rid of one of the two parks, but in essence converted all of these
lots in the northern end to the larger estate lots. It basically converted — where
before there were 146 chateaux lots, this reduced the chateaux lots down, it
reduced 51 of those chateaux lots and it increased 47 of the estate lots. So that
was one of the things we looked at was how can we take possibly some of the
park land and convert that into lot sizes instead as a trade off. The second thing
we looked at was how can we increase the size of the lake lots that front the lake
park right here. One of the ideas that Hines looked into was right now our right -
of -ways in the Chateaux District are 56 feet. They are 56 foot right -of -ways from
here to here. That includes 32 foot from the back of the curb on one side of the
street to the back of the curb on the other side of the street. It includes a 6 foot
parkway right here for trees to be planted in. It includes a five foot sidewalk and
then one foot up to the property line. The property line will start right here. We
could, in each one of these right -of -ways, decrease the right -of -ways from 56 feet
to 51 feet by reducing the back of curb to back of curb to 31 feet rather than 32
feet, by reducing the parkway from six feet to five feet, and by reducing the
sidewalk from five feet to four feet. If you'll notice, from each of the property lines
out to the curb, there is another 12 feet in each of the lots. The net affect of doing
all of that is by the time you do all that across four or five streets, we could pick
up 20 to 25 feet that we could add to the depth of the lake lots that face the lake
park. Another thing we looked at was the chateaux lots that back up to Kirkwood
Boulevard that runs through here. We've got a significant green belt that runs in
between Kirkwood Boulevard and these lots and we could cut in to some of the
open space and add another 20 feet onto the lots that back up to Kirkwood
Boulevard. So those are three areas that we looked at in terms of. Although it
doesn't affect the overall number of lots, it does have an impact on the lot sizes.
We evaluated those three approaches. Last time we visited with City Council, we
submitted this plan. As you can see, there was a break in the retail along White
Chapel. We were asked to go back and relook at this plan and add massing
along White Chapel as well as expand the feature area here and make it more of
a dramatic entrance into our development. This is our new concept plan as Ken
mentioned you can see we've added back the massing along White Chapel.
We've shielded the garage and added massing back along 114. We've expanded
the area where are entry feature is going to go right here and we were asked by
Council, based on this new massing, show us what its going to look like. This is a
rendering, an aerial, from the west side of White Chapel, looking across White
Chapel, you can see we've got the continuous facade as it faces White Chapel
and I'll show you an interior picture as well. It gives the look of a continuous
facade on the inside although there will be access to come into the service areas.
You can see we've greatly expanded the entry feature. You can see the Carillon
chapel tower here in the background. If you'll look here, this is a picture coming
up a little closer. The arrow kind of gives you orientation where you're at looking
at this rendering. This would be on the inside of the project looking back to the
retail that is along White Chapel. This gives you a sense of the restaurants that
would be along in this area, and you can see the areas out front for patio dining.
This is the second picture that you can see from the air over here, this is from the
west and a little bit south looking back to what the retail will look like along White
Chapel and you can see the corner right here of their entry feature and I'II show
this in more detail in a moment. See this rendering before — I just want to show
you some other shots of our retail to refresh your memory. This is on the north
end of the village green looking back towards the retail area. You can see the
performing arts to the right and the hotel in the background. This is another
rendering of the retail at the street level. You've seen this one as well before. We
tried to capture the quant European village feel — the narrow pedestrian
walkways, the outdoor cafes and so forth. Here is another look at the retail, street
level. One other shot of the retail looking back towards the entry of the
performing arts center. And finally, this is from the vantage point of the village
green looking back towards the two areas of retail, the entrance of the performing
arts center, the fountain and the hotel in the background. That gives you a sense
how we envision the retail to look. This is our entry feature. We are proud how
this came out. As you can see, the scale you can see the couple here on the end
gives you an indication the size of the entry feature. We'd like to create some
berming. This right at the corner of White Chapel and 114 by the way. And we'd
like to build up some little berming behind it and plant some Leland cypress trees
to give it some verticality behind the wall here and they would be surrounded by
more of the oaks behind the Leland cypress trees. What I'd like to do at this point
is you guys had mentioned in our last Council meeting that you'd like to see how
we are going to control the architecture and the quality in Carillon. What I am
going to do is step through a little bit of the architectural vision and then I'm going
to ask Danny Opitz, our senior construction manager, to come up and talk about
the architectural controls that will be put in place. One of the things you'll notice
in your handouts is that we had two handouts that we provided in our submittal,
one will be section 7.0 which is going to be the architectural controls for the
residential and one will be section 7.1 which will be the architectural controls for
the commercial area. Both of these will be added to our development plan, the
Appendix, we are going to add sections 7.0 and 7.1 and those will become a part
of the zoning. This will give you an idea of the type of architecture that we use
that is the basis for Carillon. It is rooted in the French Renaissance tradition. We
wanted to accomplish a timeless and ageless beauty. Several things characterize
that type of architecture as you can see on this slide, the decorative cornices, the
balustrades, the decorative iron work, the decorative scrolls, the decorative
accents, coins at the corners of the buildings, arched impediment windows, string
cores in the stone banding, and the accented doors and stoops. French
Renaissance architecture is rooted in classic Greek and Roman architecture.
There is emphasis on symmetrical facades, continuous first floor heights, doors
and windows and repetitive bays. We wanted to have common architectural
materials utilized throughout the community. This again is just another example
of some of these features. This gives you an idea of the exterior finish color
palette. We want to use warm, soft tones. Want our stone colors to be natural
whites, greys and light tans. The brick - earth tones — warm reds and natural
colors. And finally the stucco - warm whites, buffs, beiges, and creams. As far as
r r
primary roof styles, you can see here the parapet, the mansard, and the hipped.
And I don't have a picture here but I'll have a picture later of the pitched roofs.
This gives you an idea of some of the added architectural features that create a
visual interest. You can see the wrought iron features and scrolls and so forth
and additional accents. And then we want to use thoughtful consideration to the
doors and windows that brings additional accent into the architecture. Finally, the
gutters and downspouts are used not only to control runoff but also are
incorporated into the building design elements. This time, I'm going to ask...One
more item also is the awnings. We want to use awnings to give color, to give
additional articulation, and to add to the architecture in Carillon. At this point, I am
going to ask Danny Optiz to come up and go over the architectural controls and
then I'II come back up for questions.
Applicant, Danny Opitz — Good evening, I'm Danny Optiz. Mr. Mayor,
Councilmembers and staff members. I'm very pleased to be here to present this
to you tonight. We have been working very diligently with our consultants to
establish deed restrictions for each of the development districts. In your packets,
as Jeff just informed you of, you have two groups of standards, one being 7.0 for
the residential and one being 7.1 for the commercial. Within each of these
standards, they are divided into parking, screening, landscaping, lights, signage,
landscape furniture, paving, architectural variety, architectural form and
architectural materials. The architectural control process will be governed by the
development review committee that I will refer to as the DRC. The DRC will be
appointed and controlled by Hines. The DRC's role is to review and approve
plans prior to the construction of or improvements to any home, retail or office
building or any other structure built on deed restricted property. At this time I will
go through each of the standards. First of all, I kind of want to explain to you the
process itself. As you can see, we have set up to have a pre - application meeting
with the applicant if required or if requested. At the time, they will make a
submittal to the DRC, and the DRC will review it. There are three conditions that
can result out of that. One being approval which it will be a subsequent submittal
will include revisions, if necessary, to any of the preliminary conditions and it will
get final DRC approval. It can be approved with conditions. If it is approved with
conditions, there are two steps that can be followed. One being they can appeal
the conditions that have been set and go back through the review process again
hoping for full approval. Or number two, they can accept the conditions as
requested and at that time, it will be sent on to reflect the changes and on to
DRC for final approval. Same process follows if denied. They have a review
process which can be followed with a resubmittal, and we go through the same
review process again finally reaching final approval. Starting in the architectural
standards for the residential area, what I am going to do, you all have this to read
so I am going to summarize this in most of the categories and then as we get into
the more specific ones, I will get into a little more detail and feel free to ask
questions at any time. In the parking section, this is very standard for all of them,
there is going to be on- street parking for the maisons in a designated area in all
three of the areas we have designated there will be on- street parking allowed for
a period not longer than 72 hours for any given car. This is primarily for weekend
guests who may come and stay through the weekend. It is not intended really for
the residents to spend and set up their cars out in their front yards or out on the
front curb at any time. Recreational vehicles, at all times, recreational vehicles
will have to be housed within an enclosed structure on your property or will have
to be housed off -site - not in the street, not in the side yard or not in the open. In
the case of garages, we have established for each of the groups, whether it is
maisons, villas or chateaux's, there will be a minimum two car garages. The villas
and the chateaux's will have the ability to park in the driveway that will be
acceptable. One thing I'd like to point out here is that the intent is that the
garages cannot be converted into livable space unless you have the ability on
your lot within the code restrictions of the City of Southlake to construct a
replacement garage. No carports or anything like that allowed. Driveway
materials — we will be looking at brick pavers, interlocking pavers, stone,
stamped and stained concrete, scored concrete, or concrete with stone and brick
borders. We will allow asphalt... <inaudible >... asphalt and other bituminous
materials are not acceptable in Carillon. This gives you a picture kind of showing
you some of the materials that would be acceptable. We have brick pavers, we
have a concrete broom finish with a stained border around it, and interlocking
pavers. Next category, screening. Air conditioning units, your telecom pedestals,
each of these must be screened from the adjacent property owner and from
public view. This is especially important in the chateau area, in which most of the
appurtenances will be out in the front in the villa area and in the maison area in
the allies. Most of the appurtenances will be in the ally sections and it will be
easier to screen them there, but in the front of the units its very critical we get the
proper screening and this will have to be shown on the landscape plan which will
be submitted by each applicant. Roof mechanical equipment, which is consistent
with what you all do here in Southlake, must be screened from public right -of -way
view, pedestrian view. Trash enclosures. The intent here is that all trash
enclosures will meet the City of Southlake standards, whatever the appropriate
receptacle for these, regardless of the category, we will be looking to follow your
guidelines. And the only days the trash is allowed to be visible is on the days of
pick -up.
