The URL can be used to link to this page

SPIN2024-10 - Carillon Phase 2USOUTHLAKE SPIN MEETING REPORT SPIN Item Number: SPIN2024-10 City Case Number: ZA24-0042 Project Name: Carillon Parc SPIN Neighborhood: 3 Meeting Date: June 25, 2024 Meeting Location: 1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX City Council Chambers Total Attendance: 23 Hosts: Madeline Prater Applicant Presenting: John Terrell City Staff Present: Madeline Prater, Business Manager FORUM SUMMARY: Property Situation: Northeast corner of N. White Chapel Blvd. and E. Kirkwood Blvd. Development Details: • REVISION #1 Change dedication of portion of public park space to Open Space • REVISION #2 "Allow the developer flexibility to develop retail restaurant, office, or private club if Public Library is not built within the development, leaving option for library or performing arts use." • REVISION #3 "Developer to combine two buildings into one building, allowing for potential underground parking." Will bring with future site plan. • REVISION #4 "Optional detention/retention pond with fountain if needed for storm drainage. If built, developer will assume cost of maintenance of the pond and fountain." Built as aesthetic amenity and with support and input from community. • REVISION #5 "Change dedication of public road to private drive for future valet, and drop-off with speed ramp into the garage." • REVISION #6 "Requesting second entrance pending on Hwy 114 frontage road upon TXDOT approval." • REVISION #7 "Change unit size from 2,300 SF minimum to 2,300 SF average with a minimum of 2,000 SF. The number of units will remain at 50 maximum." Presentation: �,; . � • � �� ^ �� '�-�� CARILLON PARC �� 1 . T Condor Committee t i#" r , STMAN E.wFNWooa BLVD llllll_111111_I =�, J 1_I_IJJIJJJJI�� 3 l_1_l-Ll_LLC_1.1_LI_L1 9 7 o n 00 NOR1H N.iS PROPOSED REVISIONS REVISION #1 Change dedication of portion of public park space to Open Space REVISION #2'Allow the developer flexibility to develop retail restaurant, office, or private club if Public Library is not built within the development, leaving option for library or performing arts use." REVISION #3 "Developer to combine two buildings into one building, allowing for potential underground parking." Will bring with future site plan. REVISION 44 "Optional detention/retention pond with fountain if needed for storm drainage. If built, developer will assume cost of maintenance of the pond and fountain." Built as aesthetic amenity and with support and input from community. REVISION #5 "Change dedication of public road to private drive for future valet, and drop-off with speed ramp into the garage." REVISION #6 "Requesting second entrance pending on Hwy 114 frontage road upon TXDOT approval" REVISION #7 "Change unit size from 2,300 SF minimum to 2,300 SF average with a minimum of 2,000 SF. The number of units will remain at 50 maximum" Kimley�»Horn PEEASTMAN PROPOSED REVISION #1 Change dedication of public park space to Open Space J l ti Approved Concept Plan l W Ndi1H N.TS �J_J_I1111J�� --J 3 LIJ.LI.LL.LJ.LI.II.I � � �c 5 `n 1 z � Hwy r r/. Proposed Concept Plan PROPOSED REVISION #1 Change dedication of portion of public park to Open Space Area inside jug handle to remain dedicated Park Portion of public park dedication to Open Space (If city elects to build library or performing arts, the needed area would be dedicated to the city. • Developer to pay for infrastructure (road, utilities) to access but would receive credit for that area as Open Space • Modified Incentive Agreement to remove City 50% obligation to build and maintain park • Creates additional sales taxes and property taxes • No requirement for separate park management/programming agreement and allows developer to better program events and water feature and manage 12 approved kiosks • Allows for future modifications to site planning without triggering issues associated with dedicated public parks "KINOOD BLVD. � J 1. 1.1 I J l IJ1 I , v JIJJJJJJJJJJJ =, 'am 1 � P 100 4}� J rvoBnr rv,ts ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN i. KipKyypp09LV0. �t �111JJJJJJ J JJJJ_JJ_I_I11JJJ - t M r � , i 1 a- A f l,q ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN PROPOSED REVISION #2 'Allow the developerflexibility for the option to develop retail restaurant, office, private club, or public library/performing arts on the east side of the water feature." 