Item 6BCITY OF
SOUTHLAI<,-E
Department of Planning & Development Services
STAFF REPORT
June 11, 2014
CASE NO: ZA14-004
PROJECT: Site Plan for Southlake Heritage Business Park No. 2
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY: On behalf of KTR Capital Partners, Pacheco Koch is requesting approval of a
Site Plan for Southlake Heritage Business Park No. 2 for the development of
two office/warehouse buildings, on approximately 24.11 acres on property
described as Tract 1, C. McDonald Survey, Abstract No. 1013, City of
Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, and located at 2600 State Highway 26,
Southlake, Texas. Current zoning: "I-1" Light Industrial District. SPIN
Neighborhood # 8.
DETAILS: Pacheco Koch is requesting approval of a Site Plan for the development of two
office/warehouse buildings totaling approximately 335,800 square feet of
office/warehouse floor area.
Southlake Heritage Business
Existing Zoning
Park No. 2
11
Gross Area
24.11 acres
Number of Proposed Buildings
2
Total Building Area
335,800 sq. ft.
Provided Parking
493
Industrial Space
80%
Office Space
20%
Approximate Impervious Coverage
75%
Variances
Driveway Stacking Depth — Driveway Ordinance No. 634 requires the applicant
to provide a minimum driveway stacking depth of seventy-five (75) feet. There
are three (3) driveways proposed for this property — west, center and east. The
stacking depths provided are approximately 58', 60' and 60' respectively. The
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) submitted as a part of this site plan did not indicate
any stacking issues with the proposed site plan layout.
Driveway Spacing — Driveway Ordinance No. 634 requires a minimum driveway
centerline spacing distance of 250 feet be provided. The westernmost driveway
into the project site is approximately 162 feet from the nearest existing driveway
accessing the adjacent property to the west. The easternmost driveway into the
project is approximately 88' from the nearest existing driveway accessing the
adjacent property to the east. The applicant is the owner of the adjacent
property to the east and proposes closing the existing driveway and providing a
Case No.
ZA14-004
ACTION NEEDED:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF CONTACT
Case No.
ZA14-004
common access easement and driveway as part of their anticipated expansion
to the existing building on the site. However, given concerns raised in TIA
review, staff recommends that the existing driveway to the east be closed and
the common access easement and driveway be provided prior to opening the
new driveway, regardless of whether the existing building to the east is
expanded.
Tree Preservation — Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-C requires the
applicant preserve a minimum 70% of existing tree cover. The applicant has
performed an analysis of the existing trees and determined that many of the
trees are of low quality and will need to be removed. The existing tree cover to
remain is approximately 7.6%.
At the May 8, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting, the initial
site plan proposed was denied. The applicant's request to be remanded back to
the June 5, 2014 P&Z meeting by the City Council was approved at their May
20, 2014 meeting. Since that time, the applicant has submitted the following
changes:
• Industrial use has decreased from 90% to 80%
• Office use has increased from 10% to 20%
• Provided parking spaces have increased from 444 to 493
• The eastern and western entrances have been changed to "right out
only" by the addition of "right -out only" medians; this configuration will
allow for left -in, right -in and right -out only turn movements.
The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval (5-0) at their June
5, 2014 meeting, subject to Staff Review summary No. 5 and the staff report
dated June 5, 201 and noting the following:
• The applicant has agreed to close the existing adjacent driveway to the
property to the east.
• The west and east driveways will each have right turn out only medians.
• The applicant will comply with the vertical articulation requirements
pursuant to our ordinance.
• Noting there will be a right turn dedication or right turn only lane installed
at S H 26.
• Granting each of the requested variances as presented.
1) Conduct Public Hearing
2) Consider Site Plan Approval Request
(A) Background Information
(B) Vicinity Map
(C) Plans and Support Information — Link to PowerPoint Presentation
(D) SPIN Meeting Summary Report
(E) Site Plan Review Summary No. 6, dated June11, 2014
(F) Surrounding Property Owners Map and Responses
Dennis Killough (817) 748-8072
Lorrie Fletcher (817) 748-8069
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
OWNERS: KTR Capital Partners
APPLICANT: Pacheco Koch Consulting Engineers
PROPERTY SITUATION: 2600 State Highway 26
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tract 1, C. McDonald Survey, Abstract No. 1013, City of Southlake,
Tarrant County, Texas
CURRENT ZONING: "I-1" Light Industrial District
HISTORY: There is no development history at this location and the property is
currently unplatted. An associated preliminary plat (ZA14-005) is in
process with the proposed site plan.