Councilmember Pamela Muller — I have a question on that one. On the maisons,
you talk about the trash containers. Where are they going to be when people put
out their trash? Are they going to be the curb in front of the maisons? Or is
there...
Opitz — In the maisons, the intent would be to, more than likely, and again this
depends on if Southlake allows alley pick -ups. Since we have alleys, the trash
could be contained in the rear out of one of the garages.
Muller — Okay.
Opitz — And again I would have to defer to ya'II on whether that is acceptable.
That would be the preferred way, would be to have alley pick -up.
Mayor Pro Tenn John Terrell — Along those same lines, you were talking a minute
ago about the AC on some of the units might be out front. Can you tell me, do
you have an idea of how many of those are going to have some type of unit out
front rather than?
Opitz — The AC units would be in the side yards. The only units that you are
probably going to see out front are is either going to be a transformer or a
telecom pad for one of the communication companies. And in each of those
cases we have guidelines that we have to follow as far as the setback off of them
as far as keeping shrubbery and things, but as you can see from the diagram
they let you get pretty close and pretty much fill that area up as long as you've
provided an access point for them. But AC units would go into the side yard units
or into the rear of the house. If they are in the side yard they would have to be
screened with a row of shrubs from the front street view.
Residential landscaping requirements. Our intent here is really to set up a plan.
There needs to be a landscape plan, which is prepared by a landscape architect.
The minimum elements that will be included in this plan are a planting plan,
materials, species, and sizes, lighting, retaining walls and fencing, and a full yard
programmable irrigation system. One of the key items up there is sizes. What
we'd like to do is have a minimum height rather than minimum gallons. I've been
in this business long enough to know that a lot of people bring you three to five
gallon plants that are really are two by two containers, so what we'd like to do to
ensure that we get the proper screening, especially of air conditioners and even
the telecom pads and transformers out front is to specify, in most cases, like a
minimum 18 -inch at the time of planting with it growing up to the 42, 45 -inch
range over time. Here's an example of what we would expect from our
applicants, and as you can see in this plan, we've shown tree locations, the
shrubbery locations with a color coded key, which specifies the species of the
plant, the height of such plant. In the case of irrigation, we're not expecting a
fully detailed irrigation plan, this is something that calling out "fully irrigated with a
programmable controller" is adequate, because that can be taken care of at the
time of installation. The one thing we do ask is that the yard be fully irrigated
within 60 days of occupancy, weather permitting.
Street lighting. In each of these categories we have established that street
lighting shall be spaced at no greater than 250 feet. That's kind of a residential
standard. What we would expect in the maison area is that spacing would
become smaller, so we are working with our consultants to look at the candlelight
production, but I would anticipate that that spacing in the maisons will be reduced
to something shorter, but in the villas and chateau areas what we found is that
most people prefer to have the street lights spread out a little bit farther making
sure that you have concentrated light at the street intersections where you have
signs to be identified and then people supplement this in their own yard with
house lighting, tree lighting of the such. Here's an example of the street light we
are working with one of the local suppliers on.
Architectural accent lighting, this is what I was referring to as supplementing the
street lighting. This has to do with lights on the front of the house. It can be tree
lighting. It can be up lighting in front of your house splashing on to the front of
your home. The only thing that we ask here and we will be very careful to watch
out for this is making sure you don't splash the light in such a way that you cause
a nuisance to one of your neighbors. In that case, with a protest or whatever, we
do have the right to go back in and ask that it be shielded if its going to be left in
place. This shows some lighting on the front of the houses as can be, that can
be used for accent lighting.
Roof signage. Not permissible in any category. This is attached, painted on your
house, anything like that. No roof signage.
For sale signage. Of course, this will conform to the City of Southlake standards.
What we have anticipated with the smaller front yard on the maisons that a sign
of the order magnitude of 2 by 3 is appropriate and in the villas and the chateaux,
because of the slightly larger yards that a larger sign could be accommodated for
the purposes of the home seller and the representative.
Councilmember Virginia M. Muzyka — And I have a comment on that. First of all,
the 2 by 3 size is not correct, but I would request you put a master sign package
together and present that at one time. Instead of having it under here because
these do not conform really to our ordinances at this point and time. So if you put
it all together at one time we can look at them all at one time. Please.
Opitz — That can be done.
Muzyka — Thank you.
Terrell — And just take the signage out of this all together.
Councilmember Laura K. Hill — All the signs, window signs, everything.
Opitz — Talk about commercial signage, but we'll remove this also. What we are
looking at the commercial signage is, of course, no commercial signage in the
villas or chateau. Commercial signage allowed in the maisons where you have
offices in either the first, second or third floor depending on what it is. Keeping in
mind, an office cannot be second or third floor unless it has an office underneath
it. The intent here is that any signage that is to be used in these areas would be
no more than 25% of the front glass area. We also have the ability to do a
carriage sign. This is an example of an office carriage sign that can be attached
to the front leaving a seven foot five inch minimum clearance.
On these next items. These are landscape furniture. The intent here is that
landscape furniture would be placed throughout the open space areas and would
be placed in conjunction with each other in such a manner that it would not be
offensive to anyone sitting in the park, but it would be there for the use of the
residents and other people coming to the community.
Crosswalks. The intent is to have crosswalks at key intersections. We are
looking at doing pavestone in these areas which would be on a sleeper slab for
durability.
Sidewalk paving. In each of these cases, with the exception of what Jeff was
referring to in the Chateaux area that were to be an acceptable alternative. The
intent was to have a six foot parkway area with a six foot sidewalk area with the
Chateaux area being changed to accommodate the street widths and setbacks if
ya'll so elect to follow that direction. Just as an example, coming off the back of
curb you will have a six foot parkway area with your sidewalk section and then
there's normally one foot to the right -of -way line in most of our sections.
Architectural variety. This is a key item in making sure we don't have duplication
of homes. The intent here is a 360 rule. Essentially, if you stand in the middle of
the street and turn 360, you will not see in the villa section and in the chateaux
section, you will not see the same model or front elevation in making that turn.
This has to do with colors and all is taking consideration that we are duplicating
anything. This, of course, does not apply to the maisons since there will be
duplication of features in those. Architectural variety continued — the primary
exterior material on the street on the maisons will be consistent within the
maisons and as I go into this a little bit further I will be able to tell you what the
materials and everything are. In the villas and the chateaux, no more than 25 %
of the homes in the subdivision may be constructed of stucco as the primary
cladding material, and no more than two consecutive homes by constructed of
stucco as the primary cladding material. This is one of the stipulations ya'll asked
us to consider. This is our proposal to limit the amount of stucco. The use of
stucco also will have to be appropriate as to the architectural style of the home
as its designed. The roof form is mansard, hipped or gabled. A key element
again is going to the architectural style especially as you get into the chateaux.
