Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Item 6H
CITY OF SOUTHLAI<,-E Department of Planning & Development Services STAFF REPORT November 25, 2014 CASE NO: ZA14-099 PROJECT: Site Plan for Southlake Town & Country EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On behalf of Dove 114 Infinity, LLC, Cencor Realty Services is requesting approval of a Site Plan for the development of six (6) commercial retail buildings consisting of approximately 165,034 square feet of floor area on approximately 26.13 acres located at 500 W. State Highway 114. SPIN Neighborhood #3. DETAILS: Cencor Realty Services is requesting approval of a Site Plan for the development of six (6) commercial retail buildings located at the southeast corner of State Highway 114 and Dove road. The proposed development consists of six buildings that are approximately 165,034 square feet in size and are indicated to contain retail and restaurant uses. The site plan being proposed contains elevations for Buildings A through F. The other four pad sites shown on the site plan (Buildings G, H, J and K) will be required to submit a site plan with elevations in the future when the development of these pad sites occurs. The current zoning on the property was initially approved by City Council on May 6, 1997 under Ordinance No. 480-220 (Planning Case ZA96-130) and can be found under Attachment `C' of this staff report. The zoning allows for a variety of uses from the "CS" Community Service, "0-1" Office, "0-2" Office, "C- 1" Neighborhood Commercial, "C-2" Local Retail Commercial, "C-3" General Commercial and "HC" Hotel districts. The uses being proposed, as labeled on the site plan being submitted, are permitted by the approved zoning on the site. The following is the Site Data Summary for Southlake Town & Country: Southlake Number of Lots Town & Country Site Data Summary 2 Existing Zoning S-P-2 Generalized Site Plan District Gross Acreage 26.13 acres (1,138,527 sq. ft.) Total Floor Area 165,034 sq. ft. Total Impervious Coverage 820,253 sq. ft. (72%) Total Open Space 326,541 sq. ft. (29%) Lot 1 Lot 2 Number of Buildings 1 5 Impervious Coverage 70% (378,907 sq. ft.) 73% (441,346 sq. ft.) Open Space 30% (165,679 sq. ft.) 27% (160,862 sq. ft.) Building A 1.5 levels (mezzanine) / - Case No. ZA14-099 Southlake Town & Country Site Data Summary (# of Floors / Total Floor Area) 103,634 sq. ft. Building B (# of Floors / Total Floor Area) - 1-2 levels /15,400 sq. ft. Building C (# of Floors / Total - 2 levels /12,000 sq. ft. Floor Area) Building D (# of Floors / Total - 2 levels /12,000 sq. ft. Floor Area) Building E (# of Floors / Total - 1 level /11,000 sq. ft. Floor Area) Building F (# of Floors / Total - 1 level /11,000 sq. ft. Floor Area) Required Parking 942 spaces (Buildings A-F, this site plan) Required Parking 1102 spaces (entire site at full build -out) Provided Parking 1101 spaces (entire site at full build -out) Parking Requirement Retail 1 space / 200 sq. ft. Restaurant 1 space / 100 sq. ft. Bank & Mezzanine 1 space / 300 sq. ft. The existing zoning on the property adopted by Ordinance No. 480-220 also states on page DR-15: "the intent to have in place master design guidelines to create continuity and quality at the development plan stage for Tracts 1. The design guidelines will be available for review at the time of development plan submittal." Within Ordinance No. 480-220 or the City's Zoning Ordinance No. 480, there are no parameters or guidelines to establish what "design guidelines" shall be. Tree Preservation The City's Tree Preservation Ordinance allows for any development which was platted or approved under a concept plan prior to September 1, 2005 to adhere to Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-13, rather than the current Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-D. A Zoning Change and Concept Plan were approved by City Council in 1997 for this property; therefore, the site plan must comply with the requirements of Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-B. The City's Landscape Administrator has made an assessment of the applicants Tree Removal and Protection Plan that can be found under Attachment `F', Site Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated November 14, 2014. The applicant has also provided a letter addressing tree preservation and the grading of the site that can be found under Attachment D' of this staff report. The applicant is also proposing zero lot line on a common interior lot line. Zero lot line development may be permitted on a common interior lot line where construction of a party wall is used and when approved by the City Council after a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Where zero lot development is utilized, the equivalent open space and plantings (normally provided in adjoining bufferyards along the common lot line) shall be provided elsewhere within the two developing lots. A concept plan meeting the requirements of Section 41 of the zoning ordinance is required to be submitted with a request for zero lot line development. Approval shall be based upon an Case No. ZA14-099 ACTION NEEDED: ATTACHMENTS: analysis of the location, the configuration, and the impact and compatibility of the construction with adjacent land uses. (As amended by Ordinance No. 480- U.) Variances There are variances associated with the applicant's site plan approval request. The applicant has provided three letters, one letter (dated September 22, 2014) addressing initial variances requested, another letter (dated October 30, 2014) for the variances being requested at the November 4, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting and a third letter (dated November 14, 2014) addressing the updates to the plan, traffic analysis and removal of variance requests. These letters can be found under Attachment `D' of this staff report. The variances being requested below are based on the current plans submitted to City staff: Internal Lot Line Bufferyards: The Bufferyards Section 42 of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires for bufferyards to be present along all lot boundaries. There are no bufferyards proposed between Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1. Driveway Stacking Depth: The Driveway Ordinance No. 634 requires there to be a minimum of 100-feet of stacking depth from any driveway off this site to the public right-of-way. Driveways 1 through 4 have varying stacking depths from 77-feet to 43-feet not meeting this requirement. See the table for the specific depths: Driveway No. 1 Required Stacking Depth 100-feet Provided Stacking Depth 70-feet 2 100-feet 77-feet 3 100-feet 75-feet 4 100-feet 43-feet Building Articulation: The Overlay Section 43 of the Zoning Ordinance requires there to be horizontal and vertical articulation every 88-feet on the south elevation of Building W. The applicant has not articulated the eastern half of this fagade of the building but has articulated the western half. 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) Applicants' Variance Request Letters (E) Traffic Impact Information (F) Site Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated November 14, 2014 (G) Surrounding Property Owners Map (H) Surrounding Property Owners Responses (1) Full Size Plans (For Council Members Only) STAFF CONTACT: Ken Baker Daniel Cortez Case No. ZA14-099 (817) 748-8067 (817) 748-8070 BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNERS: Dove 114 Infinity, LLC APPLICANT: Cencor Realty Services PROPERTY SITUATION: 500 W. State Highway 114 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tract 1 F and a portion of Tract 1, J. West Survey, Abstract No. 1620 LAND USE CATEGORY: Mixed Use CURRENT ZONING: "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District HISTORY: - During the adoption of Zoning Ordinance No. 480 in 1989, the "AG" Agriculture District zoning was placed on the property. On May 6, 1997 the City Council approved a Zoning Change and Concept Plan from "AG" Agriculture District to "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District under Ordinance No. 480-220 (Planning Case ZA96-130). TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT: Existing Area Road Network and Conditions The development is bound to the west by the frontage road of State Highway 114 and Dove Road to the north, a four -lane divided arterial. With the development of this site the applicant is planning to dedicate the right-of-way to construct a portion of Kirkwood Boulevard that is adjacent to the site. Kirkwood Boulevard is shown on the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan at ultimate build -out as a 100-foot, 4-lane divided arterial. Based on the site plan submitted there are 7 driveways total that will access this development. Two Driveways are located on the frontage road of State Highway 114 and also along Dove Road, and the last three are located along Kirkwood Boulevard. There are also six right turn deceleration lanes being provided at Driveway 1, Driveway 2, Driveway 3, at Kirkwood Boulevard, Driveway 5 and Driveway 6. Traffic Impact A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was developed by the applicant for this project by the DeShazo Group dated April 24, 2014. The Executive Summary of this report can be found under Attachment `E' of this report. (A digital copy of the TIA has been provided to Council, for a hard copy, please contact staff). The City's consultants, Lee Engineering, reviewed the TIA and they provided comments back to the City that were provided in a letter and were sent to the applicant. The City has since met with the applicant regarding these comments and the applicant has provided additional information. All of these comments can be found under Attachment `E' of this staff report. 24hr Case No. ZA14-099 West Bound (4.594 Attachment A Page 1 AM Peak (357) 7:45 AM — 8:45 AM PM Peak (544) 5:00 — 6:00 PM Dove -... — Between State Hwy 114 and West Bound N. White Chapel Blvd. (019W) East Bound 24hr 2,606 2,453 AM Peak (414) 7:30 AM — 8:30 AM (347) 7:15 AM — 8:15 AM PM Peak (302) 5:00 PM — 6:00 PM (366) 5:00 PM — 6:00 PM * Based on the 2013 City of Southlake Traffic Count Report Traffic Shopping Center (820) 165,034 1 7,087 1 104 1 66 1 297 1 322 * 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, 71' Edition UTILITIES: Water There is an existing 12-inch water line and 18-inch water line along Dove Road that has the capacity to serve the development. The applicant has also indicated they will be constructing a public 12-inch water line along Kirkwood Boulevard to the south boundary of the development. Sewer The development will connect to two existing 8-inch sanitary sewer lines located at N. White Chapel Boulevard with 8-inch lines. TREE PRESERVATION: The City's Tree Preservation Ordinance allows for any development which was platted or approved under a concept plan prior to September 1, 2005 to adhere to Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-B, rather than the current Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-D. A Zoning Change and Concept Plan were approved by City Council in 1997 for this property; therefore, the site plan must comply with the requirements of Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-B. The City's Landscape Administrator has made an assessment of the applicants Tree Removal and Protection Plan that can be found under Attachment `F', Site Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated November 14, 2014. The applicant has also provided a letter addressing tree preservation and the grading of the site that can be found under Attachment `D' of this staff report. SOUTHLAKE 2030: Consolidated Future Land Use Plan The Southlake 2030 Consolidated Future Land Use Plan designates this development area as Mixed Use. The following information provided below is from the Consolidated Future Land Use Plan, as it pertains to the Mixed Use land use designation, adopted March 20, 2012 under Ordinance No. 1022. Case No. ZA14-099 HL --- -N Is Attachment A Page 2 Purpose: To provide an option for large-scale, master -planned, mixed use developments that combine land uses such as office facilities, shopping, dining, parks, and residential uses. The range of activities permitted, the diverse natural features, and the varying proximity to thoroughfares of areas in the Mixed Use category necessitates comprehensively planned and coordinated development. New development must be compatible with and not intrusive to existing development. Further, special attention should be placed on the design and transition between different uses. Typically, the Mixed Use designation is intended for medium- to higher - intensity office buildings, hotels, commercial activities, retail centers, and residential uses. Nuisance -free, wholly enclosed light manufacturing and assembly uses that have no outdoor storage are permitted if designed to be compatible with adjacent uses. Other suitable activities are those permitted in the Public Parks/Open Space, Public/Semi- Public, Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Retail Commercial, and Office Commercial categories previously discussed. Land Use Mix* The percentages below for the land use mix in the Mixed Use category are intended only to be guidelines, and greater flexibility may be appropriate under site specific conditions. Retail 30% ±20% Office 35% ±30% Residential 15% ±15% Open space 15% ±15% Civic use 5% ±5% Total 100% *These percentages are not regulatory and should only be used as a guide. Scale and Context Criteria - General: Buildings and their pedestrian entrances are to be oriented towards internal streets. Larger -format retail uses (with footprints larger than 40,000 s.f.) shall be located adjacent to the arterial or highway with pedestrian entrances from internal streets. Retail and Office Uses: ■ Pedestrian -oriented or automobile -oriented. Hotel Uses: ■ Hotel uses should be full -service hotels at market -driven locations, primarily in the S.H. 114 Corridor. Full -service, for the purposes of this plan, shall be hotels that include a table -service restaurant within or directly attached to the hotel. Other services or amenities typically included would be bell service and room service, as well as available meeting space. ■ The desire is to approve hotels adequate to support market -driven commerce in the City, paying attention to the product mix such that Case No. Attachment A ZA14-099 Page 3 the hospitality services in the area are complementary to one another. Single-family 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. ■ Single-family 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. Open Space: ■ Consider environmental elements as "features," rather than constraints. ■ Emphasis shall be placed on preservation of existing wooded areas and stream corridors. ■ Avoid channeling or piping of streams. ■ Streams or creeks should become a focal point rather than the rear of the development. ■ Provide natural walking paths along stream and creek corridors. ■ Well designed and integrated open spaces are critical to the creation of successful mixed -use neighborhoods. ■ Open spaces should be designed to add value to proposed development and not as an "after -thought". To that end, open spaces should maximize frontage along residential and office uses. Open spaces shall occupy a prominent place in the development of a neighborhood and form the center pieces of a community. ■ Open spaces are intended to be the "front -yards" and invite passive recreational activities. Open spaces may be in the form of pocket parks, children's play areas, squares, linear greens, and conservation areas. ■ Use the topography as an advantage, do not flatten the site. ■ Preserve views. Civic Uses: ■ Civic uses such as day -cares, post office, police substation, local government offices, churches, etc. are encouraged. Ideally, civic uses should be located centrally in the development and provide convenient access to all other uses and activities in the development. ■ Civic uses are to be designed to the scale and context of the neighborhood. Uses are encouraged to be appropriately scaled to the proposed development and generally limited to a maximum of 10,000 square feet of built area. Overall Character and Design: Case No. Attachment A ZA14-099 Page 4 ➢ Buildings are to be designed to be pedestrian friendly. Buildings shall have shallow setbacks and sidewalks that are a minimum of 10'. Buildings are to be oriented towards other buildings (across the street) or towards open spaces. ➢ Minimize the impact of surface parking. ➢ Mix up land uses to maximize shared parking. Street Design Standards ➢ Internal streets to be designed to accommodate both automobiles and pedestrians. ➢ Streets to be designed with curb and gutter. ➢ Interconnected street network. ➢ Regular blocks and streets. ➢ Block widths between 400' and 600'. ➢ Design speed <25 mph. SH 114 Corridor Plan The subject site is located within the State Highway 114 Corridor Plan area that was adopted under on March 6, 2012 under Ordinance No. 1021. A copy of this entire plan will be provided to the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council in their packets. Major Corridors Urban Design Plan The Urban Design Plan was adopted February 5, 2008 and contains recommendations for private development. The following information and recommendations are from the Urban Design Plan as it pertains to private development: 40 �atewa➢ Id , p atn ea n © Taw OBndge Enh enta ® Low NonumenL S�qn O111 6cid, & Embenlonent Enhancements Tta31 Amenity Location • Development Id—dty Opp --it, Y 6 Y > Nr A IT "Special consideration should be given to S.H. 114 with respect to both the public and private realms. The SH 114 Corridor is over 200 feet wide and traffic travels an average of over 60 mph. This means that the City's Case No. Attachment A ZA14-099 Page 5 development identity must be shaped with bold strokes which can readily be discerned by a person driving at a high speed with limited peripheral vision. In addition, the elevation of the road changes dramatically in relationship to adjacent and distant land parcels which provides views into some adjacent properties. Given the scale and impact of the highway facility on the city's existing fabric, creating a sense of place along its corridor is challenging with just public realm improvements. Private development can, where appropriate, complement and enhance the investments in the public right-of-way. To this end, the following are specific recommendations for private development along the S.H. 114 corridor: ■ Preserve existing natural view corridors where appropriate. Specifically, tree stands along the highway should be preserved when they terminate views from the highway. In order to maximize regional access and limit the impact of strip retail development, retail and restaurant development should be concentrated at interchanges in 1-2 storey buildings with higher intensity office and institutional uses at mid block locations. Establish appropriate scale and bulk standards for buildings along the highway, specifically at mid -block locations. Buildings should be 4 — 6 stories tall and step down as they move away from the highway corridor. Buildings over three stories should be articulated along the first three floors. Materials on the lower floors should be brick, stone or other approved masonry. Low -profile, single storey pad buildings that tend to blend into the background and have limited visibility from the highway are discouraged. All windows on buildings should be vertically oriented and be articulated with a 4-inch reveal to avoid solid, flat walls, and to create shadow lines and surface texture. Glass curtain walls and facades with more than 60% glass along any elevation shall be discouraged. Along retail store fronts, V — 2' high knee walls shall limit the amount of glass along each fagade visible from public streets. The view of surface parking from the highway should be limited. Surface parking lots should be designed to be in smaller pods (no more than 200 parking spaces) with increased landscaping and pedestrian accessways. Structured parking is encouraged over surface parking. Specifically, shared parking is also encouraged between adjoining complementary land uses. Special attention should be given to the design of parking garages to avoid plain facades with views of parked cars from adjoining properties and rights -of -ways. Fagade details, vertical and horizontal courses such as cornices, lintels, sills, and water courses should be used to add interest along facades. To the extent possible, parking garages should be located behind Case No. Attachment A ZA14-099 Page 6 principal structures to limit views from the highway. All developments greater than 10 acres should be broken up into blocks which can provide easy circulation by cars, people and emergency vehicles, and which interconnect with adjacent properties where possible. This will also facilitate reinvestment and possible redevelopment in future years. ■ Master planning of larger tracts or multiple tracts is encouraged over piece -meal development. In addition, the master plan applications should include all the elements of the built environment such as building design, site design, wayfinding and building signage, landscaping, treatment of natural features, bridges, streets, street lighting, etc. Every effort should be made to incorporate recommended urban design elements into the project design. PLAN FOR UNDERGROUNDING UTILITY LINES Implementation of the recommended corridor improvements will considerably improve the visual appearance of the city's major corridors. However, the presence of overhead utility lines and utility poles along the city's major corridors will continue to limit this effort. To this end, the burying of overhead utility lines is a critical complement to the recommended design improvements. Based on existing development and the potential for future development, this plan recommends a prioritization plan for burying overhead utility lines. Although the cost of burying overhead utility lines can be fairly expensive, they can be offset by the aesthetic benefits that will ultimately increase property values, benefiting both adjacent property owners and the city in the long run. Due to limitations on the city's ability to regulate utility companies and the placement of utility lines, this plan recommends a public -private partnership approach to addressing this critical issue of burying utility lines. The City's participation to offset the difference in costs between overhead and underground utilities could include a range of options including zoning entitlements such as mix and intensity of uses, developer's agreements, economic development agreements, TIF reimbursements, and other incentives. During this planning effort, all overhead utility lines along major roadway corridors were identified. Based on existing, pending, and future development, a prioritization plan was developed. The plan on the following page categorizes the burying of overhead utilities. Priority should be placed on the frontages of Southlake Boulevard, Carroll Avenue, and S.H. 114 in the immediate vicinity of the Town Center area. ■ Large, undeveloped tracts along the S.H. 114 corridor should be Case No. Attachment A ZA14-099 Page 7 prioritized. Due to the visibility and high profile nature of development along this corridor, this plan recommends a public - private partnership approach based on new development proposals. ■ Coordinate and prioritize the burying of overhead utility lines along Carroll Avenue from F.M. 1709 to S.H. 114 in the city's C/P. Bury overhead utility lines in conjunction with roadway improvements to take advantage of cost savings that may be available due to the need to move utilities. ■ Along corridor segments with existing development, prioritize and coordinate the burying of utility lines with major redevelopment of the parcels. " Mobility Master Plan The Master Thoroughfare Plan recommends for this portion of Kirkwood Boulevard to be a 100-foot, 4-lane divided arterial roadway. As such, the applicant is proposing to construct two lanes of Kirkwood Boulevard leaving the remaining two lanes to be built in the future, potentially if the adjacent property develops. Case No. Attachment A ZA14-099 Page 8 The plan also contains one specific recommendation at the intersection of Kirkwood Boulevard and Dove Road which reads: As the property develops to the south of this interesction, traffic is anticipated to increase. A study will be necessary to determine a form of traffic control at this intersection. ementa Recommendations Impl Metric tion =MUM Traffic volumes will increase as Consider 14 property to the signalization or south develops other traffic 3.1, Conduct a study of Mobility, Efficient and the MT26 management 3.3, the Dove/Kirkwood Infrastructure, Mobility PW intersection is devices at the 3.5, built for the intersection of intersection. C1, C2, C604 Options 3 9 continuous Dove and connection of Kirkwood. Kirkwood. The Pathways Plan recommends for a less than 8-foot sidewalk along the south side of Dove Road and the west side of Kirkwood Boulevard and an 8-foot sidewalk along the east side of Kirkwood Boulevard and the frontage road of State Highway 114. The applicant is proposing to construct a 6-foot sidewalk along the south side of Dove Road and an 8- foot sidewalk on the west side of Kirkwood Boulevard and along the frontage road of State Highway 114 meeting the Pathways Plan recommendations. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION: October 9, 2014; Approved to Table (7-0) to the November 6, 2014 meeting. November 6, 2014; Approved to Table (5-0) to the November 20, 2014 meeting. November 20, 2014; Motion to recommend approval (2-5), failed to pass. November 20, 2014; Motion to recommend denial (5-2), passed. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Site Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated November 14, 2014. WCommunity DevelopmentWEMO12014 Cases1099 - SP - Southlake Town & CountrylStaff Report Case No. Attachment A ZA14-099 Page 9 Vicinity Map Southlake Town & Country 40 208 N 402 209 N 212 213 n 217 M 301 114 Q F v m 305 J 422 U m p 40D 309 Q 2308 - 2309 100 OM i o '0 2304 2305 a 165 185 245 26 0 N101 500 2300 2301 ��6 684 600 W DOVE RD Y 685 NN Na �� ,ZpO 1p1 O� 112 116 101 105 109 11 100 104 1� 120 0 112 114 �cP 204 10 Q 100 Y E KIRKWOOD BLVD ssa �00 Q O00 691 701 Q so 96. 594 N 114 di5 ZA 14-099 z. - Site Plan 11 0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet Case No. Attachment B ZA14-099 Page 1 Plans and Support Information CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS ORDINANCE NO. 480-220 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 480, AS AMENDED, TI IE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS; GRANTING A ZONING CHANGE ON A CERTAIN TRACT OR TRACTS OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS BEING APPROXIMATELY 58.202 ACRES SITUATED IN THE JAMES J. WEST SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1620, TRACT 1, AND MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" FROM "AG" AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO "S-P-2" GENERALIZED SITE PLAN DISTRICT WITH MIXED USES, TO INCLUDE LIMITED USES IN THE FOLLOWING DISTRICTS: "CS" COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT, "04" OFFICE DISTRICT, "0-2" OFFICE DISTRICT, "C-1" NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, "C-2" LOCAL RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, "C-3" GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, "B-1" BUSINESS SERVICE PARK DISTRICT, AND "HC" IIOTEL DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS ORDINANCE; CORRECTING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PRESERVING ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE; DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE DEMAND THE ZONING CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS HEREIN MADE; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE CUMULATIVE OF ALL ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS HEREOF; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Southlake, Texas is a home rule City acting under its Charter adopted by the electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 9 of the Texas Local Government Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code, the City has the authority to adopt a comprehensive zoning ordinance and map regulating the location and use of buildings, other structures and land for business, industrial, residential and other purposes, and to amend said ordinance and map for the purpose of promoting the public health. safety, morals and general welfare, all in accordance with a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the hereinafter described property is currently 7oned as "AG" Agricultural District under the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; and L-TTYDOCMRMCASE%" 2XWPD Page I Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 1 WHEREAS, a change in the zoning classification of said property A as, requested by a person or corporation having a proprietary interest in said property; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, at a public hearing called by the City Council did consider the following factors in making a determination as to whether these changes should be granted or denied: safety of the motoring public and the pedestrians using the facilities in the area immediately surrounding the sites; safety from fire hazards and damages; noise producing elements and glare of the vehicular and stationary lights and effect of such lights on established character of the neighborhood; location, lighting and types of signs and relation of signs to traffic control and adjacent property; street size and adequacy of width for traffic reasonably expected to be generated by the proposed use around the site and in the immediate neighborhood; adequacy of parking as determined by requirements of this ordinance for off-street parking facilities; location of ingress and egress points for parking and off-street loading spaces, and protection of public health by surfacing on all parking areas to control dust; effect on the promotion of health ad the general welfare; effect on light and air; effect on the over -crowding of the land; effect on the concentration of population, and effect on transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public facilities; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, further considered among other things the character of the districts and their peculiar suitability for particular uses and the view to conserve the value of the buildings, and encourage the most appropriate use of the land throughout this City; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that there is a public necessity for the zoning changes, that the public demands them, that the public interest clearly requires the amendments, and that the zoning changes do not unreasonably invade the rights of those who bought or improved property with reference to the classification which existed at the time their original investment was made; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that the changes in zoning lessen the congestion in the streets, helps secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers, promotes the health and the general welfare, provides adequate light and air, prevents the over- crowding of land, avoids undue concentration of population, and facilitates the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, has determined that there is a necessity and need for the changes in zoning and has also found and determined that there has been a change in the conditions of the property surrounding and in close proximity to the tract or tracts of land requested for a change since the tract or tracts of land were originally classified and therefore feels that the respective changes in zoning classification for the tract or tracts of land are needed, are called for, and are in the best interest of the public at large, the citizens of the city of Southlake, Texas, and helps promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS: L. CTYDOCS'ARDICASFSt48422o.wPD Pace 2 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 2 Section 1. That Ordinance No. 480, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Southlakc, Texas, passed on the 19th day of September, 1989, as originally adopted and amended. is hereby amended so that the permitted uses in the hereinafter described areas be altered, changed and amended as shown and described below: Being a 58.202 acre tract of land situated in the James J. West Survey, Abstract No. 1620, "Tract 1, and more fully and completely described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein, from "AG" Agricultural District to "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District with Mixed Uses, to include limited uses in the following districts: "CS" Community Service District, "0-1" Office District, "0-2" Office District, "C-l" Neighborhood Commercial District, "C-2" Local Retail Commercial District, "C-3" General Commercial District, "B-1" Business Service Park District, and "HC" Hotel District, as depicted on the approved Concept Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B". Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby directed to correct the Official Zoning map of the City of Southlake, Texas, to reflect the herein changes in zoning. Section 3. That in all other respects the use of the tract or tracts of land herein above described shall be subject to all the applicable regulations contained in said Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable and pertinent ordinances for the City of Southlake, Texas. All existing sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, words, phrases and definitions of said 7oning Ordinance are not amended hereby, but remain intact and arc hereby ratified, verified, and affirmed, Section 4. That the zoning regulations and districts as herein established have been made in accordance with the comprehensive plan for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals and the general welfare of the community. They have been designed, writh respect to both present conditions and the conditions reasonably anticipated to exist in the foreseeable future; to lessen congestion in the streets; to provide adequate light and air, to prevent over -crowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; and to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, drainage and surface water, parks and other commercial needs and development of the community. prey have been made after a full and complete hearing with reasonable consideration among other things of the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for the particular uses and with a view of conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the community. Section 5. That this ordinance shall be cumulative of all other ordinances of the City of Southlake, Texas, affecting zoning and shall not repeal any of the provisions of said ordinances except in those instances where provisions of those ordinances are in direct conflict with the provisions of this ordinance. Section 6. That the terms and provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be severable and that if the validity of the zoning affecting any portion of the tract or tracts of land described herein shall be declared to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the zoning of the balance of said tract or tracts of land described herein. L tiCrrnocs oRv+cASBs4eo-220.wrfl Pare 3 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 3 Section 7. Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply with or who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be fined not more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Each day that a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense. Section 8. All rights and remedies of the City of Southlake are expressly saved as to any and all violations of the provisions of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, or any other ordinances affecting zoning which have accrued at the time of the effective date of this ordinance; and, as to such accrued violations and all pending litigation, both civil and criminal, whether pending in court or not, under such ordinances, same shall not be affected by this ordinance but may be prosecuted until final disposition by the courts. Section 9_ The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to publish the proposed ordinance or its caption and penalty together with a notice setting out the time and place for a public hearing thereon at least ten (10) days before the second reading of this ordinance, and if this ordinance provides for the imposition of any penalty, fine or forfeiture for any violation of any of its provisions, then the City Secretary shall additionally publish this ordinance in the official City newspaper one time within ten (10) days after passage of this ordinance, as required by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake. Section 10. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law, and it is so ordained. , PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st reading the day , 1997. IWbR 1UTo ,�*9*0 t ATTEST: o r- o r.., ATIECRETARY PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the 0 day of , 1 "T B.-Ro M-E-Mo' t� L: ,,CTYDOCS1ORD\CASESWOO.220. WPD PliRe 4 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 4 A"ITFST: X 44U%4�' CITY SECRETARY 14 EFFECTIVE: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CITY ATTORNEY L:1MDOMORDWASES4UD-220, WPD P&P S Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 5 FXIIIBIl "A" BEGINNING AT A POINT FOR THE INIT.RSF_CTION OF THE APPROXIMATE C N ITRL NE OF COUNTY ROAD NO.3080 (ROANOKE-DOVE ROAD) ANIA TIM- EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY I1NE OF STATE HIGHWAY NO. U4, SAID POINT ALSO BEING 58.202 ACRE TRACT; THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TFIF?NCE S 89 ^ 27'03" E ALONG IHE NORTH LINE OF SAID 58.202 ACRE TRACT AND SAID APPROXIMATE CENTERLINE, A DISTANCE OF 2154.01 EEBT TO A POINT FOR THE INTLLRSECTION OF SAID APPROXIMATE CENT�RIINE AND TFFII APPROXIMATE CENTERLINE OF COUNTY ROAD N0. 3016 (PLEASANTRUNCHAPEL ROAD), SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID 58.202 ACRE TRACT; TRENCH S 00 ^ 20'14" W, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID 58.202 ACRE TRACT AND THE APPROXIMATE CTNTERLINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD NO.3016, A DISTANCE OF 128L60 ! F-917 TO A POINT FOR THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID 58.202 ACRE TRACT; THENCE N 89^56'40" W,ALONG TIC' SOUTH IjNE OF SAID 581M ACRE TRACT,A DISTANCE OF 1789.42 FEET TO A POINT IN THE FAST RIGHT-0E-WAY LINE OF SAID STATE HIGHWAY NO.114, FOR THE SOU-IuWEST CORNER OF SAID 58.202 ACRE TRACT; THENCE N 19 ^ 23'50" W, ALONG THE WF-_ST L.INP OF SAID TRACT AND SAID EAST RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 308,20 FEET TO A POINT FOR CORNER; THEN58.202 E DEPARTING 58.202 SAID FAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE', ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID ACRE TRACT, THE FOLLOWING FOUR CALLS: N 12^38'54" W,A DISTANCE OF 470.62 FF.l;T TO A POINT FOR CORNER; N 70 ^ 3875" E, A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET TO A POINT FOR CORNER; N 19 ^ 23'50" W, A DISTANCE OF 539.72 FEET TO A POINT FOR CORNER; N 89 ^ 2376" W, A DISTANCE OF 3694 FEET TO A POINT FOR CORNER IN SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY IINE; THENCE N 35 ^ 2757" R ALONG TIM WEST 11NE OF SAID 58.202 ACRE TRACT AND SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY L NE, A DISTANCE OF 3012 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, AND CONTAINING 58.202 ACRFS OF LAND, MORE Olt L.FASS, L ',.(TYDOCS1ORD',CASFS%480-220. WPD flige 6 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 6 EX19BIT 'B" \ \\ L g 1 11 L:\CTYDOCS14RD5CASFS%490-220. WPD Pate 7 K I� 0I e Y. tt Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 7 The ti)llowing requirements and prohibitions areapplicable to the use of the roperty: PROPOSED LAND SE CATEGORIES Timarron Land Corporation is requesting a SP-2 Generalized Site Plan District zoning category for Tract I in its entirety. It is envisioned to be a "Mixed Use" development allowing a %ariety of land uses that will respond to the current and future market demands and ensure compatibility of land uses through creative planning. 'Ihe SP-2 Generalized Site Plan District zoning request will divide Tract l into two (2) separate parcels and will allow the following land use categories for each: PARCEL A • CS - Community Service District (Sec. 8) • 01 -Office District (Sec. 18) • 02 - Office District (Sec. 19) • C I -Neighborhood Commercial District (Sec. 20) • C2 - Local Retail Commercial District (Sec. 21) • C3 - General Commercial District (Sec. 22) • HC - Hotel District (Sec. 28) PARCEL B • CS - Community Service District (Sec. 8) • 01 - Office District (Sec. 18) • B 1 - Business Service Park District (Sec. 24) Refer to the Concept Plan Exhibit for general location of each parcel and special restrictions. April 21. 1 "7 %704401.R01 DR- I I.:'.CTYDOCS',ORt)''.CASES-As[6220. %NTD Pagc h Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 8 PERMITTED USES 0 It is intended that the SP-2 Gcnerali7ed Zoning District shall permit those uses defined under the land use categories identified in this document (as established in the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 480) and shall specifically include those uses described as: • "Permitted Uses" • "Accessory Uses' • "Specific Use Permits" • "Special Exception Uses" • Uses not listed under Zoning Ordinance No. 480 that are similar in nature and/or have not been defined by current technology. LAND V U There are exceptions to the permitted uses. The uses "lined -out" on the following pages shall be considered undesirable for this property and, therefore, prohibited. Those uses identified with a • double asterisk (**) shall require a Specific Use Permit (SLIP). Sexually oriented businesses will not be permitted on Tract L CS- COMMU:ITti' SERVICE. DISTRICT 1. Permitted Uses - BY SUP ONLY 1. (DELETED) *• 2. Higher education institutions •" 3. Museums, libraries, fine arts centers, and similar cultural facilities '• 4. Golf courses, parks, playgrounds, community centers and country clubs (No commercially operated miniature golf courses or driving ranges) 5. (DELETED) "* 6. Public safety facilities • • 7. Religious institutions * * 8. City hall or other municipal office uses (excluding wastewater treatment facilities, landfills, and transfer stations) 0 April 21. 1997 96204+01.R01 DR-2 Use Permitted by SiJP Only L'.0 Trior A)Rn`,CASESAW220.WPD Pape 9 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 9 0-1 OFFICE DISTRICT • I. Permitted Uses A. Office Uses 1. Accounting and tax preparation 2. Adjustment and collection services 3. Advertising agencies 4. Architecture 5. Banking 6. Bill paying services 7. Business corporate headquarters (when used for office purposes only) 8. Business holding and investment services 9. Chamber of Commerce 10. Chiropractors 11. Computer services 12. Consumer and mercantile credit reporting 13. Contractors offices (provided no outside storage or display permitted) 14, Dentists 15. Duplication and mailing services 16. Employment services 17. Engineering • 1. Finance 19. Interior design 20. Land surveying 21. Law 22. Management consultants 23.Optometrists 24.Other offices of a business and'or professional nature 25. Physicians 26. Podiatrists 27. Psychiatrists 28. Psychologists 29. Radio recording and television broadcasting offices and studios 30. Real estate and insurance 31. Savings and Loan �? S-tlrities and ccimmo+:t:,s Lrokers, dealers, underwriters and exchange offices 33. Stenographic services 34. Title companies 35. Travel bureaus or services 36. Utility offices • April 21, 1997 %M401.Ro1 DR-3 •' Use Permitted by SUP Only L:'.C'rYDOCS',ORD'.CASES�4�220. WPD PUT 10 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 10 • • 0 Case No. ZA14-099 B. Community Facility Uses 1. (DELETED) • « 2. Recreation and open space «« 3. Libraries •• 4. City halls, fire and police stations, and other municipal uses (excluding wastewater treatment facilities, landfills and transfer stations) #' 5. Other uses of a similar nature and character April21, 1997 96204401.R01 L: %CTYDOCS10RDlCASESWW220. WPD PW 11 DR-4 • • Use Permitted by SUP Only Attachment C Page 11 • • • 0-2 OFFICE DISTRICT I. Permitted Uses A. Any use permitted in the 0-1 Office District B. Day nurseries or equivalent child care facilities April 21. 1997 96204401_R01 t.:'M. 'DOCSIORMCASES*480-220 WPD Pegc 12 DR-5 ' ` Use Permitted by SUP Only Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 12 C'-1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT • I. Permitted Uses A. Commercial Uses 1. Offices of a business and/or professional nature 2. Bakeries 3. Barber and beauty shops 4. Cleaners, laundries and/or Laundromats •• 5. Gasoline filling stations that operate in conjunction with small convenience stores 6. Grocery stores and/or meat markets 7. Newsstands and/or bookstores 8. Restaurants, tea rooms and/or "take-out" food establishments 9. Tailor, clothing or wearing apparel repair shops B. Community Facility Uses ** 1. City hall, fire and police stations and other municipal uses (excluding wastewater treatment facilities, landfills and transfer stations). • 0 April21, 1991 96204401.R01 DR-6 L:'.CTYDOC S .GRDI.0 ASES, 4XY220. W PD Page 13 Case No. ZA14-099 " Use Permitted by SUP Only Attachment C Page 13 C 2 LOCAL RETAIL. COMMERCIAL. DISTRICT • 1. Permitted Uses 1. Any use permitted in the 0-1 Office District 2. Any use permitted in the C-I Neighborhood Commercial District •* 3. Cleaning, dying and pressing works; laundries and ,vashaterias 4. Antique shops 5. Retail sail bakeries 6. Bicycle sales and bicycle repair shops 7. Blueprinting or photostating 8. Book or stationery stores 9. Business colleges or private schools for vocational training of office related careers 10. Christmas tree sales 11. Cigar or tobacco stores •• 12. Cleaning, dying and pressing works; laundry and Laundromats 13. Confectionery stores 14. Custom dress making or millinery shops 15. Dancing schools 16. Day nurseries 17. Delicatessen shops without size limitations 18. Dog and cat hospitals (excluding large animal clinics) 19. Drug stores 20. Dry goods and notion stores provided that the floor area of such facility not exceed eight thousand (8,000) square feet " 21. Duplicating service, printing, lithographing, mimeographing, multi -graphing and offset printing ** 22, Filling stations or service stations, operating with/«ithout a convenience store 23. Financial institutions 24. Florist or gift shops ** 25. Frozen food lockets 26, Grocery stores and meat markets 27. Health service facilities 28_ Jewelry stores 29. Leather and leather good shops 30. Optical goods 31. Photographs, portrait or camera shop and photo finishing 32_ Radio and television sales and servicing 33. Restaurants, tea rooms, cafeterias, fast food and "take-out" food restaurants 34. Shop repair services 35_ Sporting goods, including gun sales and repair 36. Tailor ** 37. Tires, batteries and automobile accessory sales 38_ Variety stores April 21. 1M 96204401.R01 DR-7 *• Use Permitted by SUP Only L �CTYDOCS`�,ORDtCASES141220 WPD PARC 14 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 14 • • • Case No. ZA14-099 3 GENIFRAL. COMMERCIAL. DISTRICT Permitted Uses 1. Any use pemiitted in the C-2 Local Retail Commercial District " 2 Auditoriums, theaters and cinemas 3. Coin and stamp shops • • 4. Commercial amusement centers and bowling alleys 5. Commercial art galleries " 6. Conventional golf courses, including outdoor driving ranges accessory thereto, but excluding outdoor miniature golf courses T Department stores 8_ Dry goods and notion stores 9. Electrical and gas appliances and supply sales, electrical and gas repair and installation services (excluding propane tank sales) 10. Hardware, paint, and wallpaper stores 11. Hat shops 12. Health and physical fitness centers and gymnasiums 13. Hobby shops 14. Household and office furniture, furnishings and appliances 15. Lodges, sororities and/or fraternities 16.(DELETED) 17. Mortuaries, funeral homes and undertakers (excluding cemeteries, crematories and mausoleums) 18. Music or record shops 19. Nursery buildings 20. Pet shops 21. Piano stores, musical instruments and supplies 22. Plumbing and heating appliances, repair and installation services (excluding propane tank sales) 23. Printing, lithographing or duplicating jobs 24. Retail stores, business or shops for custom work 25. Skating rinks, ice and roller " 26. Taverns, clubs and other comparable establishments which the on -premises consumption of alcoholic beverages is permitted subject to issuance of specific uses permit (sexually oriented businesses are prohibited) 27_ Toy stores •• 28. Upholstery shops - furniture 29. Variety stores April 21, 1997 96204401.R01 t._ CrttuoCs.oRD'.CAsr•_s+a8u-220 wPo Page 15 UK_g 04 Use Permitted by SUP Only Attachment C Page 15 B 1 BUSINESS SERVICE PARK DISTRICT* i •I. Permitted Uses A. Office and Commercial Uses 1. Any use permitted in 0-1 District 2. Administrative, executive or editorial offices for industrial organizations ** 3. Apparel and millinery manufacturing and assembly 4_ Banks 5. Barber and beauty shops 6. Book and stationery stores ** 7. Computer manufacture and research 7a. Day nurseries or equivalent child care facilities operated principally for the benefit and service of employees working within the office building or consolidated office complex 8. (DELETED) ** 9. Electronic manufacture 10. Funeral homes (excluding cemeteries, crematories, and mausoleums) •` 11. Lithograph, engraving, printing and publishing ' • 12. Manufacture of medical and dental equipment *• 13. Manufacture of musical instruments 14. Medical clinics 15. Nursery yards or buildings for retail sales and landscaping companies . •• 16. Optical instrument and lenses manufacturing 17. Private/public schools 18. Professional/business schools 19. Retail activity of a service nature designed to provide direct service support to the businesses and employees who occupy the remainder of the office complex 20. Retail uses which are reasonably related to the principal uses within the structure ** 21_ Scientific and professional instrument manufacturing 22. Security guard quarters (excluding living quarters) * ` 23. Small parts manufacturing and assembly 24. Studios for training in fine arts B. Community Facility Uscs •* 1. City Hall, policy and fire stations and other municipal uses (excluding wastewater treatment facilities, landfills and transfer stations) * Any manufacturing use within the B I zoning district shall require a SUP. • April 21. 1997 96204401.R01 DR-9 Use Permitted by SUP Only 1.-.(TYDO(*S,URJ,('ASFS-AV)-.',,n WPD Nve In Case No. ZA14-099 Attachment C Page 16 • LJ • !�HC" HOTEL DISTRICT I. Permitted Uses •• 1. Hotels and motels "• 2. Parks and playgrounds which are publicly owned •• 3. Golf courses which are privately owned •' 4. City hall, police and fire stations and other municipal uses (excluding wastewater treatment facilities, landfills, and transfer stations) April21, 1997 96204401.R01 L SC7YDOCStORn'CASGSt46U 2?U W PD Page 17 DR-10 ' ` Use Permitted by SUP Only Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 17 r--1 LJ • • DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS It is intended that the SP-2 Generalized Site Plan Development shall adhere to the development standards currently established in 'Zoning Ordinance No. 480 as amended and furthermore shall comply to all new ordinances as they are adopted for each land use category with the follov ing exceptions: BUILDING SETBACKS Setbacks for Tract I land uses shall be maintained in accordance with 'Zoning Ordinance No. 480 and the corridor overlay standards. When located adjacent to or across the street from residentially zoned property or property with a low or medium density residential land use in the comprehensive plan, the setbacks shall be the greater of the 4:1 slope or the minimum setbacks shown in the following table. Setbacks shall be measured from the Timarron property line where it is adjacent to residential areas. Setbacks Adjacent to Residential CS 100' Min, 01 100' Min. 02 100' Min. C 1 100' Min. C2 100' Min. C3 100' Min. Bl 100' Min. HC 100' Min. April 21. 1997 96204401.R01 DR-11 L:' CTYDOCS',ORD',CASF-V,.4Hu-2�V-WPD Page IH Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 18 BUILDING HEIGHTS Maximum building heights for Tract I land uses shall be in accordance %%ith the following table: Maximum Building Height CS 35' 2.5 Stones 01 45' 2.5 Stories 02 90' 6 Stories CI 45' 2.5 Stories C2 45' 2.5 Stories C3 45' 3 Stories B 1 45' 2.5 Stories HC 90' 6 Stories • HC and 02 uses shall be restricted to a maximum four (4) stories. The fifth and sixth story shall be permitted by SUP only. April 21. 1"7 96204401, Rol DR-12 L-lCTYDOCStoRD%CASES%4W220. WPD I%St 19 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 19 BUFFER YARDS CPerimeter buffer yards for Tract I shall comply with the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 480 and shall have minimum widths in accordance with the following table: Adjacent to Whites Chapel Blvd. Adjacent to Residential` Other CS 50' 35' 25' 01 50, 35' 25' 02 NIA 35' 25' C1 N/A 35' 25' C2 N/A 35' 25' C3 N/A 3 5' 25' R 1 50' 35' 25' HC N/A 35, 25' *Residential adjacency shall be defined as residentially zoned property or property with a low or medium density residential land use in the comprehensive plan adjacent to or across the street from Tract 1_ Refer to the Buffer Yard and Open Space Plan exhibit for the general location of each buffer yard type. Apn121, 1997 96204401 RO1 DR-13 L:',Cn"DOCSI.ORTY.(*AS"',48LI-220 WPD Page 20 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 20 50' BUFFER YARD SECTION ADJACENT TO WHITES CHAPEL BLVD. April 21. 1997 96204401.1 LACTYD0CM0R ASES%4W2M.R?D Pate 21 Case No. ZA14-099 3'-8' HT. :ANDERMG BERM VG. S' HTJ Attachment C Page 21 LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE LANDSCAPING The landscaping area for each lot will comply with the requirements of the Landscape Ordinance No_ 544. For 02 and HC uses, additional landscaping area will be provided in the amount of 1% of the lot area for every story from two (2) to four (4) plus 2% for every story from five (5) to six (6). OPEN SPACE The open space for the tract will include the buffer yards around the perimeter of the project as required by the Southlake Corridor Study and the additional buffer yard adjacent to residential uses. Timarron Land recognizes the value of the existing vegetation and will incorporate master design guidelines that respond to tree preservation, at the development plan stage of the zoning process. A tree survey will be prepared for the site plan submittal. The developer -will comply with the tree preservation requirements of the City of Southlake, as those requirements are developed. The attached Buffer Yard and Open Space Plan illustrates the general location of the proposed buffer yards for Tract I. April 21. 1997 %204401.Ro I DR-14 L:',.CTYDocs',aRD�CASE 480-22o.wPD Page 22 Case No. ZA14-099 Attachment C Page 22 7.; Pr IA a • � ��l� _� ��. � y1 � � i 1r t^ 1 L.,.CTYD ' tORD'C 49111Y WPD Page 23 Case No. ZA14-099 Attachment C Page 23 0 CONCEPT PLAN This submittal responds to the concept plan requirements defined in Sections 32 and 41 (as amended in Ordinance 480-C) for a SP-2 Generalized Site Plan Development. The size and location of this tract offers a variety of potential development scenarios to attract quality users. Flexible tract sizes, facility locations, access and zoning are critical to attracting quality users to this site. This concept plan provides the flexibility which the current market is seeking. The following table demonstrates land use categories permitted for each parcel within Tract L The attached exhibit "Concept Plan" further illustrates the general location of each parcel. PARCEL Area LAND USE CATEGORIES A ' 26.57 t AC CS, O 1, 02. C 1, C2, C3, HC B 31.63 t AC CS, 01, B1 • * Parcel A uses may extend 300' east of Kirkwood Boulevard should it be extended south of Dove Road. • • Access to Whites Chapel Boulevard shall be restricted to one full access location. • All HC and 02 uses shall be restricted to a maximum of four (4) stories. The fifth and sixth stories shall be permitted by SUP only. • Landscaping for each lot will comply with the requirements of the Landscape Ordinance No. 544. For 02 and IIC uses, additional landscaping area will be provided in the amount of 1% of the lot area for every story from two (2) to four (4) plus 2% for every story from five (5) to six (6), L I►`ll ITasm It is Timarron Land's intent to have in place master design guidelines to create continuity and quality at the development plan stage for Tracts I. The design guidelines will be available for review at the time of development plan submittal. April 21. 1997 96204401 R01 DR-15 L:',CrYDOCS',ORD',CASG9.4No-:N). W PD Page 24 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 24 0 R R I I I I IIIIIII tt -Y oil o°Q Y OC;Z> 1 LICPYDOC s PDICASES%A80-220.WPD Palm 23 / r Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 25 SVX31 'DIVlH1'l0S .,aNf100 �R NMOl 3NV3Hlf CS DQEIQ�a$Q�M A& NV7d 311S ALUIlLi-la LSNLUJ aL)a .LVN - A21V1l-11\l ladd Li I I ]3dYN a3LN1MM�'N � ' I C) III 2 T ... h Y _ i'Syl ti vxjU �4� I. 7; / I I -- ------ L - I Jy I J 1 _ _•IIIII _ ,�I I pp Jjj I U u I $q Bq mw !1 � 25 ❑V � F• j 1_1� 5� I' F o n .I HUI niiiiiii I -I s I' LL � 1 3 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 26 .31 '3H'dlH1NOS - ' �3 - "" 12i1Ni i0 V NMOl 3AV-IH1f.OS •amC °.afigaerry i � :5�7 aasmia�at� �`� NVId 311S ATnTT'l 51TCATnn ]7n.T TnK- — TITBA-TTIC' 'T4'f7.T let, ��ffi8 -R !& P �'�� g a2 i 3F2 figv�g o O 7 i6 i 3t�g ELL6 }�aE p t tl •� 36 E p I� a812 P' GE S' Fig 8 C �HUM, g - fY'+��8��p�„� �E ! P g P S1 E6�i F z t S��H CF o p R R E`� g � t8 � •� A Es a 6G �� •�yypiP �W aaa S ff b rc6s C o b = � Y; ��i yggay� 4LjL wP � g � � s 91 gggCg �S ➢4� �F 5x $a � s C �g r6C ➢� � $ � � E aE � €��9:= ifi n•5z WI 13 �.-_8 mmAry:hnHe�"m 9nh� 8m " �"s 8t Y P yCE+ E �n, $$$ggg iii gg tt ffiaQ2 2 2 W 7.4 eti 5�� R I I i I Ir Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 27 l b1N�10 b NM01 3>1—lH11-'0 � s�z aaamia�a�� �" N'Vld ONIUIV?10 ),bJVNIAP]Ld Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 28 SVX3 i ':DAVlHinos ),LliNnoD ?R NMOi ]>WlHifCS —1 P--V v NVId nbOiS kTnTT'lnWTQIlTn') Un.T TnkT — I 51-eK-TTIC-T'T'J?T.T Ol O 0 z Hy Case No. Attachment C ZAl 4-099 Page 29 - 31 3 {7IH1 Hug 14$at,j& NOLLOriHISMOD a03 ION — �C2TdI�IICII32ici � � o 1 0 0 � O ^ U p0 - 45 a a? 5 II 1 II v WPw e19%w�) ' iN 1X 413JYMJ 3LlNV 'N .-� • • •-lii•r— IL Z 2 � 1 - ---� II,I III I �I T I I EW ww d ,iF- F _ www€ �I €€; I I 1 W F _ � _ , In T W IT i L I - Cc i v o v N� 4 Cj V m e II II - o Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 30 nq waispeery q ,IJINA. UMOi 3NVIHil'OS NVId J.JVlINVS k. ]VNINFG3 ld N0L13LI2I.LSNOO 2IO3 .LOTS — CdVKINVIS?IlI oY $ � Th., 7, Ja. T * ew e ; Case No. ZA14-099 Attachment C Page 31 ' •�.i •..,.,�o..v a uasmia�ni� AR 31 '311111H111OS 1 8 NMOl 3Nb'_jH1 CS -1 l �131b'M A&VNIA113?i, MOL D-lialSKOO a0a .COAT — "LavisaKriHad pk 20� 2 Ob Q H w � 0 }lliUv a F4c���l�z Wzd �o ��QU�U 0 4r Ai4 U ig4i2 x4 iw MA -§� wVi. elQoii, �) l :Y��YYIII ry h a II II II i II I II II I I I Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 32 uz- 62 gig Fw !� �F-O o F6 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 33 iC' R e = e 55 g g R�g 11 n1i Hill ') IM, 66 C (D�) (A Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 34 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 35 Case No. ZA14-099 FF r :3RO o W� a-,0 —i v Oo< J 1 �l • �•:�P>, 'Y Q4 TI"R y�-.1.— . i �� EY yY:Y 8e ° Z I $5�43 d W d �a F g4: Y J � z Attachment C Page 36 §�d J S F� Q�. .'ll 3M 3NII HDiVW a g a � s Him §ASSS e � Fa °� 3iE:i5 EEy�3 I Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 37 A �s W J � ow.,H 4 has M O O JV �. O I J F t � W O 0111 I J!_I Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 38 SVX31 '3>IV�Hinos AdiNnoo 28 NMOi ]AV-1Hir0S 1191HX3 3AVS 33NI M0113-112IISMOD Hoa 10K —mvx Z —uggic - #V aNVAinnOU M�VVD 311HA H I V V 0P .-. .2 Aou 41! I . W.F-A�w JM I Zx Case No. Attachment C ZA1 4-099 Page 39 lC6L 6YF31 �TTO WAN : �.•Nsy ���_r_.- � 10531/16 i1B'tN 31l.12R6 ~ c�wbw.r�v s� s w3su.auuox� A3MnS 3381 ;r to 8'tlY3['AIN1C )11/Vtltl/1 q ■aaoia;a�M ® ®io.,araL��ws� s�..n. san- »u...Nu Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 40 �t 6Vxic gv-wv o• .♦ .��-��••�r � OOS 3lIK i11Br�� 31�fA120.6 '+•••' • '�" 53Em36Al MlI W7+3J a•••uauo•..y ,'�I•M�V i:� A3A21 fIS 33211 �+ �N E* laet•ialalAl ® ®,on i�vai�ir'.a� sin r..or san- •�����. «c A 1' � -- u 4i IQ �u c y e° e � L o. � ���♦ `h i i ff 4 6 • • ♦ � ,1 �3 ♦ 3 3NPM*ICN L BENS =S 1♦� c Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 41 IWGL 9VIf3l 91TM1 y �T�•_�_ WF 31f1631I6R+3iM9 LP6 0' A3AHns3381 ua.aau.♦w .d ;�to .,q ""pwv v ® ■aao a �+wroeeouq Mt -ow L:m�s.w •&MkM Ls�n r or s�,r ►.33NS 335 hi 5 e i i, ad R I f 2 8 R; Aa, LI w V y • H Q RR R 7 � _ -- _ - ♦ 'J i g •:�3 R R Y � i u !! h p5 7� Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 42 W6[ 9rf -& v-w _,. w���:-"•:ram OOS 31116 �'IIBMV 31d.`ISK � - • ••, s ,'AMML VWVI A3AunS 33HI �low* HIX3,'Aur10J,NYMN, .. Ty li a � Is Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 43 wcst arR� gv*wo "'�•• �•�• " 63JNtl3bu��tl0013J ♦s>wef]ua.x .y _WK' vM.y svxat'nurq�trrwnt A3A2if1$ 33i11 ; in to laeo a ® �v�,t'n6 eo uo w�� a tovatwv t�wifi �6�n rK+- 63m- I I � I3 I � � S r Y I i 7 I - W Q ; ? 1 --EvaZ--E , i - e_i •a�gs s � �%� :�if r r I:a HIM I- y_, Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 44 I OZSL SY%31'SY1lYa u w.Wa 311nS'3nW3AY 3ldYW M IC .'v...'T,...�... s3]IAa3sultl3aao"3o 1.3/121f15 3361 �•[++++v+++v s svx3 uWnoolNYaaY1 :..+ (� E QI aaemiaguc u �" e, � Os10 A O . A A Y A A A A A A A b b b A b A A b b♦ b a a 6 b �gaa��aaaaaaaaaeseaaaaaaae�� �gsaasa�"R"Raa°R°Ras°a°R°R°Rasaaasa�aa ��aaaaa��oaaa�a�oaaaaa iaaiaa19A6111A b b § § • • § § b b Iiiaei i i i aeig aeeaplda Ip� 9_ 1eaeA } Sa _ 2 p p p p p p p Q p p p p p p p p p N H p �2jj1RkR1NS0ANRARREdflARRN���3d � ggggyyigg BggggS5 ljxjgjx�! �AIAAAIRRR®R®®®p®p®A911p1p18pp�A9AaaAAp ��aeea�ii�99aeeaaeiiigases`aeae b 's c• b• b s a s a 's '! = b R R A A 's 's 's 'ss 's 's 's ''s_'ss_'s_'s_ii:iii"!_"!_ii"!_aii"!-iii's_iii`sa •J?J;J;JAJAJA 8 A b b b b b o o p p o o b b o_ g q q- b b! Riiiiiiiiiiiiiieiiiiiseiiiii€ ��i�ie�iiaiigi�iii����ii�ii� &nnsRaaiiidiiiiiiiiiiiR&iiaa€ §♦♦ b b A M A M§ b b b§ b A F A 4 R R A A _ _ _ b b _ _ zlzlu p 2 131 Rg86RR ggggzzeggggg�gggggb§ca �Riiii@iiiiiiisa8i#3858lS58li! �g�M1a�RR¢¢e!eeaeneeeeeaaeesaee s « m §§ 4§ Y k k k= k§§ b§ A A 4§§b b z :�iaeiRRaaaiiai@aaiaeeaaeiieaa `aeeagig aea9Aa.. eaaeiiae- ♦► b b b b b 6 g 1 8 b b -- 6 6 6 b h A �z.e I I IaMOM iilif:ii:g111ii;si89i ��aeaa�a�aeaaeae�aeeaa� F Q R 5 5 9 W .RG A F & F p it n11 e R X F !! R F ii130®18.==9AAAIAI?;AAA C 7! R} S!! R! C C!!!! R Rry F R R R R F A R R b§ b b b b b k§§§ b b to b b R R§§ b b A A A A b b iis¢$ bbbbbbbb- goy "h9b!®t? Ipb�tt�tii .IIIE m_ 8________ _ b b b 6 1. A I. A 04iiaEiiiibiiiili6Eliii€iEiiE6 Rg§5198ee9888ia@!B®&68®lE888B !,10S0gAAIAAAAAii i d d d d A A 9 A A k k A A b A b A R M1 A A b b b b§§ �$Bgsisisii§eiiiiiiiiiiiii � a 991e119AAeaaeaeae lAA?? b b b - A A P A§§ 6 6 �aRA IR��asaRwaaRwRasaRaa�Rasa Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 45 IOnSL3nn3Avi U mrlr : -w[ rabY 3Ln5'nR33dtlR nU1E ..' n., ",,: 53]Ntl35 Alltl3if L03A 3 JgMSE.I-a)nr .N �.I •sa�.c�maap a� stlx3L'u noo �A wl .13A2i fIS 332�1 �� 80 AAAAAAIgggA9AA9AIIAAAA 9 9 A A A 9 A A A A A A A A 9 A A A A A A 9 A A A m _ _ _ F F b b _ _ _ F F _ _ _ _ I m_ _ _ _ _ _ • b _ _ _ g F A A A A A A A A 3 A A A A A A A A F A F A F A R R JE F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F 1 F 1 P 1 F 1 R 1 P 1 R F P P m1, � Y A A b b b♦�_�� Y b � b Y A A A A A A P., A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A �211aRRa11Rill gaik 01,111iliRRARR£ q 9 9 9 9 b b b 6 1pp- hp tp� 4 4 L b b vv pp ss yy pp yy yy pp pp y 9 ® R qq a4 a R 8 8 p m F F^ O b b� �� _ Y b b♦ 6 Y � Y b b g R a a i s a a s% R 1, s 1111111 R s a a s �a�aaa��aa�a�a�aaaa�aaa 000moa�Aooaoo�moon�mam 0*�Rjl� I x �-.IAIAIA111Al9A iiiiIIIIIIIIIIAIIIII,it99II Mvg� A A A ::= E9®sseeeeab®s®®cs�o�9®aG99�E�3���®6�6�QII8flfi5898 Is AA AA a1 01 m h h b b b 6 6 Y_ __ b b_ h h h h 6 b__• b �'0v9C$@3160$06601OO1:i m ��€ee€eeeeS®ee999®����006�®0@6 � sa aaaa99999Z,6 b 6 6 6-6,aa���� pl, � b b♦ 6 Y Y♦ 6 1 Y b♦^ A A b b A A A A Y Y♦♦ b b b b♦ 6 Y RRQANAQ APPRQAP RRQAN R R R R R R R R R R R a R R R A A A R R �gfiFiff��b5�Gb5�filBRA�A�A�R�AAAA m F F F Y• 6 R Y b b F F b b F F b b�� F F F F Y F b b �QWWI'd!2 W�3�W��3�W3Wmm 9 :W F h 4 i h h F m9AlQAQAAAGAAAAA1d"aaAAA "sifis "s����'s�'s59 3a696111 i"s�i�a b b m b i1 A n 4 4 A n 4 C b d ! b b b b b A A 6 4� �' �AWdR �fl�#RA 1A EGFA�ARRA M1AA klj� lj;j! Wd`nwpHAIilAi9W!jGj gRl3��S!!!!R®�maf9�RRIk�RGSAAf! mF F F F 6 b 6 b b A b b b b b b b b b• b►•• I19999999899999ggA99ggg8a1 R R 1AA99AA999999AA100099AI99gA99 55 gg gg gg gg aa gg gg gg gg gg gg Be gg 9e 66 b► A A b♦� b b � b b b p b b b p b m$Iva �3....223s m E a99VV9999vv 99==VV®® 1 1 7 C d d 2 3 F F F A Y! S S d d_____• b• b Y 'y a b b VVII b b Y 9 6 b 6 6=__ Y ��RIpRRIRIRRRIRIAIRRI RI AIRRIRIRIR RRIRRAIRIAIARI I�gAIRIApI AI AIRRRIRIRIRRIRIAIRRIRIARRAIRAAIRIRR Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 46 Ms� .....•.-��.•.: .• ••"�"�„' "•�• ' _ OO5S 33]ia5MAllitl3'stl m. :nte. N33V 3MC m23A3 C . StlK31.tiA�lAtltlM,1 .l3A21f15 332l1 auem{•a>�u ���" � � � 1 � IAA acc�'oA ianuse�v �nasns u� A1101' S3�wr n u,i : nu -A A a a 7! A R i R a A 1 w 6 e R@ 0 0 8k !@! 6& c E E 0�116�dd!�Mllk �9 � � � � �i":- 1@6611111a1A1II1R1111 o-= F 0 g 6 v 1 0 0 a v 0 F V: a 9 7 9 i C 1 m h h b b h h h h b b h h__ k k____ 9 4 F F b b b b m b b___§ b•• b b F h b b y y b b__ b b F b b b Egltiililii1All 131®1iilIIiSSI/il EoeeAeaaseaFessaa Aa eAAA-- naa^:�:e a a F a F F a a a a a a n a a F n a a a w a a a n 7 a= 7 b F F= z n a a a= a 'R 'A :: A A a__ a 's 's A A A 'R n n_ ns 'A 'As i Y 'R @ 's 's 's 'A a__=• b=_ ��aAslAalawlaaaAASAA`AeaRs°a°eA1aA �4111111aa11111�1111aa1111$�� a � 4 4 6 6 h 4 Y Y k k= �¢ 4 � � e• 4 4• 6= � z z 4 Q ¢g111111111111i�a1111111111��ss ima�0om�oememoaonnmonaumam ��:nn :1::19161Q11$1D111661®16 ��11®®1.11®@1111®®®§11155885515 �t. M A• � _ b b b b b b b 6 6 b h M b b e b h h ri 11-,IIIIIIIIIIIIJIJIJI 1 R R 111 119 .... 8 8.... A A F g q q q A A A A A A A P A A P R R A F A A R R R R R R R R A A R A A R A R R R R R R 99990099 a b__ b b h h F_ e b� A h♦ a h hA969600A_ F P P P P P S. AR. 1 ' G 1 P P P e F P S. F P F 1 P I I P I a. I a P R R F W A F R R F R F A A R A SOWS R R R F R R A R R A A R A g F 1 AF] I ' 1 F 1 RF] I F F AF] 1 R 1 F F P" I F P' 1 F 1 F I v F G 1 6 1 3 a. I R I RF R F g WAR R R 1 W R R R R A R W A R W R W W W A R R A R W A 4 4 R 4 4 4 4 b b 'IL 4 4 6• h b e d d R R k 4 b N 4 4 4 4 Y Y h 4 4 4 4- h s ty 9 �'1 'L ����EiR I s�Fiviisiiilil"s"sijijiji11iji1111i1 w 1 k k k 40 b 6 6 0 4 0 4 gg BB yC g0 84 gk gk ■= ® g g: ■0 gk C ®4 ¢4 ¢C 4 C p4 gh pk p a a ■ a6 ■4 g4 gC ¢4 ak ■k 84 g4 R: 2 F R P F F F R F F R P F F F R. R. A F F A F F F F F F 1 F g R R R A 1 A A A 1 1 g I A R R R R R R A A A A B A A P ����®8��1111��®®111111�1��1��1 ����1��111�1�1111111111111�11� 0 11 p� p� pb p• �¢{ a� p� p� 1p. ilk Q Ili pQ p: {� � � � � � � � A � b b b b b 4 Q � :� b b � � • b b b b • • b 4 C 4 4 • • �i1AR.FAAAAIIRRA"AAAAAAFPPFFFFF ��1$1111111$i1$111ReN�R�� m m - b b A A__ A k �slglb b- ��cryF£1£1E11A111111111111E111 �.6®66®161111111111®661a!I®88`s5 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 47 aae ��a�eaa�®9� m 6 - Iazsi svx31'miva mnr - , r..a.a 3Lns'3nw3nv 3ldvw m�s sa�MES, ABAl ins a:--- a- mv.•; .ono !OI b01 �.,y.F,,..v.� iM SYX31'A1Nf10J 1Ntltliltll ahem a Ur 3 lnO 30-0 • y 4l" 4ml'ONnvtl v'A3 8nsMMNN rS3w r 4 Z� O Q & ®Ya b F b F b b b �� 6 i. b} � 6 b ,- b �v�--=-- ----=--------aaaaaa fifi11 7 R R 7 b R R 4 9 4_ R_ 9 7�_ 7 R Y 9 C 2 7 R Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 48 SOUTH LAKE TOWN & COUNTRY SOUTHLAKE,TEXAS TREE PRESERVATION MASTER DESIGN GUIDELINES 1. Guidelines Statement_ Trees provide riumeruus tangible and intangible benefits to the City of Southlake_ Therefore, the Southlake Town & Country resolves to protect, nurture and renew this valuable resource following the following principles; 1, Southlake Town & Country will make all reasonable actions to protect and maintain the health of healthy and mature trees within Non -Exempt Areas 2_ Trees will be considered for removal under certain circumstances hereinafter set out . Protected trees removed in non-exempt areas shall be replaced per City of Southlake Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-B Z, Application of Guidelines These guidelines apply to the Southlake Town & Country property. 3_ Definitions_ Refer to City of Southlake Tree Pre servatiun Ordinance No. 585-8 4. Procedures and Responsibilities. 1. Existing treesthatare proposed to be saved will he Maintained, Preserved and Protected. All reasonable efforts will be taken to maintain, preserve and protect trees and to keep them pruned, stabilized, wind free from damages from the elements and disease, 2. Existing Trees in Non -Exempt areas may be Removed under the Following Circurnstances- o Trees that are diseased or dead tree o Trees that constitute a safety hazard o For any other appropriate, documented and informed reason. (Le grading constraints. proximity to proposed ha rdscape andfor utility improvements) Trees meeting any of the above circumstances will be identified and submitted to the City of Southlake in the form of a Tree Removal and Preservation Plan, 3_ Tree Removal Procedures Per City of Southlake Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-B 4. Tree Repkicernent Per City of Southlake Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-13 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 49 ti I KROGER STORE SW514 C i November 17. 2014 Southlake, TX 90513,80 + ZA14055 >h sw. ayaw r _R 1.1.—i__r• Aft November 17, 2014 Case No. ZA14-099 KROGER STORE SW514 C;� Southlake, TX 80513 90 + ZA14-M Attachment C Page 50 01 RETAIL B- SOUTH EAST ELEVATION al Area 1.1T zl Dory TOYI 1B3 fl. -18.fi% Yronry bb19BT e1. B.1.1% Sbna l CaY Sore--118 f1 &Ick-82t al. 03 RETAIL B- EART EL —ION Ar 02 RETAIL B - SOUTH ELEVATION ram n..a t,n2 Y. Wn YasonT TWI62 al. —1.0% I.FE - 62M Weonry tall tOtO a1, 9S.SX = I Store IC ..., 55 zl TevWre Painleo Blt up Panel, 1.2554, Total Arw 1,906 xl. Wn Waonry�eotal06 zl -a.s°h � Wfanry lTevlure Psnlae Tin 1.0200 95.5% RETAIL B 03 171 02 01 NORTH SOUTH LAKE TOWN & COUNTRY — RETAIL B SHEET 3 14004-01, 11.1314 01 RETAIL S- NORTH ELEVATION Tobl Area 1.0 sT 0Y Non Mmenry"1M fl.-11% MINal0.00fin0 —100 sl. if EI.F.S. -�� Rif Yumry total t, 1. al°b Slone 1 Caet Sbre 11I 4 — zf &Ipf 02 RETAIL B-NORTH WEST ELEVATION 01 a - _ �g - RETAIL B \%w ZOO, -n+a��e � rirfaww fv \ uo SOUTHLAKE TOWN & COUNTRY — RETAIL B SHEET 1 Non Ill Tab12e80..-13^ _ EIFS--2B0. Waenry bW 1.w H. MM Stare I Cael Sbne — W ] et. BnG 9t] p. Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 51 I r •a nr - Ill A1' 1 1 rt�l ,�•..... dy A ,A r it if r9 OI RETAIL B-WEST ELEVATION,,._,, ,�,,,, •^•� •�'+�•^• y- RETA :_ERTOWER i ass S O U T H L A K E TOWN & COUNTRY — RETAIL B SHEET 2 OI RETAIL D - WEST ELEVATION 01 RETAIL C-WEST ELEVATION TM.IANO e.122 N. '. III, -1 I� � NOn lry TOMI M2 N. —13% S.-- E.I. F.SS. 228N _ ' ' MNN rooeinp—N. p .. Masonry IOtsl 3,—e06 N, e•% SIore IClons S..-2g6 N. C N BXCF-2..90gNORTH 1 i i I � I y I I i RETAIL D RETAIL C TOW Alan 2,16IlN. Non eleaonry — 2Te N. —12.4% E.I FS. — 21 N. Masonry bW IA" N.$1.e% SMre I GR SMnO —1 W R. BM1tk-1.TH N. RETAIL B� O NORTH ogiz2i2ou. 2a00M1. rz TOW Ar IA22 N. NOn Masonry11el—l--12Y. RETAIL RETAILC onl�g -- 1re a1 u,ree N. sex Slone Csai Sbne 20fi N Mncx — z.aog ei. 01 ••.•• row[A III A TH & &� � SOUTH LAKE TOWN & COU NTRY — RETAIL C& D SHEET 1 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 52 Twl Area 1,ff1 aft OI RETAIL C-EAST ELEVATION �•• tl sl E.I ES�aW Ma a ._ ]t a% rm6ing — 168 el. I6azonry IOW 1.669 al. ]LB% Stare /Cast Stine— 60 Ko Brcf ...lp39- si. -7 rowan �RETAIL C J 1 RfT.I.IIR6 -M." 01 aSOUTH LAKE TOWN & COUNTRY — RETAIL C & D SHEET 2 01 RETAIL D-EAST ELEVATION Ol RETAIL C - SOUTH ELEVATION 02 RETAIL D- NORTH ELET!! TN.I Aw i,6u N. Non INaonryTOMl61]al.- 10% 261 sf MN& roolll,M 356 sf. Mawnry foul iAf] s1. WX Stone!C Store--3a9 af. ]16) M TouI A-1,-.1 ti al. ftA% E,I FS. �1300 s1. a — MaonooflmB ry tool 1,669 al. ]f.6% Slone! Casl zl Bnd--1<f9 sl 'i�•I ifill Taal Aran i,tft ai. Hon Masonry Tool Bt) al. —19% Metal raMlrp -- 6SJ al 0 Sl— I foul fp65 af. SlonelCazl Stine 399 i Brick — 3.375 sl. NORTH 09i22/fBlA,a6Baoi.Tf SOUTH LAKE TOWN & COUNTRY — RETAIL C& D „ Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 53 Baw 6 nlaav - "'�"tla r 01 RETAIL E—EAST ELEVATION 1 RETAIL F—EAST ELEVATION """" •� RETAIL E:;::: ._ RETAIL F bl S.ft 9 Abe 9,BN a1. I Tobl B-Mg Ana 7,368 aT [owcn Non Wsonry Total t.it]si.-13X Nan Maaanry T-1 l,Nt a1_--1a.9% rowan b Masonry total fi,t9i al. tfi% Maaanry lobl B,t9i al. M TNNAna qT-1. JtO Non Waonry TaW N.-1B.3% 01 E IF3. I ]JB al »a Mehl raoflag —108 N. Masonry 1Nal I,tN N. N.T% Btam I Cac, 61ma —T9t N. 61kF -t OBfi sl 1��•NORM Tu+ [or.[e}7 LAIrol Iro1 Ir�rl — ig 02 RETAIL E - SOUTH ELEVATION Tobl Area 3.ON al. Non Maoonry Total I91 sl. 13.8X E a3. rooI Mawrry 1ub11,TBJ aT M Slme! CaSwn -- 80] sl . v &ick-95tN . r Total Arw 3, 110 sl. Non Yaon EIFS 1560 - 6 I 02 Ma'ai rmning — Mawnry lobl 1 A9t sl. � t ]0.1 Sara! Cest Stone sl. B n 1686 sl na• , �� 03 RETAIL F- NORTH ELEVATION TWIArea 1,MOaf. { Nan17Tubl E,I.F.S . ��� Bal, MNe1 raaBlrq -1N N YNpny bYl 1,N1 N. N.ri. �. SbnaICAY SY,r-tT6N BNM-1.09t N r L e e f i' Z J L _r —T- J SOUTH LAKE TOWN & COUNTRY - RETAIL E& F SHEET 1 3aoN.IMrevaola. rz RETAIL F RETAIL E I Tool Abe 3A39 N. � •' 1 Non YNonry Tool NON. -11.t% TNeI Ana 21N el. E IFS.- J2 al. E Non Waonry TOW JN N.-15SA MNM xaanln9-INN E.I FS.-3RN Yasanry Nbl 1,]N al. N.1% MNaI Iooflaq -INN. I B,melCmt Bpne--110N - - tr '� • Waonry total l,tN N.3.iX I a' Bnq ._1,618 N. NORTH -- __ - 3bnel Caal Slon--C]3N. 01 BIIU--1ABT al •-- r SOUTHLAKE TOWN & COUNTRY — RETAIL E& F SHEET 2 3aoN,NixvlBla,n Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 54 OI RLTAIL C—NORTH CLtVAT10N TMa OY RaTA1LI—tM21IT91 lLCVATM)N J--T _ Ira T—Arm 2.925 J. NORTH TofalAna l.9m al. Non Masonry T9MI S19 al._. 19X Non Masonry Total 219 al. --13X E."S.... 11n a1. Motel moNn9 —199 al Mehl roMirq — Im el. Meaanry tool 1.&L N. mx Ymonry twl t,569 al. 95% Slone I Ceal Sbne — )B9 el. Sbm / Cmt Slwn —/51 si. Brick —BM aI. - &ick-1.115 si. — i I I. aSOUTH LAKE T O W N& COUNTRY — RETAIL E& F SHEET 3 uao' o9izvxou n Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 55 Letter received from aaalicant on 11-25-2014 ir�1I,K6R L.L.P.William S. Dahlstrom JACKSON I(214) 953-5932 (Direct Dial) - — -- --- -- (214) 661-6616 (Direct Fax) wdahlstromnjw.com November 25, 2014 Via email Mr. Ken Baker City of Southlake 1400 Main Street, Suite 310 Southlake, Texas 76092 Re: Application for Site Plan Approval for the Southlake Town & County Development (Case No. ZA14-099) Dear Ken: On behalf of our client, Cencor Realty Services ("Cencor"), we are advising you that Cencor is withdrawing its request for a variance to the articulation standard as to the southeast side of the southernmost building on the above referenced site plan application. In addition, Cencor is also withdrawing its request for a variance to the throat depth standard as to Driveway No. 3. A reduction of an illustrated site plan showing revisions is shown on the attached drawing. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Sincer ly your Willi S. Dahlstrom cc: Shana K. Yelverton David Palmer 901 Main Strcct, Suite 6000 Dallas, Texas 75202 - (214) 953.6000 fax (214) 953-5822 www.jw.com - Austin • Dallas - Fort Worth • Houston • ian A.ngcle • 5an Antonlo • Texarkana • Memb-erafGLO$A:, . Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 1 A ti y ' quou I = _ PY Q �ly� f ! 41.6 o J a a {{ �A 7 Y W g s• m p — — Q x r '9hl9-l3dVHaiJJM N—j — — — — m x LJ w - --- -------- -----------, ---- rn I _ Z) it Of w I ,n I o � ' I Lu I } U W U Case No. ZA14-099 r , Lm NMOM A ifflfHl ;,W 1� I Attachment D Page 2 Y� JAC'KSON WALKER L.L.P. November 17, 2014 Via email Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Mr. Ken Baker City of Southlake 1400 Main Street, Suite 310 Southlake, Texas 76092 William S. Dahlstrom (214) 953.5432 (Direct Dial) (214) 661-6616 (Direct Fax) wdahlstrom6ow.com Re: Application for Site Plan Approval for the Southlake Town & County Development (Case No. ZA14-099) Dear Commissioners: On behalf of our client, Cencor Realty Services ("Cencor"), we are providing this supplement to the information previously provided in conjunction with the site plan for Cencor's proposed commercial development located at the southeast corner of Dove Road and S.H. 114 (the "Property"). In particular, we think it important to clarify information with respect to two of the items. 1. ZERO LOT LINE REQUEST The zero lot line request is technically not a request for a variance. Rather the City ordinances allow the approval of a zero lot line between two adjacent lots in a commercial development upon a showing that the open space and the plantings that would otherwise be provided in the bufferyards between the two lots is relocated elsewhere on the properties. Cencor's zero lot line request fully complies with this requirement in the Code. The approval is to be based on the impact and compatibility with adjacent land uses. In Cencor's case, Cencor could easily plat the development as one lot, but prefers to have two lots for the purposes of ease of tax accounting. However, the request ends up providing a benefit to adjacent land uses in that it results in more open space and plantings at the perimeter of the site than if this development were platted as a single lot. This is because with two lots and a zero lot line request, Cencor must provide elsewhere on the lots the open space and plantings that would otherwise have had to be in place along an interior lot line. Because the lot line for which the zero lot line request is being made is internal to the development, approval of the zero lot line will have no adverse effect on adjacent uses. Rather, since the relocated open space and plantings will, for the most part be placed at the perimeter of the site, the approval would have a beneficial impact and enhance compatibility with adjacent land uses. 901 Main Struct, Suitc 6000 • Dallas, Tcxas 75202 • (214) 953-6000 • fax 12141953-5822 www.lw.com Austin Dallas Fort Worth - Houston San Angelo San Antonio Texarkana M—W of GLDUtAW^ Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 3 Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2014 Page 2 II. TREE PRESERVATION Similarly, variances are not being requested for tree preservation as the result of application of Ordinance 585-B. Because a Concept Plan was previously approved for the Property, the role of the Commission in this case is simply to review, in light of the criteria specified in the ordinance, the analysis of the Landscape Administrator in his determination that Cencor has made a good faith effort toward tree preservation on the Property. We agree with the Landscape Administrator's opinion that Cencor "is making a good -faith effort." In support of that determination we offer the following information with respect to each of the criteria: a. Whether or not a reasonable accommodation or alternative solution can be made to accomplish the desired activity without the alteration of the tree[sl. Because of the slope of the site, extensive grading is the only way to achieve the grades necessary to allow for workable building floorplates and vehicular movement throughout the site. Accordingly, as an accommodation, Cencor has proposed to increase the bufferyard on the east side and create a tree preservation area in the southeast portion of the site. As noted by the Landscape Administrator, these are the most practical areas of the perimeter for preserving trees. b. The costs of preserving the tree[s], Even after accounting for the additional open space provided to substitute for the interior bufferyards that are omitted as part of zero lot line request, the site plan includes 75,189 square feet in additional open space to preserve trees in the tree preservation area and areas of extra wide bufferyards. That amounts to almost an acre and three quarters of the site that is not being put to a retail use and is not required to satisfy any regulatory open space or landscaping requirement. Cencor is voluntarily bearing the costs of this additional open space property and for maintaining these areas. These costs are already stretching the economic feasibility of the development. The increased development costs caused by preserving the tree[s), In addition to the land and maintenance costs of the tree preservation, Cencor's proposal includes the costs of constructing and maintaining extensive retaining walls to allow the tree preservation areas to retain existing grades, differing from the grading necessary to make the site workable as a retail development. d. Whether the trees] are worthy of preservation, As discussed above, after a review of the perimeter tree groupings and conditions on the site, it was determined that the site plan incorporates the tree preservation areas in Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 4 Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2014 Page 3 the portion of the site that is most practical given site conditions and the existing tree locations. The effect of the alteration on erosion, soil moisture, retention, flow of surface raters, and drainage system. The site plan complies with all drainage standards of the City. Erosion will be minimized by the final grades. Because of the excess open space on the site, soil moisture and retention will be superior to that of a standard development. Flow of surface water is already altered due to the roadways on two sides of the site and the proposed road way on the third. However, a detention area at the northwest corner of the site is designed to detain surface water and release it consistent with pre -alteration conditions. f. The need for buffering residential areas from the noise, glare and visual effects of nonresidential development. All bufferyard planting requirements will be met and enhanced with additional plantings relocated to the perimeter as a result of the zero lot line request. Adjacent properties to the south, west and north of the site are nonresidential. Property to the east includes the proposed Kirkwood Boulevard extension and currently undeveloped land that is part of the same SP-2 zoning. The undeveloped land will contain its own screening that is expected to compliment the enhanced bufferyards and tree preservation area for the eastern portion of the site plan. Together, the buffering is anticipated to be far superior to most nonresidential/residential adjacencies. g. Whether the treels] interfere with a utility service. Utility easements, of necessity do cross areas of tree concentration. So, aside from the grading, some trees would also otherwise need to be removed for utility reasons. h. Whether the proposed tree replacement procedures pursuant to Section 7 of this Ordinance adequately mitigate the alteration of the trees. Cencor will fully comply with all mitigation required by Section 7. Whether the alteration adversely affects the public health, safety or welfare. As stated in the Staff' Report, zoning on the Property currently allows "for a variety of uses from the "CS" Community Service, "0-1" Office, '`0-2" Office, "C-l" Neighborhood Commercial, "C-2" Local Retail Commercial, "C-3" General Commercial and "HC" Hotel districts. The retail uses being proposed, as labeled on the site plan being submitted, are permitted by the approved zoning on Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 5 Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2014 Page 4 the site." [emphasis added] The proposed development directly complies with the zoning and furthers the public health, safety and welfare as determined by the enacting ordinance. Cencor has followed the City's procedures and modified its plans to accommodate the preservation of trees on the site. There are no public health or safety considerations with this request. The public welfare will be furthered by a development that complies with existing zoning and diligently has been modified to preserve trees in the most appropriate areas. The alteration will have no adverse effect on the public health safety or welfare. Based on the information provided above, Cencor has substantiated that it meets the requirements for the zero lot line request and we agree with the City's Landscape Administrator that Cencor that it has used good faith efforts to preserve protected trees consistent with the applicable standards of the City for site plan approval. Thank you for your time and consideration regarding these issues. I will be in attendance at tomorrow's meeting should you have any questions regarding the content of this letter. Siviely yours, Wi am L'=strom cc: Allen Taylor Shana K. Yelverton David Palmer 11244040v.2 124552/00007 Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 6 WWinkelmann &Associates, Inc. CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS 6750 HILLCREST PLAZA DR.. STE. 325 DALLAS. TX 75230 (972) 490 090 FAX (972) 490-7099 November 14, 2014 Daniel Cortez Town of Southlake 1400 Main Street, Ste. 320 Southlake, TX 76092 RE: Southlake Town and Country Mr. Cortez: The Site Plan for the above reference project has been updated to reflect a number of comments from the Staff and Planning and Zoning Commission as well as several internal changes. We have attempted to enumerate the changes as follows: 1. The median islands on Dove Road at driveway No.3 have been shown to be extended to provide for a "standard" 80' wide median opening. *2. The landscape buffer east of driveway No.3 has been increased to 25 feet as required. 3. The proposed row for Dove north of driveway No.4 has been increased so that only a 25' landscape buffer is provided. 4. A deceleration lane and associated row dedication has been included at driveway on No.5 on Kirkwood Boulevard. 5. A deceleration lane and associated row dedication has been included at driveway on No.6 on Kirkwood Boulevard. 6. The limits of the site plan have been clarified as the easterly row of Kirkwood Boulevard which is essentially the future centerline. Any work east of the centerline has been removed. *7. The south buffer yard trees will be planted as per the ordinance. A masonry wall is still included. *8. Kroger Town and Country rear fagade has been modified to have 2' articulation on the dock side and 4' articulation on the opposite side. G:\414\02\ENGINEERING\Correspondence\Southlake Town&Country.doc Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 7 WWinkelmann &Associates, Inc. CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS 6750 HILLCREST PLAZA DR.. STE. 325 DALLAS. TX 75230 (972) 490.7090 FAX (972) 490-7099 9. Kirkwood Drive and Dove Road has been flared such that the west bound lanes align at Dove. Winkelmann will meet with staff to finalize the alignment with construction plans. The revised Signal Warrant Analysis dated November 12, 2014 is attached. Refer to Deshazo Group, Inc. response attached 10. Parking data has been corrected to indicate 1 space per 200 SF of retail and the percentage of restaurant the developer anticipates to be included. This makes the parking count more in line with code requirements. 11. Attached is a rough proportionality memo for the development impact on Kirkwood Drive. 12. Future patio areas (as always planned) are now delineated at building J and K. 13. The TIA has not been updated as discussions held with staff on November 06, 2014 by Tom Simerly of Deshazo Group, Inc. A 1.The daily volumes from trip gen are only to determine the need for a signal based on the ITE commercial profile. As per the Lee comment we have not modified anything since the finding are not anticipated to be impacted. A2. Table 5 and 6 have been replaced in the warrant study. The actual analysis was correct, these tables were incorrectly copies from the XCEL files. No update of the analysis is required. If we use the requested higher daily trip gen, however, it will only serve to solidify the future need for a signal. A3. As noted in the revised analysis dated November 12, 2014 only a Single warrant is met as of opening day. A4. The adjacent Land is no longer part of our Site Plan limits Also refer to Deshazo Group, Inc. response attached G:\414\02\ENGINEERING\Correspondence\Southlake Town&Country.doc Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 8 WWinkelmann &Associates, Inc. CONSULTTNG CIVIL. ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS 6750 HILLCREST PLAZA DR.. STE 325 DALLAS. TX 75230 (972) 490.7090 FAX (972) 490-7099 Should you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Winkelmann & Associates, Inc. Michael Clark, P.E. President *Reflects changes that result in a variance request removal or modification. Cc: Alex Ayala David Palmer Jim Freeman Christina Konrad Maria Bonilla Tom Simerly Mario Paris G:\414\02\ENGINEERING\Correspondence\Southlake Town&Country.doc Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 9 WWinkelmann &Associates, Inc. CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS' SURVEYORS 6750 HILLCREST PLAZA DR. STE. 325 DALLAS, TX 75230 (972)490.7090 FAX (972) 490.7099 Our Southlake Town and Country Good Faith Process for Tree view and Preservation November V, 2014 1. Perform on the ground Topographic Survey to establish existing grades to accurately define areas of greater than 5%. 2. Evaluate Building and Parking layout along with existing topography to establish areas of potential preservation. 3. Prepare Preliminary Grading Plan to generally confirm areas of potential preservation. 4. Perform Tree Survey in the potential preservation areas to define: a. Tree size (diameter). b. Tree species. c. Health of tree. d. Grade at base of tree. 5. Review analysis with City of Southlake Landscape Administrator and evaluate recommendations for potential modifications: a. Review plans. b. Review in field each tree in the potential preservations area. c. Determine which trees are viable to preserve based on the factors out in Section 4.5 of Ordinance585b 6. Further refine grades to preserve healthy trees and evaluate benefit of walls and / or slopes necessary for individual preservation. 7. Adjust utility designs, if practical, to further preserve trees. 8. Evaluate limits of drip line impact for trees to be preserved G:\414\02\ENGINE ERING\Correspondence\Southlake-TownandCountry.doe Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 10 1AC.KSO %VALKER L.L.P. October 30, 2014 Yia email Mr. Ken Baker City of Southlake 1400 Maia Street, Suite 310 Southlake. Texas 76092 Wi€limn S. € 01siro tt (214) 953-5932 (Direct Dial) (214) 661-6616(Direct Fax wdshlstrom@jw.com Re: Application for Variances for the Southlake Town & County Development (Case No. Z At 4-099 ) Dear Ken: On behalf of our client, Cencor Realty Services ("Cencof'), please consider this letter as providing additional information and as an application for the requests and variances listed below with respect to the above -referenced case number, pertaining to Cencor's proposed cornmercial development located south of Dove Road between S.14_ 114 and N. White Chapel Boulevard, in Southlake, Texas (the "Property"). I. ZERO LOT LINE REQUEST While the development will be operated as a single unified retail center, Cencor is proposing to plat the development as two lots. The two lot structure is proposed purely as a means to simplify tax matters with Kroger, the main retail tenant. Accordingly_ Cencor is requesting the approval of a zero lot line along the inlerior lot line to allow the grocery store and Attached retail building tea share a cornmon party wall. The request provides a public benefit in that it results in more required open space and plantings than if the development were platted as a single lot. This is because the Development Code specifies that for a zero lot line request, the two lots must have the same amount of open space and plantings as if there were setbacks and interior bufferyards along the interior lot line. Consistent with the requirements of the Development Code far a Zero lot line &Wloprnent, the equivalow amount of open space and plantings that would have been incorporated into interior buff'cryards between the two lots have been provided elsewhere within the boundaries of the two lots. Based on 1,362 feet of interior lot line. 13.620 square Feet of additional open space would be required. Cencor is providing 88,809 square feet of additional open space. In addition, the 28 canopy trees, 54 accent trees and 218 shrubs that would have been provided in the interior bufferyards are relocated on the Property. 941 [ Mil in Srrca, Suite 60M Daiiis, Tenas 752Q (214� 953.6WP fax (214) 953-5822 wwwJw.cout • Austin • Pairs . Fort Worth • Flou5ten . San An gelo • San Antonio • 7cirarkana • ra«lerof GdP#ALdw'm Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 11 Page 2 Because the lot line Cor which the zero lot line request is being made is internal to the development, approval of the zero lot line will have no adverse effect on adjacent uses. Rather, since the relocated open space and plantings wi11, for the most part be placed at the perimeter of the site, the approval would have a beneficial impact and enhance compatibility with adjacent land uses. It should also be noted that no interior bufferyards are specified on either the Concept Plan or the Bufferyard Plan adopted as part of the S?-2 zoning. 11. VARIANCE REQUESTS The following variances are requested due to the practical diffieulties of laying out a development on a Property that is challenged with irregular geometries and topography, with slopes in excess of 5% comprising 60% of the site. In all instances the goal of the requests is to achieve a site design that is in harmony with the spirit and intent of the City's ordinances "ithout burdening the Property with an unnecessary hardship. The below requested variances will not be injurious to adjacent properties, nor will they result in development that is incompatible with permitted development of adjacent properties A. Dove Road Bufferyard: Section 42 of the Development Ordinances specifies a 25' wide Bufferyard (Type B) along Dove Road. Cencor has designed a bufferyard for this area that ranges from 15' to 50' wide, and has an average width of 25 feet. This is due to a highly irregular right of way configuration. The only area below 25' in width would be the central portion of the Dove Road frontage. This is where the border of the right of way takes a 90 degrte jog and rave Road was construeted partially on private property. The road is straight, but the right of way isn't. The variation in the proposed bufferyard width is due to the irregular shape of the right of way, rather than an irregular landscape program. The variance will allow the bufferyard to have the appearance of a uniform width along this irregular right of way. Even with the variance, the development will meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance as the bufferyard planting requirements will be met, and the average bufferyard width will be. 25 feet. B, Southern Bufferyard: Under Section 43 of the Development Ordinances 32 canopy trees would be required within the 25 foot wide bufferyard at the southern boundary of the property to meet the specifications of the Corridor Overlay Zone. Cencor is proposing instead to plant 56 eastern red cedar trees and three canopy trees. The eastern red cedar were selected by the landscape architect to provide a more uniform evergreen screen along what will be the service side of the retail grmery anchor. In addition, an eight foot masonry wall is also proposed to provide additional screening. The combination of the trees and the wall is designed to provide evergreen screening superior to what would be provided with the lesser number of canopy trees. Cencor developed the rear bufferyard of the Shops of Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 12 Page 3 Southlake in 2006 in the sarnt- manner to screen the development successfully from the residential lots behind the shopping center. C. Driveway Throat Depths Similar to other recently approved developrnernts, Cencor is requesting vatiances to the 100 foot driveway throat depth specified in the Driveway Ordinance. As with those recent developmerits, the variance allows the site design to be responsive to the topography, site geometry, and other site conditions. Driveways 1 and 2 (S,I1.-114) - Cencor proposes throat depths of 70' feet and 75', respectively. The variance is needed to aIlow for vehicular access to the S,H. 114 side of the two story retail buildings. The buildings have been established in this fashion to work with the steep slopes on site as well as to screen the larger parking area from S.H. 114 view. The S.H. 114 access road is one way. Driveway 3 (Dove Road) — Cencor proposes a throat depth of 75'. Driveway 4 (Dave road) — Cencor proposes a throat depth of 51' feet. This is a right -in/ right -out drive only. Three of the driveways are limited to a single exit turning movement, resulting in highly efficient egress. In addition, the development will have, egress on three different street frontages, further reducing the need for stacking depth. Accordingly, the variances will result in net negative effect as to site operations. It should be noted that the City's traffic consultant, Lee Engineering, stated in its report to the City that. "The throat lengths appear to be satisfactory, and variances, if necessary, should be allowable." D. Pagade Articulation: Cencor requests a variance to the horizontal and vertical articulation requirements for the south wall of Building A. This is the rear facade of the grocery facility that is depicted on the Site Plan, This facade is perpendicular to S.H. 114, and will be screened by an 8' masonry wall (which is not required) and by cedar trees. The trees and masonry wall will provide the horizontal and vertical variation to make the south elevation visually appealing. 111. TREE PRESERVA ION The Property is challenged with very difficult grade changes. There is approximately 40 feet of grade chnnge from East to West and approximately 20 feet from North to South. Sixty percent (60%) of the site has grades in excess of 5%. with much of the remainder of tl,e site having 3-411/o grades. Of course development of sites with such topography requires extensive Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 13 Page 4 grading to achieve glades workable for automobiles and people. This was evidenced by the Woodmont Company's Southlakc Park pillage development approved in 2012. In that instance, with slopes in excess of 4°,o, the site was approved Mth the preservation of only 1 o of the existing tree cover. In contrast to the Woodmont case, Cencor has taken extraordinary measures to identify a larger area for the preservation of existing trees. Cencor hes analyzed several different designs Cor the center to achieve optimal tree preservation while meeting the needs of the development. The Property has been planned to place the dedication of the Kirkwood Boulevard extension along the high ridge of the existing topography. This will allow for preservation of existing grades in proximity to the street and allow for minimal grading on the property to the east when that tract develops. On the subject Property, the anchor store and main parking field have been designed to have a finished grade high enough to allow for a tree preservation area along the southeastern portion of the Property. In consideration of tree preservation, the size of the overall development has been significantly reduced over Censor's original proposal. 'While impervious coverage up to 75% is permitted tinder the zoning, incorporating the tree preservation area, Cencor has reduced the size of its proposed development to approximately 71.55% coverage. Also, rather than grading the site to achieve a consistently gradual topography, as would be typical for this type of development, Cencor will consider, pursuant to the tree preservation standards of Ordinance 585-B, extensive retaining walls in the non-exempt areas of the development to preserve trees. The areas of potential retaining wall installation are shown on the preliminary grading plan that has been submitted to the City on the date of this letter. The potential result is that even with a more difficult topography, there is the potential that Cencor would he able to preserve up to 7.3)% of its existing tree cower. That amount would be a 30% increase over the tree cover that was slated for preservation on the Woodmont site. In addition, to preserve the integrity of the tree preservation area and to guide future development, Cencor is also imposing master design guidelines related to tree preservation outlined in the attached exhibit. Based on the infon ation provided above, we believe that Fencer has demonstrated not only that it meets the criteria for the requested variances. but also that it has substantiated that it has uses good faith efforts to preserve as many trees a5 possible on this site. Thank you for your time and consideration regarding these issues. Please do not hesitate to contact me regarding any questions you may have concerning this case. Sin I roUrS, William S. Dahlstrom t : David Palmer Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 14 - r j I:\( 1:1st)\ W,.%1,KFit L.L.P. r&WITIEW& September 22, 2014 Via email Mr. Ken Baker City of Southlake 1400 Main Street, Suite 310 Southlake, Texas 76092 William S. Dahlstrom (2141953-5932 (Direct Dial) (214) 661-6616 (Direct Fax) wdahlslrom(rijw.com Re: Application for Variances for the Southlake Town & County Development (Case No. ZA 14.099) Dear Ken: On behalf of our client, Cencor Realty Services ("Cencor"), please consider this letter as an application for the following variances with respect to the above -referenced case number pertaining to Cencor's proposed 25.824 acre commercial development located south of Dove Road between S.H. 114 and N. White Chapel Boulevard, in Southlake, Texas (the "Property"). A. TREE PRESERVATION VARIANCE With respect to tree preservation, Cencor believes that the City tree ordinance applicable to the Property should be Ordinance 585-B. This is due to a specification of applicable ordinances at Section 20.0 of Ordinance 585-D. The property has a concept plan approved with the S-P-2 zoning prior to September 1, 2005 and we are not aware of any facts that would indicate the application of Ordinance 585-D. However, City staff have prepared comments to Cencor's site plan analyzing the site under Ordinance 585-D. If Ordinance 585-D is applicable, then in accordance with Section 15.2 of Ordinance 585-D, the City of Southlake Tree Preservation Ordinance ("2007 Tree Ordinance"). Cencor requests a variance to Section 7.2 of Ordinance 585-D pertaining to the minimum percentage of the existing tree cover to be preserved. According to Section 7.2, 40% of the pre -development tree coverage is called to be preserved based upon 60.1% - 80% of the Property having existing tree coverage. Cencor requests a variance to preserve 6.2% - 6.5% of the existing tree canopy. Cencor has enclosed two proposed Tree Conservation Plans. This request is not unlike other reductions approved by the City for the Southlake Park Village, Carroll Pointe, and Kimball Oaks developments in which significant reductions, with at least one exceeding Cencor's request, were approved to allow development to proceed on the respective tracts. 901 Main Strccc, Suicc 64100 - Dallas. Tcxas 75202 - r214� 953-6000 - fax (214j 953-5822 www.lw.com • Austin • Dallas • Fort Worth Houston - San Angelo San Antonio - Texarkana Mn b- orciouu Awe" Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 15 Page 2 After extensive planning, given the development and building standards of this development, Cencor believes that a variance is warranted for the following reasons that correspond with the factors sets firth in Section 15.2 of the 2007 Tree Ordinance. Whether a literal enforcement o/'the Ordinance will create an undue hardship or an unreasonable practical dij�culty on the applicant; Literal enforcement of the 2007 Tree Ordinance with respect to this Property creates an undue hardship and unreasonable practical difficulty in that it would prevent the use of the property for the proposed uses consistent with the Property's zoning. The Property is zoned S-P- 2 for mixed uses consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Cencor is seeking with this application to implement a retail and restaurant component of a mixed use development anchored by a grocery store. . Preservation of 40% of existing tree cover as set forth in the 2007 'free Ordinance is not practical because it prevents the development of the retail buildings and required parking to fully support the retail facility. This was recognized by the City not long ago with the approval of Southlake Park Village in which the developer was permitted by the City to remove 99% of the tree canopy required to be preserved. Because over 62% of the Property has slopes of 5% or greater, achieving workable grades for a retail development severely impedes tree preservation. However, preservation of trees located around the boundary of the Property is feasible, and this has been incorporated into the Tree Conservation Plans. ii. Whether the situation causing the unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty is unique to the affected property and is not sel f-imposed It is the existing topography of the Property that makes it impossible to pursue the development, which is specifically allowed under the current zoning, in such a way that existing grades can be maintained. Without being able to maintain the existing grades, it is not possible to maintain a greater percentage of the existing trees. . iii. Whether a reasonable accommodation or alternative solution can be made to accomplish the desired activity without the alteration for the trees; After much careful study, no alternatives were found that would allow for the development without the proposed alteration of on -site trees. However, as part of this development, Cencor will be dedicating right of way for the extension of Kirkwood Boulevard adjacent to the Property. Instead of the typical right of way width, Cencor will be dedicating over 5 acres of property for Kirkwood Boulevard. This will allow the street to developed in a way that preserves more trees in the extra -large right of way. Construction will alter fewer trees because the extra width will allow the travel lanes to be constructed in a way to more closely match the natural topography. The effect of this will also result in a generous median between the travel lanes, preserving a large area of existing tree cover. This design and alternative for tree conservation was intended to help compensate for trees altered within the Property. Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 16 Page 3 iv. Whether the variance will injure or be wholly compatible with the use and fiaure or existing development of adjacent properties; Fully treed landscape bufi'er areas will be maintained along all edges adjacent to private property. Therefore, the requested variance will not have an adverse effect on adjacent developments. li,'hether the increased development costs caused by preserving the trees create an undue hardship on the development of the site; As stated, due to topographic constraints a majority of trees on the retail portion of the Property need to be removed in order to develop the Property. Costs of preserving the required trees would be a severe hardship to Cencor as it would make development of the Property economically infeasible. vi. Whether there is any identified adverse effect of the alteration or preservation on erosion, soil moisture retention, flow of surface water, and drainage systems: The site and its systems have been engineered to mitigate any adverse effects. vii. The costs versus the benefits of relocating required utility service infrastructure and easements based on preservation or alteration ofprotected trees: Cencor has studied the most practical way to service the site with utilities and infrastructure with an eye toward preservation of existing trees. This has resulted in the design for the Kirkwood Boulevard extension that will allow for the development of the street with fewer alterations of trees and the reservation of existing trees in the proposed medians. viii. Whether the proposed tree replacement procedures adequately mitigate the alteration of the trees; In addition to preserving the canopy that Cencor can preserve, and providing the generous right-of-way for Kirkwood Boulevard that reduces grading and removal of trees. Cencor is prepared to make a payment to the Reforestation Fund or other specifically dedicated fund approved by the City Council, in accordance with Section 9.7 of the 2007 Tree Ordinance, in order to accomplish any additional mitigation warranted.. ix. Whether the alteration adversely affects the public health, safety or welfare; and The direct effects of the alteration are contained within the Property. The variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare. X. Whether the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of this Ordinance to the greatest degree reasonably possible. Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 17 Page 4 Granting this variance will allow the property owner to make economically viable use it its property consistent with the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. At the same time, in accordance with the submitted Tree Conservation Plans, it will foster preservation of existing trees where feasible in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City's "Tree Preservation Ordinance. B. ADDITIONAL VARIANCES The following additional variances are necessitated by virtue of the practical difficulties of laying out a development on a Property that is challenged with the slope issues of this site and the geometries of the Property resulting after the dedication of right of way for Kirkwood Boulevard, Dove Road and White Cahpel Boulevard. In all instances the goal is to achieve a site design that is in harmony with the spirit and intent of the City's ordinances without burdening the property with an unnecessary hardship. The below requested variances will not be injurious to, nor be incompatible with permitted development of adjacent properties I. INTERIOR LANDSCAPE VARIANCE: Lot 1 as depicted in Cencor's enclosed Site Plan meets the canopy tree quantity requirement set forth in the City's Landscaping Ordinance. However, Cencor is proposing to install 108 rather than 218 accent trees. Without covering every visible patch of turf, it is nearly impossible for Cencor to fit the 218 accent trees on the Property. As such, Cencor requests a variance to install accent trees at a ratio of 1 accent tree for every 500 square feet in lieu of the current 1:250 ratio. The proposed landscape plan was designed to include accent trees at spacing and intervals that are harmonious with other landscape standards. . 11. DRIVEWAY THROAT DEPTHS Similar to Southlake Park Village and other commercial developments (Kimball Oaks, Carroll Pointe and Forest Park Medical), Cencor also requests variances to the throat depths that are responsive to site conditions, as set forth below, and further depicted in the Site Plan. A. Driveway 1 (S.H.-114) - Cencor proposes a throat depth of 70' feet. This variance is needed to allow for vehicular access to the S.H. 114 side of the two story retail buildings. These buildings have been established in this fashion to work with the steep slopes on site as well as screen the larger parking area from S.N. 114 view. The S.11. 114 access road is one way. B. Driveway 2 (S.H.-114) — Cencor proposes a throat depth of 7Y feet. This variance is needed to allow for vehicular access to the S.H. 114 side of the two story retail buildings. "These buildings have been established in this fashion to work with the steep slopes on site as well as screen the larger parking area from S.H. 114 view. The S.H. 114 access road is one way. Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 18 Page 5 C. Driveway 3 (Dove Road) — Cencor proposes a throat depth of 75'. D. Driveway 4 (Dove Road) — Cencor proposes a throat depth of 51' feet. This is a right -in/ right -out drive only. E. Driveway 5 (Kirkwood Blvd) — Cencor proposes a throat depth on the north side of 72' feet. The proposed throat depth on the south side exceeds 100' (170' feet). The shorter stacking on the north side results in less impact than if it was on the south side. III. INTERNAL LOT LINE BUFFER YARD Though the Property is being platted as two lots, the site plan evidences a unified retail center. A variance is necessary to eliminate the otherwise required landscape buffer along interior buffer yards between Lot 1 of Lot 2. This is needed to allow the two building walls to be along the common lot line. In addition, the variance will allow for the joint parking lot to be constructed in a standard fashion for a retail center. 1V. MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE A variance is needed for Impervious Coverage for Block 1, Lots 1 & 2. Per Section 22.5(k) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the maximum impervious coverage shall not exceed 75% and Cencor's proposal is 78.1 %. However, if the area of impervious coverage of the large Kirkwood median being dedicated by Cencor is included in these calculations, the impervious coverage provided by this development falls well below themaximum to 71 %.. V. BUFFERYARD VARIANCES: A. Dove Road Bufferyard: • Required: 25' wide Bufferyard (Type B) with 2 canopy trees, 3 accent trees, and 10 shrubs per 100' of Bufferyard. • Provided: Cencor has provided a 15'-50' wide Bufferyard. Cencor requests a variance to allow for a 14.5' foot landscape buffer along the "central" portion of the Dove Frontage. This is needed as a result of the Right of Way "jog" created by the construction of Dove Road on private property. B. South Bufferyard: • Required: 25' wide Bufferyard (Type B) with 4 canopy trees, 3 accent trees, and 10 shrubs per 100' of Buleryard. In accordance with Section 43-21(a) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the amount of canopy trees is required to be doubled from two to four. Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 19 Page 6 • Provided: Cencor has provided a 25' wide Butferyard and requests a variance for the planting requirements. Cencor proposes planting 56 eastern red cedar and 3 canopy trees, along with an eight foot masonry wall. C. S.H. Highway 114 Bufferyard: • Required: 25' wide Bufferyard (Type J) with 4 canopy trees, 3 accent trees, and 14 shrubs per 100' of Bufferyard. Due to visibility of the loading dock from S.H. 114, the amount of canopy trees is also required to be doubled along the southern end the Property. • Provided: Cencor has provided a 25' wide Bufferyard. Cencor has provided standard planting of plant material and the canopy trees have not been doubled along the southern edge of the Bufferyard due to existing and proposed site constraints. Cencor also requests a variance to reduce the quantity of canopy trees to 3 and accent trees to 2 due to site constraints. VI. FACADE ARTICULATION: Cencor requests a variance to the horizontal and vertical articulation requirements for the south wall of Building A. This is the rear wall of the grocery facility that is depicted in the enclosed Site Plan, which is perpendicular to S.11. 114, and screened by an 8' masonry wall (which is not required) and by cedar trees. The trees and wall will provide the horizontal and vertical variation to make the south elevation visually appealing. Thank you for your time and consideration regarding these issues. A check for the City's fee for this item is being delivered separately. Please do not hesitate to contact me regarding any questions. Sincerely yours, William S. Dahlstrom cc: Shana K. Yelverton David Palmer 1 123 5777v.1 123552'~7 Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 20 Traffic Impact Analysis Findings DeShazo Group Traffic. Transportation Planning. Parking. Design TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Michael Clark, P.E. Winkelmann & Associates, Inc. From: DeShazo Group, Inc. Date: April 24, 2014 Re: A Traffic Impact Analysis for Southlake Center, a Proposed Commercial Development in Southlake, Texas (DeShazo #13057) Introduction The services of DeShazo Group, Inc. were retained by Winkelmann & Associates, Inc. to conduct a Traffic Impact Analysis and Access Assessment for Southlake Center, a proposed commercial development located at the intersection of Dove Road and White Chapel Boulevard in Southlake, Texas (see Exhibit 1). The DeShazo Group is an engineering consulting firm providing licensed engineers skilled in the field of traffic & transportation engineering. This study will examine the potential traffic generated by the proposed development plan and will determine the general availability of access and roadway capacity available to serve it for the following scenarios: • Existing conditions (2013) • Project buildout (2015 - if needed) • Project buildout + 5 years (2020). The 2015 scenario will only be analyzed if the 2020 scenario is found to require mitigation. If the 2020 scenario provides acceptable levels of service without roadway improvements beyond those proposed as part of the project, it can be assumed that the 2015 scenario (which will reflect lower traffic volumes) will also provide acceptable levels of service. Once completed, this report will be provided to City of Southlake staff (Staff) and TxDOT for review and to fulfill the associated requirements of the local approval process. Proposed Development Characteristics This proposed development consists of approximately 200,000 square feet of commercial uses on the western tract and 69 single-family dwelling units on the eastern tract. The overall project is proposed to be fully developed by the end of 2015. Exhibit 2 offers a conceptual site plan and shows the roadway improvements included with the project including: 1) The construction of deceleration lanes on Dove at Kirkwood, on Kirkwood and the site driveways and on SH 114 at Drives 1 and 2, 2) the construction of a raised median on Dove at Drive 3 and 3) the completion of Kirkwood as a 4-lane, divided facility south of Dove. 100 South Houston Street, Suite 330 Dallas, Texas 75202 P. 214.748.6740 F. 214.748.7037 www.deshazogroup.com Case No. ZA14-099 Attachment E Page 1 Roadways and Accessibility The following existing roadways will provide primary (direct) access to the subject site and are included in the study area (refer to Exhibit 3 for Southlake's Mobility Plan): • Dove Road a 4-lane, divided roadway with additional turn lanes at major intersections between Kirkwood Boulevard and SH 114 and a 2-lane, undivided roadway east of Kirkwood Boulevard and West of SH 114. Shown as an A4D between Kirkwood Boulevard and SH 114 and an A2U east of Kirkwood Boulevard and West of SH 114 (with the possibility of an upgrade to an A4D if/when traffic volumes warrant). • White Chapel Boulevard a 2-lane, undivided roadway. Shown as an A4D between Dove Road and SH 114 and a C2U north of Dove Road. • SH 114 Frontage Roads the northbound frontage road is a 4-lane, one-way roadway adjacent to the site and the southbound frontage road is a 3-lane, one-way roadway. • Kirkwood Boulevard a 4-lane, divided roadway north of Dove Road and east of White Chapel Boulevard. The portion of Kirkwood Boulevard between Dove Road and White Chapel Boulevard has not been constructed. The following intersections will also be included in the impact analysis: • Dove Road @ White Chapel Boulevard, • Dove Road @ Kirkwood Boulevard, • Dove Road @ the SH 114 frontage roads, • Dove Road @ 2 site driveways, • White Chapel Boulevard @ 2 site driveways and • SH 114 northbound frontage road @ 2 site driveways. Traffic Volumes The TIA presented in this report will analyze the operational conditions for the peak hours and study area as defined above using standardized analytical methodologies where applicable. It will examine current traffic conditions, future background traffic conditions, future traffic conditions with the proposed project fully developed and operational and a final scenario occurring 5 years after development is complete. Once current traffic information was collected, future background volumes were developed by applying an annual growth rate to the existing count data. Then, the traffic generated by the proposed development was projected using the standard four -step approach: Trip Generation, Mode Split, Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment. By adding the site -generated traffic to the future background traffic, the resulting traffic impact to operational conditions may be assessed from which mitigation measures may be recommended. Existing Traffic Volumes Existing peak hour traffic volumes were collected in the study area in May and August of 2013. These volumes are shown in Exhibits 4 - 6. Detailed traffic counts can be found in the Appendix. Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 2 Future Background Traffic Volumes The standard procedure for determining the future background or non -site -related traffic involves several steps. The first is to determine an average annual growth rate for the roadways in the study area. The second is to determine a buildout or horizon year for the analysis. Finally, the existing traffic volumes are factored using the assumed annual growth rate for the selected number of growth years. For this project, we have assumed a horizon/buildout year of 2020 and that an average annual growth rate of 4% will occur each year for the next 7 years. Applying this factor to the existing traffic volumes yields the 2020 background volumes shown in Exhibits 7 - 9. Site -Related Traffic Volumes Trip Generation and Mode Split Trip generation for the Project was calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual (91 Edition). ITE Trip Generation is a compilation of actual traffic generation data by land use as collected over several decades by creditable sources across the country and it is accepted as the standard methodology to determine trip generation volumes for various land uses where sufficient data exists. Because there is no proposed connection between the commercial and residential developments, the development was analyzed as two separate traffic generators - one east of proposed Kirkwood and one west of proposed Kirkwood. No reductions were applied for internally captured trips (because the ITE Shopping Center land use code already reflects this characteristic) or pass -by trips (motorists who patronize the site, but who already pass through the study area during the peak periods). A summary of the site -related trips calculated for the proposed building program is provided in Table 1 which shows the net trips added by the proposed development. The appropriate ITE Trip Generation Manual-8' Edition excerpts are provided in the Appendix. Table 1 Southlake Center Trip Generation eaJ PM Peak Weekend Peak Dailyr Land Use Quantity Pi Hour Hour Traffic In I Out In I Out Eastern Tract 69 DU 746 15 43 47 28 38 32 210 —Single Family Western Tract 199,678 SF 8,526 119 73 457 495 712 658 820 — Shopping Center 944 —Gas Station 18 Pumps 3,034 112 107 125 125 125 125 Totals 12,306 246 223 629 648 750 690 Trip Distribution and Assignment Traffic generated by the proposed development at site buildout conditions was distributed and assigned to the study area roadway network using professional judgment to interpret the traffic orientation characteristics of existing traffic volumes in the study area and a technical understanding of the available roadway network. Exhibits 10 - 12 illustrate the approach and departure percentages assumed for site - generated traffic in this study. Traffic Volumes Determination of the traffic impact associated with the Project is measured by comparing the change in operational conditions before and after site -related traffic is added to the roadway system. This involves the development of traffic volumes that include both background and site -related traffic. The site -generated traffic was calculated by multiplying the trip generation values (from Table 1) by the corresponding traffic approach and departure orientations (Exhibits 10 - 12). The resulting peak -hour, site -generated traffic volumes of the Project are summarized in Exhibits 13 - 15. Page 3 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 3 Future Background Plus Site Traffic Volumes Adding the new site -related traffic volumes from Exhibits 13 - 15 to the 2020 background traffic volumes shown in Exhibits 7 - 9 yields the total peak period traffic volumes at the Project buildout year shown Exhibits 16 - 18. Access Assessment The access assessment portion of this study will examine three major areas: 1) The spacing between the proposed driveways and adjacent driveways, 2) The spacing between proposed driveways and adjacent public street intersections and 3) The need for acceleration / deceleration lanes based on the projected turning movements at the proposed driveways. Access Point -to -Access Point Spacing The TxDUT Access Management Manual requires 305' between access points on a one-way facility with a posted speed limit of 40 mph as is the case on the SH 114 northbound frontage road in the area of the proposed development (see Appendix). The site plan (Exhibit 2) shows that: • Driveway 1 is located approximately 475' from Driveway 2 and • Driveway 2 is located approximately 425' from Dove Road Therefore, both distances exceed the minimum separation requirements. The City of Southlake controls the access spacing on both Dove Road White Chapel Boulevard and requires 250' between driveway centerlines and 200' between driveways and street intersections on an arterial. Applying these criteria to the proposed site plan (Exhibit 2), we find that: • Driveway 3 is over 400' from the SH 114 northbound frontage road, • Driveway 4 is approximately 300' from Driveway 3 and 230' from Kirkwood Boulevard, • Driveway 5 is approximately 400' from Dove Road and over 550' from Drive 6 and • Drive 7 is over 300' from Drive 6. Therefore, all distances exceed the minimum driveway separation requirements. Auxiliary Lane Assessment This portion of this study will examine the need for auxiliary or turn lanes based on the projected turning movements at the proposed access points. Both TxDOT and the City of Southlake require that auxiliary turn lanes be provided when the turning movements exceed 50 vehicles per hour for right turns on a roadway with a speed of 40 mph or less (see Appendix). Applying the volume threshold standard to the proposed site traffic (Exhibits 13 -15) shows that: 1) The projected right turn traffic volumes on the SH 114 northbound frontage road at Driveways 1 and 2 exceed the volume threshold for an auxiliary lane (both are shown on the site plan). 2) The projected eastbound right turn traffic volumes on Dove Road at Drive 3 exceed the volume threshold for an auxiliary lane. 3) The projected eastbound right turn traffic volumes on Dove Road at Kirkwood Boulevard exceed the volume threshold for an auxiliary lane (one is proposed and shown on the site plan). 4) The projected right turn traffic volumes on Kirkwood at Driveways 5 and 6 exceed the volume threshold for an auxiliary lane (both are shown on the site plan). Foge Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 4 Traffic Impact Analysis Analysis Methodology Traffic operational conditions for unsignalized and signalized roadway intersections are quantitatively measured in terms of average delay per vehicle in a one -hour period through the intersection as a function of roadway capacity and operational characteristics of the traffic signal. The standardized methodology applied herein was developed by the Transportation Research Board as presented in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). HCM also qualitatively rates the overall delay conditions in terms of "Level -of -Service" (LOS) ranging from "A" (free -flowing conditions) to "I'" (over -capacity conditions). Generally, LOS D or better is considered an acceptable condition for intersections in urban and suburban areas. Summary of Results The intersection capacity analyses presented in this study were performed using the Synchro 8 software package. Table 2 provides a summary of the intersection operational conditions during the peak periods under the analysis conditions presented previously. Detailed software output is provided in the Appendix. The findings are as follows: Existing (2013) Conditions The following assumptions were included as part of the existing conditions analysis: • The traffic volumes collected in May and August of 2013 are representative of average daily traffic levels. As Table 2 indicates, all interchanges and intersections operate acceptably during the morning and afternoon peak periods with 2013 traffic volumes. In order to determine the feasibility of signalizing the Dove/Kirkwood intersection, a traffic signal warrant analysis has been conducted. This study found that existing volumes do not satisfy the warrant criteria. However, with the addition of seven years of background traffic growth and the retail traffic, the projected volumes satisfy one -hour, four-hour and eight -hour volume warrants. The detailed warrant analysis can be found in the Appendix. Future (2020) Background Conditions The following assumptions were included as part of the future background conditions analysis: • The traffic volumes collected in May and August of 2013 have been increased by 4% per year for seven years to reflect the normal growth in the study area and represent average daily traffic levels for the year 2020. As Table 2 indicates, 1) The SH 114/Dove Road interchange operates acceptably during the morning and afternoon peak periods with 2020 background traffic volumes. 2) The Kirkwood Boulevard / Dove Road intersection fails as an unsignalized operation during the AM peak. If this location is signalized, however, the levels of service will return to acceptable values. 3) The Dove Road/White Chapel roundabout fails during the AM and PM peak periods. if bypass lanes are added, the LOS does improve. In order to determine the feasibility of signalizing the Dove/Kirkwood intersection, a traffic signal warrant analysis has been conducted. This study found that existing volumes do not satisfy the warrant criteria. However, with the addition of seven years of background traffic growth and the retail traffic, the projected volumes satisfy one -hour, four-hour and eight -hour volume warrants. The detailed warrant analysis can be found in the Appendix. Future (2020)'Buildout Plus 5 Years' Conditions The following assumptions were included as part of the future background plus site conditions analysis: • The proposed project will be fully developed by the end of the year 2015 and Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 5 Table 2 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Results 2D13 2020 od+S- inter:ecno� TreficAndmmod AM PM weekend AM PM weekend AM PM weekend iH_1-SBFF - B (14.7) B (112) B (ILl) C (23.6) a (15.0) B (125) C (30.9j C (27.8) B (14.7) B (14.4) C (2a6) B (129) C (25.9) C (311) B (163) C 133.81 D (41.1) B (179) ALL A (42) A fEd) A R-ai A (9.0) A (6.8) A (2.9) F (33-2) F (IWO) F (1003) NBL F (1689) F ER F (9410) ABT F (9a0) F (51-6) D (33.4) NBR C (23-2) C (15.6) B (11" EBL A (92) A (8.2) • (76) B (10.5) A (86) A (78) B 0") • (8-8) A (&I) 'A'BL A (a.4) A (89) A (8.2) SBL D (317) C (18.I) B (la6) F (ILOS) D (32-8) B (115) F (8779) F (1342.0) F (66-8) SBTR D (3171 5 (12-0) A 1") 5 (12.0) C (154) A (9.2) C (184) C (18.51 D (27.6) w/Synol C (2331 C (292) 8 (18.4) A (0.0) A faO) A (0.0) ALL C (172) B (144 A JS2) F (60.0) E (4 -5) A (6-1) F 06.6) F an 8 (109) EB B (145) B (12-4) A (5-11 E (36.9" C (205) A (5.9) F (689) F (74.4) B (11-5) w/EB Bypar C 124.0) C (I51) A (55) D (322) 0 (28.6) A (7-4 'h'B C (22.6) C (15.6) A (55) F (1045) E (45.8) A (66) F (I64.8) F (IS&7) B (11.6) Done B Whit. Chapel w/ W8 Byp- E (45.0) D (15.2) A (6-1) F (E2-0) F (69-7) 6 W) NO B (126) C (191) A (50) D (26.0) F (75.7) A (5.7) E (38-4) F (231.8) A (9.5) w/ AiB Bypass a (14.0) C (19.8) A (4.7) C (179) F (672) A (7.2) SB C 1168) A (8.1) A (5.2) F (53.6) B (11-5) A (6.1) F (960J C (18.6) B (105) w/ sB Bypass C (159) A (6.5) A (53) C (18-8) 8 (10-4 A (7-4) ALL A (L9) A (16) A (23) A" A Ra) A 93) A (3.4) A (43) A (5-a) '.VBL C fill) B (13.7) B (I10J C (20.7) C (17-4) B (123) D (25.4) D (28.2) C (213) '.Vh to Chapel p 15rk-J 'ABR A (9.9) 0 (3a.1) A (9.2) B (10.6) B (209) A (9.5) B (l12) B (13.1) B (218) SBL A (80) A 13.0) • (1.61 A (82) A (64J A (78) A M-4) • f38) A (8.3) ALL A N3) A (N-a) A (2-4 sn uA NO" D- z •NBA A (99) B (12-4 B (11-0) ALL A (OS) A (L2) A (32) SE111A NBFR � Dnve 1 'NBP A (100) a (114 B (121) ALL A (u) A (1-4) A (17) A (2-8) A (0-01 A (Zn A f2.7) A (JAI NB .. IV 0) A (0.0) A M.0) A (QO) A p.0) F (561) C (213) C (222) EBL .. 0-3) A (0.0) B (10.6) A (aO) A (00, B (111J A (0.0) A (0.0) D- (6 Dnw 3 '.VBL 4 IV 0) A (0.01 A M-0) A (aO) A jO 0 A (9.7) A (8.8) A (9.1) SBL B 110.1) A (0.0) B (10.9) A 10.0) A (0- Of A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) SBP A (00) B (12.0) B (146) A (0.0) B (I12) C (18.0) A (0.0) 1*-DdQ Di-5 ALL A (1.6) A (2-V A (1-4) EBL A (9.6) B (122) B (123) ALL A (4.0) A (S3) A (49) 1 -rood t Drive 6 EBL A (a8) • (9.7) A (9.9) ALL A (1-01 A (0.8) A (0.6) NBL E (414) E (46.5) C (202) NBC B 1132) C (15.9) B (11.0) 'ASL A (9.0) A (99) A (8.3) ALL A (0.1) A JU) A jUl) NBL A (131 A (8.1) A (8.0) '.VF ie Cvoel P- Drive 9 EBL C 117.6) C (200) B (I4.0) EBR B (112) a pa4) B ;103) ALL A (0.1) A (0-0) A jUI) NBL A 93) A (8.0) A (7.9) White Chapel E Dn.e 10 EBL C (161) C (16-5) a (189) EBR B (112) B (]a3) B (101) L4r A 6, 4 A E F=lM`ofSaNCF b aoa .�!arosccw� apP parr Case No. ZA14-099 h6. M ES. M = NW.-, Sa tin, fiat, ✓ art&-d c 0CN L T, R = Lift Thnmyk Mgftf APPraeoe armmg noswsrrc Page 6 Attachment E Page 6 • The traffic volumes collected in May and August of 2013 have been increased by 4% per year for seven years to reflect the normal growth in the study area and represent average daily traffic levels for the year 2020. As Table 2 indicates, 1) The SH 114/Dove Road interchange operates acceptably during the morning and afternoon peak periods with 2020 background plus site traffic volumes. 2) The Kirkwood Boulevard/ Dove Road intersection fails as an unsignalized operation during the AM and PM peak periods. If this location is signalized, however, the levels of service will return to acceptable values. 3) The Dove Road/White Chapel roundabout fails during the AM and PM peak periods. Even if all 4 bypass lanes are added, the LOS does not improve. This single -lane roundabout will need to be widened to a multi -lane roundabout in the very near future and Dove Road may need to be widened to a 4-lane facility. Conclusions and Recommendations This report has examined the access and traffic impact of Southlake Center (a proposed Commercial development in Southlake, Texas) on the adjacent roadway system. The findings indicate the following: 1) All site driveways meet TxDOT and Southlake access spacing requirements, 2) Site Driveways #3 may require an auxiliary/deceleration lane. 3) The intersection of Dove Road and Kirkwood Boulevard should be signalized when volumes satisfy the warrant criteria. In order to determine the feasibility of signalizing the Dove/Kirkwood intersection, a traffic signal warrant analysis has been conducted. This study found that existing volumes do not satisfy the warrant criteria. However, with the addition of seven years of background traffic growth and the retail traffic, the projected volumes satisfy one -hour, four-hour and eight -hour volume warrants. The detailed warrant analysis can be found in the Appendix. 4) Because one approach of the single -lane roundabout at Dove and White Chapel already fails during the AM peak period, this roundabout will need to be widened to a multi -lane roundabout in the very near future and Dove Road may need to be widened to a 4-lane facility. By-pass lanes may also be needed by 2020. NOTE: Recommendations for public improvements within the study area presented in this report reflect the opinion of DeShazo based solely upon technical analysis and professional judgment and are not intended to define, imply, or allocate funding sources nor required improvements. Applicable legal precedent indicates that the Owner of a Project should only be required to proportionately fund necessary infrastructure improvements that are directly attributable to implementation of the Project. Such requirements will depend upon the individual circumstances of each project that may be viewed differently by each particular agency/municipality. END OF MEMO Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 7 7LE111 E Enamr:: inc September 12, 2014 Alex Ayala, P.E. City of Southlake 1400 Main Street, Suite 320 Southlake, Texas 76092 ARIZONA TEXAS NEW MEXICO OKLAHOMA Re: Southlake Town & Country Tia Review —August 2014 Revision - (Formerly Southlake Center) Dear Mrs. Ayala: Peryour request, we have reviewed the traffic engineering study for the proposed Southlake Town & Country Development. The traffic engineering study reviewed was titled "Southlake Center" and was dated August 9, 2014 by the Deshazo Group. Our review comments are numbered for ease 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. We offer the following comments on the submitted traffic impact analysis. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS (REQUIRE NO ACTION BY CITY OR APPLICANT) 1. The proposed development contained in the site plan in the TIA is for the property that is bordered by SH 114 to the west, Dove Road to the north, and North White Chapel Boulevard to the east. The extension of Kirkwood Boulevard bisects the property. The site plan shows commercial development west of Kirkwood Boulevard and vacant land east of Kirkwood Boulevard. 2. The site plan of the TIA indicates that the western portion of the development will contain a grocery store, retail, restaurant, bank, and related commercial uses. The approximate size of the western portion of the development is 204,343 square feet. Gas pumps are not included in the site plan exhibit. 3. The TIA text indicates that the roadway improvements included with the project include the following: o Construction of deceleration lanes on Dove Road at Kirkwood Blvd and Drive 3, On Kirkwood at Drive 5 and Drive 6, and on SH 114 at Drives 1 and 2. o Construction of a raised median on Dove Road at Drive 3. This improvement was not shown on the site plan. o Construction of Kirkwood Boulevard as a 4 lane divided facility south of Dove Road to the project limits. 4. Based on the site traffic assignment the eastbound right turn movement into Driveway 4 does not exceed the City of Southlake threshold. No deceleration lane is shown to Driveway 4 3030 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1660, Dallas, TX 75234 (972) 248-3006 office (972) 248-3855 fax I www.leeengineering.com Page 1 of 3 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 8 No pass -by or internal capture reductions were performed on the calculated trip totals. This is because the shopping center use was selected for the commercial site and includes internal capture affects already. This is a conservative methodology and we agree with performing the study in this fashion. 6. The TIA indicates that the project is projected to be complete in 2015. No 2015 analysis was presented. The study includes a Future (Buildout + 5 Year) analysis that includes background traffic grown at 4% annually from 2013 until 2020. In our original 2013 TIA reviews for this property we commented that we believe the first, southernmost, driveway on the frontage road, Drive 1, is too close to the freeway exit ramp. The spacing to the exit ramp does not appear to have changed. We still believe the site would be better served by moving the driveway further away from the exit ramp. Based on a comment response letter from previous reviews submittals, TOOT has conceptually approved this configuration though formal documentation of this approval has not been provided. 8. The TIA indicates that the White Chapel at Dove roundabout will operate at acceptable levels of service during the year 2020 under background traffic with the exception of the eastbound approach which is predicted to operate at level of service E. The eastbound level of service E operation is driven by the peak period related to the elementary school north of the site. With development traffic added to the intersection in the year 2020, the study indicates level of service E and F operation in the northbound and westbound directions during the PM peak hour. The study states that the intersection may warrant a northbound and/or westbound right -turn bypass lane. It is important to recognize that the roundabout analysis is highly dependent on the peak hour factor selected for use in the analysis. As volumes grow at a location typically the peaking characteristics level out across the peak hour instead of being concentrated in a single few minute period. Thus, the operation may be slightly better than predicted. The addition of right -turn by-pass lanes to the roundabout would only benefit traffic during the peak 15-30 minutes of the morning and evening peak hour, but would be unnecessary throughout the majority of the day. ACTION COMMENTS (REQUIRE RESPONSE OR ACTION BY CITY OR APPLICANT) Trip generation included in the report indicate that the site is predicted to generate 8,725 trips on a daily basis. This calculation was performed using the ITE Average rate for the shopping center land uses. When the regression equation is used to calculate the estimated daily trips the resulting value is 10,806 trips on a typical weekday. We have previously commented on this item: o "the revised trip generation table should use the equation for the daily trip calculation, resulting in higher predicted daily volumes over the day. These minor changes should be rnade and reflected in an updated record copy of the TIA for the City. They are not expected to impact the findings or conclusions of the study." Table 5 and Table 6 in the Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis appear to contain significant errors. Table 5 is reported as containing the site traffic generated by the shopping center, however, the volumes shown in Table 5 for the Dove Road and Southbound Kirkwood approach are far too high to be site traffic only. Table 6 similarly has volumes that are far too high to be Site + Background based on the information and traffic volumes figures contained in the TIA. o Revise Table 5 and Table 6 with and update the signal warrant accordingly. LCC mCII1111:sine Case No. ZA14-099 Page 2 of 3 Attachment E Page 9 o Previously we had commented on the signal warrant that: "The signal warrant must be updated to reflect the correct trip generation and land use mixes from the current proposed development." 