CITIZEN INPUT:
SOUTHLAKE 2030:
A SPIN (SPIN #8) meeting was held March 25, 2014. A summary report
is included as Attachment `D' of this report.
Consolidated Land Use Plan
The Southlake 2030 Future Land
Use Plan designates this property
as Industrial District. This
designation is defined as; Industrial
and business service development
that is relatively free of unwanted
side effects, such as unsightliness,
noise, odor, glare, vibrations, etc.,
is permitted in the Industrial
category. In meeting the qualification of relatively free of unwanted side
effects, suitable types of development in the Industrial category can be
characterized by the manufacturing, processing, packaging, assembly,
storage, warehousing and/or distribution of products. Ancillary
commercial and retail activities associated with these uses are
permitted. Public Parks / Open Space and Public / Semi -Public activities
as described above may be permitted if surrounding industrial uses do
not pose hazards and are sufficiently buffered. The development as
proposed appears to be consistent with the intent of the land use
designation at this location.
Pathways Master Plan
Six (6) foot wide sidewalks along the S. Kimball Avenue will be
constructed with this development.
TREE PRESERVATION: Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-C requires the applicant preserve
a minimum 70% of existing tree cover. The applicant has performed an
analysis of the existing trees and determined that many of the trees are
of low quality and will need to be removed. The existing tree cover to
remain is approximately 7.6%.
Case No. Attachment A
ZA14-004 Page 1
UTILITIES: Water
The site has access to an existing 12-inch water line at the northeast
corner of the property.
Sewer
The site has access to an existing 12-inch sewer line along the north
and west boundaries of the property.
TRANSPORTATION
ASSESSMENT: Area Road Network and Conditions
The proposed development will access onto S. Kimball Avenue, a four
(4) lane divided arterial with approximately eighty-eight (88) feet of right-
of-way. There are three (3) driveway access points proposed.
* Based on the 2013 City of Southlake Traffic Count Report
Traffic Impact
Industrial Park (130) 335,800 2,337 1 237 1 39 1 61 1 228
* Vehicle Trips Per Day
* AM -In, AM -Out, PM -In and PM -Out are peak hour generators on a weekday
* Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7t' Edition
P&Z ACTION: May 8, 2014; Denied (5-1)
June 5, 2014; Approved (5-0) subject to the Staff Review Summary No.
5, dated June 5, 2014 and Staff Report dated June 5, 2014, noting the
following:
• The applicant has agreed to close the existing adjacent driveway (off
of Kimball) to the property to the east.
• The west and east driveways will each have right turn only medians.
• The applicant will comply with the vertical articulation requirements
pursuant to our ordinance.
• Noting there will be a right turn dedication or right turn only lane
installed at SH 26.
• Granting each of the requested variances as presented for driveway
stacking and spacing, and tree preservation.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: May 20, 2014; Approved to remand the case back to the June 5, 2014
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting.
STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Site Plan Review Summary No. 6, dated June 11, 2014.
MCommunity DevelopmenAMEMO12014 CasesO04 - SP - Southlake HeritagelCC PacketWtem 68.docx
Case No. Attachment A
ZA14-004 Page 2
Vicinity Map
Heritage Business Park
990 S. Kimball Avenue
x
o
r
r{
m
t�
4
°3
�$ 3s
8
� ssc
�AS
V25 9B}
�i
OL
�{ 5
�7p M�sare C:
P
9
s
c
ZA 14-004
Site Plan
0 150300 600
s
Feet
Case No. Attachment B
ZA14-004 Page 1
Architecture
Interiors
Space Planning
Project Management
Plans and Support Information
ALLIANCEARCHITECTS
Dallas • Richardson
Stephen B. Johns, AIA.
Michael W. Parrish, AIA
CharlesJ. Reagan, AIA
Thomas M. Maxwell, AIA
Chad D. Michel, AIA
Heritage Business Park
KTR Capital Partners has acquired 7 properties within and adjacent to the city
limits of Southlake and Grapevine Texas. KTR is proposing a new office /
industrial project on one of the properties in Southlake, Texas. Being called
Heritage Business Park, it is located on South Kimball Avenue on a 24.1 acre tract
of land consisting of two buildings of 134,160 sf (Heritage VIII) and 210,552 sf
(Heritage IX). The buildings are designed for multi -tenant and are able to park as
much as 20%office if needed.
