Loading...
Item 7 - Corridor Committee Meeting Report Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Meeting Report Meeting 51 – June 23, 2024 MEETING LOCATION: 1400 Main St., Southlake, Texas 76092 City Council Chambers IN ATTENDANCE: • City Council Members: Kathy Talley, Randy Robbins, Austin Reynolds, Frances Scharli • Planning & Zoning Commission Members: Daniel Kubiak, Gina Phalen, Michael Forman, David Cunningham • Other Committee Members: Chad Patton, Dr. Magdalena Battles • City Staff: Jenny Crosby, Dennis Killough, Wayne Powell, Cyndi Cheng, Ryan Firestone AGENDA ITEMS: 1. Call to Order. 2. Administrative Comments. 3. Review, discuss, and make recommendations on a proposed zoning change for Southlake Classic Pet Retreat, to make the existing non-conforming kennel use a conforming use, located at 1211 and 1213 Brumlow Ave. 4. Review, discuss, and make recommendations regarding the addition of a spa as a permitted use within the approved S-P-2 zoning district on approximately 2.3 acres at 731 Zena Rucker Rd. 5. Review, discuss, and make recommendations regarding a proposed 40-acre mixed- use development with commercial and residential uses to be located at 1800 and 1900 N. White Chapel Blvd. and W. S.H. 114. 6. Review, discuss, and make recommendations regarding a proposed development known as Dove Landing, on approximately 26 acres located at 550 W. S.H. 114. 7. Review, discuss, and make recommendations regarding a proposed residential subdivision and office site known as Patterson Property, on property located at 1440 N. Kimball Ave. and 2160 E. Highland St. 8. Review, discuss, and make recommendations regarding a proposed residential subdivision of 2530 Johnson Rd. 9. Review, discuss, and make recommendations regarding a proposed snow cone stand at 1170 and 1180 N. White Chapel Blvd., generally located at the southwest corner of N. White Chapel and E. Highland St. 10. Review, discuss, and make recommendations regarding a proposed residential subdivision on property generally located at 1318-1360 N. Peytonville Ave., and 1352- 1354 Post Oak Trl. 11. Review, discuss, and make recommendations regarding the installation of vacuum stations at the existing Scooter’s/Chevron station at 2150 E. S.H. 114. 12. Adjournment MEETING OVERVIEW: On June 23, 2025 the Southlake Corridor Planning Committee held their 51st meeting. The Committee was sent a packet of materials prior to the meeting that were to be discussed during the session. A meeting agenda was posted, and the meeting time was advertised on the City’s website. The following meeting report focuses on discussion points made during the meeting by members of the Committee, public and City staff. This report is neither verbatim nor does it represent official meeting minutes; rather it serves to inform elected and appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues and questions raised by the Committee, City staff, and any attendees of the meeting. Interested parties are strongly encouraged to follow development cases through the process. Please visit CityofSouthlake.com/Planning for more information. Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #5 – Shivers Meeting #51 – June 23, 2025 Page 3 ITEM #5 DISCUSSION – Review, discuss, and make recommendations regarding a proposed 40-acre mixed-use development with commercial and residential uses to be located at 1800 and 1900 N. White Chapel Blvd. and W. S.H. 114. Staff presentation: Ryan Firestone • Aerial • Current – Agriculture (AG) • Future Land Use – Mixed Use • Optional Land Use – Campus Overlay • Optional Land Use – EC-1 • Site Plan Grocery = 35,229 SF • Retail Shops = 18,551 SF • Restaurants = 53,880 SF • Office Building = 38,799 SF • 39 Single Family Lots or 45 Single Family Lots Age Restricted to 55+ Questions for staff by the Committee: Daniel Kubiak: Are there any staff recommendations relative to Kirkwood and how that comes thru the site? Is there anything we need to know or that you guys are focused on? Dennis Killough: Yes, it is required to be an arterial street and looking at the geometry of that and early discussions with the applicant, we suggested looking at the traffic circle to eliminate some of the restrictive geometry that that road has to take from a centerline standpoint and also to provide a secondary access back to 114. Applicant Presentation: Blake Bickmore, Terry Montesi Questions for Applicant by the Committee: Daniel Kubiak: Is that an access point on the SE side of the property and will that line up with Carillon? Applicant: Yes, that will line up with Carillon Parc’s exit and egress. Daniel Kubiak: Do you feel comfortable that the hotel’s proposed hospitality use will match up with the criteria we use? Applicant: We are talking to two (hotels) right now and we are going to try and make it work, but in a number of months when we are about to finalize our zoning, if the hotel market doesn’t appear to be there we will come back and listen to y’all and figure out another use for that. Daniel Kubiak: are you guys contemplating having a shared access point between the property to the north about halfway between Kirkwood and 114? Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #5 – Shivers Meeting #51 – June 23, 2025 Page 4 Applicant: We haven’t had any serious conversations about that connectivity, but we would be open to it. David Cunningham: I think it is very important that we maintain the arterial. That is our main East/West arterial when buildout happens and without that we would lose a lot. Austin Reynolds: On this commercial piece, the retailer sounds terrific, the hotel if feasible sounds good, I really like the office on top of the retail on the southern piece. How much of this from a retailer standpoint (take the retailer out that you are about to sign a lease with), is it speculatively built or are you waiting for build to suits with these? Applicant: Once we close, we will be fully financed to develop that entire site. We have a lot of interest. I am guessing we would be 60% pre-leased, but we will build all of the building’s day one. We may wait a little built with the buildings on the pond, but 90-95% of the plan will be built day one. Frances Scharli: I personally would like to see less dense on the residential and I’d like to see 20,000 SF and I am not a fan of the 55+ restricted community. I know you got some feedback about that, but I don’t subscribe to all the tenants of that, so I am looking at 20,000 SF lots. That is just my opinion. Kathy Talley: I am not necessarily a fan of the Metairie setbacks. I agree with Councilmember Scharli, I am not sure about the density. I like how you are trying to match it up more with what is in the Metairie, but I think that could probably be even better. I too am not a fan of the age restriction. I think what you have here seems so family friendly and you show that in a lot of your slides. I would hate to restrict this in some way where people can’t make a choice on where they want to live because to me it looks like a great place to raise a family. Applicant: I think so too. That (55+ restriction) was a suggestion from someone in the community so we thought that we would run it by and see what everybody thought. Kathy Talley: The density on the smaller piece, I don’t know, I am sure you have heard feedback, but we are going to love to see some options that will get worked through when you come to P&Z. Chad Patton: I would suggest that you consider adding a couple of things. One, adding green space and giving some folks that would potentially live in this neighborhood access to a little more open space. These look like individual lots without any roaming or free space. Then, I don’t know if this is the proper count on parking, but this is a lot of flat surface right on the interstate. I am sure the last thing you want to do is put in a parking garage, but one thing we have always been really consistent with is the sensitivity of being able to see a big, open parking lot with a bunch of surface parking and cars along 114. Those are some of things I would be mindful of as you move forward. Applicant: There will be a landscape screening to where you won’t see any cars from the highway for the organic grocery lot. There will be a large buffer and we are going to take care of some landscaped screens, so you will not be seeing any big parking field. Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #5 – Shivers Meeting #51 – June 23, 2025 Page 5 David Cunningham: I have a question about the building in the bottom right-hand corner. It seems like it is off by itself. What is the plan with that? Is that going to be a destination restaurant? Applicant: That will be a steakhouse. David Cunningham: Do you think you have people that are interested in that location. Applicant: We do. Randy Robbins: I think this is a great plan. Looking at the mixed-use between the retail and the residential piece. Hopefully, we will have a retail piece that is up and running long before the residential is, which is what it sounds like I am hearing tonight. I think it makes sense what you guys said when it comes to matching what is around you, which is what we have consistently heard from council over the last 6-8 months, but I don’t know if it is going to play out that way when it is all said and done. You have to be prepared for the reality of what Council is now. I do think that this does look like a great family spot, but I think we have to consider what families can afford. These are probably already 1.5 to 3 million dollar homes? It takes a lot to live in Southlake already and I do think that this would be a good family place, but I think we need to try and make it as affordable as possible for those folks, for the schools, and for everything else. I would hope to see Council lean towards that and look at what is all around it like we have always heard because I agree half-acre lots, you are looking at 3-5 million dollar homes. That is going to be borderline incompatible with young families. I do agree that you can present the 55+, but I don’t think that is going to fly at all. Otherwise, I think it is great. Austin Reynolds: From a commercial standpoint, we are going to want the commercial before anything is released for residential. The way I am thinking about this and it sounds like I am probably a loner on this comment, but I am tossing it out here for discussion purposes. We have been told by developers for a long time this thesis of “Sell your big house, downsize to a smaller home. Younger families come in and it is good for our schools.” In practice, that really hasn’t happened right. You’ve had just young families buy these homes. Part of the problem with that is these smaller lots are being driven up by young families because they are believing in income growth continuing potentially to another 20-30 years of working. I am not following all the mechanics of how a 55+ community would work and how that would be regulated and there are a lot of details to work through, but I think practically speaking this is a better 55+ age group that has disposable income, that are walking to all of these restaurants and meandering around more so than a young family. The challenge you are going to run into is that these homes need to be under a million dollars to make them work because if they are over a million then those economics don’t work. If they are not regulated to a 55+ community then you are going to have younger families come in and bid up the price to where it is so much higher. So, I am kind of for the 55+ not knowing the details of how we manage all of that, but if you can get the value under a million dollars so that they are selling their $2 million dollar house and purchasing a $1 million dollar