Loading...
Item 8ACity of Southlake Department of Planning STAFF REPORT July 12, 2006 CASE NO: ZA06 -031 P ROJECT: Zoning Change and Concept Plan for Morrison Office Park REQUEST: On behalf of Foreman Lewis, Hutchison PC, and The Morrison Group, Adams Engineering is requesting approval of a zoning change from "AG" Agricultural District to "S -P -2" Generalized Site Plan District with "O -1" Office District uses and to include limited "C -3" General Commercial District uses. The plan proposes the development of approximately 43,380 square feet for general office uses with approximately 10,000 square feet of that square footage potentially used as a product showroom for retail sales. The plan contains approximately 6.19 acres. The proposal has been updated to address comments during the first reading. This includes additional architectural renderings establishing the design guidelines for the development, fencing along the north (6' wrought iron) and east (8' wood board on board with metal post) boundaries, elevations for the retaining walls and trash enclosures and a landscape and lighting plan. The uses and regulations proposed under the "S -P -2" zoning are as follows: • "O -1" Office District uses and development regulations to include the following "C -3" General Commercial District uses on Lot 7 only: • Hardware, paint, wallpaper stores and other home improvement items and activities • Household and office furniture, furnishings and appliances • Plumbing and heating appliances, repair and installation services. All storage of materials must be indoors within this zoning district • Front Setback — Along the proposed street, not less than ten (10) feet • Impervious Coverage — Max. overall not to exceed 55 %, individual lots may not exceed 85% • Bufferyards — Bufferyards along interior lot lines shall not be required • Bufferyards — The west portion of the front bufferyard may be encroached by the common access drive • Parking — 1 space per 300 square feet for Lot 7 • Trash Receptacle — The trash receptacle located on Lot 2 shall be allowed in the front yard • Trash Receptacle — A total of 3 trash receptacles shall be permitted for the development • Architecture — The architectural style of each building within the development shall respect the elevations provided and conveyed with the Concept Plan • Fencing — The north boundary shall maintain a 6 -foot iron fence • Fencing — The ease boundary shall maintain an 8 -foot wood fence along the common boundary to the residential lots of Austin Oaks (City of Grapevine) The following variances are requested: • Public Street R.OW. —Min. 60 ft required, 40 ft. R.O.W. is proposed Case No. ZA 06 -031 Driveway Stacking — 75 feet required, requesting 13 feet and 12.5 feet Interior Landscapes — Requesting interior landscape requirements to be equally distributed throughout the development ACTION NEEDED: Consider first reading of zoning change and concept plan ATTACHMENTS STAFF CONTACT (A) Background Information (B) Vicinity Map (C) Plans and Support Information (D) Concept Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated July 12, 2006 (E) Surrounding Property Owners Map (F) Surrounding Property Owners Responses (G) Ordinance No. 480 -491 (H) Full Size Plans (for Commission and Council Members Only) Ken Baker (748 -8067) Dennis Killough (748 -8072) Case No. ZA 06 -031 BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNER: APPLICANT: PROPERTY SITUATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION LAND USE CATEGORY CURRENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING HISTORY: TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT: Case No. ZA 06 -031 Foreman Lewis, Hutchison PC, and The Morrison Group Adams Engineering The property is located at 2720 E. State Highway 114. Tract IA, situated in the S. Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 525 Office Commercial and Low Density Residential "AG" Agricultural District "S -P -2" Generalized Site Plan District There is no development history on this property. Master Thoroughfare Plan The Master Thoroughfare Plan recommends State Highway 114 to have between 300 and 500 feet of right -of -way. Adequate right -of -way exists for this roadway. Existinz Area Road Network and Conditions The Morrison Office Park development is proposing to use an existing driveway on E. State Highway 114 that is shared with the Next Century Dental office to the west. The development also proposes a street that will intersect with the E. State Highway 114 frontage road. The applicant is proposing the street to have a right -of -way width of 40 feet with 10 -foot utility easements on either side in lieu of the standard right -of -way width of 60 feet for commercial streets. Five (5) lots in the development will have access onto the proposed street. E. State Highway 114 is currently a 6 -lane, restricted access thoroughfare with 3 -lane frontage roads on either side. May, 2005 traffic counts on E. State Hwy 114 frontage road (between NW ighway Bridge & Kimball Ave 24hr West Bound (WB) (13,544) East Bound (EB) (15,125) WB Peak A.M. (759) 8 - 9 a.m. Peak P.M. (1,465) 5 - 6 p.m. EB Peak A.M. (2,071) 7:15 - 8:15 a.m. Peak P.M. (1,017) 5:15 - 6:15 p.m. Attachment A Page 1 May, 2005 traffic counts on E. State Hwy 114 main lanes (between FM 1709 & Kimball Ave 24hr West Bound (WB) (30,540) East Bound (EB) (33,500) WB Peak A.M. (2,204) 7:45 - 8:45 a.m. Peak P.M. (2,674) 5:45 - 6:45 p.m. EB Peak A.M. (2,925) 7:15 - 8:15 a.m. Peak P.M. (2,492) 5:15 - 6:15 p.m. Traffic Impact Use Sq. Ft. Vtpd* AM- IN AM- OUT PM- IN PM_ OUT Office 43,380 478 60 8 11 54 *Vehicle Trips Per Day "The The AM /PM times represent the number of vehicle trips generated during the peak travel times on E. State Highway 114 frontage road. PATHWAYS MASTER PLAN: According to the Master Pathways Plan, an 8 -foot multi -use trail is planned adjacent to the development along the E. State Highway 114 frontage road. The trail is shown on the concept plan. WATER & SEWER: An 8 -inch water line exists along the north side of the E. State Highway 114 frontage road. An 8 -inch sanitary sewer line exists at the northwest corner of the proposed office development. DRAINAGE ANALYSIS: This development drains in several directions. Lot 1 drains to the northwest corner of the property to an existing detention pond previously constructed at Shady Lane. Lot 3 will drain to the north. And the