The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 6G13 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE Department of Planning & Development Services STAFF REPORT January 28, 2015 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 165,320 square feet of floor area on approximately 25.92 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 165,320 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 1 Existing Zoning S-P-2 Generalized Site Plan District Net Acreage 25.92 acres (1,129,075 sq. ft.) Total Floor Area 165,320 sq. ft. Total Impervious Coverage 805,459 sq. ft. (71 %) Total Open Space 323,650 sq. ft. (29%) Lot 1 Number of Buildings 6 Building A (# of Floors / Total Area) 1.5 levels (mezzanine) / 103,920 sq. ft. Case No. ZA14-099 Southlake Town & Country Site Data Summary Building B (# of Floors / Total Area) 1-2 levels / 15,400 sq. ft. Building C (# of Floors / Total 2 levels / 12,000 sq. ft. Area) Building D (# of Floors / Total 2 levels / 12,000 sq. ft. Area Building E (# of Floors / Total 1 level / 11,000 sq. ft. Area) Building F (# of Floors / Total 1 level / 11,000 sq. ft. Area) Required Parking 962 spaces (Buildings A-F, this site plan) Required Parking 1125 spaces (entire site at full build -out) Provided Parking 1127 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. "Narkrng Is calculated based on bulldrng floor area per the Uty's Lonrng Urdrnance No. 480 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. 585-13. 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. 5, dated January 26, 2015. 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. Variances Previous versions of the site plan included various variances which the applicant addressed through various letters addressed to the City that can be found under Attachment `D' of this staff report. The applicant has revised the site plan eliminating the need for any variances associated with their request. The currently proposed site plan (site plan received by City staff on January 26, 2015) being presented to City Council does not have any variances. ACTION NEEDED: 1) Conduct Public Hearing 2) Consider Site Plan Approval Request Case No. ZA14-099 ATTACHMENTS: (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. 5, dated January 26, 2015 (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 1F 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 six driveways total that will access this development. Two Driveways are located on the frontage road of State Highway 114, one 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 4 and Driveway 5. 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 and has revised their TIA. All of these comments can be found under Attachment `E' of this staff report and the City's consultants latest assessment of the applicants most recent TIA can be found on page 41 of Attachment `E' dated January 27, 2015. Case No. Attachment A ZA14-099 Page 1 SH 114 24hr Frontage Road - Exit Ramp to Dove Road. (019W) West Bound (4,594) AM Peak (357) 7:45 AM - 8:45 AM PM Peak (544) 5:00 - 6:00 PM Dove -... West Bound i 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) 165,320 7,099 104 66 298 322 . Current Site Plan request Shopping Center (820) 184,820 7,936 116 74 333 360 "Anticiaated at full build -out * 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, 7:h 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. 5, dated January 26, 2015. 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. Attachment A ZA14-099 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. ,finition: 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 Case No. Attachment A ZA14-099 Page 3 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 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. Case No. Attachment A ZA14-099 Page 4 ■ 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: ➢ 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. Maior 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: Case No. Attachment A ZA14-099 Page 5 "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 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. Case No. Attachment A ZA14-099 Page 6 ■ 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, 1' — 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 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. Case No. Attachment A ZA14-099 Page 7 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 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 CIP. ■ 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. " Case No. Attachment A ZA14-099 Page 8 "Y a4e OepmanaMnl Plammg 6 CMv .P—Serncas Legend 40. NU. A*g Plicate. P—&90evelopnenl Ito Pm Future 0... I.Pnent till-N M, Redevelo —I uad— - Pub4 U.&-- Plicate Pendn Oe.1, erd Sns 10NE5 y � rF--- r Prioritization Plan for Undergrounding Overhead Utility Lines QcRober 17 2Gi--� 9 44&t.-Plicate. Fm. Oecelapnam . Pm 1 e ,. 1lediun - Prim., Redecehpnent Low-NWPrrvata- t • ctY L^d Parcels O 41 r r JOHNSON 4 }" _ONTINEWAL .._ GONTINEq_L _ __ •. [ mac.._;_ - � - • ' 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. 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 intereection, traffic is anticipated to increase. A study will be necessary to determine a form of traffic control at this intersection. Case No. Attachment A ZA14-099 Page 9 Ref. Implementation VNT VGO Priority Respon: No. Issues Recommendations Metric Strategic Link Link Tie Tier Departr Traffic volumes will increase as Consider Iq 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, CB04 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. CITY COUNCIL: December 2, 2014; Tabled (7-0) to the second City Council meeting in January (January 20, 2015). January 20, 2015; Tabled (7-0) to the February 3, 2015 City Council meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Site Plan Review Summary No. 5, dated January 26, 2015 N:ICommunity DevelopmenhMEMO12014 Cases1099 - SP - Southlake Town & CountrylStaff Report Case No. Attachment A ZA14-099 Page 10 Vicinity Map Southlake Town & Country �6 2 208 a < N 0 212 S v 213 N $ 217 a > $ 301 a e $ 3 �� 05 7 422 U P $ �+ 400 m 100 2308 2308 o � o � 'O 2304 Q 2305 c ;} 101 165 185 245 26 son 2300 2301 160460 W DOVE RD Y � 685 � U N� a q0 112 116 101 105 R 205 104 120 0 100 7� 112 11 204 g � $ o 0 i o0 E KIRKWOOD BLVD egg 700 O �1 701 G Q o ve 2 N e 594 V ,�• N' E •1 114 diZA14-099 - Site Plan 11 r% 0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet Case No. Attachment B ZA14-099 Page 1 Plans and Support Information CITY OF SOUTH IAK F, TEXAS ORDINANCE NO. 480-220 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 480, AS AMENDED, TTIECOMPRaMNSIVEZONING ORDINANCEOF THE CITY ON SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS; C ANTIN i A ZONING CHANGE ON A CERTAIN TRACT OR TRACTS OF LAND WITHIN CIE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS BEING APPROXIMATELY 58.202 ACRES SITUATED IN THE JAMES 1. WEST SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1620, TRACT 1, AND MORE FILLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBEsD IN E IIB1T "A" FROM "AO" 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-I" NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERC CAL DISTRICT, "C-2" LOCAL RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, "C-3" GENFRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, "B-I" BUSINESS SERVICE PARK DISTRICT, AND "HC" HOTEL DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE SPECIFIC.' RE UIRJEV1iNTS CONTAINED IN THIS ORDINANCE; CORRECTING THE OFI;ICIAL ZONING MAP; PRESERVING ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE 70Al1NG ORDINANCE; DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC: INTEREST, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE DEMAND THE ZON NG CHANCES AND AMENDMENTS HEREIN MADE; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE CUMULATIVE OF ALL ORDWA OES; PROVIDING, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS HEREOF; P OVTOTNG A SAVINGS CLAUSE;; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFiC1AL NkWSPAPER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVF. DATE - WHEREAS, the City of Sou#hlake, Texas is a hmaw rule City acting under its Charter aduptcd by the electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas C; onstitivion and Chapter 9 of the Texas Lcxal Government Code; and, WIIEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code, the City has the authurity to adapt 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, al in accordance with a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the hereinafter described property is currently zoned as "AG" Agricultural District under the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; and L-,.CTYD0M0RMCASE5)AW2XWPD Pogo i Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 1 WHEREAS, a change in the zoning classification of said property was 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 L;lare 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 proposod use around the site and in the irnmcdiate 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 an all parkin 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 trangmrntion, 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 distficts and their peculiar suitability for particular uses and the view to conserve the value of the buildings, and cncourage the mast appropdate age afthe 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 20ning changes, that the public demands them, that the public interest clearly requires the amendments, and timl the zoning changes do not unreasonably invade the rights of thasc who bought or improved property with refcrenee 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 Lcsscmn 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 1 and, avoids undue concentration of population, and facilitatca the adcqurate provision of transpormtion, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements, and, WHEMAS, the City Council of the City of Seuthlake, Texa., hay determined drat there is a necessity and need for the changes in anling and has also found and detetinuned 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 wvm rmginally 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 cif tht city of Southlakc. Texas, and helps promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDATNED BY THE CITY COl lNCTL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHL.AKE, TEXAS; L, lCTYD0 CMRMCA8MV Bb22D.WPd Pads 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 perrnitted uses in the hereinafter described arms be altered, changed and amended as shown and described below - Being a 58.202 acre tract of land situated in the lames 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 IS-P-2" Generalized Site Plan Distract with Mixed Uses, to include limited uses in the following districts, "CS" Community Service District, 110-1" Office District, "0-2" Office District, " l" Neighborhood Cvnunemial District, "C-2" Local Retail Commercial District, "C:-3" General Commercial District, 4'S-1" Business Service Park District, and "HC" Hotel District, as depicted on the approved Concept Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B". $action 2. That the City !Manager is hereby dircctod to correct the Official Zoning map of the City of Southlake, Texas, to ref eul the herein changes in zoning. Smtion 3. That in all other respects the use of the tract or tracts of land herein above dt3,crihed shall be subject to all the applicab]c regulations contained in said Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable and pertinent ordinances for the City of Southlake, Texas. All existing sections, subscx:tions, paragraphs, sentences, words, phrases and definitions of said Zoning Ordinance are not amended hereby, but remain intact and am hereby ratified, verified, and affirmed. Section 4. That the zoning regulatioms and districts as herein established have been made in accordance with the carnprehensive plan for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals and the general welfare of the cornmuriity- They have been designed, with respect to both present conditions and the conditions rc wunably 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, wat r, sewerage, drainage and surface water, parks and other commercial needs and development of the community, ']hey 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 ofall other ordinances of the City of Southlake, Texas, affecting zoning and shall mot repeal any of the provisions of said ordinances except in those irwtances where provisions of those ordinances sre in direct conflict with the provisions of this ordinance. Section fi- That the terms and provisions of this ordinance shall be dccmod 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. IntiiM0CSV3RI3hCASE94W-210. W Pn pm0 3 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 3 Section 7. Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects Qr mfuce_c to oornply with or wbo resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be fined not more than Two Thousand Dollars (S2.000.00) for caeh offense_ Each day that a violation is permitted to cxi5t shall constitute a separate uffensc_ Section S. All rights and remedies of the City of Soathlake are expressly sawed as to any and all violations of the provisions of Ordinance No. 480, as amendCd, 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, bath civil and cri rninal, whether pending in court or not, under such ordinances, same shall not be of ectcd by this ordinance but may be prosecuted until final disposition by the courts. Section 9_ The City Secretary of the City of Southiake 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 hewing 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, az rewired by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake_ Section 10. This ordinance shall be in fuh I force and effect from and after its passage and publication as squired by lain, and it is so ordained. PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1 st reading the day , 1997. ATTEST; A,17YECRETARY PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the day ofAf�p— 1997. LAMUOMOPIACASPSWW-220 Pb Pogo 4 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 4 EFFECTIVE: APPROVED AS TC> FORM AND LEGALITY: �! A�=� d, - - CITY ATTORNEY 17 L: MWCShOKDTASE9W*- .WPD Prge 5 Case No. ZA14-099 ATTFST: CITY SECRETARY Attachment C Page 5 IMC11.41MYA BEG24ZMG AT A POINT FOR THE II4IF.ASHCUON OF TTM APPROMMATE PRUNE Op C7DUNIY RoA1] NO.30M (RO ANO�J- OVE ROAD) AN i? ZIT, IIA= RIC:HT-0E--WAY IINE OF S'T`A'I'L FUGI-IWA'Y NO.114, UM 1pDIN�` ALSO F3 G THE i�iOi�TFI4 MST MRNER OF SAIIT SUD2 ACRE TRAM TIMNCE S B9" 2Mm Ii ALONG 11W NORTH L.I + OF SAM 5R 7117 ACRE TRACT AND SAID AKT-C)XWATECENTERLWTA DISTANCE OF 2J54Aib E1' TO A FO= FOR Ti-M Rap-Uo u R 3M6 { OF SAID P�� r �xvx� . AND Ra j; c�tISO 13FIEMO THE NORTEMAST CORNER R OF SAID 58= ACRE TRACT, TIiEI�f s S 00 ^2014" W, ALONG THE EAST i.INE OF SAID 58M AC :,n TRACr AND THE ApP$O wf��Tp- CENTMU NE OF SAID C )UNTY ROAD NO.3M A DISTANCE OF 12ZL60 f �'.ET TO A FOWr FOR THE SOCMrFAST (QORNRR Oki SAID 58= ACRE TRACI; THaNC13 N 69"56'40P W ALONG THE SOU7TI U NE OV SAID 58= ACRE TRACT, A DlyrANCE OF 1789A2 iihii TO A POET T IN TIC FAST I1rQjjT-0r,--VA.7( IZM OF SAID SPAT' HIGHWAY 140.114. FOR THE SUU71MTST OORNER OF SAID 5&= ACRE TRACT', Tiff NCI; N 39^2Y504 W ALONC, T E WUST LIN$ OF SAID TRACT AN17 SAM EAST jUGHT= OF WILY IDNFti A DT TANC8 OF 306.20 FEET TO A FOWT VOR CSORNE , TUTNCE O SAD EAST RIG47-OF-WAY 5&202 ACRE CI',FOII..0Wr jG TOUR +41�DI+ICT 'IHE F Es�I LINE OF SAM N 12 "36'54" W, A )'STANCE OF 410-62 > EET TO A TOUTr 170r, CORN_R; N 78^38'Z5' F,A I]ISX'ANCE W X00 FEET TO A P02U POR CORNER; N 19"23'Sr Vie, A DI TAKM OF 539.72 FBIET TO A FCDM FOR CORNEM, 1Y 89 ^ 73g6- W, A DIS'PANCE OF 36S4 I'EEr TO A 1:'OI4T FOR 00ENFR IN SAID LAST RIGID'-0jF WAy LUjE THENCE N W^2T5r $AL.ONG THE W= LUIE OF SAID 58= ACRE TRACr AM SAID BAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LDW,,k DILS1'ANC E OF 3012 FEET To TiTE PC?1NT OF BEGTMNING, AND CONTAWM(i 58= AC>x8S OF LAND, MORE OR .5, L: (-ryDorsv-)RD1CAS2S14&]-224,WPD Par b Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 6 � � 1 i C7 � I ° 7. ID r-4-FrA,, �s T7 L � 1C3' 1'I� �C 3sOP�]] ti � ASE�ta9o-�t0. W Pu Pone' Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 7 0 • le 10 roperty The r l lowi nig requi P� POSED LAND SEA AzTE Oaf S - Timarran Land Corporation is requesting a P-2 Generalized Site Plan District zoning category for Tract 1 in its entirety. Is is envisioned to be a "Mixed Use" development allowing a Variety of land uses that will respond to the current and future market demands and ensure compatibility of land uSeS through creative pianniq. The SP-2 Generalized Site Plan District zoning request will divide Tract I into two (2) scparwe parceis and will allow the following land use categories for each; PARCEL A + C S - Community .service District (Sec. 8) 01 - Office District (Sec. 18) • 02 - Wice District (Sec_ 19) Cl - Neighborhood Commercial District (Sec_ 20) • C2 - Local Detail Commercial District (Sec. 21) + C3 - Gcncral Commercial District (Sec. 22) HC - Hotel district (Sec_ 28) PARCEL B + CS - Community Service District (Sec. 8) • Ol -office District (Sec. 18) • B t - Business Service Park District (Sec. 24) Refer to the Concept Plan Exhibit for general location of each parcel and special restriczion5_ April 21. 1997 96204401.Rol DR -I L: = DOC'S 10 kMC A 5 U W W-Z2 0 - WPD Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 8 PERMITTED USE It i$ intended that the S P-2 Gmemlized Zoning District small permit those uses defined under the land use categories identified in this document. (as established in the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No_ 490) and shall specifically include those uses descdbed as' • "permitted Uscs" ■ "Accessory Uses" "Speific Use Permits" • "Special Exception Uses' Uses not listed under Zoning Ordinance No. 490 that are similar in nature �indlor have not been defined by current technology, LAND Li m 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 evil I not be permitted on Tract i, CS_ Cl1141MUNITV SP.HVICE DISTRICT Permitted Uses - BY SUP ONLY l_ (DELETED) �* 2_ Higher education institutions ** 3, Museums, libraries, fine arts centers, and similar cultural facilities *# 4. Golf cotirscs, parks, playgrounds, community centers and country clubs (No commercial ly operated miniature golf com�ws or driving ranges) 5_ (DELETED) ww 6_ Public safety facilities • • 7. Religious institutions ** S. City hall or other municipal office: uses (excluding wastewater treatment facilities, landfills, and transfer stations) • April 21. 1 M 9(aNOLRO I DR-2 L: =Y DCC5%0R rnC AS ES'A W 22 0.WPD Faro 9 Case No. ZA14-099 ** Use Prrwitted by SUP Only Attachment C Page 9 O-1 OFFICE DISTRI I. Permitted Uses A_ Offiee: 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. ChFuTiber 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, Enginetring 19, Finance 1$. Interior design 20_ Land unveying 21. Law 22. Managerrient consultants 23.Optometrists 24_ Other offices of a business andJor professional nature 25. physicians 26. Podiatrists 27. Psychiatrists 28_ Psychologists 29_ Radia regarding and television broadcasting offices and studios 30_ Real estate and insurance 31. Savings and loan ;;. S;:oLuities awl coma d=#=;a hrakers, dealers, uudorwriters and exchange offices . stenographic services 34. Title companies 35. Travel bureaus or services 36. Utility offices .7 APE" 21r19g7 96244401 _U i DR-3 L%CTYD0C5'-0RD1CASEMWLM-wPD Pepe 10 Case No. ZA14-099 *,� Use Permitted by SUP Oniv Attachment C Page 10 ]3. Community l=aciIi#y Uses i, (DELETED) •* 2. Recreation and open space ** 3_ Libraries ** 4_ City halls; fire and police stations, and other municipal uses (excluding wastekvater trca=ent fac6ifies, landfills and transfer stations) ** S. Other uses of a similar nature and character E • April21, 1997 96U 44fl i _Ro i DR-4 .: 5 .. TY D a c= R uI c ASEyA8(�- zn. W IID Rise LL Case No. ZA14-099 • * Use Permitted tyy SUP Ord y Attachment C Page 11 • • 0-2 OFFICE UST`RICT L Permitted Uses A. Any use permitted in the 0-1 Office District B- Day nurseries or equivalent child care facilities April 21.1997 $b 044pf-it41 DR-S L:W.TYDOE'S%Da FkChsESs490-22D.WPD Prga 12 .+ Uw Permitted by $UP Only Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 12 • C-1 TtiFIGHBORHOOD Ct, MME$UL& PI TRICT 1, Permitted Uses A- Cornrnercial Uses 1. Offices of a business and/or professional nature I Bakeries 3. Btr aad beauty shops 4. Clemaers, laundries and/or Laundromals ** S. Gawbrie filling stations that operate in conjunction with small convenience stores G. Grocery stores and/or meat markets 7. Newss nds aridly r bookstores S. Restaurants, tea rooms and/or "take-out" food establishments 9_ Tailor, clothing or wearing apparel repair shops B. Community Facility Uses ** 1. City halt, fire and police stations and other murlicio uses (excluding wastewater treatment facilities, landfills and transfer stations). ApAL 21, 1991 L:%C'TYD0CS0RD%CAS 22J3-WILD ]'age i3 DR-6 `* Use Permitted by SUP Only Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 13 • • Case No. ZA14-099 plea f t M1 ti 1- Ptrmitted Uses 1 _ Any use permitted in the 0-1, Office District 2. Any use permitted in the 1 Neighborhood Commercial District ** 3, Cleaning, dying and pressing works; laundries and washaterias 4. Antique shops 5_ Retail sail bakeries 6, Bicycle sales and bicycle repair shops 7, Blueprinting or photostating S. Book or stationery stares 9. Business colleges or privattr schools for vocational training of office related careers 10- Christmas tree sales 11. Cigar or tobacco stores ss 12. Cleaning, dying and pressing works; laundry and Laundromats 13_ Confectionery starts 14, Custom dress making or millinery shops 15. Dancing schools 16. Day nurseries 17. delicatessen shops without size Iimitatkms 13- Dog and cat hospitals (excluding large avimal clinics) 19. Drug stores 20, Dry goods and notion stares 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, rilIing stations or service stations, operating withlwithout a convenience store 23. Financial institutions 24_ Florist or gill shops ** 25- Frozen food lockers 26, Grocery stores and meat markets 27. health service far.ilities 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 said servicing 33- Restaurants, tea rooms, cafeterias, fast food and" take-ou[" 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 I I, L997 9620440t,R0I L:%CTYP4CS- WASPSAW-M-wPD P}ge L4 DR-7 ** Use penniaed by SUP only Attachment C Page 14 to • 1XIIII km knomil M a 4 1, Perrniftel Uses L , Any use permitted in the -2 Local Retail Commercial District ** 2 Auditoriurns, theaters and cinemas 3- Coin artd 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 7. Department shares S- Dry goods and notion shores 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, Hal shops 12, Health and physical fitness centers and gymnasiums 13. bobby shops 14- Houscbvid and office furniture, furnishings and appliances 15. Lodges, sarvritics and/or fraternities 16. DELETED) I?. Mortuaries, funeral homes and undertakers (cxcluding cemeteries, crematories and mausoleums) 18. Music or record shops 19- Nurscry buildings 20_ Pet shops 21. Piano stores, musical instruments and supplies 22. Plumbing and heating appliances, repair and instal latiorr services (excluding propane tank salts) 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 estab14 ments 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- iJpholstery shops - furniture 29. Variety storks April 21, 1997 96204401.R01 L.',CTYDCCMRD'.CASE4hdM-2M-WPrD Page B Case No. ZA14-099 DR-8 *0 Use Permined by SUP Only Attachment C Page 15 • • • Case No. ZA14-099 R_1 RiTSi EiiVICE PARK D1 TRI * 1. Permitted Uses A. Office and C munercial Uses 1. Any usr permitted ift 0-1 District 2. Administrative, executive or editorial offices for industrial organizations *` 3. Apparel and millinery manufacturing and assembly 4_ Hanks 5, Barber and beauty shops 6. Book and stationery stores ** 7_ Computer manufacture and research %, 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 ma.nufacturc 10. Funeral homes (excluding cemeteries, crematories, and mausoleums) ** 11 _ Lithograph, engraving, printing and publishing *• 12, Manufacture of medical and dental equipment ** 11. Manufacture of musical iastruments 14_ Medical clinics *• l5. Nursery yards or buildings for retail sales and landscaping companies *• 16, Optical irammcnt and lenses manufacturing 17. Private/public schools IS, Professional) usirxss schools 19. Retail activity of service nature designed to provide direct service support to the businesses and employees who occupy the remainder of the office complex 24_ Retail uses which are reasonably related to the principal uses within the structure * * 21 _ Scienti Gc and professional instrument manufacturing 22. SecuriEy guard quarters (excluding living quartos) ** 23. Small parts manufacturistgand assembly 24. Studios for training in fine arts H_ Community Facility Uses ** i _ City hall, policy and fire stations and ofher municipal uses (excluding wastewater treatment facilities, landfills Itnd transfer stations) * Any manufacturing use within the B l zoning dist6d shall n4V t]M a SUP, Apr� 2 1. 1997 1.:%r'TYDi3c UJRLYCA$FS' =-WPD Page lB DR-9 ** 41sc Pemitted by SUP On;} - Attachment C Page 16 • • "HC^ HOTEL DISTRICT 1, Permuted Uses ** L _ Holels and motels ** 2. Parks and playgrounds which are publicly owncd 3_ Golf courscs which are privately owned ** 4_ City hall, police and fire stations and ether municipal uses (excluding wastewater treatment fa,cilitics, landfills, and transfer stations) Apt1121. 1997 9644401,Ro l L-4CTYDOCSNDREKASIZWS �22Q_WPD Page L7 DR-10 ** Use Permitted by SIIP 011ly Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 17 • L-j DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS It is intended that the SP-2 Generalized Site Plan Development shall adhere to the development standards currently established in Zoning Ordinance No, 480 as amended and furthermore shall comply to all new ordinances as they are advptrd for each land use category with the folio}fling exceptions: BUiLDI NG SETBAC1 Setbacks for Tract I land uses shall be maintained in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Ni o. 480 and the corridor overlay standards- When located adjacent to or across the street from residentially zoned property or Property with a low or medium density residential land use in the comprehensive plan, the setbacks shall be the greater of the 4:1 slope or the nsiru.=ltt setbacks shown in the fol lowing table- Setbacks shall he measured from the Timarron property lint where it is adjacent to residential areas. Setbacks Adjacent to Residential CS 100' Min. 01 100' Min, 02 100' Min. Cl 100' Min- C2 10U' Min. C3 IOU Min. Bl 100' in. RC 100' Min- Apfi1 21, 1997 96204401.Ft0I DR- I I,:tCTt-DOCS%O D%CASF eR(�-2n.WPD -- Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 18 I BUFLQIN MIGHT$ Maximum building heights, for Tract l land uses shall be in accord arcc;kith [he following table: Maxirnurn Building Height :S 35' 2.5 Stones 01 45' 2.5 Stories 02 9+0' 6 Stories {' 1 45' 2.5 Stories 2 45' 2.5 Stories C3 45' 3 Stories B I 45' 15 Stories HC 90' 6 Stories * HC and 02 uses shall be res[ricted to a maximum four (4) stories, The fifth and sixth story shall be pe[mitted by SUP only - April 21. 1"7 96204401 PLO DR-i 2 L=scrtDxsuixntirn.';P.ss484_xu1-w?A i'4c L4 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 19 B[TFFER .YAKS Perimeter buffer yards for Tract l shall comply with the Comprehensive zoning Ordinance No. 480 and shall have minimum widths in accordance with the following table; Adjacent to Writes C:hapd Blvd. Adjacent to Residential* Other CS so, 35' 25' Q 1 50' 35' 25' 02 VA 35' 25' C i NIA 35' 25' C2 NIA 35' 25' C3 N/A 35' 25' 131 50' 35' 25' FIC NIA 35' *Residential adjacency shall be defined as residentially zoned property or property with a low or mediurn density residential land use in the co mprehen6ve 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 - Apra 21, 1"7 9620440 J AIC l L,kCT'YDOCMDRDYCASE90-220.WPD PAP 33 Case No. ZA14-099 DR- l3 Attachment C Page 20 0' BUFFER YARD SECTION ADJACENT TO WHITES CHAPEL BL D- 3•-81 i3T_ ,ANDERING BERM VG_ 5- HT.) APril 2t 1997 962 04401-1 L:1CTYD0CA0RDlCAM8A$DZM-W D Pape 21 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 21 LANDSCAPING ND OPEN SPACE The landscaping uea for e=h lot wil I comply with the requirements of the Landscape Ordinance No_ 544. For 02 and HC uses, additi onal landscaping area will be provided irk the amount of 1% of the lot area for every story from two (2) to four (4) plus 2DA for every story from five (5) to six (6). OPlEN EACiW 'The open space for the tract will include the buffer yar& wound the perimeter of the project as required by the Southlakc Corridor Study and. the additional buffer yard adjacent to residential uses_ Tirnafron Land recwgnixcs the value of the existing vegetation W will incorporate master design guidelines that respond to tree preservatior, at the developmIlt Plan stage of the zoning process_ A tree survey wilj 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 a#1ached Buffer Yard and Open Space Plan ijimraLes the general location of the proposed buffer yards for Tract L_ 96204401 _Fk01 DR-14 LACTYbW &0RNfASE3W04)-M, W PD pap 22 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 22 L:%CTYDI ?qc 23 �4WMMPD e—\ r.- if t 1 'k Z u z I O Case No. Attachment C ZA1 4-099 Page 23 Ll • 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 sizc5, facility locations, access and coning are critical to attracting quality users to this site_ This canoept plan provides the flexibility which the current market is seeking. The following table dmonstrates land use categories per6tted for each parcel within Tract 1_ The attached exhibit `Concept P lan°' fiuther illustrates the general location of each parcel. PARCEL Area LAND USE CATEGORIES A * 28.57 AC CS, 01, 02, C1, C2, C3, HC B 31.63tAC CS, Ol.i31 * Parcel A uses may extend 300' east of Kirkvwoc�d Boulevard should it be extended south of Dow Road, awXylawo is.[ ll[cul Access to Whites Chapel Boulevard shall be restricted to one full access localivn_ All 14C and 02 uses shall be reslricted to a maximum of four (4) stories. The fifth and sixth storks steal I perrnitted by SLIP only. • Latdmcaping 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 l % of the Sot area for every story from two (2) to four (4) plus 2*/o fnr every story from five (5) to six (6), min. -1 Y-Ilm" riiziL#1►11-if It is Timarron Land's intent to have in place master design guidelines to create continuity and quality at the development plats stage for Tracts 1, The design guidelines will be ava4able for review at the time of development plan submittal, April 2L. L997 %204441_R0l DR- 15 LACTYWCS%6R=A3MAW1aM.wP4 Page M Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 24 1 gall 8 411�daa � o -71 o -al l I p qil; L:'-C'Cl'E74C ti aatiCASESIaBI��SQ,4lPD Page 25 Case No. ZA14-099 Attachment C Page 25 �is< SVXH1 'HYVNH1lOS diNnOO �? NMOl 3>1V]Hin0S ,oI �aaas��osw a � Q auemia�u� 1" NVIcl 311S NOLLOR2I.LSNOO ZIO3 LON — kUVMIlXFTHZldI - - - ------ F - ----------- - - - - -- -_ --------------- �--- — � ro _ --- - -------_- r Z l3dVNw3eIHM 'N 2 O Zti yg T II II iW oQ �ti o "� � II o.W p®q 8$ CD wII0dill �X EA `' sl III II m � � R 2 ye, A i � F- ' aIfl I. - t yaiiiiiii p - JF1 ,- Yao Ill g6 z I LJ 2 " 5 Na 1wd 1 N e pl�woY 'mW Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 26 SHX31 `-D1V7HinOS ),diNf100 �R NMOl HNH]Hinos ovI sa�eaaossp O auemla�ui 1„ b1 VG 31IS NOI,LOAZUSNOD 2I03 .ION — ZIVNIN111HU11 O) lo Q hJ=tl ca a0 m E _ r 8 $ $ $ 8 8 8 12 m £es i � 2 � EnawE<€ �e�� a tl ppgyEE �y� 6�7np" 9�6m �B«Ewg��E EM 1a- $tea@ FE `' �FE $ a C " , —,-f - a fli Ml 8'9� tgg85 9 A xi B a s x s xi xi o l 0 �" ti ��rc Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 27 SHXHl 'dJidHH1f105 �,�II DD 2P NMOl AAV-1H1f10S NVld ONICVd 15 J. NWIW173ad uaemla3lal� l�� NOI.LOCiHISNOO HO3 ION — TUVKIKTiaali Oi 01 O I� v Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 28 sxy >»yenos *y:ma& gm mwrc §i A% :m:wems«mmK2au ioeHI s o as ION-_2�aIMld ■ ~ } . � \ \\©�H. 2� Case No. Attachment C ZA14- §§ Page 29 SVX31 ':DvlHiP0S AJ-LNf1OD �? NM Di DYV-lHigOS aaeia�a�a�� Ni dVh Vd ]aAV 319VNldaO AaIVNIV1173ad M0110fildISMOO UO3 ION — C2IFAIIInIII3�I I a o o o z II h\ - 4 I - I I � m d III -�TS ,,• h'— I s N� r - :. z japes- o N H Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 30 Sb'X31 '-DV]H1fl0S ), J1Nnoo �? NMOi JAV' H1f CS y.� •�n.��a®ter s Bile $atM lt� Nd�d 1Jd11Nd5 lJt1NIWIHdJd NOILEMM.LSNOO MOO .LON — aVKIRI'I:gali OI CI dig ¢w N l �W 311H a Al o ao z' mil I 4� Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 31 "'. SVXAI ':INVHHiPOS ANiNnoo 22 NMDI AAVIHIAOS aaem�a�ai� ►1� NVTd a31VM J.JV.NIAjjJH,+ �3y NOILO[MI,LSNOO HOA ,COAT — aVKIRI•I:q2I11 w y.