Item 6FCITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
Department of Planning & Development Services
STAFF REPORT
February 26, 2014
CASE NO: ZA13-136
PROJECT: Preliminary Plat for Kimball Park
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY: MDP Southlake is requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat for Kimball Park on
property described as Tracts 3A1A and 3A2A, Thomas Mahan Survey, Abstract No.
1049, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and located at 400 and 470 N. Kimball
Ave., Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: S-P-2 Generalized Site Plan District.
Requested Zoning: S-P-2 Generalized Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood # 4.
REQUEST
DETAILS: The applicant it requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat for Kimball Park, proposing
six (6) lots, including one open space lot, on approximately 15.5 acres to develop a
four-story, 175 room Cambria Suites hotel, a three-story, 96,000 square foot office
building, restaurant, coffee shop and retail uses, and one open space lot. An
associated Zoning Change and Concept/Site Plan for Kimball Park is also being
processed (ZA13-135).
VARIANCE
REQUESTED:1) The driveways do not meet the minimum required stacking depth of 150'. Approximately
17.6' of stacking depth is shown on the N. Kimball Ave. driveway and 34.2' of
stacking depth is shown on the S.H. 114 driveway.
2) Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, Section 8.01(A), as amended, requires that
every lot front on a public or a private street. A variance is requested to allow the
lots to be configured as shown on the Concept Plan.
ACTION NEEDED: Consider approval of a Preliminary Plat
ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information
(B) Vicinity Map
(C) Plans and Support Information — Link to PowerPoint Presentation
(D) Plat Review Summary No. 2, dated January 3, 2013
(E) Surrounding Property Owners Map and Responses
(F) Half Size Plans (for Commission and Council Members Only)
STAFF CONTACT: Ken Baker (817) 748-8067
Richard Schell (817) 748-8602
Case No.
ZA13-136
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION: Tracts 3A1A and 3A2A, Thomas Mahan Survey, Abstract No. 1049
wetkIBIL ��*67AN1*1•]zv •►TA1Ewg0=
CURRENT ZONING: S-P-2 Generalized Site Plan District
REQUESTED ZONING: S-P-2 Generalized Site Plan District
HISTORY: A Zoning Change and Concept/Site Plan (ZA12-067) from S-P-2 Generalized
Site Plan District to S-P-2 Generalized Site Plan District for Victory Lane was
approved by City Council on September 4, 2012.
TREE PRESERVATION: The proposed Tree Conservation Plan proposes to preserve the same existing
trees as the previous Victory Lane development except for one additional 8"
Sweet Gum tree is proposed to be removed.
For property sought to be zoned S-P-2 Generalized Site Plan District, the City
Council shall consider the application for a Conservation Analysis or Plan in
conjunction with the corresponding development application. The Planning and
Zoning Commission shall review the application and make a recommendation
to the City Council regarding the application.
CITIZEN INPUT/
BOARD REVIEW: A SPIN meeting for this project is scheduled for January 6, 2014.
PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION: January 9, 2014; Tabled to the January 23, 2014 P&Z meeting.
January 23, 2014; Tabled to the February 6, 2014 P&Z meeting.
February 6, 2014; Approved (5-0) subject to Plat Review Summary No. 2 dated
January 3, 2014 and Staff Report dated January 31, 2014 with variances
requested: 1) The driveways do not meet the minimum required stacking depth
of 150'. Approximately 17.6' of stacking depth is shown on the N. Kimball Ave.
driveway and 34.2' of stacking depth is shown on the S.H. 114 driveway and 2)
Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, Section 8.01(A), as amended, requires that
every lot front on a public or a private street. A variance is requested to allow
the lots to be configured as shown on the Concept Plan.
STAFF COMMENTS: Please see the staff report for the associated Zoning Change and Concept/Site
Plan for Kimball Park for additional information about the project. Attached is
Plat Review Summary No. 2, dated January 3, 2014.