We are going to have a mix in the maisons and in the villas, we are looking at
French Renaissance as the primary design. However in the chateaux, you do
have the flexibility to have several other types of designs and there it will be very
critical that the slopes of those roofs and the materials match. If you have a
Mediterranean or Spanish style or Spanish eclectic home, it will be very
important in this area to have the flatter sloped roof rather than a steep roof that
you will see in many of the other styles. Again, some examples.
Fencing. In the maisons, we are looking at providing wrought iron metal fencing
or a masonry fencing as kind of a buffer in these areas. The fence shall be six
foot unless other wise approved by the DRC. Chain link, wood fencing is not
permitted. In the villas and the chateaux, we do have the ability to bring cedar
fencing into these two districts, in this case, we are looking a the fence to be six
foot unless otherwise approved by the DRC. Again, chain Zink fencing is not
permitted. Masonry fencing is permitted. On the wooden fences, we'll set this up
so that they will have metal posts and the intent would be that if the fence is seen
from the street or from an open space that the posts would be clad in wood.
Here's some examples.
Retaining walls and other walls within the subdivision. Ashlar masonry, rustic or
refined coins, belt or string course. This is for all three types of homes.
Windows. Full length, and this primarily pertains to French Renaissance but can
be applied to any type of architecture. Full length, first story, with arches or
pediments above, casement windows recessed at a minimum of four inches. This
applies to all three types. This is an example of what we are talking about on the
first floor. The architectural forms of the front doors will be classic door surrounds
with a covered formal entry recessed a minimum of twelve inches. An example.
And again, the detailed elements. The reason we say "not applicable" on the
chateauxs of course is that there is many types available in that area since that is
a more custom area. In the maisons and villas with the French Renaissance,
we'll be looking for balustrades at the roof line or porches consistent with
Renaissance style. An example.
Colors. Subtle, body colors with contrasting trim and accent colors. Must be
approved by the DRC and eventually by the architectural control committee at
such time the review process is expanded.
Prohibited items. No window or wall type air conditioners. No radio or television
aerial wires or antennas shall be maintained on the outside of any building.
Satellite dishes shall be limited to twenty inches in diameter. No temporary
structure of any kind. No removal of any dirt from a lot or drilling or mining
operations. Animals are permitted up to three adult animals provided they are not
kept for breeding or commercial purposes.
Muzyka — Comment there? Are you going to allow pools somewhere? In
backyards?
Opitz — By pools...
Muzyka — Swimming pools.
Opitz — Yes.
Muzyka — Then you're going to have to get dirt out of the yard. And what about
adding dirt? If they add a substantial amount of dirt for something, if you're
controlling the removal of dirt are you going to control the adding of dirt?
Opitz — We just need to clarify that.
Muzyka — Yes.
Opitz — We will clean that up. I see what you're talking about. I think the intent
here was that someone doesn't come in and create a large void, or whatever, by
over excavating in order to put in retaining walls and various things like that.
Muzyka — I agree with that, but I think it needs to be clarified.
Opitz— There does need to be some clarification.
Opitz — The facade on each of these. There is a minimum of 85% of the building
facade must be covered in masonry materials excluding the windows, door, roof
and glass. On the maisons, in fact on all three of them, no more than two primary
cladding materials shall be used as the primary cladding. On the maisons, no
more than twenty percent of the overall facade shall be stucco. On the villas and
chateauxs we have shown there again the statement that no more than 25% of
the homes can use stucco as their primary cladding material and no more than
two consecutive homes can be constructed of stucco. The masonry materials
that are acceptable: brick, brick veneer, stone, cast stone, glass fiber reinforced
concrete, glass fiber reinforced gypsum, textured concrete panels, stucco, split
faced concrete masonry units on the villas, chateauxs and the maisons. No EIFS
allowed in the residential standards.
Roof materials. Slates and synthetic slate, limited to slate grey colors on the
maisons. On the villas and the chateaux we have added a minimum thirty year
composite shingle which is an architectural style shingle. This would be the
minimum that would be acceptable and in a lot of cases they go up to fifty year
shingles now. Tile is acceptable and synthetic tile and the shingle colors will be
approved by the DRC or the ACC.
Muzyka — Why don't you want the minimum thirty year composite shingle on the
maisons?
Optiz — On the maisons, again I think, it's a quality issue and a style we are
looking for. And with the style of roof, it goes to the architectural form and
blending everything together to give you the highest quality which we felt like ya'll
wanted with the maisons.
Muzyka — Well, I agree, but I just wondered why you put a minimum on two and
not on another one.
Optiz — I think in a conventional single family, detached home, again, the
composition single is an acceptable form in most communities and in the style of
roof you see on the maisons would not be acceptable.
Muzyka — Okay.
Opitz — Prohibited materials. Unfinished or untextured concrete masonry. Wood
siding. Plastic, vinyl or metal sidings or EIFS on all three categories.
Windows. On the maisons and on the villas and chateauxs, we're stating that the
windows shall be made from wood, vinyl or aluminum clad with divided light on
the fronts or side yards facing streets. Reflective window coverings are not
permitted.
Garages. All garages viewed from the streets or common areas will have a wood
door. Port-a- cacheres must be approved in writing by the ACC. Again, an
example.
On your front doors, fiber glass and plastic are not permitted. All doors must be
approved by the DRC and the ACC.
Chimneys. Chimneys shall be 100% brick, brick veneer, stone, stone masonry
veneer, or stucco. With the exception of an exterior wall chimney which has to be
100% brick or stone.
Mailboxes. On the maisons, the mailboxes shall be on the office fronts
individually or in groups not to exceed ten at a time and shall be either metal or
masonry. On the villas and chateaux, all single family homes shall have a cast
iron mailbox approved by the ACC.
Gutters and downspouts. The maisons, villas, and chateaux shall be aluminum
and painted to accent the building facades or be copper and remain unpainted. I
think Jeff showed you an example or a couple of examples of what the guttering
could look like. Here they are again.
Architectural controls for the commercial. 7.1. On street parking in this category
is allowed with angled, parallel parking similar to what you have here in the
Southlake Town Square. An example. Structured parking. If parking structure is
not enclosed by architecture, the structure shall compliment the surrounding
architecture and shall comply with the 50% open space requirement for parking
structures. This has to do with the ventilation. Again here you can see this open
air is for the ventilation required by standards.
Structured parking landscaping. If it is exposed to the public view, it must have
an eight foot landscape buffer along White Chapel Boulevard side or the State
Highway 114 side. On other sides, a three foot landscape buffer is acceptable.
The buffer shall be used to screen the parking structure from public view. When
the top floor of the parking structure is not covered, a minimum of four foot
parapet is required.
Surface parking. Again, shall be buffered from street frontage by landscape. If
painted all parking stalls shall be marked with a line not less than four inches
wide. Surface lots will include a minimum buffer of five foot between the parking
and the buildings they serve and should include landscaping.
Muzyka — I have a comment on that one please?
Opitz — Yes.
Muzyka - We have no footage of buffer zone mentioned there or should we say,
"as required by Southlake City ordinances" or what?
Optiz — What we are working on right now with our consultants is establishing
some percentages that we will recommend for front yard or landscaping as it
relates to parking structures, fronts of homes, sides of homes, and there will be
percentages that will be applied to each of those.
Muzyka — So this will change at some point?
Optiz — Yes.
Muzyka — Thank you.
Optiz — Surface parking landscaping shall meet City of Southlake Landscape
Ordinance 544 -A. Ground mounted utility units must be screened from public
view in accordance with the City of Southlake's ordinances. Roof mounted utility
units, again, must be screened from public right -of -ways, pedestrian walkways or
from neighboring properties by parapet walls or continuous roofs to match the
roof color. Trash enclosures must be screened from public view and public right -
of -way. The free standing screening enclosures shall be at least one foot taller
than the trash enclosure. Again here is an example of the type of enclosure we
would envision.
Garbage collection location. Where possible such services shall be located at the
rear of buildings. In all cases, the location will have to be approved by the DRC
or the ACC.