eastern portion of the property will drain to the east to a proposed detention pond at the northeast corner of the property or directly into SH 114. TREE PRESERVATION: The submitted tree survey does not show the proposed utility easements as required, but a Sanitary Sewer Easement is proposed to be located within the north section of Lot 1. This easement cuts directly through a stand of existing trees proposed to be preserved on both the Concept Plan and Tree Survey. The installation of a sanitary sewer within this easement would alter and possibly kill twelve (12) existing protected "Quality" trees. If the line is installed by trenching than at least four (4) trees at a minimum would need to be removed. It is recommended that directional boring be utilized to install the sanitary sewer line if the development is approved. The submitted tree survey shows that existing trees would be removed outside of the building pads, parking, utility and drainage easements, and fire lanes. Any trees that are removed or altered outside of these areas will be required to be mitigated by payment into the City of Southlake Reforestation Fund per Section 7.3 of Ordinance 585 -B. Case No. ZA 06 -031 Attachment A Page 2 SOUTHLAKE 2025: The following recommendations are made for the Morrison Office Park: • Sidewalks are provided throughout the proposed development. However, a connection needs to be provided between the trail along the frontage road and the internal sidewalk system. A sidewalk is recommended on both sides of the public road within the development. The trail along the frontage road should be straightened. • Maximize tree preservation. • Avoid re- grading the site. P &Z ACTION: May 18, 2006; Approved (5 -0) subject to Concept Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated May 12, 2006; granting the requested variances; restricting the C -3 General Commercial uses to plumbing fixture showroom and related furnishings only; and, accepting the applicant's willingness to comply with the following: • No loading dock • Save trees per exhibit presented • Show the design of the retaining wall • Require boring to protect trees • Show renderings and elevations adjacent to all residential areas • Increase detaining pond capacity • Lighting plan showing where and type • 8' wood fencing with metal posts • Landscaping plan for the east side • Screen the dumpster area where visible COUNCIL ACTION: June 20, 2006; Approved to Table (7 -0) until the July 18, 2006 meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Concept Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated July 12, 2006. M \Community Development \MEMO \2006cases \06- 03 1ZCP.doc Case No. ZA 06 -031 Attachment A Page 3 Vicinity Map Morrison Business Park Case No. ZA 06 -031 � a Attachment B Page 1 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 Feet iiiiiijmmmmmmlm Proposed Permitted Uses and Development Regulations for "S -P -2" Zoning Pen Uses: This property shall be limited to the permitted uses as found in the "O -1" Office District as described in Section 18 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended, with the following "C -3" use also being permitted for Lot 7: ® The building use in Lot 7 will limited to approximately 10,000 sf of product showroom for retail sales. Product storage will be minimal with warehousing at offsite facilities for direct shipment of sales. Permitted C -3 uses relative to this application consist of. #11. Hardware, paint, wallpaper stores and other home improvement items and activities. #15. Household and office furniture, furnishings and appliances. #23. Plumbing and heating appliances, repair and installation services. All storage of materials must be indoors within this zoning district. Development Regulations: This property shall be subject to the development regulations for the "O -1" Office District, and all other applicable regulations with the following exceptions: • Along the proposed street, the front building setbacks shall be 10 -feet. • Bufferyards along the interior lot lines shall not be required. • The west portion of the Lot 1 Front Bufferyard may be encroached by the common access drive to the extent that the required total of the buffer area is maintained. • The maximum impervious coverage shall not exceed 55- percent of the total lot area for the overall development. However, individual lots may be allowed a maximum impervious coverage of 85- percent. • Parking agreements will be in place prior to permitting to satisfy the combined parking requirements for the development. • Shared trash dumpster agreements will be in place prior to permitting to satisfy the combined needs of the development. • The pennitted C -3 use on Lot 7 shall calculate the required parking as an Office facility of 1 parking space per 300 square foot of floor space. • The architectural style of each building within the development shall respect the elevations provided and conveyed with the Conceptual Site Plan. • The north boundary of the development shall maintain a 6 -foot iron fence in lieu of the required 8 -foot wood fence. • The east boundary of the development shall maintain an 8 -foot wood fence along the common boundary to the residential lots of Austin Oaks (City of Grapevine). RECD JUL 1 2 2006 ZA ®6 -031 Case No. ZA 06 -031 Attachment C Page 1 Morrison Office Park Requested Development Variances Corridor and Residential Overlay: The Lot 2 trash receptacle is proposed within the front yard of SH 114. The merit of this location is due to the difference in grade ( +/- 10') to the right -of -way line and the large distance to the frontage road. Minimal to no landscape material will be necessary to completely screen the trash receptacle from SH 114. Combined with the remaining two trash receptacles, the shared use of each receptacle is equally distributed within the development. Subdivision Ordinance: • Lot frontage will be accomplished with the dedication of a 36' Ff public road within a 40' right -of -way. A 10 -foot utility easement will border the perimeter of the dedicated right -of -way. No public utilities are proposed to follow the alignment of the road. Driveway Ordinance: • The required parking of the development dictates a driveway stacking depth of 75' to the SH 114 right -of -way. The primary entrance of the development as a dedicated public street will comply with the requirement. The secondary entrance is constructed