Case No. Attachment A
ZA13-136 Page 1
Vicinity Map
Kimball Park
X rn W 22g4 2237
in Q ry`4�o N 2 m rn
J
N
2420
2200 20 zzoe. REENB N
2417 2419
o H 22012205 20
2426 2504
o S� 516
w � 504 2503 2505
�N m
u� v
� N �
L
Z
O❑
414
910O
co1g212000 U21002110 2120 2150
2300 2354�
2540
State Hwy 114
0
M � 2119 � zp
a
N
N 2120 250 270 N�
� N
Z 260
W
U
W p
Q �
ZA13-136
Preliminary Plat
N
`• WE
0 400 800 1,600
Feet
e
Case No. Attachment B
ZA13-136 Page 1
VARIANCE REQUEST LETTER
DAdms
January 3, 2014
City of Southlake
Department of Planning & Development Services
1400 Main Street, Suite 310
Southlake, TX 76092
Re: Request for Variances
Kimball Park Addition Lots 1 thru 6
ACEI Project No: 2012.156
This request for variances is to address lot frontage on a public or private street and the stacking
distance at driveways into the property.
The Southlake Ordinance No. 483, Section 8.01(A) requires that every lot front on a public or private
street. As a contiguous development that extends deep off of Hwy 114 and will have a mixture of uses
on individual lots it is requested that a variance be granted to allow the lot configuration as shown on
plan.
The Southlake Driveway Ordinance No. 634 requires a stacking depth of 150 feet from the adjacent
R.O.W. to the nearest parking stall or intersecting drive lane pavement edge within the property. The
adjoining parcels along Kimball Ave. and Hwy 114 are controlling the location of the cross access
intersection and thus setting the stacking distance. Refer to the site plan submitted to illustrate both
driveways and common access points.
The adjacent property along Hwy 114, Lot 7R, Block 1 Mesco Addition, was approved by the City of
Southlake zoning case ZA96-109. The concept plan in this zoning case includes a common access
driveway/easement approximately 34 feet outside the HWY 114 R.O.W. The Kimball Park site plan allows
for approximately 34 feet of stacking distance in the driveway from HWY 114 due to this approved
common access driveway.
The adjacent property along Kimball Ave., Lot 1, Block 1 Mesco Addition, has two existing drives
paralleling Kimball approximately 17 feet and 102 feet outside the Kimball R.O.W. The Kimball Park site
plan allows connection to both of these existing drives which forces a stacking distance less that the
required 150 feet.
We herein request a lot fronting on public or private street variance and a driveway stacking distance
variance for both Kimball Park driveways. Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this
issue. Please do not hesitate to contact us regarding any questions.
Sincerely,
J
IL
Jimmy Fechter, RLA
Project Manager
Adams — Engineering and Development Consultants
910 S. Kimball Avenue • Soulhlake, Texas 76092
817.328.3200 • FAx 817.328.3299
WE Reg. No. F-1002, irwii,.odains-engineeri?rg.com
Case No. Attachment C
ZA13-136 Page 1
i
PRELIMINARY PLAT
-
---------- I "'°° m". �(( ; ..wr•_o/1 171s 5 ±9
III
VICINITY MAP
Case No. Attachment C
ZA13-136 Page 2
Case No.: ZA13-136
PLAT REVIEW SUMMARY
Review No.: Two
Project Name: Preliminary Plat — Lots 1-6, Kimball Park Addition
APPLICANT: Jeff Medici
MDP Southlake
1203 S. White Chapel Blvd. Ste. 100
Southlake, TX 76092
Phone: (214) 784-1617
E-mail: ieffinediciC@gmail.com
Date of Review: 01/03/14
ENGINEER: Jimmy Fechter
Adams Engineering
910 S. Kimball Ave.
Southlake, TX 76092
Phone: (817) 328-3215
E-mail: limmy.fechter(a�adams-engineering.com
CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON
12/23/13 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
DENNIS KILLOUGH AT (817) 748-8072.
The preliminary plat and subsequent final plat must conform to all underlying zoning district
regulations.
