Loading...
Item 7A (2)City of Southlake Department of Planning S T A F F R E P O R T August 1, 2007 ZA05-112 CASE NO: Zoning Change and Concept Plan for Gateway Church – SH 114 Campus PROJECT: REQUEST: Gateway Church is requesting approval of a zoning change and concept plan for Non- residential Planned Unit Development district zoning (NRPUD) on approximately 200 acres of land located north of East SH114 and south of E. Highland Street between N. Kimball Avenue and N. Carroll Avenue. The primary purpose of this request is to revise the existing NRPUD zoning to allow religious institutions as a permitted use along with multi-level parking garages as a permitted accessory use on a 90 acre parcel within the NRPUD district labeled as Parcel ‘B’ and ‘E’ on the proposed concept plan. The proposed NRPUD revision will retain the current NRPUD uses and regulations except as noted above along with changes noted on the Concept Plan and within the “Zoning and Consolidated Land Use Plan Amendment Narrative” of Attachment ‘C ‘of this report. In addition to requesting approval of the revised zoning and concept plan as proposed, the applicant is also requesting a variance to allow an 80’ wide 4 lane undivided arterial street extending from Kirkwood Boulevard to SH 114 instead of a 100’ wide 4 lane divided arterial street. Consider first reading for zoning change and concept plan ACTION NEEDED: ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information (B) Vicinity Map (C) Link to Plans and Support Information Concept Plan Review Summary No. 5, August 1, 2007 (D) (E) Surrounding Property Owners Map (F) Surrounding Property Owners Responses (G) Ordinance No. 480-222a (G) Full Size Plans (for Commission and Council Members Only) STAFF CONTACT: Ken Baker (748-8067) Dennis Killough (748-8072) Case No. ZA05-112 BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNER: Gateway Church APPLICANT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. PROPERTY SITUATION: The property is located along the north side of the 1500 – 1800 blocks of State Highway No. 114, along the south side of the 1300 – 1800 blocks of E. Highland St. and along the west side of the 600 – 900 blocks of N. Kimball Ave and is approximately 600 feet east of North Carroll Avenue. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The property being approximately 200 acres situated in the Richard Eads Survey, Abstract No. 481, being Tracts 1, 1A1, 1E, 2, 2A, 2B, 2B1A, and 2C1, and in the Thomas Mahan Survey, Abstract No. 1049, being Tracts 2A, 2B, 2B1, 3, 3A, 3C, 5, 5C, and 5D and a portion of Tracts 1 and 1B1. LAND USE CATEGORY: Mixed Use with EC-R, Employment Center Residential; EC-1, Employment Center 1; and EC-2, Employment Center 2 optional Land Use Overlay Designations. CURRENT ZONING: “NR-PUD” Non-Residential Planned Unit Development District REQUESTED ZONING: “NR-PUD” Non-Residential Planned Unit Development District HISTORY: “NR-PUD” Non-Residential Planned Unit Development District and a Concept Plan were approved June 17, 1997. TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT: See the “Design Narrative” and “Traffic Impact Analysis - Executive Summary” in Attachment ‘C’ of this report. WATER & SEWER: See the “Design Narrative” in Attachment ‘C’ of this report. P&Z ACTION: July 5, 2007; Approved (5-0) subject to Concept Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated June 29, 2007, and the staff report as presented; specifically 2B – granting the variance; 2C – applicant is willing to work with staff on alignment of Kirkland Blvd and Grace Lane to the west; and, applicant is willing to revisit the 100 foot median roadway and 4 lane divided arterial in the event the owners sold the property for residential use. COUNCIL ACTION: July 17, 2007; approved to table first reading until August 7, 2007. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Concept Plan Review Summary No. 5 dated August 1, 2007. N:\Community Development\MEMO\2005cases\05-112ZCP.doc Case No. Attachment A ZA05-112Page 1 Case No. Attachment B ZA05-112Page 1 Links to Plans & Support Information Case No. Attachment C ZA05-112Page 1 Case No. Attachment C ZA05-112Page 2 Case No. Attachment C ZA05-112Page 3 Case No. Attachment C ZA05-112Page 4 Case No. Attachment C ZA05-112Page 5 Case No. Attachment C ZA05-112Page 6 ZONING AND CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW . - ZA05-112 FiveDate of Review: 8/01/07 City Case NoReview No.: – Gateway Church Project Name: Zoning and Concept Plan for N-RPUD Zoning APPLICANT: ENGINNERS/ARCHITECT: Jeff Linder Gateway Church Kimley-Horn & Assoc. Phone: Phone: (817)335-6511 Fax: e-mail: John.Blacker@Kimley-Horn.com CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 7/23/07 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT DENNIS KILLOUGH AT (817) 748-8072, E-MAIL AT dkillough@cityofsouthlake.com. or Jay Narayana (817) 748-8070, jnarayana@cityofsouthlake.com 1.The following changes are needed regarding ROW: a.A minimum 100’ wide 4 lane divided arterial is required to extend from the