�xy w¢z 2� �wgt'3¢y n w l kq F:j, ¢C2 C] � w T3 µPH 311H. _ • it �I II � I II I II e '. IIII I V�I1 h ICI �o w esq Fl- FIZQ i Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 32 �.� `•fi•p•aPy s Qae��a�ai� �1r SVX31 '3DfdlHiP0S J,�'iNf10D )? NMDl ])�V-lH1flOS i EJlHX3 -17VM JNINIVi-3 ),HVNIWIl3ad oo) NOILLDfIHISNOD HDA ION - A-dVN[lWl-1:J-dd di Of O a N CJ Y 2-L`v Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 33 11e1HX3 3AVS 332li NollolllaISNOO UOA ION % ,a UIPVA3-inos -13JVH3 3jlHkw -------- --- A-41% ORR LL 1. Wl� Elf! !;fair Case No. Attachment C ZA1 4-099 Page 34 W„Y ��-_ oos �ne�iaw srnw aus "•- y -•� a3aNnaau�sea as A3AmnS33a1 #r ro.�',;;,q * sae�'kunoairmPxL Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 35 ,�Wri,--�� R �S 11Y16 ilIB1Y 31TY1 W�6 y A3AanS 33UL r �1r � r � T � i 3N17101AfN _ L JMHS MM !p c Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 36 r_•— �� WS ain63lIBLV 31Tl\LGe6 � `' �` 3tl"0�•3' A3h ns33r&L 6e NUEMIONUIAI L��l �nwvs dv up OW V '� 17Yt1L89Y'+.3+W'1@ 193M N-0' ffjlf« VIARMS 335 ;3 AV Op ale I pg { g • • Y P _ F Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 37 7¢eo �.nuras ao.ura LTYI'PI1�1/tl1A./'h3 hi11616iY1 NU.6�R Y Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 38 r� — �� _ WS 3lll6711@{T 3111T'104�5 � ..� :r .r raw 83]I'W36 A1�19tl i1%IBJ A3mnsJ 3mm N: w 10 BCD q�I•4 � BTICi1 hIKllJ WNWII w:1N�k 7Qeo 3N1UI�46i� uq 9W l'P� 1 �3Ri116193M IM- FiRP I xx R I z. I IS b 3 i �a .� MQ W J • ��_ H Y W � I l �x • o �a 9 ilk f * . I13 Y#fin Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 39 - �Dzsc sv�i'sn�ro 'mom` �'• DOS 311n5'3fIW3M1Y 3ldYV1 LOIC ::,:1.:-:e "L ,�� saaNaasu�aamhaa 'a•[ •aaD•F�•ar�., �� svz31'uhno�lhvbrrvi QIInID a Q �„ �nnhinos �o wua I � IA1 ms�on iaveussv'x3wns iss,.n tenor s3rrrr 6 F !. h 6b k6 b 6 6 ss- R b b d 16 d 16 b b _ _ _ _ b b b b �9�RR��aaa�aa��aaarsaaRaaaRaa�� sass ��sassaa $ ss - - ----- b b b n�� R R b e b b b b b b R$ 8 R$�$ B L6b6 L6 b b b b b_ 9 6 6_ 9 6 b !. b !. h b A b b h A m b m b b m b A b b �4��I��9as8813��S75S8�I3 dd3 dd ddd dQ!u b d36 d6_�� 3 �b 866A sass"��sasa��sa��as6s��aass `c_'c_c®ei`s"A_®gji'a_i"A_;j§1"a_®Ell b b h L b b 6 ® ® g w 6 . . b b b b A3nanss3a1 �m a01 r as 4 b b h h b6 b b6Nh NLb b b b b b b Ii p A R p p aN A p A R p A p p p R p A F p A R p p R p A R 6 6 b b .gg qq pp pp pp WW ,by ,y b p__ �__gg gb � bDD p A A g p R A R A A p A li p P A A A p A P p P A p A - hdAW � gb gG gb gb a_ a_ g_ g_ s& n 8 B R P A P P P A P P p P N F7 P P A FY A b b b b k b 6 b b b b b b ONOM O A A A W 6 6 b b b b 6 6♦ b b b b b b b b b R R b b b b R R R R 6 6 S S S S S 6 8 8 6 5 8 S 8 6 1 1 1 1 6 5 6 1 6 8 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ b b _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ R A R A _ _ b b as .aa R i$ R R R$ R 8 .g8 R fl R R 8 R$ R 8 A R R R R R A Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 40 .. A3A �•.,._. ..: _ �ovsc sax3i'smva w.a :. saavaasu aaaoaeaa ains 33a1 �1+ 8M -aq •ssieposep e� svx�'.w,non iRrawi ant Wl2HIIIM `,� �. „y �� 3�Hi�oyao wuu,.,. �,.w. n�i �� n.o • b b b b b b R R b b b b-_ b b R R b b b 6 6 6 F_ b b b b b b b 6 6 6 b 6 b 6 6 6 6 b b b b A 1 A A A I A I A A A A A A A A I A& A A A A A A A A A g 1 A I R i6 F R F k F F F al. or F F 6 8h. F k k k k k k k k k k xggassg ssasaasa Y�99 m 6 6 6 6 h b b b R R a 9& R a$ R a 8 A R R P R R P A R A P R R A R R A R R P A R R A R P A A 8S a C 6 a a a 8 8 8 R R R R R R R R R E R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R k k R1R16E�®EgSaa888R d ��6 6 b 6 6 6 6 6 b 6 6 6 6 6 R R R R_= R R 6 6 g e s e e a a s a e s s s a a a a R A w R A R R R R A R R R R R R R R R R R R A R R R R R 0 � a 8 g a ? ; N A � I � � $ A 9 9 9 � x a 9 � N A 9 9 1 9 ��""gx9�911119�9""I�""I18NIIga �1WA�Rn�#AAAA�� OOANn�� o-_ R R 8 R E E 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 B o F--^ "' 1O ^•• z" m a m R R- R 77 R R A a R R R R k k a R R W 8 R z A R R R R R R R R P R R A A R R A R R R R R R R R A R R R R R R R R R R R l9 R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R i p p A p p A p p A p p p p p p A p p A p p A P R N A R g N R N R a8 N 9 g N R q R R R R R R R R R R R R Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 41 - iorsc smrai'smva .e..m.a ,,,.,, �„�, �'^""'^•'°^^"� ' oos �ins'anwanv aurw ams d„,': °-,L s3aNa3su�v3aeo�R3a AaA2ins aaN.L �.I'.u.wb•.v �� ■, sv 'wno�iPvbaaa lCO to QQpWlaBQIAA ll WW P 6 b b b @_•• n m m m r- .- n m w m p p�� p p p p y p p p �g R f6 f6 R ffi R � f6 R � f6 R f66 as RR ffiffi 1q6 .•BB Pi � •B A R •B eb glb gb A. 8b 3b 36b bggi 3b ha gb �@F. �b gb b b bb8b I!I !4�H!� 6 � h b b Y Fb-- m -- -- -ib �4.11IAssIIF, 1RIF, "iIIA1AI IAIRAR ��I N#i�iE#CICilili'i4EWAia b_b6 6 i b b b b b gy b b b b bm6 $ !�. b b b b b$ - -m hNh6 $ L b b b F b b i- b b b b b b b b b i h h b b b b F h b !. b b b b b b b b --- b b b A b b h F41.1 ..-mmmR--ApNAaSRRRR BRR R P P R R P R R P R R P RRPRRR R R saU6bb b4sa46 6k 6bbsaasaasa b b b b^ b b 9 9 6 b b b b b b b �- R RC. R eC. R R eC. A aC. R RC. R PC. R A A W R R R R R R A R a, A A A A A R A A R A k R R R R R R R �4F�FFtiFFtitiFtitiF�tiF�tiF��F��F�� J., n -ii-, 2 m m g g g b= - b b b b !_`' H b b b b b b F h= b h i b b b� [� �� b b b b b b b b♦ i h h b b b b b h m i�99598g9a9918gppg199y9ryryp99ppg9999gga999a99 ��gakp8;58pgpa;gggppaggppyarypg9a888g99�99999999g@a O W !. !. h b b b 9 R� � R A b b F Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 42 o...�3a^,.o, lOSSL SV%31'SV1N9 e.W.a ,,,., d , •'�•—"°a m; 31ins'3nw3nv 3iarw soic „r„„m, i E L�r :�, saoNaas ua aooHao C •�•[ ••u.w�••v a�� sv�c�'uNno�irmarL A3Abf15 33211 C � a 01 QQICW a II �mHinos do wa I � IA1 �, msi ou Lavxusev'i�anans is3u uHor s3wrr 0 0 BYo a� g�aasgaa�a�a�@��aaa��s�ass�� A SY A R SY A A SY A R R Po R R Po R A Po R R Po R bS A R R A £S - - - - b - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �8��irasirasagea��A��A�� Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 43 SOUTHLAKE TOWN & COUNTRY SQUTHLAKE,TEXAS TREE PRESERVATION MASTER DESIGN GUIDELINES 1. Guidelines Statement. Trees provide numerous tangible and intangible benefits to the City of South [ake. Therefore, the Southlake Town & Country resolves to protect, nurture and renew this valuable resource following the following princlples; 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 S. Protected trees removed in non-exempt areas shall be replaced per City of Southlake Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-B 2, Application of Guidelines These guidelines apply to the Southlake Town & Country property. 3_ Definitions. Refer to City of Scut#tlaka Tree Preservation Crdirtance No. 585-B 4. Procedures and Responsibilities. Existing trees that are proposed to be saved will be Maintained, Preserved and Protected. All reasonable efforts will be taken to maintain, preserve and protect trees and to keep therm pruned, stabilized, and free from damages from the elements and disease. 2. Existing Trees in Non -Exempt areas maybe Removed under the Following Circumstances' o Trees that are diseased or dead tree o Trees that constitute a safety hazard o For any other appropriate, documented and informed reason. (i.e grading constraints, proximity to proposed ha rdscape andlot utility improvements) Trees meeting any of the above circumstances will be identified and submitted to the City of Southleke 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 Replacement Per City of SouthIake Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-13 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 44 oil- IS will, il it I I € .11 1 It1140 ��-----rrrr----------rr-rr Ifar ■---------------------• o ii 1 ! - - -�:� � � � �� •`ter, � II ! � 1 kd j f R �• 1%• /A AL ! ---------------------------� 1 F1�--------- -i Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 46 IIN d Oyu �3 9N Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 47 O 0 0�)a Case No. ZA14-099 Lu rt s i 4 1e "Mice) N z Fig J C _ I I I I jig- T Attachment C Page 48 W1 1:4il i aNI I Wj LVA JIlk a 3 / J f W 0 W LU IS fl f � z Fig Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 49 LLI V IlLn R Eel Nil 111 lolllipIII 100� e 0 0o�)" V47 MOW41-1HD-LVV1 r A {_ T tY# Ni e 1 a Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 50 f 444'+d� 80808u4• O 00 40 { 444�---_- 88L8uii LU z T a� r■ Fe � � � kk� 6 Jill ] � t5p�k� - C f ■ IN Mm HIM Bll111 ill i g dt d `}I ir Case No. Attachment C ZA14-099 Page 51 Case No. ZA14-099 I1[;1 ill11 KROGER STORE SW514 C;� Southlake, TX 9051380 architecture+ d e s i gn i�- T.;.:_ . - KROGER STORE SW514 Ca Southlake, TX kli 4051380 architecture + Attachment C Page 52 Dory laaa� 1e5 ai. —1 rn mfi 6-11fl s1. mtal t Aaa 1f. slone�� can swaa— na 4" at. A�Ick-1.171A 01 a RETAIL 6 I SOUTH LAKE TOWN & COUNTRY —RETAILS SHEET 1 OI RETAIL 6—WEST ELEVATION ,,, �,,,,„,,,, ."•+"'r' s�a+'�+�". T 4'. I RETAILS x� c T—OWFR i. S O U T H L A K E Case No. ZA14-099 TOWN & COUNTRY — RETAIL H SHEET 2 rm.l Prey x,t u al. _ Non Yosa.y Total 98A 1f. —19A% .- Y.aonry BrK•x-91i q, ne— a. oa/xy�14.1a9aaa�tt roll Prey x,1E... Nan Yaaanry Total Y!a 1f. —12A% E.I.F.. — —1. IM1anry lout 1.90 a1. 87.6 .Mna f Gast4 af. 195 Ef. �Brri f�I—WI1,i1Iulef. ■ 1 ■ /�. RETAIL 9 \\ s Ol 'NORTH Attachment C Page 53 Y�r s JACKSON WALKER L.LT. November 17, 2014 Via anon'! Planning and Zoning Commission clo Mr. Ken Baker City of Southlake 1400 Main Street, Suite 310 Southlake. Texas 76092 William S. Dahlstrorn (214) 953-5932 (Direct Dial) (214) 661-6616 (Direct Fax) wdahlstrom@ wWzom Re: Application for Site Ilan Approval for the Southlake Town & County Development (Case No. ZA 14-099) 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 5.1-1- 114 (the "Property"). in particular, we think it important to clarify information with respect to two of the items. I. ZERO LOT LINT: 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. 1n 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. I-fowever, 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 S[RT,, suite 60o4 • Dafts, Texas 75242 i214', 953-6WO • fax 1 214) 953-6822 www.fw.carn . Austin Dallas • Fork Worth . Houston San Angelo • San AntoAIG • Texarkana klrmbc ri •::1 .)sh:AW' ^ Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 1 Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 201 G 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 Con"pt 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 treefs]. 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 butferyards. That amounts to almost an acre and three qt ers 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. G. 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 casts 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 war -thy 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 2 Souihlakc 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. e. The effect of the alteration on erosion, soil moisture, retention, flow of surface waters, and drainage system. The site plan complies with all drainage standards of the City. Erosion will be minimised by the final grades, B=use 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 hart of the same SP-2 zoning. The undeveloped land will contain its awn 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 mast norresidentiallresidential adjacencies. Whether the treels] interfere with a titility 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, "00-2" Office, "C-l" Neighborhood Commmrcial, "C-2" Local Retail Commercial. "C-3" General Commercial and "HC" Hotel districts. The retail uses being proposed. as labeled on the site Man being submitted, are permitted by the approved zoning on Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 3 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 can 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 tamo"w's meeting should you have any questions regarding the content of this letter. SinSoely yours, V��i am � lstrom cc: Allen Taylor Shana K. Yelverton David Palmer 1 t24404( -.2 124552M00? Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 4 WWinkelmann &Associates, Inc. CONSU LTING CIVI L ENGIAEERS' SURYEYDRS 6750 HrLLCRFST PLAZA DR., STE.325 DALLAS. TX 75230 (972) 490-7090 FAX(972)490-7M 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 PIanning and Zoning Commission as well as several internal changes. We have attempted to enumerate the changes as follows: 1. The median islands an 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 boen 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.S on Kirkwood Boulevard. A deceleration lane and associated Tow dedication has been included at driveway on No.6 on Kirkwood Boulevard. 6. The limits of the site plan have been ciarified 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 facade has been modified to have 2' articulation on the dock side and 4' articulation on the opposite side. G:14141021ENGTNEERINGICorrespondencelSouthlake Town&Country.doc Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 5 WWinkelmann &Associates, Inc. CGNSULTTW CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS 6730 HILLCREST PLAYA DR. STE, 325 DALLAS. TX 75230 (972) 490-7090 FAX (972) 49Q-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 alipment 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. A1.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:14141021ENG1NEERING1CorrespondencelSouthlake Town&Country.doc Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 6 WWinkelmanii &Associates, Inc. CDNSMUNG CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS 6750 HILLCREST PLA74 DR, ST£ 325 DAL LAS. TX 75230 (4731490 i490 FAX (972)490-7094 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 Marlo Paris G:14141021ENGINEERING1CorrespandencelSoutBlake Town&-Country.doc Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 7 WWkemanl Inc. CONSULTINU CIVIL ENGINEERS - SURVEYORS 575V HiLLCREST PLAZA DR.. STE. 325 DALLAS. TX 75230 (r2)A90-9090 PAC (M) 490-7099 Southlake Town and ountry Good Faith Process for Tree view and Preservation November , M 4 1. Perform on the ground Topographic Survey tD 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. 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. S. Evaluate limits of drip line impact for trees to be preserved G:14141021EN GIN E ER FN G1CorrespondencelSouthl ake-TownandCountry. doe Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 8 JACKSON ki'ATSER L.I..P October 30, 2014 Yirr email Mr. Ken Baker City of Southlake 1400 Main Street, Suitc 310 Southlake, Texas 76092 William & bahlsuvin (214) 953-5932 (Direct Dial) t214) 661-6616 {Direct Pax wdahlstam@jw.corn Re: Application for Variances for the Soathlake Town & County Development (Case No. Z A 14--099) Dear Ken: On behalf of our client, Cencor Realty Services ("Cencor'), 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 commercial develuprnmt located south of Dove Road between S.11_ 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 interior lot line to allow the grocery store and attached retail building too share a common 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 fora 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 Developnaenl Code for a Zero lot line development, the equivalent amount of open space and plantings that would have been incorporated into interior buffc:ryards between the two lots have been provided elsewhere within the boundaries oC 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. A I Main Srrect, Suite 6000 Dallm, Tcsas 75202 42[4) 953.6090 , Cox (214) 953-5822 www,iw,com • A -win • Do ILQc • Fart worth • Houston - San Angelo - San Art07llo • TtYarkana • VUm1mroFQQ4 ALALWm Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 9 Pa -Me 2 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. 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 difficulties 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 Buffcryard: Section 42 of the Development Ordinances specifies a 25' wide Bufferyard (Type B) along Dove Road, Cencar 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 inhere the border of the right of way takes a 90 degree jog and Dove Road was constructed partially an 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 buffiryard planting rcquircments 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. C:encor is proposing instead to plant 56 eastern rcd 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 grocery 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. Cencar developed the rear bufferyard of the Shops of Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 10 Page 3 Southlake in 2006 in the same manner to screen the development successfully from the residential lots behind the shopping center. C. Driveway Throat Depths Similar to other recently approved developments, Cencor is requesting variances to the 100 foot driveway throat depth specified in the Driveway Ordinance. As with those recent developments, the variance allows the site design to be responsive to the topography, site geometry, and other site conditions. Driveways 1 and 2 {SJL-114) r Cencor proposes throat depths of 70' feet and 757, respectively. The variance is needed to allow 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 Rued) — Cencor proposes a throat depth of 75'. Driveway 4 (Dove 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 no negative effect as to site operations. It should be noted that the City's traffic consultant. Lee Enginieering, 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 Eo the horizontal and vertical articulation requirements for the south waII 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.I. 114, and will be screened by an S' masUrrry 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 PRES1•?Rlfl TION The Properiy is challenged with very difficult grade changes. There is approximately 40 feet of grade change from Fast to West and approximately 20 feet from North to South. Sixty percent (60%) of the site has grades in excess of 5%. with mach cif the remainder of the site having 341/o. grades. Of course development of sites with such topography requires extensive Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 11 Rage 4 grading to achieve grades workable for automobiles and people. This was evidenced by the Woodmont Cotnpany`s Southlake Park Village development approved in 2012. In that instance, with slopes in excess of 4'%� the site was approved with the preservation of only 1% 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 has analyzed several different designs for 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 €x tree preservation area along the southeastern portion of the Property. In consideration of tree preservation, the size of the overall development has been signihcafl[ly reduced over Cencor's original proposal. 'While impervious coverage up to 75% is permitted under 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 an 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 cover. That amount would be a 630% 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 developime'nt, 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 Cencor 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 as possible on this site. Thank you for your time and consideration regarding these issues. Please do nut hesitate to contact the regarding any questions you may have concerning this case. Sin l ours, William S. Dahlstrom t . David Palmer Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 12 IACKSON WALKER . September 22, 2014 Via email Mr. Ken Baker City of Southlake 1400 Main Street. Suite 310 Southlake, Texas 76092 William S. Dahlstrom (214) 953-5932 (Direct Dial) (214) 661-6616 Oi rect Fax) wdah]strnrn@jwzorn Re: Application for Variances for the Southlake Town & County Development (Case No. ZA14.099) Dear Ken' On behalf of -Dui- 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 Dave Road between S.H. N 4 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 13. 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. 2405 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, there 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 he preserved. According to Section 7.2. 40% of the pre -development tree coverage is called to be preserved based upon 60.1% - SUN 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. ]'his 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 Strcc[, Suirr 45000 Dallo.71'ctai 75202 (214) 953-6ow - tax (214) 953-5822 www.lw.coai • Austin • Dallas - Fort Worth • Hau;ton San Angelo , San Antonio - Texarkana M abR OF[aaeunwM Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 13 Page 2 After extensive planning,, given the developttnent and building standards of this development, Cencor believes that a variance is warranted for the following reasons that correspond with the factors sets forth ii, Section 15.2 of the 2007 Tree Ordinance. Whether a literal engfbrcemem ref the Ordinance will create an undue hard~hip or an unreasonable p•ucrical car/jiculty 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 "ith 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 properfv and is not self-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 stich a wary 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. . W. Whether a reasonable accommodation or alternative solution can he made to accomplish the desired activity wirhow the alteration f6r 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 8ouievard. This will allo,,v the sireei to developed in a way that preserves more trees in the extra- iarge right cif way. Construction will at ter feNver trees because the extra width will allow the travel lanes to be constructed in a way to more Closely match t}te natural topography. The effect of this will also result in a generous median between the travel lanes, preserving a large area ofexisting tree cover. This design and alternative for tree conservation was intended to help compensate for trees altered within the Propeirty, Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 14 Page 3 ii* R"helher the variance ivill injzrre or be wholly compatible with the use and fulure or extytipg developmem of adjacent projxwiies Fully treed landscape buffer areas will be maintained along all edges adjacent to private Property. Therefore, [lie requested variance will not have an adverse effect on adjacent dcvelopmeuts. Whether the increased development costs caused by preserving the trees create an undue hardship on the developineW of ibe 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. Fasts 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 efject of ibe alteration or Preservation on erosion, soil inoistiure reierttion, flaw of surface waier, and drainage systems: The site and its systems have been engineered to mitigate any adverse effects. vii. The costs vctr.ms the benefits of relocaring required utility service i,aIrastrucfure and easemenry based on preservation or alteration nj`prntecled 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 alrer•etdon 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 h'und or either specifically dedicated fund approved by the City Council, in accordance with Section 9.7 of the -41007 Tree Ordinance, in order to accomplish any additional mitigation warranted.. ix. Whether the: alteration adversely affects the pahtic taeulfh, .sc►f ty r�r tveYara tend The direct effects of the alteration are contained within the Property. The variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety or weifare, 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 15 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: flan. 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 tl�e practical difflcelltleS of laying out a development on a Property that is challenged wish the slope issues of this site and the geometries of the Property resulting aver the dedication of right of way for Kirkwood Boulevard, Dove Road and White CalipeI 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 ordinanecs without burdening the property with an unnecessary hardship, The below regiiested variances will not be injurious to, nor be incompatible with permitted devetopment ofa�iacent properties I. INTERIOR LANDSCAPE VARIANCE: Lut i 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 cif turf it is nearly impossibie 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 i 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 ether landscape standards. . 11. DPdVEWAY TI-1ROAT DEPTHS Similar to Southlake Park Village and other commercial developments (Kimball Oaks, Carroll Pointc and Forest Park Medical), Cencor also requests variances to the throat deptlis that are responsive to site conditions, as sct forth below, acid further depicted in the Site PIan. A. Driveway I (S.I-I.-1 14) - Cencor proposes a throat depth of 70' feet. This variance is needed it) aIIo%%. for vehicular access to the S.1i. 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 weII as screen the larger parking area from S.H. 114 view. The S.1.1. 114 access road is cane way. B. Driveway 2 (S.H.-1 14) - Cencor proposes a throat depth of 75' fbet. This variance is needed to allow for vehicular access to the S.H. 114 side of the two story retail J buildings. These buildings have been established in this fashion to work with the sleep slopes on site as well as screen the larger Barking area fro in S_H. 114 view. The S.H. 114 access road is orie way. Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 16 Page 5 C. Driveway 3 (Dove (toad) — 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 Blvd1 — Cencor proposes a throat depth can the north side of 72' feet. 'ne 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. Ill. INTERNAL LOT LINT✓ 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 I cif Lot 2_ This is needed to al tow the two building walls to be along the common lot line. In addition, the variance will allow fir the _joint parking lint to be constructed in a standard fashion for a retail center. IV. MAXIMUM IM13ERVIOUS COVERAGE A variance is needed for Impervious Coverage for Block 1, Lots I & 2. Per Section 22.5(k) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the maximum impervious coverage shall not exceed 7 5 % and C'.encor's proposal is 75. I%. However, if the area of irnper-vious coverage of the large Kirkwood median being dedicated by Cencor is included in these calctilations, the impervious coverage provided by this deve Iopmerit falls well below themaxI'm urn 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. Cencar 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 Bufferyfard: • Required: 25' wide Bufferyard ("Type .B) with 4 canopy trees, 3 accent trees, and 10 shrubs per 100' of Buffervard_ In accordance with Section 43-21(a) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the amount of canopy trees is raluired to he doubled from two to four. Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 17 Page 6 Provided: Cencor has provided a 257 wide Hut eryard and requests a variance for the planting. requirements, Cencor protmses planting 56 eastern red cedar and 3 canopy trees, along with an eight foot masonry wail. C. 5.11. Highway 114 Bufferyard: + Required: 25' wide Bufferyard (Type 1) with 4 canopy trees, 3 accent trees, and 14 shrubs per 140' 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 Bufieryard, Cencor has provided standard planting of plant material and the canopy trees have not been doubled along the southern edge of the BufTeryard 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. V1. FACADE ARTICULATION: Cencor requests a variance to the horizontal Lined vertical articulation requirements for the south wall of Building A. This is the rear wali cif` the grocery facility that is depicted in the enclosed Site Plan, which is perpendicular to 5.11. 114, and screcned by an 8' masonry wall (which is not required) and by cedar trees. The trees and wall will provide the horizontal and vertical vw-iation 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 inc regarding any questions. Sincerely yours. O$OVGa-- William S. Dahlstrom cc: SharEa It_ Yelverton David Palmer 1 123 5777v.1 124552ft1{}{?[}7 Case No. Attachment D ZA14-099 Page 18 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 200,0W square feet of commercial uses on the western tract and 59 single-family dwelling units on the eastern tract. The overall project is proposed to he 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 Dave. 4DD South Houston Street, Suite 330 Dallas, Texas 75202 P. 214.748.6740 F. 214,748.7037 www.desbarograitp.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 studyarea (referto 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 A411) if/when traffic volumes warrant). • White Chapel Boulevard o a 2-lane, undivided roadway. Shown as an A4D between Dove Road and 5H 114 and a CZU 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 isa 3-lane, one-way roadway. e 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 anci August of 2013. These volumes are shown in Exhibits 4 -b. 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. Far 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. Sate -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 (9t' 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 Manuai-8" Edition excerpts are provided in the Appendix. Table 1 Southlake Center Trip Generation Peak PM Peak Weekend Peak Daily Land Use Quanti#y Hour Hour Hour TrafficLAM In Out In I Out In I Out Eastern Tract 210—Single Family 69 UU 746 15 43 47 28 38 32 Western Tract 820 — Shopping Center 199,678 SF 8,526 119 73 457 495 712 659 944 — 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. Pope 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 Paint -to -Access Point Spacing The TxDOT 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) showsthat: • 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 Dave 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 5H 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 Larne 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 TxDdT and the City of 5outhlake 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). Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 4 Traffic Impact Analysis Analysis Methodology Traffic operational conditions for unsigpallzed 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, t05 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 S 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 forthe 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 Roars intersection fails as an unsignall2ed 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 COS 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 he fully developed by the end of the year 2015 and Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 5 Teble 2 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Results 2)M 2020 Irrterz 6m TrOR ack- Md,g ajM a Sec NSor t AM PM Weekend AM PM Weekerrd AM PM W-bnd SH 114 SSFR @ Dare B f14-71 B JIL2j B f1111 C R3-6J B f1s.Q1 B (125J C 13Q9j C (27A) B jI19f SH Sid NBFR @ D- B 44.41 C f20.E) S j1291 C f25.9) C P;Llj B fffi3j C f3361 D 14i11 B f1291 Ail A ja21 A fEQ1 A R-a1 A t114 A "I A Ref F f3jJ F pa" F jMO 3i N&L F f1689J F Err F r4Lq NOT F fS11P1 F j51e1 D f33,A1 NBR C f2321 C j K61 B f14-T1 Dore @ Kirkwood EBL A W9 A (8.21 A j761 5 f1P.5) A fMj A f701 B f1P91 A j8.&f A f.1) WBL A f94) A fd9J A P12) SBL D j312j C fM11 B j1Qe1 F jm351 D pLS) B fits! F f8779J F P3420) F fasa? sm D ia") B (1Z A (&fl1 B fl.a1 C f25A) A fA4 C 0") C 11s51 D f27s1 wgls*.[ C j2331 C f2911 8 jta41 A fR-B1 A JEO1 A 9M ALL E 0721 0 j-M6) A f521 F 90.01 E f431 A j6-tj F f9i8-61 F fla 7) 0 j" EB 6 jX5S 5 f11.4) A j5-1J E Pa.?) C runs) A f5.91 F p& 91 F U4.41 B f1151 wf Ee eyp- C jaa..ol C p5jj A j651 D fiz21 n Rae! A F74 W6 C j2261 C P-q A ji 5J F fW = E f=5-8) A f461 F fi618f F 11597) B f21-6J Dore @ Whi IM2pel w Ke SFj- E 146A9 n f2q-21 A fe-11 F xzM F FBR21 B f1aff1 N& B j1261 C f2411 A 15..ul D f26.41 F f75.7) A f821 E PM) F j231.81 A (9.5) .WAM Bypas 0 j14A1 C f]9-RJ A j4-21 C (179) F f6721 A f721 SB C jm81 A (&.1) A 152J F f53.E1 B f1i5) A fEu F P&D) C Ila61 B p a37 .1s6 By?-. r j13_44 A issl A ia-51 C p4KA) a f1Q91 A P,4 ALL A j191 A f16] A fL31 A f2s1 A j24 A (231 A PAP A 1431 A f5,4 '.4BL C 4K4 B 93-7J & j1101 C pa?7 C f17) B fu31 D f25A1 D 12821 C f213! Whi�Chapel@nrkwmd 'hBR A f991 B juuL A f321 6 fl") B VMR A fA51 B f7I.2) 0 113.11 B f21&J 5&L A f8,01 A (8.0) A (756 A (92) A jMj A f701 A jM) A f8,81 A i8.31 Ail A pt31 A 1"1 A f131 SH 114 NOR 0 1k+-2 WBR A p91 B 1124 B f1ljg! ALL A p5j A jL21 A f321 511 117 NO R@1h+-1 WBR A fM) B 1114 B f1211 Ail A j161 A f1+1 A fiJ1 A jlaj A j0.01 A fZ4 A (221 A f3j4 N& A fO.OJ A fAQ1 A (9.0) A jaQj A fF.Oi f f5C21 C 12131 C f2121 EBJ. A 193J A (009 B f1DE) A jaOj A fa.01 B U;Ll) A fa.W1 A pliA D-0 Di-3 '.4BL A N-Ul A (00) A (t7.0j A janj A AM A f9. 