The following variances are requested:
a. Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, Section 8.01(A), as amended, requires that every lot front
on a public or a private street. A variance has been requested to allow the lots to be
configured as shown.
b. All driveways/points of ingess/egress must comply with the Driveway Ordinance No. 634,
as amended). Both driveways do not meet the minimum stacking depth of 150'. It appears
that approximately 18' of stacking is provided at the Kimball driveway and approximately
34' of stacking is provided at the S.H. 114 driveway. A variance i
3. All driveways/points of ingess/egress must comply with the Driveway Ordinance No. 634, as
amended). The following changes are needed:
a. The proposed driveway onto E. SH 114 does not meet the minimum 250 feet of spacing
(60 feet shown) from an approved driveway and common access easement located on Lot
7R, Block 1, Mesco Addition (case ZA96-109). The driveway/common access easement on
Lot 7R1, Block 1 is labeled to be abandoned. Prior to issuance of a permit for the proposed
driveway on SH 114, a copy of the executed and recorded instrument(s) for the off -site and
on -site common access easements and agreement to abandon the common access
easement and driveway on the approved Lot 7R, Block 1, Mesco Addition (case ZA96-109)
must be provided.
Tree Conservation/Landscape Review
Case No. Attachment D
ZA13-136 Page 1
E-mail: kmartin@ci.southlake.tx.us
Keith Martin
Landscape Administrator
Phone: (817) 748-8229
II:7Ell ;Kde]kR]Ell li%IEel k[d01Ly,I►yilEll kIII &I
The proposed Tree Conservation Plan proposes to preserve the same existing trees as the previous
Victory Lane development except for one additional 8" Sweet Gum tree is proposed to be removed.
The submitted Development Regulations propose that the western property line adjacent to the multi-
family residential lots will be screened with a vegetated screening of: existing plant material, required
plantings within the buffer and additional large shrubs and accent trees planted within the bufferyard.
There are a significant amount of existing trees and associated vegetation along the west and north
property lines. Identify these trees and designate if they will be preserved, removed, considered
marginal, and show how the proposed west bufferyard landscaping will be integrated with the existing
vegetation.
The Preliminary Grading Plan shows that the McPherson Branch Creek on Lot 6 is proposed to be
graded and improved. There is one large Post Oak tree on the back of Lot 7R, Block 1, Mesco
Addition that might be on the Kimball Park, Lot 6 property. The proposed grading and south access
drive look like they may alter the existing tree. Please locate and identify this tree on the submitted
plans.
Please be aware that all existing trees shown to be preserved on the City Council approved Tree
Conservation Plan must be preserved and protected during all phases and construction of the
development. Alteration or removal of any of the existing trees shown to be preserved on the approved
Tree Conservation Plan is a violation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance and the zoning as approved
by the Southlake City Council. Please ensure that the layout of all structures, easements, utilities,
structures grading, and any other structure proposed to be constructed do not conflict with existing
trees intended to be preserved.
Public Works/Engineering Review
Steve Anderson, P.E. , CFM
Civil Engineer
Phone: (817) 748-8101
E-mail: sanderson61ci.southlake.tx.us
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. Please provide an updated traffic impact analysis.
PRELIMINARY UTILITY COMMENTS:
1. No 900 bends, use 2-450 bends.
2. All waterlines to be public and in easements.
3. 12" waterline not on the City's Master Water Plan, therefore no city participation in upsizing.
4. Any sanitary sewer lines crossing lot lines will need to be public and contained in easements.
Case No. Attachment D
ZA13-136 Page 2
5. Extend SS-1 west to property line.
6. Extend SS-4 to west property line.
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 Department Review
Kelly Clements
Assistant Fire Marshal
Phone: (817) 748-8671
E-mail: klements@ci.southlake.tx.us
GENERAL COMMENTS:
An automatic fire sprinkler system will be required for all commercial structures in excess of 6,000
square feet, with coverage extended into the attic if comprised of combustible construction. (per
2009 I.F.C. Sec. 903.3.1.3 as amended). Also, the restaurants classified as an A-2 occupancy will
require an automatic sprinkler system with an occupant load in excess of 100.
