Item 9A
Department of Planning & Development Services
S T A F F R E P O R T
April 29, 2009
CASE NO: ZA09-010
PROJECT: Preliminary Plat for Carillon Residential
REQUEST:
Hines Southlake Land L.P. is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for Carillon
Residential. This plat includes 234 acre residential component of the total 285 acre
mixed use Employment Center zoning district. There are 404 residential lots, 18 public
open space lots and one private open space lot. The open space within the residential
component totals approximately 60 acres. The plat conforms to the approved zoning
and development plan.
VARIANCE
NEEDED:
Although the alignment for Kirkwood Boulevard complies with the representations of
the development plan, a variance is needed from the minimum 1,000 feet centerline
radius required for arterial street sections in order to allow 600 and 800 feet radii in two
sections at the south end of Kirkwood Boulevard. This was necessary to address
complications in the alignment of Kirkwood Boulevard at the southern end of the
property due to matching adjacent tract owner issues and crossing the floodplain. The
City Engineer is in agreement with the variance if the roadway is designed to meet or
exceed a 45 mph design speed.
ACTION NEEDED: 1) Consider approval of the proposed preliminary plat.
ATTACHMENTS:
(A) Background Information
(B) Vicinity Map
(C) Plans and Support Information
(D) Preliminary Plat Exhibit
Preliminary Plat Review Summary No. 2 dated April 17, 2009
(E)
(F) Surrounding Property Owners Map
(G) Surrounding Property Owners Responses
for Commission and Council Members Only
(H) Full Size Plans ()
STAFF CONTACT:
Ken Baker (748-8067)
Dennis Killough (748-8072)
Case No.
ZA 09-010
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
OWNER:
Hines Southlake Land L.P.
APPLICANT:
Hines Southlake Land L.P.
PROPERTY SITUATION:
The property is located at the northeast corner of SH 114 and N. White Chapel
Boulevard.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
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.
LAND USE CATEGORY:
Mixed Use
CURRENT ZONING:
“ECZ”Employment Center Zoning District
HISTORY:
-The City Council approved a zoning change request and concept plan to “NR-
PUD” on May 20, 1997.
-The City Council approved a zoning change and concept plan on December
18, 2001, requiring a 300’ setback on Carroll Avenue, subject to City Council
discretion. The purpose of the zoning change and concept plan was to
incorporate newly acquired tracts of land into the existing “NR-PUD”, revise
parcel boundaries and permitted uses within the district
- The City Council approved “ECZ”Employment Center Zoning District and a
development plan on November 18, 2008.
TRANSPORTATION
ASSESSMENT:
A traffic Impact Analysis was submitted with the approved zoning and
development plan. Below is the general information provided with that
approval:
East State Highway 114 is a six lane, limited access highway with three lane
frontage roads on either side.
May, 2007 traffic counts on S.H. 114 frontage roads
(between N. Carroll Ave and Highland St.)
West Bound East Bound
24hr 776 806
A.M Peak 5790
() 8:15 – 9:15 () 8:00 – 9:00
P.M. Peak 9281
() 2:45 – 3:45 () 2:45 – 3:45
May, 2007 traffic counts on S.H. 114 frontage roads
(between Highland St. and N. White Chapel Blvd.)
West Bound East Bound
24hr 830 864
A.M Peak 6372
() 8:00 – 9:00 ()11 :00 – 12:00
P.M. Peak 10683
() 2:45 – 3:45 () 5:15 – 6:15
Case No. Attachment A
ZA 09-010 Page 1
May, 2007 traffic counts on N. Carroll Ave.
(between S.H. 114 and Highland St.)
North Bound South Bound
24hr 3347 3174
A.M Peak 271286
() 7:45 – 8:45 () 7:45 – 8:45
P.M. Peak 339287
() 3:00 – 4:00 () 3:30 – 4:30
May, 2007 traffic counts on N. White Chapel Blvd.