21 A fR,61 A f9.11 5BL 0 jlaxj A PO) a f10.91 A jo4 A f0.P1 A fa61 A ID-dl A faO) SBR A jaq B (-Uiv A P.0) & f14-6J A fO.Oi B f1121 C 11") A faO) A!! A (14 A (Z51 A fi4] Kirkwood @ Drire 5 EBL A (9.C) B 1114 B fu3) A!! A fa-6i A ji3J A 991 KiM-Dd @ Drire & E&L A (98) A f3.71 A f9.9) A11 A (L0) A 1") A f6.61 N&L E (A") E 14E51 C f20.21 D- @ Drix S NBR B (132) C 11i81 B (12L1 '.4BL A p.M A f991 A f&3) ALL A f"1 A PA) A 911 N&L A 931 A 1111 A i&d1 Whim Chapel @ Ddre9 EBL C f17-61 C j2RP1 B f14L1 EBR B 11i.21 B 11"1 B f1031 A!! A (&I] A 1a61 A 1111J N&L A P31 A fTA1 A f791 Wlhit� Chapel @ Drire 10 EBL C f1e.1J C jIE51 B f-f3,4 EBR B f7I2J 0 jM31 B pal) KEY: A R C A E. FOt-K a+off v Yr Case No. ZA14-099 NT, SA M VA = J L Ll,, S-t, , i -It. VAxtt-Lrd -rv--o4 J.7 R = L.A TM P, F 17Ac U, -6g mmry 1 ,ec 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 1141Dove Road interchange operates acceptably during the morning and afternoon peak periods with 2020 background plus site traffic volumes. 2) The Kirkwood Boulevard/Dove (toad 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 44ane facility. By-pass lanes may also be needed by 2020. NOTE: Recommen do tions 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 ogenry/municipolity. ENO OF MEMO Page 7 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 7 7Lamma rinanamne 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: Per your 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 (REQUIRF IVd 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. 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. 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, v 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.ieeengineering.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. eased 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 CITYOR 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 1TE 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 made 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. LeE rmanErsine 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." 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. ❑ 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. 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 LEUnclna:nnc Case No. ZA14-099 Page 3 of 3 Attachment E Page 10 DeSha�a Group Traffic. Transportation Punning ParklrlQ. Delign- Technical Memorandum To: Mike Clark — Wmkelmann & Associates. Inc. From: Tom Simedy — DeShazo Group, Inc Date: November 13, 2014 Re: Traffic and Transportation Elements for South lake Center on 5H 114 at Dove road in 5outhlake, Texas (DesharoPn*ec.7No f3457) This memorandum is provided to address comments and is a follow-up to discussions held with the City staff. A traffic impact analysis (TIAj was prepared by DeShaxo 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 loIlowing recommendations. 1) All site driveways meet TxDOT's and the City of Southlake's access spacing requirements. 2) Site driveways 91. #2, #5 and #5 will require auxiliaryldeceleration lanes. all of which are shown on the site plan 3) The eastbound approach of the Dove RoadlKirkland Boulevard intersection will require an auxiliary/deceleration lane. which is also shown on the site plan 4) The Dove Road)Kjrkland Boulevard intersection should 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 warranters ac a rem ill of harktgrnimrl traffic increp&es, 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 aoC sawn wrlae sie..e. Seat. 1]0 7433a., Tema ?+-202 P. !1/-'�{6-c':. - .. . 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 tripsf1,000 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 24% increase in daily traffic. It should be noted that "passby" trips were not considered in this study The IT Trip Germmahon manual allows for a 35% reduction in net traffic based upon people who are already on the road and decade 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 signalizabon at the Dove Road1Kirkwood Boulevard intersection The current study reports that background traffic plus site traffic in the year 2020 may meet three warrants outlined an the Manual on Oritharm Traffic ConfrU 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 consultant's 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 Suffacrent to recommend installing a traffic signal at this time. It would be recommended that conduit and pull boxes be installed all 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 Soutwire cairn, fi&W and Trarr4uWk 7 A syesuriw r Paw Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 12 N4DeShazo Group Traffic. Tranapoc Gat:scn r:ann:n,7 Parking. Des,= . October I3, 2014 Mr. Mike Clark Winkelmann & Associates, Inc. 6750 Hillcrest Plaza Drive, Suite :325 Dallas, TX 75230 RE: Proportionality of Southlake Center Traffic on Kirkwood Boulevard in Southlake, Texas Wro jest No. I3037) Dear Mr. Clark: The DP5ha7.o Group has bean asked to determine the proportion of traffic generated by the Sou d-dAe Center to the capacity of Kirkwood Boulevard. Kjrkwexul Boulevard is a proposed four -lane, divided roadway that would serve the east side of the commercial site. Basest upon the traffic impact analysis, the largest t-o-way traffic volume occurs during; the weekend peal: hour. During this peak hour, a projected 731 trips will use Kirkwood Boulevard. The North Central Texas Council of Governments has gruidelinv i defining capacity for various classifications of roadways. Based upon the Iocation and the cross section of Kirkwood Boulevard, it would lx, ronsidered a suburban residential, minor arterial_ NCTCOG's capacity for this facility is 900 vehicles per laru, per hour. This four -lane, divided facility has wi hourly capacity of 3,600 vehicles. Therefore, the Suuthlake Center's proportion of capacity would be 731 f 3,600, or 20.3 percent (20.3°%)_ Sincerely, DeM IAZO GROUP, INC. Tom Sirnerly, P.E.. President TJSJsk c• c Swth Nats:v.: &_rwc, suss. )SC ua las, :a.a. 75iDk p. t1/.�48.i710 F ill 75D TD]T vw.dura..p�7rnuy cm Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 13 2 -zx- tz Or5h4jr.:. Tang &AnNi,ues. !r... ROADWAY Ll K fI>rd'vtd fror!I the Nofrtle Centml7exas Courrcil of Goi errmtenlc (NCTCOG) modehrrg paramckrs.j For roadway links in this analysis, per -lane link capacities are defnled as the values used in regional transportation modeling procedures by ,NCCCOG. Link capacity is a function of surrounding land development chamcterisfics (e.g., central business district, suburban, etc.) and the functional classification of the roadway (e.g. arterial, Incal street, etc.). A summary of hourly and daily link capacities per larte is provided in the table immediately below. By calculating the ratio of volume to rapacity for a roadway link, LDS may be defined, Based upon guidelines established by NCTCOG, LOS criteria are summarized in the second table; ARE IYrI CUI] Table A. Hourly Roadway Link Service Volumes (Per Lane) {Dcwwed from parameters used by North Gen&al Texas Counci of GovatnmL-nts) _ _ ROADWAY FUNCPIONAL CLASSIFICATION CUD Fringe Urban Residential Suburban Residential Rural Principal Arterial Minor ArberW Collector Local Frontage Road 725 725 475 475 725 (650) (650) (425) (425) (650) 775 775 500 SOD 775 (725) (725) (450) W) (725) 850 825 525 525 850 (775) (750) (475) (475) (750) 925 %0 575 575 900 (875) (825) (525) (525) (825) 1,025 W5 6OU 600 975 (925) (825) (a50) (5w) (975) Mkt N - Divided oi- Oau--Way Roads (ltkkI) = undivided Roads Table B. Daily Roadway Link Level-of-Sorvice Guidelines {Vunved from parardderars used by North Central texas Council of Govemrrdorrls) Volume/capacity Level -of -Service Ratio x [ 0.65 A/B/C D.65 < x S LIK) D/E x > 1,00 F TrdOc l mlurt A naNs is Apperakx 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: wWinkelniann &Associates, Inc. Winkelrnann & Associates, Inc. 6750 Hilltrest Plata Suite 325 Dallas, Texas 75230 Prepared by: DeShaz Group Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-3199 Engineers ■ Planners 400 South Houston Street Suite 330 • Union Station Dallas, Texas 75202 Phone: 214-748.6740 Fax: 214-748-7037 Novernber 12, 2014 DeShaao 1113057 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 15 DeShaz❑ Group Traffic. Tranaportation Planr.tng- Parking. Design. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To; Mr. Mike Clark, P.E. Winkelmann & Associates, Inc From- DeSharo Group, Inc. Date- November 12, 2014 Re: Traffic Signal Warrant Assessment for the Intersection of Dove Road and Kirkwood Boulevard in Southlake, Texas (DeSharo #13057) Introduction The services of DeSharo Group, Inc. (DeSharo) were retained by Winkelman & Associates, Inc. to conduct a Traffic Signal Warrant Assessment for the intersection of Dove Road and Kirkwood Boulevard in Southlake, Texas. DeSharo 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 assortated requirements of the local approval process. Signal Warrant Assessment -Existing Conditions Traffic Signal Warrants The Texas MUTCU 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 Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 2—Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 3--Peak Hour Warrant 4--Pedestrian Vohime Warrant i• School Crossing Warrant "oordinaled Signal System Warrant 7—Crash Experience Warrant 8--Roadway Network 400 South aoustpn Strest, Suata 230 Dallas. Texas 75202 P. 214-745.6140 P. 214.740.70-3 spow. deatraaogroup. 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 he generated and added to the existing volumes for a 'future scenario' analysis. Table 1 2013 Hourly Volumes Time Caw We L T 11 Kirk-ood 59 Dave a 1 T R t T _Start 6 OG AM so 42 265 7_0AM 316 141 523 Ado AM 246 R2 470 9WAM 94 5t 248 1090 AM 91 40 143 1I'M AM 96 107 Ssa 12:00 PM 122 100 267 1-DD P1.1 113 54 232 2,00 PA1 185 74 248 3fl0 PM 216 110 215 4100 PM 20s 241 218 5'Sopm 227 361 280 610OPM 235 1" 257 7 W F,M 144 82 151 AM PM 103 38 318 9.00PM 77 21 83 10-00PM �a 3 6o 11mPM 17 4 23 Right Turn Reductions The texas MUTCO 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 l i.e-, there is not a significant queue of vehicles turning left yr traveling straight), then: "Engineering judgment Onurd he used to determine who), if any, portion of the ►ighr-turn froffk is subtracted from the minor- street rroffrc count when evoltvoting the count ogainst the above signed worronts."r 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 (lie 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 dimctly evaluated as a primary factor in the justification of the traffic signal installation- ' TxMtl7C9 2CM- Sect. 4C.0I page 4C•1 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 17 * Based upon background knowledge of the subject Intersertloos, the basis for this traffic signal warrant assessment is derived primarily from vehicular traffic volumes. The pedestrian activity and accident history warrantswill dnly be examined if the rrolumetricwarrants are not satisfied. The rem ainirlgvolume-related warrants 11, 2 and 3) are considered in this analysis. The results of the analysis far existing (2a13) traffic volumes are summarized in Table 2 and detailed results are provided in Appendix. Table 2 Existing Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Results Weekday Warrant 1. Eighi.Hour"IN iGiior 1plUrn4 No Satlst■ed Warrant 2. Four. Haur Vehicular Vakvnc Noq $ati5rITd Warrant 3. Peak -Hour Vehicular Valume Hal 5atislied The Texas MUTCD stipulates that a treffle signal control may be installed at the discretion of the authorized agency responsible for traffic control installation and maintenance provided that one pr more of the published signal warrants are lnet. 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 Tahie 4 illustrates the future background traffic volumes on dove and Kirikwoocl assurning a 4% growtf7 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-r traffic valumes entering the intersection) on the major street and the higher of the two minor street approach volumes. The volumes used for arlalysis include the existing traffic volumes and traffic volumes for the proposed development derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual 39t4 UltionM. ITE Trip Caenerobon is a compilation of actual traffic generation data by land use as coil acted over several decades tycreditable 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 essamed that the "mode split" chneacterls ties inherent to fhe ITE felp cores will aderluatefy reflect the mode choices ckxsorfated with this development. Table 3 20210 Hpurlyfiackground Volurnes Time Start Guvu wa Kirkwood S9 I Davq E9 L T rt L T P I L T R b5 55 349 I KIrkw04d No L T IN 6:00AM 7:00AM 442 105 G88 8:00AU 324 109 G19 9'00AM 124 75 326 100DAM 120 53 186 '11:06AM 126 141 206 1M OPryi J61 132 351 itopM 149 i1 304 2706PM 243 97 326 3:WPM 311 14; 283 440prA 2711 337 287 5MPM 293 476 358 6M PM 309 262 336 7JXPhi 190 109 199 B PM 136 51� 155 SMPM 101 28 109 10-091?M 37 4 79 11:00IRM 22 5 30 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 18 Table 41ummar1xes the trip generation calculations for the pro pas ed center. The appropriate excerpts from the ITE Trip Generation Manuaf-e Edition are provided In the Appendix. Table 4 Southlake Center Trio Generation AM Peak HOOT Land Use quantity Icily Total In put TvAcr PM Peak Hour weeks rkd Ptak Wllr Total In Out Total In Out 8Z0 — 54pappiCenter 204r304 8.725 196 122 74 1 9$7 464 503 1,391 723 663 rbtnfs 9,725 196 122 74 1 967 464 503 4391 723 6" 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 [enters of various sizes_ Exhibit 3 illustrates these factors as shown in the ITE Trip Generation manual {8jh Edition}_ using the factors shown In Table 1 of Exhibit 3, an additional 12 hours of traffic Jatq for the shopping center was generated. Hourly turning movements were then calculated for the Intersection by applying the trip orientation percentages Shown in the De5hazo traffic study dated October 31, 2013 to the shopping center volumes (and assuming that itlese percentages remain the same al! day). The traffic volumes associated with the proposed shopping Center are shown irlTable 5. Table 6 shows the sum of the 2020 background traffic and the 20210 Site traffic and it is this volume set which will be used for the future signal warrant analysis. Table 5 Hourly 5happrng Center Traffic Using dove Road and glrkwood bolwleVard Based on ITE Hourly Shopping Center Trip Rates nme L no" wB I T_ R kkkwood Sc t 7 tL Mve E6 L T R 1 IGrk..f d NilStart T It 6_W AM 7-0 AM 33 12 12 7 18 16 4 16 a-00 AM 9'0a AM 14A4 AM 9D 93 23 28 50 62 14 62 i 1.-M AM 90 33 33 37 50 91 19 R1 12;00PM 90 33 33 36 50 79 18 79 1;06PM 91 30 30 33 45 73 16 72 LOD PM i06 39 39 34 59 75 17 75 3:C0 PM 31� at 42 41 53 91 21 91 450 FM 114 42 42 45 fi3 100 23 log 596D PM 125 4G 46 So po 111 25 ill G:6D PM 97 32 32 35 49 11) i9 ED 7-.W PM 94 24 24 23 35 sl 12 51 6;0D PM 49 A 1B 19 27 41 9 41 99D PM 22 6 8 a 12 17 4 17 10tDD AM 11;OD PM 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 Hates Tirm 51art ! Ovvc'.V2 I N L6 [irkv cd58 l 1 R l 55 Dove T 349 R l ItirkwoW rr8 r >i 6fla ALM 7200 AM 33 454 199 696 18 16 4 i6 a-00 "1 324 lob 619 9:00 AM 124 75 326 1000 AM W 153 96 217 so 62 24 62 11AOAM M to 174 24S so &I to at 32-00H111 N 194 165 387 50 79 is 79 ! '00 PM a] 179 101 337 45 72 16 72 LODPM 106 293 137 360 59 7S 17 75 3WFM 113 3S2 187 124 63 91 21 M 4.-00PM 114 112 359 332 63 300 13 laa 5 Do FM 125 345 523 419 70 111 25 111 690PM 87 342 294 374 A so is 80 73,OPM 64 213 131 222 35 51 12 s1 RWPM 49 154 6g 174 2r 41 9 41 9.00 PM 2I 110 36 117 12 17 4 17 30-00 PM 37 4 79 111r10PM 22 5 30 Right Turn Reductions The Texas MUTCE) 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 unsignali2ed, STOP controlled intersection approach- At intersection approaches on the minor street where lire 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- 'Eagineering judgment should be used to determine what, if any, portian of the fight -turn traffic is subtracted fram Me rninar- street traffic count when evaluating the court! ogoinsr the above sigool wormy s."11 In order to be consistent with the existing conditions analysis, no adjustments far right turns have liven made - Warrant Analysis The warrant analysis is based on the following assumptions' ■ The traffic volumes for this study are composed of existing counts on Uove Road and Kirkwood Boulevard fMay & 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 appropriateiy 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. 7xMl1TCn 2006- Sect- 4C-01 page 4C-I Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 20 Appe►adix A Traffic .Signal Warrant Descriptions Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 21 Appendix B Troffic Count Dato Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 22 Appendix C Traffic Signal Warrant Summary Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 23 ARIZONA rr 1, TEXAS NEW MEXICO OKLAHOMA im rinainErivne November 20, 2014 Alex Ayala, P.E. City of Southlake 1400 Main Street, Suite 320 Southlake, Texas 76092 Re, Southlake Town & Country T1A Review — November 2014 Revision - (Formerly Southlake Cen ter) 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. 5. 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 L8J Freeway, Suite 1660, Dallas, TX 75234 {972j 248-3006 office (972) 248.3855 fax I www.leeengineering.com page 1 of 2 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 24 If you have any questions, please contact meat (972) 248-3006. We appreciate the opportunity tc provide these services and are available to address any additional comments or concerns. Sincerely, Joseph-T. Slhort, P.E., PTQE Lee Engineering TBPE Firm F-450 varcananirivne Case No. ZA14-099 Page 2 of 2 Attachment E Page 25 . DeShazo Group 1�rafiic. r=Epwtaticn Planning. Parking. Design. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To; Michael Clark, P-E. Winkelmann &Associates, Inc_ From; DeShaxo Group, Inc. Date: January26, 2015 Re: A Traffic Impact Analysis for Southlake Center, a Proposed Commercial Development in SouthlakerTexas (DeShara #13057) Introduction The services of DeShaxo Group, Inc were retained by Winkel mann & Associates, Inc- to conduct a Traffir Impact Analysis and Access Assessment for South lake Center, a proposed commercial development located at the intersection of Dove Road and Kirkwood fiaulevard (SW Corner) in Southlaloe, Texas (see Exhibit 1). The DeShaxo Group is an engineering consulting firm providing licensed engineers ski lied in the field of traffir &transportation engineering. This study will examine the potential traffic generated by the proposed development plan and will determine the general avai la bil ity of a eeess a nd roadway capacity ava ilable to serve it for the fallowing scenarios= • Existing conditions (2013) • Project buildout (2015 ) • Project buildout + 5 years (2020}_ Qn€e completed, this report will be provided to City of Southlake staff (Staff} and TxDOT for review and to fulfill the associated requi rements of the local a pprova I process. Proposed Development Characteristics This proposed development consists of approximately 200r000 square feet of commercial uses_ The overall project is proposed to be fully developed by the end of 2-015. Exhibit 2 offers a con€eptuaI site plan and shows the roadway improvements included with the project inducting: 1) The construction of deceleration lanes on Dove Read at Kirkwood and at Drive 3, on Kirkwood fiou le -ward at Drives 4 a nd 5 and on SH 114 Frontage Road at Drives 1 a nd 2, 2) the construction of a raised median on dove at Drive 3 and 3) the construction of four la nes on ICirkvrood south of Dove Road till Drive 4 and construction of two of the ultimate four lanes on Kirkwood south of Drive 4 to the project limit. d8O South Mauston Street! Suite 330 Dallas, Texas 35202 F_ 214.74S_6744 F_ 214.74S.7437 wwuw_deskaxogmup.com Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 26 Roadways and Accessibility The following existing roadways will provide primary (direct) access to the subjectsite and are included in the study area Irefer to Exhibit 3 for Southlake's Mobility Plan}: Dove Road a 44ane, divided roadway with additional 'turn lanes at major intersections between Kirkwood Boulevard and SH 114 and a 2-la ner undivided roadway east of Kirkwood Boulevard and West of SH 114- Shawn as an A4D between Kirkwood Boulevard and 5H 114 and an A2U east of Kirkwood Boulevard and West of SH 114 {with the passibility of an upgrade to an A4D tf/when traffic volumes warrant). • White Chapel Boulevard a 2-lane, undivided roadway. Shawn 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 c a 'Pane, divided roadway north of Dave Road and east of White Chapel Boulevard- The portion of Kirkwood Boulevard between Dove Road and White Chapel Boulevard has not been constructed - The fol owing intersections will also be included in the impact analysis: Dove Road @ White Chapel Boulevard, • Dove Road @ Kirkwood BouleYardr * Dove Road @ the SH 114 frontage roads, * 51111114 northbound frontage road 1@ 2 site driveways IDrives #1 & 2}, * Dove Road @ 1 site driveway (Drive #31, and * Kirkwood Boulevard P 3 site driYeways (Drives#4, 5, & 6). 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 analyti:al methodologies where appli€a We. 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 co. lectedr 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 sta ndard four -step approach: Trip Generationr Mode Split, Trip distribution and Traffic Assignment- By add ing the si"enerated traffic to the future to ckgrou nd traffic, th a resu Iti ng traffic impact to operational conditions may be assessed from which mitigation measures may be recommended. Existing Traffic 'Volumes Existing peak hourtraffic volumes were colleted in the study area in I'Aay and August of 2413. These volumes are shown in Exhibits 4 - G. detailed traffic counts can be found in the Appendix - Page 2 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 27 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 buildout year of 2015 and horizon year of Z020 and that an average annual growth rate of 496 will occur each year for the next 7 years. Applying this factor to the existing traffic volumes yields the 2101S and 2020 background volumes shown in Exhibits 7 -12. Site -Related Traffic Volumes Trip Generation and Made Split Trip generation for the Project was calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITEM Trip Generation manual (9°h Edition). IIE Trip Generation is a compi Iation of actua I 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 Odsts- 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 sitar but who already pass through the study area during the peak periodsl- 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 fTE Trip Generation Mama?-SP Edition excerpts are provided in the Appendix - Table i South lake Center Trip Generation AM Peak PM Peak Weekend Peak Land Use Quantity Daily Traffic Hour Hour Hour In Uut In I Out IIn Out 820 —Shopping Center—204,343 SF 8r725 122 74 4&t S33 723 658 Totals 8,725 122 74 464 503 723 669 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 13 - 15 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 bath background and site -related traffic- The site -generated traffic was €alculated by multiplying the trip generation values (from Table 1) by the corresponding traffic approach and departure orientations JExhibits 13 - 15). The resulting peak-hourr site generated traffic volumes of the Project are summarized in Exhibits ib - 18- Future Background plus Site Traffic Volumes Adding the new site -related traffic volumes from Exhibits 16 - 18 to the 201S and 202JU background traffic volumes shown in Exhibits 7 -12 yields the total peak period traffic volumes at the Project buildout years are shown in Exhbils: 19 - 24. Page 3 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 28 Access Assessment The a cress assessmerrt portion of this study will examine three major a reas= 1) The spacing between the proposed driveways and adjacent driveways, 2) The spacing between pro posed d riveways and adjacent publ i€ street i ntersectio ns a nd 3) The need for acceleration f deceleration lanes based on the projected turning movements at the proposed driveways. Access Point-to-Arresg Point Spacing The TxDOT Access Management Manual requires 3fio' between access points an a one-way facility with a posted speed limit of 45 mph as is the case on the SH 114 northbound frontage road in the area of the proposed development (see Exhibit 25�_ The site plan {Exhibit 2) shows that: • Drive 1 is located approximately 355' from property boundary and 736' from the ramp [physical gore} • Drive 1 is located approximately 445' from Drive 2 a nd • Drive 2 is located a pproxi mately 455' from Dove Road Therefore, all distances exceed the minimum separation requirements_ The City of SDuthlake controls the access spacing on both Dare Road and Kirkwood Boulevard and requires 25o' between driveway centerlines and 2W between driveways and street intersections on an arterial. Applying these criteria to the proposed site plan (Exhibit 2), we find that= • Drive 3 is over 400' from the SH 114 northbound frontage road and Over 500' from IGrkwood Bou levardr • Drive 4 is approximately 390r from Dove Road • Drive 5 is approximately 500r from Drive 4 and • Drive 6 is approximately 330r from Drive 5 Therefore, all distances exceed the minimum driveway seporotion requirements. Sight Distance Criteria DeShazo conducted sight distance analysis based on AASHTO Des4an standards for the Horizontal sight distance and Vertical sight distance near the project vi€ini y. The vertica sight distance was not performed due to fact that the project area and a field visit to the project location found the SH 114 frontage Road and Site Driveways location appearto be adequate. Site drive 1 and 2 appears to intersect the existing SH 114 frontage road at 9+0 degree angle to the horizontal curvature. The AASHTO design guide spedfies a stopping 5iglrt distance (SSD) of 360' and an intersection sight distance (ISD) for the outbound right -turn maneuver from a site driveway (minor street) of 43orr respectively for a posted speed limit of 45 mph with a vehide driver eye sight setback of 14.5' from the curb of SH 114 frontage read. The findings from the preliminary site plan are shown in Exhibits 26 - 27. • Site Driveways (Drives 1 & 2) on the SH 114 frontage roadways shown on Exhibit 2-Preliminary site plan satisfy both the SSD and ISD for use B2 - Right -turn from the minor road_ A H driveways satisfy the AASHM minim"m horizontal sight distance requirements_ Auxiliary daneAssessment This portion ofthis study will examine the need for i uxiliaryor turn lanes based on the projecbed turning movements at the proposed access points_ Both TxDOT and the City of Southlake require that auxilia ry turn lanes be provided when the turning movements exceed GOvehides per hour for right turns an a roadway Page 4 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 29 Tahle 2 �L u el.. silk 200 2015 2020 Intersection Traffic Background Background+Site Backeround Background+Site Movement AM PM Weekend AM PM Weekend AM PM Weekend AM PM Weekend AM PM Weekend SH114SBFR1d B I58 6 f16 4 B 66 B ff2 B 165 B 170 B 169 B fl8gC 2 6 r164B 183 B fJ73 B 170 C 206 B 198 SH114NBFRM B (199) C f288) C (309) C f203) C (292) C f3I 1) C (203) C (3D2) C (272) C (204) C f301J C (311) C (208) C (31.7) C (2S7) ALL A (4.0) A f5.71 A f2.91 A (4.4) A (6.11 A (2.9) A (5.9) F f81.15j 8 f11.8j A f7.0j A f7.9j A (3.0) 6 f1I.8j F(-100) 8 (I4.2) INK D 133.8) F fIlW) F (61.1) F (53.5) F (1100) F (885) NET D 134.91 D (28.1) C (22.1) D (33.3) E f35.81 C (24.8) NBR A (9.3) B (10.1) A (9.4) A (96) B f10.3) B (11.8) Cwe W Mrkwuod EEL A (8.9) A (8.1) A (7.6) A (9.1) A 18.3) A (761 A (9.2) A (&2) A (7.8) A (9.9) A (8.4) A p.7) A (10.0) A 18.5) A (7.97 WBL A (80) A (84J A (79) A (82) A f86) A (80) SBL D (30.5) C (17.7) B (10.6) E (37.3) C 119.8) B (10.9j F (84.7) ❑ (29.8) B (11.6j SBR B (I0.3) B (11.6) A (89j B (I0.6) B fI2.2) A (&9j B (11.4) B (14.3) A (9.1) SELL F 155.0) F JNIW) C (24.61 F (1I00) F (,100) D 095) SBTR B 11L6) C (20.5) C (15.9) B (12.9) D (32.81 C (167) w/Signo! A (9.1) C (25.8) 3 (15.7) ALL 8 f12.2j B (10.7) A (4.9) 8 f142) 8 fill) A f50j C (15.9) C (195) A (7..4) 0 (755) C (193) A f5.5) C (222) C (22.7) A f7.7) EB B (112) A (95) A (4.7) R (12 7) B f10 5) A (4 9j B f13 7) C (162) A (7 6) C (19 7) B (14 5) A (54) C (22.3) D (263) A f8.4) w/f8 C f22.3) D (26.3) A f&4) WE B (14.5) B (11. 1) A (5.1f C (174j 0112.7) A (5.3j C f20.0) C (19.9) A (7.8) E (37.1) C (19.8) A (5.8) E (46.6) E f35.I) A (8.7) Dove @ White gwff 9 f285) 0 (28.I) A f&4) Chapel NB B (I0.11 B (13.1) A (4.7) B (11.1) C 1I53) A (4.8) B (72.0) D (27.4) A (7.0) C (162) D (28.5) A (5.2) C (17.7) F (5I.9) A (7.7) w/1P8 B (f23) C (23.7) A f6.6) SB B (12.1) A (7.1) A (4.8) B (13.9) A f7.63 A (4.91 C e15.6) A (9.7) A (7.1) C (232) A 49.3) A f53) ❑ (27.4) B f12.0) A (79) w/SB D f27A) 8 (D-2) A f7.9) Bypnss ALL A f1.3) A (LS) A (1.6) A 11.4) A f1.1) A 11.6) A (1.5) A (1.8) A (2.4) A (1,6) A (I.3) A (1.8) A (I.7) A fI.9) A (2.5) White Chapel da WBL B (132) B (12.4) B (10.4) B (13.9) B f12.9) 0 (10.6) B f14.3) B (14.7) B (12.9) C (16.4) B 114.7) B (11.3) C (16.9) C (I7-1) B (13.9) Kirkwood WBR A f96) A (99) A (9.0) A (9.7) A f100) A (9.1j A (9.8) B (105) A (97) B (101) B f105) A 193) B (102) B (I10) A floc) SBL A (78J A (79) A (76J A (79) A f80) A (76j A (79) A (81J A (78) A (9 0) A (a2) A (77) A (81) A f84) A (79j SH 114 NBFR M ALL A (0.2) A fo.9) A (2.0) A (02) A (0.9) A fl. 9) Drivel WBR B f11.4) C (15.3) B (12.7) B (12.1) C (I7.3) B (13.3) SH 114 NBFR @ ALL A (0.2) A (1.5) A (3.7) A (0.2) A (I.5) A (3.6) Drive 1 WBR B 17I.41 C (16.4) B (13.6) B (12.4) C (I0-9) B (14.3) ALL A f1.5) A (Is) A (&0) A 11.5) A f1.4) A f0.B) A (1.7) A (1.9) A (2.1) A fI.6) A (I.6) A (a 0) A (Ls) A (2.1) A (2.I) NB A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0-0) A (0-0) A M-03 A (0.01 C 119.7) B (13.1) B (13.4) A (0.0) A 10.0) A (0.0) ❑ (273) B f142) B (14.1) Dove @ EEL A f23) A (0.0) A (O.Of A (23) A M-0) A (0.0j A (92) A (O.Of A (0.0) A (9.8) A f0.0) A y.0) A (9 9) A M-0) A (0.0} Verimn(Drm 3 WBL A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) A M-0) A M-0) A (0.01 A (8.6) A (&4j A (8.4) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (9 0) A f8.4) A (&5j SBL A f9.8) A (0.0) A (0.0) B f30.0) A f0.0) A (0.01 B f10.0) A (O.Oj A (0.0) B (10.5) A (0.0) A (O.0) A (0 0) A M-0) A (0.0) SBR A (O-Oj B (11.2) A (0-0) A M-0) B (II.6) A (0-0) A (0.0) B (12. 7) A (0-0) A (O.0) B (13.0) A (0.0) B (10.5) 6 (14.5) A (0.0) Kirkwood 6a IXire4 ALL A (i.4) A f2.3) A (1.3) A (1.3) A (2.2) A fl.3) EEL A (92) B (102) B (115) A (9. 1) B f108) B (11.1) Nirkwaotl Drre5 ALL A (3.4) A (5.1) A (4.6) A (3A) A (5.1) A 96) EEL A (9.0) A (9.8) B (10.1) A (9.0) A 0-9) B (101) Kirkwood Drve6 ALL A (2.8) A f4.5) A (4.I) A (1-9) A (4.5) A f41) EEL A (9-5) A (8.6) A (8.6) A (85) A f8.6) A (86j Page s Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 30 with a speed of 45 mph or less Isee Appendix)_ Applying the volume threshold standard W the proposed site traffic (Exhibits 16 -18) shows that: L) The projected right turn traffir vol u mes on the SH 114 northbound frontage road at Drive's 1 and 2 exceed thevolume threshold for an auxiliary lane (proposed and shown on the site plan). 2) The projected eastbound right turn traffic volumes on dove Road at Drive 3 exceed the vol ume threshold for an auxiliary lane lone is proposed and shown on the site plan}_ 3) The projected eastbound right turn traffic volumes on dove Road at Kirkwood Boulevard exceed the volume threshold for a n auxi liary la ne (one is proposed a nd shown an the site plan)_ 4) The projected right turn traffic volumes on Kirkwood at Drive's 4 and 5 exceed the volume threshold for an auxiliary lane (proposed and shown on the site plan)_ internal Storage (Stocking IMinimum Throat Length) AYsessment This portion of the study will examine the site driveways for the intern a storage criteria_ The City of South lake driveway ordinance (Table two) states the internal storage sha I be based on the average number of parki ng spaces per driveway - 50 to 199 spa€esfdriveway+ (rota I n umber driveways E) a nd tota I nu m ber of parking spa€es of 240 plus category for th is project (total pa rking spaces provided - 1r127 spaces)_ ,Applying the parking threshold standard to the proposed site plan shows that: 1) The 5 ite Driveways shown on the preli m inary site pla n on Exhi bit 2 meets the City required minimum storage lengths (IN')_ The outbound approach ane shows a minimum required continuous curb up to the front right -&-way line_ Traffic Impact Analysis Analysis Methodology Traffic operational conditions for unsignaltzed 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 ctiaracteristi€s of the 'traffic signal_ The standardized methodology applied herein was developed by the Transp-nrtation Research R4ard as presented in the 2010 Highway Copacrty Manual (RCM)- HCM a Iso qua litatively rates the overal I delay conditions in terms of "Level -of -Service" (LOS) ranging from "A" (free -flowing conditions) to "F" (overcapacity conditions)- Cenerallyr LDS 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 Synchra 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 Thefollowing assumptions were included as pa rt 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 indi€atesr all interchanges and intersections operate acreptabiy daring the morning and afternoon peak periods with 2013 traffic volumes_ Future (2015) Background Conditions The foltowing assumptions were included as pa rt of the future background conditions analysis: • The traffirvolumes collected in May and August of 2013 have been increased by 4% per yearfortwo years to reflect the normal growth in the study area and represent average daily traffic levels for the Vear 2015_ Page 5 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 31 As Table 2 indi€ates, 1) The 514 114/Dove Road interchange operates acceptably during the morning and afternoon peak periods with 2015 background traffic LiMumes- 2) The Kirkwood Boulevard / Dove Road intersection operates with acceptable !US except for the 5B left -turn movement as an unsignaNzed operation during the AM peak periods. 