General landscape requirements, again, for all commercial operations shall meet
City of Southlake landscaping ordinance.
Street trees. Street trees shall be planted at a maximum of 40 foot on center and
centered in the parkway. Street trees shall be planted at maximum of 35 foot on
center in the Plaza District and centered in the parkway. Irrigation systems must
be installed within 60 days of occupancy.
Street lights. In the corporate district, we are looking at a 75 foot on center
spacing staggered on each side of the street. Dependent on the light type for a
three foot candle minimum with a down shield to prevent light pollution. In
addition, one light will be again positioned at each corner to illuminate street
signs and street sign locations and stop lights and the like. Plaza District, that
spacing will be changed to 50 feet with the same foot candle minimum. Again the
same example. This is for parking lot lights. Parking lot lights shall be staggered
for overlapping dependent light type for a two foot candle minimum with a down
shield to prevent light pollution into adjacent properties.
Architectural accent lighting on the buildings will provide one up light along each
building exterior wall at a minimum. In addition provide security lighting for all
walkways not illuminated by street lights at 20 foot on center, staggered with
overlapping lighting patterns. This is primarily referring to their low lights,
probably ten — twelve foot poles or bollards.
On roof signage is not permissible. This is attached on top of the roof or painted,
a la Fellowship Church. That is not allowed.
Muzyka — So this signage area will also be pulled?
Optiz — Yes. Yes, ma'am.
Muzyka — Thank you.
Opitz - Same thing, we'll pull the window facade signage also.
Dog way stations, trash receptacles and benches. Very similar to the residential,
again, spaced so that their not offensive.
Crosswalks. We will have a minimum of eight foot wide crosswalk. Pavestone.
Located in key intersections with ADA accessible sidewalk ramps.
Sidewalk paving, again. There is a six foot wide clear zone beginning six foot
back of the curb. The clear zone shall remain clear to a height of eight foot
above finish grade and sidewalk. Here's an example in here in Southlake Town
Square of how mechanically the tree has been trimmed to provide you that clear
space, vertical clear space.
Again architectural forms are roof, parapet, mansard or hip.
Fencing. No fences are allowed in the front or side of the buildings. If there is a
fence intended for a mixed use facility in the Plaza District for say an outdoor
seating area for a restaurant or whatever, it shall be limited to a fence no taller
than 3.5 feet and shall be wrought iron and shall be approved by the DRC.
Colors, again, will follow the same color pattern as we had in the residential.
Building articulation. Building must incorporate jogs, offsets or other architecture
features to reduce the visual length. The intent here is to avoid having any
building 200 feet long without having some articulations, some deviation in that
front appearance. On these two examples here, on the one on the left, the front
entrance is indented in order to break up that front face, and then on the corner
lot, again, you have the angular entry, which again provides variety in the
appearance along that front streetscape.
Facade. Minimum eighty percent of the building facade must be covered in
masonry material excluding the windows, door, roof and glass. No more than
two primary cladding materials shall be used as primary cladding. A third
material is allowable for a special architectural feature. No more than forty
percent of any building exterior may be expressed in glass in the form of a glass
curtain wall. This does not include glass storefronts, doors or typical windows.
Masonry materials. Brick, brick veneers, stone, cast stone, manufactured stone,
glass fiber reinforced concrete, glass fiber reinforced gypsum, stucco, painted,
textured concrete panels, architectural finished pre -cast panels, and split faced
concrete masonry units. No EIFS will be allowed except for detailed architectural
trim, cornice, banding or pediment. Again, this is a typical architectural feature.
We don't want the primary walls in EIFS, but it is used as an architectural feature
around windows and doors to accent said building, especially on the retail side.
Terrell — Let me ask, going back to that one. On the, I've seen number of
different architectural finished pre -cast panels, can give you kind of a wide range
of stuff, some of which I don't think we would want to see in there. Do you have
pictures? I think on a couple of these there's panel type things that are pre -cast
that just, I don't think fit in there, to leave a general description like that in there.
There's a couple of those that might need to be pulled out.
Optiz — I think we can get more specific on that for you.
Terrell — Okay.
Optiz — We will work with our commercial... I think that's especially relevant to
our office people and we can work with them to be more detailed in that or to
eliminate some of the objectionable things to you.
Terrell — Okay.
Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Gregory Jones — I want to reiterate <inaudible> I agree
with John 100% we need to make sure we got this very clear on what we are
dealing with. I was very happy when we initially talked to you guys and we talked
about masonry and true masonry and brick and stucco and things of that nature.
Now we're kind of throwing in, okay, we've got EIFS details, which I know is fairly
common, but I want to get a good understanding of what you are talking about
with EFIS details. It sounds like you are talking about surround and a lot of other
things. And also these are <inaudible> that were mentioned as well, please.
Optiz — Okay.
Muller — I actually have a question for John. You brought up in Town Square
about some of the materials crumbling. Is this one of the materials you're
concerned about?
Terrell — No, that was a spray on EIFS over some other materials.
Muller — Okay, so this is different.
Terrell — This is different, but it is more of a, it can be, I mean I don't know exactly
what they're talking about here, but some of these pre -cast panels can be the
kind slide into, you know two bars on the side of it and they stack on top of each
other. It's just not a look that you're wanting here. I think we just need more
information as to what these things are and not just in this Corporate and Plaza
district, but you had some of these same glass fiber reinforced gypsum and so
forth in the other. I think we just need to be more clear as to what those are.
Optiz — Okay.
Opitz - Roof materials. Slates and synthetic slate, factory finish standing seam,
architectural metal panels or similar quality architectural materials will be required
on visible roofs and limited to darker slate gray colors.
Prohibited materials. Unfinished or untextured concrete masonry, wood siding,
plastic or vinyl sidings, highly reflective glass, metal siding without architectural
finish, unfired clay, brick or other masonry products, and EFIS except fore the
architectural trim elements.
Windows. Highly reflective glass windows are not permitted. In the plaza district,
windows on the front elevation or visible from street will be aluminum, baked
enamel or anodized wood or vinyl clad. Reflective window coverings are not
permitted.
Awnings. Awnings shall have a minimum height clearance of eight foot and a
depth between three and five foot from the building. The top of the awning shall
not extend above the first floor height and should not extend across multiple
store fronts. Awning color and any signage related to the awnings shall be
approved by the DRC.
Terrell — Actually, we probably...
Optiz — Signage is not part of it, but we'll have it in there.
Terrell — We need to back that out, too, I think, in terms of those awnings. We
take a look at awnings as they come up later and you'll have the signage out.
There won't be any kind of printed anything on it.
Optiz — Right, okay.
Terrell — Then we can talk about those later.
Opitz — And all colors must be approved by the DRC. Gutters and downspouts...
Jones — If I may, back on the awning real quick if you could. If you could also
address the materials for the awning. Awnings can be all kinds of things. It would
be really good, I think, if you could address the materials.
Opitz — Yes, okay.
Jones — Thank you.
Opitz — Gutters and downspouts again, this is material wise with what we are
doing in the residential areas. Handled a little different as far as how the
downspouts tie into an existing system or are discharged into the street.
And then the last item down there is the final note which, "All architectural
controls are subject to DRC approval prior to the final site plan and /or final plat
approvals."
And with that I would be pleased to answer any questions or turn the floor back
to Mr. Kennemer.
Mayor Wambsganss — Okay, thank you.
Muller — I have one quick question. On, did you review our city ordinances when
you were putting this together? I know some things have been brought up about
the signs and awnings. So is, are your standards...
Opitz — We did. It's an ongoing process. We're working with our consultants at
Jacobs to go through each of those and we'll have to look at a couple more of
these in a little more detail, but we have been looking at your ordinances.
Muller — Which ones are you looking at in more detail?
Opitz — Well, obviously we're going to be looking at your signage and then we'll
be looking also at some of the materials related to especially the office in
particular, and we're also looking at the landscaping to make sure we conform to
all of your landscaping ordinances for each of the different districts.
Muller — Okay. Thank you.
Wambsganss — Well the way we did it in Town Square relating to signage was
that the zoning was one thing and your buildings and as you come in with site
plans, with the details conforming to your underlying approval. But you'll need to
go with, I imagine on something like this, you'll want to go with a conditional sign
permit for the whole property. And I think that's the time when we focus on
signage, because if we kind of approve things here and there along the way, we
kind of find ourselves that a developer thought this was approved because it was
part of a picture. We try to be real clear at the zoning stage that you can talk
about signage and show pictures with signs on them but we don't take those
signs until one time.