E. Kirkwood Boulevard extension to SH 114. The applicant proposes an 80’ wide 4 lane undivided arterial (Variance requested). with an addition 4 lane undivided connection west of the church site. b.Show all street extensions to the boundary of the subject property. In particular the west portion of E. Kirkwood Boulevard must be extended to the west boundary. c.Access strips are prohibited. Where the street extensions are in close proximity to an adjoining property boundary it must abut the boundary and provide acceptable street frontage for the adjoining property. The Rogers and Greenway-Berk tracts may need to be included within the subsequent preliminary/final plats for this project if ROW dedications are to be included from these properties. Half/partial dedications are also prohibited. 2.The following issues pertain to uses and development regulations: a.Clarify that the permitted and accessory uses described in DR4 are limited to Parcels B & E. This can be combined in a single paragraph. b.Clarify if Parcel G is to have the same restrictions (allowing certain uses by SUP) as the current zoning. 3.The following need to be added to the plan: a.Sidewalk/Trail required on both sides of proposed Kirkwood Blvd. Case No. Attachment D ZA05-112Page 1 b.Show and label open space, bufferyards and preservation areas (including wetland/water features) in accordance with the currently approved zoning. Specifically identify any areas to be changed. c.Provide consistency through the various plans, in particular with regard to water and detention features, floodways – floodplains, acreages etc.. d.Show and label the water features. Identify any wetland areas, flood plains and floodways. The southwestern lake is not shown. Please be aware that appropriate approvals and confirmations of wetland areas must be received from the Corp of Engineers prior to alteration of any of these areas. e.Update surrounding property data, including newly approved developments. GENERAL INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS: * A separate zoning application must be approved for proposed Parcel F. * A fully corrected plan that includes all associated support plans/documents and conditions of approval is required before any ordinance or zoning verification letter publication or before acceptance of any other associated plans for review. Plans and documents must be reviewed and stamped “approved” by the Planning Department. * Be aware that regulations not specifically addressed in this NRPUD fall subject to the current regulations of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended. These may include but not limited to impervious coverage, residential adjacency overlay, screening, outdoor storage ...etc. It is recommended that you review the Zoning Ordinance and address any of these issues that may affect the planned development of this property. * All development must comply with the City’s Drainage Ordinance No. 605 and detain all post development run-off. * Where walks or trails that are either required or being provided for public pedestrian traffic extend outside of a public ROW and into a private lot, a pedestrian access easement is required. * 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 should be executed on subsequent Plats to be filed in the County Plat Records. * The applicant should be aware that prior to issuance of a building permit a Plat must be processed and filed in the County Plat Records, and a site plan, landscape plan, irrigation plan, and building plans, must be submitted for approval and all required fees must be paid. This may include but not be Case No. Attachment D ZA05-112Page 2 limited to the following fees: Park Fee, Perimeter Street Fee, Water & Sewer Impact and Tap Fees, and related Permit Fees. * This site falls within the applicability of the residential adjacency standards and corridor overlay regulations of the Zoning Ordinance 480, as amended. Although no review of the following issues is provided with this concept plan, the applicant must evaluate the site for compliance prior to submittal of the site plan. A Site Plan must be submitted and approved by the Planning and Zoning Note that these issues are only Commission and City Council prior to issuance of a building permit. the major areas of site plan review and that the applicant is responsible for compliance with all site plan requirements: •Masonry requirements per Ordinance 480, as amended and Masonry Ordinance No. 557, as amended. •Roof design standards per Ordinance 480, as amended •Mechanical Equipment Screening •Vertical and horizontal building articulation (required on all building facades) per Ordinance 480, as amended. •Spill-over lighting and noise. •Building setbacks, bufferyards and interior landscape areas shall be determined at the time of site plan submission in accordance with the applicable underlying zoning designation and/or NRPUD regulation. •All driveways shall comply with the City Driveway Ordinance No. 634, as amended. •Off-street parking requirements. All areas intended