(between S.H. 114 and Dove Road)
North Bound South Bound
24hr 2053 2217
A.M Peak 209222
() 8:00 – 9:00 () 7:45 – 8:45
P.M. Peak 184213
() 3:15 – 4:15 () 3:15 – 4:15
Traffic Impact:
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis
STRATEGIC LINK/
SOUTHLAKE 2025:
Consolidated Land Use Plan Recommendations
The underlying land use designation is Mixed Use and Floodplain and the optional land
use designation is Employment Center – 1, 2 & R. The proposed development is
generally consistent with EC-1, 2 & R designation. The purpose of the Employment
Center (EC) land use designation is to provide for a comprehensive set of design
standards and guidelines for the development of the City’s premier corridor – the S.H.
Case No. Attachment A
ZA 09-010 Page 2
114 Corridor. (See the appendix for specific form standards.) The EC land use
category is intended for a continuum of development from the highest intensity mixed
use development immediately adjacent to the highway to the lowest intensity
residential uses adjacent to existing neighborhoods. The EC land use category shall be
applied to contiguous properties that are a minimum of 75 acres. To address this
desired intensity gradient of development, the EC land use category is further defined
into three (3) sub-categories – EC-1,EC-2, and EC-Residential (EC-R) categories.
Environmental Resource Protection Recommendations
There is a long strip of tree cover designated for open space preservation running
diagonal (northwest-southeast) across the property with some short strips extending to
the northeast, to the south central and southwestern portions of the property. The
southeastern portion n of the property is located in the 100 Year Floodplain. The flood
plain area along with some of the identified tree coverage areas are designated in
open space in the proposed development plan.
Wildlife corridors are recommended to connect the parks throughout the development.
Native and drought-tolerant landscaping is encouraged throughout the development.
Although not all of the recommended Tree Cover/Open Space preservation areas are
being preserved, one the densest areas of tree cover on the site has been designated
as an Environmental Preserve and a Neighborhood Park. Additional parks are
provided throughout the development.
Mobility & Master Thoroughfare Plan Recommendations
East State Highway 114 runs along the southern boundary and is designated as a 300-
foot to 500-feet of right-of-way. Adequate right-of-way exists for this roadway;
N. White Chapel runs along the western boundary and is designated an A4D 88’
Arterial. Additional ROW is required for this section. The majority of this road exists
as only a 2 lane undivided bar-ditch roadway;
N. Carroll Avenue runs along the eastern boundary is designated as an A4D 88’
Arterial. Additional ROW is required for this section. The majority of this road exists
as only a 2 lane undivided bar-ditch roadway;
A section of future E. Kirkwood Boulevard extends diagonally through this property
from N. White Chapel Boulevard to E. Highlands Street. Kirkwood Boulevard is
designated as an A4D 100’ Arterial. This roadway does not currently exist and would
need to be dedicated and constructed with this development.
Case No. Attachment A
ZA 09-010 Page 3
Southlake Pathways Plan
An 8 foot to 10 foot multi-use trail is required along the East State Highway 114
westbound frontage road per the Pathways Plan.
A minimum 8 foot hike & bike trail is designated along the north boundary of E.
Kirkwood Boulevard.
Minimum 5 foot sidewalks are required along N. Carroll Ave. & N. White Chapel
Boulevard.
The proposed development plan appears to comply with the Master Pathways Plan
and sidewalk requirements.
Urban Design Plan
Preserve existing view corridors where appropriate. Tree stands along the highway
should be preserved when they terminate views from the highway.
In order to maximize regional access and limit the impact of strip retail
development, retail and restaurant development should be concentrated at
interchanges in 1-2 storey buildings with higher intensity office and institutional uses
at mid block locations.
Establish appropriate scale and bulk standards for buildings along the highway,
specifically at mid-block locations. Buildings should be 4 – 6 stories tall and step
down as they move away from the highway corridor. Buildings over three stories
should be articulated along the first three floors.