The site design consists of three street egress / ingress locations which will
provide easy access to both trucks and automobiles. Street egress / ingress on
the East and West will allow trucks direct access to the loading areas for both
buildings, while the middle street egress / ingress allow for automobiles to have
easy access to both buildings from a main central drive. The main central drive
separates the two buildings along with a landscape buffer area on each side and
landscaping throughout the park.
Tilt -up concrete panels will be the main building material with the entries being
accentuated by stone, glass and canopies. A stone accent wall is also introduced
within the design to segment the length of the buildings.
Heritage VIII will be 172' in depth and 780' in length and Heritage IX will be 228'
in depth and 884' in length. Both buildings will have a typical 52' x 56' bay layout
with a 60' speed bay at the loading side. Both buildings will have a clear height
of approximately 29'. The main height of both buildings will be 35'. Both
buildings will have natural light via skylights throughout.
The project will be requesting the following variances:
Driveway spacing along Kimball Avenue does not conform to the 250'
spacing requirement. The westernmost driveway into the project site is
approximately 162' from the nearest driveway. The traffic impact analysis
submitted as part of this site plan did not indicate any stacking issues
with this site layout. The easternmost driveway into the project site is
approximately 88' from the nearest driveway. However, the existing
ALLIANCEARCHITECTS Inc_ 1600 N. Collins Blvd_ Suite 1000 Richardson, Texas 75080 972/233/0400 Fax 972/233/2259
Case No. Attachment C
ZA14-004 Page 1
driveway into the adjacent site will be closed as part of the expansion to
the existing building. Work on the adjacent site and proposed site is
anticipated to be performed at the same time. A variance is requested for
the driveway spacing indicated on the proposed site plan.
The proposed west, center and east driveways do not conform to the
minimum stacking depth of 75'. The proposed plan indicates stacking
depths of 58', 60' and 60', respectively. The traffic impact analysis
submitted as part of this site plan did not indicate any stacking issues
with this site layout. A variance is requested for the driveway stacking
indicated on the proposed site plan.
c. 70% of the onsite tree cover shall be preserved per the Tree Preservation
Ordinance. The applicant was directed by the Landscape Administrator to
assess the existing trees for the level of quality. Since the applicant
determined that many of the trees were of low quality and needed to be
removed, the 70% tree cover preservation requirement cannot be met. A
variance is requested for the tree preservation on this site.
Updated Narrative Regarding Proposed Revisions
Pacheco Koch
May 30, 2014
PK No.: 3478-13A01
Ms, Londe Fletcher
Planner
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE
Planning and Development Services
1400 Main Street, Suite 310
Southlake, Texas 76092
Re: HERITAGE BUSINESS PARK
Southlake, Texas
Dear Ms. Fletcher:
The following changes have been made to the Southlake Heritage site plan originally presented
to the Planning & Zoning Commission on May 8, 2014.
The percentage of office use foreach building has increased from T091.to 20%. As a result
of this change, the percentage of industrial use for each building has decreased from 90%
to 80%. The additional parking stalls required to support this modification have been
added to the site plan.
The easternmost and westernmost entrances to the site from S. Kimball Avenue have been
changed to "Right Out Only" by the addition of right -out -only medians.
Pacheco Koch requested an access point on S.H. 26 be granted by DART. However, DART
will not allow an access point to S.H. 26 from the project site.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please call me at your
convenience.
Case No. Attachment C
ZA14-004 Page 2
increasea parKing
VIM
+'
Previous Site Plan
�M EI
0
Revised Site Plan
ces (+4,v) ana the aaaition or rignt out only mewans
ll�
nm�
2-uaasl£a ELEYRIKM
�Paeha lCAell �,
RM-- ... SITE PLAN_
BounluKE HER-E
aM NERRAOE BUSNI£BB PARK NO. ]
1. BLOCK
m„': •'�•�••'" CRbu[9h9.IAE TAM¢CAT
zA14-,o4 a eaT
Case No. Attachment C
ZA14-004 Page 3
Revised Landscape Plan — North
RANnNG GENERIC NO16 INPIGAIION GfNERAL igIES
v —
ww.kw•w .xnw.rn���' PLA4PNG SCHEDULE ON SHEET L22
vcE GENE aL rvatES w — -
F
II �I
i
� I
r-
S........................... +I
Revised Landscape Plan — South
LECEno ••
P�NEIrvG �rvERaL NNLEs
ry ErvaucE��rvEPni N a ry V
FRIG11ON GENERAL NGEES uw+�
LANOSCAPEry TABNLATIONS ON SO
• ""'a' .rm�v�e
Case No. Attachment C
ZA14-004 Page 4
Heritage Vill Elevations presented at P&Z
117
'I!
