SPIN2024-07 - Dakota's SteakhouseUSOUTHLAKE
SPIN MEETING REPORT
SPIN Item Number: SPIN2024-07
City Case Number: ZA24-0030
Project Name: Dakota's Steakhouse
SPIN Neighborhood: 4
Meeting Date: April 9, 2024
Meeting Location: 1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX
City Council Chambers
Total Attendance: 7
Hosts: Muhammad Igbal
Applicant Presenting: Tim McEneny
City Staff Present: Madeline Prater, Business Manager
FORUM SUMMARY:
Property Situation: 479 N. Kimball Ave.
Development Details:
• Proposed 15,000 sq. ft. restaurant pad site
• Proposed Event Space — 250 seats
• Current Zoning: AG
• Proposed Rezone: C-2 Retail Commercial District
• Parking — Restaurants: 1 space per each 3 seats under max seating
arrangement or 1 space per 100sf
• Option 1: "Underground" Restaurant — Exterior Seating — Separate Events
Building
• Option 2: "Underground" Restaurant — Separate Events Building `Lifted Horizon'
• Option 3: Above -Ground Restaurant — Separate Events Building
Presentation:
DM QMAC DAKOTA'S STEAKHOUSE
Architecture INITIAL DESIGN PRESENTATION
AC & Interiors 02.15.2024
6
+►� i..1 V'bC u,v�,.. .+=d ..,.... o4..om ,amgYCSF`A x�.i+irt'o.>mP`":rix"71r -u.i w '...a ..,;�.aw
TEXTURES AND I MPRESSIONSFROM NATURE/LANDSCAPE.
2 DMAC
?akhouse / Initial Design Presentation Archltectum
AC & IMwiars
TEIRLI2ES AND IMMGSSIC 5 FR NATURE/ LANDSCARE.
3 :)M DMAC
A hitectwre
�k-- ta's Ht .1:� g� "nse'ta-J., AC ArlCfft*ri*r&
Program
Dakota's Steakhouse
• 15000sf pad site Restaurant
• Event Space: 250 seats
Prefunction
BOH Catering Kitchen (1500sf)
Outdoor Event Space?
Program
a k ta's E-ec khou J nl}.z, n P— er tzmo n
DMAC
Architecture
AC: L M.fi—
Zoning Info
Dakota's Steakhouse
• Current Zone: AG
• Rezone to: C-2 Local Retail Commercial District
• Allowed uses: "Restaurants. tea rooms, cafeterias, fast food and "take-out" food restaurants."
• Height: 2.5 stories max / 35'
• Setback:
• Front: 30 ft
• Side: 15 ft (abutting lots zoned: AG (S) and AG (N)
• Rear: }0 ft (unless residential abutting: 25 ft) (adjacent lots are zoned SF-1A)
• Lot Coverage: max 50%
• Floor Area: 40,000 sf max
• Max Impervious Coverage: 70%
• Trash must be screened
• Section 43: Residential Adjacency Standards
Parking
• Restaurants: 1 space per each 3 seats under max seating arrangement or 1 space per 100sf (whichever
is greater)
Program 5 7M DMAC
:ak�[a's t.�ekhouse/rir al s.gn cry=_erta2ion Architecture
STEAKHOUS I
[D ENT BUILDING) [
_ -
-` EXTERIOR
SEATI NG
may.;
�. kk
PARKING
(OR TAkkHOU
Option 1
"Underground„
Restaurant
Ws. AT➢DN Exterior seating
` M ► Separate Events Building
S OFFICE PA PIK
Ai
I
SITE OPTION 1 - OVERVIEW 5 ]M DMAC
Architecture
w A(Z AIMen—
No Text
DAKOTRS
Option I - Street Side - Site Entry
9
:)M DMAC
ArcHitectum
AC Slntariors
No Text
Option 1 - Bird's Eye - Residential Side 13 I DMAC
AC
No Text
qkb
44,
!%bE5- ITAT AN
OFFICE PARK
4r.
9Qr-
SITE OPTION 2 - OVERVIEW
STEAKHOUEk
&EXT-111IR
EVENTS
EVENT
VENT
UILDING
� .— 1� Llib PAPKING
9 BUIL 7
Option 2
"Underground"
Restaurant
Separate Events Building
'Lifted Horizon'
17 ]M DMAC
Architecture
AC A I rcWfi—
Option 2 - Exterior View at Entry I Street
D akz ta's —ec khou- J rR.al P'. er ta.,.
I I :)m Pm,
Option 2 -gxterior View at Entry Street
20
DM DMAC
,
ArchitectureAC & , nteriars
\^�
om+ View _ Steakhouse ._ry- 'Lifted Horizon' z :)u2M m_
AC _
Comments, Questions, and Concerns:
Concern: Commercial creep and traffic pattern.
Question: Does anyone in your group own any land adjacent to this property?
Answer: No — There are now investors or other individuals who own property here.
Question: Have any of the surrounding property owners met with you about this
development?
Answer: No, but we were told by one of the property owners that the houses along the
back and east side are all his and no one is living there. But I hear you — you want to
know how this will impact your neighborhood. I'm not familiar with how the District 114
development came together, but since that area built up commercially, we were looking
at this site. If this was all residential property, I wouldn't even be here doing this.