Materials on the lower floors should be brick, stone or other approved masonry.
Low-profile, single storey pad buildings that tend to blend into the background and
have limited visibility from the highway are discouraged.
All windows on buildings should be vertically oriented and be articulated with a 4-
inch reveal to avoid solid, flat walls, and to create shadow lines and surface
texture. Glass curtain walls and facades with more than 60% glass along any
elevation shall be discouraged. Along retail store fronts, 1’ – 2’ high knee walls shall
limit the amount of glass along each façade visible from public streets.
The view of surface parking from the highway should be limited. Surface parking
lots should be designed to be in smaller pods (no more than 200 parking spaces)
with increased landscaping and pedestrian access ways. Specifically, shared
parking is also encouraged between adjoining complementary land uses.
Master planning of larger tracts or multiple tracts is encouraged over piece-meal
development. In addition, the master plan applications should include all the
elements of the built environment such as building design, site design, wayfinding
and building signage, landscaping, treatment of natural features, bridges, streets,
street lighting, etc. Every effort should be made to incorporate recommended urban
design elements into the project design.
Case No. Attachment A
ZA 09-010 Page 4
WATER & SEWER:
WATER & SEWER: There is an existing 20” water line along the east side of White
Chapel Boulevard. There is an existing 12” water line along the west side of N. Carroll
Avenue. There is an existing 6” water line along the northeast boundary of the property
extending west from N. Carroll Avenue. A Future 20” line is shown along SH 144 to
installed by others. A 12” water line will be extending along Kirkwood Boulevard
between the N. White Chapel Boulevard and Carroll Avenue lines. A 12” water line will
also be extended to the south to connect to the Future SH 114 line. 8” water lines will
also be connected into the Estes Park water system. Sewer connections will be to an
existing 15” line to the east along N. Carroll Ave, to an existing 12” line along the
southeast boundary of the property (Approx 2/3 of site into the N-3 Basin) and to an
existing 10” sewer line to the north along Canyon Park Drive (approx. 1/3 of site into
the N-2 Basin).
DRAINAGE
ANALYSIS:
Drainage for the site will primarily handled through the street and underground storm
sewer system and detention ponds. Approximately one-third of the site will drain to the
north into Kirkwood Branch Tributary by connection into the Estes Park storm sewer
system. The remainder of the site will drain general to the south east into Dove Creek
tributary.
TREE
PRESERVATION:
Most all of the existing trees in the western portion of the property are mature Post
Oaks, Blackjack Oaks, Pecan and American Elm. The tree conservation plan
submitted is consistent with the Tree preservation analysis submitted with the zoning
and development plan.
P&Z Commission:
April 23, 2009; Approved (6-0) granting the requested variance for the minimum 1,000
feet centerline radius required for arterial street sections in order to allow 600 and 800
feet radii in two sections at the south end of Kirkwood Boulevard subject to the City
Engineers recommendation that the roadway is designed to meet or exceed a 45 mph
design speed, and subject to Preliminary Plat Review Summary No. 2, dated April 17,
2009.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Attached is the Preliminary Plat Review Summary No. 2 dated April 17, 2009.
N:\Community Development\MEMO\2006cases\ZA09-010.doc
Case No. Attachment A
ZA 09-010 Page 5
Case No. Attachment B
ZA 09-010 Page 1
Link to Plans and Support Information
Preliminary Plat Exhibit
Case No. Attachment C
ZA 09-010 Page 1
PLAT REVIEW SUMMARY
ZA09-010Two4/17/09
Case No.: Review No.: Date of Review:
Preliminary Plat
Project Name: – Carillon Residential
APPLICANT: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER:
Hines – Jeff Kennemer Jacobs - Carter & Burgess
5215 N. O’Connor Blvd., Suite 635 7950 Elmbrook Dr.
Irving, TX 75039 Dallas, TX 75247
P: (972)716-2917 P: (214)638-0145
F: (972)869-5097 F: (214)638-0447
E: jeff_kennemer@hines.com
4/16/09
CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON AND WE OFFER THE
FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN
APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER
CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT DENNIS KILLOUGH AT (817) 748-8072.