for vehicular use must be of an all weather surface material in accordance with the Ordinance No. 480, as amended. •Screening. •Fire lanes must be approved by the City Fire Department. * Denotes Informational Comment Case No. Attachment D ZA05-112Page 3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY ZA05-112Five8/01/07 Case No.: Review No.: Date of Review: Project Name: Gateway Church APPLICANT: OWNERS: Kimley-Horn and Associates Gateway Church CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 5/21/07 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF PLAN APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT Jenny Crosby AT (817) 748-8195. Land Use Plan Recommendations Underlying Land Use Designation: Optional Land Use Designations: Mixed Use EC-1, EC-2, EC-R The proposed development is not in compliance with the currently adopted Consolidated Land Use Plan for the Mixed Use land use designation which recommends a maximum acreage allocation of 10% for civic uses. Further, the Plan recommends limiting civic uses in the Mixed Use land use designation to 10,000 square feet of built area. A Land Use Plan amendment is required for this development.The applicant has submitted o a letter requesting a Land Use Plan amendment for Parcel B to change the land use designation from Mixed Use to Public/Semi-Public. The applicant is requesting that the remaining parcels (A, C, and D) remain Mixed Use. No construction is planned on parcels A, C, and D in this phase of development. Case No. Attachment D ZA05-112Page 4 A land use plan amendment has been submitted concurrently to change the affected area to Public/Semi Public. If approved this designation would be appropriate for the intended zoning change. Mobility Plan & Trail Plan Recommendations Improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation north of S.H. 114 by developing an interconnected system of trails and sidewalks on all streets, providing pedestrian greenways along floodplains and creeks, and creating an interconnected network of linear greens through areas with the employment center land use designation.  The applicant has complied with this recommendation by providing sidewalks/trails along all public and private streets proposed. Specifically, the applicant is providing: 10’ multi-use trail along S.H. 114 West Bound Access Road o 8’ multi-use trail along “Street A” o 6’ sidewalk along both collector streets (“Street B” and “Street C”) that connect o “Street A” and S.H. 114 6’ sidewalks along fire lanes and throughout the parking lots. o A Pedestrian Access Plan has been submitted and the recommended sidewalks/trails have been provided. However; the sidewalks/trails should be straightened when possible. The sidewalks/trails should only meander to avoid natural features, such as trees.  Determine the optimal roadway cross section for the Kirkwood Blvd. extension through the Aventerra properties to promote safe automobile and pedestrian connectivity through any proposed development. The applicant has complied by providing a cross section for Gateway Blvd. (“Street o A”) including the trail and landscaping. Please provide the width of the parkway (6’ minimum), the width of the travel lanes (25’ maximum), and the width of the median (14’ minimum) on the cross section.  Enhance mobility by providing pedestrian, bicycle, and automotive connectivity to adjoining developments. The applicant has complied by adding language in the NR-PUD regulations o requiring connectivity between the proposed trail/sidewalk network and proposed buildings on the site to be provided at the site plan stage. Environmental Resource Protection Recommendations  Adapt development to the topography rather than topography to the development. Show the areas on the site that are to be undisturbed and disturbed accurately. o  Protect and enhance critical environmental and natural features, with particular emphasis on trees and floodplains. Allow floodplains, wetlands, and streams to remain in a natural state and preserve a tree buffer around these features. Specifically, the Environmental Resource Protection Map identifies priority areas for protection as shown below: Case No. Attachment D ZA05-112Page 5 The applicant has incorporated the following statements into the regulatory language of the o NR-PUD to ensure compliance with the Environmental Resource Protection and Mobility Recommendations of the Southlake 2025 Plan: To the extent possible, the proposed site design shall protect the existing ponds and o maximize tree preservation. To the extent possible, the proposed site design shall limit the impact of large surface o parking by incorporating parking garages. The existing flood plain and wetlands on the property shall be impacted to the o minimum extent possible and a contiguous open space network shall be provided through the site that incorporates a natural, 8’ trail. However, the concept plan is not in compliance with their own regualtions. Specifically, the o following issues should be addressed: The concept plan shows parking