All sprinkled buildings are required to be equipped with a fire alarm in compliance with NFPA 72,
the 2009 International Fire Code, and the City of Southlake amendments.
A complete set of plans for the underground fire protection line, fire sprinkler system, and fire
alarm system shall be submitted to Reed Fire Protection for review and approval at 14135 Midway
Road in Addison, Texas 75001. Business phone is 214-638-7599.
A Knox Box Rapid Key entry system shall be installed on the buildings near access to the riser
room. Keys must be provided to access the riser room. The Knox Box can be ordered on the
Internet at www.knoxbox.com.
A 5 inch Fire Department Connection shall be installed on each building, with a locking Knox cap
attached to the FDC to prevent debris from entering the connection.
Case No. Attachment D
ZA13-136 Page 3
An exterior audible/visual fire alarm device must be installed above the Fire Department
Connection on each sprinkled building to indicate when a fire alarm condition is present in the
building, or located as near as possible to the FDC, on the building, if the FDC is installed
remotely.
Approved suite numbers and/or building address shall be posted on all new buildings in such a
position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. All
numbers shall contrast with their background.
Electrical, Mechanical, Roof Access, Fire Alarm Panel, Sprinkler Riser and all other pertinent
rooms must be labeled with appropriate signage.
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 LANE COMMENTS:
Fire lanes require minimum 30 ft. inside turn radius and minimum 54 ft. outside turn radius.
FIRE HYDRANT COMMENTS:
Hydrants required at a maximum spacing of 300 feet for commercial locations that contain un-
sprinkled buildings, and 600 feet for commercial locations that contain completely sprinkled
buildings.(If all buildings in the complex are completely sprinkled, then hydrant locations are
acceptable except for adding a hydrant at the South entrance into the complex off of the service
road of State Highway 114)(If all building are not completely sprinkled, then hydrants will need to
be added and relocated to meet requirements)
A fire hydrant shall be within 100 feet of each Fire Department Connection, and the Fire
Department Connection within 50 feet of fire lane access.(Fire Department Connection locations
not indicated on plans)
The following should be informational comments only
A SPIN meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2013.
It appears this property lies within the 65 'LDN D/FW Regional Airport Overlay Zone, requiring
construction standards in compliance with the Airport Compatible Land Use Zoning Ordinance No.
479. Additionally, the "Avigation Easement and Release" shown in Appendix 3 of the Subdivision
Ordinance No. 483 should be executed on subsequent Plats to be filed in the County Plat Records.
A preliminary plat for the entire property that conforms to the site plan must be approved and a
final plat must be approved and filed prior to issuance of a building permit.
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.
Case No. Attachment D
ZA13-136 Page 4
All lighting must comply with the Lighting Ordinance No. 693, as amended with regard to type of
lighting, intensity, glare and spill -over.
All development must comply with the Drainage Ordinance No. 605 and the Erosion and Sediment
Control Ordinance No. 946, as amended.
Development must comply with all requirements in Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 43, Overlay
Zones.
A Developers Agreement is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure. The Developer's
Agreement for this addition should consider streets, drainage, park dedication requirements and fees,
off -site sewer extensions, off -site drainage and utility easements and impact fees.
All development must comply with the Drainage Ordinance No. 605 and the Erosion and Sediment
Control Ordinance No. 946, as amended.
Denotes Informational Comment
Case No. Attachment D
ZA13-136 Page 5
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS
Kimball Park
1778
1750
�
a
N
�
No
No
A
N O
v
nAi v v
�
�o
6�
N
O
Am
m
N
�
1910
0
v
,� Q 2420 2460 24
°c REENB UGH N
�_ 2200 20 2208 �9
YT 2417 2419 2421
�D o H 2201220 20 25 o m
O
c
N
516
504
v
v
Z
J
� ❑
� Q
° 414
o
v
2426
2504
2508
2503
2505
2509
a
r
A
�
N
A
u,
2540
1.