!OR
1IR
101
06,M,oAl
PRIOR IRIFI PRIOR PRIOR IRIIR PRIOR, R JR,R- Rtffig Rtmillollim
. . . . . .... .. .
FFT
E9.
Revised Heritage Vill Elevations
-------------- T. 11 E
----------------------- jt - ------ --------------
--------- -
7 --- ----
NORTH BLOG 4 11 3 SOUTH BLDG IX
7,
2 .BST
--,BL`G 'x
T . 1111
------------------------- ------- Ll .....................
--1 F-I T
/ , r - ----------- - ---------- -
k
Heritage IX Elevations presented at P&Z
M M M M
r Ril
02
.T7
Case No. Attachment C
ZAl 4-004 Page 5
Revised Heritage IX Elevations
-
r.o
oPA�F
--i
..o
,as,oH
m
LihAju
j-
4
NORTH - BLDG VIII
,. .-�� SOUTH BLDG VIII
u -'.
0 '�, '�. - .. •�.•-� .1 EAST-BLLDGVIII
z .
�i
� F� FfI �
C ::
J IJ t I
G. �
. ,
ri - t -m
WEST_BLDGVIII 3
Typical Entries and Accent Wall Elevations
g = g
. iffl,
p I I I I I I I I I I 4
Case No. Attachment C
ZA14-004 Page 6
Colored Renderings
Heritage IX
Case No. Attachment C
ZA14-004 Page 7
0SOUTHLAP(E
SPIN MEETING REPORT
CASE NO. ZA14-004
PROJECT NAME: Heritage Business Park
SPIN DISTRICT: SPIN # 8
MEETING DATE: March 25, 2014; 6:00 PM
MEETING LOCATION: 1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX
City Council Chambers
TOTAL ATTENDANCE: Sixteen (16)
• SPIN REPRESENTATIVE(S) PRESENT: Vic Awtry #7, Monique Schill #11, and Matt
Schire
• APPLICANT(S) PRESENTING: Mace McClatchy, KTR and 3 others
• STAFF PRESENT: Patty Moos, Planner I
STAFF CONTACT: Lorrie Fletcher, Planner I: (817)748-8269 or Ifletchera-ci.southlake.tx.us
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Property Situation
• The property is located at S. Kimball Avenue across from Dragon Stadium.
The plan presented at SPIN:
3
HERITAGE BUSINESS PARK
SOHT H LA HE, TE%AE SOUTH HIHIBALL AVLNHL .
Case No. Attachment D
ZA14-004 Page 1
HERITAGE BUSINESS PARK
SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS SOUTH KIMBALL AVENUE .,IP.0—K-h
HERITAGE BUSINESS PARK ALHANGEhaC",,E
.dM
SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS SOUTH KIMBALL AVENUE jIPac_acoK—
Case No. Attachment D
ZA14-004 Page 2
_1L______I- 1L__•__JLA------- ------ JL--- it
HERITACE IX
... 884 X 228
201,552sf m ><
e.. 52 x SG
60 Speed
Bay
cM
IM—
!i MICA 11111 n C1 n n
dkb iT I -
HERITAGE VIII
780 X 172 134,160 sf
i
52 x 56 Says
60 Speei Bay Ni
Site Plan
Development Details:
• 2 buildings; 128,000 sf and 189,000 sf
• Office showrooms
• Currently zoned 1-1
• Parking
• Multiple drive entrances
QUESTIONS/CONCERNS
Is this property zoned? Yes, It is zoned 1-1 Light Industrial.
Is there drainage on the property/ Yes and all the utilities are available to the site.