in the flood plain. Revise the plan to eliminate or o minimize parking in the flood plain. Case No. Attachment D ZA05-112Page 6 The existing pond/wetlands in Parcel B will be significantly disturbed with the o current layout. Revise the plan to eliminate or minimize the impact on the existing pond/wetlands. There is significant tree cover where the main building will be located and along/in o “Street C”. Revise the plan to minimize impact on the trees. Parking garages have been incorporated but the overall surface area dedicated to o parking has not been reduced. Revise the plan to reduce parking and preserve critical environmental resources. The proposed concept plan does not indicate the areas on the site that are proposed o to be preserved and are intended for building pads. The applicant needs to provide a concept plan that incorporates such detail to be able to evaluate the zoning change request’s compliance with the environmental resource protection recommendations. Once areas to be preserved are identified, pedestrian greenways should be provided o along the preserved flood plains and ponds/wetlands. L:\CITY MANAGER OFFICE\CITY SHARED\D R C\PLANNING-COMP PLAN\ZA05-112-3 COMP-PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY.DOC Case No. Attachment D ZA05-112Page 7 Case No Review No.Dated: Number of Pages: . 05-112 _Five_ August 1, 2007 4 ___ Project Name: Gateway Church (Zoning & Concept Plan) ContactPhone:Fax: : Keith Martin (817) 748-8229__________ (817) 481-5713___________ =========================================================================== The following comments are based on the review of plans received on June 29, 2007 . Comments designated with a number may be incorporated into the formal review to be considered by either the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council. Other items will not be addressed by either the P&Z or City Council. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact the department representative shown above and make modifications as required by the comment. =========================================================================== PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING: 1. The submitted Concept Plan shows large landscape areas which divide the parking lot but does not seem to provide landscape islands that break-up the rows of parking and that are placed at the ends of the rows of parking spaces, in particular on the non-multi-level structured parking surfaces. Although the applicant is requesting approval as presented, staff recommends that the non-multi-level structured parking areas fully comply with landscape parking island requirements of the Landscape Ordinance No. 544, as amended. PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE AREA REQUIREMENTS: * The parking lot landscape area requirements shall be as follows based on the percentage of parking located between the building façade and the R.O.W.. Less than 25% = 15 sq. ft. per parking stall 25% - 75% = 20 sq. ft. per parking stall Greater than 75% = 30 sq. ft. per parking stall Each row of parking stalls shall provide the required landscape area, however, it shall be the applicant's right to place the islands near the buildings, throughout the parking, or at the end of the rows away from the building. The Landscape Administrator may modify the island requirement for each row in situations where it would appear beneficial to combine an awkward or hazardous island into a larger island within the parking area. Planter islands shall have a minimum width of 12’ back-to-back if curbed or 13’ edge-to-edge if no curb is intended, and shall be equal to the length of the parking stall. Parking lot landscape areas do count towards the total required interior landscape area. a. Existing Trees: The Landscape Administrator may approve variations to the planter island requirements in order to preserve existing trees in interior parking areas. For existing trees the minimum width of the planter island shall be as follows: Tree Size Min. Island Width Min. Dist. Tree to Curb 6" - 12" DBH = 12' minimum width 4’ Greater than 12" DBH = 18' minimum width 8’ b. Planting Requirements: All planter islands in parking areas shall contain a minimum of one (1) canopy tree with the remaining area in shrubs, ground cover, grasses or seasonal color. Planter islands which have light poles for lighting the parking areas may substitute two (2) understory/accent trees for the required canopy tree. All required landscape areas shall be evenly distributed throughout the entire Case No. Attachment D ZA05-112Page 8 required parking lot landscape areas. BUFFERYARDS: 1. A 6” sanitary Sewer is proposed within the middle of the west bufferyard. Please place all public utilities and utility easements outside of the required and/or provided bufferyards and areas where trees are proposed to be preserved. * A person commits an offense if the person plants any required replacement tree or street tree within an area such that the mature critical root zone of the tree will interfere