The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 6KCITY OF S0UTHLA1<,.,E Department of Planning & Development Services STAFF REPORT November 13, 2013 CASE NO: ZA13-054 PROJECT: Specific Use Permit for The Residences EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Cooper & Stebbins is requesting approval of a Specific Use Permit for residential lofts in the Southlake Town Square "DT" Downtown District for The Residences to allow the construction of 38 residential lofts in a five -story building on property described as Lot 4, Block 4R1, Southlake Town Square, Phase I, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and located at 1471 Federal Way, Southlake, Texas. The current zoning is "DT" Downtown District. SPIN Neighborhood #8. REQUEST DETAILS: Cooper & Stebbins is requesting approval of Specific Use Permit for residential lofts in the Southlake Town Square "DT" Downtown District for The Residences to allow the construction of 38 residential lofts in a five -story building on an approximately 0.60 acre lot. The plans submitted at the September 3, 2013 Council meeting showed 40 residential loft units. In a separate application, the applicant is requesting approval of a revised Concept Plan for the Garden District and Brownstones Phase C to allow construction of 60 Garden District Residences and 33 Brownstones for a total of 93 proposed residential units east of Central Ave., which brings the total number of proposed residential units to 131. The previously approved concept plan for the Garden District includes 130 Garden District residential units and 10 Brownstones for a total of 140 units. A letter that addresses the questions raised at the September 3, 2013 City Council meeting and that highlights subsequent revisions to the plans is included in Attachment "C" of this report. Included in the letter is a Development Phasing Plan that describes what will be done at each development stage. Revisions to the plans since the September 3, 2013 meeting include the following: 1. A parallel driveway for drop offs and deliveries has been added on Central Ave. in front of the entry court. 2. The unit count has been reduced to 38 (from 40) by combining units on the 5rh floor. The average size is now approximately 1,950 s.f. 3. Individual garages on the south side have been eliminated (as a result of reducing required and provided resident parking from 80 spaces to 76 spaces). 4. Column spacing has been revised to provide for only 2-car individual garages on the west side of the building (example of garage door design included in package). Case No. ZA13-054 Page 1 5. Resident parking spaces/garages on west side near the East Garage entrance will be designated as tandem spaces to minimize "backing out" issues. 6. The fagade material on the west building elevation has been revised to show stucco versus EIFS above a brick fagade on the first level. ACTION NEEDED: 1) Conduct a public hearing 2) Consider Approval of a Specific Use Permit ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information (B) Vicinity Map (C) Plans and Support Information — Link to Presentation (D) SPIN Reports: February 11, 2013 and June 10, 2013 (E) Site Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated November 12, 2013 (F) Surrounding Property Owners Map (G) Surrounding Property Owners Responses (H) Resolution No. 13-033 (1) Full Size Plans (for Commission and Council Members Only) STAFF CONTACT: Ken Baker (817)748-8067 Richard Schell (817)748-8602 Case No. ZA13-054 Page 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNER: Slts Grand Ave., LP APPLICANT: Cooper & Stebbins PROPERTY SITUATION: 1471 Federal Way LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4, Block 4R1, Southlake Town Square, Phase I IIVe1kII1��-1MKOYeN1*101zy'�rT,M1 061111ia'i CURRENT ZONING: "DT" Downtown District HISTORY: Key approvals associated with Southlake Town Square and residential development in Town Square: January 7, 1997 (ZA96-145): Original "PUD" Zoning & Concept Plan approved for Southlake Town Square; August 19, 1997 (ZA97-099 and ZA97-100): Southlake Town Square Phase I Development Plan and Site Plan approved; February 4, 2003 (ZA02-104); "DT" Downtown District Zoning & Concept Plan was approved; April 1, 2003 (ZA03-013) Specific Use Permit for the Brownstone residential units was approved. September 7, 2004 (ZA04-057) Preliminary Plat for Block 22, Southlake Town Square was approved. This area has been designated as open space by the approved concept plan, development plan and the previous preliminary plat and has been intended to be dedicated to the City for use as a park. The purpose of this plat is to subdivide the block into two lots so that a final plat may be approved and recorded for the dedication and conveyance of approximately 2 acres of the future 6 acre park in connection with the residential "Brownstone" project. The final platting of the remaining 4 acres is being deferred awaiting further development of the Town Square project. October 5, 2004 (ZA04-066 & ZA04-067): Revised Concept Plan & Site Plan for Southlake Town Square's Grand Avenue District was approved; September 6, 2005 (ZA05-075): Revised Concept Plan for the purpose of relocating open space/park land from Block 22 (3.78 acres open space removed) to Block 19 (2.80 acres open space provided) was approved, which left a shortfall of 0.98 acres of open space. At the time of approval, Cooper & Stebbins was reviewing appropriate potential new park areas in Blocks 11 and 20 and planned to designate new park space in one or both of these blocks, having a combined area of not less than 0.98 acres. July 17, 2007 (ZA07-050): Zoning Change and Revised Concept Plan for the purpose of changing the block configurations and realigning Division and State Streets to accommodate the proposed DPS Central Facility. This plan also Case No. Attachment A ZA13-054 Page 1 relocates open space from the north side of Division Street to the south side directly adjacent to McPherson Park. This relocation results in 0.51 acres of park land being added to McPherson Park. The applicant requested a 0.44 acre open space reduction from the currently approved concept plan, but City Council denied the request and approved the item with the following stipulations: 1) The City will retain 0.44 acres of open space with location to be determined later; 2) Requiring a schematic for the open space to be brought before Council prior to the final approval of the block north of the Brownstones; 3) Requiring the open space north of the Brownstones to be open to the public. May 3, 2011; (ZA10-068) A text amendment to Section 37 ("DT" Downtown District) of Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended, creating new definitions for "Garden District" and "Garden District Residences" as well as providing additional development regulations for such development was approved. May 3, 2011; (ZA10-069) A revised Concept Plan for the Garden District, including 130 Garden District Residences and 10 Brownstones, was approved. SOUTH LAKE 2030 PLAN: Consolidated Land Use Plan The "Town Center" definition in the 2030 Land Use is as follows: The Town Center land use designation is intended to enhance and promote the development of the community's downtown. The goal is to create an attractive, pedestrian -oriented environment that becomes the center of community life in Southlake. It may include compatibly designed retail, office, cultural, civic, recreational, hotel and residential uses. All uses shall be developed with a great attention to design detail and will be integrated into one cohesive district or into distinct sub -districts, each with its own unique characteristics. A mix of different uses is encouraged to create a vibrant, lively, and unique environment. The "Town Center" designation provides the following guidelines for residential uses: • Residential uses are to be located between the proposed office or retail uses and existing residential neighborhoods. These uses are intended to provide a lower intensity transition between existing neighborhoods and commercial uses. • Residential uses should be well integrated with proposed open space and other civic uses to create a sense of place. • They should also be integrated with proposed commercial uses in a manner that provides internal automobile and pedestrian access to convenience commercial uses. • Residential uses are recommended to be to the density and scale that is appropriate based on the context and character of the proposed overall development. Case No. Attachment A ZA13-054 Page 2 TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT: PATHWAYS MASTER PLAN: WATER & SEWER: TREE PRESERVATION & LANDSCAPE: Traffic Impact: Residential Condominium/Townhouse Use (ITE # 230) Use Units Vtpd* AM -IN AM -OUT PM -IN PM -OUT EXISTING 140 820 11 51 49 27 APPROVAL PROPOSED (Garden District 93 545 7 34 33 18 and Brownstones Phase C ) PROPOSED 38 223 3 14 14 7 (Block 4R1) PROPOSED (Garden District and Brownstones 131 768 10 48 47 25 Phase C + Block 4R1) Net Difference -9 - 52 -1 -3 -2 -2 Vehicle Trips per Day The Pathways Plan shows an on -street bikeway planned along Central Ave. Existing sidewalks are shown along all public street frontages on the site plan. All necessary public water and sewer infrastructure are currently in place for this development. There are no existing trees on the site except those that the developer has planted. The preliminary landscape design is consistent with the Town Square theme. CITIZEN INPUT: Two SPIN meetings were held. The first SPIN meeting was held Monday, February 11, 2013. And a second SPIN meeting was held Monday, June 10, 2013. SPIN Meeting Reports for both meetings are included as Attachment "D" of this report. