Item 7B - PlansPage is too large to OCR.
Page is too large to OCR.
Page is too large to OCR.
Page is too large to OCR.
Page is too large to OCR.
Page is too large to OCR.
Page is too large to OCR.
Page is too large to OCR.
Page is too large to OCR.
Page is too large to OCR.
Traffic Impact Analysis
Title of Plan St. Martin in the Fields - Addition Case Number
THRESHOLD WORKSHEET
Driveway Ordinance No. 634 requires that a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) be submitted with development applications (zoning,
concept plan, site plan, etc.) if the proposed development exceeds one or more of the three threshold criteria listed below. No
development applications will be accepted unless accompanied by a TIA. For those projects that do not exceed any of the
three criteria, a TIA Threshold Worksheet must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer in lieu of the required TIA prior
to submittal of the development application. Please describe in detail your evaluation of each criteria listed below. Additional
sheets may be attached if necessary.
Criteria#1:The development exceeds parking 100 spaces average per driveway.
No.
Existing Condition: Parking Lot = 144 Parking Spaces
Proposed Condition: Parking Lot = 137 Parking Spaces
Existing and Proposed Condition: Number of Driveways = 2 Driveways
Existing Condition: Parking Spaces per Driveway = 72 Spaces/Driveway
Proposed Condition: Parking Spaces per Driveway = 68.5 Spaces/Driveway
Criteria#2:Any driveway in the development is projected to serve 1000 or more vehicles per day.*
No.
Existing Condition: 188 Seats x 0 . 75 Trips/Seat = 141 Trips
Proposed Condition: 238 Seats x 0 . 75 Trips/Seat = 179 Trips
Criteria#3:Any driveway in the development is projected to serve 100 ingress vehicles or more in the design hour.*
No. No.
Existing Condition: Proposed Condition:
# of Trips = 141 Trips # of Trips = 179 Trips
Number of Driveways = 2 Number of Driveways = 2
Trips per Driveway = 85 . 5 = 86 Trips per Driveway = 89 . 5 = 90
* Unless approved otherwise,trip generation rates should be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual.
I hereby certify that this project does not exceed any of the three threshold criteria shown above and therefore the development
would not warrant a TIA in accordance with Section 3.4 of the Driveway Ordinance No. 634 of the City of Southlake.
Name Clayton E. Nolan, PE Registration No. 131160 Date 06/10/2026
Firm FLANAGAN Phone 817-819-3267 Fax
For City Use Only: The requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis with this submittal is hereby waived:
Name:
Title:
Date:
wo SRI -M M I
- [DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
VARIANCE APPLICATION
1400 Main Street, Suite 310
Southlake, TX 76092
Phone: (817) 748-8621
ZBA CASE NO. FILING FEE: $305.00
Location of Application: (address/legal description)
223 S Pearson Ln.
ST MARTIN IN-THE-FIELDS ADDN Block 1 Lot 1 R
Owner: Applicant (if different than owner):
PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH
COUNCIL OF THE DIOCESE OF TEXAS Justin Hiles, VLK
Address: 1225 Texas Ave. Address: 1320 Hemphill St. Suite 400
Houston, TX 77002 Fort Worth, TX 76104
Telephone: (817) 581-4916 Telephone: (817) 633-1600
Email: Email:
State the SPECIFIC PROVISION of the zoning ordinance for which you are requesting a
variance. (You may give the Section number and paragraph, OR you may DESCRIBE the
REGULATION / REQUIREMENT.)
The applicant requests a variance from the minimum driveway spacing
.................................................... ...... .........................................
requirements of the City of Southlake Driveway Ordinance No. 634, which
.................................................... ...... ................. ........................
requires a minimum of 150 feet between driveway centerlines on collector
.................................................... ...... .........................................
streets. South Pearson Lane is classified as a collector on the City of
.................................................... ...... .........................................
Southlake Master Thoroughfare Plan.
................................................... ...... .........................................
.................................................... ...... .........................................
1
Describe EXACTLY HOW, and TO WHAT EXTENT your request will DIFFER from the
REQUIREMENTS of the ordinance, as described ABOVE. (Use REVERSE, or additional sheets
if necessary.)
....................................................................................................
The two existing driveways at their current centerline-to-centerline separation of
"" approximately 87 feet, in lieu of the 150-foot minimum required for collector streets
a deviation of approximately 63 feet. Neither driveway is being modified, relocated, ....
widened, or altered as part of the proposed Sanctuary Addition and Renovation. The
parking lot is not being expanded; total parking count is decreasing by approximately
.... five spaces to accommodate a drop-off area. ....
...................................................................................................
In order for your request to be granted, the concurring vote of four (4) members of the Board of
Adjustment voting in favor of the request shall be necessary.
In order for the Board members to vote in support of your application, you must prove several
things by your application.
Your application must clearly show that your property has UNIQUE CONDITIONS and
CIRCUMSTANCES which separate it from other typical properties with the same zoning; and
explain how these unique conditions and circumstances make it UNREASONABLE or UNFAIR
to apply the STANDARD ordinance requirements to YOUR property, unlike the way they are
applied to all other properties.