1. Show and label all survey lines.
2. Note and state the time at which any existing structures are to be removed. If any are to remain, the
structure and use must be compliant with the underlying zoning.
3. The following comments pertain to easements:
a. Provide easements for water, sewer and/or drainage in compliance with approved
construction plans.
b. Label the alleys.
c. Show any existing easements crossing the property.
d. Where adjacent property is unplatted or platted showing a 5' U.E., provide a 5' U.E. along
the property line; if adjacent property is platted and shows no easement, provide a 10' U.E.
along the interior of the property line.
Although the subdivision ordinance requires the previous, staff recommends that
easements only be provided where needed for the adequate extension and delivery of
utility services. Easements should be located in a manner that maximizes tree
preservation and limits impact on private properties.
e. For any portion of the plat abutting SH 114, a minimum 10' U.E. is required.
* Do not center interior easements for water, sanitary sewer, or drainage on common lot
lines. Offset so that improvements are in one lot or the other.
f. Show the ultimate 100-year floodplain limits and 100-year floodway. Designate the area
inundated by the ultimate 100-year storm as a drainage easement. (Floodway must be tied
down by metes and bounds upon final plat approval)
4. The following comments pertain to ROW:
a. Insure that adequate ROW is being dedicated for Kirkwood Boulevard (100’), N. White
Chapel (88’ off-set east from existing centerline to address agreement with Chivers
Case No. Attachment D
ZA 09-010 Page 1
Family), N. Carroll Avenue (88’) and Primrose (50’). Dedication needed should be based
on the best evidence of the established roadway centerlines which may be based on a
combination of platted dedications and thoroughfare plan requirements for which the
dedication was based upon, existing pavement centerline and surveyed field evidence
found on the ground. A portion of Kirkwood is less than the 100 feet width and it is not
clear what the existing widths of Carroll, White Chapel and Primrose are.
b.
Kirkwood Boulevard requires horizontal and vertical design standards meeting Ord. 483,
Section 5.3 F & G, as amended for an A4D arterial. Although the geometry of Kirkwood
appears compliant with the approved development plan, the two most southern curve radii
do not meet the minimum 1,000 radius. The northern radius is 800 feet the southern
radius is 600 feet. This was necessary to address complications in the alignment of
Kirkwood Boulevard at the southern end of the property due to matching adjacent tract
(Variance Requested – The City Engineer is in
owner issues and crossing the floodplain.
agreement with the variance if the roadway is designed to meet or exceed a 45 mph
design speed.)
The following should be informational comments only
============= ====================
* It appears this property lies within the 65 'LDN D/FW Regional Airport Overlay Zone, requiring
construction standards in compliance with the Airport Compatible Land Use Zoning Ordinance No.
479. Additionally, the Avigation Easement and Release shown in Appendix 3 of the Subdivision
Ordinance No. 483 must be executed on subsequent Plats to be filed in the County Plat Records.
* Public dedication of land in lieu of park dedication fees and/or any other fee credits requires a
recommendation from the City’s Park Board. Contact Peter Kao @ (817) 748-8607 regarding
placement on a Park Board agenda.
* Upon submission of the final plat for filing in the County, two intervisible boundary corners of the site
must be geo-referenced by state plane coordinates in accordance with section 8.03(B) of the
Subdivision Ordinance No. 483 and shown on the final plat, and prior to acceptance of the subdivision
by the City, a digital computer file of the subdivision must be provided in accordance with Section 8.04
of Ordinance No. 483.