to the west of the development. Although the proposed stacking depth to the frontage road is 75 -feet, the requested stacking depth to the SH 114 right -of -way is a minimum of 13 -feet. • The dedicated public street serves this development only. Therefore the interior stacking depths to this public street are requested to be a minimum of 12.5 -feet. Landscape Ordinance: • As may be necessary, interior landscape requirements are requested to be equally distributed throughout the development. RMOD MAY 0 1 2006 Case No. ZA 06 -031 Attachment C Page 2 m ----------- LUD 10V=-11YRF—EN- -,V "V - � so gENCNMARKS wG xU Z7M- I ,�i ye a '' oe BONHAM TRAIL - - ------------------------- I'D �l (. �IL � � CITY OF SOI/ITHLA� - I- F KAI, REUD MAY 0 Z406-031 APok L6 Z 0 L z 5 CP-1 t. (n o6ol uj BONIHAM MAIL p O f W] Z o6ol uj BONIHAM MAIL p O Z I MIN F - 411, Mr Lg A (n uj p O Z J J ej� h"1 ol ron cp ZA06-031 RECD Al, 1 2 200 A (n 0 t; ! u F ill 3 � eo N STV, I 28' E 62502 7 LOT 'b ........... 0 ..... ...... 'OT L07 3 ....... . . . . . . OTll .................. r ILI EEO a-.- LOI I laA - --- ------ - --- 11 4 Xf - C1CITY OF So SO THLAJ MORRISON OFFICE PARK SOUTHLAKE, TX TREE SURVEY EXHIBIT /�, Adams ENGINEERING CD CD 'c ra<name Wl n.'an 7w I 1 16 M W fttW M X3 Dw U ,h I \P�Psce \2we 2"03 a lm,y REUD MAY 0 1 /� n o � 00 W i b � " +" CUT IN CONC. FND. (CONTROL MON.) / Adams FNGINFt T - i _- �TRTOF.Wgr LANDSCAPE AND, LIGHTING PLAN UI i � °- 1 I 1 E' D FEND[ I Yi� elalee� oM awr I I .L ,s.o' DRUNSCE s 1 unuty Easo,ENr I NE EEM A uetdlAdrf)T . 2'YB n a v H� C�, n Proposed Typical Lighting - Q Case No. Attachment C ZA 06 -031 Page 7 IN LOT 7 - NORTH BUILDING ELEVATION LOT 7 - EAST BUILDING ELEVATION Case No. Attachment C ZA 06 -031 Page 8 Conceptual Renderings ",�zwQ�f$�.°'1!f�.,,s? �.�F sb-��� � '/ ✓?ir°'uR'r.- $( LOT 1 - SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION Case No. Attachment C ZA 06 -031 Page 9 ��_a.. �� =k�ta� _ '- err - _i�" ➢hx -. -_ � fx __ � ^'^.. ". a � e��''�t _ ",�zwQ�f$�.°'1!f�.,,s? �.�F sb-��� � '/ ✓?ir°'uR'r.- $( LOT 1 - SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION Case No. Attachment C ZA 06 -031 Page 9 REAR DUMPSTER ELEVATIONS (TYP.) R & CA> kL -L � i q, 4 PROPOSED RETAINING WALL (TYP.) NORTH IRON FENCE DETAIL Case No. Attachment C ZA 06 -031 Page 10 E vATI �)2. P.+I�RI +�� &RGHlT6GT6 - FRONT SIDE n umFig7ex aLe \fITtOW S MWP� LS014 Or PiCE PA SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA06 -031 Review No.: Four Project Name: Concept Plan — Morrison Office Park Date of Review: 07/12/06 APPLICANT: Adams Engineering Ben Henry 500 S. Nolen Drive Southlake, TX 76092 Phone: (817) 329 -6990 Fax: (817) 329 -7671 OWNER: The Morrison Group Bryce Pool 311 East Vickery Fort Worth, TX 76104 Phone: (817) 870 -2227 Fax: (817) 877 -4942 CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 07/11/06 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 BEN BRYNER (817) 748 -8602. 1. Provide a public street meeting the regulations found in Subdivision Ordinance No. 483 for commercial streets. Commercial streets are required a minimum 60' of R.O.W. If City Council approves the reduced R.O.W. width, staff recommends a 10' U.E. on both sides for utility location and maintenance. (A variance has been requested.) 2. Provide the stacking depth for all drives. The required stacking depth for all drives is 75'. (A variance has been requested.) 3. The following changes are needed with regard to trash dumpsters and enclosures: a. Show the location of all proposed trash dumpsters. Each lot should plan for a dumpster location. (A variance has been requested.) b. Relocate the dump ster on Lot 2. Trash receptacles shall be located to the side or rear of the principal building. (A variance has been requested.) 4. Based on the parking calculations, no medical office uses shall be permitted in the development. Sufficient parking must be provided per individual lot unless a written agreement is properly executed and filed as outlined in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended (Sec 35.2.b). A copy of the agreement must be provided to the City prior to receiving building permits. 5. The following changes are needed regarding fire lanes: a. Identify and label all proposed fire lanes. Fire lanes must meet hose -lay coverage requirements. Fire lanes are required to be 24' in width and a minimum interior radius of 30'. Case No. Attachment D ZA 06 -031 Page 1 b. If a fire lane is required between lots, relocate lot lines so that the fire lane is not split down the middle. Splitting fire lanes should be minimized as much as possible so that maintenance responsibilities are clearly defined. * Although not within the City of Southlake, staff recommends providing a minimum 8' screening device along the east boundary adjacent to the single family residential properties. * Staff recommends shifting the building on Lot I to the front and parking to the rear similar to the development to the west. This will solve the stacking problems for that lot. 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. * All development must comply with the City's Drainage Ordinance No. 605 and detain all post development run -off. * The proposed overall site does not exceed the maximum permitted impervious coverage area percentage of 65% for the "O -1" Zoning District on the overall development. The impervious coverage area percentage of the development is approximately 53 %. * It appears that this property lies within the 65 LDN D/FW Regional Airport Overlay Zone and will require construction standards that meet requirements of the Airport Compatible Land Use Zoning Ordinance No. 479. * 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. * A permit from TxDOT must be obtained prior to any curb cut along S. H. 114. Case No. Attachment D ZA 06 -031 Page 2 Case No. 06 -031 Review No. _ Three _ Dated: May 11, 2006 Number of Pages: 1 Project Name: Morrison Business Park (Zoning Change & Concept Plan) Comments due to the Planning Department: May 11, 2006 Contact: Keith Martin Phone: (817) 748 -8229 Fax: (817) 481 -5713 The following comments are based on the review of plans received on May 1, 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? The required bufferyards are shown to be provided along the outer boundary of the entire development property and not adjacent to the interior lot lines. It is recommended that if the bufferyards are approved as shown, that the plant material that would be required for the distance of the required bufferyards within the interior of the development be installed elsewhere within the development. 