3. Table 7 in the Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis indicates that the signal is not warranted by background traffic growth at the Kirkwood at Dove intersection in the year 2020 and that signalization results from the increase in traffic generated by the site. No 2015 opening day analysis is present that indicates if the signal is warranted at opening day. o Please assess if warrants are expected to be met on opening day. o Based on the warrant provided, the construction of the development results in the need for signalization at the Kirkwood and Dove intersection. Based on the analysis presented, the development should be responsible for the construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Kirkwood Boulevard and Dove Road. Page one of the TIA text indicates that the development consists of approximately 200,000 square feet of commercial use on the western tract and 69 single family homes on the eastern tract. o No trip generation or traffic analysis was included for the traffic from the eastern tract. No site plan information related to development on the east side of Kirkwood Boulevard is included in the study. The traffic impact analysis should account for future development of the adjoining tract in some fashion. o Please revise the traffic impact analysis to include development planned for the eastern tract. ■ If no development is currently planned, please update the study to include traffic volumes generated by the maximum use and intensity allowable based on the future land use of the site. S. The site plan included with the TIA did not contain a scale and driveway throat lengths were not clearly legible on the copy provided to LEE. Based on our visual review of the site plan, and capacity analysis results, the throat lengths appear to be satisfactory and variances, if necessary, should be allowable. Please include a clearly legible site plan, including scale, in future pdf submittals of this study. If you 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, John P. Denholm III, P.E., PTOE Lee Engineering TBPE Firm F-450 LEE CIICIIIC'sinc Case No. ZA14-099 Page 3 of 3 Attachment E Page 10 DeShazo Group Traffic. Transportation Planning. Parking. Design. Technical Memorandum To: Mike Clark — Winkelmann & Associates. Inc. From: Tom Simerly — DeShazo Group. Inc Date: November 13. 2014 Re: Traffic and Transportation Elements for Southlake Center on SH 114 at Dove Road In Southlako, Texas eopshazo prgiect w i3w) This memorandum is provided to address comments and is a follow-up to discussions held with the City staff. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared by DeShazo several months ago for the referenced commercial development. The purpose of the TIA was to determine the impact of the development and to make recommendations to mitigate any issues that might develop as a result of the development. For a grocery -anchored retail development. the PM peak hour would be the focus for the impact study. The TIA resulted in the following recommendations. 1) All site driveways meet TxDOT's and the City of Southlake's access spacing requirements. 2) Site driveways #1. #2, #5 and #6 will require auxiliary/deceleration lanes, all of which are shown on the site plan 3) The eastbound approach of the Dove Road)Kirktand Boulevard intersection will require an auxiliary/deceleration lane, which is also shown on the site plan 4) The Dove Road/Kirkland Boulevard intersection shouki be signalized when volumes satisfy the warrant criteria. In order to determine the feasibility of signalizing this intersection, a traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted. This study found that existing volumes do not satisfy the warrant criteria However. with the addition of seven years' of background traffic growth and the retail traffic. the projected volumes satisfy one -hour, four-hour and eight -hour volume warrants. The detailed warrant analysis can be found in the Appendix 5) Because one or more of the approaches to the single -lane roundabout at Dove Road and White Chapel will experience unacceptable delays in 2020, a northbound and/or westbound bypass lane may he warranted as a racidt of harkground traffir. inrreases. not site traffic. The latest site plan also shows a deceleration lane at Driveway #3. Deceleration lanes are shown at all driveways except Driveway #4 and Driveway #7, which serves the back of the grocery store. A deceleration lane is also shown for the Dove Road/Kirkwood Boulevard intersection. There is some subjectivity on how to approach a TIA One of the choices that a traffic engineer has to consider concerns the method of calculating the trips generated by a site. There are two ways to calculate trips outlined in the ITE Trip Generation manual One method is to use an established average rate which produces trips per thousand square feet of development. The second is to use a 400 south Eo atao st -t, 6--to 330 Da11aa, lexaa 75202 P. 217.74B.5740 F. 214 748 7017 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 11 regression equation developed from a fitted curve using the historical data, which also produces the average rate per thousand square feet of development. For the purposes of this study, DeShazo used the average tripsi1,000 SF method for determining trips. The City's consultant has suggested revising the study using the regression equation. The regression equation method results in a 249/o increase in daily traffic. It should be noted that "passby" trips were not considered in this study The ITE Trip Generation manual allows for a 35% reduction in net traffic based upon people who are already on the road and decide to stop at the grocery or other retailer (passby trip). This reduction was not taken. DeShazo considered the request with one question in mind What additional improvements might be required of the developer if the report were revised to reflect a 24% increase in traffic? The answer: The developer is currently providing all of the mitigation that could be requested: revising the report would not reveal any additional mitigation. The possible exception would be the timing of the need for signalization at the Dove Road/Kirkwood Boulevard intersection. The current study reports that background traffic plus site traffic in the year 2020 may meet three warrants outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Existing traffic (plus two years of 4% growth per year) for the projected Buildout of the site in 2015 plus our site traffic meets PM peak hour warrants The north leg (Verizon) drives this single peak -hour warrant. In consideration of the City's consultants recommendation to increase site traffic by 24°/_, a warrant analysis was conducted with the increase resulting in the intersection meeting only the PM peak hour warrant A single peak hour warrant is not considered sufficient to recommend installing a traffic signal at this time It would be recommended that conduit and pull boxes be installed at appropriate locations in concert with the construction of Kirkwood Boulevard on the site to facilitate a signal when warranted in the future. Activity on the property to the east and south would trigger a reassessment of the signal An evaluation of the site traffic as a percentage of overall traffic results in a 36% site contribution to the intersection of Dove Road at Kirkwood Boulevard End of Memo SaVblake Cmref Traflic avid Tr,wxponatprr Asw5snwr» Page 2 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 12 DeShazo Group Traffic. Transpor Cat_cn Planning. Parking. Design.. October 13, 2014 Mr. Mike Clark Winkelmann & Associates, Inc 6750 Hillcrest Plaza Drive, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75230 Rfi- Proportionality of Southlake Center Traffic on Kirkwood Boulevard in Southlake, Texas (Project No, 13057) Dear Mr. Clark: The DeShazo Group has been asked to determine the proportion of traffic generated by the Southlake Center to the capacity of Kirkwood Boulevard. Kirkwood Boulevard is a proposed four -lane, divided roadway that would serve the east side of the commercial site. Based upon the traffic impact analysis, the largest two-way traffic volume occurs during the weekend peak hour. During this peak hour, a projected 731 trips will use Kirkwood Boulevard. The North Central Texas Council of Govemments has guidelines defining capacity for various classifications of roadways. Based upon the location and the cross section of Kirkwood Boulevard, it would be considered a suburban residential, minor arterial. NCTCOG's capacity for this facility is 900 vehicles per lane per hour. This four -lane, divided facility has an hourly capacity of 3,600 vehicles. Therefore, the Southlake Centers proportion of capacity would be 731/3,600, or 20.3 percent (20.3%). Sincerely, DeSHAZO GROUP, INC. Tom Simerly, P.E. President TJS:Isk 400 South souston Sta t. Suitt )30 Dallas, i"as ISM P. 210-748.6740 F. 214,740.7037—dm2uzogr P.a— Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 13 aeShAr Tang & Assacra s, Inc. ROADWAY LINK M94ved)'rPrjf 0W North Central TCXas CPRWil Of Co¢rernirrfi+r€S (NCTCGG) irroddhig pararrr£f£Yj For roadway Links in this analysis, per -lane link capacities are defined as the values used in regional transportation modeling procedures by NC'TCOG. Link Capacity is a function of surrounding land development characteris&s (e.g„ oentral business district, suburban, etc.) and the functional clwisificatian of the roadway (e.g. arterial, local street, etc). A sur=ary of hourly and daily link capacities per lane is provided in the table immediately below. By calculating the ratio of volume tp capacity far a roadway link, LOS may be defined, Based Upon guidelines established by NC-TCOG, LDS criteria are 5umn-wrised in the second fable: TaVe A. Hourly Roadway Link Service lroltinv-s (Per Lana) (006ved if rn parameters Used by No)lh Central Texas Council of Govgfa nenr s) AREA ROADWAY FUNCKONAL CLASSIFICATION TYPE A�efpal ^ Muior A:tarral Collector _ local Frontage Read COD 725 725 475 475 725 () (650) (U5) (425) (650) Ci#a Fringe 775 775 500 501) 775 (72-5) (725) (450) (45,D) (72.5) Urban a50 84 9 525 525 85p Residential (775) (750) (475} J475) (750) Suburban 925 900 575 575 WID Re-5identtal {875] (825) (525) (525) (82b) Rural(925) 1,025 975 tsU4 600 975 (875) (550) (550) (875 Otilf# - Divided or One -Way 140ad5 (l ft44) = Undivided Roads Tabfc B. Daily Rwdway Link Level -of -Service Gwdelines jDerived from pararwe" used by Narlh G9MM Texas Council of Goveranwnls) Volame/capacity Level-of-Servjcc Ratio x < 0-65 A/B fC 0.65,r x -� 1_1M WE x>1.0a F Trsf`rc 7rxlmcf Analysis Appendix Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 14 A TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ASSESSMENT FOR THE INTERSECTION OF DOVE ROAD AND KIRKWOOD BOULEVARD IN SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS Prepared for: wWinkelmann &Associates, Inc. Winkelmann & Associates, Inc. 6750 Hillcrest Plaza Suite 325 Dallas, Texas 75230 Prepared by: DeShazo Group Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-3199 Engineers • Plonners 400 South Houston Street Suite 330 • Union Station Dallas, Texas 75202 Phone: 214-748-6740 Fax: 214 748 7037 November 12, 2014 DeShazo #13057 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 15 -N<DeShazo Group I,Tratflc. Transportation Planning. Parking. Desi4i- TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Mike Clark, P.E. Winkelmann & Associates, Inc. From: DeShazo Group, Inc. Date: November 12, 2014 Re: Traffic Signal Warrant Assessment for the Intersection of Dove Road and Kirkwood Boulevard in Southlake, Texas (DeShazo #13057) Introduction The services of DeShazo Group, Inc. (DeShazo) were retained by Winkelmann & Associates, Inc. to conduct a Traffic Signal Warrant Assessment for the intersection of Dove Road and Kirkwood Boulevard in Southlake, Texas. DeShazo is an engineering consulting firm providing licensed engineers skilled in the field of traffic & transportation engineering. The Subject intersection is located on Dove Road approximately 1,000 feet east of the SH 114 northbound frontage road and 1,000 feet west of White Chapel Boulevard (see Exhibit 1). This intersection will also serve a proposed commercial development located south of Dove Road between SH 114 and White Chapel Boulevard (see Exhibit 2). This report will summarize the findings of the Traffic Signal Warrant Assessment in a request for approval of the installation of a traffic signal at the subject intersection. This report will be provided to the City of Southlake staff (Staff) for technical review to fulfill the associated requirements of the local approval process. Signal Warrant Assessment -Existing Conditions Traffic Signal Warrants The Texas MUTCD defines a series of traffic signal warrants to be used in the investigation of a traffic signal installation. These warrants are listed as follows (also see Appendix): Warrant 1—light-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant .S School Crossing Warrant 2—Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 6—Coordinated Signal System Warrant 3—Peak Hour Warrant 7-Crash Experience Warrant 4--Pedestrian Volume Warrant 8—Roadway Network 400 South Houston Straat. Suite 330 Dallas, Texas 75202 P. 214-74B.6740 F. 214.740.703 w deshazogroup.com Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 16 Existing Traffic Volumes The traffic volumes to be used in the signal warrant analyses include the sum of the approach volumes (i.e., traffic volumes entering the intersection) on the major street and the higher of the two minor street approach volumes. These volumes were taken from the manual and automated traffic counts collected in May and August of this year and are shown in Table 1(also see Appendix). If current traffic volumes do not satisfy the signal warrant criteria, traffic for the proposed development will be generated and added to the existing volumes for a 'future scenario' analysis. Table 1 2013 Hourly Volumes Time Start Dove W! L T R Kirkwood 511 L T R Dove ta! L T R Kirkwood t49 L T R 6.00AM 50 42 265 7:00AM 336 141 523 8'00 AM 246 82 470 9'00 AM 94 57 248 10:00 AM 91 40 143 11:00AM 96 107 is& 17:0DP1M 122 too 267 1:OD PM 113 54 131 2:00PM 185 74 248 3:00PM 236 110 21S 4WPM 205 241 218 SMPM 227 162 290 GOOD PM 215 199 257 7J00P164 144 82 151 S ODPM 1D3 38 11a 9AOPM 77 21 83 10J00 PM 28 3 60 Woopm 17 4 I 23 Right Turn Reductions The Texas MUTCU has provisions for different adjustments in the assessment of the traffic -volume -related warrants. For instance, right -turning vehicles may turn "right -on -red" at a traffic signal under the same conditions as turning right at an unsignalized, STOP -controlled intersection approach. At intersection approaches on the minor street where the ability to turn right is uninhibited due to the intersection geometry (e.g., an exclusive right -turn lane exists) or where a disproportionately high percentage of vehicles are turning right [Le., there is not a significant queue of vehicles turning left or traveling straight), then: "Engineering judgment should be used to determine what, if any, portion of the right -turn troffk is subtracted from the minor- street traffic count when evaluating the count agoinst the above signal warrants. "1 Because the data collected was not described in terms of turning movements, no adjustments for right turns have been made. Warrant Analysis The warrant analysis is based on the following assumptions_ • The subject Intersection will be studied under existing volume conditions. The traffic volumes for this study were collected on a typical weekday in May and August of 2013 (see Appendix). If current traffic volumes do not satisfy the signal warrant criteria, traffic for the proposed development will be generated and added to the existing volumes for a'future scenario' analysis. • Integration of a traffic signal at the subject intersection shall be appropriately coordinated with surrounding, existing traffic signals where applicable. However, these considerations were not directly evaluated as a primary factor in the justification of the traffic signal installation. TxMUTCD 2006- Sect. 4C.01 page 4C-1 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 17 a Based upon background knowledge of the subject intersections, the basis for this traffic signal warrant assessment is derived primarily from vehicular traffic volumes. The pedestrian activity and accident history warrants will only be examined if the volumetric warrants are not satisfied. e The remaining volume -related warrants (1, 2 and 3) are considered in this analysis. The results of the analysis for existing (2013) traffic volumes are summarized in Table 2 and detailed results are provided in Appendix. Table 2 Existing Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Results Weekda warrant I. Eight -Hour Vehicular Volurne Not Satisfied Warrant 2. _ _ Four -Hour Vehicular Vdume Not satisfied Warrant 3. Peak -Hour Vehicular Volume Not Satisfied The Texas MUTCD stipulates that a traffic signal control may be installed at the discretion of the authorized agency responsible for traffic control installation and maintenance provided that one or more of the published signal warrants are met. However, the existing volumes do not satisfy any of the volume -based warrants at the subject intersection. Signal Warrant Assessment -Future Conditions Future Traffic Volumes Table 4 illustrates the future background traffic volumes on Dove and Kirkwood assuming a 4% growth rate over a 7-year period. The traffic volumes to be used in the future signal warrant analyses include the sum of the approach volumes (i.e., traffic volumes entering the intersection) on the major street and the higher of the two minor street approach volumes. The volumes used for analysis include the existing traffic volumes and traffic volumes for the proposed development derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual (9rh Edition), ITE Trip Generation is a compilation of actual traffic generation data by land use as collected over several decades by creditable sources across the country and it is accepted as the standard methodology to determine trip generation volumes for various land uses where sufficient data exists. It is assumed that the 'mode split" characteristics inherent to the ITE trip rotes will adequately reflect the mode choices associated with this development. Table 3 2020 Hourly Background Volumes Time Start Dow WB Kirkwood SR_ Dove EB L T R L T_ R I L T R 66 55 349 Kirkwood NB L T R 6:DD AM 7:01)AM 442 1RG G88 8:0DAM 324 108 b19 9:OD AM 124 75 326 10:ODAM 12D 53 1811 11:ODAM 126 141 208 1210D PM 161 132 351 1.00 PM 149 71 304 2fl0 PM 243 97 326 300 PM 311 145 283 4100 PM 270 317 287 s310 PM 2" 476 368 6M PM 309 262 339 7= PM 190 109 199 soo PM 136 50 155 9.00 PM 101 28 109 10--oo PM 37 4 79 1100 PM 22 5 30 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 18 Table 4 summarizes the trip generation calculations for the proposed center. The appropriate excerpts from the ITE Trip Generation Manual-8"' Edition are provided in the Appendix. Table 4 Southlake Center Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekend Peak Hour Land Use Quantity Daily Total In Out Total In out Total In Out Traffic 820 - Slapping Center 204,300 8,725 196 122 74 967 464 503 1,391 723 668 Totals 4725 196 122 74 967 464 503 1,391 723 668 In order to develop more than just these two hours of trip generation, the ITE manual offers information regarding the hourly, daily and monthly variation factors for shopping centers of various sizes. Exhibit 3 illustrates these factors as shown in the ITE Trip Generation manual (8'r Edition). Using the factors shown in Table 1 of Exhibit 3, an additional 12 hours of traffic data for the shopping center was generated. Hourly turning movements were then calculated for the intersection by applying the trip orientation percentages shown in the DeShazo traffic study dated October 31, 2013 to the shopping center volumes (arid assuming that these percentages remain the same all clay). The traffic vohunes associated with the proposed shopping center are shown in Table 5, Table 6 shows the sum of the 2020 background traffic and the 2020 site traffic and it is this volume set which will be used for the future signal warrant analysis Time 6:D0 AM 7-00 AM 8-00 AM 9'00 AM 10.00 AM 11.00 AM 12:0D PM 1:00 PM 2:DD PM 3:00 PM 4:DD PM 5:D0 PM GOD PM 7:DD PM 8:110 PM 9:D0 PM W.130 PM 11:00 PM Table 5 Hourly Shopping Center Traffic Using Dove Road and Kirkwood Boulevard Based on ITE Hourly Shopping Center Trip Rates Dow WB Kirkwood SO Dove ED e I Kirkwood NB j� 1 T H I. T R I 1 _ T _ �- L T R 33 12 12 7 18 16 4 16 90 33 33 28 50 62 14 62 90 33 33 37 50 81 18 81 90 33 33 36 s0 79 is 79 81 30 30 33 4S 72 16 72 106 39 39 34 59 75 17 75 113 47 42 41 63 91 21 91 114 42 42 45 63 100 23 100 125 46 46 so 7o 111 25 lit 87 32 32 36 48 80 18 8o 64 24 24 23 3S sl 12 Sl 49 18 id 19 27 41 9 41 22 8 8 8 17 17 4 17 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 19 Table 6 Hourly Total Traffic Using Dove Road and Kirkwood Boulevard Based on ITE Hourly Shopping Center Trip Rates Time Start L Dow We T R 66 Kirkwood SR L T R 55 Dove 18 L T 349 R L IOrkvvood No T R 6-00 AA1 7:00 AM 33 4S4 198 696 it 16 4 16 8:00 A161 324 108 619 9r00 AM 124 75 326 10:00 "1 90 153 86 217 50 62 14 62 11:00 AM 90 159 174 245 so 81 18 81 12:00 PA7 90 194 165 387 5o 79 18 79 1 oo PM 81 179 101 337 45 72 16 72 2 00 PM 106 283 137 360 59 75 17 75 3ooPill 113 352 197 324 61 91 21 91 4001010 114 312 3s9 332 63 100 23 too 500 PM 125 345 523 419 70 111 25 ill boo PM 87 342 294 374 48 8o 18 g0 7.00 PM 64 213 131 222 3s 51 12 51 g Oo PM 49 ls4 68 114 27 41 9 41 9 00 PM 22 110 36 117 12 17 4 17 10 Co PM 37 4 79 MOOPM 22 s 30 Right Turn Reductions The Texas MUTCD has provisions for different adjustments in the assessment of the traffic -volume -related warrants. For instance, right -turning vehicles may turn "right -on -red" at a traffic signal under the same conditions as turning right at an unsignalized, STOP controlled intersection approach. At intersection approaches on the minor street where the ability to turn right is uninhibited due to the intersection geometry (e.g., an exclusive right -turn lane exists) or where a disproportionately high percentage of vehicles are turning right (i.e., there is not a significant queue of vehicles turning left or traveling straight), then: "Engineering judgment should be used to determine what, if any, portion of the right -turn traffic is subtracted from the minor- street traffic count when evaluating the count ogoinst the above signal warrants... In order to be consistent with the existing conditions analysis, no adjustments for right turns have been made. Warrant Analysis The warrant analysis is based on the following assumptions • The traffic volumes for this study are composed of existing counts on Dove Road and Kirkwood Boulevard f May & August 2013 — see Appendix) and a portion of the ITE Trip Generation volumes for the proposed shopping center. • Integration of a traffic signal at the subject intersection shall be appropriately coordinated with surrounding, existing traffic signals where applicable. However, these considerations were not directly evaluated as a primary factor in the justification of the traffic signal installation. Based upon background knowledge of the subject intersections, the basis for these traffic signal warrants is derived primarily from vehicular traffic volumes. The pedestrian activity and traffic accident history are typically only applicable traffic signal warrants in extreme or severe conditions. TxMUTCt3 2006- Sect. 4C 01 page 4C-1 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 20 Appendix A Traffic Signal Warrant Descriptions Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 21 Appendix 8 Traffic Count Data Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 22 Appendix C Traffic Signal Warrant Summary Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 23 714 CIE. rinanErimne November 20, 2014 Alex Ayala, P.E. City of Southlake 1400 Main Street, Suite 320 Southlake, Texas 76092 ARIZONA TEXAS NEW MEXICO OKLAHOMA Re: Southlake Town & Country TIA Review — November 2014 Revision - (Formerly Southlake Center) Dear Mrs. Ayala: Per your request, we have reviewed the traffic engineering information for the proposed Southlake Town & Country Development. The data reviewed included a memorandum dated November 13, 2014 from the Deshazo Group and an updated signal warrant study dated November 12, 2014. Our review comments are limited to the "Action Comments" we provided in our previous review dated September 12, 2014. 1. The traffic engineer has chosen to use a method of estimating daily trips for the development that results in an estimate of 8,725 trips. The daily trip estimate was only used in the evaluation of signal warrants for the intersection of Dove at Kirkwood. The updated signal warrant study indicates that a signal will be warranted in 2020 and recommends that the signal be installed with the opening of the retail center. While our prior comment still stand on the trip generation estimation method, we concur with the resulting analysis and recommendation related to the signal warrant and installation, 2. Table 5 and Table 6 have been revised. The numbers are presented accurately using the trip generation method selected by the traffic engineer. 3. While a Signal Warrant for 2015 has not been provided, the recommendation to install the signal with the opening of the retail center makes the analysis unnecessary 4. The report was not revised to include traffic generated specifically by the tract of land east of Kirkwood. When a development plan for the tract of land east of Kirkwood is proposed, the traffic impacts of that development should be assessed. S. A clearly legible site plan has been submitted. Based on our review of the site plan, and capacity analysis results, the throat lengths appear to be satisfactory and variances, if necessary, should be allowable. 3030 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1660, Dallas, TX 75234 (972) 248-3006 office (972) 248-3855 fax I www.leeenginecring.com Page 1 of 2 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 24 If you 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, Joseph-T. Short, P.E., PTOE Lee Engineering TBPE Firm F-450 UE cI1C111E11: me Case No. ZA14-099 Page 2 of 2 Attachment E Page 25 SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA14-099 Review No.: Four Project Name: Southlake Town & Country APPLICANT: Cencor Realty Services David Palmer 3102 Maple Ave., Ste. 500 Dallas. TX 75201 Phone: (214) 954-0300 Fax: Date of Review: 11 /14/2014 OWNER: Dove 114 Infinity, LLC Tim Brittan 1905 N. Pearson Ln. Westlake, TX 76262 Phone: (303) 825-0899 Fax: CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 11/14/2014 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 THE APPROPRIATE STAFF MEMBER. Planning Review Daniel Cortez, AICP Principal Planner Phone: (817) 748-8070 Email: dcortez ci.southlake.tx.us Please correct the Site Data Summary Chart with respect to Floor Area by Use and Required Parking Calculations. Based on the Floor Area by Use provided in the chart, and the parking ratio requirements of (Retail: 1 space/200 sq. ft.) (Office [Mezzanine]: 1 space/300 sq. ft.) (Bank: 1 space/300 sq. ft.) (Restaurant: 1 space/100 sq. ft.) as required by the City's zoning ordinance the following are the required parking amounts: Building & Use Required Parking Spaces Building A— Retail (1S Floor) 497.5 Building A — Office (Mezzanine) 13.78 Buildings B-F — Retail 151.56 Buildings B-F - Restaurant 279.11 Building G - Restaurant 49.15 Building H — Bank 9 Building J - Restaurant 51 Building K - Restaurant 51 Total Parking Required 1102 The provided parking is shown to be 1101 spaces on the chart. Please add one more parking space to comply with the required parking. Also please ensure the total floor area by use number is correct, the numbers computed do not appear to be correct. 2. The building pad site labeled as Building J may be encroaching into the 30-foot front yard setback required in underlying "C-3" General Commercial Zoning District. Although no building is being proposed at this time, please be aware that the placement of this building pad site does not indicate approval of the encroachment and at the time a Site Plan is submitted for this pad site any potential variances will need to be evaluated at that time. 3. The south fagade of Building `A' does not seem to have been articulated vertically. After discussion with the applicant, they have indicated they will comply with all vertical articulation requirements on this fagade as required. Case No. Attachment F ZA14-099 Page 1 4. Please be aware that where parking is provided between the building setback line and public R.O.W., shrubs obtaining a mature height of three feet (3') or greater must be planted at a maximum spacing of thirty inches (30") on center continuous along all paved edges of the parking or drive areas. 5. Bufferyards are required along all lot lines of a property. There is no bufferyards proposed between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 of the site. A Variance has been requested to this requirement. 6. The following comments pertain to the proposed landscaping on the site: a. It appears a couple of typing errors occurred when calculating the interior landscape of Lot 2, Block 1 under the accent tree and ground cover categories. The required amount of accent trees is 154 and required groundcover is 5,764 square feet. Please correct the chart. 7. The following comments pertain to the City's Driveway Ordinance No. 634, as amended: a. The minimum required stacking depth at all driveways for this site is 100-feet. Driveways 1 through 4 on the Site Plan have varying depths from 77-feet to 43-feet. A Variance has been requested to this requirement. 8. The properties located within the Corridor Overlay Zone must provide articulation on buildings that are visible from State Highway 114. The south elevation of Building 'A' must be articulated every 88-feet horizontally. The eastern half does not fully meet the minimum of 4.4-feet of horizontal offset articulation and has provided approximately 2.3-feet of articulation. A Variance has been requested to this requirement. Tree Conservation/Landscape Review Keith Martin Landscape Administrator Phone: (817) 748-8229 E-mail: kmartin ci.southlake.tx.us TREE CONSERVATION COMMENTS: Applicable Regulations Section 20.0 of the current Tree Preservation Ordinance (ordinance 585-D) regulates that a person who has applied for the approval of a preliminary plat, development, concept plan or site plan prior to the effective date of 585-D (adopted by City Council November 20, 2007) shall be required to comply with the revisions of ordinance 585-B and shall not be required to comply with the requirements of ordinance 585-D unless on the conditions occur in sections 20.1 -20.4 of 585-D. Due to a Concept Plan being submitted and approved for the subject property in 1997, prior to the effective date of Ordinance 585-D (November 20, 2007) and all conditions of ordinance 585-D, sections 20.0 — 20.4 being met, it has been determined that the site is subject to compliance with Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-B. In a letter dated September 22, 2014 (See Attachment D, Page 5 of the staff report) and a letter dated October 30, 2014 (See Attachment D, Page 1 of the staff report), the applicant reference the applicability of Ordinance 585-B. As such, the review below is reflective of the regulations of Ordinance 585-B. Case No. Attachment F ZA14-099 Page 2 In addition Ordinance 480-220 (S-P-2 ordinance regulating this site) states the following on p. DR-14, "Timarron Land recognizes the value of the existing vegetation and will incorporate master design guidelines that respond to tree preservation, at the development plan stage of the zoning process. A tree survey will be prepared for the site plan submittal. The developer will comply with the tree preservation requirements of the City of Southlake, as those requirements are developed. Submission Materials as of 12:00 PM — November 14th As of the date of the report (November 14, 2014 — 12:00 PM), the applicant submitted a document entitled "Tree Removal and Protection Plan (Analysis)". The document provides information on trees to remain and be protected subject to change pending final grading and tree assessment; borderline trees; existing trees to be removed; existing trees to be removed due to being dead or in decline; approximate location of tree canopy where the survey is in progress and limits subject to change pending final grading and tree assessment. (For more details and exact wording on the plan please refer to exhibit — L1.0 dated 11/14/14 provided in the staff report). The document provides greater detail than the previous submittal in that the individual trees are delineated on the plan. The applicant has also provided a letter dated November 12, 2014, which outlines the agreement of the process for Tree Review & Preservation. In the letter the applicant outlines eight (8) steps that are agreed to be taken to ensure proper tree preservation review. This process includes the completion of a tree survey which will provide tree sizes, species, health, and grade at the base of the tree. The applicant has indicated that the completion of the tree survey is in progress. Review by Landscape Administrator Section 5.1 of Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-B requires that Landscape Administrator shall evaluate any plans required by the ordinance to determine whether the developer has made a good good -faith effort to preserve as many protected trees as possible. The Landscape Administrator shall prepare an analysis and forward it to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for their consideration regarding denial or approval of the proposed site plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall take in consideration the criteria for tree preservation listed in Section 4.5 of Ordinance 585-B in determining whether to deny or approve the site. Below is a summary of the criteria in Section 4.5. a. Whether or not a reasonable accommodation or alternative solution can be made to accomplish the desired activity without the alteration of the tree; b. The cost of preserving the tree; C. The increased development costs caused by preserving the tree; d. Whether the tree is worthy of preservation; e. The effect of the alteration on erosion, soil moisture, retention, flow of surface waters, and drainage systems; The need for buffering residential areas from the noise, glare, and visual effects of nonresidential uses; g. Whether the tree interferes with a utility service; Whether the proposed tree replacement procedures pursuant to Section 7 of this Ordinance adequately mitigate the alteration of the tree; and Case No. Attachment F ZA14-099 Page 3 Whether the alteration adversely affects the public health, safety or welfare. Landscape Administrator's Comments: Since the first review the applicant has reduced the floor area of the main tenant building and repositioned parking to accommodate open space interior to the development and adjacent to the east property line along Kirkwood Boulevard. There are also retaining walls proposed along the west border of the open space areas near Kirkwood to reduce the grading of the areas that would cause for the removal of the existing trees. A comprehensive tree survey of the property has begun but has not been completed. Therefore, all of the existing protected trees across the site have not been fully assessed. The following comments are based on the tree preservation evaluation criteria established by Sect. 4.5 of Ord. 585-B: The existing topography of property rises from the corner of West Dove Road and Hwy 114 approximately twenty-eight feet (28') to the center of the development along Kirkwood Blvd., and then drops approximately seventeen feet (17') to the southeast corner along Kirkwood and south property line of the development. The most practical places for existing trees to be preserved on the site are within the west, north, and east bufferyard areas of the proposed development. But, since there is not a concentration of trees within the west and north bufferyard areas the only area to have a concentration of trees for preservation would be in the eastern portion of the property where the topography is the flattest. To save trees within the central interior of the development would require extensive terracing of the topography. This would result in an increased development cost to preserve the trees. The tree survey of the property still needs to be completed and further detailed plans still need to be submitted. However, with the commitment to complete a full tree survey as outlined in the letter dated November 12, 2014, along with the Tree Review and Preservation Guidelines, it is the Landscape Administrator's opinion that the applicant is making a good -faith effort. 