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: August 8, 2013; A motion to table ZA13-054, per the applicant's request, to the August 22, 2013 Planning and Zoning Regular Meeting was approved (5-0). August 22, 2013; Approved (4-2) subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 3 and Staff Report, dated August 13, 2013 and noting the stipulation that the construction of The Residences do not begin until 55% of the Garden District Brownstones have been sold (18 units). COUNCIL ACTION: August 20, 2013; Tabled to the September 3, 2013 meeting. September 3, 2013; Tabled to the September 17, 2013 meeting. September 17, 2013; Tabled to the October 1, 2013 meeting. Case No. Attachment A ZA13-054 Page 3 October 1, 2013; Tabled to the October 15, 2013 meeting. October 15, 2013; Tabled to the November 19, 2013 meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Site Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated November 12, 2013. Case No. Attachment A ZA13-054 Page 4 �9719[.i[MID%i� I Vicinity Map The Residences 1 MAIN ST w n Q U (7 FOUNTAIN PL FM. 1709 N W -* I E 0 S E SOUTH LAKE BLVD ZA13-054 Specific Use Permit 1471 Federal Way 450 900 1.800 � Feet Case No. Attachment B ZA1-054 Page 1 Plans and Support Information Letter Addressing Questions at September 3, 2013 Council Meeting COOPER A1110STEBBINS November 11, 2013 Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Director Planning & Development City of South lake 1400 Main Street, Suite 310 Southlake, TX 76092 Re: Block 4Rl—The Residences Specific Use Permit —Case ZA13-154 Dear Ken: At the September 3, 2013 City Council meeting, we presented applications related to the Garden District and The Residences (Black 4R1). Council asked a number of questions, some of which were answered during the presentations, but many of which required further research and/or discussion. As a result, we requested to table both applications to September 17, 2013. All related applications have since been tabled to the City Council meeting scheduled for November 19, 2013. In support of that meeting, an updated copy of the S.U.P. forThe Residences has been forwarded to you. Detailed below are responses to the questions/comments regarding The Residences raised at the September meeting, along with additional updates as appropriate from progress made since that time. For ease of reference, responses are in a Q&A format organized by topic. THE RESIDENCES (BLOCK 4111) —S.U.P. QUESTIONS A. Site Design Have we reviewed accessibility around the building for fire trucks? Yes. We have reviewed the site plan and building plans for the Garden District and The Residences with the Fire Department. They are supportive of road dimensions, fire lane locations, and fire truck accessibility as shown. 2. Can we improve traffic and safety performance by redesigning the direct access individual garages on the south and west side of the building? The building design has been changed to eliminate the individual garages on the south side of the building. On the west side of the building, the building column structure has been revised to allow for two -car garages exclusively. In the area directly across from the entrance to the East Garage, a tandem parking approach will be employed, which will allow residences to pull through, thereby largely eliminating the need for residents to back out into the alley. COOPER & ST EB BINS L.P., 1256 MAIN STREET, 5UITE 240, SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS 75092 T:817-329-8400 F:817.251.8717 WWW.SOUTHLAXETOWNSQUARE.COM Case No. Attachment C ZA13-054 Page 1 City of 5outhlake Block 4111— The Residences Page 1 2 Building Design 1. Would we consider changing the back of the building from EIFS to stucco? Yes. While EIFS is consistent with the Garage adjacency in this location, we have revised the elevations to show stucco. 2. Did we consider a Garden District Residence building on this site? Yes, however this approach did not work in this location. other aspects of the Garden District Residences have been applied to the building, including limitations on minimum unit size and building height, and requirements for high quality construction and interior finishes. 3. What is the anticipated garage door style for the west side of the building? A standard eight -panel garage door has been selected and an elevation i1riage is attached. The goal has been to identify a style that is complementary to the overall building design and meets key characteristics of quality and security. 4. Will existing City security cameras need to be blacked out in the same fashion as done previously with the Brownstones? We don't believe so, provided that such cameras are focused on public spaces and not private residences. City cameras should he able to adequately monitor the public garage and parking lots, without being directed toward individual Residences. The Residences building will have its own security camera system for its garage and common areas similar to other high -end condominium buildings. S. Is the indoor storage climate controlled? Yes. 6, Is there storage available in the garage and how is it different from the upper level storage? Yes. The storage facilities in the garage will not be climate controlled and will be designed for storage of bicycles, outdoor equipment, and large bulk items. 7. Will The Residences have enough natural light into each residence? Yes. 24 of the 38 residences (63 percent) will have significant window lines facing at least two different directions. All bedrooms and main living areas will have exterior windows. 8. Will the iron gates into the Entry Courtyard be secured or open? The iron gates are expected to be open, although they will be operable and can be secured if needed. They are intended to be decorative and supportive of the overall building design. Case No. Attachment C ZA13-054 Page 2 City of 5outhlake Block 4R1 —The Residences Page 13 C. Parking 1. Is there enough parking? Yes. Parking is provided at a ratio of 2.5 spaces per Residence, consistentwith the market and the prior Garden District approval. A change to larger corner units on the top floor reduced density from 40 to 38 residences, which has freed up additional parking. Additionally, temporary parking has been added on Central Avenue in front of the Entry Court of the building to allow for resident drop-off, deliveries, and short-term parking. 2. What is the plan for residents who have a third car? Can we restrict use of the Public Garage by residents? The smaller unit size of the Residences is not expected to attract many 3-car residents. However extra parking spaces should be available as typically not all one -bedroom residents will require two spaces. The East Garage is public and subject to the City's regulations governing its use. Restrictions on impermissible use of the Public Garage by residents will he further limited through the condominium documents and a parking -sticker system. D. Sale vs. Lease of Units 1. Is leasing a certainty? if not, what does the pre -sales process look like, and how do we achieve 100% sales overtime? It has always been our intent to sell 100% of The Residences over time. We expect to sell out within two to three years of building completion. That being said, there are two circumstances that have driven the sale -lease approach that has been discussed: Developers often pursue construction financing for high -end condominiums that is underwritten based on income from leasing versus income from the sales values, given the inherent uncertainty in future sales and subsequent appraisal risk. However the condominium ownership structure is put in place up front, and construction insurance and warranty obligations associated with condominium development are committed. This facilitates pre -sales. Upon building completion, such financing allows the flexibility to close pre -sold residences and lease unsold inventory until it is sold. Assuming strong pre -sales, little if any leasing may be required. The pre -sale process for The Residences will focus first on cash and low leverage buyers so as to establish values for sales comparable purposes. As value is established, the sales process will open up to buyers who desire higher levels of mortgage financing. Individuals interested in leasing (with a preference to those interested in buying in the future) may be contacted for any remaining inventory. Over time, these residences will be sold as leases expire or as residents express interest in purchasing. Z. Will leasing some of the condominium homes for a short time have an impact on the community? A limited and temporary leasing program that is part of the initial marketing strategy is not uncommon in establishing a new luxury community. Targeted lease rates ensure that the buyer and rental profiles are similar. Transparency in the process promotes a healthy dialogue with prospective purchasers. Leasing has the additional benefit of facilitating an orderly sales process and protecting property value for those who purchase early. An Case No. Attachment C ZA13-054 Page 3 City of Southlake Block 4R1—The Residences Page 14 integrated leasing program can also contribute to the perceived health of the project by ensuring there is a critical mass of occupants in the early months after construction completion. 3. Did we consider a Co -Op Ownership Structure vs. a Condominium Structure? Yes, but only briefly. Attorneys have advised that unlike New York, Texas does not have a housing Co -Op Statute that governs how Co-ops are organized and regulated. While Section 251 of the Texas Business & Commerce Code allows for commercial co-ops, it does not (nor do the State's real estate statutes) authorize the use of Section 251 in residential housing. We are aware of no case in Texas where Co -Op ownership has been used for high -end residences like The Residences. 