Item 7FCity of Southlake
Department of Planning
S T A F F R E P O R T
April 12, 2006
ZA06-001
CASE NO:
Revised Site Plan for Whites Chapel Methodist Church
PROJECT:
REQUEST:
On behalf of Whites Chapel United Methodist Church, Jacobs & Associates is requesting
approval of a revised site plan under the existing “CS” zoning for expansion of the church
campus. The plan proposes the following changes:
1.The replacement of the existing single-story classroom wing in the northwest corner with
a two-story Sunday school classroom and fellowship building of approximately 11,192
square feet (Classroom Building ‘A’);
2.Adding a two-story Sunday school classroom building in the northeast portion of the
campus of approximately 20,547 square feet (Classroom Building ‘B’);
3.Adding a wedding chapel facility adjacent to the pond in the south portion of the campus
of approximately 1,516 square feet;
4.Adding eighty-one (81) additional parking spaces in accordance with a cross access and
parking agreement with the adjacent Chapel Hill office complex;
5.Including four existing portable buildings located in the central part of the campus and
approving them as permanent structures. A special exception use permit was approved
by the Zoning Board of Adjustments (ZBA) allowing the buildings to remain until June
24, 2007. The ZBA can approve consecutive one year extensions following that
expiration date. Because the buildings were inspected by the City and meet the current
building code as permanent structures, the applicant is requesting approval as permanent
buildings on this site plan. A variance to the City’s Masonry Ordinance is being
requested for these buildings.
The following variances are requested:
Articulation: Horizontal and vertical articulation permitted as shown on building
elevations. The west façade of Classroom Building ‘A’ is visible from S. White Chapel
Boulevard and does not comply with horizontal or vertical articulation.
Roof Material: Standing seam metal roofs of a non-metallic factory matte finish are
permitted. The applicant is requesting to match the existing roof which is a standing
seam galvanized metal roof.
Height of Steeple (Wedding Chapel): Max. permitted is 50 ft. Requesting 61 ft.
Masonry: The four (4) portable buildings do not comply with masonry requirements.
Requesting variance per Masonry Ordinance No. 557, as amended.
Case No.
ZA 06-001
1. Conduct public hearing
ACTION NEEDED:
2. Consider revised site plan approval
ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information
(B) Vicinity Map
(C) Plans and Support Information
Site Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated March 31, 2006
(D)
(E) Surrounding Property Owners Map
(F) Surrounding Property Owners Responses
(G) Full Size Plans (for Commission and Council Members Only)
STAFF CONTACT: Ken Baker (748-8067)
Dennis Killough (748-8072)
Case No.
ZA 06-001
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
OWNER: Whites Chapel United Methodist Church
APPLICANT: Jacobs & Associates
PROPERTY SITUATION: The property is located at 175 E. Southlake Boulevard
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tracts 3D1 & 3D2, H. Granberry Survey, Abstract No. 581; Tracts 5A, 5G,
5H, & 5F1, O.W. Knight Survey, Abstract No. 899; Tract 1, Whites Chapel
Cemetery Association Survey, Abstract No. 2041; Tract 1, Pleasant Hill Adv.
Ch. Survey, Abstract No. 2039; and Lot 1, Block A, White Chapel Methodist
Church Addition
LAND USE CATEGORY: Public/Semi Public
CURRENT ZONING: “CS” Community Service District
HISTORY: -A final plat was approved by City Council on September 16, 1986.
-A concept plan was approved by City Council on November 21, 1995.
-A change of zoning to “CS” and concept plan were approved by City Council
June 2, 1998.
-A plat revision was approved by City Council on September 1, 1998.
-City Council approved a zoning change to “CS” and a revised site plan for the
overall property on May 16, 2000.
-City Council also approved a preliminary plat for the overall property on May
16, 2000.
-A plat vacation for the existing lot was approved by City Council on October
3, 2000.
-A final plat was approved by P&Z on December 7, 2000. This plat was not
filed.
-A special exception use was approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment to
allow for the four portable buildings for a period of three years on June 24,
2004. The Board waived the permanent foundation and masonry requirements
for the buildings.
TRANSPORTATION
Master Thoroughfare Plan
ASSESSMENT:
The Master Thoroughfare Plan recommends Southlake Boulevard to have 130
feet of right-of-way and S. White Chapel to be a 2-lane, undivided arterial street
with 88 feet of right-of-way. Adequate right-of-way exists for these roadways.
Existing Area Road Network and Conditions
Case No. Attachment A
ZA 06-001 Page 1
The driveways on the site are existing with the site having one (1) access
directly onto E. Southlake Boulevard (F.M. 1709), one (1) access onto S.
White Chapel Boulevard, and one (1) access onto Pine Drive.
E. Southlake Boulevard is a 5-lane, undivided thoroughfare with a continuous,
two-way center left-turn lane. The roadway will be resurfaced and re-striped to
a 7-lane roadway this summer. S. White Chapel Boulevard is a 4-lane, divided
thoroughfare with a median along the frontage of the church property. Pine
Drive is a 2-lane, undivided local roadway.