2. The Applicant is proposing that the central entrance to the development be a public right -of -way. The minimum of a 10' Type -B bufferyard is required to be provided when O -1 and 0-2 zoned properties are adjacent to local streets. The full width of the south bufferyard in Lot 1, adjacent to State Highway 114 is not provided. Does the plan meet the interior landscape requirements? No. It looks as though Lots 2, 3, 5 and 6 may not meet the interior landscape area requirements. 2. Lots 1, 3 and 5 do not meet the required interior landscape area placement. A minimum of 75% of all required interior landscape area for each lot shall be in front and along either side of the building between the building and the interior edge of the required bufferyards and a portion thereof shall be placed adjacent to the buildings where practical. Does the plan meet the parking lot landscaping requirements? Yes. Are the parking /bufferyard /landscaping summary charts correct? Case No. ZA 06 -031 Attachment D Page 3 Not required on a Concept Plan submittal. Is a tree survey required? A Tree Survey was submitted with the Concept Plan submittal. Tree Preservation Comments: Staff recommends that a Tree Conservation Plan in accordance to the regulations outlined in Ordinance 585 -C be submitted along the submittal of the Concept Plan. 2. The submitted tree survey does not show the proposed utility easements as required, but a Sanitary Sewer Easement is proposed to be located within the north section of Lot 1. This easement cuts directly through a stand of existing trees proposed to be preserved on both the Concept Plan and Tree Survey. The installation of a sanitary sewer within this easement would alter and possibly kill twelve (12) existing protected "Quality" trees. If the line is installed by trenching than at least four (4) trees at a minimum would need to be removed. It is recommended that directional boring be utilized to install the sanitary sewer line if the development is approved. The submitted tree survey shows that existing trees would be removed outside of the building pads, parking, utility and drainage easements, and fire lanes. Any trees that are removed or altered outside of these areas will be required to be mitigated by payment into the City of Southlake Reforestation Fund per Section 7.3 of Ordinance 585 -B. 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. Other Comments: The Concept Plan and Site Plan show a landscape feature such as a fountain within the cul -d -sac median of the proposed right -of -way. Unless specifically approved by City Council Action, this landscaping will not be maintained by the City. The property Developer or Property Management Company will be held responsible for the full maintenance of all landscaping required and provided during and after the development of the property. 2. It does not look like there is sufficient area of right -of -way in back of the curb. Case No. ZA 06 -031 Attachment D Page 4 Surrounding Property Owners Morrison Office Park I � � I Owner Zoning Land Use Acreage 1. Bonola Family Limited Prtnshp C -3 Office Commercial 1.149 2. Bonola Family Limited Prtnshp C -3 Office Commercial 1.263 3. J & M Partners Ltd SF-IA / AG Office Commercial 8.23 4. Various w /in City of Grapevine N/A N/A N/A 5. Austin Oaks HOA C -1 Office Commercial 0.2 6. 168 Venture No 111 C -1 Office Commercial 0.451 7. 168 Venture No 111 C -3 Office Commercial 0.459 8. Graham, Norris L AG Office Commercial 6.408 Case No. ZA 06 -031 Attachment E Page 1 Surrounding Property Owner Responses Morrison Office Park Notices Sent: Six (6) Responses Received as of 9:30AM, July 12, 2006: Three (3) • Karen Porter, President of Austin Oaks HOA, submitted a letter in opposition on May 18, 2006. • Bryce Pool, Morrison Development, submitted a letter of negotiation to Austin Oaks HOA & the City on June 12, 2006. • Karen Porter, President of Austin Oaks HOA, submitted a response to Mr. Pool's letter dated June 12, 2006. Case No. ZA 06 -031 Attachment F Page 1 May 18, 2006 Case No. ZA 06 -031 Mr. Ben Bryner City of Southlake Department of Planning Re: Morrison Office Park - ZA06 -0.32 Mr. Bryner As president of the Austin Oaks Homeowners Association, I would like to convey on behalf our homeowners the great concern we have with the Morrison Office Park in consideration before the P &Z commission Thursday, May 18, 2006, Through our conversations with you and your staff, we believe we have a solid understanding of the ordinances that govern the design. In addition to our conversations with Southlake, we took the initiative to meet Mr, Bryce Pool and his consultants to learn more about their intentions and convey our concerns personally. In that meeting we asked Mr, Pool to consider constructing an 8' high masonry wall on our common property boundary. We believe this will not only help to maintain the property value of our homes and our neighborhood as a whole, but increase the aesthetic value of his development. As you and I discussed, not only did he disregard your recommendation to treat our residential adjacency as he would a Southlake neighborhood but he stated to us that a wall would change the financial dynamics of his development and force a redesign that would negatively impact us. Mr, Pool explained to us that one redesign option might be to seek a variance to decrease his building setbacks and decrease the proposed bufferyards to the required minimum. For the record, our HOA would maintain our position to have the wall regardless of that action, Another design solution mentioned by Mr. Pool to offset the cost of the wall might require the elimination of the detention area to allow more parking and building area. Again, Austin Oaks will support a redesign effort in order to obtain the wall condition. The proposed plan and uses are not objectionable, in fact, we let Mr. Pool know we would speak in favor' of his petition if he agreed to an 8' masonry wall and required landscaping. At this time there is no agreement between parties. For this reason we respectfully request that Staff and the P &Z Commissioners consider our position and require a masonry wall that not only protect our property values but our homeowners as