* Please ensure that grading in areas of existing trees that are proposed to be preserved is limited
to the outskirts of the critical-root-zone areas of the trees intended to be preserved. Also ensure
that the drainage of the areas is not compromised by any grading around the areas. Please be
aware that all existing trees shown to be preserved on the City Council approved Tree
Conservation Analysis/Tree Conservation Plan must be preserved and protected during all phases
and construction of the development. Alteration or removal of any of the existing trees shown to be
preserved on the approved Tree Conservation Analysis/Tree Conservation Plan is a violation of
the Tree Preservation Ordinance and the zoning as approved by the Southlake City Council.
Please ensure that the layout of all structures, easements, utilities, structures, grading, and any
other structure proposed to be constructed do not conflict with existing trees intended to be
preserved.
* A final plat, construction plans and a developer’s agreement must be approved and all required
fees paid prior to construction of any public infrastructure. All supporting infrastructure for the
proposed lots/subdivision must be substantially complete and ready to be accepted by the City
prior to recording any final plat. No building permits may be issued until the final plat is recorded in
the County Plat Records.
* Denotes Informational Comment
Case No. Attachment D
ZA 09-010 Page 2
Surrounding Property Owners
Carillon Residential
SPO # Owner Zoning Land Use Acreage Response
1. Heath, George F Etux Lou Ann AG Low Density Residential 0.20 NR
2. Mills Custom Homes Lp SF30 Low Density Residential 0.97 NR
3. Jose, Glennon Etux Susan SF30 Low Density Residential 0.91 NR
4. Ascencio, Cristobal SF30 Low Density Residential 0.72 NR
5. Pailes, Nathan & Mary Pailes SF30 Low Density Residential, Mixed Use 0.70 NR
6. Simpson, Charles Etux Kathleen SF30 Low Density Residential 0.71 NR
7. Brentwood Residential Assoc SF30 Low Density Residential 0.23 NR
8. Smiley, Gregory W Etux Janet L SF20A Low Density Residential 0.61 NR
9. Brown, Kenneth R Sr Etux C J SF1-A Low Density Residential, Mixed Use 1.71 NR
10. Monument Custom Homes Lp RPUD Low Density/Medium Density Residential 0.43 NR
11. Casey, Chris & Diana RPUD Low Density/Medium Density Residential 0.37 NR
12. Km Properties Inc RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.39 NR
13. Jack, Hayden RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.41 NR
14. Johnson, Jay B RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.36 NR
15. Esparza, Lisa & Ismael RPUD Medium Density Residential, Mixed Use 0.36 NR
16. Swieter, Kenneth James RPUD Medium Density Residential, Mixed Use 0.36 NR
17. McManaman, Leonard Etux Shelle RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.48 NR
18. Carroll, Thomas Etux Elizabeth RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.37 NR
19. Roque Custom Homes Inc RPUD Medium Density Residential, Mixed Use 0.34 NR
20. Duhon, M Shawn Etux Christie RPUD Medium Density Residential, Mixed Use 0.34 NR
21. Clairmark Homes Inc RPUD Medium Density Residential, Mixed Use 0.36 NR
22. Moorefield, Paul Etux Rhonda RPUD Medium Density Residential, Mixed Use 0.35 NR