Describe the CONDITIONS and CIRCUMSTANCES which are UNIQUE to your property and
situation:
Multiple physical constraints between and adjacent to the two existing driveways prevent relocation
to achieve the 150-foot standard. A utility power pole is located between the two driveways, and
major underground utility connections enter the site immediately south of the southern driveway.
Mature, protected trees line the S Pearson Lane frontage just south of the southern driveway. The
northern driveway is adjacent to the property's monument sign and an additional utility power pole,
both of which would require relocation if the driveway were moved. Either relocation would also
require substantial reconfiguration of the existing parking lot circulation, accessible parking, and fire
lane geometry— none of which are within the scope of the proposed addition and renovation.
The two existing driveways are positioned directly opposite residential driveways on the west side of
S Pearson Lane. Aligned cross-street driveways consolidate left-turn and crossing conflicts into
shared decision points and reduce the frequency of conflicting movements. Relocating either
driveway to satisfy the 150-foot standard would necessarily eliminate this alignment and introduce
offset-driveway conflict patterns that are less safe than the existing condition.
The proposed project is a renovation of an aging building rather than new development. The intent is
to refurbish and modestly extend an existing community asset, not to build a new facility. Site-access
infrastructure that is functioning as designed is not within the scope of this refurbishment.
Explain why these unique conditions and circumstances make it UNREASONABLE or UNFAIR
to apply the STANDARD ordinance requirements to your property:
2
The spacing standard is intended to govern new driveways and the modification of
existing ones. The driveways in question are neither—they were permitted under the
••• standards in effect at the time of construction and are not being altered by this
project.
Compliance would require substantial site work outside the project's scope: relocation
... of utility poles, the monument sign, parking lot circulation, the fire lane, accessible
parking, and protected mature landscaping. The cost burden would be significant and
"' would address a condition the project does not create, alter, or worsen.
Compliance would also likely diminish public safety. Eliminating one driveway would
force all site traffic— including emergency apparatus—through a single point of
••• ingress and egress, and would eliminate the existing alignment with residential
driveways across S Pearson Lane, introducing offset-driveway conflict patterns at a
location that has operated under aligned conditions for more than four decades.
.................................................... ...... ......................................
Additionally, in order for the Board members to vote in support of your application it must be
shown that the unique conditions and circumstances which you have described are NOT the
result of your own actions. (Actions taken by previous owners and actions taken by your agents
can be construed as "Your actions.")
Can you explain how the unique conditions and circumstances affecting your property came to
be, AND SHOW that they ARE NOT the result of YOUR OWN ACTIONS:
.... St. Martin-in-the-Fields Episcopal Church was founded on this property and has owned ....
it continuously since 1982. Both driveways were constructed as part of the original
'''' development under the access standards then in effect and have not been altered
since.
The condition giving rise to this request— driveway spacing of approximately 87 feet,
•••. less than the 150 feet now required for collector streets —was created by subsequent
ordinance standards, not by any action of the applicant. The variance has been
triggered now only because the proposed addition and renovation requires zoning
.... review, which has caused the existing condition to be re-evaluated against current
standards.
.................................................... ...... .........................................
...................................................................................................
Furthermore, the Board must be satisfied that the variance you are requesting is the MINIMUM
deviation from the terms of the ordinance NECESSARY to OVERCOME the unique conditions
and circumstances which you have described.
Explain how your proposal is the MINIMUM manner by which the unique conditions and
circumstances described can be overcome:
.................................................... ...... ..........................................
3
The variance request is the minimum deviation necessary to overcome the
......... ........
unique conditions described above. The applicant is not requesting any
••••••••• expansion or modification of the existing driveways; the request is solely to
allow the driveways to remain in their original 1982 locations.
......... ........
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
Also, the Board must be convinced that granting such a variance would not constitute an
UNFAIR GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE to you, granting privileges that are otherwise denied
by the ordinance.
In other words, why would granting this variance be ONLY FAIR, and NOT MORE THAN FAIR,
to you, since others are prevented from doing what you are requesting:
Approval of this variance would place the applicant in the same position relative to
the ordinance as other property owners whose access infrastructure was lawfully
••••• constructed prior to the adoption of current spacing standards. Pre-ordinance legacy
access conditions are recognized in zoning practice as legal nonconformities —they
are not retroactively forced into compliance unless triggered by a substantial change
••••• in use, redevelopment, or modification of the access infrastructure itself. None of
those triggers apply here.
The applicant is not requesting permission to create a new substandard condition,
••••• expand a substandard condition, or extend a substandard condition to circumstances
that would otherwise be required to comply. The applicant is requesting only that an
existing, lawfully constructed, safely operating condition be allowed to continue.
...................................................................................................
Finally, the Board must be certain your request is in harmony with the public welfare, and will
not in any way be injurious or detrimental to your neighbors and their property rights.
EXPIRATION OF GRANTED REQUEST.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RULES OF PROCEDURE, Section 7.1
Any special exception or variance granted or authorized by the Board shall authorize the
issuance of a building permit and/or a Certificate of Occupancy, as the case may be, for a
period of one year from the date of the favorable action of the Board unless said Board shall
have in its action approved a different period of time and has so shown such specific period of
4