How can someone contact you for questions? Mace McClatchy 214-740-0004
Meeting presentation ended at 6:15 pm
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
ZA14-004 Page 3
SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY
Case No.: ZA14-004 Review No.: Six
Project Name: Site Plan — Southlake Heritage
APPLICANT: Pacheco Koch
Ryan Koch
8350 N. Central Expressway, Ste 1000
Dallas. TX 75206
Phone: 972.235.3031
Email: rkoch@pkce.com
Date of Review: 06/11 /14
OWNER: KTR Capital Partners
Frank Ryan
300 Barr Harbor Drive, Ste 150
Conshohocken. PA 19428
Phone: 484.530.1800
Email: fryan@ktrcapital.com
CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY
ON 06/09/14 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 LORRIE FLETCHER AT Ifletcher ci.southlake.tx.us / (817) 748-8069 or
DENNIS KILLOUGH AT dkillougha-ci.southlake.tx.us / (817) 748-8072.
Planning Department Review:
All driveways/points of ingress/egress must comply with the Driveway Ordinance No. 634, as
amended.
a. The proposed driveways on the east and west boundaries do not meet the minimum
spacing from the driveways on the adjacent properties. A minimum driveway
centerline spacing of 250 feet is required. The submitted site plan proposes 87.88 feet
spacing on the east and 161.80 feet on the west. (A variance has been requested. If
approved, staff recommends that the existing driveway 87.88 feet to the east be closed
with the permitting and opening of the new driveway and that a common access
easement and driveway be provided for access from the adjacent property to the east
to the new west driveway on the project site.)
b. The three (3) proposed driveways do not meet the minimum stacking depth of 75 feet.
The submitted site plan proposes 58 feet on the west, 60 feet on the center and 60 feet
on the east. A variance has been requested.
c. Detailed plans showing the revised traffic movement configurations and structures for
the east and west driveways are required.
2. Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-C requires the applicant preserve a minimum 70% of
existing tree cover. The applicant has performed an analysis of the existing trees and
determined that many of the trees are of low quality and will need to be removed. The existing
tree cover to remain is approximately 7.6%. A variance has been requested.
3. The subject property is within the Non -Residential Development Overlay Zone. Ordinance 480,
Section 43.19 details the specific regulations governing the subject property. Please address
the following:
a. Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 43.19.d.2.b requires that 60% of the loading dock
or space intended for tractor/semi-trailer delivery be screened with a minimum 8 foot
masonry screen wall in similar material to the front fagade. It appears that a screen
wall has been proposed on the site plan as well as substantial evergreen
Case No. Attachment E
ZA14-004 Page 2
vegetative screening along the eastern and western property lines as discussed
with city staff will satisfy this requirement.
Tree Conservation/Landscape Review:
E-mail: kmartin@ci.southlake.tx.us
Keith Martin
Landscape Administrator
Phone: (817) 748-8229
TREE CONSERVATION COMMENTS:
The existing tree cover preservation does not meet the existing tree cover regulations because
most of the existing trees are low quality, fast growing, pioneering species such as
Cottonwood, Mesquite, and Locust. I told the applicant to assess the quality of the trees to
determine which ones they wanted to preserve. If you cannot preserve 70% or more of
existing tree cover, a variance request in writing is required.
LANDSCAPE AND BUFFERYARDS COMMENTS:
2. Please ensure that all parking lot landscape islands are at least 12' wide from back -of- curb to
back -of -curb.
Parking lot islands shall have a minimum width of 12' back-to-back if curbed or 13' edge -to -
edge if no curb is intended, and shall be equal to the length of the parking stall.
Case No. Attachment E
ZA14-004 Page 2
Public Works/Engineering Review:
Steve Anderson, P.E., CFM
Civil Engineer
Phone: (817) 748-8101
E-mail: sandersona-ci.southlake.tx.us
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: A TIA was conducted for this property to include the expansion
project on the adjacent property to the east. The following is the summary of the report submitted, as
well as, the review comments from our consulting firm, Lee Engineering:
* Traffic Study, Page 29, Conclusions:
The proposed Southlake Heritage industrial parks will introduce 294 new AM peak hour trips
and 352 PM peak hour trips to Kimball Avenue and surrounding roadways. The impacts of the
additional traffic on the operation of the roadway network are expected to be modest but
noticeable. Suggested improvements to accommodate the new traffic and provide for safe and
efficient travel in the study area include:
• Construction of one additional lane, approximately 150 feet long, to separate through
and right turning traffic from left turning traffic on the southeast -bound approach of
Kimball Avenue to State Highway 26.
• Consideration of traffic signal installation at the intersections of Kimball Avenue with
Silicon Drive and Continental Boulevard if and when signal warrants are met.
• Access controls at the intersections of Kimball Avenue with Silicon Drive and the
adjacent site driveways to the east as shown in Figure 9 for Access Scenario A.