with existing or proposed underground public utility lines (including water lines, sewer lines, transmission lines or other utilities), or such that the installation and/or maintenance of such utility lines will, in reasonable probability, require activity in the mature critical root zone of such tree; LANDSCAPE SUMMARY CHARTS: 1. The interior and bufferyard landscape charts are not required to be provided with a Concept Plan submittal but were provided. The “Required” interior landscape calculations are incorrect and the “Provided” interior landscape area and plant material calculations are not shown in the Interior Landscape Summary Chart. TREE CONSERVATION PLAN: 1. Only an 11”x17” color Tree Conservation Analysis was submitted with the Concept Plan submittal. Please submit a full size Tree Conservation Analysis with the Concept Plan along with the tree identification spreadsheet that identifies the trees that are surveyed and numbered on the Tree Conservation Analysis. A Tree Conservation Plan will be required to be submitted with the submittal of all Site Plans. Unlike a Tree Conservation Analysis, a Tree Conservation Plan must identify all trees on site which are 6” diameter and over and all trees being removed and being preserved must be clearly marked. TREE CONSERVATION: 1. The proposed parking for the sanctuary portion of the development comprises close to 50% or more of the total land area that is proposed to be developed in Tract B. The previously submitted Concept Plan proposed parking structures that reduced some of the total area comprised by parking but the currently submitted Concept Plan does not proposed any parking structures. The only existing trees proposed to be preserved within the parking areas are within a 160’X40’ landscape island within the southeast corner of the development. Mitigation for Parking: If a person provides parking spaces in addition to the required number of parking spaces, the person shall be required to replace trees which are required to be altered due to the parking or to make payment to the City Reforestation Fund, or a combination thereof, as directed by the Landscape Administrator. The following formula shall be used to calculate the number of trees to be replaced or the payment due: The Landscape Administrator shall identify the total number of Case No. Attachment D ZA05-112Page 9 parking spaces above the number required by the Zoning Ordinance and calculate the number of trees to be replaced or mitigated based on an equivalent number of spaces in the lot containing the greatest number of trees. 2. The street labeled as the West Collector cuts directly through the middle of a stand of existing Post Oaks and Blackjack Oaks. A small area of trees are proposed to be preserved along the east side of the street and on the adjacent parcel to the west of the street but the majority of the existing trees in the stand would be removed for the construction of the street. 3. An 8” water line is proposed to be placed directly through the middle of the existing trees proposed to be preserved within the southeast corner of Phase 1 of the development. Please route all utilities where as not to interfere with existing trees proposed to be preserved and areas of landscaping where trees are proposed to be planted. Non-residential Development: * In a non-residential development, all protected trees that the Landscape Administrator determines must be altered in order to install utility lines within public R.O.W. or public utility or drainage easements as shown on an approved Final Plat, or to install fire lanes, required parking areas and building pad sites as shown on an approved Site Plan, shall be exempt from the tree protection and tree replacement requirements listed in Sections 7 and 8 of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Any protected trees within these areas that the Landscape Administrator determines do not have to be altered shall be subject to the tree protection requirements listed in Section 8 of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, but not to the tree replacement requirements listed in Section 7 of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. All other areas of the development shall be subject to both the tree replacement and the tree protection requirements, and all other provisions of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PROTECTION: 1. Staff recommends that further design effort be made with regard for the preservation of existing environmental resources on the property. The existing main pond that can be seen from Highway 114 is not shown to be accommodated for on the plans even though the applicants Design Narrative states that it will be reconfigured into a water feature. The submitted Preliminary Plat shows other existing Wet Lands on the property which are not accommodated for and the road labeled as Blessed Way cuts through the western edge of the existing pond along the south boundary of Lot 1, Block 2. Parking covers a significant portion of the first phase of the