house, I think that works. Magdalena Battles: I am one of those Southlake moms that is online all the time, and I see what the community wants, and I have never once seen anyone say “Oh we need a 55+ community.” Or “We need more housing for my parents.” I have never seen that happen in Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #5 – Shivers Meeting #51 – June 23, 2025 Page 6 the groups, but every single day you can see someone say that I am looking for a single- family home before it hits the market because there isn’t enough on the market. In this Southlake market, houses go for sale so fast. There isn’t enough housing for families. So, really, I think the target is families, but they also need some yard space. I think quarter acre lots and below is pretty small for families. I would prefer a third to a half-acre would be ideal, although a half could be pushing it, but really just a third. I think that the need here in the community is more family homes. Gina Phalen: I just have one comment, but I did like the suggestion of adding park space for the residential whatever the density ends up being, but I was just curious about the building down in the SE corner. It looks like there is a lot of excess parking down there. Is there a reason for that if it is going to be a steakhouse? Applicant: The office building, which is for buildings 10, 11, 12, about half that parking is for the office building. Michael Forman: I wanted to encourage you, kind of like you have done tonight, bring options to us at P&Z because although we may agree on something and it goes to Council and they may not agree with it, but at least we are sending them multiple options and so it is all there in front of them when they have to review it and it also helps us obviously. STAFF PRESENTATION SHOWN TO COMMITTEE: Proposed 40-acre Mixed-Use Development for Shivers Item 5 Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #5 – Shivers Meeting #51 – June 23, 2025 Page 7 Aerial Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #5 – Shivers Meeting #51 – June 23, 2025 Page 8 Optional Land Use Category –Campus Overlay The Campus Office overlay category is a commercial overlay category designed and intended for the use of high- quality,medium to large-scale office buildings or campuses and their ancillary uses and structures.This district is inherently suited for the development of built-to-suit office developments 100,000 square feet or larger for the use of corporate or regional headquarters,professional services firms,financial firms,information technology and media companies,biomedical companies,and other users which drive demand for medium to large-scale office buildings or campuses. Generally characterized by 2-4 story buildings that have a floor-to-area ratio (FAR)under 1,with highly integrated green space as a key feature of the design ,parking structures or underground parking dispersed and/or separated from the main building,horizontally-integrated floor plans,more subdued low -impact building design ,and the presence of multiple buildings or building wings if accomplished in an environmentally sensitive manner. Amenities such as walking trails,open space,plazas,water features,special roadway and sidewalk treatments,and unique landscaping should be incorporated into the development. Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #5 – Shivers Meeting #51 – June 23, 2025 Page 9 Optional Land Use Category –EC -1 The Employment Center 1 (EC-1)category is intended for the highest intensity of commercial and employment uses immediately adjacent to S.H.114. Scale and Context : 4 –6 story buildings. Buildings and their pedestrian entrances are to be oriented towards internal streets. Building footprints between 40,000 and 80,000 square feet . Larger-format retail uses (with footprints larger than 40,000 s.f.)shall be located adjacent to the arterial or highway with pedestrian entrances from internal streets. Character and Design: Buildings are to be designed to be pedestrian friendly. Buildings shall have shallow setbacks and sidewalks that are a minimum of 10’. Buildings are to be oriented towards other buildings (across the street)or towards open spaces. Parking to be limited to on-street parking and surface parking to the rear of buildings. Parking garages are encouraged over surface parking lots. Site Specific Recommendations Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #5 – Shivers Meeting #51 – June 23, 2025 Page 10 Land Use Plan Recommendations In addition, land use recommendation 114 -LU15 applies to this property: Surface parking along S.H. 114 is discouraged unless adequately screened and buffered. Underground parking or structured parking is preferred when development scale permits. Street View –N White Chapel Blvd Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #5 – Shivers Meeting #51 – June 23, 2025 Page 11 Street View –W SH 114 frontage Previous Site Plan Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #5 – Shivers Meeting #51 – June 23, 2025 Page 12 Previous Rendering from W SH 114 Proposed Site Plan 4 13 Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #5 – Shivers Meeting #51 – June 23, 2025 Page 13 Proposed Residential Option 1 Proposed Residential Option 2 Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #5 – Shivers Meeting #51 – June 23, 2025 Page 14 Proposed Rendering Proposed Rendering from W SH 114 Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #5 – Shivers Meeting #51 – June 23, 2025 Page 15 Proposed Rendering of Office Space Proposed Rendering Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #5 – Shivers Meeting #51 – June 23, 2025 Page 16 Proposed Rendering Proposed Rendering Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #5 – Shivers Meeting #51 – June 23, 2025 Page 17 Proposed Rendering of Residential (Option 1) Questions? Applicant Presentation