1) The City of Southlake made the decision to remove the Public Library/Performing Arts from the earlier zoning approval, based on concerns related to the economy and other financial implications. 2) The developer is requesting to substitute another architecturally significant facility at the same location where the library was being proposed. In the developer's proposal, the building would be approved for a tax generating specialty retail, restaurant, office, private club, or a LIBRARY/Performing Arts facility, within the previously proposed 8-9 acre park. 3) The developer proposes to include the library/performing arts as a permitted use as there may be an opportunity to re -address the issue should the economy not be as volatile in late 2024/2025 (when that building would be constructed), thereby preserving the option for the uses to be located in Carillon Parc should financial conditions change for the city. As the city's study showed, the best location for the library is at Carillon Parc. 4) The required Open Space would be reduced to allow for the new library/performing arts/commercial building. Should the city and developer mutually agree upon terms to construct the library in the coming six months, the developer would agree to dedicate the land back to the city. The roadway and utilities to serve and access the building(s) would be paid for by the developer. K Kimley :?Horn PE EASITMAN raxn cap cHo�' PROPOSED REVISION #3 "The developer plans to combine the two buildings into one building, allowing for potential underground parking," 1) If the buildings remain as currently approved, underground parking cannot be achieved 2) It is the goal of the developer to achieve more square footage with a larger building (possible 3 stories) while providing much needed parking on this western side of the project. 3) Developer will bring site plan at a later date. 2 buildine o tion 1 buildin option `,,,,:•., Kimiey »Horn pEEASTMAN PROPOSED REVISION #4 E. KIRKWOOD 8LY4. I � fIrI YY J Optional detention/retention pond with fountain if needed for .� J. storm drainage. If built, developer will assume cost of 11.1_l__� 1.1_l.l_lYl maintenance of the fountain." J, 11�� `� 1` J —� This option would only be necessary if the developer cannot obtain or create rights across the adjoining 10 acre tract to i 4_ - y convey storm water to the existing Carillon lakes as _1_WAI-1 l —411 contemplated in the original Carillon development plans approved by the city in 2008. y Optional det t J etention pond l y— J f mu ., I n� �. �" .�►TM �. ' o A, ft,;,' 9 � � /74 it Ml� � ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN KlmleyoHorn PEEASTMAN E,KIRKW000 8Lv0. JJJJJJJJJJ J.L1.1_ 1_111t1.11 D D JJJJJJJJJJJJ3 !-A D J x Y 5 M1 i MIL' ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN PROPOSED REVISION #5 "Change dedication of public road to private drive for future valet and drop-off with speed ramp into the garage." 1) City staff suggested and agrees maintaining the valet/drop-off area as a private drive 2) Reduces future maintenance cost to the city 3) Improves operations for restaurants and retail uses • Ability to have one-way traffic with two lanes or, two way depending on business volumes, events, etc. • Abilityto segregate self -parking traffic from valet traffic • Creates a safer environment not co -mingling valet traffic with self - parking traffic • Creates an'exclusive feel' for those that choose to utilize valet 4) Provides better convenience to general public • Reduces congestions and frustration for the 'sel€ parking guest' that does not want to 'enter into' the valet area or traffic 5) To he constructed as part of Phase 1A - Kimley »Horn pEINS— EASTMAN CARII InM1'fgn+iv E-KIRKWODS)SWO l.l_L1.1.11_ll.lel.l_l_1J J J p � dr t f NORTH "Ts_ -- ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN 6 PROPOSED REVISION #5 "Change dedication of public road to private drive for future valet, and drop-off with speed ramp into the garage." LEGEND Phase 1 Site Infrastructure Roadways - Utilities Phase 1A Park Proposed Open Space Phase 1A Buildings & Roads r. Primary Carillon Bell Tower Secondary Carillon Bell Tower Proposed Private Drive — Valet — Speed Ramp Future Phase Future Phase Buildings Future Phase Roads KlmleyoHorn PEEASITMAN PROPOSED REVISION #6 "Future project entrance pending TXDOT construction of planned Hwy 114 Ramp Reversals" 1) Improves operations, access and mobility 2) TxDOT has fully funded design 3) Construction is not yet fully funded 4) Could construct within 2 years if funded 5) TxDOT Public Meeting 5/9/24 — Developer Requested • Advanced approval for a second access drive along the Carillon Parc service road frontage • Consideration to advance the ramp to the earliest possible time in the overall SH 114 Main Lanes and Ramp Reversal project. Future project entrance „: Kimley»>Harn PEEASTMAN y Si-cor•.