Opitz — You're looking for a master signage plan?
Wambsganss — Exactly.
Opitz — Okay.
Jones — I have another question, too. With respect to the street lights you are
talking about.
Opitz — Yes, sir.
Jones — One of the things that we've dealt with before is if you notice the different
colors of street lighting. We have the street lighting here in Town Square. Then
across the street in Central Market, some of the street lighting is similar, but then
there's also the much brighter sort of commercial street lighting, which frankly
gives a whole different look and different feel. Do you have a sense at this point
as to which street lighting you're looking at?
Opitz — I have not talked specifically with the consultants whether we're going
metal halide or the sodium, but that's something we can, we're pleased to work
with you on, whichever you prefer on that.
Jones — I would, at least from my stand point, I would really encourage you
toward the softer lighting. I think it's going to give a much better look. It's a lot
less garish. It'll look a lot nicer.
Opitz — We can specify that.
Wambsganss — And I think the ordinance defaults to that, our current ordinance
so, I think really to get outside that will require a variance. I know Gateway
requested a variance for that and we didn't approve it. I mean, I think we've also
seen that a couple of times when we did approve it, it doesn't give a real good
blend.
Jones — I just wanted to make sure of what you guys were planning so you didn't
get off on the wrong track.
Opitz — No, we'll be glad to do that.
Wambsganss — Thank you for the detail you have.
Opitz — Thank you very much.
Terrell — I've actually got another thing as well. You know, again, appreciate the
detail, but even with this detail there's a number of things that we're not even
going to think about at this stage. I mean you've got some nice products and you
seem to catch a lot of different amenities and architectural features. One of the
things that we want to make sure we do to is, as we discussed at the last
meeting, talking about how Town Square was done and there was something
similar to this put in place, but then there was also in motions made a general
statement about what the Council and the City was looking for in respect to style
and consistency, continuity with main street front facades, talking now too about
all sides of the building meeting certain standards, so that when we go back to
look at your particulars, then we have something more general that says how its
going to be applied. So I mean we will probably include some statement in any
motion at whatever point we get to that has a kind of a general statement about
all of these facades so later on when you start applying all this we can say, "This
is how it was supposed to look," not just one piece of this on one gigantic wall so
we will include something along those lines.
Opitz — Okay.
Jones — I do have another quick recommendation. We can nitpick these things.
I'm not going to do much more of this tonight, because I can talk with you later
and do that and not take everybody's time, but I can guarantee you nobody is
going to be putting in copper facades or downspouts these days. My
understanding is that there are some other options. I believe nickel is one of the
options. There are some other metals that look real nice with that same sort of
look. They're not painted, but they have that same sort of old world look. I'd ask
you to maybe look at some of those and consider some of those and not lock
yourself down on this copper.
Opitz — I think what we can do
Jones — If they do put them in they'll be stolen the next day anyway.
Opitz — I think what we can do to accommodate that is this kind of sets a
standard. We can put a phrase in there "Or equal, as approved by the
architectural control committee or the design review committee."
Wambsganss — Okay, thank you.
Kennemer - We can open it up for really any questions on the presentation.
Terrell — If you don't mind, I will get started. First, again, let me just say thank
you. You've done a lot of what we asked especially on the retail side. I really like
the way you've got the buildings now, kind of grouped. You get a sense now of a
place more than just a strip center. I also thank you for meeting with a lot of the
neighbors. I met with you and the neighbors and Councilman Jones, I know, I
don't know how many of the other Councilmembers have but, spent a lot of time
working through a lot of these issues. You've brought to us this evening some
alternatives in terms of how to make some of these other lots a little larger. From
my perspective, I'm not so as concerned, personally, with the individual sizes of
some of the lots as I am with overall density with the open space and so forth but
through some of our conversations, you've had with me, Councilman Jones, and
some of the residents, there has been some concern as you are very well aware
with the maison product and through our discussions, I would like you to
elaborate on some thoughts on what you might be able to do there.
Kennemer — In terms of if we don't have the maisons?
Terrell — Yes.
Kennemer - One of the things we've looked at, actually, after we had our
conversations with some of the homeowner's groups is that we went back and
looked at what are other ways that we can still accomplish this barrier, transition,
is a better word, that is taking you from the commercial district to the residential
district. We really wanted to provide you with a continuous line here along the
boulevard that was very dramatic and had a very European feel to it. We were
saying if we don't have the attached maisons, what else could we do? One thing
that we looked at was these are the maisons and these are the...we could line
the same front with our villa product. We would want to study whether or not the
detached separation in the villas is ten feet between units. We would want to take
a hard look at whether or not is ten feet the right separation or for the group that
lines the boulevard should we reduce that to maybe eight feet because we are
trying to create a sense that there is a continuous wall along the boulevard. We
can still make the boulevard rather dramatic by doing perhaps a knee wall with
stone and wrought iron above it and landscaping to give the continuous line feel
so although it wouldn't be quite as dramatic as being in line with the maisons, we
feel like we can get a similar feel.
Jones — As far as some of the maisons are concerned, would it make any sense
to — I agree with you that you need to create a buffer — what you are describing
may be a good alternative. There was a mention made of having some of the
maison - looking product into an office -type product. Now is that something you
could consider along a portion of this? That it could be an office -type product
rather than residential.
Kennemer — Well, actually what we proposed in the last City Council meeting, all
of the maisons that faced the village green, this area here being the village
green, we really wanted the flexibility for all of these to be either office use or
residential use and so but we weren't certain of how the market would react to
the office use. It would be difficult for us to quantify until we actually start trying to
make sales what portion of this would there be enough demand for all of this to
be office or would only some percentage be office? We did look at that and we
are open to that.
Jones — But what if you looked at it....I'm sorry, but you are the marketing guys.
You know your business and I don't but what if you looked at it from the stand
point of sort of having one or the other. In other words you did maisons that were
office or if you couldn't put maisons that were office then you'd go with the other
product you described that would be the...
Kennemer — Villas?
Jones — The villas. In other words, you'd start doing the project and if it looks like
there is a serious demand for the office, then you'd make a go at the office to
create a nice long fagade line and keep density down and that type of thing but if
it doesn't look like it is working then you'd go the other plan. Does that sound like
something to be considered?
Kennemer — It sounds like something we could consider but the challenge is
going to be — you've almost got to have some minimum number of units to build a
program from. And if you are going to restrict the maisons to just the units that
face the village green and not have these units you are getting to the point where
you've only got 33 units, it is difficult to find a builder that is willing to commit the
up front cost and development cost to come up with a program for only 33 units.
That would be the challenge we would have.
Jones — Understand. That would clearly be an economic decision for you guys to
make. I'm just posing that as a potential alternative <inaudible>
Muller — When we talked, I asked you if it was possible to re -look at this with
using the Kirkwood extension as the buffer between the commercial and the
residential with removing the maisons. Have you looked at that?
Kennemer — We looked at that quite some time ago. If you bring Kirkwood , you
cut it down like this and extend out this chateaux district, we're not able to get, by
doing that, it would lower our residential units to the point where we couldn't
make the plan work economically. We looked at that.
Muller — Explain that a little clearer to me why you need so many residential lots
to make this work when <inaudible >.
Kennemer — Sure, it is really just based upon our land price. You know, there's a
necessity to build a certain number of residential units in tandem with the
commercial district. If you cut the road in, you've got some larger lots, the price
per front foot is not linear. In other words, you don't sell the same price per front
foot for a smaller lot that you do a larger lot. There is not a linear relationship
there. You get a, there's more revenue related per square foot on the smaller
lots. And so if you cut too many of the village district lots away and just replace
those with chateaux lots, you can't make your numbers work anymore and you
have to look at other alternatives.
Muller — Is this true for the retail also?
Kennemer — No, if you could expand the retail and have a larger portion of retail
you could solve part of that problem. That's a legitimate point. We just feel like
given the amount of retail in Town Square, we're in the 300,000 to 330,000 range
here in our plan, we believe feel we've kind of maxed out what we think we can
do with that square footage. We feel like we've kind of pushed...
Muller — I am getting an economic lesson here. If that's true, would that be also
impacting the rest of our community that the other tracts that we had planned to
be commercial now wouldn't be able to be marketable. Because we still have
land along 114 that's ideal.