well. Thank you for your time and patience. They are both appreciated. Karen Porter, Austin Oaks HOA RECTI MAY 1 8 2006 Attachment F Page 2 June 12, 2006 Mrs. Karen Porter — President VIA Email: gregg_karen9l @hotmail.com Austin Oaks Subdivision 502 Alamo Trail Grapevine, TX Re: Common Property Line Morrison Office Park & Austin Oaks Subdivision Southlake, Texas Dear Mrs. Porter, As you are aware we are in the process of developing the property immediately west of your subdivision which we recently purchased. Currently we are seeking a zoning variance application with the City of Southlake. The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge and respond to your request for us to remove the existing wooden fences on our common property line and to build, construct, and maintain an improved, permanent, and low maintenance fence between our two properties. More specifically, you have requested an 8` tall concrete block (masonry) fence identical to the new white fence recently constructed along the southeast portion of your subdivision by another developer. We recognize the importance of your residents to maintain their current property values and your efforts to be a good neighbor. Furthermore, we appreciate your complements to our plans for the development of the property. We too feel like the concept plan and the mix of our respective land uses is just about the best possible scenario for the development of our property. We have considered your request. Previously we had agreed to remove the current fence, and to construct and maintain an enhanced 8' tall common wood fence with steel posts along our common property line. However, as we have expressed before during our previous meetings with the homeowners, we have the following concerns regarding the construction of a masonry fence in this area: 1. The construction of an 8' masonry wall is quite invasive to the existing trees and natural vegetation that exists there today. Heavy equipment (a drilling rig) is required to access and drill the piers for the support columns. Concrete trucks, fork lifts, skid -steer excavators, and other light equipment are necessary to construct the masonry wall. The recently constructed masonry wall on the south east portion of your subdivision is evidence to that affect and this is an undesirable condition that we would like to avoid. We are making significant efforts to preserve the natural vegetation along our common property line. We don't want to lose a single tree if at all possible. P.O. BOX 70 • FORT W ORTH, TX 76101 • 817.870.2227 PHONE • 817.877.4942 FAX t ase lv o. ZA 06 -031 Attacnment r Page 3 � 2. The masonry fence that you have requested is constructed of concrete split face blocks. The split face blocks are not consistent with the architecture and finishes of our proposed buildings and site features. Our theme is old world Italian Mediterranean. 3. The variances that we have requested would allow us to enhance the proposed landscape buffer yard between our properties. There are additional trees (smaller than 6" in diameter) that are not illustrated on the tree survey. It would be our preference, as we have stated, to supplement the existing deciduous trees along our common border by adding evergreen trees and shrubs in this area. The strategic plantings would be grouped in masses so as to provide a continuous living screen especially in the areas of homeowner view corridors. 4. You have requested that we remove the current HOA decorative wood fence at the neighborhood entrance from Hwy 114. This fence is in excellent condition and is quite fitting with the HOA landscape and site features on this HOA owned lot. It is our opinion that this existing decorative fence should remain as the replacement of such with a split face concrete block wall would be aesthetically displeasing considering your current and quite attractive entrance features. Even with a different color split face concrete block it is our opinion that this would still look too much like a "big -box" style retail screening wall. Instead we propose to build and maintain a new fence consisting of a blend of natural materials such as Granbury stone, wood, and metal so as to save all possible trees and complement the architecture of our proposed buildings and blend with the landscape elements of both the HOA entrance lot and those of the residential yards that abut this area. We have studied the elements of each and we feel that the attached 8' screening fence is a vast improvement and a better choice for our common fence today and in the years to come. In closing we would like to thank you for offering to support our project. However, it is our opinion that the proposed screening fence and living screen would be a better addition to our common property line than the concrete block wall that you have proposed. We would greatly like to have your support at the upcoming public hearing. But we have strong concerns with the disruptions to the native vegetation, impending tree loss, and dissimilar materials that you are requesting. We also have similar concerns regarding sustaining our current property values and even more so with those of our proposed improvements. Thank you for meeting with us and working with our consultants and us throughout this application. Please contact me at (817) 870 -2227 if you have any questions or would like to further discuss this issue. Respectfully, Morrison Development Bryce Pool P.O. BOX 70 • FORT W ORTH, TX 76101 • 817.870.2227 PHONE • 817.877.4942 FAX t ase lv o. ZA 06 -031 Attacnment r Page 4 June 19, 2006 Mr. Bryce Pool VIA Email Morrison Group PO Box 70 Ft. Worth, TX 76101 Re: Common Property Line Morrison Office Park & Austin Oaks Southlake, Texas Dear Mr. Bryce, We'd like to address the 6/12/06 letter regarding your intent for the required screening along our common property line. You have proposed a blend of natural materials such as wood, stone, and metal. We received the picture you sent that fiurther illustrated a wood fence between stone type columns. This is not the type of screening wall we seek. At this time we cannot support your zoning proposal. As homeowners we can appreciate your desire to preserve as many existing trees as possible. We understand that not only does it provide tree credits to your requirement but also provides instant vegetative maturity to your development. Let us state for the record that we are well aware