3) The Dove RaadfWhite Chape•1 roundabout operates with acceptable 10S during the AM, PM and Saturday peak periods - Future (2015) `BviIdout 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 • The traffic volumes collected in May and August of 2013 have been increased by 41A per year for two years to reflect the norma l growth in the study area and rep reser t average da i y t raffic levels for the year 2015- As Table 2 indicates, 1) The SH 114/0ove Road interchange operates acceptably during the morning and afternoon peok periods with 2015 baekgFoLmdpOus site traffic volumes. 2) At Kirkwood Boulevard f Dowe Road intersection, NS and 5B left -turn movements exhibit delays ON an unsignaliredoperation during the peak periods. 3) The Dove Road1WWte Chapel roundabout operates with acceptable t0S during the AM, PM and Saturday peak periods - Future (2020) Background Conditions The follo-wing assumptions wereincluded as part of the future ba-cgmund 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 yizar 2020- As Table 2 indicates, 1) The 5H 114/0ove Road interchange operates acceptably during the morning and afternoon peok periods with 2020 background traffic wo0umes- 2) The southbaund approach of the Kirkwood Boulevard / Dove Road intersection exhibit daJaya under unsignanzed conditions during the AM peak- The 2020 background volumes, however, do notsatisfy the trafficsignal warrants (see warrantstudy in Appendix)- 3) The westbound approach of the Dove Road/White Chapel roundabout win experience delays during the AM peak period- A bypass Jane maybe warranted. Future (202-0) Background plus Site Conditions The fallowing assumptions were included as part of titre future background plus site conditions analysis: • The proposed project will be fully developed by the end of the year 2015 and • 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 5F} 114/Dove Road interchange operates acceptably during the morning and afternoon peak periods with 2020 background pOus site traffic volumes. Page Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 32 2) The Kirkwood Boulevard f Dove Road intersection exhibit delays as an unsignalired operation Caring the PM peak period'. ff this location is signalized, however, the levels ofservice will return to acceptable values- 3) The westbound and northbound approaches of the Dove Road%White Chapel roundabout will experience delays during the AM and PM peak periods. Bypass lanefs) gray be warranted - In order to determine the feasibility of signalizing 'the Dove/Kirkwood intersection, a traffic signal warrant a nalysis has been conducted- This study found that existi ng volumesr year 2015 bui Idout volumes do not satisry the warrant criteria- However, with the addition of seven years cf background traffic growth and the site traffic, the projected volumes satisfy one -hour, fflur-hour and eight -hour volume warrants. The detailed warrantanalysis can be found in the Appendix. Conclusions and Recommendations This report has examined the access and traffic impact of Southlake Center [a proposed Commercial development in South lake, Texas] on the adjacent roadway system- The findings indicate the following: 1) All site driveways meet TxDOT and Southlake access spacing requfremerrts, 2) Site Driveways fDrrve) #1, 02, #3, #4 and #5 will require auxiliary / deceleration larres (all of which are shown on the sire plan)- 3f The eastbound approach of the Dove/Firkwood intersection will require on auxiliary f deceleration lane fwhirh is also shown on the site plan)_ 4) The intersection of Dove Road and Kirkwood Boulevard should be signalized by year 2020 or when vohrmes satisfy the warrant criteria- In order to determine the feasibility of signalizing the Dove/Kinirwood intersection, a traffic signal warrant analysis has been conducted- This study found that existing volumes and year 201S BuHldout volumes do not satisfy the warrant criteria- however, with the additian of seven years of background traffic growth and the site traffic the projected volumes for year 2020 satisfy one -hour, four-hour and eight -hour volume warrants- The detailed warrant analysis can be found in the Appendix- SJ Because one or more of the approaches to the single,fane roundabout at Dove and White Chapel will experience delays in 2020, a Ykwrhbound and%r westbound by-pass lane may be warranted. PIOT€: ftecorrrmerrdatiorrs for pubfk improvements within the study area presented in this report rejfee the opinion of ovShazo based saiefy upon te€hni€af analysis and profiessionof judgment and are not intended to definer imply, or aflocate funding sources nor required fmprovemerrts. Applicable leguf preredent indicates that the owner of a Project shour d only be required to pnaportionatdp fund necessary infrastructure improvements that are dire€tfy attributable to implementation of the Project- such requirements wO depend upon the individual circumstances of each project that may be viewed differently by eochh porrkufar agerncWmarnAdpalfty. Ff4!} OF J4itlU0 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 33 Oe ha o Group Thmffic, ThmEpwtatinn Planning Parking, Design, TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Mr- MikeClark, P.E. Winkelmann & Associates, Inc. From: DeShazo Group, Inc. Date: January26, 20IS Re: Traffic Signal Warrant Assessment for the Intersection of Dmre Road and Kirkwood Boulevard in South lake, Texas {DeShaza #13051JI! Introduction The services of DELShazo Groupr In€_ (DELShazol were retained by btilinkelrnann & Assndatesr In€_ to conduct a Traffic Signal Warratrt Assessment for the intersection of Dove Road and Kirkwood Boulevard in Southlake, Texas. DeShazo is an engineering consuFting firm providing licensed engineers skilled in the field of traffic & transportation engineering. The subject intersection is located on Dove Read approximate IV 1,00-0 feet east of the SH 114 niarthbound frontage road and 1,004 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 F)_ This report will summarize the findings of the Traffic Signal btilarrant 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) fortechnical review to fulfill the associated requirements ofthe local approval process. Signal Warrant Assessment -Existing Conditions Traffic Signal Worronfs The Texas MUTCD deft nes a series of traffic signal warrants to be use-d in the investigation of a traffic signal installation. These warrants are listed as follows (also see Appendut): Warrant i—Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 2--Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant Peak Hour Warrant 4edestrian Volume Warrant S—S€hool Crossing Warrant O--Coordinated Signal System Warrant 7—Crash Experience Warrant 8—Roadway Network ADD South Hauston Street, Suite 130 Dallas, Texas 7!RM R_ 213.73&6740 F. 214.7487637 www.deshez€gmup.mm Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 34 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 vdurnes_ 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 war ant c iteriar traffic for the proposed development will' be generated and added to the existi ng volumes for a `fLFtu re scena rior a nalysis_ Table I 2013 H ou rly Vol urnes Time 9br1 Cf EWe L T R Birkwwd sa L T R Dare® L T R Nltwwd HB L T R GWAM in 42 265 770DAM 33r 141 523 �bWAM 24E 22 47D 9h06AM 94 37 249 1Ab06AM 91 4D 143 LUDD AM 95 1D7 15a UDD PY 122 iDD 20 1:DC. F V 113 54 231 Z:Dc-FV ins 74 249 3:DG F V Mr. 11D 215 A:DL• F V Mr. 241 219 717D F V 227 362 2BD 6V0 PM 235 1913 257 79D PM 144 B2 151 B11D PM 1U3 38 11a 99D PM 77 21 B3 1iB:DD PM 28 3 66 11:DD PIM 1? 4 23 Right Turn Reductions The Texas MUTCC 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 rigtrt at an unsignali2ed, 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_r there is not a signiFwant queue of vehi€lesturning left ortraveling straight), then: "€ngineerrn4 ferdgment skwtd be used to determine what rf any, portray of the right-Wrn traffic is subtracted from the rn rwr-strew~ trnfjfic rount wtrerr evaluating the count agninstthe above signal WarMnt5_"r Beca use the data collected was not described in terms of turning movements, no adjustments for right to rns have been made. Warrant Anoiysis 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 €ollected on a typical weeloday in May and August of 20L3 (see Appendix)_ If current traffic volumes do not satisfy the signal warrant xriteriar traffic for the proposed development will be generated and added to the existing vol umes fora `future stenarW analysis. ■ Integration of a traffic signal at the subject intersection shall be appropriately coordinated with surroundingr existing traffic signals where applicable- Howeverr these ronsideratiwm were not directly evaluated as a primary factor in the justification of the traffic signal installation. ixMUFCD 2W6-`xcrt 4€.01 pale 4G1 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 35 ■ 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 warrantswill only be examined if the volumetric warrants are not satisfied- ■ The remaining volume -related warrants (1, 2 and 3) are considered in this analysis - The results of the analysisfor existing 12013) trafficvolumes aresummarized in Table 2 and detailed results are provided in Appendix. Table 2 Existing Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Results yveckciffy YAMrt 1. E5 Hai Vehindar Valumc Not SStistied wwmrt 2. Fcur-Hour Vehicular VOLlqre Hot SYfi;h-d wwmrt3. Peek-HourVehicuhr Volume Not5atisfictl The Texas MLrrCD stipulates that a traffic signal control may be in=lied 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 airy of the volume -based warrants at the subject intersection - Signal Warrant Assessment -Future Conditions Future Traffic Volumes Tables 3 & 4 illustrates the future background traffic volumes on dove and K-irkwood assuming a 496 growth rate over a 2-year and 7-year period- The traffic volumes to be used in the future signal warrant analyses in€lude the sum of the approach volumes (Le-, traffic volumes entering the intersectio-n� on the major street and t he higher of the two minor street approach volumes- The volumes used for ana lysis indude the existing traffic volumes and traffic volumes for the proposed development derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers IITE) Trip Generation manual {9°i Edition}- ITE Trip Generation is a oampilation 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 suffi€ient data exists- It is assumed that the "mode split" characteristics intreren t to the 17E trip rotes will adequately reflect the mode choices associated with this deueJopment- Table 3 2015 Hourly Background Volumes Arne SIMI! x}orewa I IdrWWDW.5II L T Ft x T It 13 r EH L T It Phtwmd Hil L T R $[IOAM 74 47 tar ZM AM 3Ei3 173 366 SdM AM 266 29 70S SOMAM inz 62 26a Lib[19AM 98 43 177 i+wtAM 164 AS 171. LLDD PM L32 iES 22& 199 PM 122 M 25D 2711I PM 206 M 2ES 3:DD PDA 233 iL9 233 499 PM 222 2U 236 399 PM 246 392 3D3 6710 PM 234 217 27B 7:DD PM L36 99 163 rfl9 PM At 41. US 999 PM [i3 23 9[} 1029 PM 3a 3 67 UDD PM it 4 27 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 36 Table 4 2020 Hourly Background Volumes Arm start Dm'e WB Hirk W{OG S6 L T FLL T R Dow EE L T R 9MODadM L T R G:DG AM 65 33 349 7-DO AM 44Z 18b 58& 9M ADA 324 He 619 9XXI ADA 124 77 326 iaDmAM 12D n iM LLWARa 126 141 2E& LLD PM iSL 13Z 33L 17DD PM 149 7Y 3D4 29D PM 243 97 326 3flD PM Ri. iM 223 49D PDA 276 317 2S7 79D PM 299 476 368 67DD PM 3B9 26Z 33& 79D PDA 19D iDS 195 r:DD PDA 136 76 M 99D PDA ioi 28 1D9 i¢nD Phi 37 4 M 11:DD PM 22 1 3D Table 5summarizes the trip generation cal€ulationsfortheproposed center. Theappropriateexcerptsfrom the ITE Trip Generation Mama-O Edition are provided in the Appendix. Table 5 Southlake Center Trip Generation Land Use Quen4ty doily TmFFic AM Peak Haver PM Peek Hour Weekend Park Hour Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out 820-5ho i Cenber 2C41300 8.725 196 12Z 74 467 464 503 1.391 723 668 Tntds 5725 196 122 74 967 4144 503 1,391 723 568 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 cf various sizes. Exhibit 3 illustrates these factors as shown in the ITE Trip Generation manual (go' Edition)_ Using the factors shown in Table 1 of Exhibit 3, an additional 12 hours of traffic data for the shopping renter was generated_ Hourly turning movements were then calculated for the intersection by applying the trip orientation percentages shown in the de5haxo traffic study dated January 26, 2015 to the shopping center volumes (and assuming that these percentages remain the same all day). The traffic volumes associated with the proposed shopping center are shown in Table 6. Table 7 and S shows the 2015 background plus sitetraffic and 2020 background plus site and it is this volume set which will be used for the future signal war a ntanalysis- Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 37 Table 6 Hourly Shop ping Center Traffic Using Dove Road and Kirkwood Boulevard Based on ITE Ho-urJw Shopping Center Trip Rates Time StNt L Dove We T P Kirkwood S& L T R L Dowe E6 T R L Nirkwaad H& T F, GWAN 7A9AIA 33 12 12 7 18 i6 4 16 2b09A1A 9h09A1A 12MADA 90 33 33 as s0 52 1+4 62 iLWAM 90 33 33 37 50 91 18 21 USG Pk+ 90 33 33 36 90 79 1a 79 1:LC. F V 91 30 36 33 4S 72 16 72 Z:1a F V 106 39 39 34 59 79 17 75 31X- F V 113 42 42 41 63 91 21 9i A -CC- F V 114 42 4i 46 63 im 23 100 117G F Y 125 46 46 56 70 111 2S 111 6V0 PM 97 32 32 36 48 aQ 19 w 796 PM 64 24 2A 23 36 SL 12 SL B110 PM 419 10 1a 19 27 Al 9 41 99& PM 22 0 & a 12 17 4 17 L0:09 PM 11:09 PM Table 7 Year 2015 Hourly Total Traffic Using Dowe Road and Kirkwood Bouleward Based on ITE HOUFIV 51101313ine Center Trio Rates Tine sM L Dore W& T ItL Kirkwows& T R cart Ee L T R E Irrtraad N& T FI 6MAU 54 46 297 7A9ARA 33 376 16s 973 18 16 4 16 SHAM 266 09 sue 97&O AM 102 6i 26& 19600 AM 90 132 76 163 90 62 14 Q 11DM AM 90 137 149 209 so ei >e 21 i2:06 PM 90 iss 141 329 so 79 >e 79 1:D6 PM 81 i62 09 203 4 72 16 72 Zva PM 106 239 119 302 59 75 17 75 3-DG PM 113 297 i61 274 63 91 21 9r1 A17G PM 11A Z64 393 2&i 63 ion 2S 100 3-W FM 129 Z92 439 353 70 111 2S 111 6:GC- F M Z7 206 245 314 46 &0 1s so 7:EC• F w 64 179 11i 196 35 Si 12 51 6:1x- F Y 19 136 59 146 27 Ai 9 Al 9:CC. F V 22 92 31 9& 12 17 4 17 10:0{- F V 30 3 66 11:CC.FV it 4 2s Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 38 Table 8 Year 2020 HourlyTotal Traffic Using Dove Road and Kirkwood boulevard Based on ITE HourJw Shopping Center Trip Rates Trot 55w! L bore W& T FLL Hirkwoad 5& T R ! nave Er T R L WrkWand H& T F1 GWAU 66 55 349 7A6AiA 33 454 19& 696 18 i6 4 16 65&6AiA 324 1D& 619 5h06A1A 124 75 326 12MADA 90 L53 65 217 50 52 14 62 11MAM 90 i59 174 245 50 91 18 21 USG Pk+ 90 194 16s 397 50 79 1a 79 1:LC. F V 91 OR 1&1 337 45 72 16 72 Z:ca F V 106 283 137 360 59 75 17 75 31X-FV 113 352 1117 324 63 91 21 9i A -EC- F Y 114 312 He 332 63 im 23 Im 117G F Y 125 345 523 419 70 111 2s 111 6V0 PM 97 342 294 374 0& Be 19 W 7131}PM 64 213 131 222 35 51 >Z 51 6110 PM 49 154 611 174 27 Al 9 41 9131p PM 22 111) 36 117 12 17 4 17 La:&& PM 37 4 79 11:&& PM 22 5 36 Right Turn Reductions The Texas MUTCD has provisions far different adjustments in the assessment of the traffic -volume -related warrants. For instanaer right -turning vehicles may turn "right-Gn-red" at a traffic signal under the same conditions as turning right at an unsignali2ed, STOP -controlled interse€tian 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_r there is not a significant queue of vehi€lesturning left ortraveling straight), then: €ngineeriny fivdgment should be used to determine what �F anV, portion of the nghr um buffic is subtracted from the miner -street traffic raunt when evaluating the €ountagairrstthe above signGJWaF ant5_in2 In order be consistent with the existing conditions analysisr 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 [May & August 2013—see Appendix} and .a portion of the ITE Trip Generation volumes for the proposed shoppinffcenter- 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 p-edestrian activity and traffic acddent history are typically only applicable traffic signal warrants in extreme or severe conditions. 2 TxMUTUD NO&- Seft 4C.01 page 4&1 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 39 Pedestrian and traffic aoddent conditions at these locations are assumed to be insufficient to satisfy the respective traffic signal warrants. Therefore, this data was not collected or included in this analysis- Should assessment of pedestrian activity, traffic accident history and/or other warrants be desired, additional study will he required- 0 The remaining volume -related warrants (1, 2, and 3) areconsidered i n this a na lysis- The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 9 and detailed results are provided in the Appendix - Table 9 Future Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Results {ITE Profile Traffic Volumes] 2015 8. 2020 2015 Total 202.0T[Ital Background Warrant 1. Eight -Hour Not Satisfied Not satisfied Satisfied i8 hags] Vehicular Volume Warrant 2. Four -Hour NotSatisfied Not Satisfied Satisfied Jd haursj Vehicular Volume Warrant 3. Peak -Hour Not Satisfied Not satisfied Satisfied J2 haursj Vehicular Volume The Texas MUTCD stipulates that a traffic signal control may be installed at the discretion of the authorized agency responsible for traffic €ortrol installation and maintenance provided that one or more of the published signal warrants are met- The c ilberia for Warrant 1-Eight Hourr Warrant 2-Four Hour and Warrant 3-Peak Hour are satisfied at the subject intersection with consideration of the future traffic volumes generated by the proposed shopping center with background growth in the year 2020- This study reports that background tfaffic pkrs site traffic in the year 2020 Wray meet three warrants outlined in the TMUTCD. it would be recommended that conduit and put; boxes be installed at appropriate kxvirions irr concert %Wth the constructiorr of KirkLvvvd Baulevard on the site to facilitate a signal when warranted in the future. Actikrty on the Property to the east and south would trigger a reassessment of the signao- Conclusions / Recommendations The purpose of a Traffic Signal Warrant Assessment is to determine the feasibility of installing a traffic control signal at a designate-d location. Based on a combination the existing traffic volume information and the projected traffic generated by the proposed shopping centerr the intersection of Dave Road and Kirkwood Boulevard will satisfy at least three of the signa I warrants listed in the TM UfCD in the year 20ZG: - Warrant 1— Eight Hour Volumes [satisFed8 hours - Warrant 2 — Four Hour Volumes (satisfied 4 hours) and - Warrant 3 —Peak Hour Volumes (satisfied 2 hours). END OF MLIM-0 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 40 7 iq January 27, 2015 Alex Ayala, P.E. City of Southlake 1400 Main Street, Suite 320 Southlake, Texas 76092 Re: Southloke Town & Country TIA Review —January 26, 70I5 Revision Dear Mrs. Ayala: ARIZONA TEXAS NEW MEXICO OKLAHOMA Per your request, we have reviewed the traffic engineering information for the proposed Southlake Town & Country Development. The data reviewed included a traffic impact analysis dated January 26, 2015 from the Deshazo Group and a traffic signal warrant study dated January 26, 2015. 1. The site plan and traffic impact analysis indicate that a right -turn lane will be provided at Site Driveways 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. A right -turn lane eastbound on Dove at Kirkwcod is also shown In the site plan and traffic impact analysis. We concur with the provision of these lanes. 2. Driveway 6 does not have sufficient traffic volumes projected to exceed the City of Southlake right -turn lane threshold. We concur with this analysis. 3. The latest signal warrant study (1- 26-2015) indicates that a signal will be warranted in 2020. This Is unchanged from previous warrant studies submitted for this location. 4. The traffic impact analysis no longer recommends that a signal be installed with the opening of the retail center. The latest signal warrant study (1-25-2015) Includes a 2025 analysis using total traffic (background site) volumes that indicates that the intersection does not satisfy the vehicular volume warrants: Warrant 1 (8 Hour), Warrant 2 (4 Hour), or Warrant 3 (Peak Hour). Though the signal warrant analysis references eight (8) signal warrants on page I of the study, no warrants other than the three volume warrants (1, 2 and 3) were analyzed in the study provided. o Warrant 8 -- Roadway Network — is a signal warrant that is applicable in situations such as this development with the construction of a major roadway such as Kirkwood Boulevard. The roadway network warrant specifies that The need for a traffic con trol s ign a/ shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the common intersection of rwo or more major rot, tes meets one or both of the following criteria: A] The intersection has a total existing, or immediately projected, entering volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour during the peak hour of a typical weekday and has 5-year projected traffic 3030 LBf Freeway, Suite 1660, Dallas, TX 7S234 t972) 248.3006 office (972) 248.3855 fax I www.leeengeneering.com Page 1 of 3 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-099 Page 41 volumes, based on on engineering study, that meet one or more of Warrants 1, 2, and 3 during an average weekday, or 81 The intersection has a total existing or immediately projected entering volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour for each of any 5 hours of a non -normal business day (Saturday or Sunday). Both dove Road and Kirkwood Boulevard qualify as major routes and based on Table 1 of the traffic signal warrant analysis, the existing AM peak hour volume is 1,000 vehicles per hour. Additionally, the provided traffic signal warrant study shows that within 5 years the intersection is predicted to satisfy Warrant 1, Warrant 2, and Warrant 3. As such, Lee Engineering believes Warrant 8 to be satisfied at this location and the intersection of Dove Road and Kirkwood Boulevard signal should be installed. 5. In a previously submitted signal warrant analysis (11-6.2014) the signal warrant study stated that "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 the proposed shopping center" while the latest signal warrant study (1-26-2015) no longer contains that language, signalization is the only way to allow the Kirkwood at hove intersection to operate In a satisfactory manner (LOS D or better] after the addition of the fourth leg and site traffic. o The traffic impact analysis indicates that the southbound Kirkwood left turn moverent to Dove operates with less than 20 seconds of average delay in the 2015 background condition (without site traffic), Once site generated traffic and the fourth leg of the intersection are added the movement is predicted to operate with over 130 seconds (LOS F) of average delay during the PM peak hour. o The traffic impact analysis indicates that the northbound left turn from Kirkwood to Dove is predicted to operate with over 600 seconds of average delay along ►vith a 95`^ percentile queue length of 15 to 16 vehicles. o The traffic impact analysis indicates that the Dove at Kirkwood intersection operates at LOS A with 6.1 seconds of average delay during the 2015 PM peak hour under background conditions (without site traffic). After the fourth leg of the intersection and site traffic are added to the analysis, LOS F operation with an average delay of 81.6 seconds is predicted. o The analysis shows that absent site traffic, the intersection of Kirkwood and Dove operates acceptably through 2020 with the exception of one movement (southbound left -turn) that fails in 2020. o Based on the information provided in the traffic impact analysis, the north and south approaches to the Kirkwood at Dove Intersection will operate at unacceptable levels of service with large amounts of delay predicted to occur absent the installation of a traffic signal. • Based on the information provided in the traffic impact analysis that multiple approaches to the Dove at Kirkwood intersection will not operate satisfactorily without signaiization, Lee Engineering recommends that a signalized intersection at Dove and Kirkwood be constructed and operational when the retail center opens. LEE Enanwane Case No. ZA14-099 Page 2 or 3 Attachment E Page 42 6. The report does not 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. The TIA misstates the City of Southlake auxiliary turn lane thresholds on page 4 and 5 of the TIA. The City of Southlake thresholds are 50 vehicles per hour on roadways with a speed limit of 40 mph or less. The City of Southlake threshold Is 40 vehicles per hour on roadways with a speed Ilmit higher than 40 mph. Because driveways 1,2,3,4 and 5 a e all shown with right -turn lanes provided in the analysis and in the site plan, no changes are necessary to the study. The minimum driveway internal storage length is 100'. All proposed site driveways have 100 feet or more of storage provided. 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, Jos h T. Short, P.E., PTOE Lee Engineering TBPE Firm F-450 LEE tnC naiinC Case No. ZA14-099 Attachment E Page 43 SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA14-099 Review No.: Five Project Name: Southlake Town & Country APPLICANT: Cencor Realty Services David Palmer Date of Review: 01/26/2015 OWNER: Dove 114 Infinity, LLC Tim Brittan 3102 Maple Ave., Ste. 500 1905 N. Pearson Ln. Dallas, TX 75201 Westlake, TX 76262 Phone: (214) 954-0300 Phone: (303) 825-0899 Fax: Fax: CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 01/07/2015 & 01/26/2015 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(a)ci.south lake. tx.us Please correct the Site Data Summary Chart with respect to Floor Area by Use for the required parking calculations. Based on the Floor Area by Use and the actual Gross Floor Area in the plans provided and in the chart for the Bank (Building H), 12 spaces should be required, per the 3,500 square foot gross floor area shown on the site plan and a 1 space per 300 square feet ratio. 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. 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. Tree Conservation/Landscape Review Keith Martin Landscape Administrator Phone: (817) 748-8229 E-mail: kmartin(a)-ci.southlake.tx.us TREE CONSERVATION COMMENTS: Case No. Attachment F ZA14-099 Page 1 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, a letter dated October 30, 2014 and a letter dated November 17, 2014 (See Attachment D 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. 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 has complied with the tree preservation requirements of the City of Southlake, as those requirements are developed. (The Tree Preservation Master Design Guidelines can be founded on page 44 under Attachment `C' of this staff report. Submission Materials as of January 7, 2015 The applicant submitted a document entitled "Tree Removal and Protection Plan (Analysis)". The document provides information on proposed Protected Trees (green) to remain and be protected subject to change pending final grading and tree assessment; Borderline Trees (yellow) that may need to be removed due to impact of proposed improvements and to be evaluated during construction; Trees To Be Removed (red and clear) due to site improvements or dead or in decline. (For more details and exact wording on the plan please refer to exhibit — L1.0 provided in the staff report). 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; Case No. Attachment F ZA14-099 Page 2 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; h. Whether the proposed tree replacement procedures pursuant to Section 7 of this Ordinance adequately mitigate the alteration of the tree; and Whether the alteration adversely affects the public health, safety or welfare. Landscape Administrator's Comments: Since the previous review the applicant has completed the tree survey of the property except for the thickest vegetated area within the interior open space north of the southernmost access drive on Kirkwood Boulevard. This area has been designated as a "Non -Disturbance" area but is subject to change with the design of the final grading. The Kroger building has increased in size by 2,423 square feet. And, the central portion of the development has been shifted to the east, which increased the width of the central and southern portions of the west bufferyard and decreased the interior landscape area/open space along Kirkwood Boulevard. Some trees that were previously shown to be preserved along Kirkwood Boulevard are now shown to be removed, and the trees along S.H. HWY 114 that were shown to be removed are now preserved or borderline. The retaining wall in the interior open space south of the southernmost access drive on Kirkwood Boulevard has been moved east causing the proposed removal of additional trees that were previously shown to be preserved. The following comments are based on the tree preservation evaluation criteria established by Sect. 4.5 of Ord. 585-B: Due to much of the existing topography of the property being sloped 5% or greater the proposed grading and the required developmental parking requirements would remove the majority of existing trees. The most practical places for existing trees to be preserved on the site are within the west, north, and east bufferyards, and within the interior open space along Kirkwood Boulevard. The northwest retention pond area also has a significant amount of quality trees in and around it but is designated as a Drainage Easement and to be utilized for a portion of the site's storm water retention and amenity feature. 