23. Palacio Properties Llc RPUD Medium Density Residential, Mixed Use 0.51 NR
24. Kim, Seung Hyun RPUD 0.45 O
Medium Density Residential, Mixed Use
25. Chateaumar Homes Inc RPUD Medium Density Residential, Mixed Use 0.39 NR
Case No. Attachment E
ZA 09-010 Page 1
26. Garcia, Juan J Etux Jana RPUD Medium Density Residential, Mixed Use 0.39 NR
27. Estes Park Hmo Assoc Inc RPUD Medium Density Residential, Mixed Use 0.88 NR
28. Mitcham, Brian C Etux Shelley RPUD Medium Density Residential, Mixed Use 0.42 NR
29. Vpg Investments Ltd RPUD Medium Density Residential, Mixed Use 0.44 NR
30. Estes Park Ltd RPUD Medium Density Residential 1.70 NR
31. Bradford, Jay J Jr Etux Leigh RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.40 NR
32. Lowinger, Jeffrey Etux Karen RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.51 NR
33. Sanchez, Christopher Michael RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.42 NR
34. Harrell Custom Homes Inc RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.36 NR
35. Starwood Custom Homes Lp RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.49 NR
36. Starwood Custom Homes Lp RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.48 NR
37. Palacio Properties Llc RPUD Medium Density Residential 0.51 NR
38. Clairmark Homes Inc RPUD Medium Density Residential, Mixed Use 0.50 NR
39. Vpg Investments Ltd RPUD Medium Density Residential, Mixed Use 0.51 NR
40. Vpg Investments Ltd RPUD Medium Density Residential, Mixed Use 0.58 NR
41. Landolfo, A Peter Etux Deanna RPUD Medium Density Residential, Mixed Use 0.63 NR
42. Flexer, David J Etux Karen J R RPUD Medium Density Residential, Mixed Use 0.87 NR
43. 4F Development / Ep 4 Lp RPUD Low Density Residential 0.34 NR
44. Toll Dallas Tx Llc RPUD Low Density Residential 0.46 NR
45. 4F Development / Ep 4 Lp RPUD Low Density Residential, Mixed Use 0.34 NR
46. Uddin, Mohammad Etux Atiya RPUD Low Density Residential, Mixed Use 0.34 NR
47. Mohsin, Shamim Etux Rita M RPUD Low Density Residential, Mixed Use 0.35 NR
48. 4F Development / Ep 4 Lp RPUD Low Density Residential 0.36 NR
49. 4F Development / Ep 4 Lp RPUD Low Density Residential 0.41 NR
50. Toll Dallas Tx Llc RPUD Low Density Residential 0.34 NR
51. Mitchell, Ronnie RPUD Low Density Residential 0.39 NR
52. 4F Development / Ep 4 Lp RPUD Low Density Residential 0.38 NR
53. 4F Development / Ep 4 Lp RPUD Low Density Residential 0.38 NR
54. 4F Development / Ep 4 Lp RPUD Low Density Residential 0.44 NR
55. 4F Development / Ep 4 Lp RPUD Low Density Residential 0.39 NR
56. 4F Development / Ep 4 Lp RPUD Low Density Residential 0.36 NR
57. 4F Development / Ep 4 Lp RPUD Low Density Residential 0.36 NR
58. 4F Development / Ep 4 Lp RPUD Low Density Residential 0.35 NR
59. 4F Development / Ep 4 Lp RPUD Low Density Residential 0.36 NR
60. Thrasher, Wesley A Etux Terrie AG Low Density Residential, Mixed Use 1.18 NR
61. Thasher, Wesley Etux Terri AG Low Density Residential, Mixed Use 1.85 NR
Low Density Residential, Public/Semi-
62. Carroll ISD CS 14.07 NR
Public, Office Commercial
63. Hight, Lance B SF1-A Low Density Residential 1.14 NR
64. Maranan, Bernadette Etvir V SF1-A Low Density Residential 0.99 NR
65. Barnard, Joseph M SF1-A Low Density Residential 1.02 NR
66. Toups, Tommie Etux Sharon SF1-A Low Density Residential 0.99 NR