Owner
Aos Investments Group Inc
Zoning
01
Address
469 CHERRY LN
Acreage
1.01
Response
NR
2.
T2T Property Holdings Llc
01
485 CHERRY LN
1.02
NR
3.
T2T Property Holdings Llc
01
501 CHERRY LN
0.99
NR
4.
Reynal, John Etux Beverly S
MF1
575 CHERRY LN
1.14
NR
MF1
CHERRY LN
1.0
6.
First Financial Trust & Asset
MF1
675 CHERRY LN
0.98
NR
7.
Halim, Emil A
MF1
725 CHERRY CT
0.96
NR
8.
10.
Harris, Kimberly Susan
le
Ashton Dallas Residential Llc
SF1-A
C3
RPUD
700 CHERRY CT
2201 COTSWOLD VALLEY CT
0.94
0.30
O
NR
11.
Vision Southlake Dev Llc
SP2
566 N KIMBALL AVE
0.66
NR
12.
Tdc Manaagement Llc
SP2
560 N KIMBALL AVE
0.52
NR
13.
15.
Vision Southlake Dev Llc
Kimball Road L
Sandco Holdings Lp
SP2
SP2
572 N KIMBALL AVE
1500 N KIMBALL AVE
420 N KIMBALL AVE
0.39
0.54
NR
NR
16.
Texas Petro Corp III
SP2
2150 E SH 114
1.16
NR
17.
Tate, John T
SP2
2120 E SH 114
0.92
NR
17
Mayse, Richard A
SP2
2110 E SH 114
0.75
NR
18.
Oncor Electric Delivery Co Llc
CS
550 N KIMBALL AVE
2.55
NR
19.
St Laurence Episcopal Church
CS
517 N KIMBALL AVE
5.59
NR
20.
Corp Of Episcopal Diocese Fw
AG
549 N KIMBALL AVE
0.94
NR
21.
Hagar, Stephen T
AG
479 N KIMBALL AVE
4.08
NR
22.
Chamathil, Varghese Etux Sara
AG
411 N KIMBALL AVE
1.67
NR
23.
Ivester, Emory O Etux Marlene
AG
501 N KIMBALL AVE
3.62
NR
24.
Bo-Fam Investments Ltd
11
450 N KIMBALL AVE
0.68
NR
25.
Mdp Southlake Llc
SP2
400 N KIMBALL AVE
6.13
NR
Case No. Attachment E
ZA13-136 Page 1
26.
Mdp Southlake Llc
SP2
470 N KIMBALL AVE
9.33
NR
27.
Vision Southlake Dev Llc
SP1
600 N KIMBALL AVE
9.96
NR
28.
Aos Investments Group Inc
01
469 CHERRY LN
1.01
NR
Responses: F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response
Notices Sent Within 200': Twenty-eight (28)
Responses Received Within 200': Four (4) — Attached
Responses Received Outside 200': One (1) - Attached
Case No. Attachment E
ZA13-136 Page 2
Responses Received Within 200'
Notification Response Form
ZA13-136
Meeting Date: January 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM
Van Till, John J
2623 Peninsula Dr
Grapevine Tx, 76051
3545 A 5
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 of opposed to undecided about
(circle or underline one)
the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above.
Space for comments regarding your position:
Signatu
Adpitioo Signature:
Printed Name(s):
Must be property owner(s) whose
Date:
Date:
are printed at top. Otherwise contact the Planning Department. One form per property.
Phone Number (optional). -
Case No. Attachment E
ZA13-136 Page 3
Notification Response Form
ZA13-136
Meeting Date: January 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM
Harris, Kimberly Susan
700 Cherry Ct
Southlake Tx, 76092
3645 A 8
PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX DR HAND DELIVERY
BEFORE THE .START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING.
Being the owner(s) of the prop" so noted above, are hereby
in favor of 4aerline
undecided about
one)
the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above.
