Loading...
Item 7DCity of Southlake Department of Planning STAFF REPORT May 31, 2006 CASE NO PROJECT ZA05 -173 Preliminary Plat Carroll Crossroads being Tracts 4G, 4D1, & 4E 1, O.W. Knight Survey, Abstract No. 899, aka Carroll Crossroads. REQUEST: On behalf of RCP Southlake Blvd. 4 2, LTD., Raymond L. Goodson, Jr., Inc. is requesting approval of a preliminary plat. ACTION NEEDED: Consider preliminary plat approval ATTACHMENTS: (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Background Information Vicinity Map Plans and Support Information Revised Plat Review Summary No.2 dated March 15, 2006 Surrounding Property Owners Map Surrounding Property Owners Responses Full Size Plans (Ibr Comnaivsv and Council Member. � Only) STAFF CONTACT: Ken Baker (748 -8067) Dennis Killough (748 -8072) Case No. ZA05 -173 BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNER: RCP Southlake Blvd. 4 2, LTD APPLICANT: Raymond L. Goodson, Jr., Inc. PROPERTY SITUATION: The property is located approximately 375 feet west of the southwest corner of E. Southlake Blvd. and S. Carroll Avenue. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tracts 4G, 4D1, & 4E1, O.W. Knight Survey, Abstract No. 899 LAND USE CATEGORY: Office Commercial with a "T -1" Transition overlay option CURRENT ZONING: "AG" Agricultural District PROPOSED ZONING: "S -P -2" Generalized Site Plan District P &Z ACTION: February 9, 2006; Approved (5 -0) subject to Plat Review Summary No. 1 dated January 17, 2006. COUNCIL ACTION: March 6, 2006; Approved (7 -0) to table until March 21, 2006. March 21, 2006; Approved (7 -0) to table until June 6, 2006. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Revised Plat Review Summary No. 2 dated March 15, 2006. N:',Conuminity Development DIEDIO 2005cases`,05- 173PP.doc Case No. Attachment A ZA05 -173 Page 1 Vicinity Map Tracts 4D1 , 4E'I, & 4G O.W. yr� Knight Survey, Abstract No. 899 \V Case No. Attachment B ZA05 -173 Page 1 o ~' o w I l"r l"r (7 �y .:Fnrnr_ - $ •I . s aA rV �W� Y = k W � .a'rF rf �•��r w�i +;p -rte, [Ur J B IilA e 4 SG4Ml0C FSF ? ACPd: aar+x {ar„ au d#f '7[NM FCC7 roxFS ayas I I. �I .s lip ,R WO A CWT f ` - agau antisr rrrF I f� I I -� c R I reoads �I a II Rpm m�.x.�� �•�.. II E sate � 1 I I I I 4 rte•. I s+sa� ar. �,.� . = "z -rear' SgFgSkC r. rmr m' -' x'39 : '�t VI ,, tv6ti]lJNfACfRr 'pa r gars +, z. s. vcrr a PO rw BAPMW r b?+1CNr S61kvS7,I"Mucr No op a wt& rlrr or a+a u7zers�c fAR W7 aalW1Y. rcr�.:a 1 .tl fp[B � . �+ GirT P2dF{aa1 F 2F!! � �rrw arreaeanc Rr. rra �.� m rnsstx� ek ur ,,, y P Fr f�I ri_� 5 d i41S1U �—, r) PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA05 -173 Revised Review No.: Two Date of Review: 3/15/06 Project Name: Preliminary Plat for Tracts 4G, 4D1, & 4E1, O.W. Knight Survey, Abstract No. 899, aka Carroll Crossroads. APPLICANT: Steve Gregory Hopkins Commercial Phone: 214 - 956 -7881 SURVEYOR/ENGINEER: R.L. Goodson. Fulton & Farrell Phone: 214 - 739 -8100 CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 2 /15 /06 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT DENNIS KILLOUGH AT (817) 748 -8072 OR BEN BRYNER (817) 748 -8602. At the time of site plan and /or final plat review for this project, staff recommends that needed cross - section width and whether it should remain a public street or be designated as a common access easement be re- evaluated. 2. Approval from TxDOT is required for all intersections into FM1709 /Southlake Blvd. 3. All lots and other aspects of the plat must comply with the underlying zoning district regulations. The lots as proposed do not comply with the "AG" zoning regulations. As proposed, approval ofthis plat is subject to receiving approval of an appropriate zoning change on each lot of the plat. 4. Easements for water, sewer, drainage and /or access must be provided in compliance with approved construction plans and should be determined at the time of site plan/final plat submittal. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS Please be aware that subdivision of property without recording an appropriate plat in the County records following required approval(s) may be in violation of both State law and the City's Subdivision Ordinance No. 483 and may be subject to penalties in accordance Section 9 of said ordinance as amended. A final plat and developer's agreement be approved and all required fees (may include park dedication, and all impact fees) must be paid prior to any permit being issued A fully corrected plat that includes all associated support plans /documents and conditions of approval is required before any final plats or associated plans can be accepted for review. Case No. ZA05 -173 Attachment D Page 1 All development must comply with the City's Drainage Ordinance No. 605 and detain all post development run -off. Any variance requests have to be documented in writing and fully justified. Denotes Informational Comment Case No. ZA05 -173 Attachment D Page 2 Case No. 05 -068 Review No. _ Five — Dated: January 12, 2006 Number of Pages: 2 Project Name: Southlake Blvd. & Carroll Ave. Retail (Zoning Change /Concept — P &Z Review) Comments due to the Planning Department: January 12, 2006 Contact: Keith Martin Phone: (8 17) 748 -8229 Fax: (817) 481 -5713 The following comments are based on the review of plans received on January 3, 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. The required bufferyards are correctly shown and labeled, but the east bufferyard is not proposed to be the required minimum width for the entire length of the east property boundary line. The proposed access drive entering the development from E. Southlake Blvd. is placed within a portion of the required bufferyard. Does the plan meet the interior landscape requirements? The proposed interior landscaping seems to be correct. Does the plan meet the parking lot landscaping requirements? The parking lot landscape islands and area are correct. Are the parking /bufferyard /landscaping summary charts correct? N /A. Is a tree survey required? A tree survey of the site was submitted with the proposed Concept Plan. TREE PRESERVATION COMMENTS: 1. The submitted Tree Survey shows existing trees intended to be preserved within the interior landscape area of the development. Most all of the existing trees shown to be preserved are located adjacent to areas such as detention ponds, sidewalks and areas with proposed grade changes that will alter the trees existing critical root zones. The preservation of existing trees requires that a minimum of 75% of the "Critical Root Zone" area of the trees intended to be preserved remains intact and is protected from alteration. The submitted plans show that most of the trees proposed to be preserved will have an alteration of at least 50% Case No. Attachment D ZA05 -173 Page 3 of their "Critical Root Zone" area in the form of impervious paving and /or site grade changes. 2. The submitted Tree Survey shows existing trees to remain, existing trees to be removed and proposed mitigation trees. The existing trees shown to be removed are shaded too dark to make out the designated survey number for each tree. Please provide a different shade or color designation so that the trees designated survey numbers can be seen. 3. The Tree Survey shows proposed mitigation trees and shows 156" is required to be mitigated. The Tree Replacement Procedures or Payment into the Reforestation Fund in accordance to the regulations outlined in the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585 -B shall be followed. It is at the city's discretion as to what type of tree mitigation will be required of the development and any proposed or required mitigation trees planted on the site cannot be counted as required interior landscape or bufferyard trees. * 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 -173 Page 4 Surrounding Property Owners Southlake / Carroll Retail 3 5 4 1 2 LVD F.M. 1709 s 12 11J 10 9 J _.J Q 11 Q U 13 6 � � 14 Owner Zoning Land Use Acreage 1. Greenway Crestwood Partners S -P -2 Office Commercial 2.29 2. Greenway Rowlette 66 Lp S -P -1 Office Commercial 1.17 3. East Southlake # 1 Ltd S -P -1 Office Commercial 1.874 4. Mendez, Ltd SF-IA Office / Medium Density Res 3.419 5. Mendez, Ltd AG Office / Medium Density Res 7.665 6. Rucker, William W & Zena AG Medium Density Residential 49.156 7. Ha Ventures, LP C -3 Office Commercial 0.558 8. Ha Ventures, LP C -3 Office Commercial 2.819 9. Ha Ventures, LP AG Office / Medium Density Res 4.215 10. Rucker, William W & Zena AG Medium Density Residential 4.2 11. Prade, C A Jr AG Medium Density Residential 0.13 12. Prade, C A Jr & Anita AG Office / Medium Density Res 18 13. Rcp Southlake Blvd # 2, Ltd AG Medium Density Residential 3.91 14. Prade, C A Jr & Anita AG Medium Density Residential 18.75 15. Rcp Southlake Blvd # 2, Ltd AG Medium Density Residential 1.25 16. Rcp Southlake Blvd # 2, Ltd AG Office / Medium Density Res 14.081 Case No. ZA05 -068 Attachment E Page 1 Surrounding Property Owner Responses Southlake / Carroll Retail Notices Sent: Nine (9) Responses Received: None (0) Case No. ZA 05 -173 Attachment F Page 1