67. Nguyen, Ashley Etvir Cuong Duc SF1-A Low Density Residential 1.01 O
68. Fore, Stan Etux Lisa SF1-A Low Density Residential 0.96 F
69. Lawler, Richard SF1-A Low Density Residential 1.24 NR
70. Hix, Larry Etux Brenda SF1-A Low Density Residential 1.07 NR
Low Density Residential, 100-Year Flood
71. Davis, Darryl SF1-A 1.80 NR
Plain
Low Density Residential, 100-Year Flood
72. Purvis, William E SF1-A 1.29 NR
Plain
Low Density Residential, 100-Year Flood
73. Murphy, James L Etux Rita J SF1-A 1.90 NR
Plain
Low Density Residential, 100-Year Flood
74. Ensenberger, C J & Elaine P SF1-A 2.58 NR
Plain
Low Density Residential, 100-Year Flood
75. Lay, Rob Etux Jennie Hocking SF1-A 1.70 NR
Plain
Case No. Attachment E
ZA 09-010 Page 2
Low Density Residential, 100-Year Flood
76. Williams, Marvin Etux Fabrienn SF1-A 2.01 NR
Plain
77. Heath, George F Etux Lou Ann AG Low Density Residential 0.41 NR
78. Cercone, Albert B AG Low Density Residential 0.27 NR
79. Grant, Janice L AG Low Density Residential 0.37 NR
80. Morris, Louis M Etux Leslie AG Medium Density/Low Density Residential 0.96 NR
Medium Density/Low Density Residential,
81. Hines Southlake Land Lp ECZ 99.19 NR
Mixed Use, 100-Year Flood Plain
82. Burgess, Derrell & Martha Jo AG 100-Year Flood Plain, Mixed Use 7.32 NR
83. Hines Southlake Land Lp ECZ Mixed Use, 100-Year Flood Plain 39.22 NR
84. Boudreaux, James Thomas AG 100-Year Flood Plain 0.91 NR
100-Year Flood Plain, Mixed Use, Office
85. D/Fw-Hwy 114/Highlands Ltd AG 3.88 NR
Commercial
86. D/Fw-Hwy 114/Highlands Ltd AG 100-Year Flood Plain, Office Commercial 6.25 NR
87. D/Fw-Hwy 114/Highlands AG 100-Year Flood Plain 2.17 NR
88. Chang, Chin J & Wanda AG Mixed Use, 100-Year Flood Plain 2.23 NR
89. Oscar Wolfe Family Cemetery CS 100-Year Flood Plain 0.15 NR
100-Year Flood Plain, Mixed Use, Office
90. Highland Group Jv C3 12.16 NR
Commercial
91. Hines Southlake Land Lp ECZ Low Density Residential, Mixed Use 35.63 NR
Low Density/Medium Density Residential,
92. Hines Southlake Land Lp ECZ 40.67 NR
Mixed Use
93. Hines Southlake Land Lp ECZ Mixed Use, Retail Commercial 3.62 NR
94. Hines Southlake Land Lp ECZ Mixed Use, Retail Commercial 52.40 NR
95. Hines Southlake Land Lp ECZ Mixed Use, Retail Commercial 0.74 NR
96. Hines Southlake Land Lp ECZ Mixed Use, Retail Commercial 5.06 NR
97. Hines Southlake Land Lp ECZ Retail Commercial 1.27 NR
98. Hines Southlake Land Lp ECZ Retail Commercial 1.04 NR
99. Hines Southlake Land Lp ECZ Mixed Use 0.93 NR
100. Hines Southlake Land Lp ECZ Mixed Use 4.02 NR
101. Hines Southlake Land Lp ECZ Mixed Use 0.13 NR
102. Hopkins Dallas Properties Ltd C2 Retail Commercial 0.85 NR
103. Zvonecek, Brian C2 Mixed Use, Retail Commercial 1.64 F
104. Birchfield, Sandra E AG Low Density Residential 0.86 NR
105. Shivers Family Ptnrship Ltd AG Mixed Use, Retail Commercial 39.54 NR
106. Shivers, Jeroll Etux Frances AG Mixed Use, Retail Commercial 1.20 NR
Responses: F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response
Notices Sent:
One-Hundred Six (106)
Responses Received:
Four (4) – Attached
Case No. Attachment E
ZA 09-010 Page 3
Surrounding Property Owner Responses (Within
Case No. Attachment F
ZA 09-010 Page 1
Case No. Attachment F
ZA 09-010 Page 2
Case No. Attachment F
ZA 09-010 Page 3
Case No. Attachment F
ZA 09-010 Page 4