Kennemer — There is just a time frame that the absorption of, you know, there's a
limited demand for retail and office space and there's only a certain amount that
can be absorbed each year. That's not to say there aren't other areas that won't
be good at some point in time for office. But there is a lot, a sizeable amount of
available land and based on our study of the market, we felt like...we would have
liked to have done more office if we thought we'd be able to fill that in a
reasonable amount of time. We just felt as though the portion that we've outlined
here was reasonable in the time frame that we'd like to get built out in this
project. We didn't want to designate a large commercial area and then sit on it for
ten years.
Mayor — Let me go back to one of the things we talked about right in the
beginning. In your discussions with some of the neighbors and some of the
attempts to make a few these, or some, of these chateaux lots a little bit bigger,
you kind of came up with three suggestions and one of them I think might be
workable. Two of them, you know I think were from my perspective is not a step
forward and I know you're doing that just to accommodate concerns out there.
The first one was your, the option of possibly doing away with the tree preserve
area, maybe to add a thousand, two thousand square feet to a grouping of Tots. I
couldn't tell you the difference between an 18,000 square foot lot and a 20,000
square foot lot. But to loose a tree preserve that everybody can enjoy, would
recognize, to me would be a major loss. So I don't see the benefit in taking out
that open space for adding a little square footage to the same number of lots.
Likewise, you said that maybe on Kirkwood, kind of trimming back the right -of-
way there. I don't think, again, I think that has a potential for being such a an
attractive boulevard through there just to free up a little more square foot divided
up over a bunch of lots, I don't think that's a big benefit. Now I do think the
second one you offered, which was maybe on some of these other interior roads,
trimming it from like a 56 foot to something maybe a little smaller and adding
those back that might work as long as it doesn't feel too tight, but I think the way
you explained it you probably wouldn't even notice that.
Kennemer — I think we can do that in a careful manner and get another twenty
feet in the lake lots.
Wambsganss — Okay, so I mean, I really appreciate you all going the extra mile
to try to find ways to make lots a little bigger, but you know, my perspective
generally has been on development is what are the total lots, what is the total
acreage. You know if you have 500 acres and you're going to put in 500
hundred homes, I just assume you put in 500 homes on three quarter acre lots,
and have a hundred acres that everybody can enjoy. So I think taking away
those large open spaces and just dividing it up among the others is kind of more
akin to when we give straight zoning like SF -20 versus a PUD where you get
some added amenities so I think, I appreciate you really trying to work with the
neighbors on that, but I don't know that that probably is a step forward. I think on
the maisons, I think that's a step forward, especially on first reading, I think being
able to make that adjustment, I'm sure that, I don't know the numbers, but that's
got to drop the number of lots substantially, at least, you know to some degree, I
don't know what the numbers would exactly be there, but you know, I mean that's
definitely a step in the right direction. There's something done right maisons
could really be a nice feature, a good buffer, but I think your other product has
some real potential too. So I think that's a real positive and I appreciate your
work with John and Greg and the neighbors in moving that way.
Jones — I want to echo what he's saying. I agree with the Mayor's comments on
each of those items, by the way, but you did sit down with a number of people
and some of the folks that are here tonight and spent quit a bit of time listening to
their concerns and I really appreciate that and I know they appreciated it. You
know, while I want to echo again what the Mayor said and maybe expand just a
bit in the sense that I think in certain situations the maisons could be an excellent
product. I know there have been real concerns about the density issues but I
think from an architectural stand point and buffer standpoint they could do a very
good job and pose and actually being quit a nice feature, but in terms of the
density and in terms of what you're proposing, I think its, I agree with the Mayor.
I appreciate your looking at that especially on first reading looking at that and
moving forward with that. One other thing I did want to mention is I really don't
want to see the, I think the way you've designed it with the commercial space is
good. I appreciate the fact that you're not trying to pack too much commercial in
to this. We've got neighborhoods around this area and I think trying to put too
much commercial in there would be a mistake. I think we'd have way too much
traffic and that type of thing and I think the balance you've given which is really a
large majority for residential is preferable to me. I do have a question for you.
I'm not just going to sit up here and talk. Down the Whites Chapel side, which
has sort of been referred to as the massing, and you've gone back in and
brought those buildings back together instead of treating them as separate pad
sites and we've talked about some of the concerns last time. And now I'm going
to sort of pivot on you, now I want to talk to you about some of the concerns that I
would have about doing it this way. And I think you're probably going to address
these, but I want to make sure of it. One is the handling of deliveries and trash
pick -up and that type of thing. Can you give us a sense of what you're proposing
there because obviously creating this kind of massing, while it looks nice in
certain circumstances can pose real challenges. One glaring example I'II point
out to you is over here on where Central Market is we have a very nice
restaurant called Coal Vine's. Unfortunately, the kitchen door opens back up
onto Southlake Boulevard and the guys like to come out there and smoke and
they leave the door open and then the dishwasher comes out there it's not
exactly the kind of thing we're looking for. So give me a sense of what you're
talking about doing with these.
Kennemer — Alright this example shows three restaurants side by side and you
see the continuous massing along White Chapel and you see the facade of
massing on this side along the interior facing the interior of the project. This area
here there will be gates here you can se them. There will be one here and one
here. There will be material that will connect in with the building on either side but
there will be a gate that will swing open and the gate will be designed with
wrought iron on the outside and will have wood or some other type of feature so
that it will blend well with the exterior facade. This gate will swing in and trucks
will be able to come in under here, this height will be about 16 feet to where it will
be higher than whatever the truck needs to get clearance and then it will come
into this area for deliveries and trash pickup and then exit back out.
Jones — Great. Let me ask you then, along the White Chapel side there what do
we expect to see there. I'm hoping that what you are going to be showing us are
open store fronts, open doors, somebody can go in that way.
Kennemer — Absolutely. Let me ask....is someone from Opus here?
Jones — Let me put it another way. One thing I'm hoping we won't see are fake
windows and fake doors and things that don't look real.
Speaker from Opus <did not say his name> - I think it would be our intent to be
able to have entrances on that side and will encourage that in all cases. The
challenges we will have to overcome is there are no parking on that side.
Jones — I understand. I'm not telling you, you necessarily have to have entrances
on that side. You guys need to create the design. I see you've created sort of a
promenade walkway with trees at least in this design, this concept plan and I
think that it will hopefully get people to walk down there, but I understand it may
not be the main entrance and that type of thing. Now that you've got all your
service in those areas, I think it takes care of the problem of service doors on the
back side and things of that nature. Is that correct?
Speaker from Opus — Uh -huh.
Mayor — Yeah, I think you're exactly right. Usually, when we run into this, we
have a stand alone or one that may not have a court yard. Here they could
probably move their service back up to those areas so at least you have
windows. What we end up having is a bunch of fake windows along the road
because that is where they have to have their kitchens and their other storage
areas and so it looks like the way you have it laid out you can probably have
some real windows there and if you want entrances, great, so it's not just a
fake...
Speaker from Opus — Yeah, the design with the courtyard there kind of gives
them a blank wall that's not visible to the public that can be use as a back wall to
the kitchen and their receiving areas.
Mayor — Very good.
Jones — Do you have a sense of what those gates are going to be made out of?
Are they going to be opaque? Are you going to be able to see through them? Do
you have any sense of that at this point?
Speaker from Opus — The intent is that they would be opaque. They would have
to be pretty sturdy, you know.
Jones — Right.
Terrell — I think along those lines in some of the questioning that is going on here.
It kind of goes back to one of the comments we were talking about earlier when I
was kind of making that general statement, at some point even though you will
get this sort of general move forward you are going to come back with individual
site plans on each one of these and we are going to see these buildings in
greater detail and we are going to have another shot so long as we make sure
we have the right language up front and the terms to make sure that what they
are doing is in line with what we are looking for so we are going to get another
shot to look at later as well.
Mayor — I will say it is a very attractive look and a big step forward from where
ya'II have been.
Terrell — Can you flip back to the one that is kind of showing the front facades
more at a street level. And again, I understand, too, that you had kind of a limited
amount of time to come up with some of these drawings and so I commend you
with being able to come up with it. I like the drawings, though, of the buildings
styles and architectural features that are in your brochure
Kennemer — We'll put some more of those kinds of features in, I mean, we were
putting this together at lightening fast speed. That's one of those details...