May, 2005 traffic counts on F.M. 1709 (between White Chapel and
Byron Nelson Pkwy)
24hr 21,03622,524
West Bound (WB) () East Bound (EB) ()
WB 1,1402,236
Peak A.M. () Peak P.M. ()
5 – 6 p.m.
11:15 – 12:15 a.m.
EB 2,2181,491
Peak A.M. () Peak P.M. ()
7:45 – 8:45 a.m.
12:15 – 1:15 p.m.
May, 2005 traffic counts on S. White Chapel ( between FM 1709 and
Continental Blvd)
24hr 3,9454,184
North Bound (NB) () South Bound (SB) ()
NB 285315
Peak A.M. () Peak P.M. ()
8:15 – 9:15 a.m.5:45 – 6:45 p.m.
SB 269420
Peak A.M. () Peak P.M. ()
11:15 – 12:15 a.m.5:15 – 6:15 p.m.
Traffic Impact
Use Sq. Ft. Vtpd* AM-AM-PM-PM-
IN OUT IN OUT
Church Facility (New) 33,255 303 13 11 12 10
*Vehicle Trips Per Day
**The AM/PM times represent the number of vehicle trips generated during the peak travel time
on E. Southlake Blvd and S. White Chapel Blvd.
PATHWAYS MASTER
PLAN: The Pathways Master Plan recommends an 8-foot, Multi-use trail along the
south side of E. Southlake Boulevard. The trail exists and is shown on the site
plan.
WATER & SEWER: The site will connect into the existing utility lines located within the
development.
TREE PRESERVATION: The only existing trees proposed to be removed are within the proposed
building pad foot prints of the New Classrooms “B” and New Chapel “C” and
the proposed parking adjacent to the Chapel Hill office complex. Seven (7)
existing native trees are proposed to be removed for the construction of
Building “B”, and two previously installed landscape trees are proposed to be
removed for the construction of Building “C”. Four (4) trees potentially will
Case No. Attachment A
ZA 06-001 Page 2
need to be removed for the additional parking. However, these trees will be
required to be mitigated as required by the Tree Preservation Ordinance.
DRAINAGE ANALYSIS: This development drains to the existing pond, and to the existing storm drain
system in S. White Chapel Boulevard.
SOUTHLAKE 2025: Land Use Recommendations
Existing land use designations – Public/Semi-Public.
P&Z ACTION: April 6, 2006; Approved (5-0) subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 3,
dated March 31, 2006; granting height waiver to allow the 61 foot steeple;
granting variance to articulation and to roof material; and, allowing all
classrooms as temporary buildings with variance to masonry requirements until
June 24, 2010.
STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Site Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated March 31, 2006.
N:\Community Development\MEMO\2005cases\06-001RSP.doc
Case No. Attachment A
ZA 06-001 Page 3
Case No. Attachment B
ZA 06-001 Page 1
Additional
parking
Classroom Building ‘B’
Wedding Chapel
Classroom Building ‘A’
Existing Portable Buildings
Case No. Attachment C
ZA 06-001 Page 1
Case No. Attachment C
ZA 06-001 Page 2
Case No. Attachment C
ZA 06-001 Page 3
Case No. Attachment C
ZA 06-001 Page 4
Case No. Attachment C
ZA 06-001 Page 5
Case No. Attachment C
ZA 06-001 Page 6
Case No. Attachment C
ZA 06-001 Page 7
Case No. Attachment C
ZA 06-001 Page 8
SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY
ZA06-001Three03/31/06
Case No.: Review No.: Date of Review:
RevisedSite Plan
Project Name: – White’s Chapel United Methodist Church
APPLICANT: Jacobs and Associates OWNER: White’s Chapel UMC
Brent Kline Jeff Miller
4101 McEwen Dr, Suite 150 185 S. White Chapel Blvd
Dallas, TX 75244 Southlake, TX 76092
Phone: (972) 490-1888 Phone: (817) 481-4147
Fax: (972) 490-1890 Fax: (817) 481-2140
CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 03/20/06 AND WE
OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF SITE PLAN
APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED
FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT DENNIS KILLOUGH AT (817) 748-8069 OR BEN BRYNER AT (817) 748-
8602.
1.Use a standard engineering scale (1” = 100’, 1”=60’, etc).
2.The following changes are needed with regard to the architectural elevations:
(A waiver is requested as permitted
a.Reduce the height of the steeple to be no taller than 50’.
under Ordinance No. 480, Section 33. 5b, as amended)
b.Provide horizontal and vertical articulation meeting the requirements of Ord. 480, Section
43.9.c.1.c on all facades visible from a Corridor R.O.W. and/or any portion of the building
(A variance is requested)
within 400’ of a property zoned or designated residential.
(Variance requested
c.Standing seam metal roofs must be of a non-metallic factory matte finish.
to match existing roofs )
d.The portable buildings were approved by ZBA on June 24, 2004 for a period of three (3) years,
subject to renewal for additional one (1) year periods, and waiving the permanent foundation
and masonry requirements for the buildings. Due to the buildings having been inspected as
permanent buildings, applicant is requesting permanent approval of these buildings as part of
(A variance is
this site plan. These buildings do not meet the minimum masonry requirements.
requested under the provisions of Masonry Ordinance 557, as amended)
INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS
* 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.