• Construction of ADA-compliant pedestrian ramps to allow for crossing the west leg of
the Kimball Avenue at Silicon Drive intersection.
• Prohibition of stadium event parking in the Southlake Heritage parking lots unless both
the owners and tenants of the properties agree with encouraging parking and if police
control is provided to stop traffic for pedestrians to cross.
Case No. Attachment E
ZA14-004 Page 3
* Review Comments from Lee Engineering:
April 11, 2014
Cheryl Taylor, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Southlake
1400 Main Street, Suite 320
Southlake, Texas 76092
Re: Southlake Heritage Traffic Engineering Study Review (Kimball Industrial Site)
Dear Mrs. Taylor:
Per your request, we have reviewed the traffic engineering study for the proposed "Southlake Heritage"
industrial development prepared by Savant Group and dated March 13, 2014.
The proposed development consists of two new industrial buildings designated asthe West Industrial Park
and an expansion of an existing facility, designated as the East Industrial Park.
Our reviewcomments are numbered forease of reference and the numbering does not imply any ranking.
We have divided our comments into two categories —Informational Comments are those that require no
action by the city or the applicant. Action Comments are those that require a response or action by the
City or applicant. Michael Pacelli from the City of Grapevine also provided comments on the study, and
where applicabletheyhave been incorporatedbelow. We offerthe following comments on the submitted
traffic impact analysis.
INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS (REQUIRE NO ACTION BY CITY OR APPLICANT)
1. The text of the TIA indicates that the West Industrial Park will have a 189,000 square foot building
and a 128,000 square foot building. There are three proposed driveways to the West Industrial
Park. The site plan lists the land use as 809/. industrial and 20V office for both buildings.
2. The East Industrial park is an expansion of 55,200 square feet on an existing building. Access to
the East Industrial park is provided by two existing driveways.
3. The TIA indicates that the projects may be complete in late 2014, but that the study assumed
2015 to allow for the buildings to be occupied. The study grew background traffic by 4% to
account for growth to the year 2015.
4. Trip generation was performed using the Industrial Park land use from the ITE Trip Generation
manual. The new West Industrial Park and the expansion of the East Industrial parkare predicted
to generate over 3,100 trips on a daily basis. Total AM trip generation is 294 (241 in/53out) total
PM trip generation is 357 trips (74 in / 278 out).
Case No. Attachment E
ZA14-004 Page 4
5. The study concludes that the "impacts of the additional traffic on the operation of the roadway
network are expected to be modest but noticeable."
6. The trip distribution used was based on GIS data for population within 15 miles and appears
reasonable. The distribution assigns 74% of the site traffic to or from SH 26 towards SH 114. This
appears reasonable.
7. Existing traffic counts were collected on Wednesday, January 8, 2014. Carroll ISD schools were in
session.
8. The existing capacity analysis for the Continental at Kimball intersection incorrectly coded the
median type as a two way left turn lane allowing for 2 vehicle storage. This would allow for a two
stage left turn from Continental Boulevard. This has the effect of understating the amount of
delay at the intersection and showing better levels -of -service than are present at the intersection.
While having an impact on the results of the study, this error does not require revision at this time
due to the fact that this intersection is currently planned for signalization with other
developments.
Based on the information provided in the TIA, no right turn deceleration lanes are necessary at
the site driveways.
10. As mentioned in comments provided by the City of Grapevine, the right turn volumes from the
eastern approach to the Kimball / SH 26 intersection shown in both Figure 4 and Figure 5 have
typos. Similarly, there are typos in the Kimball Avenue volumes shown for intersection 2 on Figure
5. The number is corrected in the actual Synchro analysis and does not require revision.
11. The study documents poor levels of service at the Kimball at Silicon intersection as a result of the
site traffic. The study recommends that installation of a traffic signal at this intersection be
considered if/when signal warrants are met. Additionally, there is discussion in the study
indicating the assumption that traffic from Silicon would be expected to relocate to Nolen once
the future Nolen connection is in place. Development traffic degrades the southbound operation
on Silicon from LOS C to LOS F operation.
ACTION COMMENTS (REQUIRE RESPONSE OR ACTION BY CITY OR APPLICANT)
12. No figure illustrating the Site Traffic Assignment provided in the Study. A figure was provided that
shows the directional distribution used to assign the site traffic, but not a figure showing the
actual site volumes themselves. This makes verification of the assignment difficult. A figure
depicting the site traffic only should be provided and included in the report.