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 by constructing extensive retention walls and take up portions of the required parking. The Retention Pond in the northwest corner could be relocated to the central portion of the development adjacent Hwy 114, but the required parking would then need to be relocated somewhere else causing additional trees to removed. It is extremely difficult to determine if the developer has made a good -faith effort to preserve as many protected trees as possible. The developer has made a good -faith effort by working with City Staff to provide information to determine the extent of existing quality trees on the site and determining if they can be preserved with the current development design. But, is the current design of the development, the design of the grading, the design of the storm water retention and utility layout the only possible Case No. Attachment F ZA14-099 Page 3 way to construct the development on the site? It is the Landscape Administrator's determination that with what has been presented, along with the extent of the grading, and the requirement to meet the current parking regulations, the applicant has made a good -faith effort to preserve trees within the areas where they can be preserved. Tree Mitigation Requirements: There are protected trees which are shown to be removed within the perimeter bufferyards, interior landscape area, retention/detention areas, and other drainage and utility easements within 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 to some extent, 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 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. Existing quality trees proposed to be altered and not within drainage and utility easements, public R.O.W., building pads, fire lanes, and required parking are subject mitigation in accordance with the regulation of Ord. 585-13, even if the trees are shown to be altered on the approved Tree Removal and Protection Plan. Tree removal mitigation will need to be assessed upon design of the final construction documents and prior to the release of the first permit for construction. TREE REPLACEMENT: If a person alters a protected tree for which a permit is required, the person shall replace the protected tree with a quality tree as designated in the Landscape Ordinance and approved by the Landscape Administrator. This tree replacement requirement is not meant to supplant good site planning. Tree replacement will be considered only after all design alternatives which could save more existing trees have been evaluated and reasonably rejected. a. Size and Number: A sufficient number of trees shall be planted to equal or exceed, in caliper, the diameter of each tree altered, measured at 4.5' above ground level. Each replacement tree shall be a minimum of 3" caliper at one foot above ground level, and seven feet in height when planted. b. Location: Each replacement tree should be planted on the same property as the tree which was altered. However, if the replacement tree cannot be planted on the same property in accordance with universally accepted arborists' standards, the Landscape Administrator may: Case No. Attachment F ZA14-099 Page 4 require replacement on private property if also approved by the Chief of Building Services, 2. require replacement on public property, or 3. require payment to the Reforestation Fund in accordance with Section 7.3, below. C. Responsibility for Replacing Trees: The Landscape Administrator will determine the agent responsible for replacing the trees, the time of replacement, and the location of the replacement trees. The requirement to replace trees shall run with the land. d. Delayed Replacement: If the Landscape Administrator approves the planting of replacement trees more than 30 days after the alteration of protected trees, the applicant shall provide the Landscape Administrator with an affidavit that all replacement trees will be planted within six months. The Landscape Administrator may require the person to furnish the City a cash deposit or surety bond in the approximate amount of the cost to replace the trees. e. Duration: A replacement tree that dies within three years of the date it was planted must be replaced by another replacement tree. This requirement runs with the land. LANDSCAPE COMMENTS: Existing tree credits are proposed to be taken for existing trees in the north bufferyard and west bufferyard, and some of the existing trees are designated as "Borderline" on the submitted Tree Removal and Protection Plan. Credits shall only be granted if the tree/s are in healthy condition and all requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance have been met as determined by the Landscape Administrator at the time of inspection for a Permanent Certificate of Occupancy. If the existing plants that were given credit toward reducing the required plantings decline within two (2) growing seasons, the owner shall replace that plant with quality plant material equal to the amount of the declined plant. 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: January 26, 2015 The City received an updated Traffic Impact Analysis from Winkelmann & Associates, Inc. on Thursday, January 26, 2015 via email. Lee Engineering has reviewed the report and comments are included. Case No. Attachment F ZA14-099 Page 5 Lee Engineering has recommended that the City consider the installation of a traffic signal on opening day at the intersection of Dove Road and Kirkwood Boulevard. The basis for this determination can be found in the review letter provided by Lee Engineering. Lee Engineering has stated that "signalization is the only way to allow the Kirkwood at Dove intersection to operate in a satisfactory manner after the addition of the fourth leg and site traffic'. GENERAL COMMENTS: This review is preliminary. Additional requirements may be necessary with the review of civil construction plans. The approved site plan must be included in the civil construction plans. 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: hftp://www.citvofsouthlake.com/index.aspx?NID=266 EASEMENTS: It has been noted on the plat that all water, sanitary sewer and drainage easements will be added to the plat after final locations have been determined. 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' 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. Case No. Attachment F ZA14-099 Page 6 WATER AND SEWER COMMENTS: 5. All water line stubs must have 2 joints past the valve with a 2" blow -off per the City's details. 6. Sanitary sewer to the southern property line near the southeast corner of Marketplace Grocery shall require a manhole at the end. 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. Clearly label all private and public storm lines. 2. Differences between pre- and post- development runoff shall be captured in detention pond(s). Proposed detention ponds shall control the discharge of the 1, 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. 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.citvofsouthlake.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. Case No. Attachment F ZA14-099 Page 7 * 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. *=Denotes informational comment. Fire Department Review Kelly Clements Assistant Fire Marshal Phone: (817) 748-8671 E-mail: kclements(a�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. 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 Case No. Attachment F ZA14-099 Page 8 Connections) 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 GVVV) 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. 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. Case No. Attachment F ZA14-099 Page 9 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 of the Corridor Overlay 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, 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. 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 2, 7 301 e 305 NA 422 Y a00 ((� 2309 100 23u9 W 23u5 M101 165 165 500 2301 �{5' 664 600 77vv 6B5 a m os $ om tut R O 104 0 100 Bog �0v 1. Kirkwood Hollow Ho Assoc Property • •Zoning• 2301 KIRKWOOD BLVD 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: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response 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 R pcn!so Form ZA14�099 Meeting Date. October S, 2014 at $_30 PM Dave 114 In finity Llc 1201 N Carroll Ave Souili lake Tx 7U92 P LEASE P ROVIDE C Q MPL ETED FORM E VIA NAIL, FAX 0 R HAN D DE LIVE ICY B E FORE TH E START OF TH E SC H EDU LEG PU BLIC H EARING. Being the mmegs) of th properly so noted above, are hereby in favor of '---apposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referemed above. S pace for cam mania r"ard In 0 you r position: Signature: Ad d To real �ignatu're: Printed Name(s): Must he PmPertk wmsgQ wr rerrHONe Phone Number (optional): Date; 4*�� Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 1 Notification Response Form ZA14-D99 Meeting [late: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Dove 114Infinity LJe 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: Signature: Date' Additional Signatu'r : ,f'Date: Printed Names): -- Must be property owner(s) whose n ` e(s) are printed at top. Otherwise conbxA the Planning apartment. One farm per property. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 2 Notification Response Form ZA144)99 Mewing Sato: 0ctabaf 9, 2014 at 6:30 PEA Morales. Michael D 23 DD Idlevrild Ct 5oF rlhlak@ 7x 76092 PLEAS E P ROVIDE COM P L ETED FO RMS VI A MAI L, FAX OR HAND SE UVIERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUSLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the r7j so noted above, are hereby in favor of a undecided about (circle or underline ona) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for corn rnents regarding your pas Won: 34NME#70-UMM Signature; hj ,4'a, Date- t Additional Signature: Date: Printed Na rne(s): M l� M US1 W pmpertya me.15}whose name{a}erle primed at1Q;k C1twrmiwd hbMt Us PWrd g DuWrynofl. One Form Pr4pr9NsV, Phone Numbef (optional)' Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 3 Notifieatian Response Form ZA14-o fdsating ❑ate: CctabGr 9, 2014 at 0;30 PM T Zero Partners Lp 136al Ashrldge Dr Dallas Tx 7:5240 P LEASE PROVIDE C OMP LETEG FIRMS VI A NYU L, FAX 0 R H AND LIE LIB! ERY BEFORE THE START IF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING, Being the owneri, s) of the pro pedy sc ncted a botre, are h ereby �nfavor o oppoosed to undacrd-ed about (circle or underline ane ) the proposed Ske Plan reforenced above. S p a c e for c o rrl rrlents regerdi ng you r position. Signature - Additional Printed Narne(s): Muct ba propertyra na") whmeFlurru . Phone Number (optional): Date; — e Menninq aepertrnent. ❑re torn per prop" Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 4 •- I Proposed Super Kroger 1 message Daniel Cortez adcortezraci.southlake.tx.us> Aufricht, . inil Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:28 AM To: "dcortez ci_sournraKe_�a_us wcorrez cr_soumlake.tK.us- Cc: "Cody Aufricht 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 21330 plan - The nature of the business is not something 5outhlake does not have or needs such that deviating from the 20130 plan is warranted_ Jennifer Aufiicht, Cody Aufricht Will Auf-icht, Graham Aufiicht and Madeleine Aufricht- THOMPSON JenniferAufricht ufricht Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons, L.L.P. OE 70C N_ Pearl st_ 125th Floor I Dallas, TX 752D1 Ph: 214.871.8276 1 Fax: 214.871.821139 is +roar we Confidentiality Notioe: This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient; please contact the sender by reply a -mail and destroy the original and all copies of the message. Thank you. Tax Advice Disclosure: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication, including any attachment(s), unless expressly stated otherwise, was and is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein. Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 5 Notification Response Form I ewfing Die? 0atJober 5, 2014 a 610 PMF •Y'__ .� t If(I 1 7v0i PLEASE PROVDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFOR15 THE START OF THE SCHEDUL150 PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property sa noted above, are hereby In favor of used to undecided abeut (circle or underline One) the proposed Site P€an referenced shove. Space for comm ants regarding your position: nff- Signature: �. ��— Date, 1 Additional Signature. Date - Printed Name(s); AluD 661 �c,'� }AUBJ tj propMly tz i rt$j Wd%): E FiarmW m9 giitledettop. <)HierwisiBomiiad1hoPlanrlirkgdrnEnt. One Farmperprap9*_ Phone Number (optional)-, Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 6 Notification Response Form ZA14-099 Meeting D,ato: Or#obar9, 2094at 6:30 PU ,a� 111 09 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OIL HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Beirrg the owners) of the properly sc rioted above, are hereby iir favor of Opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan mf!ranced above_ Space for comments regarding your position: ._ Do un b2x -k� V . Signature, — -- Date: Additional ignaicre: Printed Name(s): �IR: Re� p.uW tm- p ropely cuwrer(o w4vaae rbnnga) are printed at top. OtherwI n cartDa PFione Nurn ber (optional): Case No. ZA14-099 Date: One form per properly Attachment H Page 7 Notification Response Fon-n ZA 14 -099 Meeting Data: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 P9 SUV g'SO4 XM24"�4 L7r u+1 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the Dwner{s) cf the prvpefty so noted above, are hereby in favor of oppasect� undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comrnents regarding your position: Signature: Date:.l_s} d H Add Nona 1 Signature: Date - Printed Names); Mum be property whose mwWis) are Phone Number (optional): Wvp wrded1haP1mynhVDeWmant. Gm farm parpropeffli. Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 8 Na ification Response Form ZA1 4.099 bkoi ing Date: October 9. 2014 at 6:30 PM _�b vt jvl v) C , I It ►.. T b PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAID,, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) o#the pro' rtE Sc) 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 positiarF .--r\ 12� Signature - Ad ditonall Signatu re, Printed ;Name(s): r76L M. v1+af Muer ba Property awner(s) whom riwWe) are prinfed al wp- Merwlaa wnfad 09 Phone plumber (optlonaJ): Date: 10�� Date, 4ffe form paf AroPffty- Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 9 Notification Response Form ZA14-099 M ling Datdh: October k 2044 gt 6:30 PV Kathleen V. Simpson, 104 Brentwood Circle President, BrerOmod ResiderANl Aswciation, Inc. 720 Brentwood ar de 01) AmtM987728) Southlake, TX 7602-3716 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR MND DELIVERY aEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING, Being the ownegs) of the _D4parjy so noted above, are hereby in favor of �p[�as� ta, undecided abouk _�-/ k - (cirde ^nderline one'} the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for wmments regarding your position; Our ROA whement'y opposes the proposed devei❑pmeht, liter and plat. As you recaIL this prffject was presented Novambi�r21M by a different ClBVCIO per And was tumed away W g&Z for multiple reasons Some of whlc#t included: Overwhaiming re5ldent op,posiHon, poor quality of devejoprnent, Lark of need ofanother ar❑cery store to srsrve Southlaka, and Re9ident apposition vF "Prig UQ4 When the race•i ftv--krper started, a group of homeawners were eager to work wlth them to shape thls gateway to Southlake propeRy only too finer out they had no Iriterktim aii work ing with jjeighbons in good Faith to address their oancerns. And once they realized t#te ieviel aF opposition, rather than trying to work with liweownem, itheY resorW to hiring a hlgh powmred PR Spin doctor who boasts on her website: "lf fallure is not an optlon, you've come to the rigtrt glare-" [ram hlrsed wlth a team of attomsys and the distribution ro-f rnrsleadrog fryers setggestlrrg SoutMake's support of this project, this developer ftas tried to intlmidate residents, mislead them, and even noel, rebuses to tanflrm detalls of the project. As an example, the PR firm notified usthat thtW were Intludlrtg a S:orbucks, sushi anu a#ew bdti2r tbtgs. We asked In an small if that meant thekmetry, C100'ngr and furniture sales IrnljSally proposed had been removed. 7hL oni' answer they would pecolde is a non -answer: "We hove. shared a irst of th€ cor3pi-met! W=?e unwnibes that m-9heitrctud�vd+rr user Tvum & {oata#Y 1G vr. Wg� ore s rX deve0ping p0ttw3ti71 future offerings-" Signature � #- -� ' � -- - Date. LUL i Additional Signature: Date, Printed Name(s): p i Zl D&tkq4--r Must to properlycm-mr(s) whom neme(.t} are Pointed at tm t}#Kndm vontact ffm Planning 1 meal, One form perpmparly R6ii J)i'sT f t Phone Number (optional): Case No. ZA14-099 Attachment H Page 10 Notification Response Form ZA14-099 Meeting Date. October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PNI 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, PAX 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 Cop=posedtoundecided about (circle oRunderline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: We are:0096 opj-wsed to t:he ;elan as currently i.-sropused. iAfE DO NOT NEED A SUPrRSTORE, AKA A SUPERWkILMAR-1 LOOKALIKE ACROSS F—R'Ok l OUR 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 can the North side repeatedly expressed their concerns, they have attempted to mislead Sauthlake citizens into believing that the City of Southlake wants t:hern 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 %svith developers with this queestlorlahlr level of othicA sianclards. VYi'ned'ayaur rs�Vnl>.iamlird.rilLlsF7Ycwna�fiu; ;� Signature: �a�� i� Date: i� $ Additional Signature: Date: Printed Name(s): L V- S I " PSOO J TM 1J>2- 0 Must be property awner(s) whose name(s) are printed at top. Otherwise contact the Planning Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): 0 � •3 ! r� �' Case No. ZA14-099 Attachment H Page 11 Nnfifle,atl 3r# Respow,(- Fom, 7A 14-099 Meat ng Date, October 9, 20U at 8:30 PM S U'- Dimct qftosfid�a0d,inW.r-r po s.40'., Wo PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORAMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START Of THE SCHEDULED PUIBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (Circle or Linderlarre ore) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position.- r.O eV40 Signature:%�.anjn4n-yue- Date: Additional Signature: Date. .Mus[ W oioperly nwiMa s)'dim nihme(e1 ara pNnt¢d al t p. Oft *me nontpdtm Wdnpift Nparlfltm . Qae form ptrpropwLy. Phone Number (optional):Prvd-,-'AIIL� Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 12 Notification Response Form 7-Al 4-099 Muting date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PjW 0' PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SC14ED€1LED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the ownei-(s) of the property s❑ noted 8bove, are hereby irr favor of CP nse o undecided about (drefe or underline one) the prDpoSBd Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your posifion: A �,- 3�� "i aa-�- e�?Sc Qza,�,& �---� '�- Signature, � � ` `�- - Date. - Additional rctattare:.� ram: _ Date - Printed Narne(s). V MUist ba proWY owner(s) whose hamejN are Mved i1 wp. 01hemha o moat4e P9ennlrog E]epaAMCM, Ooa Joan per property - Phone Number (optional); Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 13 Notification Response Form ZA14-ON Meeting Date' October 9, 2094 at 0:30 PM pp``�� 5l 11� yAi'nI [ Iy5 �jffJ PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY 815FOPM THE START OF THE SCHEMLED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the ownei-(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby ir1 favor cf Cppc)!Sedjl undedGded about (Circle or underline one) the propo5i-d Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: it-')ul 4 C. +S '% + L4',VWr Signature: Additional &gnatufe: Date: Printed Name(5:f*ti r o Musk Poe prQpe4y owaw(s) whose naaie(s) are pdnje,4 pl Wp. Olherwi" oanWd the PIjn6na C[:pnrm5rne. ,in iwm Per praMrV. Phone Number {optional}: Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 14 ZA14-DSB Meeting Date; October 9, 2014 at 6QV RlM Li Cir I Im outhlake T7C 7809� PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE, THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the propel so ncted above, ara hereby irr favor of opposedto undedded about (oircte r-anerline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Spar-e for comments regarding your position; P'. I ri .� D �� (n, 4..Wl Signature: Additional Signature: Piinted Names): Mu!a ba prflparty owner(3) wh 0 name s) are printed at fop. C�€t wise a mt iol the Piarrnirla Phone Number (optional): Date, Aa- DaW per prpperq, Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 15 INotificatfon Response Form ZA9 d-VA9 Muting Data: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM PLEASE PROVIDF COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE STAffT OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner($) of the pfoperty 5e noted abt ve, are Nti reby in favor of 'opp s d undecided about (Ciro iTie VOL) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: A0 9-11"rlfa� Adia;Lj- Signature, Date: Additional Signature: -- -=_r Date: Pflnted Name($): YGk y cfXs1-ti reCa6'- Nhist be prQpe'V ownu(s) whose ri irne(s) amprin6dial top. Orherwlee cn1ad The Planning DeWrrmnt. Ona knrri pprproperty. P[ion e NLjmber (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 16 ZA 9 4-0 9 Meeting DBE: October 9..2014 at 6;30 PM outhlake, TX 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND 13ELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the 4QQ so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (GIrc a ur under]ine une) the proposed Site Plan referenced above, Space far comments regarding Vour posit! 0n; iAJ I'll', " r s d r— r,,1. W J r"�k ice' r nature: AddItional i nature: Date: Printed game{s}: }AL-st be Dr np�+rl.y a,r nMsj whale name(s) aro p*wWd al . Otherwise contact kr F 4epar mqr t. One form Per P-Paq. € hone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 17 Notification Response Form ZA14 19 Ji4eO*ig DW. October 9, 2414 at 6.30 PM PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX CAR BAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEOULEO PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of o posed O undecided about (drde or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comarents regarding your position: S oti4( v5 -vo l4 1C jl� y' TA � lr lnr P,)(L-c lr'-1 0 Signature; _ Additional Signatu a--L C- 'b t� •ti &fit NA$k-*•r F ti -2� Swa1 t Date: IrOIQA2,\ - Date: / Printed Narne(s) v Must 4a Prop ty auner,$) Ltihoso nam!{a} are pMr"d W topovum ice wnta 0 the P14ming, aep2Yzment. Om i0nr par pmpeTty. Phone Number (optional): 11 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 18 Notification Response Fora ZA I44D99 Meeting Date: D&ObOr 9, 2014 at 6-30 PM f k PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAII FAY. OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCI4EDULED PUBLIC NEARING. Being the uwner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of pga�St undercided aboLr (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced ahcve, Space far comments regarding yaor position: Signature: 11�" Additional Signature- [date; Date' Printed Narnefs): ts'�sl be m cxrty owners) whore rlemefs) are printed at top. olherAse commel tno P`arirr-19 Depai NF101 Ciao form per FxaperlY. Phone Number (optional). Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 19 Notification Response Form ZA 14-059 Meeiang Data; October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM sw" '5tk Ian. PLEASE PROVDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DEL€ IFERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC KEARZNG. Reing the owners) of the PraPerty so riutk td above, are hereby h favor cf opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: A Sig r)ature: -- Additional Signature, T Date-. Printed Names s}: 1 . 4 r e__11 M.ml be txomW pvne(s) wwm asme(�) are pfmw at tap_ CAterniaa oDnod the Pknr*lg DeP4dmeRt orm #cur» perpropeny, Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 20 Notjtjcation Response Form ,r*A' "99 MeaHngNW. Octotler9,2Mtat 5 PM PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORDS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY JBFFME THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PLlBUC HEAFUNG, Being the owners) of the pmp" so dated above, are hereby In favor of pposed to undedded about ( irde ai' tin dicta arts) the proposed Site Plan rafertirt d above. pact: for comments mgalydMg your gasitfw r}nVP- lip ad, hetween S.H 1.14 and N. White Chapel is not a retail destmA40rr. The proposal is not what the area needs, is inconsi,&tart with the surrounding area of lkigh-end homes and not the type of development that was to be allowed when we made a major investment in a single family home fn a quiet area. We are totally opposed W this proposal. The pruposed zoning change and site plan and the preliminary plat represent diivafopment that is dropped in an area Without adjoining retail. Access to retail is not lacking in the area and thus this is not addressing a need- There are numerous grocery and specialty retail esta blishments within reasons ble distances. Aga In, we a re totally opposed to th Is type of develaprnent In thls area of Southiake. Signature- Date2,.r Additional re: �� Date: rlcslr Painted Names): :T Fv-+ 23&-ezzty e*a.,ww- Mwt ee vwerri u'+amriai+M m Fimmcw are **Q ffl ma oaenoaq mo & the sums g 5wftam. one km F*r x cm v- Phone Number (coonal ): ef? I 3 _ k)a4s�,lkr � �t.t:rxaD EeE, I>ENI'rn(- '+S so C �+ NX - Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 21 Notification Response Form ZA14-09 Mbeii" Date: October S, 2014 at 6:30 PU - A-r PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, r-AX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property 9U rlcteii above. are hereby infavor of :opposed t undecided at�uut (circle or underline crre) the prapcsed Site Plan referenced ab . Space for cnmrnenis regardfng your position: C_ t s V-e-1 Signature-.4- Date, ° L Additiorai Signature, bate' Panted Name(s): r �T- Must be property ownegs) wh ae narne(s) m prinbad at bV. offidRalse cork pa the PW%iing rhrnenl. One farm per pmpar11- Phone Number (optional); xrrr � Iczr o= ,ry Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 22 ZA 1 d-099 Meeting Date; October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Southlake, TX 76092 PLEASE PROVIDl^ COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OIL HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the ownegs) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opp(Ised t undecided about (Circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for corn men ts regarding your position: Signature: AdditionalSignature: Printed Narne(s). Mum Fie prcper1y avnrel(s) uhi are pd4jad of 1dp. olhenr iae oorttact the Plennhig DeparUnent. Phone Number (optional); Date, Date- 0+16 iXM per Pulparty. Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 23 ZA14-099 Meeting Date. October 9, 2014 at GM PM t- S Scuthlake, 7X 75092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OFF HAND DELIVER BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the c ner{s) of the property so rioted above, are hereby In favor of pas to undecided abOA (circle or underline one) he proposed Site Flan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position; J [vto t d f inature: �' Date= (` Additional Signature, _ - Date - Fruited Name(s). —... { Mum 6o piopWy tijh!,rya nknio(s) 3r9 OrkbBd ad tap. Phone Number (optional): Case No. ZA14-099 6OrlW tv Planning dapadm at. Una Form pe r Attachment H Page 24 Notification Response Form ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9. 2014 at 6:30 PNI 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 nosed above, are hQreby in favor of undecided about (circle or underline cne) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Ji Sig Additional ignatWe: Date Printed Name(s): � ] Min �e proporty meonr!rf, 1j who o ndme(p) arc pr�u d a1 lop. O[horwige aonact the Awning ❑epgrlrrwd. Oe�o form per pmpmy. Phone Numbef I(opknal): � H" Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 25 Notification Response Form ZA 14-099 Meeting date: October S, 2014 at 6.30 PM - --- O, 4)0-e14.4 ALl PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA AVAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property sc noted above, are hereby In favor of I CPP—Oecl toy. undecided about (circle or underline cne) the prupoaed Site P12n referenced Rbove. Space far cnrnmenis regatding you r position: Ale,; 8 ac Signature: �, _ Date: l & , ,additional Signature, Date: Printed Name{s): - h4.e5t bg 17FOWY 9Mr Wia.j ►Mode nzm*t) arL' pr.-thl a1 tcp. 4thewW cornCt Ow Plennf ig Dapartm d. OrLe Form perpmperty. Phone Number (optional). Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 26 Notification Response Form ZA14-059 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6�30 PM .. An o � e'r- sut, PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA IWAli,, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF 714E SCHE13ULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(a) of the property so mated above, are hereby in favor o 0 Posed to undecided about (circle or underline ore) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space Ivor cammants regarcfing your positinu: 0 Signatu: D Date: 1 Additional Signature: [date: , Panted Name(s)- i t4lurt t?-- property o"mr{s1 whose I mra printed at top_ Otherwlne 4mbod the Phmring rtmant. 4na form per (property. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 27 Notification Response Form ZA 14-099 Meeting Date: Qclbobw 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA EMAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) Z(appG-Fed sa rioted atxove, are hereby in favor of undecided about ine the proposed Site Plan referenwd abnve. Space far cammerits regarding your posttlon: Printed Names): Mum he property &aneks) Whom name(s) are printed al fop. Orhervlga contact ttlE Pl®nning pepartmenl. one firm per rru;Ksftp. Phone Number (optionat), Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 28 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM South lake, TX 70092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORDS VIA MAIL, FAX OR 11AND DPLf FERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so mated ahovie, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for cornments regardikng your position: ignaiure: Additional Signature -- Printed Nante(s). hrust he prup llyoweer(s) whoaIA n0rn9{S} are printed 0 tap. OtherMw wntarl the Planjiuig aeparkment Phone Number (optional): Case No. ZA14-099 Date, I (:) I �2((q Date* Per prnpeM, Attachment H Page 29 USOUTHLAKE Kroger ❑evelopement 1141Dove joannahginsburg > Thu, Oct % 2014 at 2:16 PM To: dcortez@aso a e_ us Dear City Council, 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 aA14-099 Meeting 112te: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM $gas, PLEASE PROVIDE CDNIPL15TD FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND ❑ELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the awner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby i,i favor of CUP c�s dD undecided about (circia or wderiir.e aria) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position' tk Pie- t ' % L 'IJ Signature's. Date: 1 Additionai Signature, Date: Printed dame S . � .Mwit pe J'oWty C'lrr:u�r(sJ MiGn irame(sJ are p rit�q �t Sap. Ot7er4WS CCritediha Pianrdng bep lr ment. [7�a'orr. �& property. Ph core lyurr Ler (o00nal): r I T `d Case No. ZA14-099 OCSC98S991b @014f4] TRU12aN SRTIRG JLC:SC bI L0 '4�)C Attachment H Page 31 Notification Response Form Meeting Data: October 9, 2414 at $:30 PM L 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 �rele t.rl ane) t# a proposed Site Plan refnrencnd above. Space far comments regarding your position: ,.. ij _L1EL-r(4 (- C)T- - �Qo) signature: Date: Additional Signature: Date: Printed Nama(s): �c� It- Mum- bo proPerIX wmer(a) who- rneme(e} as punted S4lop, 0hffaivo Contact Me PlDavwrg i}apartrrwd. One form per properly. Phone Number (optional): '�- I - + ) Case No. ZA14-099 Attachment H Page 32 -. yfir JF e W\. W 1KE zoning case ZA14-099 Mary Golden To: dcortez&i.sou ace. r.us Hello Daniel, Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci.southlake.tx.us> 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 5outhlake, Texas 76092 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 33 Notification Response Form zA14-099 Meeting aafa: Octobw 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM s,.. 'FP PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(;;) of tt�e piaperty so noted above, are hereby irr favor of pas>et #a undecided about (circle or underlini� one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for cofr>:rnants regarding your pcsKian: Signature: 91i r 4�4 Date: 14 ► Additional Signature: I '4'-L nj Date' Printed Name(s): �# 4 . _. 6-4 e 1 MW h1* prapaMy ormer(s) WMM name(2) are pf1 hCJ e' JGJP- Otarwisa aortad iNe Phu" PepanmW. One form per pmp". Phone Number(opfional): �^ {Y U�( ! `1 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 34 l otifiication Response Form ZA14-099 Meeting Data: 0eta ber 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM 7( o 7 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VEA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC WEARING. Being the cwner(a) of the pro rt so ncted above, are hereby ;� favor of oppcsed to undecided about (circle or underline urge) the proposed Site Plan ref�5remced stave. Space for comments regarding your position, 'r 17 i i 0 - ignatu: Additional Signatu Printed Name(s): Met be property cwmfv sj Y&cN nerve( prrted atop. Phone Number (optional): Qate:�� Date: u]s1r�jct the Pr#mlrg pep+irrrenl. One form per PnPcrtr Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 35 Notification Response Fom ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October S, 2014 at 6:30 PM PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START Or THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the ownef(s) of the property sa acted above, are hereby in favor of opposed undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenoed above. Space for comments rag arding your position: Signature: oral Sig hature, Printed Namc(s): I +� WA Must ba moWy owner{s} wNwe nama(a) are pftW M top OtherLylea Phone Number (optional): Date, the Pfennalg Ddpartau:o'. Prj1, rnrm per pfr rty v Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 36 ZA 14-0 99 Meeting Data. October 9, 2014 at 6,,30 PM Southlake, 'TX 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVEERV 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 Blatt referenced above. Space for corrifnents regard ing your position: Signature: Additional Signature: Date: J ' - / Date: Printed Narne(s). rya ist be property mina,r(s) whose nam0s) are panted al tap, Otherwise COMAV the RannN JeperRmgra. One form per pwt}erty- Phone Number (optional):.. - Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 37 acrry Of SOUTHLAKE new Kroger store at 114 & Dove i messac Vonna Hubbard > To: dcortez@fa_so ace_ .us Daniel Cortez {dcortezci.southlake.tx.us'- Thu, Oct 92014 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 trees9 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, 2DI4 at 6:00 PAS t r / 7� v-i PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL., FAX OR HAND DEUVr=RY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED P USUC HEARING. Being the owner(a) of the property sv rioted above, are hereby in favor of apposed #o undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above, Space #or comments regarding your position t �ell Signature: Date: ad� Additional Signature: _ Date, Printed Dame(s): Vust he picperly cvmar(s) Wime rramr,(e) ere pr . e11cr, One F4im perprnp@rty_ Phone Number {optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 39 Z,49 4-499 Meet!ng Date: October 9, 20114 at 6:30 FM Southlake, TX 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the cwner(s) 0f t rffy-noted above: are hereby in favor of ❑Ppnsed to undecided about (cirofe erline One) the Proposed Sile Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature'. —.,- Additional Signature: Printed Name(s): { Must be proF;:.jy rna410r(8) whose names) are Phone Number (opbonal): oq,.)4e open L r So C4 olk.,6 - Date: Date .W,\ 4-\ X�c at t,P- Othemisa cont;W ip4pianfliriq Department. One form per VMPwty- Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 40 1 kj-r] 7 4 i 2; HP1.1; CHIA Notification Response Form REOD C(nP ,W 2 9 2014 ZA14-099 FMx Meeting Date, October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Kirkwood Hollow Ho Assoc 1800 Preat©n Park Blvd Ste 101 Plano Tx 75093 7 1033�5C t 2i 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 opposed to undecided about (circle or underline ore) the proposed Site Plan referenced above, Space for comments regarding your position: .. 