2. There are protected trees which are shown to be removed within the perimeter bufferyards, perimeter interior landscape and retention/detention areas of the proposed development. Sect. 6.7c of Ord. 585-B addresses protected tree removal, protection, and replacement in these areas within Non -Residential Developments. Non-residential Development: In a non-residential development, all protected trees that the Landscape Administrator determines must be altered in order to install utility lines within public R.O.W. or public utility or drainage easements as shown on an approved Final Plat, or to install fire lanes, required parking areas and building pad sites as shown on an approved Site Plan, shall be exempt from the tree protection and tree replacement requirements listed in Sections 7 and 8 of this Ordinance. Any protected trees within these areas that the Landscape Administrator determines do not have to be altered shall be subject to the tree protection requirements listed in Section 8 of this Ordinance, but not to the tree replacement requirements listed in Section 7 of this Ordinance. All other areas of the development shall be subject to both the tree replacement and the tree protection requirements, and all other provisions of this Ordinance. The existing trees within the drainage easements and utility easements where utilities are being installed will most likely be altered, but trees within open space areas that are not within these areas can possibly not be altered. The challenging topography of the site will dictate the Case No. Attachment F ZA14-099 Page 4 preservation of these trees. This is why the applicant has designated some existing trees within open space areas not within easements as "Borderline" for removal. LANDSCAPE COMMENTS: 1. The calculations for the Accent Trees and Ground Cover within the Block 1, Lot 2 Interior Landscape Summary Chart are incorrect. 154 — Accent Trees, and 5,764 sq.ft. of Ground Cover are required. Indicates informational comment. # Indicates required items comment. Public Works/Engineering Review Alejandra (Alex) Ayala, P.E. Civil Engineer Phone: (817) 748-8274 E-mail: aayala@ci.southlake.tx.us TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS COMMENTS: TIA dated: August 9, 2014 1. The TIA indicates that based on the warrant study provided; construction of the development results in the need for signalization at the Kirkwood and Dove intersection in the year 2020. However the TIA states "In order to provide the greatest safety and highest level of service possible, therefore, the installation of this traffic signal should be pursued with the opening of proposed shopping center." The site plan does not indicate a signal at this intersection. 2. The TIA states that TxDOT has conceptually approved Driveway 1 (southernmost) but no formal letter from TxDOT has been provided to staff. Any changes to an approved site plan may require approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. This review is preliminary. Additional requirements may be necessary with the review of civil construction plans. 2. Where possible, provide right of way widths in lieu of "Variable Width ROW" note. 3. Construction within SH 114 right of way shall require a permit from TxDOT. Submit permit application prior to site plan approval. Street intersections shall comply with TDLR/ADA accessibility standards. Sight distances shall comply with AASHTO guidelines on adjacent collectors and arterials. Sidewalk widths shall conform to the Southlake Pathways Plan. Use the City of Southlake GPS monuments whenever possible. Monument locations can be found in the City of Southlake website: http://www.cityofsouthlake.com/index.aspx?NID=266 EASEMENTS: 1. Water, sanitary sewer and drainage easements are not shown on the plat. Provide all necessary easements for water, sanitary sewer and drainage. Easements shall be 15' Case No. Attachment F ZA14-099 Page 5 minimum and located on one lot — not centered on the property line. A 20' easement is required if water and sanitary sewer will be located within the easement. 2. Drainage easements for the detention ponds are not shown on the plat. Detention ponds shall be dedicated by plat as drainage easements. The following note shall be added to the plat: Compliance with the provisions of the city's Storm Drainage Policy does not relieve a person of the responsibility of complying with all other applicable laws, including, but not limited to, Section 11.086, Texas Water Code. 3. A drainage easement shall be required for the detention ponds. A letter of permission from the property owner to the east will need to be obtained before discharging roadway runoff to the east. A drainage easement shall be required from the property owner to the east for the detention pond outfall. 4. Provide corner clips at the intersection of Dove Road and Kirkwood Blvd. to allow for a 30' minimum radius. Corner clips shall be dedicated by plat. Refer to Ordinance No. 483. Verify if easement of water/sanitary sewer/storm sewer crossing the site is in an easement. Water and sanitary sewer cannot cross property lines without being in an easement or right of way. All waterlines, sanitary sewer and storm sewer in easements or right of ways must be constructed to City standards. WATER AND SEWER COMMENTS: 1. Sanitary sewer to the southern property line near the southeast corner of Marketplace Grocery shall require a manhole at the end. All water line stubs must have 2 joints past the valve with a 2" blow -off per the City's details. Water and sanitary sewer lines cannot cross property lines without being in an easement or right of way. The size of the water service tap must match the size of the meter. There are no reducers allowed before the meter on the public side. A one inch meter must have a one inch tap, etc. Water meters and fire hydrants shall be located in an easement or right of way. Fire lines shall be separate from service lines. Water and sanitary sewer in easements or right of way shall be constructed to City standards. DRAINAGE COMMENTS: 1. A letter of permission from the property owner to the east will need to be obtained before any work begins on the pond or the street as it appears that the outfall of the pond will discharge onto the eastern tract. 2. Differences between pre- and post- development runoff shall be captured in detention pond(s). Proposed detention ponds shall control the discharge of the 2, 10 and 100- year storm events. Detention may be required with any new proposed building construction. Describe how increased runoff from site is being detained. Access easements are needed for maintenance of detention ponds. Case No. Attachment F ZA14-099 Page 6 3. Verify size, shape, and/or location of the detention ponds (as depicted on the site plan). Any changes to size, shape, and/or location of the proposed pond(s) may require a revision to the site plan and may need to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. 4. Storm drain design shall be required on Kirkwood Blvd. and Dove Rd. to intercept increased runoff due to the roadway. Storm sewers collecting runoff from public streets shall be RCP and constructed to City standards. Property drains into a Critical Drainage Structure #5 and requires a fee to be paid prior to beginning construction ($331.38/Acre). Discharge of post development runoff must have no adverse impact on downstream properties and meet the provisions of Ordinance No. 605. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS: Submit 22"x34" civil construction plans and a completed Construction Plan Checklist directly to the Public Works Administration Department for review. Please allow 15 business days for review. The plans shall conform to the most recent construction plan checklist, standard details and general notes which are located on the City's website: http://www.cityofsouthlake.com/PublicWorks/engineeringdesign.asp Submit with Civil Construction Plans a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan which outlines pre -construction, construction and post -construction erosion control measures. A geotechnical report will be required for all private and public roadways. The geotechnical report shall include pavement design parameters for subgrade stabilization. A right of way 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 Agreement shall 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. Any hazardous waste being discharged must be pretreated per Ordinance No. 836. Fire Department Review Kelly Clements Assistant Fire Marshal Phone: (817) 748-8671 E-mail: kclementsna ci.southlake.tx.us GENERAL COMMENTS: o Automatic fire sprinkler system will be required for each building over 6,000 square feet, or restaurants classified as an A-2 over 5,000 square feet or with an occupant load in excess of 100 people. Case No. Attachment F ZA14-099 Page 7 o All sprinkled buildings are required to be equipped with a fire alarm in compliance with NFPA 72, the 2012 International Fire Code, and the City of Southlake amendments. o 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. o 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. o A 5 inch Storz Connection shall be installed on the Fire Department Connection, whether the FDC is on the building or installed remotely, with a locking Knox cap attached to the FDC to prevent debris from entering the connection. o An exterior audible/visual fire alarm device must be installed above the Fire Department Connection 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. o The Fire Department Connection for each sprinkler system must be within 100 feet of a fire hydrant, and within 50 feet of Fire Lane access.(FDC locations not shown on plans) and (Fire lanes not shown around several sprinkled buildings where access is needed for Fire Department Connections) o 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: o Fire apparatus access needs to be provided within 250 feet of all buildings on a "hose -lay" basis for sprinkled buildings. Fire apparatus access needs to be an all-weather surface, asphalt or concrete, 24 feet wide and able to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus. (A minimum of 80,000 pounds GVW) o Fire lanes require a minimum 30 foot inside turn radius and a minimum 54 foot outside turn radius. (per 2012 I.F.C. Sec. 503.2.4) FIRE HYDRANT COMMENTS: Hydrants required at a maximum spacing of 500 feet for commercial locations that contain completely sprinkled buildings. (Hydrants do not meet spacing requirements) INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS: All commercial buildings are required to have Knox Box rapid entry systems installed near access to the riser room. Boxes can be ordered at www.knoxbox.com or contact the Fire Marshal's Office. Keys must be provided to access all areas of the building. Case No. Attachment F ZA14-099 Page 8 Community Service/Parks Department Review Peter Kao, P.E. Construction Manager Phone : 817-748-8607 Email : pkao@ci.southlake.tx.us Park Board comments or recommendations: • All applicants are required to appear before the Park Board to discuss park dedication issues if requesting fee payments or fee credits. Please contact the Community Services Department at (817) 748-8607 for further details. Land/park dedication requirements: • Non-residential developments must provide dedicated parks and/or open space at a ratio of one (1) acre of park land for every fifty (50) non-residential gross acres of development. • If fee payment is approved by City Council in lieu of land dedication, non-residential park dedication fees in the amount of $2400 per gross acre x 55.299 acres= $132,717.60 will be required. Fees will be collected with the approved developer's agreement. General Informational Comments No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan. A separate building permit is required prior to construction of any signs. All development on this property must comply with the underlying zoning of the property unless otherwise approved differently by City Council. 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. Development must comply with all applicable requirements in Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 43, Overlay Zones. Erosion Control/Retaining Walls: Any slope embankments or retaining walls within public ROW or within the required bufferyard must be terraced every four feet (4') in height (maximum) with a minimum two foot (2') planting area provided between each vertical plane. Materials used for the vertical elements shall be natural stone, railroad tie, landscape timbers or any masonry material which matches the masonry material used on the front facade of the primary building. The planting area must contain plant materials other than grass. Reflective Glass: No more than 50% of any facade may be reflective glass. For the purposes of Section 43, Overlay Zones, reflective glass shall be defined as glass having a reflectance of greater than 10%. 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, Case No. Attachment F ZA14-099 Page 9 irrigation plan, and building plans, must be submitted for approval and all required fees must be paid. This may include but not be limited to the following fees: Park Fee, Perimeter Street Fee, Water & Sewer Impact and Tap Fees, and related Permit Fees. A shared parking agreement will need to be drafted and filed with Tarrant County with a copy provided to City staff prior to the issuance of any building permits. Please be aware that elevations of buildings that are submitted for building permit will need to substantially conform to the City Council approved building elevations and comply with City's Zoning and Masonry Ordinances. Denotes Informational Comment Case No. Attachment F ZA14-099 Page 10 Surrounding Property Owners Southlake Town & Country v 217 b 301 p 305 N% 422 v 7 400 309 2308 2309 100 y 2304 W 2305 ifi5 185 �L J N101 j 500 230 2301 684 Boo p W 685 �O O 1� O S 9 i� 101 05 �a65 BENT w00 W mo 104 F jog Z o 100 0 F 698 0 200 1. Kirkwood Hollow Ho Assoc Property Address 2301 KIRKWOOD BLVD Zoning• RPUD 0.32 • O 2. Bollini, Sashidhar Etux Sesha 2304 IDLEWILD CT RPUD 0.37 O 3. Morales, Michael D 2300 IDLEWILD CT RPUD 0.38 O 4. Eady, Linda L Etvir Connie D 2301 IDLEWILD CT RPUD 0.47 O 5. Southlake, City Of 150 W DOVE RD RPUD 0.44 NR 6. Neill, Rosemma & Kay V Gunn 2201 SHADY OAKS DR SF1-A 1.50 NR 7. T Zero Partners Lp 2001 SHADY OAKS DR AG 5.64 F 8. Shivers Family Partnership 1835 SHADY OAKS DR AG 21.53 O 9. Verizon Wireless Texas Llc 500 W DOVE RD NRPUD 24.86 NR 10. Dove 114 Infinity Llc 500 W SH 114 SP2 29.49 F 11. Shivers Family Ptnrship Ltd 1900 N WHITE CHAPEL BLVD AG 39.54 O 12. Dove 114 Infinity Llc 500 W SH 114 SP2 24.95 F Responses: F: In Favor O: ODDosed To U: Undecided NR: No Resaonse Responses Received: Seven (7) within the 200-foot notification buffer Multiple Responses have also been received outside the 200-foot and can also be found under Attachment `G'. The applicant also provided a petition of signatures to staff in support of the project. This petition will be provided to the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council separately. City residents have also provided several additional property owner responses in opposition to the project in addition to a petition and information regarding the applicant's petition. All these responses and information will be provided to the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council separately. Case No. Attachment G ZA14-099 Page 1 Surrounding Property Owner Responses Notification Re pon!so Form ZA1 4-jD 99 Meeting Data. OeMber S, 2014 at 6_30 PM Dova 114 In AnFty Lic 1201 N Carroll Ave Soulli fake 7x75092 P L EAS E P ROVIDE C D MPL ETED FORM E VIA MAIL, FAX D R HAND DE LIVE RY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of tl� properly so noted above, are hereby in favor of r�opposed to undecided about r (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. S pace for comments r"ardInU your position: Signature: Additional -Signature: Printed Name(s): Must he pmperiy owner(*] AnsmEX9�) Phone Number (optional): prlrt%dat1cp. Marwee G]nUdIM F9arcMg oepeMmeryi. Date; Date; aer properly. Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 1 Notification Response Form ZA14-D99 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Dove 114 Infinity Lle 1121 S Carroll Ave Southlake Tx 76092 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 Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Printed Name(s): _ Must be property owner(s) whose Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 2 Notification Response Form ZA1441-99 Moeting aat$: Ckctialxe r g, 2014 at 6:30 PM Morales, Mrohagl D 2300 kilowiid Ct Southlake 7x 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COM PLETED FORMS VIA MAI L, FAX OR HAN D DE LIVE RY BE FORE THE START OF T HE SDHEDU LE D PUSU D t-IEARI Nam_ ae ing the owner(s) c the ro so noted �laoae, are hefeby r in favor of o se undec�ded about (nirde'or underline ona) the proposed Site Plan referenoed abe. Space for comrnents regarding your position: l 00,�4 MU -to thl L5t6Ug [ CtUAtt 10) U-f t� Ls duC. wxl'1 1 A0L40 i�i' . I� w Signature; h . Date- t� - (t - Additional Sigrkattire. Date - Printed Narne(sY AlAal IVCYIAp _-- M U51 GC Rraparty urme.�9) Whode r.arfr9�a} are prjrteq et 4W (llherAbe cilll5hml the Plenrinp pgpprt—l. Om F« per prOperlY. Phone Number (optional)' Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 3 Notification Res poma Form ZA 14-v hlaating Data- Oc Dbw 9. 2014 ate: M PM T Zero Partners Lp 1$eal Ashrldge dir Dallas Tx M40 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAJL, FAX 0R HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Bei ng the owner(s) of the pm perty nod a bone, are h ereby in fatirar o opposed to undecided about (circle or underline ore) the prupd Site Plan referenced above. Space ter Gorninents regarding your position: Signature - Additional Prirded Name(): jy Muer ba property awnar{e} whcam nornr(a) 9* Phone Number (optional): Case No. ZA14-099 4YC4717�e_ at4ap. CnDeRW49,.mrAartIFP Rani [)ate: *4k�' Date: Dapm*rmprt Om form pmr prgp" Attachment H Page 4 v SOUTHLAKE Proposed Super Kroger Aufncht, Jennife Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:28 AM To: "dcortez(gci.so ace. c-us eZ a.so lake.tx.us> Cc: "Cody Aufncht Mr. Cortez, please know that my household of five objects to the proposed Kroger. We have plenty of grocery stores as it is between Tom Thumb, Central Market, Sprouts, Kroger and Albertsons. Plus Fresh Market is in progress. A commercial monstrosity at this location, north of 114 is inconsistent with the Southlake 2030 plan. The nature of the business is not something Southlake does not have or needs such that deviating from the 20130 plan is warranted. Jennifer Aufricht, Cody Aufncht, Will Aufncht, Graham Aufncht and Madeleine Aufncht. THOMPSON Jennifer Aufncht Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons, L.L.P. COE 700 N. Pearl St_ 125th Floor I Dallas, TX. 75201 Ph: 214.871.8276 1 Fax: 214.871.8209 Dso YCBfa we Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 5 Notification Response Form y� r wH Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM ^7 (g O 00t PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVFRY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Beirg the owners) of the property so noted above, a e hereby in favor of Giosed to)undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: nf-'P B iG- ]-!Sbx rtA.� Signature Additional Signature: Printed Name(s): AlyD,<&w 4eeac'e6 Must be property owne(s) whose names) am printed at tap. otherwise oorNa Phone Number (optional): Case No. ZA14-099 Date: Date- Plam*V OeWment. one form per property. Attachment H Page 6 Notification Response Form ZA14-M Meebm �Gr `: October 9, 2094 at 6:30 PM eke lx 1 76Qa2 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Beirg tht ownur'(5) of the properly su ilo:ed above. are hereby :n favor of o posed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: bI 6X F . `N) Signature: Additional Signature: Date: v/y Date: Printed Name(s): L Must be property awner(a) whore rmne(a) are printed at top. Oftrwin contact the Planning Depertntenl. One tam per properly. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 7 Notification Response Form ZA14-M MmWnq Dab: October S, 2014 at 6:30 PM Sr y ,O&VALO,&- !x -7b 09 2 t A. PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner;-) of the property so nu:ed above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: ( 13 r)x Py-rq-1 L Signature: Date: I D I f Additional Signature: Date - Printed Name(s): __9ev.4 ,r, ( a.L� /? "� �,c u •c�R 9,9 if PV" Must be property aurnerfs) whcse reme(s) are printed . OtheilvAse eonmact the Punning DeWment, One form parpmperty. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 8 Notification Response Form ZA14.099 IMee&V Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM -f rbh &Iv e 4Yz, i avta;;; . 114 A4f+L6y') Tx 76 o i7-,- t.: 4 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL. FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Beiry the owneri;s; of the roso noted above, are hereby in favor of apposed to / undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: - i b o f- W4Jo ) 4 w)x' & Signature: Date. la Sr Additional Signature: U Date: Punted Name(s): h fA Wluet be Property awner(a) whoee name(e) are printed at top. Otherwise oontart the ruing D"fterr! One form Per property - Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 9 Notification Response Form ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Kathleen V. Simpson, 104 Brentwood Circle President, Brentwood Residential Association, Inc. 120 Brentwood Circle (TAD Acct#40987728) Southlake, TX 76092-3716 Dtra t gt 1lst6ohtiit and usait respgnstas tin Glut of trthtllloa N{aq ` a L±_ PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed tgf undecided about (circle ^nderline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above Space for comments regarding your position: Our HOA vehemently opposes the proposed development, site, and plat. As you recall, this project was presented November 2013 by a different developer and was turned away by P&Z for multiple reasons some of which included: Overwhelming resident opposition, Poor quality of development, Lack of need of another grocery store to serve Southlake, and Resident opposition of "Big Box'. When the new developer started, a group of homeowners were eager to work with them to shape this gateway to Southlake property only to find out they had no intention of working with neighbors in good faith to address their concerns. And once they realized the level of opposition, rather than trying to work with homeowners, they resorted to hirtng a high powered PR Spin doctor who boasts on her website: "If failure is not an option, you've come to the right place." Combined with a team of attorneys and the distribution of misleading flyers suggesting Southlake's support of this project, this developer has tried to intimidate residents, mislead them, and even now, refuses to confirm details of the project. As an example, the PR firm notified us that they were Including a Starbucks, sushi and a few other things. We asked in an email If that meant the jewelry, clothing, and furniture sales Initially proposed had been removed. The only answer they would provide is a non -answer. 'We have shared a lFst of the confirmed upscale amenities that WO be included in our Town & Country Kroger. We are still developing potential future offerings." Signature: l��-�L�� U C"' Date. - Additional Signature: Date: Printed Name(s): _� -�E Ur. � I _ S_G►� QG2 l DbtyThf��-+ iu ap Must be prcaerty owwwr(s) whose nam(s) are printed at lop otheroisa contact tha Planning epnrl niinl. One form per Property Phone Number (optional): Case No. ZA14-099 Attachment H Page 10 Notification Response Form ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Kathleen V. Simpson,104 Brentwood Circle President, Brentwood Residential Association, Inc. 2051 N. White Chapel Blvd (TAD Acct# 40987736) 5outhlake, TX 76092-3716 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the pro -pert so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle oPunderline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: We are 100% opposed to the phn as currently proposed. WE DO NOT NEED A SUPER STORE, ! l(A A 5UPERWALMAR LOOI<ALIIiE ACROSS FROM OURt BEAUTIFUL HOMES. This is an inappropriate place for such a development. In addition, we are very disturbed by the apparent lack of integrity displayed by the developer. After neighbors on the North side repeatedly expressed their concerns, they have attempted to mislead 5outhlake citizens into believing that the City of 5outhlake wants them to express their support to the Planner's office and they have handed out hundreds of these misleading flyers. Our great city should not be working with developers with this quwjticnable h-evel or' ethical standards. We need your help, ifyott would like to see new Tswu & Country Kroger. in Sduthlake, please emait the city and let them know you support Zoning Case ZA14-©99 at Dove Read, between SH.114 and N. tNhite.:.iwpet " Eniails should lie $kntto Daniel Cortez > : dcorieiCk?ri.souihUske ix.us '" For mote 1nfornution ydea",call . ;, Sarah at 214.07.2'1613: Signature: a Lt UK Date: I� i Additional Signature: Date: Printed Narne(s): M FsviV Must be property owner(s) whose names) are printed at top. Otherwise conlact the Planning Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): / sy 6 ,3 I ` Case No. ZA14-099 Attachment H Page 11 Nntlflratjon'Response Fo, . i. ZA 14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Su-. Direct questions and mail responses to: City of Southlake Pianning & Development Servicos Notification Response 1400 Main St-, Ste 310 Sauthlake, TX 713092 Phone: (817)748-8621 Fax: (811j748-807I 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 tc `\ undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: l�.i► li / • L�. iNt_.i'NLv irs,rt ��� Itg.-s Pr1 iiM�s✓at�`R�wr'� w/�/it X��J,/. Signature: Date:��'1 Additional Signature: Date - Printed Name(s): 153 4 ` jv Ce wopr-ly cww(s) whose names) sre prOW at top• Olt rwiso contact the Planning Departrr.ert. One io;m per property. Phone Number (optional): 2- �.k , 1, ?,'L a Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 12 Notification Response Form ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM SLIT" -76oaZ PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owrei(s) ut (tie property so noted above, a.e hereby in favor of ppose undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Date: Additional Date: Printed Name(s): MEW be or � zo ty owner(s) who" name(*) we printed at top. 00 erwim cnrrtset Me Planning Deportment. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 13 Notification Response Form ZA14-0" Mee" Daze: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Lf— StIl, �h a Sa O'k'V I C'b(4- r X 7, pq) PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owne, (s) of the property so no'ed above, are hereby in favor of ppc'se dit undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: ` II --`-- Vel uwA�y rp Y— a �Kv z�Uf*- YIurr Signature: Additional Signature: Printed Name(s)- Must be property owner(*) whoa neme(s) ere printed d top. otherwise aonled the Pt mfmg Dpsrtmcm. Phone Number (optional): Date: �/ T Date: ban inprWomrtv. Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 14 ZA 9 4-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Li 71 suL Soulhlake0 TX 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the prnoted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to �' undecided about (circle-orutfderline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: 1 . P Signature: Additional Signature- Date:Z�1 Date-. Printed Name(s): f Xj Z✓�-� Must be property owner (s) whose name(s) are printed at top, otherwise contact the Planning Deparirnent. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 15 Notification Response Form ZA14-M Moe*V Date: October 8, 2014 at 6:30 PM cxsqu ?-�'4i0 Af t3u� 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 (!oppo undecided about (arc the one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your positron: A) g/"q )( Z.'�'Jj Signature: Date: Additional Signature: T�� �J Date: —v Printed Name(s): CrO1 `� t.�r: CaLke••.� Must be property owner(s) whoes name(a) are prUted at top. Ottrewlee contad the Planning Depenmart. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 16 ZA 14-099 Meeting Date: October 9. 2014 at 6:30 PM Southiake, TX 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the,Wope4y so noted above, are hereby i,� favor of opposed to undecided about (circle nr underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: U Mat OLL 1� k'4 ow m �4 VJet Al- A LL . VkJ n " -(,mac. S �n�- C, W m ILI Signature: `' 1 ,2 Date Additional Signature: Printed Name(s): _ �_ ?Rust be p )petty ovrncr(c1 whose narne(s) are pnnW at Date - contact tie Ptertrtstg Department. One torm per propeny. Phone Number (optional): Case No. ZA14-099 Attachment H Page 17 1, .,.a anon Reepome Form ZA14-099 Meoting Date: October 9. 2G14 at 6:30 PM 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 o osed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: oQP.S>E!!> -To 73�b t3oy- ,pl�,�` -10 S o'"\ cA E )�ay -i5e *-4-A-0 &Zr1-y-)tkej-� "Co 0 c POrtcAk E tN 6 w� Vt �t • Z Signature: se, k,-�b �e e4c*6,� Date: Additional Signature* Date: Z° o / Printed Name(s):`'X'(`' Wal be pompartY awwta) whose nw*s) sro pdnad of lop. Olhenriw owted the P*w*V Depwb d. Otu lam PMP PKIY• Phone Number (optional): 141 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 18 Notification Response Form ZA14.099 Owting Dabs: Octobrar 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM 6n �` rd11 A gvv r rst1 t24 �0LA I V111(,ke.,Ir,'-) W-V fZ PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Beiry Pie owner',-,-) of the property so noted above, are hereby �-1 `avor of pposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced shove. Space for comments regarding your position: Aol 01f r+ Signature: Date:Ll Additional Signature: Date: Printed Name(s): Must be property ormew(3) whose names) are printed at top. Otherwise - -ct the Pgrvlhg Oeparbnen . one Ibrm per properly. Phone Number (optional): _ Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 19 Notification Response Form ZA14-099 M"Ung Date: OdEobw 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM :I- Conu�L�l su„ 5wWaKe- PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being t-e owner(s) of the pro::erty sc noted above, are hereby in `avcr of opposed t� undecided about (circle cr ,;rlderline one) the proposed Site Par, referenced above - Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Additional Signature, Printed Name(s): -30'\ an Co> l"\l Must be property evmer(s) who" norm(s) are printed at top. Otherwise cwAad the Phone Number (optional): Case No. ZA14-099 Date: W 15-- i Date: per tiny. Attachment H Page 20 Notification Response Form ,1A14-099 Meeting Date. Octotmr 9. 2014 at 6:30 PM PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the ovmer(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of osed to undecided about (circle or uunT&dine one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Dave Road, between S.H 114 and ICI. White Chapel is not a retail destination. The proposal is not what the area needs, is inconsistent with the surrounding area of high -end homes and not the type of development that was to be allowed when we made a major investment in a single family home in a quiet area. We are totally opposed to this proposal. The proposed zoning change and site plan and the preliminary plat represent development that is dropped in an area without adjoining retail. Access to retail is not lacking in the area and thus this i3 not addressing a need. There are numerous grocery and specialty retail establishments within reasonable distances. Again, we are totally opposed to this type of development in this area of Southlake. Signature: —(trDate: Additional Signature:: Date: o5-11- Printed Name(s): Tbw &*o&Ao C-AR„0- Must be prep" oamncr(a) wha+e namso) m piMod et tip. Otherwise the PIOrnYuj t)epa"wo. 0m km pwp "&iV. Phone Number (optional): Bra- zs<s= sBL� C'Ile01- lR6-4, -&tT10J7WCCID Fc�C-5i C>ENTrP(_ 1KcpG11&X- Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 21 Notification Response Form ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM - %nl a-ROU Lt.L G -' '3D5t s`roU�'re�l �R• S " TX 7�foDRL 111-I '1 f.10j 's r PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the uwrier(s) of the piut;erty su rioted above. afe hereby !n favo- of ( oppcsed t� undecided about (circle or underline one) the prnposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: -- � r C isS r Signature: Date: Additional Signature - Date: Printed Name(s): AmfT_ .T 1�f�kNuc,c Must W property owner(s) whose name(.) are printed at top. otherwise comsat the Pbrr*V Depsrbnsnt. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): corrj Case No. ZA14-099 Attachment H Page 22 ZA 14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM S Svu Southlake, TX 76092 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 ofi' opposed to undecided about ,circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Additional Signature: Printed Name(s): n Must he o eperty fw rPr(s2 whose name(s1 �re Phone Number (optional): S 1til l fih -- Date: Date: ®t 16p. 00wwAse contact the Plennhig Department, One lz m W io1eKY. Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 23 ZA14.099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM - �aue, Gas s�.,. �0 cc)e ("CoY4 Litn-e Southlake, TX 76092 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 ~ pposed to �' undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: we , ra o ry S k1 / /(� ; Z r o< 1 (11-P 14 At- l 0 r 0 /z 'c . Signature: �Y Date:74 Additional Signature: Date: Printed Name(s): Must be property Wmar(s) wlroee name(e) are printed at top. Phone Number (optional): Case No. ZA14-099 contwct the Planning Depadmerd. One form per Party. Attachment H Page 24 Notification Response Form ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM - _n't��' 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 Site Plan referenced above Space for comments regarding your position: , �- �Q �k C� Sig nature_ Date: d `� i UO Additional Signature - Date: Printed Name(s):(�v��-� mist be property cwnrr;sl Lvhoso nal are printed at top. Otherwise contac!llthe Planning l7epertmM Cne form per prolowy. Phone Number (optional): I� R Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 25 Notification Response Form ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM sue. Z3al f O�Ew��.,� Cr_ WN .. .f `tL.;T° l PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owners) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of� undecided about pposed to (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: 410 131441— Signature: Date: la 4./ - Additional Signature: Date: Printed Name(s): t-;any _ A" v. be property owwrx(s) whose namc(s: oru pr -ted at top. Othenrise contsct the Planning Cepertmer>t One brm perprmmrty. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 26 Notification Response Form ZA14-099 Meatin6 Data: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM C1ol e rf itl d 76o'?z 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 Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: W-1 Signature: 0 Date: v16ii Additional Signature: Date: Printed Name(s): 810CA Must be property owners) whose nam(s) we prkNed at top. tterwbe aontad the PWnr*V Departmerit. One iorrrr per properly. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 27 Notification Response Form ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PU PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circ erfine the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Printed Name(s): Muni be property owners) wtnme neme(e) we prinW at top. Otherwise WnWd the Pkwh q Depeftent. One term per property. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 28 ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM s,, �11 Southlake. TX 76092 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 K!!oppose toundecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Pian referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Additional Signature: Printed Name(s): I Must be property owner(s) whose Date: 10 (q Date: are printed at tap. Olherwioe contact the ?larwlg Department one torte par property, Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 29 Q SOUTHLAKE Kroger Developement 114/Dove joannahginsburg To- dcortez@ci.sou a MUS Dear City Council, Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:16 PM I am a resident of Patterson Pond off Kimball Road. In the nearly four years since we have owned this house we have undergone constant construction in our area, the widening of Kimball Road being only one of several disruptive tasks. There is proposed development of a subdivision on the West side of Kimball, and there have been multiple office structures erected along Kimball. We purchased this home and dutifully pay our $23,000 annually in property tax (though we do not use the schools) because of Southlake's low density zoning, natural scenery and privacy factor. We already feel the effects of the industrialization over here, and have barely felt a moments peace with the construction_ This is not what we are looking for. We love Kroger, but there is already one 1.5 miles away! There is not room to accommodate such a huge influx of traffic with the proposed Kroger development while maintaing the quality of life the residents pay top dollar for. No, please do not cut down a single additional treel Thank you, Joannah and Keyvan Ganz Patterson Pond 2205 Patterson Way Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 30 Notification Response Form ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Sus. PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETF-D 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 Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: t C4 13.S �Ui�ll11L, I®r u� atuu c It get � L pit i '' !;. • /i �/ a .ice • Additional Signature: Date: Printed Names); Must oe properly awner(s) who$$ names) are p od at top. otherwise oontact the PfannN Depertrnenl. One form Pe Propel. Phone Number (optional): OC6698969t, 80IJ40 TWU72ea SETiva dLE=SO *1 LO 33C Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 31 Notification Response Form ZAP 4-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM SUL Z_ 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 ofr&C4eP_0f__t ed to undecided about rrrderiine one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above Space for comments regarding your position: Klo or- w vQ,�)qa S�r Signature: Date: LS 1) y Additional Signature: rr�^, Date: Printed Name(s): Nlll be proWy owrw(e) Mrose narrie(s) we printed at lop. Olherwieen9 neM oon wt the pjww oapW , one fwm per property Phone Number (optional): 1 �� (ou Z- (Z � O Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 32 �rry or C.7t./U1 17LAKE zoning case ZA14-099 Mary Golden To: dcortez@ci.sou ace. c.us Hello Daniel, Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 7:16 PM I am writing to you to show support for the Town and Country Kroger. I live near Dove and 114 and would love to have some support services offered to residents in this area. Please consider us as you review these plans. Thank you, Mary Golden 1515 Ravenaux Court Southlake, Texas 76092 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 33 Notification Response Form ZA 14-099 Meeting Date: October 9r Z014 at 6.30 PU . _,-�y4 6RC'50\1 S"' +411 c w FI fuz S-r. SD4TYf L�1Cr, Tii 760�2f PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the ownerlsi of the pruourty so notes: above, are hereby in favor of posed o undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: ��66e A-b Signature: 414,.,r�� Date: Additional Signature: <4-, e-e 6,<er-d Date: Printed Name(s): jVyAYLe- 6,eeG1'i f first be properly ower(s) whose names) are prkftd at bp. Oftrwise oontacl ft Pleraiing Depanmeru. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): _ Z-ib 2fy S 2S4 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 34 Notification Response Form ZA 14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM ,�ke tT'- 7(,lvy� PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the probity su noted above, are hereby in favor of L ed to `� undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: 6 Signature: Additional Signature: Printed Name(s):.a—Ln / %/..t3t Lc DraWty GWW(s) whose nerve( at top. OftrwAsecoonsoct Phone Number (optional): Case No. ZA14-099 Date:l6 Date: perp"- Attachment H Page 35 Notification Response Form ZA14-099 Nk"ng Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Sw. PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the uwner(s) of the property so noted above, are Hereby in favor of opposed undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for cornments, regarding your position: Signature: Signature: Date: Date: Printed Name(s): /vtX949 k. A,�,Wl6fZ Must tc ors; -ty cvmrr;s� whekte name(s) are prkuad al top. Otherwise contact the FUnreng Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): -4d tr --,?/7 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 36 ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM AAJ s�L S�v I I 16 Yfi�Y7 1`3 22 �`�orri yom Cq Southlake, TX 76092 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 `pposed to ,% undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: 1� Signature: _ I Additional Signature: Date: 1n- 2-24 v Date: Printed Name(s): V, j,,,t be properly owners) whose names) are printed at tap, otherwise contaCt ttte Planning 'leperhne;t. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): I Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 37 USOUTHLAKE new Kroger store at 114 & Dove Vonna Hubbard > To: dcortez@ci.sou a e. x.us Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:25 PM I live at 2740 Raintree Drive in Southlake. I have no problem with a grocery store but it seems Southlake has already lost too many mature trees. Perhaps they could be encouraged to rethink the number of parking spaces and leave more trees? or scale back the entire project? Thank you_ Vonna Hubbard Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 38 Notification Response Form ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM pe- PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DFLIVERY 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 Site Plan references. above Space for comments regarding your position: &io /Lia, Signature - Additional Signature: Printed Name(s): 6.-C^4- .� Rust be prcperty owner(,) ohme name(a) are pruned at top. Otherwise Content the Phone Number (optional): Case No. ZA14-099 Date: /fl F �•, Date: Per PrOWdy. Attachment H Page 39 ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Southlake, TX 76M Dttaesbns�aretnaEiPo t10: - r t' r �� s L1 r 1 Y i PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(S) of toted above. are hereby in favor of opposed to / undecided about (circle derline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: k 9 Additional Signature: ' ' Uaie, Printed Name(s): Aw\ PC - Must be property awncr,s' *Mcse narne(s) are ' at top. Otherwise contaG thIP18ndng Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): _ Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 40 10-07-14;02:28PM;CMA Notification Response Forme REED CMP SE' 2 9 2014 qL ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Kirkwcad Hollow Ho Assoc 1800 Preston Park Blvd Ste 101 Plano Tx 75093 ;8173106850 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 Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: O!azz��S- APA17,4Adl� Signature: - Gate: Add anal siWIle gnature: Date: Printed Names): Must b o property owner(n) whos nnme(n) ere pnnted at tap, dthgrwIze contact the Planning Department Ono form perptoperty, Phone Number (optional)- -��z Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 41 ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM $uv eev Southlake, TX 7WW PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owners) of the property so noted above are nerehy in favor of opposed to undecided abOLIt (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Date: aa � Additional Signature: Printed Name(s): 8�1dia- Must be property owner(s) whose name(s) are printed at top. Otherwise iDoht=t the Wanting Phone Number (optional): 21!{ -55 -9557 Case No. ZA14-099 Date: One Form per progeny. Attachment H Page 42 ZAl4-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM stiv� ss eX C,-t '' 3 Southlake, TX 76092 L _;inm—'ry*stiorts and nrt:ii; msponscs to: 16f Sou tf La e p ' ' A aext3to .�IIeriE aet�+lGCS }1 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 posed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for c�mments regarding your position: r �S 14 pya I,IA R /x 1 AU Aldt. . �d� ( A Signature: Date: �p/1 Additional Signature: Date* Printed Name(s): Must be property owner(s) whose name(s) are printed at lop. Otherwise ooniact the Pluming Deperbm". One foam per properly. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 43 Notification Response Form LA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Sou 4 r- +.yY: ` �` .c�+ • r'"i_ 7c :=.. ��t- .-rah PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Beira tie uwner(s) of the pturetty so :rued above, are hereby in favor of apposed to /Ir?decided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: 1 Signature. - Additional Signature: Printed Name(s). ; i:>M dy Must be property owwr(s) w*ose name(s) ar � Printed al top. Otherwise oorW§d Date - Date: /� 1 Pisg 0epwtmerri. One form per property. Phone Number (optional), 1 9;o 431,0 33V Case No. ZA14-099 Attachment H Page 44 Notification. Response Form ZA 14-M MIN r$g D4W October k 2014 at GM PU s 7x*�FwAJ 2WA�7- PLIIrAW PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS vjA_ MAIL, FAX OR HAND DE BEMRE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PLMWC HEARW3. Being the owner(s)of the pro a so noted above, are hereby in iarior of opposed to abort (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Man mferenoee above. SP&M for eomments regarding :your posMon: r VI 6 n ' — 5m4al'e; Signature, R Additional Signature: Date_ Printed Name(s): ISN r7 qL hu/� must to pr WIY ow"o) whus aan (s) are pAttOed at tap, O ieB Cww the PI M*A Oaoart 8nt_ one tens I Phone Number (optional): 1000/70000 saws,x,aa tgTDTDLLTB IYd KY 9T:8 110Z/L0/0T Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 45 ZA1 Q-099 Meeting Date:, October 9 14 at6:30 PM Southlake, TX 76092 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 ���pp-o_S�V--ta undecided about (circle or underline one) 'he proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Pic At s 1 alrlt VAIsc SdAjakt DO aei'� k �mi!sSE� tw>' v4Iurt'�1 II ,c i wi)l\� j11N>iT l qI Signature t Date: �a .P �f Additional Signature: Printed Name(s): Must be pra;Wy cxmer(s) wtw Date are printed at top Otf ierwise Cora" the Pterroing Department. One loan per properly. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 46 I believe Southlake is a wonderful place to live and raise a family. It's beautiful with a country appeal, it's peaceful, and we have a low crime rate. Many lovely aspects of this community are in jeopardy if we do not work to preserve the quality of life we all enjoy. I OPPOSE the construction of a superstore development in our neighborhood because it will increase traffic, crime will increase, quality of life for area residents will diminish, and lastly, there is not a need for another grocery store in Southlake. Our Southlake community has grown substantially, and the destruction of our green spaces is occurring at an alarming rate. Today, two words describe highway 114, "traffic jam" with regard to the morning and afternoon commute. I travel on 114 outside the rush hour periods. In addition, on existing surface streets, traffic flow needs to be improved. I respectfully request for our city officials to work toward plans that will reduce traffic congestion before any further building projects are approved. The sad reality is that improvements to our current traffic problems, may, may require increasing the existing road capacity. And for the present, that would take away the country feel and ruin the quality for our neighborhoods, and our neighborhoods should not have to bare that cost. With this proposed development, it will substantially contribute to the already heavy congestion as well as to the noise along highway 114 and areas surrounding Dove Road. The area cannot currently support the existing traffic congestion, and the addition of another major shopping development bringing increased numbers of people during the week, on weekends and during the holidays would be a detriment to the area Also, neighborhood safety will become an issue. At present, neighborhood safety is NOT an issue. Crime rates are low, and concerns for personal safety will be at risk among local residents and their families. A decision to move forward and develop this property would be irresponsible given the multitude of other issues that warrant more immediate attention within our community. In reference to the 2013 Citizen Satisfaction Survey, a question asked "If the City Government could change one thing to make Southlake a better place to live, now and in the future, what change would you like to see?" The top verbatim comments were for recreation/sports/playgrounds/bike trails/sidewalks/trails. In closing, you have an obligation to preserve this wonderful community for all our families. Please Keep Southlake Beautifulll Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 47 ZA14-099 Meeting te: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM _ .. _. 1 kivi o suk III Catch R-d h, Or Southlake, TX 76092 Drimi-t,gireslitJ,hs aril mai) mspon5 �kfyh:aYSrat�%iake f� . P4arrizti�g. k3BYt3t�pniit�nt'St'tvtcs -� �- +r Y PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the pro erty so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: r 5 SOLAU4 C' U w�'tz 1{ A At �Irfll(and tit hdVI i� 1 ee&� h %t sa Mu ias (,wr riftfn lw anJ4h 5 %taio� -� �metwnoA ONA &4rWn, Signature: Additional Signature - Date: _Aid Date: Printed Name(s): Must be property owner(s) whose narne(s) are printed at top, Otherwise cjo�ntact the Planning Department. One form per property. n V Phone Number (optional): `1 r) � 4) O Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 48 Notification Response Form ZA14-W9 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6: 30 P M .� Cx) kz- 7 (.L 0 y y�, �. a •,• { . a !�-. �. --.�.n-!�-r-..". n�{w • •t A.l- ,S,`Y;� ;"�� �til �Y. -_ L•h r).: NA PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Beirg the owner(s) of the prEggerty so noted above, are hereby in favor of Copl��sedto undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Sate Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: pill l� vim( I,w I k� tAA) Aug r Tr M- W-1 - W, MO." Signature: Date: 10 i Additional Jignature, Date: Printed Name(s): �cr�1 M/�J3a0� `lam K , 15A-?\J Must be property owners) whese names) are printed at top• oeWwbe contact the Plan ft De . one form per property. Phone Number (optional): gt l- 4 q 0- (i 4 I --r Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 49 Notification Response Form ZA14-089 Use" Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM _ 4 2 S>' H /,nk'� s� Z �U, Ty�.� w' t. PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being tyre owner(s) of the�erty Jc notec above, are hereby in'aver of opposed to � undecided about ircle or underline one) the Proposed i e Ian referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature- — - Date: �t i� Additional Signature- �C ? r f1-X s( 7��1-t4 Date: Printed Name(s): Km be property owner(s) whose nerne(s) are prtntad at top. Otherwise contact the Planting DeperYnutt. One forth px property. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 50 Vcrry OF SOUTHLAKE NO TO KROGER REFERENCE CASES ZA14-099 AND ZA14-100 kevin middleton > Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:42 PM To: "dcortez@ci.sou ace. x.us < co ez ci.southlake.tx.us> PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW KROGER TO COME IN AND DESTROY A BEAUTIFUL PROPERTY. WE HAVE A MULTITUDE OF GROCERY STORES AVAILABLE IN THE AREA. KEVIN MIDDLETON 425 SHADY LANE SOUTH LAKE TX 76092-6651 214.850.4570 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 51 10-07-14;02;28PU;CAA. Notification Response Form RECD COOP 29 2014 1a> c ioe ZA14-099 Meeting Date, October 9; 2014 at 6,30 Pry+ Kirkwood Hollow Ho Assoc 1800 Preston Park Blvd Ste 101 Plano Tx 75093 ;8173106950 # 7/ 8 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 apposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: . . y Signature Add onai'ignatr�re: Printed Name(s): ,f 1'% . Date: Date: Must be property owrier(s) whos'6 narrie(s) wre printed at top. Othervise contact the Planning Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 52 ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Gabriella and Ward Miller 405 Orchard Hill Drive Southlake, TX 76092 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 Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: We are opposed to a Kroger super -store in Southlake because of the location and because of the number of existing grocers in Southlake and the surrounding areas_ We moved to Southlake for the lack of superstores, especially because of The r0fal and low density PMn TorT?Te- north side of hwy 11 477TRS-X-roger super -store will be the western face of Southlake as well as the entry to our north -end neighborhoods, and it does not meet our expectations or our needs. Southlake is saturated with grocers. Approving variances should be resenzed for eI -nnts that -Lill an that-Lit©v, oI i nQ PI ` c,C' �? W , t nee d1 r grocer and we certainly do not want a super -stare. Please do NOT grant Cencor/Kroger the variances they request.This land was intended to be office space - nct a massive parking lot with a superstore that is larger than Home Depot. Last year you considered this project with Newquest developers and you declined therr, - piease do the same. Signature: t i(;;� �ifr 7 Date: Additional Signature: hate - Printed Name(s): Gabriella and ward Miller __ Must be property awner(s) whose narne(s) are printed at top, Otherwise contact the Planning Department. One Form per prau-_rty. Phone Number (optional): 214-212-1707 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 53 ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM belle Ll08 41skr Southlake, TX 76092 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 posed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: �+� � � ° CbJft fT�! ► n � �d� Q�n � - Signature: Date: 4)' Additional Signature: Date: Printed Name(s): Must be property awner(s) whose names) are primed at top. Otherwise contact the Planning Department- One form per property. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 54 Crry rOrv��,, AA SOVl�KE Fwd: NID=258 Ken Baker <kbaker@ci.south Iake.tx.us> Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 5:01 PM To: Holly Blake <hblake@ci.south lake.tx.us>, Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci.southlake.tx.us>, Lori Payne <Ipayne@ci.southlake.tx.us> Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Leaann Munoz > Date: October 10, 2014 a To: kbaker@ci.southlake.tx.us Subject: NID=258 My name is Lea Ann i live in Southlake near Estes Park. I have lived in Southlake 21 yrs. I am against this shopping center. We have a lot of retail space going up all over town. We don't need it over here on this side!!! And i will go into more detail as to why we chose to live in 3 different houses on the North side because of it's less commercial feeling and population if need be thank you! Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 55 Notification Response Form ZA 14-099 Meeting Date: October 9. 2014 at G:30 PM Svc. 011 00a b nc(tyi Ln, 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 nated above are hereby i- favor of Ced to 1 undecided about (circle or un erline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: r-e (D . Vic Gt'©c ec �40 oe, Signature: Additional Sidnature: ewo'A Date: k) w U - -ZO</ Date: Printed Name(s): Z4nk Cam, New 6 I-Cknd Mum be properly owne(s) "twee names) are primed W lop. OUle Wbe owlect so Plewdry OapaArmerd- ono romr pw property. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 56 Notification Response Form ZA14499 Meeting ate: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 P6 qQ 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 Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Additional Signatu Printed Name(s): UZ j Must be properly cwrm (a) whose name(s) are printed M top. K9 4-rc- Date: Date: contact the Planning Department. One loan per property. Phone Number (optional): I- f WT t 8 q' I Case No. ZA14-099 Attachment H Page 57 1A14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 st 6:30 PM .y _�x �S�cirites atU ��b %Q 1� h laylt TIo I( OV- Southlake, TX 76D92 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 cipp�ot undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: "",A— Date: T Additional Signature: Printed Name(s): Nttie r Must be property owner(s) whose mame(s) are primed at tap. Phone Number (optional): Date: oontW the FUnnhg Department. One form per property. Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 58 ZA14-099 Meeting Date: OcTtober9, 2014 at 6:30 PM 1-1CA0 'JG k�1 I: W. �1 0 _'Sou+v � aXP , -ik lLt O`i Z saw Southlake, TX 76092 a , �t _ .4.�r 1_l •Vy., 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 �posed undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: �t2�S Ad. 19uACA , -e "kaevt�t cO— Signature: Date: Additional Signature: Date: Printed Name(s): &, l T� y l• S Must be property owr,er(s) whose names) are printed of lop. Phone Number (optional): Case No. ZA14-099 oonW Me Nming Departrnerrt. One form per property. Attachment H Page 59 100/2014 Ci.southlakeUms Mail - RE: IDr" 01 SOUTHLAKE Holly Wake: 4tll�`3;43 er )ri,strErt#�ta.t€,tx.tss> RE: �r 2 rnessageP' Padmaja Puppala Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:40 AM To: hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us This is in regards to Site Plan for Southlake Town & Country on property being described as Tract 1 F and a portion of Tract 1, J. West Survey, Abstract No. 1620, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and located at 500 W. State Highway 114, Southlake, Texas. Dear Property Owner: Your property has been identified as being within 200 feet and/or within the same platted subdivision as the above referenced Site Pilan application. A public hearing, will be held by the City of Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission on Thursday, October 9, 2014 at 6:30pm in the Town Hall Counci'I Chambers at 1400 Main Street, Southlake, Texas. If you wish to register your opposition or support to this action, you may complete and send the enclosed Notification Response Form to the Planning & Development Services Department. You are encouraged to follow the requested action through final approval because changes are often made during the review process. Please contact the Planning Department at (817)748-8621 if you have any questions. Thank you. *****My Response to this one is: I have totally opposed this idea otification Response Form Meeting Date: October 9,2014 at 6:30 PM 1. 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 Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Date: _1019/14 _ Additional Signature: —-- Date: Printed Name(s): PADMAJA PUPPALA, 2116 Canyon PArk Dr., Southlake TX 76092 Must be property owner(s) whose name(s) are printed at top. Otherwise contact the Planning Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF I NEED TO FAX THE FORM. 19i:r_1►r.� PADMAJA PUPPALA Holly Blake <hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us> To: Padmaja Puppal: Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:04 AM Your response has been recorded and will be delivered to the Planning and Zoning Commission. [Quoted text hidden] htips:llm ai l.go o g I e.co m/m ail/u10/7u i=2&i k=cc737 a625d&view=pt&search=inbox &th=l 48f59l efc732006&s i ml= l 48f59l efc732006&situ I=148f5a7bb d c83... 112 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 60 Crrr c' SOUTHLAKE Re: P&Z topic ZA14-100 Oct 9, Southlake Town & Country Ken Baker <kbakerQci.southlake.tx.us> Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:48 AM To: Rath Familv > Mrs. Rath, Thank you for your email. I will provide a copy to the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission. Ken Baker On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Rath Family > wrote: Mr. Baker, I would like to send you my opinion regarding the possible development of Southlake Town & Country on 114 & Dove & Kirkwood. I am opposed to this development. • The traffic congestion on Dove is already bad, especially for school transportation & rush hour. Adding to that mix with 7 entrances and a high traffic development would only ADD massive amounts of accident risk. • There are an abundance of bicyclist on Dove, of which I am one. Currently, Southlake lacks adequate safe travel bike lanes. Adding such a high traffic development to this road traveled very frequently by bicyclist and joggers is a large safety risk. • There are too many grocery stores already in Southlake. I lived in Cincinnati where Kroger is headquartered and frequented the large Kroger Marketplaces, they are fabulous stores, but the existing Kroger could be retrofitted. If the new Kroger goes in, Southlake might be left with another large available retail spot of which to fill (where the current Kroger is located). • Southlake has many traffic issues that need to be addressed; White Chapel and Highland, Dove & Peytonville, Carroll & 1709. If current trend is any indication, Southlake only appears to be addressing traffic congestion after (if at all) a development is finished and operational. I have little belief that addressing potential traffic issues would happen in this case either. Sincerely, Jennifer Rath 929 Turnberry Lane Southlake, TX 76092 Coventry Manner subdivision Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 61 aOF SOUrHLAKE Proposed retail at 114 & Dove )aniel Cortez <dcortez@ci.southlake.tx.us> Janet Rogers Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:16 AM To: "dcortez@ci.sou a e. x.us < co ez@ci.south lake.tx.us> Mr. Cortez, I am writing to oppose the development of ZA14-099 and ZA14-100. It would bring too much traffic to the Southlake area. We have enough grocery and whole retail in the area. Janet Rogers 425 Shady Lane J.R. 972-965-4832 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 62 IDCry OF SOUTHLAKE Reference cases ZA14-099 and ZA14-100 Paula Satcher Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:35 AM To: "dcortez@ci.sou a <e. x.us < co ez ci.southlake.tx.us> I am opposed to the Kroger "Town & Country"development that is proposed. Reference cases ZA14-099 and ZA14-100. Keep Southlake green with old beautiful trees. Not large super centers!!!!!! Paula Satcher 2725 Raintree Drive Southlake, TX 76092 Sent from my iPhone Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 63 c rry cn SOUTHLAKE Items 9&10 Scott Satcher > Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:33 PM To: "dcortez@ci.sou ace. c.us < cortez@ci.southlake.tx.us> I would like to advise you of my opposition to items 9&10. 1 do not support the building of a large Kroger store that will be at the expense of a large green space in Southlake and what I feel will lead to the abandonment of the existing store in downtown Southlake. Scott Satcher 2725 Raintree Dr. Southlake TX (Sent via Phone) Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 64 USOUTHLAKE Reference cases ZA14-099 and ZA14-100. 1 message V To: co ez Usou ace. x.us Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci.southlake.tx.us> Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:46 AM I am opposed to the cases ZA14-099 and ZA14-100. Please do not approve. Victoria H. Satcher 2725 Raintree Drive Southlake, TX 76092 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 65 USOUTHLAKE P&Z ZA14-099/100 Terry Sauder > To: dcortez@ci.sou ace. t.us Dear Mr. Cortez, Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM Please pass along to the members of the P&Z Commission that I am absolutely opposed the Kroger Town and Country site plan proposal. Should this plan be approved, the additional traffic on White Chapel and Dove Road will increase beyond the infrastructure of said roadways. Should Kroger agree to rebuild the roads to allow additional traffic prior to beginning construction I would possibly be in favor. Although that most likely will not happen therefore leaving the burden of the costs of road improvements upon the taxpayers. Here we go again, Southlake acquiescing to big corporations and developers while having no regard for the citizenry. By the way, I see that the flyer being handed to customers of Kroger not only include your name but also Sarah Dodd's name and phone #. She is nothing more than a glorified lobbyist who cares nothing for the people of Southlake. Respectfully, Terry Sauder 1090 Harbor Haven St 817-235-9300 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 66 Notification Response Form ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM SODA /A k 4 Tx 7-6 o Im — Direct questions and mail responses to: City of Southlake Planning & bevelopmont Services Notification Response 1400 Main St; Ste 310 Southlake, TX 76692 Phone: (817)748-8621 Fax: (E17)748-8077 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the pro so noted above, are hereby in favor of C—opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: a5c,A5 o. oytlt W ±d4 /101�6 N 0! ✓{O.. J �a /1G.( /o�C c /!. / Aa 5 407 Of /, o76•v9 r V 1 %Y-'�c. ' J^a r✓� C-fe'�•i���S f`i t°V`rrw � �! �" � ! . Signature: Date: '0/(, Additional Signature: Date: Printed Name(s): Mwl be D^tiPe'fy uw rr($, whose nartrne(s) ate printed at top. Otherwise cwW the MannkV DoWmuM. one ftwm per property. Phone Number (optional): `17 d vi 1 *14•1 1fi IS �►aT �-�r� dti v,�'f t�✓arr t� 0rGr�fair7S /) v•• �!h a� /l�f f✓ Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 67 Notification Response Form ZA14.0" Meeting Date: October 8, 2014 at 6:30 PM skm f o �c�►� 1 �1Z soo�� � v \'(P PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owners) of the property so noted above. are nrreby in favor of �orundterline undecided about cl one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: k1-1—e_Y--el- II I ljh/-i r• / S Additional Signature: Date: Printed Name(s): ejl> c� z Mina be property awner(a) who" new(a) are printed at top. Ottxrwise oonw the pWnnbV Depach.w. . One loan per property. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 68 Notification Response Form ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Simpson, Charles Etux Kathleen 104 Brentwood Circle Southlake, TX 76092 t 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 apposeD undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: We are 100% apposed to the plan as currently proposed. We have met repeatedly with the developer to express our concerns to no avail. This is essentially the same retail plan proposed by an earlier developer, presented to the November 21, 2013 P&Z, and subsequently withdrawn by the developer. The main objection of the surrounding homeowners and HOAs is to the placement of a massive Kroger and the issues accompanying this type of "Super Store" akin to a Giant Walmart into the middle of existing residential areas with high end homes. In addiiJon, v,rte have not been convinced of the need' for anoih ,r. giocc�ry store in Southlake; currently vie can conveniently reach 17 grocery stores within rnitiuLes froin N. VAite 0apel and SH .314. Our interests have been in helping to shape the development of this beautiful piece of property into something that is an appropriate "Gateway" to Southlake, that complements existing Southlake developments, and that transitions seamlessly into the already existing surrounding high end housing areas. This type of development does not fit into the surrounding areas or the rural feel of the "North" side of Southlake. It is also disturbing that the demographics targeted by the developer are not even our Southlake citizens but residents of Trophy Club, Westlake and Roanoke. l Signature: a` e-m' `' Date: Additional Signature: �t -soh/ _ ` Date: 1015 )14 Printed Name(s): Pso �J Must be property owner(s) vvhose names) are printed at top. Othenutse contact the Planning Department. One form per property_ Phone Number (optional): �bI q " 42 -4 - 41 -;'�k'� Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 69 ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM M dyri• am t 9 nl Southlake, TX 76092 Duel_ starts ar► zsrat respoisss .Co .r: r :ntZitT78ti�`is 1 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the p so noted above, are hereby in favor of 27opposedto undecided about (circle ar underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: ti Signature:' Additional Signature: a Date: Date: Printed Name(s): _ Must be property owners) whose names) are printed of top. Othemwise contact the Pfannhq Department One form per property. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 70 ZA1a-o99� Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PMax 1 Svsr �-- x li'y�J�J/i�! •I'•� - ., g .f Southlake, TX 76092 ' 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 Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: 40.)n AE 1'J i1 n4- K"f_rY W 1- A ' lnl1 C"P hM 6 yr rtMt )��1cj anrd fnb%l\j vNkt'() Wk, W4 Signature: _ Date: Additional Signature, Date: Printed Name(s): Must be property owner(s) whose names) are printed at top. Otherwise contact the Ptanning Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional) Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 71 Notification Response Form ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM sit yy� r�►i9,es�/� �c? I 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, a e hereby in favor of opposed toy undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: b,� fi �p� n �e / /3 ,, 5 �� d X Signature: Date: /D S ' -20 Additional Signature, Date: nn � Printed Name(s): Must be prope-ty oawxa(s) whale narre(s) arc; p .7lod al top Otherwhe contact the Planning Depa orient. One form per property Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 72 Y r` yV�i>t�er` � � o�tsa$ridt�acl i+as�wis�s d� .� ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Southlake, TX 76092 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 vQpposed to - undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: 11tar G IN Signature: Additional Signature: 6-4 1 L,I Date: J Date: Printed Name(s): _ MVI 1 U ,)-'U Imo. Must be prc, f ty cvrc; i's; whose narna(s) are ntad at lop. Olfwrwise eonttaad the Plennnft Depanment. One torte per prop". Phone Number (optional): Case No. ZA14-099 Attachment H Page 73 Notification Response Form ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9. 2014 at 6:30 PM - •' - - .&.,, 9_�y t V� a, 4e- SuL %, Mavr5%,O u-t 5 xTklalk_c 77r 7Go9 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Br.:ing tl e cwtier(s) of the pf= pty au nuteu above, are Hereby -I favor of o pcsed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: °X K� Signature: Date: Additional Signature: Date, Printed Name(s): 3efJ Sir %61 `OK W31 be properly owner(s) whose name(s) are prided at tan Gonad fhe plewon Depsrdrdnt. One form per property Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 74 ZA 14-099 Meeting Dais: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Southlake, TX 76092 li c'2Et t5iEt:eyt r,s and matt LiasPoas S fa; bitjGof'e P �.17 7T��rehapcm��tf Scir�s tes ii h�o'Catsain ate.. ��pvr e PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the pro�so noted above, are hereby in favor of / opposed to undecided about (circa or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: u Acri f or anyfkt ANS 3A }fir ad ;SOWI W4 I an J . P1 Pu.S if ,s l o Qdlo u i UnL �o- b oor w �� Signature: la Date: 5, �ajq Additional Signature: Date: Printed Name(s): Must be property owners) whose name(s) are printed at Fop. Oftrwiiso contact ft Planning Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 75 Notification Response Form ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM • gay SrzzK�, ��. St,v SC" �� �►. 1 . , t _ is ��'}-ry-7,'�:2Cr PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Beirg tl•e owner(s) of the properly so noted above, are hereby `avor of opposed t undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above Space for comments regarding your position: r Signatu�P _ �� �- Date: LO d /y Additional Signature: Date* Printed Name(s): mar T��:7 �lZL ' Mw be property owner(s) %hose names) are printed at top. Olherwlse the Planning Department. Oros form per property. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 76 Notification Response Form ZA1 Q-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner's) of the piopeity so noted above, are hereby in favor of (7 �oppos d- undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Additional Signature: Date: Ab w l` Date* Printed Name(s): I /[A WI !Nl VI f.tint o�rcprrtymvnerrs)whoxe-riArts)mptop. rwiie onttrth. iww"Depwbrmd- omfmmp-plomfily. P,ione Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 77 Notification Response Form LA 14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM su: 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 i^. favor of opposed toI undecided about (circ a of-u de ine cne) the proposed Site Plan referenced above_ Space for comments regarding your position: / /VD J or Signature: Date:. - 11!� W, 2v'�� /5/Y Additional Signature: Date, Printed Name(s): �;/ e 0+1 Mus: be prn:-vty owner(s) whose names) are printed et ty. oftfuhn con" the Ptaming D"rhim . One farts Phone Number (optional): Case No. ZA14-099 per property. Attachment H Page 78 ZA14-099 llleeting Dabs: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PIN Southlake, TX 76092 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 �00sed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: urWAhi ()V (Iro UT 1_0 j I f t (k n A L) 0 (k P 'Our- 1A1161 U� , 4 ~✓, C I� reS I d el 1do ri ( 1 i of -( Grp i? eecl Signature: i �/' Date: Additional Signature: Date: Printed Name(s): rJ� !."ust be propa!y awner(s) Whose name(s) are punted at top. otberwise contact fha Planning Department, one form per prop". Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 79 111712014 0 SOUTHLAKE Zoning Case ZA14-099 1 message kennet gitter > To: dcortez@cl.sou ace. x.us Mr. Cortez, Ci_soutHake tx us Mail - Zonng Case ZA14-099 Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci.south Iake.tx.us> Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 10:53 AM I am writing to state that I am OPPOSED to the development of the Kroger Town and Country. This development is not consistent with the look and feel of the north side of Southlake I am very concerned about the increased traffic and possibility of criminal activity in our neighborhoods as a result of this development. It is not needed in Southlake, where we already have an oversaturation of grocery stores. Southlake does not need this Wal-Mart clone in our city. I also fear that this development will lead to the inevitable closing of the existing Kroger and lead to economic troubles for the merchants of that strip center. Ken Gitter 2106 Vail Road Southlake, Tx 76092 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 80 "bng rJoVCM(3 M Mooting Bate: 204 e16:30 PM Na is xr1! Acfdms: lCf\\] I17A Ga->�k6r"A- ?K E, f PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owners) of the property so noted above, are hereby favo, of <Z=> undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed S-te Plan referenced above Space for comments regarding your position: 0 4 15 a f,I --- I f SS.1.,. 0 4 �r�c�►�Y Giro V- ' ifn 4k wt) -•� �� Olt 1 s ' 1 Signature., Date. ..� Date. :14ZILI*" Additional Signature. Date:��2xA Pnnted Name(s)* � �Mawftdoopix"Onwa-mv nomeol re PW"k1e Ir►nn tr' . . Phone Number ('optional) Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 81 ZA14-094 Nkwbng Dole: A 20�14 at 6:30 PAA Name arxt A-ldreq?c: &0mora A+KinS 13�15 �dv�e,st- Lvt Direct quegbww and ff4A responum to- Ctgr��i:�outtt�ua SMOLW ;"FX''7B PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. de, g 'fie owner(s) of the property so nosed above, are hereby ir: favor of Ca> undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenoed above Space for comments regarding your position: • 1 -1 > "v1�— �� � .�.`�`�S �QS�- V G�L -�'1 t S c�0 '�.c1y� I r-a -�.� ��„z�.�r�r►,.� Signature: ,?.�LL / �' _______. Date: l I ( 1 L4 Additional Signature: Printed Name{s):-- Mvv to Prawty 011i°'(sl WI mri*q) as PrwAd et bop_ OMwrw%84 cmuct the r'/arc N Phone Number (optional). Case No. ZA14-099 Date: One 11I pet proWnY- Attachment H Page 82 tik .f fang Date: 261.47at .30 PM L mil_-Vjcu r -POL:CCNENQ ' pLE S'T � �� tQ 5- BEFORE THE. START OF, THE SCHEDULED P1, LI C HEAMNG b019 the owner(s) of the' property'a noted, ab�, r in favor, of undecided about �: ` . �bir�e'cxr u�derli�e ones r t h,6 prbposod SiiePia referen(*d'ak - ti Space for comments our pos tfon: /n { r /t,7� y : IC oih � 0b J) ev X41 1 4�j Ijilui Y ✓. n •d..i;`�•K.b�i• `� "r.,y. .a '.i 1.2._ � ,�_ ' ... �.-�..+-, 04 ,fie T Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 83 ZA14-09 A/ Mem0nig Dale; RTUst 6:30 PM Pum amd 3 Ty- Z-- PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORW VIA-MAJL,F BEFORE'Tl* $TA" OF THE SCHWULED Being the owner(s)of the pop ny I undadded -obout n, favor cif 71 7� poi the the Mod eibovel� Space for cornmePt$r #"Ard#n sit'lon: 9 Your ipo -4 Case No. Attachment H ZA1 4-099 Page 84 ZA14-099%c� Meeting Date 2014 at 6:30 PM -N,unc and Address: ;,J3(141 s -T/-,760? z_- 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 Site Plan referenced above. for comments regarding your position: / Phone Number (optional). CA' L4 r 4 GLL%� , ✓,7`� PS 7 7x OF, Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 85 ZA14-099 Aji t•M8 Meeting DOW ?b 4 at 6:30 PM Name and Addmw l e: � �6ra�t- Cf So✓4h I4k-o- k 70902_ PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND WLIVERY 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 S'te Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position; cr.b .tr�u9,ic�J�--- °:� ._�1 `•k�+t �.. Gt�tST�;t_�i' _ .�is� Q.�u C �< ,Q.�-.c••— � �< _ Signature; �;?,. Date: r Additional Signature: `�', �F Y'-�- Date. Printed . Name(s). Am be pmp>BriY owner($) whose r,aen @i ecEs'ptktted at lop. Pltr�r�tq Cj�peMtent On* facet per aoa�N shone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 86 ZA14.099 ;._�. - Meetutg Date 2014 at 6:30 PM rx 71092 Direct questions and mail rosponses to: City of Southlake Planning a Development Services Notification Ra"mm 1400Amin St; S!0110 Southtake. Tx 7609Z Phone: (817)7484M Fax: (817)74843M PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owners) of the property so noted above, are hereby 'n favor of (CD undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above Space for comments regarding your position: TiVE SZ4Frs VWe. K' A*j ,lw4,,,w A& AMC yeA vN1 rs Q4& rzav 4*-031 AE �rr?jkE M 114. rtL& A"".Or A MAW�✓x K�� .d��l _�!_� F hover Signature.* � __.- Date. _Y �w- Additional Signature: �141�-- �.__ Date: -4/ ro 4f- Printed Name(s): P&c ,�QBs # ��✓�� eflsBBs I t'r' be Doot'giy wffw(s) Who.71! name(II) we pointed al IOP ot1erawe ecntacl uw tnwrng D6pertment �rH ((1n►1 RaY (;�trL.r•�"� Phone Number (optional): _ Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 87 �t sWOTDi+S4'TbSP ZA14-099 NoVCft61--14 ;01+ Meeting Date: 6:30 PM Name and Address: -gym K,us Dia�om and mall mspom s to: Gltt 0 S take f}fanri$ $ti]]iv�eloaterrt.Servz es �Notui't�r�ar� ' Iw a.ce. .Fax- _; PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner's; of the property so noted above. are hereby ;n favor of <ZD undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Pian referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Date: 1 o o (* Additional Signature: Date: Printed Name(s): (<Cm T u K t N S Must be property owner(s) whose name(s) are printed at top. 06mmMe oon0d the Pbnrft Dwedn enl. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): _ Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 88 F. t N + '�h'r,A, y FaSv M1�r o- � I ';�4z f 1 -i 1 3 1 11�c Z Z.I 4-059 -N` jo Meeting[la#e:`.�t 6:30 PNI t ' ,8 r . - .. i r..:. - K{��'" aK'"�'+�. l� liy7}''(jc%.-•C'cxg.EFy �fr tir•�4y���ry� r f L.'�.� _Y ��'��'(.c:f �rS ' �i�i '�� :4TTC4 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORDS VIA MAX, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDUL5D PUBLIC HEARING. C tt �* y•:a'rV�sa�. ?•�X•%�Y�; ,rray"�i``:Ct°�;�� 5���v�rar-�Ft�+'�'P� 5; _ '�'� w+� � Detr�g tl� garner{) Qf t[ 6 proper so noted abQu�;rry` "Ig in favor of a ��d t� € ndecided about'. LLyy�.���r�--_ pp_ PIRA- '� ��,•f� ���i � a�� � �.�.�.�- (cird�s.c�r urtdeeiin0 cane) the pre ed .Site Plan referenced above 1p Space for comments regardfng your Pa►,§itiow. VF iPOF�D %S .9,�READ CoNGE$ i L?. CWV -10 r ... .. _ ... *" gr�aturieAddifional SignaiUre, Mil, I��inte 4 7rT� ): h,RdE,Rr'.k�vEn� �oN his ovE Must he f !` °" r() rrt tie a iaJ EarA p +rtP+ed i Mp � i'cCxztai Qlt nary ra +trner*d 0ne fbtjn Pet PMP$ttf► FIB NUrnW ��p i al . e' 7- .s��r- o2 ��. Case No. ZA14-099 Attachment H Page 90 ZA14-099 ll/D 1/ -40, ;�a/Y Meeting Date:3014 at 6:30 PM Nama Ad ss: s'9G Gara�o�.z �� 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 Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: aL- / / 4(_ / lA .✓ Iw,D-11 I In ir.lpl- !]_ Lel-1.sp.A lt-z�la &Ae F1_4_4 POO�L�" IIZ2;�IU/�� + 4 ..� � �: / � 1 .�, [ iia.!!' L lorry.. 1 - Additional Signature: Printed Name(s): Must be Property awnega) wh Phone Number (optional): i co-4 i s sod C`4y 61" RM Date: //_ --Q,0/� + 1,CP�'sus�s e Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 91 ZA14-099 N oVEV'l3i2 '16, �c k `f" Meeting Date: .6:30 PM -Name and Address: r 3 g a Fa"-"-r LA+.) E SouT}�I.AiCE Tx 7`09�. 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 Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: E D pv54,� 7Z1 77fl�_ ?"A( Signature: AAta� Zi-- - Date54 Additional Signature: '�: - Date://-/�Z- �l Printed Name(s): 2aJ E . L 4AfD Must be property owner(s) whose name(s) are printed at top. Othe ise contact the planning Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): 8lq- Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 92 yt f gef ng Dow 24 at 6:31D PM iltge- mid Address �� ♦♦ Jr r?h`'3f s '1 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 93 ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Name and :Address: rn,lK�-����� nr�wt✓w `�s MA,eSAA LL R-04J So+.c-tf+ K -riL 3-40'z. 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 �n favor of <ZD undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature. (12. Additional Signatur Date. Printed Name(s): %',ust be property owner(s) whose name(s) are primed at top. Otherwise contact the Plann ng Department One form per prnparly Phone Number (optional): Date Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 94 zA14-099 ,,Jo'��%Meeting Date: 2t 6:30 PM Name and Address: r 34-0 0C)el6��ur�_�� 10�: File � ft�v _ S j ,T - x r r 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 (z:> undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: This development doesn't meet the standards we have set in the past for other developers . The verizon development on the same corner worked with the neighbors to create and unobtrusive campus . A development anchored by a grocery store at the entry to our city will eventually just be an eyesore . Signature, Robert V Peipert Additional Signature: Date: 11 /18/2014 Date: Printed Name(s): Robert V Peipert, 1340 woodbrook ct southlake tx Must be property owners) whose name(s) are printed et lap. Otherwise contact the Planning Department. One form per property Phone Number (optional): 817 488 7479 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 95 ZAI"DS Afft-,--MS-6 Meeting DAM t. 6; 30 PM PLEAS15 PROVIDE COMPLETED FCI':RM9 VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY SEFORE'THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING, ilelnp U,4e myw!(s) of Lie properly sa, -noledabove, are hereby n!9vor of undecided about (circle or underline arte) &a proposed -Si-le Plan referenced oboe, !Spimav for.commemb regardJ69 yaw pniVan 7 Signature;. Date Add 1 V., o ral i -no tu re: Daw, Pir-inted �Name(s)-., Phone Nu m-ber (0fianalk 516j�.,Q' 3 .70'r- W?e O)WO, Case No. Attachment H ZA1 4-099 Page 96 ZA14-099 A/D EN; E3ET�11a4at Meeting Date: 6:30 PM 30� Ga k Direct questions and mail responses to: .City. ofSouthtake Pian'ning & Development Services N oti fi catiein :Res p o n s e 140O.KKA _S�.5te 310 Southlak�� fX 76-0 2 Phone:- (817)1488621 Fax: - (617)748-8M 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 <Z> undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: �fd� .-�-`��._o-,✓� �-� ,tom—,�_.....-E=�-;..� �.�, Date: Additional Signature- Date: Printed Name(s): 6 1'// `V ' Must be pr000rty owrer(s) whose name(s) are printed al lop. Othdo a contact the Phone Number (optional): Ls� ping DopanmaM. form tier prnperty. Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 97 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 98 gEAh1 Gi.OBA: Notification Response Form ZA14-049 Meefing DaW: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Dame and Address: Rb k t r1, r t i 1�v ti tLA-k 54 i-+_ T% ---R, 0 1 Z 6822377741 0.1 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 Site Plan referenced above_ Space for comments regarding your position: r Signature: .1 / _._.--� Date: I t%ell Iy Additional Signature: Printed Name(s): -, Must be w-9,P y -.nWuf whose Date: are PriIW al top. Cth"t* oowNct tl-a Plmarirg C"jiment. One rorm per prupsrty_ Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 99 8178783717 03:50:20 p.m. 11-18-2014 ZAI"" lf;fM- kk'1e'Klw 30 MwUng Dub: WON Name and Address: i3+5,q�-"s !a'-. SOILIA tk -7 oqz PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, PAX oRHAND DELIVERY BEFOHE THE $TART OF THE SGHE©UL0 PUBLIC HEANN©. Being the owner(s) of the property to noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undedded about Circle or underline on®) the proposed Site Plan referenced above Spaces for Omm ents regarding your posidom Signatu_rw J Date: % Additions! Signature: Dome: I + g lq Printed Name(sj L-0W-v,'e J- w' -5 Dspzz � � P�P�!' ) wee geme(e) ers primed at tap, agle�wGq eaplactlRw Pf�u>hp 1Depraltrne�ll.' Qne �11 pet propatq�. Phone Number (optional): n -�-m- n J in Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 100 SOOTHLAKE FW: Super Kroger 1 message Ci-sodrlake.rx.us Mad - F%V: Sgmr Kfcx x Holly Blake <hblakeIcDci.southlake.tx.us> Lori Payne <lpayne@ci.southlake.tx.us> Thu. No,r 20. 2014 a, 3:17 P%I To: Ken Baker <KBaker@ci.southlake, tx.us>. Holly Blake <hblakeVci.southlake.tx.us> For your case file - --Original Message — From: 'Rick Gerhart' via Mayor and City Council [maiito: mayorandcity council@ci.southlake.tx. us] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 2:43 PM To: mayorandcitycouncil@ci.southlake.tx.us Subject: Super Kroger Regardless of Kroger stating that they will not close the existing Kroger on Southlake, the reality is that there is not sufficient support for 2 Kroger stores in this market. There will be a large empty storefront sitting on a major artery in our community. I am opposed to Kroger adding a super store. Sent from my Whose hflr�al�m W 1 nvn:a rronYna lip uTYAla9Ritrn7'�7dJ' 41�xrr�M�r�rMslnlwv�AMr 1Ap-111hR1ti1�r17R�Im1�1AM111KHOfA�ri7 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 101 c r ply �1� vow^' • ' ,.`'a;3 r s _ ti � ; .•{ _ ` , _, � , {{ �!'� ". `'ts LQ.4S'�i_ R Y�f 7N '1fi j�'�[ }J(�f ac. A9:°._.a ..:.._� •�,,��!r l.'�1f� _ � [ � k. Y�Y s s �� � � Irl�\�i ri r(_!�\�11t FI` --._ .: i3rL ••� y%I �i emu, +liw s J ) rs's-a.. .� � ,. ?t.'�r°'y:w • l � x:v J Y y� � �: r 7 c 'il � �'� . 1'c"I,.A41�•« w;.,t � ��� '� x 2 iE y:�/4J , ^a• �.r ! , j"�_,'� �'f�. ; r/r.j fx��,�i'4' � � � � ., c' ! *' f� :"r "`•-Ilt;�:+±'tC�i�`��at' �•• <'' i e' s �Y''r frt j. Y+d �t� 11r1 iR.S'ri!�7��ttiC�'f�ltir41�fi1`�+R�r�� °�v..r i • r- a ; y c .::Iar".. �: � � tea. P1 ` s f '' E •f r ` x4 . i t S`A'x c .�.�.��.^' "i+�4ti.I��s ��, c � .. �1. _ � !E : f .' •i , �' -- -- 4— - . y „•+r''�E•'i� —7t� 1�f ���f"�rYvr..._.;,rt�i � •f_.. _ ..--- _ - __ _ ' 'La r�Lft f1 iT+�pJ1.0,c.Jiij;s`�•S'tl�`i.!.. _• _.. ....... _ �J �p r �! } ` ifIt[�l Y�.lh E;1 a{rF�. �c, *' P ���T. 1.:.. � .I.`'�� FJ J �� I ;�.: �i r i �i. ! c4 r !.'...1� � �••_i � s r ie _ {��� t Z t� '��! c''f I�r.�.'�c ► �ytS�t�"I r f }r t-r���i.aid;.f����.�i#�a;wi�'-����?���c)�f•���l, .. ..--.._ _.._....... .. _.... - - .. _ ,{'�. t�rk sj f 1111a2014 Ci.*%O**o tx.ua Mail • Fwd Proposed Kroger io be bA al Corner of Dove ma 114 C� Folly Blake <hblake@ci.southIake.tx.us> 2�D I,] -0q 1 --- Fwd: Proposed Kroger to be built at comer of Dove and 114 1 message Lori Payne <Ipayne@ci.southlake.tx.us> Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:41 PM To: Ken Baker <KBaker@ci.southlake.tx.us>, Holy Blake <hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us> For your case file Lori - sent from my Phone Begin forwarded message: From: Scott Hanle Dole: November 16, xU14 at 5:5239 PM CST To:"mayorandcitycouncil@ct.southlake.tx.us"<mayorandcitycouncii@ci.southiake.tx.us> Subject: Proposed Kroger to be buiR at corner of Dove and 114 Honorable Mayor and City Council I would like to register my opposition to the proposed construction of another Kroger in Southlake at the corner of Dove and 114, for the following reasons. 1.) The intersection of 114 and Dove is heavily trafficked especially In the morning and afternoon. It is a major commuter route for Westlake residents . construction, and lawn keepers and is very coryested with traffic entering and exiting 114. 2.) Southlake Hgh school traffic, many students teachers and parents use Dove to access Peytolwille road. 3.) Comer of Dove and 114 has local historical sigNficance ... It Is the sight of the Easter massage of 2 highway motorcycle patrolmen by Bonnie and Clyde. 4.) How many Krogers and Grocery stones do we need in town. We already have a Krogers in Southlake and one in Keller off 1709. two Torn Thumbs, one in Southlake and Keller, a Cerdtral Market, a Fresh Food Market, a Ralph's and a Sprouts. I oppose this latest construction. Scott Hanle 1339 Hidden Glen Southlake, Texas Sent from my Pad _.�__.��,��__.._.ti...:,a�.Ma��aur:....rna7frutvlar��s.aret�ltt�t8fala 1�1�iQAess� '11 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 103 1111OM4 Ci soUhAXoAxus Mail - Hayos RAitlon RWadtn Or qpSOUrHLME Holly Blake <hblake@cLsouthlake.tx.us> Hayes Petition Retraction 1 message Layerxfounder - Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 2:20 PM To: 'hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us- <nD+arceLcl.southlake.tx,us> HI Holly, I would like formally retract my petition signature for the building the Town and Country Kroger in Southlake. Is this acceptable for a retraction? Thank you Keith Hayes 1300 Palo Duro Trail Soulhlake Texas. 76092 -06 Umail.c;mq}o coffVmaiL'LiU?W=T&ik=cc737a625Mview= VAsaw&-irbou$h-149ceKicec5@6&i96MIrni=149cedcec5a58at u, Case No. ZA14-099 0 Attachment H Page1O4 1 VQW14 CL sC�aAr us Mail - Fwd: S[cp Kroger oevsloprnerr. Or 19 LFT'(AJO Holly Blake <h blake@ci. south[ ake.tx. us> Fwd: Stop Kroger development 2 messages Lori Payne <Ipayne@ci.southlake.tx.us> Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 8:29 PM To: Ken Baker <KBaker@ci.southlake.tx.us>, Holly Blake <htAake@ci.southlake.tx.us> For the case file. Lon - sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Kathleen Cipriano Date: November 17, 2014 at 8:14:36 PM CST To:"mayorardcitycouncil@ci.southlake.tx.us"<mayorandcitycouncil@ci.southlake.tx.us> Subject: Stop Kroger development As 12 year citizens of Southlake, we have see wonderful growth and improvement in our little town. This current development is NOT in our best interests —we are better than a Frisco or Plano, let them have the box stores. We're better then this. Keep Southlako beautiful and unique —don't cestroy what we be all worked so hard for. Please vote against this development. Sincerely, Lou and Kathleen Cipriano 350 Binkley Ct. Sent from my iPhone Ken Baker <kbaker@ci.southlake.tx.us> Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 9:39 PM To: Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci.southiake.tx.us>, Holly Blake <hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us> (Quoted text hidden) Kenneth M. Baker, AICP Senior Director of Planning and Development Services City of Southlake 1400 Main Street - Suite 310 Southlake, TX 76092 817-748-8067 tttps0mW.google.corn,'maUuU?ui=2&k=cc737a6256&viaw=pl8m4 rch-L,ar8n=149cWcC asimI-149cObcCb006od5d&siml-1A9cOk08c8eNOc8 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 105 Notification Response Form ZA14499 Ming Dote: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Val w wA Addreto: Sean 4 Gri Gat— Kerruo. �. 22oq sv aAAG J G-re� a - So e `TX 'Ib0 2 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 ir, favor of opposed to undecided about (c.rcte or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above, Space for comments regarding your position: �,. o S e o1. +ko- 16 o oft , o-t,, b e,t, vw s ewe fir- w�Q rru csz4-e- o. signature: Q-- Date: `t Additional Signature: Date: �/7 /Y Printed Name(s): ;Uw, �P.d ag n - JAW as wapwtr n..We Sj vtwsa ram (s1 ss pinoed at IOC OIIw,dN aa+rct e,a pw" Depa,Y,tw4• Des Form Vw ft"wtr Phone Number (optional): 2i 9 1 V1 —1513 )onterlt•b•dtw.xx.tbedr,.noUhPholoe-xPfIA31.0.81a720x720110258251_308817795962124 3294707488M6019382 o.jpg 11117114. 6:Page 1 otM Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 106 Us6UTHLAKE Daniel Cortez <dcortezQci.southIake.tx.us> Remove Mesenbrink name from Kroger Petition 1 message Michelle Mesenbrink > Thu, Nov 20, 2014 211:47 PM Reply -To: Michelle Mes nn c > To: 'dcortez ci.southlake.tx.us < co ez ci_so ace_ x.us> Cc: Danno > Mr. Dan Cortez, I want my name removed from the petition in support of the Kroger at 114 and Dove. I was approached quite awhile ago at the Kroger store on my way out of the store_ I was asked if I'd like an improved/expanded Kroger_ I signed yes, thinking it was an expansion of the existing store. I, in no way support the building of a new Kroger store at 114 and Dove. I am 100 percent against a development of this style_ I want my name removed from this petition before the meeting tonight. Thank you, Daniel Scott Mesenbrink 469-231-6412 2801 Tyler Street Southlake, TX 76092 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 107 v SOUTHLAKE Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci_southlake_tx_us> Kroger Town and Country - data in "support petition" 1 message Gabriella Miller > Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:55 PM To: Holly Blake <h ace"ciuace. x.us>, Ken Baker <KBaker@ci.southlake.tx.us>, Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci.southlake.tx.us>. Dennis Killouqh <DKillough@ci.southlake.tx.us> Cc: "Douglas R. Harsy" >, Sue Johnson >, mayorandcitycouncil@ci_so ace_ x us Good Aftemoonl As you know, two weeks ago David Palmer with Cencor presented the P&Z Commission with a document consisting of 244 signatures in support of the Kroger Town and Country_ Yesterday, we received a copy of this petition after filing an Open Records Request with the City of Southlake. Upon review it was apparent that several signers were not residents of Southlake, had not provided addresses or legible data, and others signed multiple times. We input the raw data into an excel file which I have attached to this email. The file contains two tabs: one with all the raw data, "T used when it was not legible; the second tab with data of signers from Southlake only. To summarize: of the 244 signatures presented by David Palmer, only 170 are addresses from Southlake_ Of the 170 Southlake addresses, there were several duplicates, many with omitted data and several that RECANTED once they realized what they signed. Only 142 are currently valid as of noon today and the number is dropping. We continue to receive emails (and you are receiving them also) of people that are frustrated and angered by what the Kroger employees represented when asking for signatures on their petition. Given that the notification response forms and the green forms provided in chambers are vetted and validated by the city, we request that the City reduce the "support" status per the attached file Please distribute this to the Commission prior to tonight's meeting. Gabriella Miller Sales Associate, REALTOR 214.212.1707 2 attachments Allie QethAllman resources.png & Associates 7K Local. Real Estate. Leaders. L�j Kroger - support petition data.xlsx 61K Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 108 USOUTHLAKE Kroger 1 message Platt Michelle > To: "dcortez@ci_sou ace. x_us < cortez@ci_southlake_tx_us> Good morning. I was given your email address by a freind, Jana Garcia. Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci_southlake.tx.us> Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11:37 AM I am trying to get my name removed from the group that supports the new Kroger being built_ When I signed the document I was under the impression that they were going to be improving the existing Kroger. How can I proceed to get my name removed. I do not support a new Kroger being built at dove and 114. Thank you Michelle Platt 817-789-7715 Sent from my iPhone Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 109 11X,2014 Q soulhl*aix.us Mai- Fwd: Op9cel6m to Kroger MarkvAAacc a: 114 S Doi-e l'fY US06THLAKE Holly Blake <hblake(jPci.southlake.tx.us> Fwd: Opposition to Kroger Marketplace at 114 & Dove 1 message Lori Payne <lpayne@ci.southlake.tx_us> Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 5:18 PM To: Ken Baker <KBaker@ci.southlake.tx.us>, Holly Blake <hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us> For the case file Lon - sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Lesley Ross _ Date: November 19. 2014 at 5:11:33 PM CST To: riayorandcitycouncil`icl.soulhlake.tx.us Subject: Opposition to Kroger Marketplace at 114 & Dove Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members. I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed Kroger Marketplace at the comer of 114 and Dove. I drive past this location at a minimum of 10 times a week, as I drive my son to Walnut Grove Elementary School from our home in Shady Oaks. I believe a Kroger Marketplace is a poor choice for this particular piece of property. In additioo to the numerous beautiful trees being cut down and an increase in traffic too close to the elementary school, I do not believe that Southlake needs another grocery store. In particular, a "big box" grocery store that sells home goods, toys and jewelry. An extremely small percentage of Southlake residents would ever buy those latter three items from a grocery store, and I believe that this Kroger Marketplace caters to everyone BUT Southlake residents. We need to think firs! about the residents of this city before any other neighboring towns and their needs. Not too long ago I spoke to a regional manage, of Kroger in for this area about an unrelated issue that I had with their stores. In my discussion with him, he told me that they vrere trying to align themselves and their prices to compete more with Walmart. I have only shopped at Kroger in Southlake a handful of times since then because of what I was told. realize this piece of property is coned for retail/mixed use/hotel, and I personally believe it would be a great location for a bout,que hotel. By definition, they "often contain luxury facilities in unique or intimate settings with full service accommodations,` and I feel this fits Southlake to a tee. Thank you for your consideration as we try and make Southlake a bet!er place for all of its citizens. Lesley Ross 812 Brighton Avenue 817-488-2401 Mips•!knell.goog�e.ccmhnajVwW)li■2&k"cc737a625d&vierN=ptbsemch■inbox& h-149ca5q&0dad2f6gsirr1=14ka59c6W4d;n1J Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 110 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. �0A., --9qBeing the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby �'zs6Z7. 606,)5�5i (ED -26o?2-in favor of undecided about (circle or underline nine) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments repidng your poeld": I mo-*vd to Southlake is 1999. At that time, there was an effort to not allow homes on less than an acre north of 114. Nt eediess to say, That failed. Houses are now closer together on smaller lots. the city of Southlake is losim its charm. Bottom line, it's becoming just like Frisco or Plana- That's specifically why I mo-ved here .... to get aufay from that! The citizens of Soutblake have spoken ou numerour occasiow, NO MORE BIG BOX RETAIL. Its time now for city `:leaders- to listem Addittonal Signature: Date: PrinW Name(sY. .,701N� — i Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 111 l ;IC C14 Ci.9witlakebc us blell - FW- Wogv prgxsai on Due Roaa ano ' 14 SOUTHLAKE Holly Blake <hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us> FW: Kroger proposal on Dove Road and 114 message Lori Payne clpayne@ci.southiako.tx.us> Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 3:41 PM To: Ken Baker <KBaker@ci.southlake.tx.us>, Holly Blake <hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us> For the case file From: Mike Scats' ,] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 3:32 PM To: mayoranddtycoundl@ci.southlake.bc.us Subject: Kroger proposal on Dove Road and 114 Dear Hon. Mayor and City Council members: Southlake is not in need of a Big -Box retailer. Previous attempts were voted down because the city's residents do not want this. A grocery store is needed in the north side of 114, but it needs to be something that fits with the image of Southlake, and a Grocery/jewelry/furniture/etc. store is not it. Furthermore, the aesthetics of the proposed center do not fit what is expected of a Southlake Venue, especially when it will be the first or last thing in Southlake Drivers will see as they enter or exit the city on hwy 114. Respectfully, Mike Scott Kirkwood Hollow Resident r;c:,mailpoolc- 14k2CrOc63d'6c6sm1=149c6a03856c Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 112 UJ/ZN'ZOVB IS: Zip b-A'1 ZA144M iMeoting Dom: q4p 4�f r2q 2014 at 6:30 PM None and Addre-sm . ria4i "-TYjsh SAeed r 2-0 tsf�pn th . Sot.;1a kr, ]-K 1&0` 7— WOOL 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 Ca> undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: W4 are �al00- also{ er- hi9 hDX Shre k, u a a-1rcP �vo Ixatt roee- 1^eS i arks 1'5 �a6cr,AAd . ��� dyed 71� f, Norkon fkr- d F 0 our - Signature: Additional Slgnat Printed Name(s): r1Sla� Mum be lroper!y ownor(s) whoeo nemo(y are; 2�� Date: ! - Date: et top. OftrMW OwNect do Pishning Depedffwd. One rom, pw pn4mwty, Phone Number (optional): _ ii7- 41 b -� Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 113 QSOUTHLAKE Kroger 1 message Elizabeth Sparks > To: "dcortez@ci.sou ace. x.us < co ez@ci.southlake tx.us> Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci.southIake.tx.us> Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:54 AM Please remove my name from the "in favor of list that was submitted at the Nov 6th P&Z meeting. Thanks Elizabeth Sparks Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 114 Nov-19-2014 03 30 PM PW11 214-756-1652 Notifcation Response Form ZAI4-nag Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Name and Address: '5tepwrhIr StOtnA?* 100 C7t .'V/F3 A9. 80 wt'�' t ot�e, zx -IfaDRZ PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE S'CHEDUUD PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(v) of the property so noted above, are hereby In favor of Cm> undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position- M PRl't srorn- �ar-e ot oet,4 fit ►,gMjep- I)eoC:a� gtw1 VtG'i/1% ���i2.wi•t! ����rGitlr�cGl�i�lbri[��!'i�eG�t�v�e�ifi �oy�eR. �SeCor��((�(1 - �o�� �A(�,'r� � �i -#'!n� GD►�YPC, f - afelnQ9 r��lnr � ��e a 51� �!'��� 1� -der "Ch tyA, --Vx' t tc G.'i LS I h t-�I�{�`hiy1 i° a ! Wot� via Etc A 4 i _ n - .� • 1 f 1. 1 _ Signature: Additional Signature: Date: I I JN1 Date: Printed Name(s): 4� �1ojh1e eWAK Must be property mmer(a) whose neme(a) are printed at top. Otherwise canlaatlhe Pfar�nhlg pepartmr:ri4, One formrdroAarty. Phone Number (optional); J.14. SD7- -7315 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 115