Terrell — Right. I commend you for getting it done that quickly. I just want to make
sure there is a comment made that we really like your other book of pictures and
what these buildings will look like. This gives us at least an idea of the massing
and how it will lay out for a pedestrian.
Kennemer — Understood.
Jones — I'm assuming that obviously you want to maintain the same architectural
standards throughout so what you've shown us in terms of those other pictures in
the pretty picture book that those pictures are representative of what we are
going to see throughout the development. And the other photographs that you've
taken of other locations to give us a sense of the identity.
Kennemer — Sure.
Jones — And those will carry over as John has pointed out into those other areas
as well.
Kennemer - That is correct.
Mayor — <allowed public comment>
Mayor — <discussed super majority requirement and City Council meeting dates>
Muller — I had a comment because it has been a concern about the schools.
Earlier it was mentioned that the school is working on their plans for the future.
They've got a committee together if I heard that correctly. I would look into what
the school district is doing and when those meetings are. Apparently, there was
one mentioned going on this evening. I think it would be helpful to get more
information on the impact of these developments on the schools. Also, one of the
things I am getting a feel for and correct me if I am wrong but what I am hearing
is that because of the market, that there is not the demand for retail yet and it
sounded to me that is one of the reasons that we are looking at an increase in
smaller lots on this development. Are you picking up on that or any body else
have a feel for that?
Mayor — That is not my perception. Just from a history perspective, at one time, it
was the grand plan by all of us 15 years ago that 114 would be the next Los
Colinas. That we'd have a quarter mile deep of big offices lining 114 and you
know, you just can't, it would take 100 years to do 1,500 acres of offices. The
plan started changing. Then we had the Aventerra plan for here and nice looking
plan but I guess the market said that wasn't really practical either. Then Newland
came in and they were a national company. They couldn't do anything. So I'm
not saying this is the density it needs to be. I think we've come a long way. We
had plans out there that were over 500. It has come down considerably and
hopefully it will keep coming down. But you know, as some point, you do kind of
get to a point, where this is what the market...you know, that is the beauty of the
system we have is the market kind of dictates what this property should be. We
should have a vision and require certain quality in all of that and kind of hold our
guns on not wanting something that destroys the fabric of what we have worked
on for 20 or 30 years, but it also is going to have to be a transition back from a
commercial or office back to the existing residential. I just don't know if we sat
around whether it was 2025 or something else and came up with our grand plan
that those are visions, but we can't foresee the future and the market ultimately
dictates that.
Muller — Well I read through the Aventerra plan that we all worked hard on and
then I read through the new zoning category here and when I go through the
uses and things, and I don't blame Hines for this and the good news is that
everybody seems to be very positive for this product and its just some tweaking
that needs to be done we're very concerned about the density and impact on
schools and drainage and all. But if I was Hines I would've done just what they've
done and presented here. I would look through all of the categories to maximize
my profit. As a Councilmember, is there some tweaking that can be done that...
You're doing well with your product but I'm also still very protective of my
community as well. I'm not saying, my other Councilmembers and Mayor do care
as deeply as I do for this city. I have no doubt about that. That's what I'm working
with in my mind. I still think it needs some work. I think the density can be
reduced. I have a lot of concerns about the maisons. Not because of the quality
of them in this product or how they all blend. I think this is an excellent, excellent
plan. I'm just concerned it will have a bigger long term impact on our community.
Terrell — I have a few comments. I talk to most of the school board members
pretty regularly and for various reasons most of them don't want to take a
position on this particular project but I will tell you that they are waiting on us for
this study they are doing. Not the other way around. They need what we are
doing to figure out what they want to do so they can accommodate whatever
happens here.
Jones — If I may I might point out just so people know the chair of the committee
you are talking about is Robert Williams. He is a neighbor of Councilmember Hill
and a very well respected member of the community and somebody who has a
great financial background and is a very good solid leader in the community and I
know he has been working on this committee now I think it has been in existence
for over a year now and they have been working very hard to look at the future
needs for the school so I think your suggestion that folks who have that interest
make a pilgrimage over there to see what their plans and thoughts are is a good
idea but they are definitely looking at this as John said.
Hill — And know, too, that Councilmember Terrell may speak to this but
Councilmember Muzyka and myself and Councilmember Terrell have met with
that group and have met with the school board and one large room so there are a
lot of meetings going on that are open to the public that are posted. The school is
very well aware of what we are doing. Mr. Kennemer was at the one meeting and
Dr. Faltys was there so I think everyone is on -board with where we are headed
with this development.
Terrell — The school has also indicated, it is no secret that Johnson Elementary is
the most crowded school that we have in the city and its only getting more and
more crowded. You know, I'm not going to speak for the school board but I
personally think it is going to be very difficult not to do another school regardless
of what happens here to accommodate the elementary students that are coming
into the area. That's for their facility people to talk about. In terms of I will have to
say some of the comments made by the Mayor tonight and Councilmember
Jones I will have to echo on the maisons, personally, I do not have a problem
with them. I think they are a great architectural look. I don't think they are
anything like apartments. I think that the developer has stepped up seeing that it
has created an issue and actually come and said — hey, we've got another
solution. If the maisons just aren't something the community is willing to accept,
we can do another product. It still needs to be product, though, that provides that
buffer and has a feel and a front so that it is that transition from the commercial
into the single family so that you've got that feel and a separation. I very much
like the general plan. I'm not saying that we're not going to continue to work on
some of the density. In terms of, we're hearing from a lot of different people
about, how there is too much retail in town. And - We don't want to build any
more here because that is going to put Southlake Town Square out of business.
Well, Southlake Town Square is going to do just fine. These folks aren't going to
go in — they've got a lot of experts as well. It is all going to be what the market will
bear. I don't pretend to claim I understand what the market is going to bear but I
think they've probably done some significant studies and it will probably bear just
what they've done, otherwise, they make a lot more money on the retail side. If
they could do more retail and it would support it, I think they would do more retail
and office but at the same time, we've only got a population of you know, max
low -30s long term at build out and will certainly continue to attract from
surrounding communities but we also don't want to over build the retail and then
people start going out of business.
Muller — Nor do you want to overbuild the residential considering what the market
is today and our economy. I hate to see a plan that looks absolutely excellent
today and right for our community but because the market takes a different
direction ends up turning out to be something else because the zoning as you
know we can't regulate what type of commercial or housing goes in there if
something changed and Hines went away and this property was then zoned.
Terrell — I'm not following you why that would change anything about what we are
approving. We will be approving and have standards that whoever came in — if
Hines went away and went bankrupt — nobody steps in and does anything other
than what we approve.
Jones — I would also point out that, I mean, just the nature of the way of how our
country as a whole, I mean, landowners have a right to develop their property
and then they have a right to do that. In this case, you've got the Hines group this
is experts in dealing with these kinds of things, I'm not. I'm not going to sit here
and try to say and second guess the marketing of a company like Hines. We
can't really do that when we have people coming in and want to build a certain
thing. If somebody wants to build another shoe store, it is not our place to say,
"Sorry, you can't build a shoe store there." As long as its meets, you know, the
basic standards we want it to meet. One thing I did have some questions about
and I did want to ask the developer about real quickly is we were looking at some
pictures along White Chapel of — the massed products as we're calling it — and
I'm noticed, I assumed that what we were looking at was you were showing us
some pictures. Was that this area here that you were showing us? Is that
correct?
Kennemer — That's correct.
Jones — Okay, what I'm concerned about is what I was looking at is this area up
here. I mean, this down here I've noticed you've got the driveways coming in and
what you've described to us and that looks great. What I'm seeing up here looks
a little different.
Kennemer — It's the same way, you know, the massing on this plan but if we
were to detail it out but the bay depths are not quite as deep but it would be the
same kind of concept as this. Although there may be, it could be some sections
where if it were leased to a non - restaurant you might not have this service area.
Everything would be solid but then where you had a restaurant you have to have
a little carve out like this and then have it covered over on the end.
Jones — If that is the case then what I would ask you to do is to consider how you
are going to deal if you have that store front without having that area how are you
going to deal with trash or service entrance for a store or that type of thing so we
don't run into the other problem I was talking about. Do you understand what I
am saying?
Kennemer — I do. Do you want to address that?