1 / 1 . . SignXohreS"i Addgna#ure: Printed Narne(s): ► y i I Y J _ e z - A* . .r .0 Date: f�vo'A;p� Date: Must ho pr6perty owner(s) Whon'Enome(r) are printed at tnp. Othervimc =ntactthe Punning Deparlma it. One f6 tl per prop". Phone Nurnbef (optional)- Z/mac, Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 41 ZIA14-G99 Meeting Date: October �, 2014 at 6:30 FM SVV SouthIaka. TX 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED PORKIES VIA MAIL, PAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so rioted above, are hereby in favor of w cpposed 19 undecided abOLIt (circle or underline one) the proposed Sate Plan referenoed above - Space for comments regardirkg your Position: Signature: Date: a[1 �a Addit#onW Signature - Printed Name(s); &r Musl be property whu9e no mr(s} are prirrfed at tap. Otherwlse co tact the I Phone Number (optional): 21�5 Date} Oran lorrrt per properly. Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 42 ZA'I 4-099 Meeting Date= Octaber 9, 2414 at 6:30 PM } South lake, TX 76092 PLEAS I- PROVIDE COMPLETED F ORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAN0 DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of ��?-, undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for c9mments regardii�q your position: %I r 1 r dtm� ¢ do r �. '. _ 1-� Signature._ E)ate: ' , Additional Signature, Date, Printed f ame(s): ... __ Mrrst be property zvnar{s] whaGa nar Ee u) are printed at lop. OtFrerwiee ixMtm2 the Planning Oepwt reM Oro Farm per groparty- Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 43 Notification Response Form ZA1 "99 Meeting Date: October 9. 214 at 8:30 PM ' A-t f PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETF-11 FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND 13ELIVF-RY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being t:qe owners) of the property SO rioted above, are hereby in favor of apposed to ndecide about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan roferaenced above_ Space for comments regarding your position: L j Signature: Additional Signature: Date: Date: Z 1 V Printed Name{s}; ki el-es¢¢w�j� MuM be Dr rJOdY e1w,rrlg) uhi *ff na�Vle(e) art pdnied el EoR_ Olherwiae csontnt the Plannaso CeWmem_ One farm porPopNCy. Phone Number (optional); 4,z) Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 44 i oa or -Raspo se Form ZA14 8 Va" ng DOW October 9, 2014 at 8.-30.PM PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLFTED FaMS WAMAIL, FAX OR UMO DE BEFORE THE START OF niE �EWLEti PUBM WARIN, M9 the ► ner(s)' of the Prppago noted above, are hereby ire favor of <:: - opposed. to edded about (car or UnderMe one) the, proposed Site Plan referenced awe. Space fOr mmen.'ts m9arding-:your posMon- IT 3 _ e J 2W g Additi" Signature- 5? MUrA-M PMWty MW(S) WhQM rrarmts) are, paged M rM. 0M jkr zq Wnhid tiao Mannhg OW Phone Number (o on l); 104017¢00Q� Date: Date, 6Qi 5,ii' IQ .�ZiIY� i�7 YVA FG 91--6 UTOZ.'LVOT Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 45 ZAJ "ag Meeting Date:- October 9, 14 at 6:30 PM .. __jaxje, Southlaka. 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 p so noted alcove, are hereby in favor of ❑pposed_ia; undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for corn ments regarding your position; & 1 [Yt ahs.-VAI�t �p 560Wk 00 " MoSLI ovf voivr',' �Jr S NL Ng-o Ecm. ION 5T714, Signature: 11 Dater � Additional Signature: date: -- P('int d Names):, 3'V (.1 Lc,hr'-. -N MLwu t bs property vrmer(s) wh.;: .i��e p7inted as tap GoermU 4o 03 Phone Number (optional): CaseNo. ZA14-099 Ona form per properly, Attachment H Page 46 I believe 5outhlake 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 area in jeopardy if we do not work to preserve the quality of life we all enj oy. I 0PPOSE 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 5outhlake. Our SouthIake community has grown substantially, and the destruction ❑f ()ur green spaces is ac curing at an alarming rate. Today, two words describe highway 114, "traffic jam" with regard to the morning and afternoon commute. 1 travel on 114 outside the rush hour periods. In addition, on existing surface streets, traffic now needs tc 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. Arid forthc present, that would take away the country feel and ruin the quality for nur neighborhoods, and our neighborhoods should trot have to Mare that cost. With this proposed development, it will substantially contribute to the already heavy congestion as well as to the noise along highway 11.4 and areas surrounding love Road. The area c�mnot currently support the existing traffic congestion, and the addition of another major shopping development brin&g increased numbers Qf people during the weeli, on weelcends 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 lore, and concerns for personal safety will heat risk among local residents and their families. A d€:cision to move forward and dcrveInp this property would be irresparisible given the multitude of otheer issues that warrant more immediate attention within uur community. In reference to the Z013 Citizen Satisfaction Survey, a question asked "If the City Government could change one thing to make Southlake a better place to line, now and in the future, what change would you like Ln see?" The top verbatim comments were far recreat! un/sports /playgrounds/bike trails/sidewallcs/trails. In closing, yaii have an obligation to preserve this wonderful community for all our farilies. Please Keep SuL thlake BeautifulE Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 47 ZA 44-099 Meeting fie:' Ober 9, 2014 at 6:30 PSI Southlake, TX 7a092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVEPY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the awne, s) of the pro arty so noted above, are hereby in favor cf opposed to undecid about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan, referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: 5 S 1 E�wf e d owl(I (1hA l W, Signature, Additional Signature' lrA Date. Lr' 1 --Zt ) d Date' Printed Na a(s); Muv 6e prwKty a+rmer{s} whose name(s) are printed at tap. OtherMm conwd i * Plwning ESopartrnart. One form per pfope . Phone Number {optional}: Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 48 Notification Response Form ZA•1 d-099 Meeting Date. October 9, 2D74 at 8:30 PM 7L)� PLEASE PROVInE COMPLFTIFF0 FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OFF HAND DELIVERY KFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owners) of the pm erty so noted above, are hereby in favor of Composed to undecided about (circle or underline ane) the proposed Sate Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position. Signature, Additional Signature, Panted Names), Meet t* p[aperl o4anen,s} v,hnge n8 me(s) ark pd r vu d at top Phone Number (optional): Date- the PIWwOng DPPE3rVw%rt, One Torm per pmpeny. Ali - 4qC - [ 7 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 49 Notification Response Form ZAl 4-099 Meeting Date( Octobar 9, 2014 at6:30 PM y,k 1 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE 8CN EDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the prcx erf so noted above, a hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about role or undertirle gone) the propcsad i lan mferenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature, Date: d AdditionalSignature- Date: Printed Names): 7^. . be or_ -My awner(s)whose npFrre(a) are pil. estop. Olhor.vGD cDnlqct Na Piannirrg depwkffwrt. Ong foFm per properly. Phone Nurnt r (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 50 so LAKE Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci.southlake.tx.us> NO TO KROGER REFERENCE CASES ZA14-099 AND ZA14-100 1 message kevin middleton > Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:42 PM To: "doortez@ci.sou ace. c.us < oo 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 SOUTHLAKE TX 76092-6651 214.850.4570 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 51 10-07-14;C2:28PM;CMA Notification Response Form RE'D CMP SW 2 9 2014 mac ZA14-099 Meefing Date, October 9, 2014 at 6:30 FM Kirkwood Hollow Ho Assoc 1800 Preston Park Blvd Ste 401 Plano Tx 75093 ;8173106950 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 opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position- ,. 1/ / Si r,atur ' - _ Date: Add enaSignature: Date: Printed Name(s): Must be property owrter(s) whos name(5] am punted at tog. Otherwise rarriact the Planning Departmerd. One farm pet property. Phone Number (optional), Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 52 ZA14_G99 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Gabriella and Ward Miller 405 Orchard Hill Drive Southlake, TX 76092 F :and mail responses to: PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE STAIN 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 Flan 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 suporstores, especially 15ecause of the r0ra-1 Und low density plan or e r-orth side owy 11 I -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 nesenved for developmenisthat it an ovQn&hnlMJnq nood D tfte-res0dents. We do not need another 91,0cer and wo certainly do not want a super -store. Please do NOT gimant Cencor/Kroger the variances they request.This land was intended to be office space- - not a massive parking lot with a superstore that is larder than Home Depot. Last year you considered this project with Newquest developers and you declined thorn - please do the same. Signature: f' .:i �.r `��-� date: Additional Signature: Date - Printed Name(s): "a briella and Wiz rd Miller 1 � Must be property owrner(s) whose nurne(s) are printed at top. Otherwise contact the Planning Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): 214-212-1707 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 53 i4-D9S Meeting Date. October 9t 2D14 at &,30 PM - - 4 l {ke lie South lake, TX 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND OF -LIVERY - BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEAFUN . Being the owners) of the proe2rly 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. ,' '' -6 A 7 r} A- f t 11 ��- I.� �' 0 d , rr��rryy `q ICfl 45irkv I I I - �_ _ Date. i 1�14 Addifiona€ �gnature, Date: Printed Na e(s); Must to prflperty ammner(s) whaa6 nama(5) are psinRed aE #ap. Warwlsa cantmt 1tLe planning Department. One for n per pruperEv. Phone Number (optional), Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 54 VSOUTHLAKE Fwd: NID=258 Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci.southlake.tx.us> 1 message Ken Baker <kbaker@ci.southlake.tx.us> Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 5:01 PM To: Holly Blake <hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us>, Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci.southlake.tx.us>, Lori Payne <I payne@ci.south lake.tx. use Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Leaann Munoz a Date: October 10, 2014 a PWWW 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 Fora~ ZAL14-OS9 Meeting Date; October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM S%,&. e oa b vid e L v�, v _r -7 b 0 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DIl<4 VIERY 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 undedcled about (circle or un erline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. SpacA for comments regarding your Posit+on. Signature: Additional i�nature: Oate: !/ Date, Printed Name(s): _ OL r_ 2 r- Vj Mus'. bo oropoly owmr(s) *fioce naroe(s) arm prlrHed P_j top, Merwjae AondeS# the Fleming oepwlr eW_ One farm Ref praperty. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 56 Notification response Form f A14-06 Meeting ate: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 pA - ••_t,6 'p- V�s PLEASE PROM BE CCMPLBTED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX QR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SC14EDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being th8 ownnr(s) of the propely so noted above. are hereby ir favor of opDed undecided about (ckle or underline cr1P) the propos8d Site Plan referenced ahGve. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Additional Signatu Printed Name(s): _ L. V�----- MM be pRreV avr;W ) 3vhoae name's) are rrir1W a9 wq. Mend" gpnoo Date. Date. or* faqu Per property. Phone Number (optional): I r7-- Case No. ZA14-099 Attachment H Page 57 ZA14-09 Meeting Data: 0cfiobar 9, 2014 at 6:3U PfA VIC r?� t c � - Southlalke, TX 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE 3TART OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of pposed tq undecided about (circle or underline one') the proposed Site Plan referenced above - pace for comments regarding your position: A hrfrl talAt 14&1 )il Signature: AM Ix Date; LC) Additional Signature: Date: �J Printed Narne(s): Mum be property owners) whose rrame(8} are prinled at liv. Phone Number �opfanal): Case No. ZA14-099 ontact the Planning DeparlrMrnl- OrLe form per propaq. Attachment H Page 58 ZA 14-099 Meeting Daft: OGtDber 9, 2914 at 6;30 PM - ,yewt a, 3vw outh Take, TX 79092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OIL 14AND 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 referenc&d above. Spacefor comments regarding your position: 5 MS Uc'LA - Imo \ , Signature: Date: c l q ddltianal Signature: Date:....._._ Printed Name(s). , � } Muss be property 4vrpOr.) Whose name(3) are printed at lop- 10ME Phone Number (optional): Case No. ZA14-099 contact the Plw , n, Dopadpwit. Une Norm perpropeM- AttachmentH Page 59 0`4]1 �li T ICU. IF - . . . . . . . . . . . . . S ,� ?T L _-, -, .3 -,.. ... . ..... . . a SIB �.i: io Rr AvE ffi �W r� 1 DIW2014 Ci.southlaka.tx.us Mail - RE: I �Eyr�-j �r j� V � i ALA i:3i.if:�'. Ilf.:i: i`•r: ti;d...'Yi.1I.sF. ..-.....!i... RE: ct 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 t5:30pm in the Town Hall Council 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: Date: Printed Name(s): PADMAJA PUPPALA, 2116 Canyon PArk Dr., Southlake TX 76092 - --- Must be property evvner(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. THANKS PADMAJA PUPPALA Holly Blake <hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us} To: Padmaja Puppah 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] httpsalmail.google.corn/rnaif/u1017ui=2&ik=cc737a525d&view=pt&search=inbox&th=14U591 00732005&si ml=146f591 efc732008&slmI=148f5a7bbdc83... 112 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 61 10SOUTH LAKE Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci.southlake.tx.us> Re_ P&Z topic ZA14-100 Oct 9, Southlake Town & Country Ken Baker -kbakerAci.southlake.tx.us> Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:48 AM To: Rath Family > 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 Mr. Baker, wrote: 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 62 Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci,southlake.tx.us> Proposed retail at 114 & Dove Janet Rogers Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:16 AM To: "doortez@ci.sou ace. c.us < oo ez@ci.southlake.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 63 rry or CSOUTIHL AKE Reference cases ZA14-099 and ZA14-100 Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci_southlake_tx.us> Paula Satcher Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:35 AM To: "dcortez@ci.sou ace. x.us < co ez ci.southlake.tx.us> 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!!!I!! Paula Satcher 2725 Raintree Drive Southlake, TX 76092 Sent from my iPhone Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 64 v5(WT}iILAKE Items 9&10 1 message Scott Satcher To: "doortez@ci.sou ace. c.us < cortez@ci.south Iake.tx.us> Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci.southlake.tx.us> Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:33 PM I would like to advise you of my opposition to items 9M 0. 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 iPhone) Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 65 13C a7O 1 H1_ AKE Reference cases ZA14-099 and ZA14-100. 1 message V To: co ez EMU ace. us Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci.southlake.tx.us> Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:46 AM 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 66 USOUTHLAKE P&Z ZA14-0991100 1 message Terry Sauder a To: dcortez@ci.sou ace. c.us Dear Mr. Cortez, Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci.southlake.tx.us> 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 67 Notification Response Form ZAi d-099 Meeting Date: actobar 91 2014 at 6:30 PM e 6 o q _ Direct questiorfs and.nufl p.13 !r &tom . . City of 196uthiskke Prarrninji-k., OV9 06. 7. Wl 10 Fad: [� i7�TdB 8�71 '{ ` .51. PLEASE PROVIDE C0MPLETED FORMS V!A MAIL, FAX GR HAND DEUVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARfNG. Being the owner(s) of the pro p4X 90 Wed above, are bereby in favor of opposed to undecidFb about (circle or underline one,) the prOPDsed Site Plan referenced above. Space for ccmments regarding your position; c,/? 5 AA f f i f Of fry oc � t {1 f oW. f14 SigtWum Add t nal Pont d Na knLr,l to Prowv Phone Nu r - ��--� Date. Signature- - Date, 4uww% WNara narm(%5 are prinwd atop. Ohlarerise rw ritad1he ?lwnhlg OeMdlnrrll, One kwm per p rtY. d e vc 4 r m,i 'F.. rs 1 a r il1 c +7 fc l Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 68 Notification Response Fom ZA14-D99 Meeting Date: October 9, 20i4 at G030 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 pro erty so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed tv l undecided about C1c e o rl rye one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for Cammeats regarding you r Position- F Signature- AdditionalSignature: Date'. Printed dame{s};�-C�' C) ,r '; MU9t be PMP8" owne(s) Wrl=6 geMe(0) 9(0 prioW gt O Wntla the PtBnr&g Department. One immAef property. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 69 Notification Response Form ZA14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Simpson, Charles Etux Kathleen 104 Brentwood Circle Southlake, 7X 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 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 HQAs 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 aiat h1on, have not been convinced at the need, for anoth �� jr orer)/ sLore ill 50uthln!" ; curr undN/ v.,+L, can conveniently 17 grocery rnifvnc�s from N. White Chapel a n6 5I1 114. 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. Thistype 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. j� Signature:Date: Additional Signature. Date: 10I5 i 14 Printed Names): 1 1 + (- 4Li�5S -S+ t-1 ;1AS01J Most be properly owner(s) whose nama(s) are printed at top. OthevMse wolad the Planning Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 70 ZA14-099 Meeting Date. Octabef 9, 2014 at 6:34 PM SoLahlake, 7X 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Beim the oviner(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 cornmen#s regarding your position: t A i Signature:'. Additional. Sibnature, ddd VAS Date. Late, Printed Name(s):._ .mmst r;e,:r eery ownerksj whose nanw(s) are proved 51 top. o#*cu,iae aont3a the Planning DepanlmM. One fdrrn per property. Phone Number {optional}: Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 71 Meeting DaW Octo her 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM .a i1-3 Seuthlak9, TX 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE S Nr�DULED PUBLIC HEARING. 96ng the owninr(s) of the property so noted above. are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circla or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above - Space for comments regarding your position: 6 �KAA 6 vy- 11Y k-'r' Signature: �116 6 an Date: - Additional Signature; }ate: Pdnted t ame(s): T Mini be property owners) whose rrarne(s) are printed at lop, Otherwiea contact tha Mnn,ng 6epurinne nt. One form per properly. Phone Number (optional) - Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 72 Notification Response Form ZA't4-099 Meeting date: Octinber 9, 2014 at 6,30 PM r�r 99.c_ L,� r;q1qz-j411c PLEASE PROVI0E COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owners) of Cite property so no led above, are hereby in favor of apposed t undecided abo-it (circle nr underline One) the proposed Site Elan referenced above. Space far comments regarding your position. l Signature: t Date Additional igr tUre: Printed Name(s): l N9uat he pwpedr r(S) whose nmE(r) are Phone Number (optional): al top. DLhc- - a cwtad the D ate- D — — .20/ pepo,ppent. one Form par propeny. Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 73 ZA14-090 Meeting Date. October PM+,9, 2014 at 0.30 P - . -i�lu:r A� Southlake, TX 7602 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 moue. Pace for comments r arding your position: Tgv.- o \hj C # �,M Signature: Additional Signature: — Date: k M Dale' M= be prVerty oww(s) whose nar*s) ar® Or�ted lap. 0jhw +Ise aoattEia 1ht penning Cepa meat, 0M form }gar prapeaiy. Phone !dumber (aptior{al): � � E-3 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 74 Notification Response Form ZA'I 4r099 Meetng Deft: 0utober 9, ZD14 at 6:30 PM SUS 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 sr� r1uted above, nre hereby in favor of a posed to undecided about (circle of underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarclirrg your position' r ignature' Additional Signature: Date. 6�* Date_ Primed Name(s): 3efJ Sf�'- w&I `0K WWN he pfQPWY MrnEr(a) whoiw iwrnosi bra printed attap. Ofi!.6 Wisa cc4�ad Ihaf lunrling VgmFha rit. Orie form parProPeftY- Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 75 ZA 14-099 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at C30 o..,�. arndCA�A � Svuf dace, TX 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX DR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the pro ert so noted above. are hereby { in favor of �pposed to undlbcEded about (cin a or Lind rline one) the proposed bite Plant referenced above. Space for commants regardilnq your popsWon, NfrL it fit l ;. OV�fa1 `rl. Pro c e vid Iq . Signature; _., _ [ , _ Date: ,Dlq Add[tianal Signature, Date: Printed Name(s): Pht$'')H piC% v" "muse name(s) are printed at w#- C#ierwisa ccnta 4tho Plwn&lg Depmnmert. Oaie form per property. Phone Number (optional) - Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 76 Notification Response Fora} ZA14-099 Meeting Dam; Dctobw 9, 2014 at 6-30 PM PLEASE PROVIDI= COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHFULED PUBLIC HEARING. Beirg the cwner(ti) of the property so dated abrive, are hereby in favor of opposed undecided about (Circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan references[ above Space for romments regarding your position: x/0 Additional Signature: Printed Narne(s): l T 1 Vial ho prclx:lYCAnf1f(8)W nfime's; amprinted&ftop. 00Min Phone Number o ional)- Case No. ZA14-099 Date, ()aWmemt. one form perproparry. Attachment H Page 77 Notification Response Fora} Z,414-099 Wkw ing Data: October 9, 2014 at 6,30 PM �4 C44� e ti-A - r) 0-rig, PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETmFORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND ❑ELIVE RY BEFORE THE START OF THESCHEDULE) PURUC FEARING. Beipg the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby lin favor of (posedt) widecided aborit (circle or underline one) lbe proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments retarding your position: .IL4L�y V �U d - :Tz�� (a'12 J�L-0 A-A--- signatulie: Date: AdditionalSignature; I Date - Printed Name(s): mat be property *vmwr(s) whose Phone Nt,mber {op Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 78 Notification Response Fora FA#4-W9 Meeting Date: Or -tuber A, 2014 at6:30 PW PLEASE PRO1fiBF COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DIFLIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owne((s} of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed t� LirldKided about {circe or underline cne the proposed 8fie Plan referen ce above - Space for comments regarding your positlon: A49 W,-, IVA,, U4 ra ��l C, Addi#ional Signature, Printed Name(s): -i; / Ms be prop" owner(E) vAooRe rare(Q) ere prlrtled et ti Phone Number (opticnal): Dkherwisb cwMd The Date; 4 Cate, Peril• Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 79 ZA14-099 Meeting DaW. Octalbar 9, 2014 at6:30 PM outhlake, TX 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Be rig the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of (!:opposeDto. undecided about (circle or underline one) the propesW Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments; regarding g your position: arWAni ()� r 1-0 i f �r STOP igneture: i Date; �y Additional Signature: Printed Name(s): vlj?'( _ -- '-,'ust be propo.Sk fmrief(s) w�ose raame(s) are printed at tap_ UWermm MrILM F Phone Number (aptionW)' Case No. ZA14-099 Date, One Form per prop". Attachment H Page 80 WV2014 Ci.sailhlake.bx.us Mail - Zoning Case ZA14-09D U50UTHLAI{E Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci.southtake.tx_us> Zoning Case ZA14-099 1 message kennet glitter } Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 10-53 AM To: dcortez@cl.sou ace. .us Mr. Cortez, 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 81 ZA14-099 M**Hnq 1141�:dftii =4mt CAM 'Nail lhe mlAd a, . T. Is . PL,EASE P RMIDE COMPLETED PDRM S VIA hWL, -FAX OR HAND DELFV BEFORE THE STAIN Or THE -SCHEDLFLED PUBLIC HEARIM1. BeErlg the sr(s) af tale pmperty 5x� rKYled above, arf e-rFLhy ,.I Favol OF abod �cifIe or underling one) trie prc paced Site Plan r0erenced abmf&. Space 1rur camn1oil is reglardingYoUr Plnsifionl i( ALL- r- Signature, d itl onal Signature' t : pnnted Ida m--(s)' �} - r 1' t{ a•. UV.fw151 vft 86 RBM%'hI K-Q ,r rare P, �P � ers�J fM Pl�rtir� OepertrnrRl �e In++r+�'.Y ph -one Number ( an81)- T � 1� � �, � � a ve. r Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 82 . •..: r•:v ,,- - - - .. xv_.� •... }•- :.:1 �1la'• � „nv : '•� •. {'., ._-:''r'{ ..�'�.L ' v KA Y.--- :}'v '4 l.� f'-... 'i4+.. l �'a f ..- L .L }'. ri�'�.��s .+ .!}•'r .1&_' k., .i�'.. .. - :�':,w�.. �.Y.-.. i.'�'� PLEASE PROML E COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OFF RANG DEUVERY f BEFORE THE START OF 74E SCHEDULIED PUBW HEAR] NG. : L 'Eeungthe WneS){ LYE c1'hf so noted 2IFp1'6 h� �( r +JL��{M13 5. .+L.y } 1�•._✓+ M1 �{+jJ+��i4i4L+�+�Si.1 �'4 ;Kfvh {-.l Lll,-�. �4.. •}vrQ'L�{-. 7��'.] J-c:irols -or undedl�ia one):: Ty�}� �/� �—i(J1 :�f�y 7-��'j[�'�_��jj .h.' f : •<.. 4` ,.f .:. ..i.+ ?'~ .i+}}L' .J ,• '} dm proM d j i� L-fwa iY*d r vs. '7 •.. l^ +r L"�; r.'. -'} } .ti:l.+ "K. �84Jr.4i7C.. }' �J" :C. �j f �� fV-ate'' qY ++a r ••fig. .cL Y? i .fir k..4'd. :..c �.•:}•: ' ��,"}� 3 � ++��;'. }�' - �� [.a:'.#' •'k.:- .y'¢'L.L �^,k .:.. . L-- .�.,5 : ,. . �, •L L• il-.:�2� + A•..• ! +r;'�','�.F:-. +L.. }� JIL: �s � 4FI'. r•7�'*f•�.'•' Spa" .••..kor _ao en '•1 Lrr 00 -' � r� .`: '+. ... - J:•� f ••f.:: jy� 5+.?'•,: S<': ^?...••.:. -�y. a1: _qt' .<•c•7'-��+„ .f lltit:{:rsr •L.L ...<. tlr• .Y: F�• I� iaila 1 T{ !'LL'��1��1•�' �' ..�.{= ;7c' ws`f t. +•: r. Ili. .- `'-',+ yeti J 2:•�7 •:•ti+-,.r,$s.5.v i.0 .:,:} tik. a+. 5+.. '�• '} c iS A 3 + } ��t. 4'l St4k�fiFt'.' is+,air }i}�' ti.Y i' + i�ti `r}�t,.14: �4�L.''P-. •: L,+r'"f !.I}i�}.. •r. h.{ti'''Lr'd}LSy�{f 4tiif .•:r; :},Li fJ.}{.:fir �=.-"- ti. '- r. ' -J .� �` C; ^�f'r�f r"�k \:c.+ f "i% k,{M {•�{c,�y�15 a'� : ' r.'.", i'::t4•' :'ti,. ; '.r;i �'}'': v_ •''+� PI SSk T rRi.?I 4,'L-'1 •} 1{: di'� iti ••ti fl �,1,# I-'. ' `+ y;.',' :•}� ..}�ry• •. r' a�y' �Mk'• �.. J a l., r •1+ _ 14. #ili..tifl. �..]; f.;L �;:. �` ,f,1� � px, L . ;l �'+ :: 4: arh �� .1. TL + _ : L l5 • +}:�- '�S=L + III �':2 .'L.. I.+ Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 83 r . Y. �i.:i•i 1lJc M - o. vtD �... .:.. .... :: �': •r ..::. ,: ::''..:'.4: - :fir. , ��i i r• - ..ter.�as' .;dry; :y; Ow Ap < J r Ia, , L -r 1 x,i " ... ,.. .. : . .......,a ...... .... ...E . ..x . y..p v.u^. I .... . ... ... .. ..- .. :.. + . .: I.. •:..};.:.. r ..: r';.: . r,. l,,.y :..:' vT_i�: r�>ri�: 55 -.-.... ..,.i .. .. . ,.. ... r., ..._. ... .r.fib W"OR'. _ ter; 1:: A:. :�i.1`;. r,_�. k - y sjk :.�^r' .ram .F�,..:.^.•-,: i •. .:.. ... 1. .. i... :.. x ,.. 5 .. ... F T." .... -. . .... :: .x 1A k: z. •rF"x 'i?'. � •2 S�,r'! �, - ' ��2;:.:i;�'' fir.:,... MM �;:;'... �'".:,::',:• �,: :,.k:��r ,... �:, ,I:... n5•;,.;.x.". ' �': �: 'v7. ,:..x`, <r r�i .Y5 .::5';:!;'S ,'J, - i r. .[. r... ieEy � ': ',x°>"i' �. L� .�nl. :...,: .. .. ,:.<_:.. �L `s• s",i,'.:. - :,:�. (•it':.�'.._....:�<�i:.. ,:ST'. r:[>;'':: " 5,. + --�irk.#-�-'y' :::1'.'r:,.Y.S:'::, ....'4i :F,� ..0 i',,v., Z:i .:•.`;i }'�� - [,��r�' , r - r•l: :... .y,{!:5+'.;�r5' ..�:,4}ry I ��.[ `ii :?':~r ':9" �Y .r.i: ;'.?Sl .�, 11 J`_�'"•hr'�.r' .,C+!sk::y," 1WRM - .i h.. ,1„re•'I - Y'k �':. ilS '!,]":;;A r�.;'jl: i-. 7:�'{< ,�15 �:'r ,. ..'..:':. :'.:+:'. ";:ym '::.��,� 1Lvir '^:r .:~ .:s ,+z•%i' l,. .; ; :'.• YJ i•'1 :_:5 - J i'r, F [/ ry-'Ff•: b �} 7i�5;: ..y �}�}¢•i+ - ✓ ., 3x�r;ry q „1 J. �.'.:x'rF:'^..'`5 .,i.{Y<,f F::;I � �Y �x.�� , .,, 1: R�;1'-"1?iP�Hl:. 4:��1.:'I�` ��5',.... - -�51•i.5' dry': �r 1 •�� :u •rr . .yr<:>t � "k :''fir ;'t �:�� .x�;.: r> �' �.,�•: . - 'IY'. ,x;5a ��. ..� �' •;xriy'9rr.�,t ._•y::i :5,_:::' :.`.. ''.gym.. - rt� ]� .. '•4:'.'JI.. R 'J �:''.5`:.: v A.':'rr . `'r:�4i.,..•'. :. u. nil ::",M1.'� �:i: '� :bt#_'A�Y1;.�} .# 'iJ sf - .nfd'�r s`§.. 'k.i'P'.'•5:, �: .i:'-r i:.v :--".T::.a :<.. < '' urf:Jl ..� - "ti:. _ y�i� .+5r�,', I.I.'• - i i?•."`<' ';itti':Y','S ::,;4..-: r�J.:. - >t� .... �... •„,<.,�.*�+ rfp;';�:+ eat.« q x�.. 4: `•i.i':?`:, ..`:.::f_'':;"-��:;: ...s.,�•_r... - `"f:t", ..{.>. i,: f .rl.• ari�` '�z'i.i':" §'.Y"::i - - a' .fir, y�l. §'... i iY .Y- .�;�.::: -•'�:a ' � ^'�" - _ - i,5� �': 5e`,.,:'S,.r err ,?�'. � :xx•;'>; ..�;':i J' - :>s'�� .:,�se. ';�:.;:,:,;:i ,.�ff`"a�°�� 'r1; '�a �f-�rCJ fi a ��' ��, �r,...:'�':' •.:x;:.;: C'.`,YB. - �;,}-. x � n.^.1r .. - f "'.':-r' = - " „�'.iL R: ' � "iT' CT'S:'y'+ .rat' _4 '.T.4•� n�.l� 'r'� �,(� - �'1��u�.„ft :b�+v t, .-"+. A :-ti ��i 5:+�. �, 1_::a r�Y. ::U v�'��- �� •,�:.'; Jf��.t. ':L�! y. '� :u51r...4 �. vS :�:i�=F]. -:]:•:-.::1;:'` .�..Z"i •s�'.. ••Yi-'i}�.• ky�-i;.1- �i yAiC.,:.:i�f. —'t.r .�i;'Yi;`�. �';. - �::y#a;- �CY•.r'.i-�, •3 Y� ..A 2l'... q. { .=k '�r 4.. i *V+ 7nS T�.• ��'`t•: �j:r:�:.�J• ri..�.:.':i f::��`-';.5!S . ,,:�ti'•;x� \i;�:.f,`y+,:�,x" �!�! s .�,� s2-5�.. r �•'��:: `�,}�• g. 'tiv: .bi:;:.Tf?:::r; ":'k.,,A4ov 'sK?. ,_ a:rt`, . Ika",.:a➢:°11< r'.f(•,:: .y - nip - - .5 ;.,`•!'n],•.x ;yr: - e' 1 - ..11; ::r 1: { k✓'I,. til-� t �^`:03 `'�yvy,yN`:1; .. 5�_,1<..-,a�._T ,. - - - - - - Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 84 - - 5 :d h�: 3 w %9. { . ... - ,... Y . .,? x..�,,-.,� �., :• ......... .. ..: . . � � � - - :'.f�'�.5 `"� t��' Ley �V,s,r�.`' ��.c ��. " �`.$ [ �} f ��1 ' a BEFORWWG.. i . [ .. s.L-TaE .T.a,:: •. '. s,.v :.::'n :..'S 3. .::jrs� .,•�Y•.. r�'i? ° 1"�s•" �. ,..... .,,xb- :,. .s.. ,_a. .., ..: :.. ...� .. .. .. .. - - w�:p�`" ;. k' :'fix: ..x,'•�'1C4 s. ,a. - � .�{.y:•�:,.. �': "�`;;' f:. ;j s. 