Case No. Attachment D
ZA 06-001 Page 1
* All development must comply with the City’s Drainage Ordinance No. 605 and detain all post
development run-off.
* No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan. A separate building permit is required prior
to construction of any signs.
* 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, a fully corrected 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.
Case No. Attachment D
ZA 06-001 Page 2
Case No Review No.Dated: Number of Pages:
. 06-001 _Two_ March 9, 2006 2 ___
Project Name:
Whites Chapel Methodist Church (Revised Site Plan)
Comments due to the Planning Department:
March 9, 2006_____
ContactPhone:Fax:
: Keith Martin (817) 748-8229__________ (817) 481-5713___________
===========================================================================
The following comments are based on the review of plans received on February 27, 2006 . 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.
===========================================================================
Are the bufferyards correctly shown and labeled?
1. Yes. The required bufferyard plantings for the development were installed during the previously
approved and permitted construction.
Does the plan meet the interior landscape requirements?
1. Yes, the plan meets the interior landscape requirements and has enough existing tree credits to meet the
need of any other required trees being planted.
Does the plan meet the parking lot landscaping requirements?
* The parking has not changed from the previously approved Site Plan.
Are the parking/bufferyard/landscaping summary charts correct?
* Yes.
Is a tree survey required?
* A tree survey of the property was provided with the Site Plan submittal.
TREE PRESERVATION COMMENTS:
1. The only existing trees proposed to be removed are within the proposed building pad foot prints of the
New Classrooms “B” and New Chapel “C” and the proposed parking adjacent to the Chapel Hill office
complex. Seven (7) existing native trees are proposed to be removed for the construction of Building
“B”, and two previously installed landscape trees are proposed to be removed for the construction of
Building “C”. Four (4) trees potentially will need to be removed for the additional parking. However,
these trees will be required to be mitigated as required by the Tree Preservation Ordinance.
Case No. Attachment D
ZA 06-001 Page 3
* 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
ZA 06-001 Page 4
Surrounding Property Owners
Whites Chapel Methodist Church
Owner Zoning Land Use Acreage
1.Tracy, Todd & Amanda SF-1A Low Density Residential
2.White, Michael & Carolyn SF-1A Low Density Residential
3.RCP Southlake # 1 Ltd SP-2 Office Commercial
4.RCP Southlake # 1 Ltd SP-2 Office Commercial
5.RCP Southlake # 1 Ltd SP-2 Office Commercial
6.RCP Southlake # 1 Ltd SP-2 Office Commercial
7.RCP Southlake # 1 Ltd SP-2 Office Commercial
8.RCP Southlake # 1 Ltd SP-2 Office Commercial
9.Costello, John & Maria C-2 Office Commercial
10.Jobe, Brian & Katiellyn SF-1A Low Density Residential
11.Bryant, Sullivan SF-1A Low Density Residential
12.Nmen Ltd CS Office Commercial
Case No. Attachment E
ZA 06-001 Page 1
13.Gcsw Ltd O-1 Office Commercial
14.Mdc Southlake 1709 LP SP-2 Office Commercial
15.Mdc Southlake 1709 LP SP-2 Office Commercial
16.Mdc Southlake 1709 LP SP-2 Office Commercial
17.Elliott, Bryan V SF-1A Low Density Residential
18.Hatfield, J Classic Homes Ltd SF-20A Medium Density Residential
19.Hall, Benjamin L & Kristi H SF-20A Medium Density Residential
20.Grosskopf, Scott & Laura SF-20A Medium Density Residential
21.Wright, Carolyn E SF-20A Medium Density Residential
22.Sahba, Shahriar & Shiva SF-20A Medium Density Residential
23.Surian, Kenneth & Sandra SF-20A Medium Density Residential
24.McKenzie, Graeme A SF-20A Medium Density Residential
25.Jones, Julius SF-20A Medium Density Residential
26.Dastugue, Michael & Cherly SF-20A Medium Density Residential
27.White’s Chapel UM Church CS Public / Semi-Public
28.Lechler, Gloria O-1 Office Commercial
29.City of Southlake AG Low Density Residential
30.White’s Chapel UM Church CS Public / Semi-Public
31.West, Alma V AG Low Density Residential
32.White’s Chapel Cemetery CS Public / Semi-Public
33.White’s Chapel UM Church CS Public / Semi-Public
34.White’s Chapel UM Church CS Public / Semi-Public
35.White’s Chapel UM Church CS Public / Semi-Public
36.White’s Chapel UM Church CS Public / Semi-Public
37.White’s Chapel Cemetery CS Public / Semi-Public
Case No. Attachment E
ZA 06-001 Page 2
Surrounding Property Owner Responses
Whites Chapel United Methodist Church
Notices Sent: Twenty-Four (24)
Responses Received: None (0)
Case No. Attachment F
ZA 06-001 Page 1