that the construction of a wall may compromise the health of existing trees. We further realize that the trees you are required to plant within that buffer area will be substantially smaller. However, it is our position that the wall is more valuable to a homeowner and the trees will grow. We disagree that a split face concrete block wall would be, as you stated, "aesthically displeasing" for our neighborhood. It is this type wall that was constructed by an office /retail developer along a common property line to our east. Our homeowners were thrilled with the wall and the HOA was quite pleased with the wall details. • Concrete Block, Concrete Cap, Stepped Foundation, Stepped Wall and an Austin Stone Color In that particular zoning case, we were strong supporters of that development. Although the same threat to existing trees was the situation, we stood strong that the permanence of a quality wall was worth the risk. Unexpectedly, the destruction of existing trees was not as severe as we were prepared to accept. Many trees withstood the disruption. Although we do not WANT to lose existing trees, we NEED the security and permanence that a wall will provide. It will protect our property values and avoid long -term maintenance concerns. Case No. ZA 06 -031 Attachment F Page 5 We respectfully request that you construct a wall of the quality the other developer provided to our east side. Please explore other solutions or construction techniques that can be employed to preserve those trees you are determined to save. We need a wall. Thank you, Austin Oaks Homeowners Association President Karen Porter Cc: Ben Bryner, City of Southlake Jeff Boules / Jim Dixon, AOHOA Case No. ZA 06 -031 Attachment F Page 6 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS ORDINANCE NO. 480 -491 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 480, AS AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS; GRANTING A ZONING CHANGE ON A CERTAIN TRACT OR TRACTS OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS BEING LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS TRACT IA, SITUATED IN THE S. FREEMAN SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 525; AND BEING 6.19 ACRES, AND MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" FROM "AG" AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO "S -P -2" GENERALIZED SITE PLAN DISTRICT WITH "0-1" OFFICE DISTRICT USES TO INCLUDE LIMITED "C -3" GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT USES, AS DEPICTED ON THE APPROVED CONCEPT PLAN ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN AS EXHIBIT `B ", SUBJECT TO THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS ORDINANCE; CORRECTING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PRESERVING ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE; DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE DEMAND THE ZONING CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS HEREIN MADE; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE CUMULATIVE OF ALL ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS HEREOF; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Southlake, Texas is a home rule City acting under its Charter adopted by the electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 9 of the Texas Local Government Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code, the City has the authority to adopt a comprehensive zoning ordinance and map regulating the location and use of buildings, other structures and land for business, industrial, residential and other purposes, and to amend said ordinance and map for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals and general welfare, all in accordance with a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the hereinafter described property is currently zoned as "AG" Agricultural District under Case No. Attachment G ZA06 -031 Page 1 the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, a change in the zoning classification of said property was requested by a person or corporation having a proprietary interest in said property; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, at a public hearing called by the City Council did consider the following factors in making a determination as to whether these changes should be granted or denied: safety of the motoring public and the pedestrians using the facilities in the area immediately surrounding the sites; safety from fire hazards and damages; noise producing elements and glare of the vehicular and stationary lights and effect of such lights on established character of the neighborhood; location, lighting and types of signs and relation of signs to traffic control and adjacent property; street size and adequacy of width for traffic reasonably expected to be generated by the proposed use around the site and in the immediate neighborhood; adequacy of parking as determined by requirements of this ordinance for off- street parking facilities; location of ingress and egress points for parking and off - street loading spaces, and protection of public health by surfacing on all parking areas to control dust; effect on the promotion of health ad the general welfare; effect on light and air; effect on the over - crowding of the land; effect on the concentration of population, and effect on transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public facilities; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, further considered among other things the character of the districts and their peculiar suitability for particular uses and the view to conserve the value of the buildings, and encourage the most appropriate use of the land throughout this City; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that there is a public necessity for the zoning changes, that the public demands them, that the public interest clearly requires the amendments, and that the zoning changes do not unreasonably invade the rights of those who bought or improved property with reference to the classification which existed at the time their original investment was made; and, Case No. Attachment G ZA06 -031 Page 2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that the changes in zoning lessen the congestion in the streets, helps secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers, promotes the health and the general welfare, provides adequate light and air, prevents the over - crowding