� h<.ceaa Dn•,r f fir': � R E_ N4RN�'JODD BIVD. �j w _9-l.l_LLLI�_I_l.Ll� Y 'r4 ® NORTH NT.S i ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN +� //fA PROPOSED REVISION #6 "Future project entrance pending TXDOT approval and funding." Carillon Crown Property Owner Requests: • Approve second access point Into the 42 acre, $400 Co lion Parc development • Expedite romp reversals on North side of Hwy 114 (between Carroll Ave and whites Chapel Blvd - Carillon Parc development (42 acre tract) Owner. Carillon Crown _.:* - Kimiey»>hfarn pEEASTTMAN Cr1RILE9kC.NOw'n PROPOSED REVISION #7 "Change unit size from 2,300 SF minimum to 2,300 SF average with a minimum of 2,000 SF The number of units wilt remain at 50 maximum." 1. Improves marketability and provides more floorplan options 2. Allows flexibility in design to accommodate other uses (ie. Office, private club, common areas) 3. Does not impact maximum number of units or the total square footage (115,000sf) - RKINS Kimleyoftn PEEASTMAN cAisii: foie canu�' "� �nil1 i1 t �'�rr A' �NIll► Noll 91��rm � i t Jf PPvv .. w< i. 9111 fll t' •• �'._�^, yak � .r -�.� -�. � ��- oil r: � ref u ..t ARE .r ., _W II ��MbY�� r — f"i• _.a� AYE _. No Text ion s RPM r i t �,4wm*- F ft \��l\�\?�° �\ < \ \ � /y \\y� . N Kimley,)> Horn PERKINS- CARILLON CROWEASTMAN Comments, Questions, and Concerns: Question: Anticipated construction for ramp reversals along SH 114? Answer: They (TxDOT) are working on the schedule right now, but it's not decided. Question: Maintenance of open space — since it'll be removed from the city, where is the revenue going to come from to maintain the space? Answer: The developer will maintain it through a POA - tenant rents. Question: If the city decides to place the new Library at this location, where would the loss revenue from that building be made up for the POA? Answer: POA — if the city decided not to do the library, we're asking for an allowance to change that building to a revenue generating space. It'll generate more taxes and revenue for the city, which will help the POA. If the city does not do the library and does not allow the additional building, then that will be an issue. Question: Carillon's HOA — the proposed villas that are in the process of being built, will they be part of the HOA? Will they contribute to the HOA financially? Answer: Carillon HOA would be willing to accept the villas if we roll it in. Question: Condominiums — will they allow any type of short-term rentals? Answer: No. Question: Highway reversal — trying to put another entrance to Carillon Parc, how far East will that be? Answer: We would only be adding a driveway at this location. It does not change traffic flow. Question: How does making the land open space vs. park land improve the overall financials of this project? Answer: City -side — If we change the land from park to open space, the city and citizens will not have to pay 50% of the cost, will not have long term maintenance impacts, and will not need extra staff to program and manage the activities of the park. Developer side — It does not directly impact the finances other than being able to give assurances to the tenants that we are in control of the operations of the fountain, kiosks, etc. Question: Will there still be a gate for residents to go through? Answer: Yes Question: Phase I is almost ready for builders to start. Where I can't make the connection is between Phase I and Phase 11 — what is appealing is the lots being close to immersible stuff (restaurants and shops). Phase 11 seems like it has a lot of hurdles for your team to go through. When do you expect Phase 11 to be completed? Do you have a legal obligation to do Phase 11 even if City Council rejects everything you do? Answer: No. Question: Got it, you don't have a legal obligation. So, you could finish