Concern: We are worried you might need more parking or space and this development
creeps more east or north into our neighborhood. And with traffic, we're worried about
big events with lots of cars accessing cut-throughs by our neighborhood. It is very
dense trying to leave our neighborhood.
Answer: We had a meeting about traffic issues and will get a study done.
Question: How is this piece of property zoned today?
Answer: AG —Agricultural.
Question: Possibility of putting an access driveway off the 114-access road — would
that be on the gas station drive? Or further east?
Answer: We don't know yet — the Council and I spoke about that, and multiple people
would need to be involved with this. From my understanding, this piece of property has
tried to be rezoned multiple times and for the protection of residents that has not
happened.
Question: At the east edge of the property, there are residential lots between that line
and Shady Ln. — is this planning to take any of those?
Answer: No. The 4-acres we have right now will be more than enough.
Comment: Appreciate the presentation, and I think a steakhouse would do amazing
here. What sets this apart in my mind from other steakhouse restaurants is the idea of
the event space. I would like some more clarity about the proposed event space.
Answer: We would make it that operations cease before midnight — no late -night
permit. We can put restrictions on it. We can front load this property and place parking
in the back to create a buffer for noise and light. We'll also place landscaping and an
entry wall around this property.
Comment: I advise you to ask the city for all the traffic information. The Kimball
intersection is the worst.
Comment: We do not want more traffic on Shady Lane or using it as a cut -through.
Answer: My thought is that traffic should not be going that way anyways — stay off
Shady Lane.
SPIN Meeting Reports are general observations of SPIN Meetings by City staff and SPIN Representatives. The report is neither
verbatim nor official meeting minutes; rather it serves to inform elected and appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues
and questions raised by residents and the general responses made. Responses as summarized in this report should not be taken as
guarantees by the applicant. Interested parties are strongly encouraged to follow the case through the Planning and Zoning
Commission and final action by City Council.
Southlake Connect Results for the April 9, 2024 SPIN Town Hall Forum
Evert ridge Suite
My of Southlake- Cltixen Alert (Organization Admin)
Logout
Dashboard Universe
Notifications Incidents Contacts
Reports Settings Access
Reports > Detailed Notification Analysis > SPIN Town Hall Forum-April9th
0
Detailed Notification Analysis
SPIN Town Hall Forum - April 9th
DETAILS
Call Results
■ 259 (220%)Attempted -
Notification ID 1569039063193907
Confirmed
Notification
.787
onfirrredAldempted
Live
Mode
Not
■ 254 (2.16%)Atbampted -
Notification
Standard
Not Connecled
Type
2354 (20.01 %) Not
Start Date Apr Z 2D24
Attempted
Start Time 14:37:50 CDT
■ 111 (0.94%) Other
Confirmation Yee
Hide Details
Requested
CallThrottling Yes
Call Results(per Delivery Path)
Total
%of Total
Duration 6 hr(s)
Message Voice/Text
Attempted - isfimmed
Format
Voicemail Message Only
Preference
Confirmed
259
2.20%
Delivery0rder Organization Default
Attempted - ;k-..."t"firme[
Delivery Methods
Organization contacts
1.PrimarySMS
Delivered
71
0.60%
2.SecondarySMS
3.Primary Email
4.PrimaryMobile
Delivered - To Voicemail
1800
15.30%
S.Secondary Email
6.SecondaryMobile
7.Home Phone
Not Delivered- No Answer
132
1.12%
B.Home Phone ft2
9.Business Phone
10.TTY MD Device
Delivered - To Handset
2936
24.96%
11.Everbridge Mobile Ap
Resident Connection
1.VOIP
Not Delivered- Voicemail Hung
129
1 10,%
2.Landline
Up
Not Delivered- Recipient Hung Up
370
3.14%
Sent
3349
28.47%
Attempted - Not Co.nec:ted
Not Delivered- Invalid Number
63
0.54%
Not Delivered- Out of Service
98
0.83%
Not Delivered- Carrier Expired
11
0.09%
Not Delivered- Downstream
69
0.5996
Communication Error
Not Delivered- Carrier Rejected
2
0.02%
Not Delivered- Line Busy
11
0.D9%
112
Call Reaults(per Delivery Path)
Total
% Total
Nat Attempted
Not Attempted - Inactive Path
257
2.18%
Not Attempted - Unsubscribed
1269
10.79%
Not Delivered- Contact Path Not
8
0.07%
Defined
Not Delivered- Duplicate Path
820
6.97%
Not Delivered- Bounced Email
98
0.83%
Not Delivered - Contact
Unavailable
13
0.11 %
Attempts Over Time
7.Sk
Sk
2.Sk
Ok
for' As ,So' fps �
`19 `ply `pS `pS `.19
Shaw Defalls
'relrefbiridp w
Pry P 8 Terms of Lk ® 2024 Everbridge. Inc.
24.3.0.32-6d5Ub53-2024-07-08-07:55 FE-VERSIONO eba-manager-portal-6455b65875-m7c81
2/2