Space for comments regarding your position:
r� CLI-Aa Wi f e- c i ' o i n oil CLyptkYtc4 U n F;
V 1)cv.S' Sct-- )-, l C k 6 it." ri 1 I
N CC
C �l.yZ� vl
Signature: 4-1-�,.--
Additional Signature:
Printed Name(s):�pfintop. A+Fust be property owners) whpsenames)arwise contact the Piannirtg Department
Phone Number (optional):
b/em
Date: 1--�--�
Date:
per Property.
Case No. Attachment E
ZA13-136 Page 4
Notification Response Fora
ZA13A36
Mating Data: January 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM
Fusselman, Bruce Etux Michelle
2100 E State Hvvy 114
outhlaW Tx, 75CS2
3545 A Al
PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY
BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING_
Being the avuner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby
in'4a�1or of opposers to undecided about
circle or underilne one _
e proposed PreIjm naryPfat referenced ab
Space for comments regarding your position:
Signature- Date:
-L -rj
Additional Signature: -- Date:
Printed Name{s}=
^+lust be property avner(s) whose namely) are printed attcp. 0tllerrliserr_%8ct the Planning Depatrnent One tom per property
Phone Number (optional):
Case No. Attachment E
ZA13-136 Page 5
Notification
ZA13-136
Mooting Date, January 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM
Kimball Road LP
4100 Heritage Ave Ste 105
Grapevine Txr 76051
26816 1 1
j I
Responseohl
PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, PAX OR HAND DELIVERY
BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED R.5LIO HEARING.
i.
Being the owners) of the property so noted 011a?e, are hereby
. 4
in favor of opposed to undo 16: ;red about
(circle or underline one)
the proposed Preliminery Plat refererti~44 above.
Space for comments regarding your position: 4FF y
•!? 4
f
:.I
II..
k'd ri
Signature:
AdditionalSignature:
Printed Name(s): r b
Must ba property am w(s) whose aarne(a}are prirrred at tap.
Phone Number (optional):
oata:LIY
Date:
Uric form per pM"rty.
Case No. Attachment E
ZA13-136 Page 6
Responses Received Outside 200':
Vau han
I:ummrrri:d ° Rvah.N (:rnup. I.rl).
Memorandum
To: Southlake Mayor and City Council
Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Bill Vaughan
Date: January 9, 2014
RE. Proposed Hotels in Southlake
I am writing you this letter to express my concern over the proposed Cambria Suites to be located
adjacent to the northwest corner of S.H. 114 and Kimball Road in Southlake. In the interest of full
disclosure, I should also let you know that my firm represents both the landowner and the hotel
developer who is considering building the new Westin Hotel on the north side of S.H. 114, just east of
Carroll in Southlake, TX.
For well over a decade as a commercial real estate owner, practitioner and former Planning and Zoning
Commissioner in Southlake, I have consistently heard both elected officials and Southlake city staff
remain steadfast in their position that the only new hotels allowed in Southlake will be quality, full -
service hotels with conference facilities. Now that we finally have a full -service hotel proposed with
Westin, I am incensed that we might be jeopardizing the good fortune of having such a quality hotel
consider a location in Southlake by virtue of allowing Cambria Suites in town, which is precisely the type
cf hotel that we have always said that we DO NOT WANT. Conversely, the Westin Hotel and its
franchisee, a 28-year exemplary citizen of Southlake and lifetime hotelier, have been endorsed and
approved by the Southlake Hilton manager and Cooper & Stebbins management. Think about that for a
minute. While these supporters will have no ownership in the property, they do have a vested interest
in continuing the high quality of projects that have already been developed in Southlake, as we all do.
The Cambria Suites has been proposed by a landowner who has never developed a hotel, and is willing
to put anything on his property that he can get approved, including an ill-conceived hotel with a
racetrack running through it. Really? I surmise that higher quality hotels wouldn't approve of a hotel
franchise to an inexperienced operator to be located on a former contaminated industrial site, next to
an electric power station and obscured behind a fast-food chicken restaurant and convenience store.