'rI - ^• - `';,jam:; .; �„.:g•.r. i';' 'r� •� 4'.Yti.,rh�f�T - --'bp"si/�41�y�./.', Wnp�.��,./4y'!r*S['Yf.' s : x•. � . �n.... .;:^ax i, TNT r. e �. a:: F� .�:: :.v:�x•, ..' :.�C�,.i :1R! '..�� .. � {:fl/ � _•:' a'•�.�'. ��rt"'r �. .;,lr� S�.a'r,'j,s.,,�A�.':... ,t.Y".}'�!'�':it;•' .r'.!r a..t 9.1.,.[ ,'. .. ,. - .yU$P�� `�:'•.,. 'f •`.�..'p.` _:',�•. ".`. ... , o-: ,r .s.�k.;'::�4'[� . .._ .. ',::a.�i,.y:.'.:.:::•r.T .., .,..-.. :: •.s� spy,;:- :'`.':`{, J', :ar: F,'s � .i� °5..;�errr:. - �11'��'r�� `' - ..�= x:•'':,'v`:;s3d'.:;y-r�;s�`.:r.:.: �� : u:.., :, sew � ��, : � ;t;_•,: - +:'l,.�.<�.�kr S✓- a.,'-'.�. '' .i ,b:.'i:' ) k: � F ,Y ,''�'Xi:,•c id i�:'3 :.:.�sx� x'v,. � r{4.3: L�' i.o�"}�1'+ - - - 5'eR.. .' ��::: .:. ' `-F'.?Y�i ram- etE'm "�:� .;d•' L '�av 'v�. �'$,':/+`°;;'n5 .3�''- :>s'` � -;.�a - g:� ;i 4-•.A%, 9, r �- .�.��;:rt�. -li`: r ;`S i�.,�Y;:Y!'h , .f•� .� : !� .6� a '.'!r .i'h .,. �4 .�..` :.::,.:.„,".:: L,Y" rp '.'� yr.- : y.>s., 8` aa•�''r• "Y.� . +,� s "iv"{ - - o `a0. i ga �4 a ,1. , .,' i , Yi' �-. �•,. x . �.,., i ,:•r.:• ,-/�'<�� ..-.xd-n; �wx" %..p-..-.awl;>'. �r:. '::s4 � p ;i .� ..��:. „�.�A't; 'i i fr' "3 �G':r ;.'�„:y�' .pia' .'F-, I•r.' ��: �,�@.. "�:: .5" : �.. "kr'r:��t::, ., a s ' •r. .' ., ;i ,•n .. �,... ..s . .� .'„,, n� y' .`�+ •:�5 +.; "G F75 x�S.. ..5. .:t? y �i�Y.: '.:?.`Q:�n�.:".,: "�,',•. .: Z:.. S^...I' .J '9C '�.,^C-V A- \•'.(; - i"' J �x.�tt, _,�q�1 ��ry :�xn..,_ `>s§•� .r�=;, M , .�..-.:.....:. .c.Y N S.. - 6 - - �o "jt++� _ xri C- a.�,v� r._..p;=c;�j:._^„, , '; .._ , r,,,•..�; �:k'';q.r<=` �� +n'. �'•wi� � `� :�:g': i�5.r;e.;., : Al:: �r�'.��:,6. "rs '.F.1.,C 3,.. '� �'�'[ ' '�ct�arr ',vti � �r� �l ::°i'•r `+ i.�', !k'.: i "y eV�� - r••'•n. w' Y k��r,�l `.�ef� : �r�a A•i � � 0.e :ski � .`t R� x-.•i r . -kr ,• 7 �]', u'%' i.:: �: }v ,.f _..}sib.. . .:. ).:Lf`C '.T �'K,L�' F$ '"k .. :ntY.-�• R*•.:7.¢:.:rs.::.. .n'.1'�sa�'-�': S.'..'::- d:�f�'-}L.i',� >r5}'.,;7,`.. s:.f'i - �'�'r::'-��'; ep '�; �.i._:�bY�-i"^ 1 '{�r•1 m? ti..:. �,�i�i��?r�. ,�, v'��:`.%�^ F.�c:'r,,. +��J:,! _ .ii��r'h. �. ¢ Nry r;"'.:. E?. s '�� a.5 ;'vP: •. x.�.�. �;' saes �ti . !i •` - ." d':=.;�.., :'�.. a, � �. ,.�,'9'i. ; S ' Al Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 85 3 ZAI"99 A/ E GZ�M Meeting Gabe: 2094 it 6:30 PM Name and Address- o rl' Ar PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HANG} DELFVEI Y BF -FORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULCD PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of c::> undecided about (circle or underline cne) the proposed Site Plata referenced above. Space for comments regarding your Position: k ri Phone Number (optional). 5 1 i ■ —4 t 4 Loc,, ( t5 �{ k e"najr IAA Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 86 M e�l�r� a: 4 a# 6.30E PM � Nc� �anr? Adders: rx 7 �-c•�A.PFAWE�Vf11f117 7�IN ;r : ■! OF SCHEDULED /i_ �ry� MAIL, FAX OJ`F�+t HA Z Y.-'ti'` s iT �'Y�, THE YVYF�r�q.��iT f `M1 ¢.•..� �c x. '''4'` #; .. � of ,fir noted'r. ,. 44 hVn:.f rid ',1 4so ' `y tw;r 001 opposed Y7F ff! }FV .r'„%.: ,.k':� �'.y4, r f-:_v..: r:.4 :�::,.,� .z, or ithdatfine ore l� f.:;'�I- _ �r:,� ?��y/j�� yr�t$y/��(,7j rf¢ }} �:: a p� Site' 1 h Xii■Lr11ied abovO— :$#a0a fbi COMM your oo i' ��`'�� '� ":p � •• 's �k'� ,^�N ry4r'w ry• wS� .�'��e'{�' �_ ? 4 IL �i 'ISA.�I ++ Iq ��'•" '; � M1� k '. y}�..��y �. �.:'Yr.�..1��', .. y't +[rL }J�r} �rj,y � 3� �J /g�' / � _ ��'.�•'.�' J+ti_ £�'_' H,.`F:' �}'•"F.'•:'.'' :i}' .tom`. � �. fa'ty - .M v k. ' k-... � ,I ' . T,$_�:.,.; ...� •t.-_ fir.. -��.r AdtFk. r ..� . •f. x.;: �k'''' ."I: .,$ ,:;'�..' .'i"SFi''' .} • p�':rr�ar`�`;:.w'�•h`+S't.";,F* ;. .0 hzk:i#:_: - a¢: ##�� ,fir�'�' w'�:'. '�: '.r�r'','ti-a•'.:"� � � .� .� � .,r<. hone .. �..i=` r�}i:�n:`w fie'e ��"':'.%�xti"�'• '9'Y .F�:�j:,'`.' „f...'y�, �.. �:t� :�1;;u-�? _.:�,i?��Yt,�S,'�_,�'�}. . �,, •.rr} x r �� 'a::}� .,�.. r.,-.::" _ �,..."::.� .:.max-: v y,,'.L�.'' .'�.-y .s n� �ii:S�.F `:I'��4. �.. �,5.s:,'..:., try�t,.t•. .�}.� ..1,\:.� >-x"'�}So--�'fi�. Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 87 ZA 14.099 - t * A 0-- ft 111001FIg E)aia. 014 at 6:30 PM . �" 1W Direct quastigns and mail rovponsss to: city of Sau#ii lake Planning a u0mlopowl SWvjCeg mj>aicatr m I p 14M ARai s St; Eft all a Phorm: (817]7MMil Fax: (917j'T43-SW PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA WAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE HEDUt-ED PUBLIC HEARING, Bela 9 IhP own Pr( ) of the prope ry so noted above, art- hefeby ,n favor of <=> on-l-octded about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Filar. referenced above Space for eort wentzi regarding your posli lon: 7' 5 .� 7. 5 f 45 a dws.J 11¢.._ a�+ .9.� [ate. r.—. Additional i rlature;��—� _... Late: �� r Printed Name( ): fu1.r" Uho w "CC.r:T:IcC th+' PIAlir-OW f]r+p5drrr'nl Phone NUrnb r (optional), Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 88 Meeting Dato: 6.30 PM N=e mad Ad dress; Mrs E PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Mng the owner(s) of the property so noted above: are hereby n favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: date: Additional Signature' - - - Date' bust be argpariy awner(aj whoseriamo(u) ara primed at bop. CWwrwkm 0r Md the Ihmnk,g DepiMonl. Amn form Pei PlUpfi ly. Phone Number (optional). Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 89 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 90 Z�A14-099 e%1/ -ILO �0f1 �l Meeeting Date.'�r 2014 at G:30 PM PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR BAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owneos) 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: do &iL LL 110'Ve rY q- '2 f 7�1 LA Sii-4 l 4 �i' 4. ` u E0 Signa ure: 1 Additional Signature:f� Printed Names): 'R' - Must be pwperty owner(s) whoae rname(a) are Onted at lop. f s LLAI-fie Date:t7� a: contact the Planning peparlmetit. One form per property - Phone Number {opUona!}: -- c TA j 4 0� 4kle� ,l �L7ff{. k Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 91 ZA14-099 N 0,xM3.&L -r �c E � (Meeting Date: . 6:30 PM Name said Ac &e3s: A, wha, 44,ec,4) 9. L141"t a F0R'P-s•r Lt-w F- �0u4*' l r Tx �Ga 9 . 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: Signature: 6r, - Date:f-�� Additional Signature: Date://-1 dl Printed Names): �,rJ . C or y , J�2 . _ Must be property owne(s) whose norva(s) are printed a[ tap. Oth iee Carl kaet the ftwning Department- One form per property. Phone Number (optional): Yl'-/- Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 92 y,� .:..,.. }. r4 ; L '1 - :.{' .,.-.1i;• : :V :.'6..1`.'.. ifs l�d:yr:ost'.1.: <r.:.':•�S'':Gf"u'`,v' _ , :.. 4Eri � S '" -✓f .•: �.^f:��` r'rAi�`i: r' i, yw - - ;:.�+• .; r'y; r q. n' r�y.: 5' F::.'� <�.Yvl 1 S . � =ti � . r• a� -J�"'rp'�ti :��:..:t.,u.s.r�x ir1Se OvInE COMPLEM FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAMM DEL"q� '• �`�� `' 'H $TEAMO..THIE �.0 ED PUBLIC. , J 4 e ` re ereb ..: r1 ['ttfdf abot�� .:r .. . r favor af; o f�]`';' t .......... . Pam.. r. eIne I cite -Plan refe# r Spq . d p. 'f no : .... ...,:' �.r .... "..::.. ':t is r:"...., ..:.. a. }. ... .n.i. .+....,x, . .. k y.., . . i..: ., r,.Y. :' n.:. .:..� ..: ems.: t,'. ..:ki: :'S `��x_�;'.'. � :did• �i" _..:�..- 5 .. .:._.: .�, � n•r . •y.., yr .-a•,-.:i� �' by `.: a .r ... .. k..,�r,. �a<..oT.,.c:;S.,. Y�.c::..�.::•:.,.: ,,,: �., .,.... �.. r.^ •... s. u: .-':'� = 'S:�`C��A c,`S.p. } s' Wed ._. pan �e��. s � per a,��ey. 3C„!� �e k r•{ �' � Fr `'�xoC,`^ Y •r.'. m :i,t :o-.i..:=:,.x,>;.., ��_ 4_ <-'>ti; ..<% J'-.. �'w.-.. ,.:.,:. �:•,.3„J l��ev-,x . ..:...>r,.:::;n4..t. ......:...:..:... ems.. .�. a.a.'S :r ,.. .. �.:.,: :: , � .. `� r:,.= • :-�,.?... :'.x^ .i i. •.:r �.:'. �.:.'. '..:I:'i,� :.r •.. •aya.. �11i'r.WW Y1 .... i.>�:.. .. . s, :.: ..> '.'!� !yy�� t i .�,.0"'>>5 -vk�:: �: 4.�i'�<�:�'�'i, - .: i i Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 93 ZA1 +4-099 Meeting Date. Oototer 9, 2014 at E:30 PM Name and Address; Tlgu,4M-Ak- V� - PLEASE PROVIDE 0C3MPLETE0 FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby an favor of <=> undecided abort (circle or undedine one) the proposed Site Plan referen0ed alcove. Space for comments regarding your p ltion: Signature: Date: ,additional Signatur _ Date- Printed arn(s):to Mum ba Property ovmer{W +&Base narne(s) ere pr"ed 6$ IW. O herwirer onrlaa the Planang Depagmrxt, One fnetn PW prdpOrly. Phone Number (opflonal): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 94 ZA14.099 0f Meeting Dal 2014 at 0.30 PM N=8 Lnd Address: -F.. f+ PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR VIAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of (ED undecided about (circle or underline acre) 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 unobtrusi► ee campus . A development anchored by a grocery store at the entry to our city will eventually just be an eyesore . lgril3ttire. Robert V Peipert Additional Signature: Date: 11 / 18/2014 Date. Printed Name(s): Robert V Peipert, 1340 woodbrook ct southlake tx Must be property owner(s) whose nsma(s) are printed et rap. Otherwise contact the Plrning ❑apartment. One tom? perpmpeq. Phone Number (optional): 817 488 7479 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 95 Hasid g : 20 4 A 6.130 PM p Sic ( T)k rF 1' I PLEAS1- PROVIDE COMPLMD FlORMS VIA MAIL,, FAX OR HAND, DELIVERY ? RF; T141E START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING, Been ; the mvrmr(s) of me properly W aura here,. T1 rIqw'ar.0t ik pl s d i� undecided abcu1 (circla ar utiderlIne ore) the prop► sed Si to Plan TaIerenced abcma :j Dab., rf% Ad- diftral Sons tars: redo 4* p'rWtj M ";w -names WD pin* AMP. 011wr"N' conlad UK p1wrn® Dow"ta t U-4 GM pwpmwow. Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 96 ZAI "99 Ajo� } ElL ft yMeeting tct; 2014at 6:30 PM rxittlle qd A{ms�i, 'r��i�►g,I3�ve2o�ptne�t�Se�tric�.� � A-�. �-� - .Y�.' '•'�e:�:�'4�.1.�rua.��Fy-"?��+{��i ,� .�rs;c'a. af�{ w�_eY�"',°'+ .�� PLFA E PROVIDE 00MPLETE D FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner() of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of (Z> undecided about (circle or undedine one) the proposed Site Plan referend above. Space for comments regarding your position: Additional Signature: te, Date: Pri n ted N a me(s): I r{ 4)11 P91u s' be oromrty owr er(s) vtoue ilk] mess} n rr- prfij ed e1 iap. DthkTo& 15dn 1U th&P1flh11ir1g 00PIDIMM, Ons form Fic r property. Phone Number. (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 97 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 98 6822377741 0.': Notification Response Forfn ZA14-Gs9 WON n9 Dota; ❑ctober 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Same, and Address� qca ti-ici s PLME PROVIDE COMPLETFa FORMS VIA.IiiIAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIa HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, ate hereby In savor of appose undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Site Plan r renced above. Space for cornments regarding your posltion. Signature: �' � - --- Date. Il {y Additionai Signature: _ Date: Printed Name(s): Mus! be PS Y mwW4 whose nameisl m 01W sl tap_ C#issrwi�a aoelud tl� ��,9 I]epa�Froer�i. Orae brm per prop" - Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 99 PI 7F7837' 0 03:":20F M I I -Iri-AI14 1 f! ZAI"99 klc'fe"Af �20 Meeting Data: =16 I #t*H M. Fm Nameand AddmNs- S D�—' —rl( --7 to PLEASE PROVIPE COMPLEM FORMS Wk MAIL, FAX dftfANP!DE M-RY 19UMTHE WART j0F'THF- SCkEIDIUL9D K-W . REMM8. Being the owner(s) of the property s a rioted above, are hereby in favor of app¢sed xo undecided @i4qut {circle or underline one} the proposed Site Plan referenced above. SPace for commerift regarding your Pceition: L' I -, - I .(I 4- Signature, Gaffe:', Ad&jonaISignature: —j... Date. Pfinted Name(:Low-i uu-5 E�Isl 4,D M931 bu PFQP" Owmqs) WhO30 nama) Vra Printed al top, ORmwfaig oun laa Jha Planning Department. one in Of PMPEIFp, Pho.ne WNW (opliwal): —L —� - q Case No. Attachment H ZA1 4-099 Page 100 1!1iAr lld Ci goLr aka-.C[.us Mail • F5'd: S pef Kruuixpr l., i v Or Holly Blake <hblake ci,southlake.tx.ua> F: Super Kroger 1 message Lori Payne-Ipayne ci.sct&lake.1x.up- Thu_ Nov 20. 2014 at 3:17 PM To: Ken Baker <KBakergei.southlake.tx. us>, Holly Blake -�hbinkc oi.southlake.tx,us} For yor case file - original Message — From: 'Rick GarharV via Mayor and City Council (ma.111ta mayorand city council@ci _souttrlaka.lx_ us] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 2,43 PM To: mayorandcityc,ouricil cl.southlake,tx.us ubjeei: Super Kroger RegardJess of Kroger stating that they will not close the existing Kroger on Southlake. the reality is that there Is not sufficient support for 2 Krpgerstores in this market. There will be a large empty storefront sluing on a major artery in our community. l am eppa�ied to Kroger adding a super stora_ Sent from my iPhone Ft7rA•Ihnall rrrr/a rxfmbnwlh �I"IFhi=}JSik=rv:7:�'inFF.?rNkvlaw=rvJkwwrh=lrFmArh� id4-N i HliQe3ai7Rti rr� I_ •.c�Lri yFF• cIL:,�•) Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 101 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 102 ,4 alit• A°-'.•;.^.- ii`a#x:€ xIV_14�RQi"ejI�1 p161H-V PUBdidt:IIz Ri kj uZz' A. F - _ �� st;="� ''a;i ;erart•. + _ _, �sY..r i }J{- , Y4"i+.SF :.a.:l P:1.1:y_FM:t',:,tg,S�ti^..r.�� F'y :slS �pf„ loss t'� tfir�srj~�._ '-''`''I.: •,•k'., _ .. �}. : - .. � � .. _ - - a7 �'c�i' iG ��SJ'` '.`S,�L,' '4�\ k•i`T Y•� ,! 1i s.';. ::rt3:. s4{� _ _ !E ' �� .r`� l�ii� w'Y,.n%.; - _-.I.f 'h^x� _ - ..:-: sW+,•; s _ ,;y . .._,31..�.:r•...%�0..::r.:a:ri��...,Jr.�..a._:_=.:_ '� _��. >r 5::.4t rK�• �l' -_ S'v - :��`?� �4r•'F -__ 1 - - •. .. .T•� :-��:: 'hi'':." t.~ r];}. .GL.4:FS'' !i i.' -.. -- 1'L .'.: t,t .. - i• 'I' 'h ,. +"�• ~ - - - " 4:V ter. "0 RiK'A+.iii:s:•t�a,::_�:..a'2Sio..u..n7Pi♦••;:l R..,. .ice}u. •.:�T.wiw - cs �r..iPA�a,rt•,:.wu+, - .ie,-s�r..'';.�,.. ..�Z tm"'� -- � _- uY.^:o-. _..�:%i-'v - ;'+�'h�Y"fr^;i�. •:�x'•C:{i�^:.try.!'.•;.. - '+ik_r�Yv. y -r-ni. �}�5�.�... ..: r....�. ;: _ �:+;;,.r,�,}..�'; .. ...r .,,• - _ - - '�' '.t �. - i•'i•�•.: t, }n• � i'4 •.. Al l• r'1� �'J.:'� - : -, - _ - `•t�j" SSA .- l�L.�.' .`r•.. -��'.. - - ___.4 ��n ''-'` µ --a. :-•. ,. - __ - ' vs&. -4:. � Y, I, _ _ _ :�. - -- - - ,�-..- T�' =t5� - ~}��'':.�e,��ti��.;�i;-"- - - ,x•;�.. 'art: �.i - .�_�,_YY`.-,"_`,,--',a`-:"•- .'Fn'.iRca' - ..._ �'.�°:m"i�S.��irn..`-o'_i �'��"$� .rfi: _ - c vyS_:r_ .i:� IT rr Tit- �� # �. �" � .i::; '.,��._�.i.�nr�:�: �i.��,,- ..:-..'f �:- -{.�, .` - - ..,..._.:"':3r....u. :..,�-.,�rE.:,` '1�� b?.s•��'a,t��..•:..k-'wi.�..�� tip x�L] LL „} •� - - •. }:.i� �.., .j }-. f; aa -::Viee'., y��vl'.'„'"W }!-�a t: ''4.'S._ .,r..y l�3i r yur't:eu, ,!S �• ,rt�i q.J'S - ` •J %'.j:.I5ri!'l..,,S �T? • ;r��fYIC�'ral".'W�''j.-:L�J:•FflrK.=?'„I1 '�k-:9{f. ;�: .rr�.- .-' -- ...•r - 1-- - G 1 •.*.,...s ':.� �:.;:'.;,.:::';� + ---. ---........ -... ---'-�--- _. '"Irk t� 11F195014 i.soVthl0k9.ix.ue Mail - Fwd. F cWsod Krigr io to bolt dt vnrne• of (}a: c ;rO: 1 id C9'r, or 13 UTHL. Hilly Blake# <hblske9ci-sauthlaka.#.ua> Fwd: Proposed Kroger to be built at corner of Dove and 114 1 m$ssepe . Lo►t P8yne <fpayrra ci.raithlake.tx,uS> Tue, Nov 18, 2I0fd at 6:41 PM To: Ken Balkor <KBeker@ci.sOuthiake-tx.usr, WHY Blake <hblake Gi.scutHake,tx,us;� 'For your case File Lori - sent frorn my (Phone Begin forwarcWdl massage= Fro n: Scott Hanle date; Noverober 16r z1114 at 5:52:39 PM CST To:"mayomndcitvcouncil@cl.southlako.tx.r.s"<mayc:aridciiycf-,uncii@oi,southlake.tx,us�- Subject: Proposed Kroger to be built at corner of Oove and 114 Honorable Mayor and City Council I would like to register n y oppositlon to the proposed construction of another Kroger in Southlake at the corner of IDove and 114, for the follovring reasons, 1.) The inners a ctiort of 114 an d Dove i.s heav i ly trafficked es peciall y in the morni rig and aftemwa- It is a m@jOr cummuter route for Westlake residents . constniction, and lawn keepers and is very conjestod avith traffic entering and exiting 114. ,) Southl!Ae High sohool traffic, many students teachers and parents use Dove to access P"tonville road- 3.) Corner of (Jove and 114 has local historical significance ,-, It Is the Right of the Easter massacre of 2 highway rrlo(erCycle psirolrnen by Bonnie and Clyde- 4-) How many Krogers and tracery Storrs do we need Intmn, We already have a Krogers in SoutNake and one in Keller off 1709. two Torn Thumbs, one in Southlake an-i Keller. a Central (Market, a Fresh Food MWriet. a Ralph's and a Sprcuts- I appose this latest construction. Scott Hanle 1339 Hid den QI err Southlake, Texas Sent from my (Pad __-- ---.14-q-.S71u383e:&72&5i rq 1=14k 7-3saiTfe2 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 104 11J2aTC14 19('7W O SOUTHLAKE Hayes Petition Retraction 1 message Ci.uxllh 4!k,I., m.i it - Hl Jyvq; Rv.iligi R E{-Kk,71 Layarxfounder To:'hblake cl.sauLhlake.tx.us" hbiatcet �i_southlake.kx,us HI Holly. Ho Illy BIake �,hblaku@d.southlake_U.us> Thu, Noy 20. 2014 al 2:20 PM I vmld like formally retract my petition signature for the building the Town and Ccojrtry Kroger in 8outhlake. Is this acceptable fore retraction? Thank you. Keith Hayrds 1300 Palu Duro Trail outhlake Texas. 76092 IIAPoW7maipAQ0 drC0wrailru+a?ui=2&ik=cr7Na6Lr1&vleyh=F.Iksesrc7=illr4k$C--14a,ul: L;m5i.J5EiiE63sim.=l4;Gpictc,raa &-:aG Case No. ZA14-099 M Attachment H Page105 1•fiMi- Q.Emulhisfcemus Mail - Fw7 S-ap Kroger aevslapenerr. cm., or SOUTMLAKE Holly Blake 0hbIake ci,southlake-tx.us> F d: Stop Kroger devellopment 2 messages Lori Payne <Ipayne@ci.south hake-tx,us> Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 8,29 PM To: Ken Baker cKBaker c1.sotdhiske,tx,uls;�, Holly Blake �hblake ci.southlake.tx-us> For the Case file. Lori - sent from my iPhohi-e Begin forwarded message; From; Kathleen ClipASW Date: November 17, 2014 at 6:14,,36 PM CST To: "mayarardci#yGounoih oi-sau4hl ke-#x.uS"<mayorandci#yc4uncil@oi,5authlake-tx,us> Subject: Stop Kreger development As 12 year citizens of 3uutfilake, we have see wonderful growth and Improvement in a,r IItUe town. This current dove lopment is NOT in our best interests -we are Wter than a Frisco or Plano. let them have the bau s'orCs. Woro better than this. Keep Sauthlaka beautiful and uniqu"on't cestroy what wa 'he all warked so hard for. Please vote against this development. Sincerely, Lou and Kathleen Gipliiam 350 Bink ley Ct, Sent from my IPhane Ken Baker 4baker@ci,Southlake.tx.us> Mon. Nov 17, 2014 at 9:39 FM To: Daniel Czeez cdcortez ci.southhaea.tx-us>_ Holly Blakc *hhlakc@ri.south la' e.tx.uS> JQvPW ieat hidden] Kenneth M. Baker, AICP Senior Director of Plannipig and Development Seryrices City of 5quthlake 1400 Main Street - Suite 310 Southlake, TX 76092 817-74"0 67 FlE�dl�rn�ll,gvo�e-cnmrmaiUu�'7ili=�i1��19w�mE�a[Ch��nt�oo�nl4gGWr�Gx�044►]d9d6�Irnlylk�9�d8F1rt11-1�9c.�k:06C8a94c6 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 106 Notifir,a ion Response Form ZAI"99 webog Dow: 0OWW r 8, 9914 at 5:34 PM ` aft amid Addksx; �f Sew-, � Grl ace V,"r g4,,- '2-2a1} Sh&AePd Gxf,-e-V Se e � 'CbD i PLEASE PROVIDE OOMPLETED FORDS VIA (NAIL, FAX OR HAM} DELIVERY BEFORE= THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owners) of the property In, Aettd above, are hereby ir, favor of apposed do undecided about (cirda or underline one) the proposed Site Plan referenced above. Space for comments regarding your pvsttion: IS� � c a 1 c: •' �. ,�.x i �. Signature: � �� ❑aEe: �'� �Ce Date: 1dc#itianal5ignatttre: - Printed Names}: ° G,ct it a C\ M,„e W PMWTr ft0w k5, wh0" n3M*W 0MPArdW It+m cs+Ysd try q ""� ^ one Fomt vas xaae+7c Phone Number (optional): x�len# b dIYl.Ipc�.naUhpfwt4�Kpf1it31.p.eIS724i7F6i10259251 9066977958$2724_32917074A866pt9 62 o.jpg 11n711Fagg I 011 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 107 r-rrr of SIOUTHLAKE Daniel Cortez-dcartez ci_southIake_tx_us> Remove Mesenbrink name from Kroger Petition 1 message Michelle Mesenbrink Thu, N u 20, 2014 at 1:47 PM Reply To: Michelle MesenOn � To: 'dlaartez southlake.tx.us c� ez i.s a �e. x.us Cc: Danny > Mr_ Dan Cortez, want my name removed from the petition in support of the Kroger at 114 and Clove- was approached quite awhile ago at the Kroger store on my way out of the store_ I was asked if I'd like an improvedVexpanded Kroger_ I signed yes, thinking it was an expansion of the existing store_ I, in no way support the building of a new Kroger stare at 114 and Dove_ I am 100 percent against a development of this style_ want my name removed from this petition before the meeting tonight_ Thank you, Daniel Scoft Nlesenbrink 469-31-6412 801 Tyler Strad outhiake, TX 76092 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 108 USOUTHLAK,E 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 ci.sou ace. x_us>, Ken Baker <KBaker@ci.southlake_tx.us>, Daniel Cortez {dcortez@ci.southlake.tx.us>, Dennis Killouqh{DKillough@ci.southlake.tx.us> Cr: "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 AffieBethAllmanresources.prig &Associates 7K Local. Real Estate. Leaders. gD Kroger - support petition data_xlsx 61K Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 109 Crry pf Kfn-L#J(E Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci.southlake_tx_us> Kroger 1 message Platt Michelle > Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11-37 AM To: "dcoOez@ci.sou ace. r.us < cortez@ci_southiake.tx.us> Good morning_ was given your email address ty a freind, Jana Garcia_ I am trying to get my name removed from the group that supports the new Kroger bang 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 110 • u MM14 13{ r�r t.,� SOUTHLAKE C xAhk*a1x.L-s P a I - ':wd: QpaceKan W ICrtker M 2rkA! lacc a. 114 & Dow Holly Blake -�hbIakel ci-so uthIake.tx,us> Ford: Opposition to Kroger Marketplace at 114 & Dove 1 message Lori Bayne <lpayne@ci.southlaka.tx-us> Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 5:18 PM To: K@n Bak$rKKBekor@ci.southlake.ix.us>, Holly Blake <hblake ci.&outhtake.tx.us> For the case file LaN - sent from my iPhone Begin -forwarded message: From: Lesley Ross _ Date: November 19, 2014 at 8=111.33 PM M To: mayorandcitycouncil ci-southlake-tx.us Subject: Opposition tv Krager Marl*place at 114 & Dove Dear Mr. Mayor and City CaunciI Members, I am writing to voices my opposition to the proposed Kruger Marketiplsce ai the corner of 114 and Wve. I drive past this location at a minimum of 10 tirnes a week_ as I drive my son to Walnut Grove Elarneritary School from our home in Shady Oaks, I believe a Kroger Marketplace is a poor ohaioa for this partirrrlar piece of property - In addillon to the numerous beautiful trees being out down and an increase in traffic too close to the elementary school, I cia not believe thlal 9outh1leke weds another ijmQery store. In particular, a "big box" grocery stare that sells home goads, toys and jewelry. An extremely small percent -age of Southlake residents would ever buy thosa latter three items from a grocery store, and I believe that this Kroger Marketplace caters to everyone BUT Southlaku residents. We need to think first abDui the residents Of this city before any other nelghbvring kma and their needs. Not too long ago t s poke to a reounal manager of Kroger in for this area aboul an unrelated issue that I had with their stores. In my discussion with hirn, he told me that [hey were frying to align themselves and their prim to carnpaie more with Walmart. I have only shopped of (roger in Sauthlake a handful of times slnoa then [cause of what I was told. realize this piece of property is zoned for reWillmixed uselhatel, and I personally I;elleve it wcuid be a great location for a boutique hotel. By deflnlbon, they "often contain luxury Facilities in unique or intimate settings with full service accommodatlon%, and I feel this fits Soulhlake to a tee - Thank you for your consideration as we try and make Southlake a better place for all of its citlzens. Lesley Ross 812 BV ton Avenue 817-488-2401 Nlrn.'?Me,I.904eJ=r4iri@ilAft1Uft7 ik-cuT37e625d!YHm=prEeewchFmuc�u&1'1-14ft,0kf0d4d2F6&sirr1=149ca�4^_aim4=u Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 111 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPS FORMS V)!A MAIL, FAX O HAND DELNERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUSLIIC HEARING. Being ft ownegs) of the property so noted move, are herby 1f25�t-46SW � s , ?6e�2-in bvor of undecided about (oirle or unde0ine one) the proposed Site Flan referenced above. Space for commeft reprding your position; I momd to SoutLlalee M 1999.. Al that tirue. therd was an effort to not allow Ironies ra less than an asr-e ucsrtb of, .114. Needs to say, that failed. Howes are now closer togedm- on smaller Lots. The city of 5outhhke is IGsirce its chi Bottom Uue..Ws bwom*g }as€ like Frixo or Plarrtn_ Tbat's s .ifiCgly why i moved here....so get away i'rom. that! The citizens of Southlake have spoken on numuour occasions, NO I ORE HICK BOX RETAIL. Its time now for City "leaders- to hsterL Printed Name(s). N F 73� J Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 112 11 14 CiawiNalrekcu%Wgji . F'..' I[-qje- p-oposag m, Dove Road,1W ; 14 CITY Y Of SOUTHILAKE Holly Blake <hblakim@d-southlake,tx.us> F1 : Kroger proposal on Dove Road and 114 -- i-nessa�e Lori Payne <lpaVne@ Lsouthleko.tx.us> Thu, Nov M 2014 at 3:41 pM To: Ken Baker <Kl3AerQCi,sauthlake-tx.us>, Holly Blake <hblake-oi,southlake-Lx-us> For the case fi le From: Mike Scott ' ] Sent; Thursday, NOVEmher 20, 20143:32 PM To: mayorandcityci .indlOci.southlake.tx.us Subject: Kroger proposal on Dove Road ar}d 114 Dear Han. Mayor and City Council members: outhlake is not in need of a Big -Box retailer. Previous attempts were voted down because the city"s residents do net 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 outhlake, and a Grocery/jewelryffurniturefetc. store is not it. Furthermore, the aesthetics of the proposed center do not fit what is expected of a Southlake 1lenuer especially when it will be the first or last.thing in Southlake Drivers will see as they enter or exit the city on b y 114. fespectFully, Mike Scott Kirkwood Hollow Resident ..r::s.;r�nail {�a;is-corn+rnaiUu�''ni�8ik=cc73T�5y6vlp�+'�G�rtd�'o'F� irA�cxB�t 143cr2�r.4c8:958c$9im1=1� Case No. ZA14-099 1W Attachment H Page113 U3llldlZ0V8 18;p8 F 4 ZA1440 Mead g Daft. A/a &sFArA 204 at 6:34 PM N&=X d Addres - o 49fvn 147, SOP-9/0-A., la of PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS ViA NUUL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORFE THE START OF T 4E SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEADING, Being the awr*r(s) cf #1e property so acted above. are heraby in favor of undecided abou! (drele or underline one) tthe proposed SM plan referenood above - Space for comments regarding your poaltion: 1�d.. 4q;r, are '111r4fody 7�0 AUkV 2roOM4 �hreS IL or'ko r Pars /-4'� oar- F - lAl in, Signature, _ Date: C AddI lonal Slgnat Uwe: KAt 4$ PMWY G*W(S) whwo nama(i) ena pf' MW let tap OI�dif+A1M r�ortt•C Iha Wing 1 rperim�l, ona ldm per Phone Number (o pfianal):. 17- � - p-v Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 114 Wry S�UTHLAKE Kroger 1 message Elizabeth Sparks To: "dcortez@ci.sou ace. .us { co ez@ci.southlake.tx.us> Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci.southlake_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 115 13ov-19-201A 03:30 PM PWC 214-756-1652 � . Notification Response Form 1 ZAU-na9 Mseting Date., October % 2014 at 6:20 PIN Name and Addsew lab ot. 'Vtu?e3 - 80M14401 ,Tx (PD�z PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLET50 FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY • BEFORE THE START OP THE SCHEdUL'ED PUBLIO HEARING. Being the cwner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby In favor of opposed tv undecided about (circle or underfine one) the proposed Site Plan referenced move. Space for comments regarding your position: tr cf�, vws c �`r l cam ? t(W i Ir 41,ie, C,�(rvtmf � ��R . ��-�>P►� i �(� Signature: Additional Signature: Date: I f ` .D. It Date: Printed Nsme(s)- 27 �ign le'k9WAFT Must be prom ow o0) whose namaN) ale pd*d et top. MeuWss contact the Plannhl# imparlmodt. OU farm Fxr ffopony. Phone Number (optional): W Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 116 Notification Response Form Zn4a-M MW"n6 Cate: October 9, 21114 at 6,30 I'M Nwm atidAddmw PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HANG DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SC KEDULIED PUSLID 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: L)J - C 4P 4+.6 f R �Q Signature: Date: ,I S Additional Signature: } Date:l 1 Printed Narrle(s): _ 01, - .c � � "'. � r 3lusr b* prpedy omm1g) mtow name(s) are pnered a1 pt_ Olher*hM canto M F90M1K4j DoNt 4r t Unit fu m parpruperlg- Phone Num r (optional): 4 - Oq - �v J� ' �C1 5m 31�.t"U Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 117 nl712014 Ci.soutiaketxus Mal - Kroger Town and Camay Development. U50UTHLAK£ Daniel' Cortez <dcortez@ci.southlake.tx-us> Kroger Town and Country Development. 1 message Luis Argate To: dcodez cl.sou a ee. AS Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 1:56 PM Dear Mayor and City Council; My name is Luis Arqote. I reside at 929 Parkview Lane (Monticello Estates) Southlake, Texas. The purpose of my correspondence is to voice my support of the proposed Kroger Town & Country development at the corner of Dove Rd and Highway 114. Kroger has been a valuable member of the Southlake community for many years. I see a need for a new format Kroger in Southlake to serve our growing community. I also trust Kroger to create a development that meets or exceeds the high Southlake standards. I hope you will arrive at the right decision! Luis Luis A Argate General Manager Four Seasons Resort and Club 4150 N. MacArthur r Irving, Texas 75038 Tel: 972-717-0700 Conde Nast Traveler - #22 Top Resort in the Southwest 2013 Travel f Leisure - #24 Top Resort in the Continental U.S. 2012 Forbes - Travel Guide Star Award 2013 Meetings and Conventions - Gold Tee Award 2013 U.S. News & World Report- Best Hotels in the U.S. 2012 Web: www.fourseasons.com/dallas oTa Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 118 12-'2)26.4 CLsmAhlake.lx.us Mail - R%. K•o,er IP�_TTY iYf SOUTHLAKE Holly Blake ahblake@ci.southiake.tx_us> FW: Kroger 1 message Lori Payne Slpayne@_ci.southlake.tx.us> Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:56 PM To: Ken Baker <Kl3aker@ci.southiake.tx.us?, Holly Blake {hbla1mg6.8❑uthlake.tx_us> --Original Message --- From: Brian Booth _ Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 1, 01 P M Tay mayomnd❑itycouncil@ci.sWhiake.tx.r,s Subject- Kroger This is to voice my opposition to the proposed Kroger in 5outhlake. I believe that our city does not need another grocery store, especially 'nlilh the soon to be openings of 2 other grocery stores_ And t❑ remove the trees on that property is unthinkeble._as well as the traffic impli❑ati❑ras. Please hear my vote of no to Kroger ... if they v,ant to become a goad neighbor, take the money they viere going to spend and upgrade the store they have now. Thank you! Peggy Booth 2104 Estes Park Rd. Southlake, Tx Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 119 12122014 CLsor,fhlake.tx,us N1aI - F w: Say No To Kroger SOUTHLAKE Holly Blake ahblake@ci.southlake.tx.uss FW: Say No To Kroger 1 message Lori Payne <lpayne r@ci.southlake.ix.us> Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:56 PM To; Ken Baker <KBake:@oi.southaake.tx,us>, Holly Blake <hbleku@cf,southlake,tx.us} From: peggyboothl@verizon.net Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 20141M PM To: mayorandcftycouncfl@cl,southlake.tx.us Subject: Say No To Kroger This is to voice my opposition to the proposed Kroger. The last thing our city needs is a new Grocery store, especially wiith the soon to he openings of 2 other ones. And the rernovAl of the trees on that land is unthinkable, not to mention the traffic impiicallions. Please say No to Kroger. I suggest they take the moneythey would have spent on this new store and upgrade the raxisbng one. ItwouId be a win, vein for everyone. Thank yuu, Peggy 3coth Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 120 1&1IM 14 Ci.souNak bus Mai - Fwd F[rW &L-ulu;x *Wsuroby bySarah 4cdd SC"THLAKE HoIly 51 ake <hblake@d.southIake.tx.us> Fwd: Kroger development/ survey by Sarah Dodd 2 mA!3sages Lori Payne <lpayne@cixouthlakeJx.us�- Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 8,42 AM To: Kerr Baker - IKBakenj c)6southlake.tx,us5, Holly Blake {hblake ci,southlake.tx,us> Lon - son' from my Fhone Begin fonverded message: From: Susan Bradford _ Date, December 1, 2D14 aL 2:45:24 AM CST To: mayorondcitycouneil ci,southiake,tx.us Subject: Kroger development) survey by Sarah Dodd Mr. Mayor and City Caunr-il Members, My name is Susan Bradford and I live at 409 Stockton Dr. Southlake, We are within 200 feet of the proposed new Kroger Town and Country Development, which we appose. My purpose here is to briefly describe my experience with the purported "Kroger support " survey done by Ms. Sarah Dodd, hired by Cencor, (and her mother as her assistant, per Ms. Dodd). The day of the survey I was entering Kroger from the left side entrance nearer to the pharmacy. I noticed a woman holding a clipboard and talking to people entering the store. She was OUTSIDE the store. Normally I avoid survey takers and I did this day bDo. However, nowhere inside the store did I see any indication of a poster, or diagram or any information at all showing the new, proposed Kroger site plan acid/or location, as Ms. Dodd indicated was there that day; she made this assertion during the last PZ commission meeting on 11/20/14. As I left the store a 'Few minutes later, the woman was still OUTSIDE of the tar Kroger entrance, with clipboard in hand. NO posters or diagrams were evident. Since Ms. Dodd was very vocal during her presentation at the P&Z 1t4X5:.'