13. The study documents that the three proposed driveways to the Western site do not satisfy the
minimum throat lengths required in the City of Southlake driveway ordinance. A variance will
need to be requested. Based on the queuing information presented in the study, a throat length
variance would be acceptable.
Case No. Attachment E
ZA14-004 Page 5
14. The westernmost site driveway for the West Industrial Park does not satisfy the spacing
requirements of the Southlake Driveway Ordinance between the existing driveway to the west
and the proposed driveway. Additionally, a full access median open is requested for the western
driveway. A variance to the spacing requirement will be required. Based on the current design
of the left turn lane and median opening, we do not believe the driveway spacing variance is
appropriate.
o Based on the information available in the study, the proposed westbound left turn bay
design for the proposed median opening would not be long enough to suitably store at
least two AASHTO W B-67 semi -tractor trailer combination vehicles (18-wheeler with a 53'
trailer). The driveway is projected to be one of the primary access points for trucks
entering the site.
■ A turn bay that is too short for the likely design vehicles should not be permitted.
A right -in right -out driveway should be considered at this location or median
modifications are necessary to accommodate a full access opening.
o If the westbound left turn lane were designed to allow storage of at least 2, preferably 3
WB 67 semi -tractor trailer combination vehicles then the proposed median opening could
be considered.
15. The study recommends prohibiting Dragon Stadium event parking in the development unless
police control is provided to stop traffic to allow pedestrians to cross. The City will need to work
with landowners and CISD to prohibit and enforce the restriction or to facilitate and allow parking
in this development.
16. Cross access between adjoining properties is desirable, reduces the number of driveway and
vehicular conflicts along an arterial, and should be considered at all arterial driveways. No cross
access to properties to the west or east were shown in the site plan. The new Western Industrial
Park site and expanded Eastern Industrial Park site share ownership and the easternmost
proposed new driveway requires a significant variance from the City driveway ordinance due to
spacing requirements.
o The easternmost proposed driveway is analyzed as the fourth leg of the Silicon/Kimball
intersection, however there is an offset present between the two driveways that would
complicate movements.
Case No. Attachment E
ZA14-004 Page 6
o The text of the TIA recommends allowing this driveway, but prohibiting left turn access
out of the proposed drivewayalong with similar prohibitions atthe two existing driveways
to the east on both sides of Kimball. This configuration is shown below in Figure 9 from
the study. The study also recommends prohibiting left turn access into the site on the
north side of Kimball. All left -turn restrictions are proposed to be implemented via
signage, and are unlikely to be effective.
o The text of the TIA also indicates that the Southbound Silicon approach is predicted to
operate at LOS F under the above configuration. In the proposed analysis, the Access
Scenario A analysis, and the Access Scenario B analysis the southbound Silicon approach
to Kimball operates at LOS F with the addition of site traffic and the addition of the new
driveway leg of the intersection. This is after operating at LOS C in background
conditions.
■ We recommend against allowing the driveway spacing variance atthis location.
• The driveway spacing does not satisfy Southlake requirements, and will
negatively impact intersection operations.
• As shown on the site plan, the proposed driveway is offset from Silicon.
This is undesirable and should not be allowed.
• Shared access to the east should be required given the shared property
ownership.
• If the new driveway is permitted in this location, it should be required to
line up with Silicon, common access to the property to the east should
be provided, and the existing drive to the east should be closed.
17. The traffic analysis included in the study documents existing poor levels of service at the SH 26 at
Kimball intersection. This condition would only be worsened by the addition of site traffic from
the new Western Industrial Park and the expanded Eastern Industrial Park. The study
recommends the construction of an additional lane on the eastbound Kimball Avenue approach
to SH 26. We concur with this recommendation.
o If the existing Kimball Avenue ROW is not suitable for the construction of the
recommended additional lane at this intersection then ROW should be obtained from the
4
Case No. Attachment E
ZA14-004 Page 7
Eastern Industrial Parkas part of the approval of the 55,000 square foot expansion of the
existing facility. The expansion of the existing facility and the construction of the two new
buildings on the Western Industrial Park combine to degrade operations at this
intersection.
While the study recommends the proposed lane be configured as a thru/right lane, we
recommend that a right turn only lane be pursued. The City of Grapevine also
recommends a right turn only be considered in their comments on the study.
The study recommends 150 foot of additional lane. We think at least 250 feet of lane
should be planned for.