4. Have we ever leased residences before? Who would handle the leasing? Cooper & Stebbins has not leased residences before. C&S Director of Residential Development Larry Corson has an extensive history of both for -sale and for -lease residential development. As the lease program is intended to be temporary, leasing would be handled by the sales team and not by a leasing company. E. Phasing 1. Can the project start be tied to 55 percent of the Brownstones sold with poured concrete slabs and water connections? Yes. We acknowledge the importance of prioritizing completion of the Brownstone neighborhood before starting The Residences. However, we also believe it is important to complete the Garden District neighborhood by developing The Residences building and effectively framing the west end of Meeting Street and eliminating the view into the East Garage. We believe the 55% condition will allow us to accomplish both, based on forecasted sales. Please let me know if you have any questions or are in need of additional information. We look forward to reviewing the additional information with you at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Frank L. Bliss President cc: Mr. Dennis Killough, Deputy Director Larry Corson Case No. Attachment C ZA13-054 Page 4 Revised Site Plan Submitted November 11, 2013 el T 6, IDI LO BLOCK 4R1 21 3 a .. .................... CENTRAL AVENUE -- - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 71L\ - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ve Revised Landscape Plan Submitted November 8, 2013 Case No. Attachment C ZA1 3-054 Page 5 Narrative Southlake Town Square 1997 DEVELOPMENT PLAN �,ffl naxrtr ulr q�lfus o s we yar fn�.sax i:cinL[x: ruw :Wfi( G4:+(tny tKIKLIIK:IG COOPER aH0 SP�B11S. 4P. �="'+ CRANIA A95a31TQ. fNC �`[ _,—A Rt �u 97 D[Y[LOM1QNf•R4f SOUTBL'a TOTK SQUARE; u.W tu: IUCf a L'fR 1F A:aW LW1 WnLY. toff. w of nx a SOULHI1tt u.aewr cawrr, rocs 1 OF f Southlake Town Square Downtown Master Plan ■ C&S is in its 19111 year of investing, planning and developing in Town Square. ■ Southlake Town Square's 125-acre mixed use development plan is based on a blueprint in the spirit of the world's best historic small town downtowns. ■ Buildings are organized around a street grid. The street and block pattern is designed to promote walkability. Buildings are arranged around the perimeter of the blocks along the sidewalks, with parking designed "inside" the blocks and behind the buildings. ■ The Phase 1 Development Plan approved in 1997 reflected this approach. However as Block 4 was only partially included at the time, only a small future building was shown on Central Avenue in this 1997 Plan. ■ When the Grand Avenue District Site Plan was approved, the lot for Block 4 was expanded to include the area on which C&S has now proposed The Residences. Case No. Attachment C ZA13-054 Page 6 "DT" Downtown District ■ Town Square was originally approved as a Planned Unit Development, with uses as allowed under C-3 zoning. C&S has always maintained that the best downtowns in the world have people living in them. By 2003, Town Square had evolved into a place in which many of Southlake's own residents wanted to live. But zoning at the time prohibited this. ■ In order to allow "downtown" residential uses in Town Square while also limiting such uses to the downtown core, the Town Square PUD was codified as Section 37 —the "DT" Downtown District - of Southlake's Zoning Ordinance. Section 37.1 summarized the intent of the approach: "The purpose of the Downtown district is to encourage the creation of a pedestrian oriented, mixed -use urban environment, providing shopping, employment, housing, and business and personal services. Downtown is intended to be the focal point of the community. This is achieved by promoting an efficient, compact land use pattern; encouraging pedestrian activity; reducing the reliance on private automobiles within the district; promoting a functional and attractive community through the use of urban design principles; and allowing developers flexibility in land use and site design." THE GARDEN DISTRICT New Concept Plan — May 2013 • 33 Brownstones in 4 Configurations 60 Garden District Residences in 3 Buildings Case No. Attachment C ZA13-054 Page 7 The Residences — Fit Within the Town Square Master Plan ■ The Residences fit the Residential Loft classification contemplated in the "DT Downtown District," are consistent with the use envisioned for this site, and fit the goals of the Town Square Master Plan: - Ground Floor commercial use is not supported in this location - Residential is "highest and best use" here, and complements the Brownstones and Garden District, with lower impact on traffic and parking - High end residential and historic architecture will add vibrancy and enhance the Central Avenue corridor and surrounding property values ■ The Residences are an important element of the Central Avenue corridor, which is a current area focus: - A Site Plan application has been filed for Trader Joe's at the southern end of the corridor (NW corner of Central and FM 1709) - Garden District and proposed new park enhance mid -corridor development - High Street development is expected to anchor northern end of corridor - Block 4 is unaffected by the potential future realignment of Central Avenue (as may be required in support of High Street development plan) THE RESIDENCES - Concept Case No. Attachment C ZA13-054 Page 8 The Residences - Overview ■ Up to 40 total residences available for sale or lease with purchase option ■ With Garden District, 2013 plan reduces condominium count from 130 to 100, on overall larger land area ■ 5-story building fits within 52' Garden District height limit ■ Improves Central Avenue streetscape and walkability; frames Garden District and end of proposed new Meeting Street ■ Class "A" construction quality and level of finish ■ Minimum size, level of finish and other design guidelines consistent with Garden District Residences ■ Project start following sales of 55% or more of new Brownstones (minimum 18) THE RESIDENCES Entry Court Concept Case No. Attachment C ZA13-054 Page 9 Building Description ■ Incorporates Federal and Neo-classical architectural influences ■ High quality steel and concrete construction ■ Masonry (brick and accent stone) on front three sides and corner wraps ■ EIFS or similar material on back of building facing East Garage ■ Front courtyard includes iron gates, wall fountain, benches, landscaping and authentic gas lanterns ■ Secured Central Elevator lobby with 2 elevators to common corridors ■ Gated indoor garage on first level with options for direct access garages — two spaces per Residence ■ Visitor parking provided on street at front and back of building — in excess of 0.5 spaces per resident THE RESIDENCES Roof Top Terrace - Concept Case No. Attachment C ZA13-054 Page 10 THE RESIDENCES Fitness Room - Concept ARCHITECTURAL IMAGES - SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE "GARDEN DISTRICT" RESIDENCES"---; Samaixc TEVA-COOMAW Mw Case No. Attachment C ZA13-054 Page 11 Residential Features and Amenities ■ Variety of 1 Bedroom + Den to 3 Bedroom homes; majority 2 Bedroom ■ Size range: 1,500 SF to 2,600 SF, average 1,850 SF ■ All Residences are single -level except for 2 two -level Residences ■ Each Residence has an outside terrace ■ Luxury interior finishes, including granite/quartz countertops; custom cabinetry; crown molding; and top -of -the -line appliances ■ Yoga/Pilates and Meeting Space/Function Rooms on top floor ■ Rooftop Terrace ■ Indoor climate -controlled storage units Investment and Development Approach ■ Condominium legal structure will be put in place up front, to enable sales of individual units following completion. ■ Buyer is expected to be similar to those who purchase in condominium buildings such as The Residences at the Ritz Carlton in Dallas and The Omni Residences in Fort Worth: - Pricing in this high -end condo market ranges from $400/sf to over $800/sf - The Residences will be of a quality that is expected to compete favorably in this market, with forecasted pricing from $500,000 to over $1.0 million. ■ A pre -sale approach is problematic as there are no comps in the local market. While individual sales will be sought and can close as early as building completion, investment considerations support underwriting based on operating cash flow from leasing (with options to purchase) at the outset. Investment assumptions include: - Initial rents expected to range from $3,000 to $6,000 per month - Purchase options available from the beginning - First sales likely to be all cash, to establish comp values for future appraisals Case No. Attachment C ZA13-054 Page 12 Financing Considerations Condominium legal structure is expected to limit construction lender(s) to those experienced in and with a desire to finance "for sale" condominiums. ■ Experience at Town Square has shown that it takes lenders and appraisers time to fully value these higher end buildings for which comparable sales data is not available in the local market. Because there are no local high -end condominium sales comparables, even if 100% of The Residences are pre -sold, risk remains that Buyers' lenders (and their appraisers) might not appraise the end purchase at the full sale price, putting contracts at risk. - Lease/purchase option mitigates this risk by ensuring that cash flow will be in place until sales of individual residences are ready to close. Other Considerations ■ Condominium legal structure will disqualify contractors and design professionals who are not experienced in "for sale" condominiums. Only "best in class" condominium contractors and design professionals to be considered ■ Independent sales and marketing team with high -end condominium sales and marketing experience will be brought in. ■ Although lease options available initially, condominium insurance program will be placed from the outset, providing coverage as individual Residences are sold. ■ Property Owners Association (separate from Brownstones HOA) will be established upfront. Case No. Attachment C ZA13-054 Page 13 Summary ■ The Residences are for sale condominiums that will be available for sale upon completion of the building. - Lease/purchase options will be available initially, until individual residences are ready to close - Approach allows for patient conversion of sales consistent with the market, buyer financing, and quality of the offering ■ Condominium ownership structure will be put in place upfront. ■ Marketing will be designed around sales program: - Targeted to affluent professionals looking for single -level living - "Best -In -Class" condominium construction, design and marketing professionals - Condominium insurance/warranty program will be in place from the outset - High -end condominium quality and residence sizes ■ Project commencement would be subject to sales of no fewer than 18 (55%) new Garden District Brownstones. Case No. Attachment C ZA13-054 Page 14 Site Plan I / / / J/ I fl I LL I I O I Nli�ll el � VI I I f 1 ^I 560'00'0 "E - 80.00' 7717777, 111 01 FF � ❑ I r �- ae�� my*` oQ .zo W ' I O PROP MEETINO STREET > en II> > 0 o�ep'Us, R yr�Z o �m�I mm 8 O M Aq or0000 a ao FFn aRAL-(PY m� u€ S H'- ao as H08 a 1 ry mr hl • r In s g A SITE PLAN FOR SUP $ m < ; ; g BLOCK 4R1n. OWNER / DEVELOPER COOPER AND STEBBINS ° 12% MAIN STREET, SUITE 2M SOUTH—E, T[xA5 7-2 5 SITE PLAN -µTHE RESIDENCES Case No. Attachment C ZA13-054 Page 15 1st SPIN MEETING REPORT El SOUTHLAKE SPIN MEETING REPORT CASE NO. N/A PROJECT NAME: The Garden District — Southlake Town Square SPIN DISTRICT: SPIN #8 MEETING DATE: February 11, 2013; 8:00 PM MEETING LOCATION: 1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX Training Rooms 3A — 3B TOTAL ATTENDANCE: Twenty-six (26) • SPIN REPRESENTATIVE(S) PRESENT: Vic Awtry (#7) APPLICANT(S) PRESENTING: Frank Bliss, Cooper & Stebbins; et al five (5) • STAFF PRESENT: Lorrie Fletcher. Planner I STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough: (817)748-8072 or dkilloughcw_ci.southlake.tx.us EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Property Situation • The property is located at Southlake Town Square; generally the northeast corner of East Southlake Boulevard and Carroll Avenue. Development Details • The original concept plan was approved in May 2011 — 130 Condominiums, 10 Brownstones and 2.4 acres of open space. • The applicant is requesting a revised concept plan to include: 28 Brownstones in 3 configurations 0 7 Custom Villa Homes (6 detached) o 83 Garden District Residences in 5 buildings o 2.2 acres of open space o Amenities to include: • Sidewalks • Landscape • River bend stream / meditation area • Spanish steps common area • Pet playground Case No. Attachment D ZA13-054 Page 1 Exhibits presented at SPIN: New Plan 1 1 2011 Plan Garden District Residences 83 130 Park Ridge Brownstones 9 10 Brownstones in the Garden 19 0 Park Ridge Villas 7 0 TOTAL 118 140 QUESTIONS / CONCERNS • Will the city maintain the central park area? No, the park area will be maintained by the HOA — it is a private open space that is open to the public. If the HOA pays, are they going to keep the public out? No, it is not gated... accessible to the public. • We are concerned the park will become a teenage hangout? We feel the environment will be accessible but secure, well managed and well lit. It is an urban environment — urban suburbia. • 1 live in one of the Brownstones and these issues have been addressed well. Kids figure it out... no problem. Case No. Attachment D ZA13-054 Page 2 • Is this development accessible to wheel chairs? The Spanish steps? It looks like it doesn't work. We have engineered 7 different points of access; only 2 are not ADA accessible. o Each condo has an elevator from the garage — the ability is there. SPIN Meeting Reports are general observations of SPIN Meetings by City staff and SPIN Representatives_ The report is neither verbatim nor official meeting minutes; rather it serves to inform elected and appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues and questions raised by residents and the general responses made. Responses as summarized in this report should not be taken as guarantees by the applicant_ Interested parties are strongly encouraged to follow the case through the Planning and Zoning Commission and final action by City Council_ Case No. Attachment D ZA13-054 Page 3 2nd SPIN MEETING REPORT USOUTHLAKE SPIN MEETING REPORT CASE NO. ZA13-011 PROJECT NAME: The Garden District — Southlake Town Square MEETING DATE: June 10, 2013; 7:00 PM MEETING LOCATION: 1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX Training Rooms 3A — 3B TOTAL ATTENDANCE: Thirty-three (33) • SPIN REPRESENTATIVE(S) PRESENT: Matt Shurly (#8) and Vic Awtry (#7) • APPLICANT(S) PRESENTING: Larry Corsin, Cooper & Stebbins; et al five (5) • STAFF PRESENT: Lorrie Fletcher, Planner I STAFF CONTACT: Richard Schell: (817)748-8602 or rschellaci.southlake.tx.us EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Property Situation • The property is located at Southlake Town Square; generally the northeast corner of East Southlake Boulevard and Carroll Avenue. Development Details • The original concept plan was approved in May 2011 — 130 Condominiums, 10 Brownstones and 2.4 acres of open space. • In February 2013; the applicant proposed the following revised concept plan to SPIN: 0 28 Brownstones in 3 configurations 0 7 Custom Villa Homes (6 detached) 0 83 Garden District Residences in 5 buildings 0 2.2 acres of open space o Amenities to include: ■ Sidewalks ■ Landscape ■ River bend stream / meditation area ■ Spanish steps common area ■ Pet playground • Currently, the applicant is requesting a revised concept plan to include: 0 33 Brownstones in 3 configurations 0 100 Garden District Residences in 4 buildings o ± 3 acres of open space Case No. Attachment D ZA13-054 Page 4 Exhibits presented at SPIN: f es• �v �6 New Plan 2011 Plan Garden Brownstones 21 0 Park Ridge East Brownstones 9 9 Park Ridge West Brownstones 3 1 Garden District Residences 60 130 Central Avenue Residences 40 0 TOTAL 133 140 Eliminates Garden District Residence buildings on the Main Street alley and the west side of Park Ridge, which allows this area to be developed independently, and sooner New plan made possible by eliminating buildings and individual garages in favor of clustering a mix of 3 and 4-story residences over larger central garages on north side - Density reduced; broader offering of residential options; responsive to market demand; phaseable Open space reorganized but substantially same scale QUESTIONS / CONCERNS • What is the ratio of 1 — 2 — 3 bedrooms? 40 — 40 — 20% total • How many Brownstones? 33 Case No. Attachment D ZA13-054 Page 5 • 1500 square feet is basically apartment size... 1500 square feet was approved by City Council in 2011 • What was the density in 2011 plan? Minimum square footage of 1500; no more than 25% of total can be 1500 square feet • What about parking? 80 parking spaces; we are currently over parked by 600 parking spaces for Southlake Town Square. The parking garages are underutilized. • What is the price point? $325 - $350 per square foot • Will these be owner occupied or leased? These will be sold. We have no holding company or comps in this area. • So you won't have any restrictions against renting? People own and rent property throughout the city • Why is the construction so expensive? It is Cooper & Stebbins quality expectation and commitment made from the beginning • There are two different housing products. Is the condo HOA different from the Brownstones? The HOA(s) can set rules that protect value. We are discussing the best approach regarding the HOA. • According to your new plan, Summit Avenue no longer dead ends and is now a through street. We are concerned about 1709 cut through. There is a safety concern and may be increased traffic from those seeking parking. You have made good comments... I love the concept. There is a great need for condos. SPIN Meeting Reports are general observations of SPIN Meetings by City staff and SPIN Representatives. The report is neither verbatim nor official meeting minutes; rather it serves to inform elected and appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues and questions raised by residents and the general responses made. Responses as summarized in this report should not be taken as guarantees by the applicant. Interested parties are strongly encouraged to follow the case through the Planning and Zoning Commission and final action by City Council. Case No. Attachment D ZA13-054 Page 6 Case No.: ZA13-054 SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Review No.: Four Project Name: SUP — Block 4R1 Residential Lofts APPLICANT: Frank Bliss Cooper and Stebbins 1256 Main St. Suite 240 Southlake, TX 76092 Date of Review: 11/12/13 Engineer: Jim Riley Brockette Davis Drake, Inc. Phone: (817) 329-8400 Phone: (214) 824-3647 E-mail: fbliss@southlaketownsquare.com E-mail: jriley@bddeng.com CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 11/11/13 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 RICHARD SCHELL AT (817) 748-8072. 1. Please make the following changes to the title block: a. Provide the correct legal description Lot 4, Block 4R1, Southlake Town Square Addition. 2. Revise the language in the narrative and on the concept plan to state that the Property Owners Association will be responsible for maintenance of landscaping, irrigation and open space areas. Tree Conservation/Landscape Review E-mail: kmartin@ci.southlake.tx.us Keith Martin Landscape Administrator Phone: (817) 748-8229 LANDSCAPE COMMENTS: 1. Landscaping must comply with the requirements in Section 37 of the Zoning Ordinance — "DT" Downtown District. 2. The following regulation refers to sight triangles: For plantings within twenty (20) feet of any public street intersection, shrubs and groundcover shall not exceed two (2) feet in height and tree branching shall provide seven (7) feet of clearance as measured from the tap ❑f the ground surface t❑ the first branch along the tree trunk. Public Works/Engineering Review Steve Anderson, P.E., CFM Civil Engineer Phone: (817) 748-8101 E-mail: sanderson@ci.southlake.tx.us Case No. Attachment E ZA13-054 Page 1 GENERAL COMMENTS: Provide all necessary easements for water, sanitary sewer and drainage. Easements shall be 15' minimum and located on one lot — not centered on the property line. Label utilities has "Public" or "Private". DRAINAGE COMMENTS: 1. Construction plans have been submitted and are under review. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS: Submit 4 copies of the civil construction plans (22" X 34" full size sheets) and a completed Construction Plan Checklist as part of the first submittal for review directly to the Public Works Administration Department. The plans shall conform to the most recent construction plan checklist, standard details and general notes which are located on the City's website. A ROW permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Operations Department (817) 748-8082 to connect to the City's sewer, water or storm sewer system. A Developer's Agreement will be required for this development and may need to be approved by the City Council prior to any construction of public infrastructure. Construction plans for these improvements must be acceptable to Public Works prior to placing the Developer's Agreement on the City Council agenda for consideration. A separate bond will be required for the Maintenance Bond and bound only unto the City of Southlake for a period of two years for all development projects. The Maintenance Bond cannot be tied to the Performance and Payment Bond in any way. Any hazardous waste being discharged must be pretreated Ordinance No. 836. Fire Marshal Review Kelly Clements Assistant Fire Marshal (817) 748-8671 klements@ci.southlake.tx.us GENERAL COMMENTS: An automatic fire sprinkler system will be required for buildings over 6,000 square feet. (per 2009 I.F.C. Sec. 903.2.11.9 as amended) Submit plans to Reed Fire Protection, 14135 Midway Road, Suite G260, Addison, Texas 75001. Phone 214-638-7599. The required backflow protection (double check valve) for the sprinkler system can be located on the riser if the riser is within 100 feet of the water main. If the riser is further than 100 feet from the main, the double check valve shall be in a pit. Riser rooms shall be a minimum of 5'X5' if the double check is not located on the riser, or a minimum of 6'X6' if it is on the riser. Fire department sprinkler connections, FDC, are to be a five inch Storz connection with a 30 degree down elbow and a Knox locking cap. Case No. Attachment E ZA13-054 Page 2 Fire Department Connections for sprinkler system must be within 100 feet of a fire hydrant, and within 50 feet of fire department access. A fire alarm system must be provided as required for a high-rise building as per 2009 IFC Southlake Amendment 907.2.13. (Automatic fire alarm system and voice communication) Standpipes are required on every level throughout the high-rise building within the stairwells and within the corridors at a maximum of 200 feet spacing. FIRE LANE COMMENTS: Fire apparatus access needs to be provided within 250 feet of all exterior portions of sprinkled buildings. Fire apparatus access needs to be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus (minimum of 80,000 Ibs GVW). Fire access roads have been increased from the previous width of 20 feet wide with an additional 8 feet of parallel parking in the existing locations, to 22 feet wide with an additional 8 feet of parallel parking in the new construction. Fire lanes require a minimum 30 foot inside turn radius and a minimum 54 foot outside turn radius. (per 2009 I.F.C. Sec. 503.2.4) FIRE HYDRANT COMMENTS: Hydrants required at a maximum spacing of 400 feet for this multi -story residential structure. Hydrants are required at intersecting streets and at intermediate locations between as prescribed above, measured as the hose would be laid. 1k1;101NLyi/_lIEel kVAW6191Ly,ILyilEll k111&1 All buildings are required to have Knox Box rapid entry systems installed. Boxes can be ordered at www.knoxbox.com or contact the Fire Marshal's Office. Informational Comments: SPIN meetings were held February 11, 2013 and June 10, 2013. No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan. A separate building permit is required prior to construction of any signs. All mechanical equipment must be screened of view from right-of-ways and residential properties in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended. All lighting must comply with the Lighting Ordinance No. 693, as amended. All development must comply with the Drainage Ordinance No. 605 and the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance No. 946, as amended. Provide sidewalks and/or trails in compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, as amended and the Master Pathways Plan. 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. Case No. Attachment E ZA13-054 Page 3 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. Denotes Informational Comment Case No. Attachment E ZA13-054 Page 4 Surrounding Property Owners The Residences SPO # Ownenh, Zoning Land UsejF Acreage Response 1 Town Square Ventures Lp DT Town Center 0.48 NR 2 Sits Grand Avenue Lp DT Town Center 2.44 NR 3 Sits Grand Avenue Lp DT Town Center 0.58 NR 4 Southlake, City Of DT Town Center 1.37 NR 5 Town Square Ventures Lp DT Town Center 3.62 NR 6 Sits Grand Avenue Lp DT Town Center 2.96 NR 7 Sits Grand Avenue Lp DT Town Center 2.55 NR 8 Southlake, City Of DT Town Center 2.07 NR 9 Town Square Ventures V Lp DT Town Center 1.10 NR 10 Town Square Ventures Lp DT Town Center 2.27 NR 11 Early, Fidelma DT Town Center 0.07 NR 12 Smith, Ryan DT Town Center 0.06 NR 13 Gray, Tim A DT Town Center 0.06 NR 14 Mills, Michael D Etux Rita DT Town Center 0.06 F* 15 Wang, Tzuchung S & Julia Huang DT Town Center 0.06 NR 16 Lewis, Terry W Etux Debra K DT Town Center 0.06 NR 17 Pekowski Family 1998 Trust DT Town Center 0.06 NR 18 Hale, Genevieve Etvir John DT Town Center 0.06 F 19 Kienast, Joseph P Etux Deanna DT Town Center 0.06 F 20 Nelson, Kenneth R Etux Sharon DT Town Center 0.06 NR 21 Posey, James H DT Town Center 0.06 NR 22 Schirle, Joseph L Jr Living Tr DT Town Center 0.06 NR 23 Vance, Frederick Etux Carol DT Town Center 0.06 NR 24 Talkington, Timothy J DT Town Center 0.06 NR 25 Ware, Demarcus O DT Town Center 0.06 NR 26 Julia, Thomas Etux Mary Jane DT Town Center 0.06 NR 27 Durant, Tom & Susan Durant DT Town Center 0.13 NR Case No. Attachment F ZA13-054 Page 1 28 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.16 NR 29 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.07 NR 30 Williams, Herbert S III DT Town Center 0.04 NR 31 Raif, Thomas V Jr & Jennifer DT Town Center 0.04 NR 32 Torres, Carlos DT Town Center 0.04 NR 33 Wandschneider, Gary K DT Town Center 0.06 NR 34 Visosky, Mark DT Town Center 0.07 NR 35 Ducharme, Paul E Etux Marianne DT Town Center 0.07 NR 36 Jackson, Charles B Jr & Cathy DT Town Center 0.07 NR 37 Ryne, Wallace R DT Town Center 0.08 NR 38 Francis, Tim D Etux Pamela D DT Town Center 0.09 NR 39 Faulkner, Sandra Potter DT Town Center 0.09 NR 40 Angeluna Properties Llc DT Town Center 0.08 NR 41 Smith, Pete DT Town Center 0.08 NR 42 Fout, April R Etvir George D DT Town Center 0.08 NR 43 Osorio, Federico G Etux Paula DT Town Center 0.08 NR 44 Martin, John Etux Patricia D DT Town Center 0.08 NR 45 Shetterly, Mark Etux Kathern DT Town Center 0.08 NR 46 Leaf, Makram J Etux Caroline M DT Town Center 0.07 NR 47 Depperman, Chris DT Town Center 0.07 NR 48 Biersmith, Mark A Etux Sally A DT Town Center 0.07 49 Cranston, James Etux Etal DT Town Center 0.08 NR 50 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.12 NR 51 Arnold, William Etux Joanna DT Town Center 0.08 NR 52 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 53 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 54 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 55 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.05 NR 56 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 57 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 58 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 59 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 60 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 61 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 62 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 63 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.65 NR 64 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.13 NR 65 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.09 NR 66 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.08 NR 67 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.07 NR 68 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.08 NR 69 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 70 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 71 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 72 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 73 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 74 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 75 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 76 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 77 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 78 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.06 NR 79 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.08 NR 80 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.08 NR 81 Smith, Ryan Taylor & Catherine DT Town Center 0.10 NR 82 Fields, Jennifer DT Town Center 0.06 NR Case No. Attachment F ZA13-054 Page 2 83 Coons, Robert & Kathy DT Town Center 0.06 NR 84 Alexander, Stanley Etux Lisa DT Town Center 0.06 F 85 Cardillo, Valentino Etux S Is DT Town Center 0.08 O 86 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.13 NR 87 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.10 NR 88 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 0.12 NR 89 Cole Mp Pm Portfolio Llc C3 Town Center 4.66 NR 90 Hd Development Propertiex, Lp C3 Town Center 11.60 NR 91 Shamrock Pipeline Corp, The C3 Town Center 0.41 NR 92 Sits Land Lp DT Town Center 5.35 NR 93 Brownstone At Town Square Lp DT Town Center 4.31 NR 94 H D Development Properties Lp C3 Town Center 0.20 NR 95 Town Square Ventures Lp DT Town Center 0.48 NR Responses: F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response Notices Sent: Responses Received: Ninety-five (95) Five (5) — Attached Michael and Rita Mills, 1528 Main St. are opposed to apartment rental units and in favor of single - ownership condos. A number of emails have also been received by the City from residents indicating their concerns about the project. These emails can be found in the attachment linked below. - Link to Emails from Residents Case No. Attachment F ZA13-054 Page 3 8/1/13 Ci.southlala.txus Mail - Southlal, Town Square Garden District & Brownstones C ITf OF SOUTHLAKE Southlake Town Square Garden District & Brownstones Shawns Cardillo Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:39 PM To: "mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us' <mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us>, "placel@ci.southlake.tx.us" <placel@ci.southlake.tx.us>, "place2@ci.southlake.tx.us" <place2@ci.southlake.tx.us>, "place3@ci.southlake.tx.us" <place3@ci.southlake.tx.us>, "place4@ci.southlake.tx.us" <place4@ci.southlake.tx.us>, "place5@ci.southlake.tx.us" <place5@ci.southlake.tx.us>, "place6@ci.southlake.tx.us" <place6@ci.southlake.tx.us>, "hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us" <hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us> Cc: Valentino Cardillo (Sent via Email and Hand Delivered) August 1, 2013 Southlake Planning & Zoning Members and Southlake City Council Members, This communication is in reference to the proposed Garden District development which will be reviewed at the August 8th P&Z public meeting. This is an extremely difficult topic to cover succinctly via email 1 letter communication or via a three minute discussion at the meeting. Therefore, we have attached three plan documents to be referenced concurrently with this letter. Additionally, in an effort to keep it simple, we have outlined our concerns in bullet point format below. At the highest level we have two major concerns: 1) The inclusion to turn Summit Avenue into a through -street. Previously the plan was Summit Avenue would Dja be a through -street to the Garden District, 2) The addition of condominiums to the Southlake Town Square area. 1) Summit Avenue as a Pass -Through Street vs. Dead -End (Exhibit 2 and 3 yellow vertical line) • The plans presented in January called for Summit Avenue to be blocked via barricades prior to entering the center of the Garden District and not be a through -street. (Exhibit 1, red horizontal line) • On May 29th we met with Lawrence Corson, Director of Residential Development and Sales, of Cooper and Stebbins Development. He stated there was no reason Summit Avenue has to be a through -street in order to complete the remainder of the Garden District development plans. This is a very key point to this topic as no other development would be delayed with this modification. Case No. Attachment G ZA13-054 Page 1 811/13 Ci.southlake.txus Mail - Soulhlake Tmn Square Garden District & Bromstones • Critical Point #1: This will create an extremely hazardous pedestrian and vehicular situation at the intersection of Highway 1709. As the volume of traffic increases significantly attempting to exit and enter from Summit Avenue via a stop sign a serious, or potentially fatal accident occurring Is only a matter of time (Exhibit 3, lime green "X"). The already established traffic signal, no more than a tenth of a mile up from Summit Avenue, on to Central Avenue should continue to be the main access way to the new retail development. (Exhibit 3, orange colored line; including planned expansion/right turn of Central Avenue across from Federal Way to Hwy 114. Planned retail expansion noted as well) • Critical Point #2: This will turn the Brownstone residential neighborhood into a very busy vehicular "pass through" to the planned retail expansion behind, and adjacent to, the Garden District. (Exhibit 2 and 3, teal blue colored line) • The rebuttal offered by some is: traffic already enters Summit Avenue today and exits via Main Street to Central. This is true; however, volume is light compared to what will occur with a formal cut -through street. If Summit Avenue is not cut -through and someone does turn on to it with the hopes of passing to Meeting Street, they will quickly learn this is not possible and return to the designed Central Avenue controlled traffic light the next time. • Traffic will increase drastically in the existing alley behind all the current Brownstones (and future Brownstones) as it will become a passage way for vehicles circling trying to find parking on the new Meeting Street which will run in front of the new Brownstones. This creates a dangerous situation for all residents in the new and existing Brownstones trying to exit and enter their garages. It also creates eminent traffic danger to all pedestrians but especially children, and or pets, exiting their garages or utilizing the alley for some form of recreation, i.e., basketball or skateboarding. (Exhibit 2 purple colored line) • Visitors will search for parking when curb -side Meeting Street parking is full. Vehicles will be less likely to circle to Main Street if they cannot cut -through via Summit Avenue. According to Cooper and Stebbins, the-Southlake Fire Department is apathetic to this pass -through of Summit Avenue. It is not required for any reason. • It appears too easy for the section between Meeting Street and the Central Avenue extension to Hwy 114 to be extended through the park area from the Summit Avenue extension (Exhibit 2 and 3, pinkish red colored line), making the scenarios outlined above an even greater concern. This section is cleverly disguised on the diagram with trees as is the Summit Avenue cut -through. As time progresses many will find a way to utilize this cut -through; not only as a means to get to retail shopping, but potentially as a short cut to other events, including their place of work, all having nothing at all to do with Southlake Town Square. • Residential traffic will increase substantially. Estimating 33 new Brownstones, and four new condo buildings with 60 units each, will total 273 more residential units. If each home averages two vehicles this alone could increase traffic flow on Summit Avenue by a large portion of 546+ vehicles daily. Case No. Attachment G ZA13-054 Page 2 • Not only will residential traffic increase but commercial vehicles (delivery trucks and semis) will utilize passage 24X7 through a residential community with children. Proposed Solution: The passage way from Summit Avenue to Meeting Street should be closed. (Exhibit 2 and 3 yellow colored line, dead-end at horizontal yellow line) This should be filled with an additional Brownstone unit to ensure this issue is not continued at a later date. 2) Addition of Condominiums to the Southlake Town Square Area • Critical Point #1: If the proposed units are approved they should be approved as Co-ops vs. Condos. (including, three Garden District Buildings, a building in the surface parking lot next to the movie theater which is scheduled to be built first, and future surface parking lot proposals throughout the Town Square.) (Exhibit 2 and 3, marked as Condo 14) • Critical Point #2: Southlake schools are a large draw to this community. What an excellent way to get your child into the Southlake school district via uncontrolled rent rates; rent a 1700 sq. ft., or less, condnminium. • At a recent SPIN meeting Cooper and Stebbins indicated they most likely would hold a large portion of ownership of the condos. Thus, they plan to lease/rent these as they see fit. This is the definition of an apartment building. • The rebuttal Cooper and Stebbins will offer is Brownstones, and/or homes can be rented in Southlake. This is true; however the rental fee typically carries a high premium of around $5,000+ per month. A company in business (Cooper and Stebbins, or any other) that needs to rent 60+ units at a time has much different motives than an individual renting a Brownstone or two. In a co-op, all your neighbors have been screened by a board. They are financially stable, they can afford their home, and they have letters of reference from a variety of sources. They have agreed to abide by house rules. Rental activity is tightly controlled, not totally forbidden, usually, but controlled. You don't have to worry about your "owner -mostly building" turning into a "renter -mostly building". If a resident is being obnoxious, you can actually take action that works. • If a large percentage of condo units go into foreclosure, the remaining residents are going to have to pay higher monthly costs and/or the building is going to deteriorate. Also, the condo building is not first in line when it comes to recovering from the foreclosed property. The equivalent of foreclosure in co-ops is rare, because of the screening process, and the co-op building is first in line when it comes to recovering funds if an owner does get into trouble. • One of the advantages with a co-op is specific to sub -leasing. After the owner has resided in the co-op for one or two years typically, most co-ops allow the owners to sublease for one to two years, and then they must move back into the co-op. The renters oftentimes have to be interviewed by the board and disclose their finances Case No. Attachment G ZA13-054 Page 3 • Despite the fact many condo associations contend they are empowered to either approve or disapprove the transfer of ownership, the reality is they have little power at all. Co-ops on the other hand have the right to approve or deny the sale of shares on the basis, for example of the buyer's perceived inability to meet financial obligations. Parking will be greatly compromised by eliminating the existing surface parking and forcing more cars to completely fill or overflow the existing parking decks. This very easily could have a reverse effect on retail shop success as consumers look for convenient parking, not a long walk from the top of a parking deck. (Exhibit 2 and 3, Condo 1) Proposed Solution: No condominiums should be allowed. If passed in the existing architectural format these should be co-op managed buildings. Another alternative is to go to 100% high value Brownstone units with no condominium buildings. Recent Brownstone sales are turning rapidly. We need to be cognizant of both issues to guard against property devaluation in a city with a history of home ownership value maximization and appreciation. Respectfully, Valentino and Shawna Cardillo 1560 Main Street Southlake, TX 76092 3 attachments Exhibit 1.pdf 279K Exhibit 2.pdf 362 K Exhibit 3.pdf 397K Case No. Attachment G ZA13-054 Page 4 i a4 W CL O (D CL M� A rF M y O � A O (D 0 13 c C � 0 1 fD (Q r *-.