development. Parking structures could be utilized to reduce the area needed to provide such an immense amount of parking while reducing the total area needed to provide the parking. Case No. Attachment D ZA05-112Page 10 TREE PRESERVATION ANALYSIS (Non-Residential Development) Case: 05-0112 Date of Review: August 1, 2007Number of Pages: 1 Project Name: Gateway Church (Zoning & Concept Plan) THIS ANALYSIS IS PREPARED AT THE TIME OF REVIEW OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT AND IS TO PROVIDE AN ANALYSIS OF THE PLAN OR SURVEY AND THE IMPACT OF CONSTRUCTION ON ANY PROTECTED TREES ON THE SITE. FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATION CONTACT KEITH MARTIN, LANDSCAPE ADMINISTRATOR AT (817) 481-5640 TREE PRESERVATION COMMENTS: * Although some plan modification has been made to save trees along the SH114 frontage west of Blessed Way, staff believes additional design modification can be made to further preserve the natural tree coverage. 1. The proposed road in the far west portion of the property cuts directly through the middle of a large stand of existing Post Oak and Blackjack Oak Trees. Please reconsideration the need for this extension. 2. The proposed parking for the sanctuary portion of the development comprises close to 50% or more of the total land area that is proposed to be developed in Parcel ‘B’. The construction and use of parking garages would cut the area needed for parking in half or more, preserve existing trees, reduce the need to mass grade the entire site, provide shade to park, and place parking closer to the main building area. The use of additional parking garages would also provide more land that could develop for preservation or other uses and be closer to the main building area. Non-residential Development: * In a non-residential development, all protected trees that the Landscape Administrator determines must be altered in order to install utility lines within public R.O.W. or public utility or drainage easements as shown on an approved Final Plat, or to install fire lanes, required parking areas and building pad sites as shown on an approved Site Plan, shall be exempt from the tree protection and tree replacement requirements listed in Sections 7 and 8 of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Any protected trees within these areas that the Landscape Administrator determines do not have to be altered shall be subject to the tree protection requirements listed in Section 8 of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, but not to the tree replacement requirements listed in Section 7 of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. All other areas of the development shall be subject to both the tree replacement and the tree protection requirements, and all other provisions of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Case No. Attachment D ZA05-112Page 11 Case No. ZA 05-112 Review No. 5 Dated: 8/01/07 Number of Pages: 2 Project Name: Gateway Church – Zoning Change & Concept Plan Contact: Cheryl Taylor, Civil Engineer Phone: (817) 748-8100 Fax: (817) 748-8077 Email: ctaylor@ci.southlake.tx.us The following comments are based on the review of plans received on 1/4/2006. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact the department representative shown above and make modifications as required by the comment. GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. The proposed alignment of Gateway Church Blvd. connecting to North Carroll Avenue including the connection to East Highland Street will need to be laid out prior to preliminary plat approval. 2. ROW dedication may be required for the connection with East Highland Street. 3. If only 2 lanes are constructed with the first phase of this development, the first 200’ of the full intersection at Kimball should be constructed to allow for a left turn lane onto Kimball. * The raised median at Kimball Avenue needs to stay behind the ultimate future ROW of Kimball. * Street Paving - The future arterial will require minimum 8” pavement. * All water and sanitary sewer lines shall be constructed in the parkway, not under the pavement, when possible. * Use the City of Southlake GPS monuments whenever possible. EASEMENT COMMENTS: 1.The 100-year floodplain, and all detention areas will need to be shown as drainage easements. All easements shall be dedicated by plat. 2. A 20” water line on the south side of SH 114 will need to be extended to the north side of SH 114. A 20’ water line easement dedication may be required to the west property line. DRAINAGE COMMENTS: 1. Provide a drainage report or commentary detailing how detention, flood plain, and on-site and off-site storm water conveyance will be addressed. 2. The drainage study shall include drainage area maps with an explanation of the calculations, drainage areas, and layout of the storm sewer system – including all on-site and off-site drainage areas and existing and proposed Q’s for the 5, 10 and 100- year storms. 3. The proposed concrete headwall that crosses Street A may not outfall onto the adjacent property without an easement. 