all the residential pieces, releasing it, and Phase II could remain as it is now if you can't get your approvals or come to an agreement. Answer: Technically, that's the case. Reality is that this developer has invested millions of dollars in the commercial side, not just residential. The city has been a great partner, but this developer is committed to completing this project. We would love to see the city's public library in this space — it gives it a different feel, but we understand that City Council has control of what is in the best interest of the future. Timing - Start to go vertical beginning of next year with an 18-month to 2-year schedule for completion. Question: When you went to City Council last time, they did not bless the changes that were proposed, and some of these changes look very similar if not identical to last time. So, what has changed since you're bringing it back again? Answer: There were some behind the scenes issues with the St. Jude 5-lot homes that we wanted advanced release of. Because of this issue with the custom home builders, City Council decided not to approve anything. Question: How much more infrastructure needs to go in to support the 79 homes? Answer: We got stalled a little bit by a drainage issue, but most of the infrastructure is in place now — utilities, grading, landscaping, screening wall, etc. SPIN Meeting Reports are general observations of SPIN Meetings by City staff and SPIN Representatives. The report is neither verbatim nor official meeting minutes; rather it serves to inform elected and appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues and questions raised by residents and the general responses made. Responses as summarized in this report should not be taken as guarantees by the applicant. Interested parties are strongly encouraged to follow the case through the Planning and Zoning Commission and final action by City Council. Southlake Connect Results for the June 25, 2024 SPIN Town Hall Forum 913/24, 10:10AM Everbridge Suite Dashboard Universe Notifications Incidents Reports > Detailed Notification Analysis > SPIN Town Hall Forum - June 25th Detailed Notification Analysis SPIN Town Hall Forum - June 25th DETAILS Call Results Everbridge - Reports (CrgenaationAdmin) Contacts Reports Settings Access Notification ID 1707027772473928 �If Notification Live Mode Notification Standard Type Start Date Jun 18, 2024 Start Time 14:39:42 CDT Confirmation Yes Hide Deeafla Requested Call Throttling Yes Cell Results(per Delivery Path) Duration 6 hr(s) ---------- Message Attempted -Confirmed Voice/Text Formal Voicemall Message Only Confirmed Preference DeliveryOrder Organaation Default Attempted- Not Conh,med Delivery Methods Organization Contacts 1.Primary SMS Delivered 2,Secondery SMS 3.Primery Email 4.Primery Mobile Delivered -To Voioemail 5.Seoondery Email 5.Seoondary Mobile 7.Home Phone Not Delivered - No Answer B.Home Phone #2 9.Business Phone 10.TTY / TTD Device Delivered -To Handset 11.Everbridge Mobile Ap Resident Connection 1.VOIP Not Delivered - Voioemail Hung 2,Landline Up Not Delivered - Recipient Hung Up Sent Attempted - Not Connected Not Delivered -Invalid Number Not Delivered - Out of Service Not Delivered - Cartier Expired Not Delivered - Downstream Communication Error https:(/manage r.eve rbridge. net/repo rts/nobflcegon /view/1707027772473928 ■ 248 (2.12%) Attempted - Confirmed 8701 V4.31%)Attempted - Not Con6mred 251 (2.14%) Attempted - Not Connected ■ 2411 (20-59%) Not Attempted • 98 (0.84%) Other Total 248 105 1688 139 2921 160 384 3304 64 98 17 65 %of Total 2.12% 0.90% 14.42% 1.19% 24,95% 1.37% 3,20% 28.22% 0.55% 0,84% 0.15% 0.56% 112 913/24, 10:10 AM Everbridge - Reports Call Results(per Delivery Path) Total % of Total Not Delivered -Carrier Rejected 1 0.01 % Not Delivered -Line Busy 6 0.05% Not Attempted Not Attempted -Inactive Path 255 2.18% Not Attempted-Unsubscribed 1345 11.49% Not Delivered -Contact Path Not B 0.07% Defined Not Delivered -Duplicate Path 803 6.86% Not Delivered -Bounced Email 92 0.79% Not Delivered -Contact 6 0.05% Unavailable Attempts Over Time 7.5k Sk 2.5k ok rPpq. gyp. �q. A3 Show Detells 14ewbridger Pr ly y Pollcy Terms of Use ® 2024 Everbridge, Inc. 24.6.0.5-5f7ala3-2024-08-15-17:00 FE-VERSIONG ebs-manager-portal-ff867f95d-7ghkq https:/(manager.everbridge.net(reportslnotification/view/1707027772473928 212