Loading...
Item 7ECity of Southlake Department of Planning STAFF REPORT July 26, 2006 CASE NO ZA06 -032 PROJECT: Site Plan for Morrison Business Park REQUEST: On behalf of Foreman Lewis, Hutchison PC, and The Morrison Group, Adams Engineering is requesting approval of a site plan. The plan proposes the development of a law office building of approximately 5,600 square feet on a lot of approximately 1.499 acres. The following variance is requested: • Driveway Stacking — 75 feet required, requesting 13 feet ACTION NEEDED: 1. Conduct public hearing 2. Consider site plan approval ATTACHMENTS: (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Background Information Vicinity Map Plans and Support Information Site Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated May 12, 2006 Surrounding Property Owners Map Surrounding Property Owners Responses Full Size Plans (for Commission and Council Members Only) STAFF CONTACT: Ken Baker (748 -8067) Dennis Killough (748 -8072) Case No. ZA 06 -032 BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNERS: APPLICANT: PROPERTY SITUATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION LAND USE CATEGORY CURRENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING HISTORY: TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT: Case No. ZA 06 -032 Foreman Lewis & Hutchison PC & the Morrison Group Adams Engineering The property is located at 2720 E. S.H. 114 A portion of 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 5,600 62 8 1 1 7 *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 site 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: The northern portion of this site will drain to the northwest corner of the property to an existing detention pond previously constructed at Shady Lane. The southern portion of the site will drain to the proposed detention pond at the northeast corner of the Morrison Business Park development. 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 existing tree proposed to 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. SOUTHLAKE 2025: The following recommendations are made for the Morrison Office Park: Case No. ZA 06 -032 Attachment A Page 2 • A sidewalk connection should be provided between the trail along the frontage road and the internal sidewalk system. 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 Site Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated May 12, 2006; granting requested variances and abiding by the stipulations set in the approval of zoning case ZA06 -031. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Site Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated May 12, 2006. M \Community Development \MEMO \2006cases \06- 032SP.doc Case No. Attachment A ZA 06 -032 Page 3 Vicinity Map Morrison Business Park _H NORTH WESTPI[WY EAST �+ f -1 E Case No. Attachment B ZA 06 -032 Page 1 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 Feet C's 0 sL Fff N 89 '28 E 6 25. ----------------- ------ l l =R. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pu IJK wannymop mr.l R � \� GRA-C SD-E J 3D' 2 bldg M1 = Wn � 00 �a. � h � E. �RMORE," � \,� -��' �_ � � -�- �� A �i _� I � A1. VE i37GHNAY z 114 4 j F LOT 2 7 F I I ��\ 17 LEGEND F71 PROPOSED CONCP,ETE PAVING PROPOSED SIDEWALK PAVING PROPOSED BDfFER YARD ARFA " ME" l ----------------- A W� 116 71- 1112iU% n 111- n —1, 1 no uvx RECD MAY 0 2006 ZA06-032 �-- (n ti SOUTH ELEVATION �401 NORTH ELEVATION 402) " (n PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RECD MAY 0 1 2006 ti I EAST ELEVATION /A WEST ELEVATION 502 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION REGM MAY 01 20 t. (n SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA06 -032 Review No.: Three Project Name: Site Plan — Law Office Building (Lot 1, Morrison Office Park) Date of Review: 05/12/06 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 05/01/06 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 the required stacking depth for the drive. The required stacking depth for all drives is 75'. (A variance has been requested as part of the zoning and concept plan approval.) 2. Plan must comply with the underlying zoning district regulations as approved. This plan is subject to approval of an appropriate change of zoning (A request for S -P -2, zoning is being processed concurrently). Staff recommends shifting the building on Lot 1 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 * The masonry material proposed is stucco. A true stucco application following the regulations found in Section 43 is a permitted exterior masonry material. 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 site does not exceed the maximum permitted impervious coverage area percentage of 65% for the "O -1" Zoning District. The impervious coverage area percentage of this is approximately 43%. Case No. Attachment D ZA 06 -032 Page 1 No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan. A separate building permit is required prior to construction of any signs. 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. Case No. ZA 06 -032 Attachment D Page 2 Case No. 06 -032 Review No. _ Three _ Dated: May 11, 2006 Number of Pages: 1 Project Name: Morrison Business Park Tract I (Site 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 west, east and south bufferyards are show to be within the proposed access drives and there is proposed trash dumpster within the north portion of the east bufferyard. Bufferyards shall be located within and along the perimeter of a lot or boundary line. Bufferyards may overlap drainage and /or utility easements; however plantings should not impede the flow of water within a drainage easement. Bufferyards shall not be located on any portion of an existing or dedicated public street or right -of -way. A bufferyard may be used for passive recreation, such as pedestrian, bike or equestrian trails, provided that: (a) no plant material is eliminated; (b) the total width of the bufferyard is maintained; and (c) all other regulations of Section 42 of the Zoning Ordinance are met. In no event shall the following uses be permitted in a bufferyard: playflelds, stables, swimming pools, tennis courts or similar facilities, accessory buildings, parking facilities, or trash dumpsters. Does the plan meet the interior landscape requirements? No. Lot 1 does 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? The applicant is requesting that all interior bufferyards be waived with the S -P -2 zoning regulations. This would eliminate the entire east bufferyard and approximately one -half of the required west bufferyard. If the S -P -2 zoning regulations are approved, it is suggested that the applicant provide the Case No. ZA 06 -032 Attachment D Page 3 required plant material that would be planted within the interior lot line bufferyards elsewhere within the development. Is a tree survey required? A tree survey of the property was provided with the Site Plan submittal. TREE PRESERVATION COMMENTS: 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. 2. The submitted tree survey shows existing tree proposed to 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 -13. Case No. ZA 06 -032 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 -032 Attachment E Page 1 Surrounding Property Owner Responses Morrison Office Park Notices Sent: Six (6) Responses Received: One (1) from the HOA President of Austin Oaks subdivision in Grapevine (see attached letter received 5 -18 -06) Case No. ZA 06 -031 Attachment F Page 1 May 18, 2006 Mr. Ben Bryner City of Southlake Department of Planning Re: Morrison Office Park - ZA06 -032 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 RECD MAY 1 8 2006 Case No. ZA 06 -031 Attachment F Page 2