4. The preliminary drainage study provided did not include the culvert under Sh114 which conveys storm water from off-site drainage areas. The culvert typically remains full during storm events. This development will need to breach the existing dam on the pond to allow drainage to flow through the culvert as planned. * This property drains into Critical Drainage Structures #12 ($983.63/acre) and #13 ($371.20/acre) and requires a fee to be paid before construction. * The discharge of post development runoff must have no adverse impact on downstream properties and meet the provisions of Ordinance # 605. Case No. Attachment D ZA05-112Page 12 INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS: * Submit Civil construction plans to Public Works Administration. Ensure that plans conform to the most recent construction plan checklist and include the City of Southlake standard details and general notes which are located on the City’s website under Public Works~Engineering Design Standards. http://www.cityofsouthlake.com/PublicWorks/engineeringdesign.asp * A Developer Agreement may be required for this development and must be approved by the City Council prior to any construction of public infrastructure. Construction plans for these improvements must be approved by Public Works prior to placing the Developer Agreement on the City Council agenda for consideration. * Any hazardous waste being discharged must be pretreated Ordinance No. 836. * This review is preliminary. Additional requirements may be necessary with the review of construction plans. *=Denotes informational comment. Case No. Attachment D ZA05-112Page 13 Surrounding Property Owners Gateway Church SPO # Owner Zoning Land Use Acreage 1. Current Owner SF1-A Low Density Residential 1.035 2. Current Owner SF1-A Low Density Residential 1.015 3. Current Owner SF1-A Low Density Residential 1.028 100-Year Flood Plain, Medium 4. Current Owner SF20A Density Residential 1.085 5. Chowdhury, Faroque Alam SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.5 6. Brooks, William David, Jr SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.468 7. Woomer, Scott Etux Rayeann SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.46 Low Density Residential, 8. Patterson, B H Etux Virginia AG Medium Density Residential 1.725 Low Density Residential, Mixed 9. Use, Medium Patterson, Burton H Etux Virg AG Density Residential 1.394 10. Herndon, Boyd K Etux Susan K SF1-A Low Density Residential 1.205 11. Thomas, Donald Etux Connie SF1-A Low Density Residential 1.336 Low Density Residential, 12. Junell, Michael SF1-A Public/Semi-Public 1.236 Low Density Residential, Mixed 13. Cook, Steven E Etux Katherine SF1-A Use 1.318 Low Density Residential, Mixed 14. Hardin, Roger D Etux Ann C SF1-A Use 1.412 Case No. Attachment E ZA05-112Page 1 Low Density Residential, 15. Huning, Eric Etux Mary SF1-A Medium Density Residential 2.614 16. Schulz, Laura A Etvir Edwin R AG Retail Commercial 0.287 Mixed Use, Retail 17. Schenk, Joel AG Commercial 0.248 18. Collins, Ted SF1-A Retail Commercial 0.504 Mixed Use, Retail 19. Johnson, Deborah Bohannon Etal AG Commercial 0.479 Mixed Use, Retail 20. Carroll ISD AG Commercial 1.041 21. Nec Carroll & 114 Ltd Prtnshp AG Retail Commercial 0.163 22. Nec Carroll & 114 Ltd Prtnshp AG Retail Commercial 0.21 23. Nec Carroll & 114 Ltd Prtnshp AG Retail Commercial 0.019 Mixed Use, Retail 24. D/Fw Carroll Road Ltd SP1 Commercial 0.744 Mixed Use, Retail 25. D/Fw Carroll Road Ltd SP1 Commercial 0.485 26. Don L Taylor Homes Ltd SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.467 27. J Lambert Construction Inc SF20A Medium Density Residential 0.469 Medium Density Residential, 28. Dallas Cornerstone Classic Bld SF20A 100-Year Flood Plain 0.518 Medium Density Residential, 29. Dallas Cornerstone Classic Bld SF20A 100-Year Flood Plain 0.573 30. Southlake/Terra Lp SF20A 100-Year Flood Plain 1.023 31. Howell, Dan Etux Marguerite MF1 Mixed Use 0.976 32. Ekstrom, Delton E SF1-A Mixed Use 1.052 33. Coty, Rita SF1-A Mixed Use 0.911 34. Moss, Angelia J Etvir Jack A SF1-A Mixed Use 1.094 35. Kaufman, James & Denise Hines SF1-A Mixed Use 1.346 36. Pafel, Thomas D Etux Marcia L SF1-A Mixed Use 1.048 37. Brown, Ronni Etvir Richard SF1-A Mixed Use 1.288 38. Calais Construction Inc SF1-A Low Density Residential 0.996 39. St Emilion Partners SF1-A Low Density Residential 0.971 40. Carroll Road Baptist Church CS Public/Semi-Public 1.036 41. Transport Workers Union, #513 O1 Mixed Use 2.182 Mixed Use, Retail 42. Gateway Church NRPUD Commercial 16.874 Office Commercial, 43. Carroll ISD CS Retail Commercial 5.2 Low Density Residential, Mixed 44. Gateway Church NRPUD Use 89.611 45. Carroll ISD AG Mixed Use 0.7 Mixed Use, Office 46. Eubanks, Marie Est AG Commercial 1.658 47. Carroll ISD AG Mixed Use 0.614 Mixed Use, Office 48. Commercial, Retail Carroll ISD CS Commercial 3.928 Mixed Use, Retail 49. Carroll ISD AG Commercial 0.98 Case No. Attachment E ZA05-112Page 2 50. Gateway Church NRPUD Mixed Use 0.252 