18. The TIA recommends that ADA pedestrian ramps be constructed on the west side of the Silicon
intersection to facilitate street crossings at the Silicon intersection. We concur with this
recommendation and the construction of ADA ramps should occur. Offsite ADA ramps would not
be the responsibility of the developer.
Ifyou have any questions, please contact me at (972) 248-3006. We appreciate the opportunity to provide
these services and are available to address any additional comments or concerns.
Sincerely,
f
John P. Denholm III, P.E., PTOE
Lee Engineering
TBPE Firm F-450
Case No. Attachment E
ZA14-004 Page 8
PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE COMMENTS:
1. Label storm drainage as "Private".
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: kclements(a)-ci.southlake.tx.us
GENERAL COMMENTS:
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.
A fire alarm system will be required for all buildings equipped with an automatic sprinkler
system. The fire alarm must comply with the 2009 International Fire Code, The City of
Southlake amendments, and NFPA 72. (Submit plans to Reed Fire Protection, 14135 Midway
Road, Suite G260, Addison, Texas 75001)
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. If the FDC is a remote connection then the exterior audible/visual device shall be
located on the building as near as possible to the FDC.
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.
Case No. Attachment E
ZA14-004 Page 9
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.
HVAC units over 2000 cubic feet per minute shall have a duct smoke detector mounted on the
return side of the unit, that when activated, shall send an alarm condition to the building fire
alarm panel and shut the unit down. HVAC units over 15000 cubic feet per minute shall also
have a duct detector mounted on the supply side of the unit that functions as the detector does
on the return side. If the units are located above ceiling tile, remote reset switches must be
installed below the duct detector location.
FIRE LANE COMMENTS:
Fire apparatus access needs to be an all-weather surface, asphalt or concrete, a minimum of
24 feet wide and able to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus. (minimum of 80,000
pounds GVW)
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 600 feet for commercial locations with completely
sprinkled buildings. (Hydrants shown do not meet the requirements)
Fire Department Connections for sprinkler system must be within 100 feet of a fire hydrant.
(Fire Department Connection locations are not shown on prints to verify distances)
INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS:
All commercial 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.
General Informational Comments:
Any mechanical equipment shall be properly screened from view from Kimball Ave. per
Section 43.19.d.1.b.
No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan. A separate building permit is
required prior to construction of any signs.
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.
Case No. Attachment E
ZA14-004 Page 10
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.
Development must comply with all requirements in Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 43,
Overlay Zones.
Development must comply with all requirements in Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 26,
Light Industrial District Regulations.
Development must comply with all requirements in Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 33.21,
Building Color Standards for Non -Residential Buildings.
The applicant should be aware that prior to issuance of a building permit a Plat must be
processed and filed in the County Plat Records, a fully corrected site plan, landscape plan,
irrigation plan, and building plans, must be submitted for approval and all required fees must
be paid. This may include but not be limited to the following fees: Park Fee, Perimeter Street
Fee, Water & Sewer Impact and Tap Fees, and related Permit Fees.
Case No. Attachment E
ZA14-004 Page 11
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS MAP & RESPONSES
Southlake Heritage Business Park No. 2
1.
]a Owner
Chandraco Broadgate Gp
Zoning
11
M Address
925 S Kimball Ave
Acreage
3.82
Response
NR
2.
A & B Properties Inc Etal
11
1100 S Kimball Ave
11.20
NR
3.
S L J Continental Plaza Ltd
11
950 S Kimball Ave
1.32
NR
4.
A & B Properties Inc Etal
11
2600 State Hwy 26
24.75
NR
5.
Nustar Logistics Lp
12
2400 State Hwy 26
5.99
NR
6.
Carroll ISD
SP1
601 Silicon Dr
4.11
NR
7.
Carroll ISD
SP1
1085 S Kimball Ave
34.97
NR
8.
S LJ Continental Plaza Ltd
11
2261 E Continental Blvd
4.15
NR
9•
Cogent Point Llc
11
2275 E Continental Blvd
1.41
NR
10.
Westgate Office Park Owners
11
2271 E Continental Blvd
1.41
NR
11.
Cogent Point Llc
11
2275 E Continental Blvd
1.41
NR
12.
Cogent Point Llc
11
2275 E Continental Blvd
1.41
NR
F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response
Notices Sent: Twelve (12)
Responses Received: None
Case No. Attachment F
ZA14-004 Page 1