% N O N M x Cr r+ Case No. Attachment G ZA13-054 Page 5 Case No. Attachment G ZA13-054 Page 6 Exhibit: 3 Retail Case No. Attachment G ZA13-054 Page 7 Notification Response Fo ZA13-054 Meeting Ceuta; August 8, 2013 at 6:30 PM 11aae, Genevieve Etvir John PO Box 02183 Soutf7lake Tx, 78D92 3981813 21 21 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAIK OIL HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PU13LIC HEARING. Being the QWner(s) of the property so noted abQ ve, are hereby in favor of apposed to €ndeclabout (circle or underline Qne) the proposed Specific Use Permit referen d alcove. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature, Additional Si g r atu re: Printed Narne(s): _� L—meE Mue: bo property nwnar(s) wmosa nirna(a) aria prlMed at bp. Mews* contact the Phone Number (optional): ( 1 10- AL4-E Date: q49jo r 17 Date: form per property, Case No. Attachment G ZA13-054 Page 8 Notification Response Form ZA13-054 Meeting Date: August 8, 2013 at 6:30 PM Kienast, Joseph P Etux Deanna 1518 Main St Southlake Tx, 76092 39618B 21 22 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby ZinavorA�of,, opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Specific Use Permit referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Date � Additio (ignature: n L��QJ Date: .3 Printed Name(s): Must be property owner(s) whose name(s) are printed at top. Otherwise contact the Planning Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment G ZA13-054 Page 9 Notification Response Form ZA9 3.064 Meeting Date: August 8, 2013 at 6:30 PM Mills, Michael D Etux Rita 1528 Main St Southlake Tx, 76092 39618E 21 17 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor o o d undecided about (circler or underline one) the propSpecific Us s ed e Permit referenced above. Space for comments0egarding your position: __ l_ �1 • 4 x :10iI s� a Signature: [date: ► � ) 3 Additional Signature: Date: Printed Name(s): /h ,* /r �.�. Must be property owner(s) whose name(s) are printed at top. OtherMse edntact the P1Anning One form per properly. Phone Number (optional): i7 1 �t)5;2 Case No. ZA13-054 Attachment G Page 10 From: Mike Date: August 15, 2013, 12:01:14 AM GMT+O1:00 To: "place l@ci.southlake.tx.us" <placel@ci.southlake.tx.us>, "place2@ci.southlake.tx.us" <place2@ci.southlake.tx.us>, "place3@ci.southlakeax.us" <placc3@ci.southlake.tx.us>, "place4@ci.southlake.tx.us" <place4@ci.southlake.tx.us>, "place5@ci.southlake.tx.us" <place5@ci.southlake.tx.us>, Place6 <place6@ci.southlakc.tx.us>, "mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us" <mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us> Cc: Arnold Bill Lisa Alexander Ryan Smith Bliss Frank Larry Corson Subject: Area Zoning Cases Mr. Mayor and City Council: Due to prior commitments I was not in town to attend last Thursday's P&Z meeting which included the consideration of 5 cases associated with The Brownstones District and a parcel to the immediate west across Central Avenue. I did provide a letter in advance to P&Z and yourselves (attached below) with my comments and have reviewed the meeting subsequently via VoD. Since I also have out of town commitments on the 22nd when 4 of these cases may be considered by council I am writing to emphasize 5 points: Building Heights/Site Lines Since original Brownstone buyers purchased their property with the full Brownstone (114 Brownstones) District approved as Brownstones with building locations and sizes known, I ask that the these site lines be protected by not allowing any structure (including penthouse or mechanical equipment) to negatively impact the site lines as approved by the city prior to our home investment transactions. To accomplish this both the heights of the new structures need to be considered (relative to sea level —not just structure height since grade levels may also be changing) AND set backs (the combination of height above sea level and distance from the existing homes). Open Space Requirements It seems that during the Concept Plan reviews about two years ago when the remainder of The Brownstone District was renamed The Garden District, the Public Open Space just north of and outside The (original) Brownstone District boundary was exchanged for Private Open Space within The Garden District (aka The Brownstone District). This Public Open Space just North of Case No. Attachment G ZA13-054 Page 11 and outside the original Brownstone District was put in place in 2004 as a buffer between residential property and the planned commercial area along the 114 Frontage Road and was the quid pro quo for reducing the size of Summit Park from about 5 acres to about 2.2 acres. This exchange was a win win since it made more sense to have commercial along 1709 rather than open space/park and instead have an open space buffer to the north between residential and commercial. To have one side of this trade undone concerns me, particularly since my recollection is (from the discussion at the Parks Board meeting) that it was understood that the buffer being created to the north of the Brownstones District would not be considered for future movement/change/exchange. I have reviewed the written minutes from that meeting but they do not include the discussion that occurred so I will listen to the audio tape of the meeting when I am next in town. While I not necessarily against considering a reroute of Central Avenue I would point out that placing it on an approved Concept Plan gives it traction/momentum, as shown cuts into the originally approved Brownstone District with an arterial type road in a residential area rather than bordering a residential area, and since it isolates as an island the NW part of the original Brownstone district it invites an argument for changing that piece to commercial from residential. HOA owned alley paralleling Main Street The current proposal calls for extending this existing alley to the east to connect with Park Ridge. To avoid this private alley from being a 3 block straight shot from Park Ridge to Central I request that bollards be placed preventing traffic from being able to access the alley from Park Ridge and visa -a -versa. Main Street east of Park Ridge At some point this area was changed from being a landscaped court (as shown in pre 2005 documents) to being a street. I believe this was done to provide a second access point to the alley paralleling the south side of Main Street at the east end since until a subsequent Brownstone phase was completed there would only be one access point. However, for some reason the land that this city street is on was never transferred to the city and remains under HOA ownership. This situation just invites issues to arise (e.g. Maintenance, repair, replacement, liability, etc.) that will be problematic for both the city and the HOA. Now, while the governing documents are being revised as part of these applications, would be the most efficient opportunity to fix this situation by moving this public street to city ownership. Traffic Calming During the P&Z meeting there was a discussion about placing traffic calming devices on Summit Avenue and perhaps the proposed Meeting Street. While I am not sure these devices are needed, Case No. Attachment G ZA13-054 Page 12 I would request that if they are placed elsewhere they also be placed on Main Street to the east of Central. Otherwise, traffic that would otherwise logically take other routes will opt for Main as the path of least resistance and Main east of Central is no less of a residential street than Summit. Thank you, Mike Mills PS The best way to reach me with any questions over the next few weeks is by email, but unfortunately my access is going to be spotty at times. <Garden District Comments (August 2013).docx> Case No. Attachment G ZA13-054 Page 13 7 August 2013 To; Planning & Zoning Gornmissic'n city Council Ref 7A13-0111012)054,N0 and the residential development ofTown Sqture hi general Due to prior out of town eomnaitrnents 1 will not be available to speak in Person at the upcoming P&Z and potential Council meetings concerning this subject and so will briefly provide my comments in vatting. r7irst and farcmwfl am an avid supporter of continued development of the residential dement to the Town Square District. The concept compotrents proportions are consistent with succcssftrl urban designs and with all that I learned while turning an undergtaduate dcgie,e from the U W School of Arebitecttwe and Urban Design. We currently have an unfinished project that has much upsido r omuining, Giveq tht, confusing naming and numbering wheme of'ttw 5 current cases (e_g. it it; not clear to ma ear if the "Site Plat" 1oquireonents ere incla ded in these cases) i will not attempt to comment on the cases individually but rather make overall commcuts on the project. My points are as follows: Alley.NYidth Et is not clew to me what the crrrrestt grate of play is on this subject. However, I want to make it clear that l do no_ f auppgri widcning, the exisunt; alle ucrrrent tic id its existing 16 feet. 