Speaker from Opus — I'll do the best I can at the stage we're at right now. That is
our intent is to consolidate it as much as we can into a central or maybe a couple
of central locations so that you don't have each tenant dealing with it on their own
in a lot of different... The intent would be to consolidate it.
Jones — Okay, and do something similar to what has been described in the other
portion there?
Speaker from Opus — Yeah, again if we are not dealing with restaurants it's a
little bit different situation, but to the extent that we can consolidate it in an area
like that that is enclosed and kind of out of site, out of mind, yeah, that would be
our desire.
Hill — Jeff, I'm sorry, before you sit down. Some of the residents asked in
particular about being able to look on line at some of your product that I know
you've shown Council, gosh, six or seven months ago when we started working
with you on this. Maybe it would be helpful for people if they could go to your
website and give them some examples of places.
Kennemer — hines.com. We have examples of properties from all over the world.
Hill — That's great. I think that will give people a comfort level, too, of what you've
actually put on the ground.
Terrell — Something else I think should just be re- emphasized because it was
mentioned a few times, but we've talked about it a lot in prior meetings. This
particular project - I don't know of any other development or developer who
would come in and figure out how to handle drainage for 30 to 33 percent over
capacity or over what their requirement would be that would really significantly
help the entire, or a significant portion of, the north side of 114. While we've kind
of somewhat moved off that I don't want to lose site of the fact that's a big deal
w r
going from what was it — a 43 acre feet up to 60 — and what that does for the
surrounding homeowners and everybody down those creek areas. That's a big
impact on the north side.
Mayor — Okay, other comments, questions? As I noted before, this is just first
reading. There will be a public hearing and a second reading if it passes tonight.
At this time, it appears the earliest that would be would be November 18. Also
with that said, my preference would be to see what the proposed layout would
look like with the maisons out and what the actual density would then drop to.
You know, obviously tonight, we don't, that's really not available to us but I'd like
to, for the second reading, to be able to see what that is and maybe as an
alternative have your plan with the maisons and whatever that density is at that
point, too. I'm fine, to be honest with you, with either product because I think if
you drop the maisons, drop that density, put those others in, you are going to do
a really nice job of it. You're going to provide that, it is going to provide its own
buffer. It has a lot of green buffer in front of it anyway between the commercial
and the first residential. Anyway, I'm open either that. The one thing I did like was
the flexibility of dropping it a little bit. It was a move toward a little less dense
environment. But I don't have strong feelings either way necessarily on the
products themselves. Okay, is there anything further?
Terrell — Just, too, I think it is also important to note that if we do vote on it for a
first reading tonight and we set it up for second reading, just because we set a
second reading date does not mean it can't be tabled at that second one if we
aren't satisfied with the information that we get back then. There's probably a lot
of folks out there who don't know necessarily how procedure work. If we're not
satisfied, we don't have to have that second vote.
Jones — One of the things I think is good is that some of the folks have talked
about wanting to have some more time to visit and since we'd be looking at a
November 18 meeting, that gives us some more time, it doesn't compress it quite
so much, so we can do whatever additional deliberation that we need to do.
Mayor — Okay, it is nearly midnight here. With that said, do we have a motion
then?
Terrell — Well, let me ask you a question real quick in terms of if this is just a first
reading. Instead of trying to outline all of the different conditions, specifically
making it subject to our discussion this evening, staff comments, and
presentations and then going in with the more detailed motions when we finally
do get to that. Does anyone have a problem with leaving it kind of just a general
one to get it passed the <inaudible >?
Mayor — I don't as long as we have kind of kept our notes. It is kind of nice on a
second reading at times on other projects, usually more simpler projects, where
you've got that first motion where you really have all those details and things
• M r"
you've held them to. I'm not saying that's not a good idea but there are a lot of
variables here...
Terrell — Here is an idea. In the last one, I asked Lori I think it was and she did a
transcript. I think we had enough discussion tonight that is worthy of another
transcript so that we can kind of highlight some of the points that we want to
bring up again.
Hill — Jeff you might want a copy of that, too.
Terrell — I just got off Lori's mailing list for Christmas cards.
Mayor — It is a throw back to the old days, huh? With that said, is there a motion
tonight?
Terrell — Mr. Mayor, I move approval on the first reading on Ordinance No. 480-
564 also being ZA08 -031, Zoning Change and Development Plan for Carillon,
subject to the staff comments, Council comments, and looking at the copy of the
transcripts for the second reading which will currently be scheduled for the
November 18 date.
Jones — A friendly amendment would be to add comments and agreements
made by the developer in our last meeting as well because we had some specific
agreements.
Terrell — So amended, and subject to Development Plan Review Summary No. 6,
dated October 1, 2008.
Hill — Second.
Mayor — A motion and a second, please record your vote?
Mayor — Okay, passes 5 — 1 on first reading.
L - t .; IL ,-.° •till 1
l_ PsI8 eterlinoS V es'd Sons° }0 JOU.100 memos " S
'3 1'1'd I ainialOPPOV I 11. ifiti
r
woo we rig saOpow "%Awn SaI ! g oi ii it pil
6Z I. S ZL6 :Xei 000 L -L AC ZL6 :euotici
I Scb Rexel. ' Paewo zt•oe L V cu
All
et46
6thuueid e_inpew.pie sapaoH
1 1
'ParA k 'rr 4 4
I 111,1115
E E
3 x
1.§ii 1 i ,j 1 1 i i
0- Il
)
If ' ( c° )
t 'I li illin
,
4
. ..
e ,
i 1 -
EY .
. Z ,
', 1.% g 11 ' ■'..
. E.I
0) i i ' )
.. I
Ul i...
R g
1.• )
*,,.,,,,
( > --
._. 0
1
I i
( : C ..) -
LI 11
g OP *4
1,
. 2 -
t kA cc g . -- . _ a
its b t n !
ig
Ei 1
6 '
f P g
,f p
- g g
0- , 2
I / I /
0
in
0
6. 1 , f
. .
• tb
0. .
L1 • -, t - --. --- J
• 0 0
•
l
t.....••=1.m3---t-
alit tit
1 0
■
1
1 1
Epp- --- t.--.,:s — *- '1
0 .
Z
0 CN
Z
0
1-
CL
1 0 U 0
, ,)=.1...,....... i [la..., - .
1
n ua a w
z z
0 ,
i [—
1 i
•...._ III
I IN
>
W
_J — 4. -
0 fi_ _ _
( -4-- ) 'k 111
Hi w z 6 Hi _J
Wb
, HI
i „
H -
- HI H -
D '' III 1— •
D
— Ill 0 Hi 0
ill co ill co 8
in
111 - --
2.4 0 , III
HI
0
1 ---.1 — - r
r _- - - ® MN MI = A NMI 0 ® 1E111 UM ® ® ® CZII
0
— _. -
Z609L %1 '.1.1 ' PM9 0 1e141no5 3 99b1. 8 5061
v dill
il, dil l
11 DSb'Hd
.......Bpoy- S�EIi� ! o , V pl jy ! t y ! ! I I ( j
6Z11-096ZL6'Xe1 0000-L9 L9EZL6:euoy 0 I"'�It,i
.– bLSb -bbZ sexel'sepep e6ew0 Z1 m glf a li
I f l' i l /.. 5 la � 6uiuueld aan ;aaliyaae J II i 1i
I
t ,IP n IL :,I
O I 1 0
\ Flo 1
Q� 1.
w M
1 ' I! . pr .50
S _ IN - ;
I
11
�� MEM ,
o ��im c - —
I
I ��
� i n 0 f lu' � •
1
; ply , s I N I
. -
.4- .' -\ \
FG itl' i
__ v z
a
x =
O •
1
I!I
41111- iiiilii _Ili
:. j
• iII 9 a s ".ial �, I {
k ;
1 Illa PI I
1
� i� 1 q � � r'J
° ;',,, :',1Z.1 ElAi
I oc 4 A , e . l
y I �,, ► N r i 1 a
1
o IL
1 0
Z III
1 1
0
R p ..
l i °' • .
II ' t 1 '
e
i _44-441
F ? 0 -
poll ',.... 0
o
I' , go ,
W I I
i
I II I e F
rn
Il r co o — = - '_�_�—
!II li
t w I
..i '''-',',.'.;:7:::::::.:
J lill�� GIIPu i
([ 3
N 5
P t � c g
_ o
:
- U
' ign■ E 4
��g J
Z d
Or:
c- 8
III ill
— — — MINN — .