of land, avoids undue concentration of population, and facilitates the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, has determined that there is a necessity and need for the changes in zoning and has also found and determined that there has been a change in the conditions of the property surrounding and in close proximity to the tract or tracts of land requested for a change since the tract or tracts of land were originally classified and therefore feels that the respective changes in zoning classification for the tract or tracts of land are needed, are called for, and are in the best interest of the public at large, the citizens of the city of Southlake, Texas, and helps promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That Ordinance No. 480, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Southlake, Texas, passed on the 19th day of September, 1989, as originally adopted and amended, is hereby amended so that the permitted uses in the hereinafter described areas be altered, changed and amended as shown and described below: Being Tract IA, situated in the S. Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 525, and being approximately 6.19 acres, and more fully and completely described in Exhibit "A" from "AG" Agricultural District to "S -P -2" Generalized Site Plan District with "O -1" Office District uses and limited "C -3" General Commercial District uses as depicted on the approved Concept Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit `B ", and subject to the following specific conditions: 1. Case No. Attachment G ZA06 -031 Page 3 SECTION 2. That the City Manager is hereby directed to correct the Official Zoning map of the City of Southlake, Texas, to reflect the herein changes in zoning. SECTION 3. That in all other respects the use of the tract or tracts of land herein above described shall be subject to all the applicable regulations contained in said Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable and pertinent ordinances for the City of Southlake, Texas. All existing sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, words, phrases and definitions of said Zoning Ordinance are not amended hereby, but remain intact and are hereby ratified, verified, and affirmed. SECTION 4. That the zoning regulations and districts as herein established have been made in accordance with the comprehensive plan for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals and the general welfare of the community. They have been designed, with respect to both present conditions and the conditions reasonably anticipated to exist in the foreseeable future; to lessen congestion in the streets; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent over - crowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; and to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, drainage and surface water, parks and other commercial needs and development of the community. They have been made after a full and complete hearing with reasonable consideration among other things of the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for the particular uses and with a view of conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the community. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall be cumulative of all other ordinances of the City of Southlake, Texas, affecting zoning and shall not repeal any of the provisions of said ordinances except in those instances where provisions Case No. Attachment G ZA06 -031 Page 4 of those ordinances are in direct conflict with the provisions of this ordinance. SECTION 6. That the terms and provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be severable and that if the validity of the zoning affecting any portion of the tract or tracts of land described herein shall be declared to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the zoning of the balance of said tract or tracts of land described herein. SECTION 7. Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply with or who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be fined not more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Each day that a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense. SECTION 8. All rights and remedies of the City of Southlake are expressly saved as to any and all violations of the provisions of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, or any other ordinances affecting zoning which have accrued at the time of the effective date of this ordinance; and, as to such accrued violations and all pending litigation, both civil and criminal, whether pending in court or not, under such ordinances, same shall not be affected by this ordinance but may be prosecuted until final disposition by the courts. SECTION 9. The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to publish the proposed ordinance or its caption and penalty together with a notice setting out the time and place for a public hearing thereon at least fifteen (15) days before the second reading of this ordinance, and if this ordinance provides for the imposition of any penalty, fine or forfeiture for any violation of any of its provisions, then the City Secretary shall additionally publish this ordinance in the official City newspaper one time within ten (10) days after passage of this ordinance, as required by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake. Case No. ZA06 -031 Attachment G Page 5 SECTION 10. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law, and it is so ordained. PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st reading the day of , 2006. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the day of , 2006. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Case No. ZA06 -031 Attachment G Page 6 CITY ATTORNEY DATE: ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: Case No. ZA06 -031 Attachment G Page 7 EXHIBIT "A" Being Tract IA, situated in the S. Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 525, being approximately 6.19 acres. Morrison Office Park Property Description Being 6.194 acres of land situated in and being a part of the Samuel Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 525, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas; said 6.194 acres of land also being a portion of that certain 1" Tract described in the deed to Norris L. Graham and J.B. Graham recorded in Volume 7925, Page 491, Deed Records of Tarrant County, Texas; said 6.194 acres of land being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: BEGINNING at a " +" cut in concrete set in a concrete driveway at the southeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Bonola Family Addition, an addition to said city according to the plat filed in Cabinet A, Slide 8967, Plat Records, Tan-ant County, Texas; said " +" being in the present north R.O.W. line of State Highway No. 114; the deed to the State of Texas for highway ROW widening being recorded in Volume 14468, Page 119, Deed Records, Tarrant County, Texas; THENCE N 00 W, 374.60 feet along the east line of said Bonola Addition to a `/2 inch iron rod found at the northwest corner of said l Tract; THENCE N 89 0 42'28" E, 625.02 feet along the north line of said I" Tract to a 5/8 inch iron rod found at the northeast corner of said I` Tract and in the west line of Lot 5, Block 2, Austin Oaks Subdivision, an addition to said city according to the plat filed in Cabinet A, Slide 408, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas; THENCE S 00 0 3749" W, along the east line of said I" Tract and along the west line of said Block 2, Austin Oaks Subdivision passing the southwest corner of Lot 1, Block 2 and the northwest corner of a tract of land described in the deed to Austin Oaks Homeowners Association, Inc. according to the deed recorded in Volume 12586, Page 15, Deed Records, Tarrant County, Texas and continuing in all along the east line of said I" Tract 493.34 feet to a %x inch iron rod with a plastic cap stamped "Landes & Assoc:' found at the northeast corner of said State of Texas ROW tract; THENCE along the north line of the State of Texas tract and the present northerly ROW line of State Highway No. 114 the following courses and distances: N 84"04'11 " W, 174.53 feet to a TxDot Highway ROW monument found; N 73 0 32'24" W, 253.76 feet to a TxDot Highway ROW monument found; N 82 0 40'45" W, 200.94 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 6.194 acres of land. Case No. ZA06 -031 Attachment G Page 8 EXHIBIT `B" Morrison Office Park Proposed Permitted Uses and Development Regulations for "S -P -2 Zoning Pennitted Uses: This property shall be limited to the permitted uses as found in the "O -1" Office District as described in Section 18 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended, with the following "C -3" use also being permitted for Lot 7: ® The building use in Lot 7 will limited to approximately 10,000 sf of product showroom for retail sales. Product storage will be minimal with warehousing at offsite facilities for direct shipment of sales. Permitted C -3 uses relative to this application consist of: #11. Hardware, paint, wallpaper stores and other home improvement items and activities. #15. Household and office furniture, furnishings and appliances. #23. Plumbing and heating appliances, repair and installation services. All storage of materials must be indoors within this zoning district. Development Regulations: This property shall be subject to the development regulations for the "O -1" Office District, and all other applicable regulations with the following exceptions: * Along the proposed street, the front building setbacks shall be 10 -feet. Bufferyards along the interior lot lines shall not be required. * The west portion of the Lot 1 Front Bufferyard may be encroached by the common access drive to the extent that the required total of the buffer area is maintained. ® The maximum impervious coverage shall not exceed 55- percent of the total lot area for the overall development. However, individual lots may be allowed a maximum impervious coverage of 85- percent. Parking agreements will be in place prior to permitting to satisfy the combined parking requirements for the development. Shared trash dumpster agreements will be in place prior to permitting to satisfy the combined needs of the development. The permitted C -3 use on Lot 7 shall calculate the required parking as an Office facility of 1 parking space per 300 square foot of floor space. ® The architectural style of each building within the development shall respect the elevations provided and conveyed with the Conceptual Site Plan.. The north boundary of the development shall maintain a 6 -foot iron fence in lieu of the required 8 -foot wood fence. ® The east boundary of the development shall maintain an 8 -foot wood fence along the common boundary to the residential lots of Austin Oaks (City of Grapevine). REC °D JUL 12 2006 ZA ®6 ® ®31 Case No. ZA06 -031 Attachment G Page 9 o wamnymw XTA D] I..va.- o ca � F = -w" � �I ; � A°�r � � r� r. ' Y r J I " ,�.. "1 i , ) 0 e�` . TM31 J LEGEND [` D WDPMDGUFRRYARDAQEA 1 2 2006 BONH-kM rP.AlL IV t� I iI I .�i ` @ . I ` �� j� � i Jian.¢aJ 5 I � � I � '°� -Yb $RGiV � � °�. C \1 � I - . �nr2'Y nF nRA kVINiL' or -------- Gil* CL LLA LL' �7, Z 0 aw CP % ----------- 1 7 A06 -031 o M t; ! u F ill — N S 3 � TV 28' E 62502 ---------------- &-- 7 LOT 'b ........... 0 ..... ...... �� eoe or '°� l_7 l Q' 3 L01 ... �` ��' °" ,, ' � � I �...,.� n ,<., 'OT L07 3 L2 p�k laA 11 4 OTll \jt F LOI I CITY OF CITY OF XGJR2?A-VrJl� SO THLAI 61 MORRISON OFFICE PARK SOUTHLAKE, TX TREE SURVEY EXHIBIT /�, Adams ENGINEERING CD 06'c ra<name Wl n.1wf 7w6 1116 W fttW M X3 D U ,h J\POPsce \2w6 2 "03 REUD MAY 0 1 go re A Kill, o 0 c W i b � UQ � " +" CUT IN CONC. FND. (CONTROL MON.) / Adams FNGINFt T - i _- �TRTOF.Wgr LANDSCAPE AND, LIGHTING PLAN UI i � °- 1 I 1 E' D FEND[ I Yi� elalee� oM awr I I .L ,s.o' DRUNSCE s 1 unuty Easo,ENr I NE EEM A uetdlAdrf)T . 2'YB n a v H� N � Proposed Typical Lighting A. I&- Case No. Attachment G ZA06-031 Page 13 IN LOT 7 - NORTH BUILDING ELEVATION LOT 7 - EAST BUILDING ELEVATION Case No. Attachment G ZA06 -031 Page 14 Conceptual Renderings ",�zwQ�f$�.°'1!f�.,,s? �.�F sb-��� � '/ ✓?ir°'uR'r.- $( LOT 1 - SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION Case No. Attachment G ZA06 -031 Page 15 ��_a.. �� =k�ta� _ '- err - _i�" ➢hx -. -_ � fx __ � ^'^.. ". a � e��''�t _ ",�zwQ�f$�.°'1!f�.,,s? �.�F sb-��� � '/ ✓?ir°'uR'r.- $( LOT 1 - SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION Case No. Attachment G ZA06 -031 Page 15 REAR DUMPSTER ELEVATIONS (TYP.) R & CA> kL -L � i q, 4 PROPOSED RETAINING WALL (TYP.) NORTH IRON FENCE DETAIL Case No. Attachment G ZA06 -031 Page 16 E vATI �)2. P.+I�RI +�� &RGHlT6GT6 - FRONT SIDE n umFig7ex aLe \fITtOW S MWP� LS014 Or PiCE PA