'Mo argurnerrts for status quo are many and s umpelling (^visual appearance of an +>`iif center Swale; ust7f L1 lire delgada#on due to mAbbing can cxtia pavemert to that which exists; owr5.whip issues since the additional width would be owned try a different HOA titan the existit7g; increased maintens=e cost due to chipping that occurs at seams; increased spced of tmffic and accident risks on private property; there is no longer a public safety access issue put ring to the Garden District; etc. etc.). If for some reason. a disuussioa is held abotrt widening the pavement then ttie existing HQA, as the owner of the existing alley land and pavement, ne& s to officially be a -part of "t discussion, My l nsitinn would be heat to avoid ccnnomir, dainal e to our 140A prop" any widening of the alley would halve to be done by removing the existing pavement and constrtxting a no-,w alley with a monolithic pour side to ghee. Reto atia,N.a€_Central Ay"Mike Wbiie I am not nmssarily against relocatinp, the path of this street in ctmccpt, nor do I in ❑otrt:ept oppose filling irr the dminaga areas just north of the OriginrtllExtsting arownstUne District 0.e. the original 114 hulnes plan approved in 2003), I am opposed to any changes to the Open Spftc;e Grated in perpetuity as a northern buffer between this msidentiat district and the commercial area, as was created in 2004 at the time that Case No. Attachment G ZA13-054 Page 14 Swnmit Park ivas reduced from approximately 5 aeres (i_e. gains all the way south to 1709) to its crurmnt size), in August of 2004 the developer came to the Parks Board (on which I served at that time) proposing a widening of the narrow buffer on the north end of the Bromiston€cs Digrict as a tradeoff for reducing the size of Summit Park. It was the Parks $crard intent, as included in the passed motion and recommendation to p&z/Cosncil what this widened buffer not be suhjeut to future ohange. TheDewelopor agreed. Although I have not gore with my own eyes to verify, I was advised a. couple of months later by the then. Community Services Direetot that this in perpetuity stipulation was wried forward and approved through the test of the process. Given that action and #fiat it was a key element in approving the reduction in the sin of Surra-rlit Park I do not believe it is appropriate to change that which wM intended to be permanent without significant vetting. I would also point out that the changes ittwrolved appear to exchange ` Uu }lid" open apace for "private" open space which is two different Considerations (twle;* the city is going to rrmainWn the private open Space that is replacing the public open spy), 4uiIdig% —e-i9 tP With in the Garden District (i, e. the 2003 approved Brownstone District) I am opposed to any building height (above sea level not just above tgrade) exrmeding that included in the 1�pproved 2003 Brownstones plan. My position is that there should not be stay building higher above sea level by location within the *riginal Brownswnes District than approved previously. Said another way it is not j ust the height of the building itself but also the heights above sea level and the setbacks. While I hone no empathy for those who buy homes without doing due diligence as to what may be built next to them, we did our due diligence and bascd our purchases on what was approved for construction adjacent to our homes... and now that is being revised. so I am asking that our site lines as approved in 2003 be respected and protected. I think the devoloper is considering that, but l did notice a reference to " 4' Story Penthouses .... While, that might not be problematic as it pertains to the ncwY area being considered adjacent to the existing Ent patking, bra ge, it is of conccrn if it is being considered in the 2003 Brownstone District - East EAd, of main street This I Flo aot believe is a developer issue but rather an issue betwcon the city and the 140A. The. current oases creole and excellent opportunity to clean up a situation tkxt you probably do not even know exists... i.e. the EOA o"s the street which is the last block on the east end of Main while the city awns the rest of Mail-. The original documents shrew that area as toeing a landscaped "court", At some point it became obvious that a sewed nmes point was needed to the alley in that area -until furtber devolopment occurred.., so this court was tamed into a street but the ownership stayed with the HOA. If there is some technicality for this unusual ownership the technicality needs to be resolvcd and this ownership converted to the city. With the legal douuments all opera at the rnoment for other changes this would bean efficient time to fix it. To leave it like it is will mate ongoing problems ofmaintonancc, roplacemcnt, liability, etc. etc. While it is unlikmly the 140A would want to close this street and convert it to a "Wuff' I d❑ Case No. Attachment G ZA13-054 Page 15 believe that once the alley has a new entrance to the north an argument could he made to der so. Thx& you for taking the flmo to read my irifbrmalion and for your eff"oxts to balance the protecdoa ofexibiing Moms with last ofcorttinuing appropriate development of our di.Arict and of our community. Nkchael D, Mills 1528 Main Street Southlake, TX 76092 CC: The Brownstones at down Square BOA Board of Directors Frank Bliss -Lasry Cnrson Case No. Attachment G ZA13-054 Page 16 Alicia Richardson From: Lisa Alexander Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 8:58 AM To: mayor@d,southlake.tx.us Subject: Garden District Plans Hi Mayor Terrell - I have been to just a few Council meetings but I want to tell you that the few I have been to I have really enjoyed the way you have run them. Thank you. I wanted to email you and some of the other council members with a couple more comments I have on some of the issues that were brought up last night. 1. Home Depot - I would like to see the city pass an ordinance similar to what they passed behind Central Market. That will solve the problem. No wall was required when Bill Arnold's home was built backing up to Home Depot - no wall was built when the other brownstones were built down by Home Depot. To require a wall now seems a bit odd when the problem is with the time of day those trucks are using that area - Please consider passing a noise ordinance restricting trucks during times as was done behind Central Market 2. Summit Avenue - Planning and Zoning heard a 19 minute presentation on why one brownstone resident doesn't want Summit to be extended to Meeting Street. P&Z determined it was better for Summit to be a through street. I live at the corner of Summit and Main Street. Currently we have daily traffic that _ turns to go down Summit expecting Summit to continue. They make the tam and then are stuck. They either turn around in our alley or go through the alley to exit. Summit was never designed not to be a through street - otherwise the City would have made it a cul-de-sac. If you do not extend Summit to Meeting cars will still turn off of 1709 onto Summit you will just be increasing the traffic on Main Street. The cars are going to see brownstones they want to get to and will try to get there the most logical way - following Summit. By not putting Summit through to Meeting you will be forcing more cars on Main Street both East and West of Summit and adding to the traffic already on that road. You would be helping one brownstone owner by not increasing traffic by their front door but you would be doing so by adding more traffic to everyone else. I by the way would benefit from Summit staying a dead end. But I do not feel it benefits the entire neighborhood. 3. Residence Building - I think adding a residence building in the parking lot is a great idea. Pulling the side walk into Central Avenue more will close down that street to fast traffic, open it up to a more friendly walking environment and ascetically look better by hiding the garage behind the 5 story building. 4. Dog Park - Coopers & Stebbins mentioned putting a small dog park in at the same time as creating that oval park. I did not hear that mentioned but given the enormously high percentage of dog owners the current brownstone owners have (I count 12 just off the top of my head in 44 units) and no place to go and let the dogs play I feel this would be a wonderful addition to the area. Please make sure this is part of the plan. Thank you for taking the time to read my email - I know you must get a ton of these. Thank you also for serving our City with great integrity and professionalism. It does not go unnoticed!! Case No. Attachment G ZA13-054 Page 17 Thanks!f Lisa Alexander 1562 Main Street Case No. Attachment G ZA13-054 Page 18 N *191 ILIA I Eel ki I ki Eels [in] A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, GRANTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR RESIDENTIAL LOFTS IN THE SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE "DT" DOWNTOWN DISTRICT FOR THE RESIDENCES ON PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, BEING DESCRIBED AS LOT 4, BLOCK 4R1, SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE, PHASE I, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A", AND AS DEPICTED ON THE APPROVED SITE PLAN ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN AS EXHIBIT "B" AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, a Specific Use Permit for residential lofts in the Southlake Town Square "DT" Downtown District has been requested by a person or corporation having a proprietary interest in the property zoned as "DT" Downtown District; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of Section 37 and Section 45 of the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council have given the requisite notices by publication and otherwise, and have afforded the persons interested and situated in the affected area and in the vicinity thereof; and, WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find and determine that the granting of such Specific Use Permit is in the best interest of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the City. TEXAS: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, SECTION 1. A Specific Use Permit is hereby granted for residential lofts in the Southlake Town Square "DT" Downtown District for The Residences on property described as Lot 4, Block 4R1, Southlake Town Square, Phase I, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, more fully and completely described in Exhibit "A", and as depicted on the approved Site Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B" and providing an effective date, subject to the provisions contained in the comprehensive zoning ordinance and the restrictions set forth herein. The following specific requirements and special conditions shall be applicable to the granting of this Specific Use Permit: Case No. Attachment H ZA13-054 Page 1 6'ixSAIIs] kiIPA This resolution shall become effective on the date of approval by the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 2013. CyIWK630:Y0l1jIaW_1:10 By: Mayor City Secretary ATTEST: Case No. Attachment H ZA13-054 Page 2 W:/:11-lk1wiv THIS SPACE RESERVED FOR METES & BOUNDS DESCRIPTION Case No. Attachment H ZA13-054 Page 3 W:/:11-lkM-v THIS SPACE RESERVED FOR THE APPROVED SITE PLAN Case No. Attachment H ZA13-054 Page 4