51. Texas, State Of NRPUD Mixed Use 0.338 52. Greenway-Berk Partners, Lp AG Mixed Use 0.098 53. Gateway Church NRPUD Mixed Use 5.276 54. Greenway-Berk Partners, Lp AG Mixed Use 3.483 100-Year Flood Plain, 55. Low Density Residential, Hillman, Luther L AG Medium Density Residential 3.94 Low Density Residential, 56. Medium Density Residential, Taylor, Earnest E Jr AG Public/Semi-Public 8.105 Low Density Residential, Mixed 57. Carroll ISD AG Use 26.488 Low Density Residential, 58. Knight, Harold I AG Mixed Use 11.156 Low Density Residential, Mixed 59. Carter, Linda Hilliard AG Use 1.839 Low Density Residential, Mixed 60. Use, Medium Gateway Church NRPUD Density Residential 10.525 61. Stegall, Molly Barton AG Mixed Use 1.553 62. Gateway Church NRPUD Mixed Use 1.782 63. Gateway Church NRPUD Mixed Use 8.593 Low Density Residential, 64. Patterson, Burton Etux Virgini AG Medium Density Residential 6.055 65. Stewart, Timothy Sean AG Low Density Residential 2.026 66. Wells Fargo Bank Na AG Low Density Residential 0.808 67. Gateway Church NRPUD Mixed Use 6.614 68. Gateway Church NRPUD Mixed Use 48.972 Mixed Use, 69. Lela T Boyd Dynasty Trust AG Public/Semi-Public 14.82 70. Fechtel, Joe NRPUD Mixed Use 0.063 71. Fechtel, Joe NRPUD Mixed Use 0.232 72. Greenway-Berk Partners, Lp AG Mixed Use 8.15 73. Fechtel, Joe NRPUD Mixed Use 0.085 74. Greenway-Berk Partners, Lp AG Mixed Use 7.838 75. Greenway-Berk Partners, Lp AG Mixed Use 1.459 76. Braun, Fred SF1-A Low Density Residential 1.536 Case No. Attachment E ZA05-112Page 3 Surrounding Property Owner Responses Gateway Church Notices Sent: Seventy-six (76). Responses Received: Five (5).  Southlake/Terra Lp (SPO #30), 395 W Northwest Pkwy, Ste 300, submitted a Favor Notification Response Form in on July 3, 2007 (see attached).  Greenway Investment Company (SPO # 52, 54, 72, 74, 75), Favor submitted a Letter in on July 5, 2007 (see attached).  Boyd & Susan Herndon (SPO #10), 1201 Ashmore Ct., submitted a Notification Opposition Response Form in on July 9, 2007 (see attached 2 pages).  DFW International Airport – Harvey Holden, Noise Compatibility Office, submitted a Letter on July 26, 2007 (see attached).  Dr. Ray Chancellor, 890 Harbor Court, submitted a Letter on July 27, 2007 (see attached) Case No. Attachment F ZA05-112 Page 1 Case No. Attachment F ZA05-112 Page 2 Case No. Attachment F ZA05-112 Page 3 Case No. Attachment F ZA05-112 Page 4 Case No. Attachment F ZA05-112 Page 5 Case No. Attachment F ZA05-112 Page 6 Case No. Attachment F ZA05-112 Page 7 Case No. Attachment F ZA05-112 Page 8 Case No. Attachment F ZA05-112 Page 9 Case No. Attachment F ZA05-112 Page 10 Case No. Attachment F ZA05-112 Page 11 Case No. Attachment F ZA05-112 Page 12 Case No. Attachment F ZA05-112 Page 13 Case No. Attachment F ZA05-112 Page 14 Case No. Attachment F ZA05-112 Page 15 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 1 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 2 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 3 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 4 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 5 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 6 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 7 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 8 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 9 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 10 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 11 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 12 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 13 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 14 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 15 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 16 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 17 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 18 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 19 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 20 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 21 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 22 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 23 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 24 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 25 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 26 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 27 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 28 Plan per Ordinance 480-222 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 29 Ordinance 480-222a Revised Regulations Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 30 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 31 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 32 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 33 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 34 Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 35 Revised Plan per Ordinance 480-222a Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 36 Reserved for Final Supplemental Support Plans and Documents Case No. Attachment G ZA05-112 Page 37