Item 6B (2)City of Southlake
Department of Planning
S T A F F R E P O R T
August 15, 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.
1. Conduct public hearing
ACTION NEEDED:
2. Consider second reading for zoning change and concept plan approval
ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information
(B) Vicinity Map
(C) Link to Plans and Support Information
Concept Plan Review Summary No. 6, August 15, 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.
st
August 7, 2007; Approved 1 reading (7-0) Subject to the applicant’s
agreement to bury utilities along S. H. 114 but understanding the applicant
will need to receive approval from the utility companies; to delete the stub on
nd
Blessed Lane as described by Councilmember Terrell; to submit with the 2
reading appropriate color renderings to comply with the technical plans
Case No. Attachment A
ZA05-112Page 1
showing the link to Kirkwood; to note that the landscaping plan is not being
approved at this time but will be considered on future applications; subject to
the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 5,
2007; subject to Concept Plan Review Summary No. 5, dated August 1, 2007;
to include a variation to the Master Thoroughfare Plan as described by
Planning Director Baker as to Grace Lane; and to require materials to be of
similar type and amount indicated on renderings but noting the materials are
not being approved at this time but being assured materials will be similar to
what is depicted in drawings tonight.
STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Concept Plan Review Summary No. 6 dated August 15, 2007.
N:\Community Development\MEMO\2005cases\05-112ZCP.doc
Case No. Attachment B
ZA01-090Page 2
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
ZONING AND CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW
. - ZA05-112 SixDate of Review: 8/15/07
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 8/13/07 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.
* Approval of street geometry and exact roadway alignments shall be determined with review
and approval of subsequent plats for this property. All alignments are intended to be
conceptual.
2.The following issues pertain to uses and development regulations:
a.Change statement under Parcel G to include that it shall have the same uses and regulations
(allowing certain uses by SUP) as the current zoning under 480-222.
* Although the design guidelines discuss sign concepts, all signage is subject to the Sign
Ordinance No. 704, as amended and subject to separate permitting and approval. It is
recommended that comprehensive sign plans be submitted concurrently with subsequent site
plans where appropriate.
Case No. Attachment D
ZA05-112Page 1
3.The following need to be added to the plan:
a.Sidewalk/Trail required on both sides of proposed Kirkwood Blvd.
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.
Case No. Attachment D
ZA05-112Page 2
* 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
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
ZA05-112Six8/15/07
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 _Six_ August 15, 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:
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
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
Case No. Attachment D
ZA05-112Page 9
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 15, 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. 6 Dated: 8/15/07 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 and another received August 7, 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 F
ZA05-112 Page
16
Ordinance 480-222a
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