But it seems to me that Choice Hotels will approve a hotel franchise to anyone. What also worries me is
the real possibility of this operator not making a go of it, the hotel falls into bankruptcy and disrepair, or
Case No. Attachment E
ZA13-136 Page 7
blighted, and becomes a chronic problem for our city. This scenario has played out repeatedly all over
D/FW, but luckily, we only have one hotel in Southlake right now.
I believe that there is some understandable confusion among city officials about classifications within
the hotel industry. First of all, the industry standard ranking for hotels comes from a company called
STR. In 2013, they ranked Cambria Suites as "Upscale" while Westin is ranked as "Upper Upscale". Per
STR, "brands/chains" are slotted by Chain Scale based on the previous year's annual system wide (global)
Average Daily (room) Rate ("ADR")". This rating has nothing to do with customer satisfaction of the
chain. Because this is a brand new chain, with a limited number of brand new hotels, I would fully
expect Cambria Suites ADR's to fall within the "Upscale" category. It doesn't necessarily mean that they
are going to stay there. And if the other hotels within their chain family are any indication, they will not.
Secondly, I have heard many city officials mention that they do not want limited service hotels in
Southlake. Cambria Suites is a limited service hotel. Full service hotels, like Westin, offer restaurants
and bars (also available to citizens of Southlake), bellman and concierge services, room service,
turndown and laundry service, extensive convention and meeting space, etc. Cambria Suites does not
offer these full service hotel amenities.
Contrary to popular belief, the conference facilities that will be in the proposed Westin are not
necessarily a profitable category in a full -service hotel's profit and loss statement, but they do provide a
great venue and amenity for civic uses, business seminars, charity galas, wedding receptions, etc.
Meanwhile, limited service hotels do none of that and are a less integral part of their communities. Not
to mention the fact that the restaurant and bar facilities in limited service hotels are not for use by the
community.
Cambria Suites is part of the Choice Hotels chain of franchised properties, a chain whose franchises are
widely viewed as one of the lowest quality hotel chains in the U.S., according to such sources as MSN
Money; the Fiscal Times; Trip Advisor; Forbes; J.D. Power and Associates, and the list goes on and on.
The parent/franchisor for Cambria Suites is Choice Hotels. Their brands and 2013 STR Chain Scales are
as follows:
Econol-odge
Economy
Suburban Extended Stay
Economy
Sleep Inn
Midscale
Comfort Suites
Upper Midscale
Comfort Inn
Upper Midscale
Quality Inn
Midscale
Clarion
Upper Midscale
MainStay Suites
Midscale
Rodeway Inn
Economy
Case No. Attachment E
ZA13-136 Page 8
These are the types of low -end, budget hotels that have infested the S.H. 114 frontage road on the east
side of DFW International Airport. The corporate DNA of the franchisor includes ALL of the hotels
below, and is not going to change, just because they have come up with a new Cambria Suites brand.
We have always said that we don't want our side of the airport to look like the east side of DFW
International Airport, and once the first budget hotel gets in, they ALL start showing up.........
Some of the neighbors seem to be in support of the Cambria Suites, and for good reason. When they
bought their properties adjacent to such a challenged property, they probably didn't ever envision it
being developed with anything like what is proposed. In all candor, just because the owner of this
former industrial manufacturing building purchased the property at a huge discount relative to typical
commercial land, doesn't mean that the city is obligated to compromise its vision for the quality of
development for the rest of the city just to accommodate his planned use.
And finally, have you seen the pre -construction renderings for the two hotels? The Westin is impressive
and will be the nicest building in town, while the Cambria Suites certainly among the worst.
Hopefully you share my opinion that we only need hotels that are an asset to our community and
contribute to the quality of life of our citizenry.
We DO NOT need a Cambria Suites in Southlake; we DO need a Westin Hotel.
Thank you for your time, consideration and service.
Case No. Attachment E
ZA13-136 Page 9