.fpii1.:Mx;acurifn�E Iru�P74a=2$Ik=cCi37aB +CA.ue'A=&5A'Ch-sirboxt'.Ih-1457t::�£1U�7e7r.FR�Pi711='IA614Vk' 1717f�iC7�, yIrt1�74�034f'Ic $496b U2 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 121 71112.014 CI_eaUNEka.bun Ma I - Fwd: Kroger [le'o ftmenU c.xosy by Sarah Dad - meeting that she had visuals and information regarding the LOCATION and SIZE of the proposed new Kreger, I just wanted to make you aware of my personal experience that day. This "PR" move by Kroger, as unprofessional as it was, surely indicates the disdain the developer has for Southlake residents as well as for the city leaders. I think our city and its residents deserve better treatment. Thank you. Susan Bradford 409 Stockton Dr. Southlake, TX 76092 Ken Baker €kbaker ci.southlake.tx•uv� Mon. Dec 1. 2014 at 8;44 AM To: Holly Blake <hblaka ci.soutl-lake.tx.us>. Daniel Corley <dcortez{ ci•southlake•tx•us> [Quoted Lox- hidden] Kenneth M. Baker. AICP Senior Director of Planning and Development Services City of Southiake 1400 Main Street - Suite 31IG Southlake. TX 76092 617-748.0067 i:l�:x::ri i�il,:�:Fx:l r. �::i ii'...-i:.;;;;'7i 7.p.��-�:,:73?,eF,75c:&vow=PlSscvch=i- 81�='�1C6ic7e53sirr 1=14aC /..f21C67e7al6dsim=l•1a0t3f F1c55ft'bb 2M I Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 122 12-212114 4imLdd ViA Mall= FW: SW 10"ier Al eta 9LDre it SvF lhlskG C IT7 c.x SOL1MLAKE Holly Blake <hblakisacl.south take-tx.us> FW: Stop Kroger Mega Store in Southlake 1 message Lori Payne <lpayneQai-sauthlake-tx.us� Tue. Dec 2. 2014 at 2,.30 PM To: Ken Raker <KBaker ci.southlaka.tx.us�-, Holly Blare <hblakeCcl.southll ke-tx.us} From: _, Sent: Tuesday, Decen-kr 02, 2014 2:24 PM 7n: mayorandritVcourt dl@ci.&outhiake.tx,us Subject: Stop Kroger Mega Shore to Southlake I a rn against the proposed Xroger Mega Store. See attachment. Margaret Burnett@ STOP KROGER MEGA STORE IN SOUTHLAKE.docx 92 lie-Nmall,gp�7tjGCdnfrn611+iu�'AiF2�ik=ccT37 ,+'14w�Kt&search=i�ok31h=1-0sOch21de87d]74. mk14a0c.'h2'dvOMOM W Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 123 1zC6014 C i.= aAN akij.tx.i,s MFjiI- PA: SoijMlake Town & Country Site Pian ir,Ay SI`HLAI Holly Blake thblake(0ci_southlake.lx.u5} PW: Southlake Town & Country Site Plan 1 message Lori Payne {IpayneQci.southlake_tx.us> Tue. Der, 2, 2014 at 1:57 PM To: Ken Baker <KBaker&i.southlake.tx.us>, Holly Blake <hblakeQci,southlake.tx_us> --Original Message ----- From' David Cardena; _ Sent: Tuesday, December 02. 2014 1:25 PM To' mayorijndoitycouncil ui.southlake.tx,us Cc: Ipayne@ci,southlake.lx.us Subject: Southlake Town & Country Site Plan To: Honorable Mayur and members of tho 5outhlake City Council Re' Southlake Town and Country We would like t❑ express our Opposition to the proposed Southlake Town and Country development (Kroger) at 500 1Uest SH 114. The proposed development is too intrusive to the surrounding neighborhoods and poses a threat to the overall landscape of the area. Sincerely, David & Norma Cardenas 2105 Vail Road Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 124 17iL"1n1e C:i su,.ihlukuAx.us MA - FW Op -' iGuu;a fur Kruger Cevdapment- City Council msd-g 1OW14 Holly Blake chblake@ri.5uuth1akiaAx.us> F : 0pposit1on to Super Kroger Development - City CoLinciT meeting 1 217J1 4 1 rnpgsage Lori Payne <Ipayno ci_snuthlake.tx,us} Mon. Dec 1, 2014 at 10:12 AM To: Ken Baker -�KBakena ci_southlake. tx.us}, Holly Blakc <hblake(Pci,suulhlake,tx,us} Fur dic case file - Frorn: Conley, Michael Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 9:40 AM 70; m8ycarDr,dCityc-ounl�I�ti.sol,ithlake.bc.u5 Subject: OppDSltion to Stgt er Kroger Development - City Council mecl]ng 1212/14 My name is Michael Conley and I live at 100 Brentwood C pole, Southlake with my wife Audrey and two young Dragons: Ben Q7 and Zach (5). I wanted to express my apposition to the Super Kroger development, 1 have been apposed to this development since the original, previous plan was pnesentod about 1 year ago. In t.r)at original plan, the Super Kroger develupmenl is pretty much idr:ntical tovk;3t is currently being proposed despite all the homeowners corn menu and convrns ever the pass year_ B0 the original plan also irtcludod plans for the large piece of land next to this Kroger development — the land that vrould t:a between Kirkwood Blvd and tWhite Chapel. And that original plan showed another Large bepartment st,oro, several Junior Anchor stares, other retail bui[dings and anther massive parking lot, In Fact. this other large department store (r rnored at the tlmo dcstinod to become a Belk department stare) would haute Iiteraily been several hundred fee# from my home in the Brentwood nalghborhood. But now Kroger along with lawyers ared a new developer are '+hiding the FootbaP" on their pans for this other lame plece of land. It this Super Kfocler development yeti approved, 4will sot tho procadortforall future development of the adjacent land (e.g. the large piece of land MerritiOnOd above and all the adjacent land to the 0uth1= • This Super Kroger Wone with an additional 10.000 vehicle trips per day will push our surrounding roads and traffic past the breaking point, Nil there be any road capacity left For the future development of adjacent band (not to mention developmeni at CMIIon)? How much wurse will it get once the surrounding land gets deval❑ped? How will the precedeni of khis Super Kroger set the tone for whoever or whatever wlll develop the adjacent land next to this massive cycs are n the future? What developments aII follow and what devatopmerU wilt be scared away'? I also wanted to merltiort the mundabout at VVIIite GhapeI and Dove_ We go past there every day taking my sons to & from Walnut Grovo Elementary School, to Bob Jones perk to play soccer, to NorthPark to play flag football and for the annual Easter Egg hunt. And at that lrafflo Clrole the city placed 2 beautiful smApturas that 1 bolleve. and I think the city Believes, captures the feel and Vislon far this area of 5outhlake (Shvwn below)- rapaNmalIQDT113 1h&5nr1=14eM9�dDwlh Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 125 lz=14 CL=AMwtxm Mml • FNf: Oppumlol SI 14apBr Daveloprrelt- Cllyr Cp>noll nwm*q 92f8fi4 .'ig lfmail.gmo&manlmaWgnL�=2&kaZI Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 126 . ,1-Z 14 ckgot Nge-x cx r.'a I - -W: i,Vwsj%im to .SLper l4ow Devu1n----o-1- i. tC Ci ,id Ore sculpture is of a Mother sitting on a bench with herson-The clher sculpture Is of a Father v4th his daughter holding fishing poles. These two sculptures g>a beyond wards and exeHnolfy what this part of Southlake 119' currently and what WE 'MEANT TO BE'. If you allow this development to go forward, you might as well move these beautiful sculptures to whatever part of Sauthlake family values and a famlly way of life ars Still a.orished and can be protected by the city. I am sure Kropar uo,.,ld be thrilled with this idea. as they would then be able to put some Kroger signage in its place advertlsing their daily special on !sum e'ups cale' seafood and a 12 pack Df 'upscale' beer. This masslve Super Kroger ("Ich I believa is larger than Phase I and 2 of the Marcl combined) is totally wrong for thirs land &o 0101te to our horn", our parks, our schDols and our children. Please reject this proposed Super Kroger development. Thank you. Whael Conley 100 Brentwood Clr 5txdlilake, TX 76092 hlt7s 7r��Il,g g19 ti8r,rclk ul�iSik■4ti3 [StlB,Yim�P t=irtxa$tl�9LoCGaO.'194i�ac1 sim1=1d�pGa 194xx9R :'.,A Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 127 1 V+'i+'1614 €;i in Mail - FW: lac.2, 2014 DME" Agwils NE ms 9H & I1 pG°9er proposo al uo e& 614 i i4j Irw <}r OUTHIAKE Helly make ehblake&i.southlake.tx.us> F : Dec Z, 2014 Meeting Agenda Items GH & BI (Kroger proposal at Dove & SH 114) 1 message _ d � T .bo Lori Payne <I yne§ri.southlake_tx_m> Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:29 PM To; Ken Baker <KBaker&i.south Iake_tx.us>, Hilly glako <hblake@ci.south lake. RA. us> From,. Jerknifer Cooper - Sent. Tuesday, December 02, 2014 4.24 PM To: mayorandauycouncilpci,southlake,txrus Subject: Dec 2, 2014 Me Jtiry Agenda Ite11't5 6H & 61 (Kroger proposal at Dove & 5H 114) Honorable Mayor and City Council; I am +writing to express my apposition to the 2 agenda items regarding the proposed Kroger development at the southeast corner of Dove Road and 5H 114 (ZA14-099 & ZA14-100). There are marry reasons why this development is unsuitable for 5outhlake and this area in particular. Those reasons all resonate with the same underlying theme; the proposed development in its current form does not enhance the quality of the city of Southlake.. Here Is a short list of reasons why this development should not be approved: Traffic - This development will bring a level of traffic congestion that wlII make the north side a nightmare to navigate. Going to Bob ]ones Nature Venter or North Park will be too difficult and/or dangerous For many with the additionat retail trafft. This does not: solely impact the neighborhoods adjacent to the 114/Dove corner, Savannah Estates residents (when completed) will use the intersection in their daily commutes as well as many of us who live off of Dove (west of 114), PeytonviIler and RtandoI Mil I. We already have challenges In this area and trafFl,_- is a major concern it 10r000+ cars per day are added to that intersection. Property value decline - Kroger is not building this stare for 5outhiake residents. This is evident irr the way they have Tnteracted with the nearby neighborhoods and the hostility at the P&Z meetings. T'he design in their proposal will -not enhance the rural feeling of that: part of town; it does not fit the overall feel of north South lake, Kroger and Cencor compare their development to the new Park Village but their plans are not anywhere close to the aesthetic appeal of the Central retail district. It is a big ugly box with a big cement parking lot that will only serve to drive surrounding property values dawn. f Arnail poc e�261kaoc737 2Gd6n�eur■V roh■� iAS.d WrdEffbc6&rim-=',,Oc11t2fcekk6 112 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 128 12GM14 Ci adrh�e¢e.ix.ue Mau - FW; DOC $ 2014 McWng AgwM Noma M a J3I QGoger papoaal at oam b sH 114) .Safety - WIth increased traffic Cornes increased opportunity for crlminaI activity. There veauld be many non-residents stopping through to pick up groceries on their way home and same percentage will not always do the right thing. The plan indicated this store would be open 24 hours a day. This will dictate that our police fore will have to cover a more spread out commerclaijretaiI area than they Currently do as most of our Businesses are centrally located around 1709 now. W111 more officers be hired so that Current levels of coverage are maintained for residential safety? Will Kroger pay for that? Is there any benefit to having another grocery store on the edge of Southlake? It seems like Kroger should be bringing something to the table for Southlake if they are going to get to capture all that nice revenue from residents of Trophy Club, Roanoke, Haslet, etc. Sales tax maybe? How much sales tax will Southlake receive from another grocery store when many items sold In a grocery store are not taxable? Will that sales tax offset the loss in property tax when our home vafues decline? What about the loss of sales tax from the closing of the oltl store when (a few years down the rand) Kroger says it isn't economically viable" to have two stores within about 2 miles? hood for thought. e have so little land left in Southlake for development. Let's do something very special WM the remaining parcels, Including this one at Dave Rd and 114. We don% have to develop for the sake of developing. This proposal tram Kroger and Cencor is not special in any way and doesn't enhance Southlake or the quality of life of its residents. Please reject these requests at tonight's meeting, Thank you for your consideration. Jennifer Cooper 1365 Holland Hill Southlake, TX 76092 Iilp6;hYnail�oo�6_oanJmall�JQ+hA•2 ik=oc73?�a2rrd9n�x=pt$g[a9rf#irr6cx8V=14FLdl WlAnll:>�8*irn ='4e"11149daftwS 22 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 129 12rAM14 U.9mW akebLm Mail - Mru Tone S C mr#y DeMDFwat 15SOUT1 ILAKE Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci.scuthlake.tx-us> Kroger Town & Country Development 1 message Dailey, Mark Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 8:21 AM To: "dcortezt cl.soutnlaxe-ix.usr_orrezci-suuthlake.tx.us> Dear Mr- Cortez, I would like to voice my support for the new proposed Kroger store in 5outhlake- I have had the pleasure of working with Kroger in the development of a new store in Irving and have found them to be a very respectful and understanding company as it relates to the communities that they are serving. They have already responded to many of the concerns and request that have been made by the local residents- As a resident of Southlake, 1 know that they will do a good job in helping us maintain Southlake as one of the most desired cities in the region. Pleasevote for approval - Mark D. Dailey Sr- Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer Flonrserve Corporation 972.443-6550 (Ofc) 1311 Eagle Bend Southlake TX 76092 NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail, and its attachments), is confidential and may be privileged - It is intended oily for the use of the individual or entity named herein. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited- If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, fax or e-mail and then delete the e-mail from your computer system without retaining any copies. Thank you- d��Rmalgr�emnJmaI F28ik 1EeSbdlecWew irbarEF=14a72iiDS&46 siml=14i3TDD5BZA5eAO Case No. ZA14-099 1.2 Attachment H Page130 lLM014 rJOU J HLAKE Fwd: Kroger 1 message Claamlake.rY l � L MI - Fwd: IGnger Holly Blake 4hbIake ci,southIake.tx_usr A I C(-[ J . Lori Payne <Ipaynk3@ci,southlake_tx_us>� Wed. Dec 3, 2014 at 12:23 AM To: Holly Blake <hblake ci.southlske.tx.us}, Ken Baker <KBaker ci,southlake.tx_us�- Lori -sent from my iPhone Begin fonvarded message: From; daviddlurre via Mayor and City Council<mayorandcitycouncII@ci_soutWake. N.us> Da*. December 2, 2014 at 11:46:39 PM CST To: 'mayorandeitycuuncil&i,southlake.tx.us" cmayofandeltycouncii@c3.southlake,tx.us> Subjact: Kfoeer RapJy-To: Hi thw:e, I am sure all of you are tlmd of hearing and talking about the r9oposed town and country development that includes the large Kroger on 114 and dove. Can you explain to me why this wSs tabled until January? We were all then as wem the developers to discuss the issue_ duA think any of us are foolish enough to think that land veill not be developed bul it should be Pretty Clear to you that not one satithlake residence want$ a big bwt retailer there. vwe are the people MCf vote for you therefore you should simply be an extension of us. It is obvlous Kroger is coml% fast and furious and probaabJy aro offahnrg some great mnney to speed things along_ As well as a lot of false promises such as keeping the existing site Open. I can assun� you the January meeting will have triple the crowd that tonight's meeting had and if it's pushed back and not fiat out denied wr: will have 1Ox the fallowing time. We all rnoved to this Silo of this great city because it is quiet, Iranquil and safe for us and our families, This devetopmani will rurrr all of that and decrease our property values. For now can you please respond Wth an answor as to why nothing was done tonight? Everyono Is FOGAy let down by your actions, Thanks David Durre 553 Round HQIIow SOUTHIAKE tx 76092 Sent from my iPh❑no T.;, :rnrEil.iN le.cumarWptMi-2eik=oc737a&2$d$v.rw=p9S8WClr- r=&x W14610MMR)4d182e8si 1-14s❑ad114tleliUM V2 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 131 121MC 14 Ci i9wtNal aAxxs Mall . FYI- Kroger Town wV CvuNry Opposillon Q7y Or HLAKE Holly Blake chtrlake@cl,southlake.tx,us> FW: Kroger Town and Country Opposilton 1 message Lori Payne <Ipayne@ci.southlake.tx.us> Tue. Dec 2, 2014 at 1:50 PM To: Ken Baker {KRAer@ci.southlake.Lx.us>, Holly Blake {hblake oi,southlake.tx.us-- From: kennetgiti>=r , Sent: Tuesday, December92, 2014I:10FM To: maVera ndcitycou dl@6,wunlake,tx.us Subject! Kroger Town and Country Opposfiton I am writing to state that I am OPPOSED to the development of the Kroger Town and Country at 114 and Dove. This development is not consistent with tha look and feel of the north side of Southlake. I ern very cancerned about the Increased traffic and possibility of vriminel oCtivl#y in cur neighborhoods as a result of this development, 11 is not needed in Southlake, where we already have an oversaturatlon of grocery stores. Southlake does not need this Vial -Mort clone In our city, also fear that this dsveiopmant W1.1I lead to the Inevitable closing of the existing Kroger and lead to economic troubles for the merchants of that strlp ren[mr. Also, please considcrthc impact the additional traffic will have on parents trying to gel their kids to and from school. at Walnut Grove, Durham, and even the High School_ Kerr remitter 2106 Vail'Road Southlake, Tx 76092 N1rx_Hrem1,q3"a.eorn.mF.0UG?Li=2&k=ca!'s:+abt5d&view=V-&9ea:h=i rbaK&tlr. 4,F4craac4ULM-d&sirn 1= 143A QW31d Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 132 121i1'M14 GI-ylMeke*-w Marl_ FW Pfopeeed&-AOpmFw WFOVP{rar rimbe-kska ICory OF SMITHILAKE Molly Blake <hblaka( cl.southlak*AK us> FW: Proposed development across from Timbeirkake 7 message Lori Payne <Ipayne@ci.southlake.lx.us Tue. Dec 2. 2014 al 1.68 PM TD: Ken Baker <KBaken§ci.southlake_tx.us�-, Holly Blake ehblekc@ci.southlake.tx,us5 From; Jim Johnson Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 1,37 PM T4: rn8-�orandrityeou_)cil(�ci_southlake.tx.us Subject: Proposed development across from Tim berkake i live in the Timberlake neighborhrtod and have no objection to the praposcd development with one acre residential lots. Thank you for your service to tha city, Jinn and Patti Johnson 607 Timber rest CT Southlake Tx T6093 Seat from my iPhone Jim Johnson Home Field Manager Dallas and Houston C S17-919-rt,,2 F 214-427-3453 X Penney 2007 Preston Roard Frisco, TX 7SM4 h � sJhn 8� I .g00�e_carn fin el Nu�'il.r ■ 261 k= 6c7 3 7s S�f i e,.v = c FF i n600[�th ■ 1 d¢r(lc 95156 5�,d ae3si m I=14�G C 951 45dbe Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 133 ItH{�-j 5 /v re, r es..c d o 0 A-6 re,r a q' J-/4pa 0 �r4,94 � 4a e re- DEC - Z 2 0.4 OFFICE OF CITY MEORFTARY Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 134 M212014 Q.soidhlake.tx,us Mail - FYI: opposed to Kru�er IOc.rrr Of SOUTHLAKE Holly Blake <hblake@c[.southlake.tx.usx FW: opposed to Kroger i message Lori Payne {lpayne@ci.scuthilake.tx,us} Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1.57 PM To: Ken Baker <KBaker@ci.southlake.tx.us>, Holly Blake <hblakc@aci,southlake.tx.us> From: ton[ leste. Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2Q14 1:20 PM To. rnayarandcitycouncilOci.southlake,tx.us Subject: opposed to Kroger I wi11 be unable to attend tonights city council meeting but I would like to cost my apposition to the Kroger development. I am currently a Estes Park Resident and I strongly oppose this development in my backyard Thank You in Advance Toni and Jeff Lester Estes Park Residents Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 135 1122D14 Ci.souhlaktAK.us Mai - F:°d: 0pDas 4-a-1 toKrogF7 SOUTHLAKE Holly Slake <hblake@ci.socthlakeAx.us> FW: Opposition to Kroger 1 message Lorl Payne Apayne@ci.southlake.tx.us* Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:57 PM To: Ken Baker <KBaker@ci,southlake.tx.us>, Holly Blake <hblake@cl.southl.ake.tx.us> ---Original Message — From: J Michaelides Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 20141:28 PM To: rnayorandcitycouncll@ci.southlake.tx.us Subject: 03pp06ition to Kroger Dear Mayor and City Council; The Michaelides family Is away this week and unable to attend the meeting on the 114 Kroger. Therefore this email serves as our opposition to this project. This Kroger is unnecessary and is not beneficial to our community. Thanks For your receipt of this email Sincerely, The M:'chaelides Family 905 Aspen Ridge Dr Sent from my iPhone Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 136 December 2, 2014 TO: Southlake City Council FROM: Jeff Mitchell, 700 Castle Rock Drive, Estes Park Estates RE: Proposed Kroger Town & Country Store I am writing this letter in support of the proposed Kroger Town & Country store on the north side of Highway 114 between White Chapel and Dove. I have lived in Estes Park Estates for almost ten years and, while I enjoy the lack of commercialism on the north side of town, I would enjoy the convenience of a grocery store closer to my house. I do the majority of my grocery shopping at Kroger and trust they would build a very nice store, in conjunction with the planning and architectural committees, which would not detract from the community in the least. Thanks for your consideration. Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 137 PLL455 PROVIOE OMPLE D FORMS YUI # , FAX 4R HAfV_M4 WW. ':. k3eirgp the aslvner{b}:4f a prey as nab tcr.pt ,.J=;# refioy n'r I"j h ` . • ' ... ,.�'1 �,ilrN' at �a(t4�6�� ;•'•uulltl�dded �,Ipo�#Y . ' ...5:. • , ,�� '• tiY i ' . --- ' - the d'F r"ry Plat wNmr=d about. . .�R.fW'cd4nr9r�11� t9dgtimdlll�; CICt111:. _ -. ' ' 44 • +f�r�f%�� y■.�/ .- . , ..'. :�r.' - - L L- 'r' '.tip � - ditiana3 :Sj9rMbjTe {[f-&hn p"ry awl Ma ,4.rYnsc , me[aj _np"a�Ll n tap,. ry eanb JI& _ C.aQwV��R-fin L.sm 00. to". • r• 1 Case No. ZA14-099 Attachment H Page138 13SOUTHLAKE Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci.southlake.tx.us} support the project for the Kroger Town and Country store 1 message ANGIE ROSE > To: dcortez@ci.sou ace. _us To whom it may concern. Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3-55 PM I would like to support the project for the Kroger Town and Country store. Kroger has been an assel for many years and will continue to be wonderful friend to the community. I know Southlake will benefit from this new store opening in our community. Kroger goes above and beyond to support our community through community outreach like no other store in our city. Kroger brings out the best in our community by holding food drives to feed the hungry, support Children for Christmas and feed families for Thanksgiving. They understand to importance to giving back and supporting the community that supports their stores. My vote is for the new store to be built in Southlake. Blessings, Angie Rose 817-602A 164 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 139 U SQUTHLAKE Support for Kroger Town and Country Store 1 message Chelsea Rose = To: dcortez@ci.sou ace. _us To whom it may concern, Daniel Cortez <dcortezn@ci.southlake_tx.us> Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4.09 PM I would like to support the project for the Kroger Town and Country store. Kroger has been an asset for many years and will continue to be wonderful friend to the community. I know Southlake will benefit from this new store opening in our community. Kroger goes above and beyond to support our community through community outreach like no other store in our city. Kroger brings out the best in our community by holding food drives to feed the hungry, support Children for Christmas and feed families for Thanksgiving. They understand to importance to giving back and supporting the community that supports their stores. My vote is for the new store to be built in 5outhlake. Enjoy Today, Chelsea Rose 817-602A 162 Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 140 SOUTHLAIE Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci.southlake.tx.us> Supped for the Kroger Town and Country store 1 message Steel Bose Mon, Dec 1, 2{}14 at 5:20 PM To: dcortezcI.sautniatce.nc-US To whom it may €onrem. I would like to support the project for the Kroger Town and Country store. Kroger has been an asset for many years and wil I continue to he a wonderful friend to the commu nity. I know Southlake will benefit from this new store opening in Southlake. Kroger goes above and beyond to su pport the DFW area through outreach programs like no other store inour city I have seen. Kroger brings out the best in u s by holding food drives to feed the h u ngry, support Children for Christmas and feed families forThan ksgiving. They understandthe importanaeofgivinghackandsupportingthe neighborhood. As a Southlake resident my vote is for the new Kroger store to be built in Southiake. Sincerely, T. Steel Rose, CPA 817-416-6650 Thank you, T. Steel Rose, CPA Abide Media CPAMagatime wwvw.cpamagazine.com Collection Advisor magazine www_eoilectionadvisor-com 'Nobody can go back and start a new begin, but anyone can starttoday and make a new ending! — Maria. Robinson, 817-416-6650 SmAhlal€ejX76092 817-756-7252fax Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 141 12!3=4 Ci-wA Iakau us t.1:il - �wd: Wms 1181 a- Dec 2 city murcil sgEma Holly Blake <hb12k90d.south€ake.tx.us> F dl: Items M on Dec 2 city coulncil agenda 1 message 6 N/ ... I 0o Lori Payne <Ipayne a ci.southInke.tx_us> Too, Dec 2r 2014 at 6:25 PM To: Hally Blake <hblake c;i.southlake.tx.us>, Ken Baker <KBaker@ci,sou thlake. Ix.us> Lori - sent from my (Phone Begin forwarded message; From: IClmberly Rutledge Data: December 2r 2014 Hi a:413:46 PM CST To: "inayorarldcltycouncif ci-scuthlake,tx,us"<mayorendcltycouncll@ci-sotAhlake.tx,m>. "Ipayrtegci.soukhlake-tx-W <Ipayne ei,south IakeAx.us> Subject: Itams H&I on Dec 2 city council agenda My name is Kim Rutledge. I live in Estes Park at 2105 Denver Drive with my husband Doug and our three sons. We relocatad hare in Jura 2014 from Soulhern California due to a change in jobs. am sending this email to voice our concerns abut the proposed development of IN] Kroger at DovefKirkiAvodf114. One of the reasarxs wa chase to move to 5outhlake wos because of the preservation of green space and trees wvirrile still allm,.ing for Convenient access to businesses and servlees. After review€ng the plans for the Kroger stare complex. I am disturbed by the removal of the tleeea and by the impacr that such a c❑rnplex will have on traffic in what is essentially a residential area. 1 am not fn favor of this devBkg nnrvrtt at all, And why should Kroger be exempt rrorri regulartlons goveming Iree cuts' It will surely lead to an unattractive gateway to our community. Kroger has a perfectly good tocation now- I [ail to see why it's necessary to build another box stare. Surely there is ample opporlunity to enhance theirexlsting loca€ion- You shuulo also seriously consider the traffic impact- As you well knpvo, Dove Road is used by many of our senior high studenls to get to and frorn school as they sank to bypass the traffm at CHIS on White Chapel. The mix of greater retail traffic and new driver; is not a risk that should qe fntroduced- The traffic will also have a negative impact on those whu havo made their homes around this area- Plaase — do nat move faavaard with the development plans as they are currently designed. take time to cons iderthe currenl needs of the community as those needs may hate changed since this design was originally drawn. Thank you far your time, Kirrt Rutledge 2105 Dewar Drive Svukhlake, TX. 76062 310-782.060 (cell) Sent from my [Pad -re.s, rio#It, mleg .cav mNvumyr u=z&k=GC737s625d&vio.=i4a4dgaMar5eU In Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 142 IDSOUTHLAKE Kroger & Country Store 1 message AEWS20 a To: "dcortez ci.sou a e. r.us" <dcortez@ci.southlake.tx.us> Daniel Cortez <dcortez@ci.southlake.tx.us> Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 6:04 PM To Whom it May Concern, our family is in support of a Kroger Town & Country Store in Southlake. They have been a huge asset to other communities and our community for years. We have been involved with Mumz4Kids & Youthworld who have benefited from Krogers generosity. Please give them your consideration. Thanks for your time on reading this email . Sincerely, The Secord Family, Alan,Tracy,Alec & Luke. Southlake, Tx. Sent from Al Secord Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 143 12,2'201d CISOM81601 AMa1-FW:ShraigOpWioonbZA,14-MEZA141(Q 19C.I— OF SOWULWE Hotly Blake chblake cl,southIake,tx,us> FW. Strong 0PposItion to ZA14-099 & ZA94-1 1 rnessalge Lori Payne <Ipayne@cl.southlake_tx_us> _ ,w Tue. Dec: 2, 2014 at 1,59 Plot Tfl: Ken Baker <KI5aker&i_southlake.tK.us>, H01y Blake <hblake@ci.southlako.tx.us} tram: Dr. Katie V. Simpson _ Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 1:59 PM f To: mayolanddtyoouncil@a.suuthlake.t)c,us SulrJect;: Strang Opposition to ZA14-099 & ZA14-100 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I am writing you to express our strong oppmItlnn to 7A'f4099 & ZA14-1 a0. This is the prong development to go in the midst of high and home developments and it not the type of development that should serve as the Western[ Gateway to our great city_ This note is Zang, but wanted to make sure you knew some of the facts from the horneommrs' side as we've tried to work with the developer, As you krKw, this is essentially the same development that was withdrawn by the New Quest developer In November 2103 due to overwheiming apposition From the surrounding community and the P&Z. When Cencor picked up the develgxnent earlier this year, a group of surrounding homeamwrs attempted to work with the developer beginning in May in order to help shape the development into something that fd well into the surrounding neighborhoods. By late August we realized Kroger had m irdenlion of moving away from a large big hox stare (at that point 114.000 59, ft.) so we dleclined to meet further. The developer then proceeded to try to garnet' public support_ Their PR firm set up snap nn Sunday morning (IOV512014) in the Sou hlake Kroger with miskneMng fliers (copy attached) that indicated the Southlake Planners' off iGs wanted citizens to show lheirsupport fora new Kroger and asked shoppers to sign a petition, (Believe SouthlaWs hands were lied to stop this effort beCBuse they didn't aCtuglly use any off iclal Southlake IogaslinsignlaWlWerhead. ) The davepopment was first brought to PF on November Oft The latiy of citizen input at that meeting showed that cf the #vans actually tiumW in by oltizens there were 309 opposed arrd to in favor. Of note was the petition tUmad in by the developer saying 244 Southtako citizens were in favor of ttm development (same petition collected on 10014). Ot interest. once we saw the actual Kroger petition and deleted the invalid signatures (non-Southlake residents, multi plc from same address, illegible) that ntimber Is closer to 145. However, what Is of even more interest is that m a sample of Folks on the list ware cslted to see If they had all the facts, 5 out of 7 said absolutely not, they felt pressured to sign end didn't clearly understand Oat they were signing. Most indicated they thought the pedtlon was to upgrade the existing Kroger. Numamus lndlviduals have alr dy sent emalle to the city retnacting tiqWJkM91I4X�19-ONWM91AO" Mk&CM7RE25d!£41eW-PrUww-d+ Vbo&th--i-0PkW40C14G&cc$sim1=14a0d%40a14f*w Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 144 'FF -)it Ci Wjd-&Ke.x m uail - FN- &-.rcwn UpWsitlon ICL454-C1d9 & ZA14-'00 their signature. At the Nov em ber 201h P$2, over 100 Gbzens re gis tered their opposition &nd there were a large number of citizens there in opposit�drr until the early mQrning hours and many spoke regarding theirconcerrrs. There wise not one citizen who spoke in favor of the development- of note, the holineowners wino oppose this dm+eloprnent I" throughout South lake; this is nptiml a'North Side" Issue. In summ@N, what defines us as humarxs and 4�s a Mare our Core Values. Southlake's stated values are: Integrity, Innovation, Accountability, Commitment to Excellence, & Tearwork. Kroger has exhibited none of these core values. fnlep*y: msfeadi'tng f1ierr misfea ng descaptror a of sfore (e.g., 'Y vsrrrr @ 103, 004 SQ, ft,) lr+rtovatrcrl: 7ypfcaf Big Box watfr Concrete Jrrrrgle AccOtaV fity; f.fW& ciarr'fy, "of sure Of CLWJg g-q, 0"r ten&'ggr WC, ( mr7f4mevit to rcxceN9nrCe: Deng bare rmtnfmrun to wrest 1 T year odd zoning Teamwork: C4AC9Y1?4 of horneawrre,ls filet 8 oe&f ear, corrdescarOng use otfntimfd&tion nerd threats Thank you for taking the time to read our concerns, Regards, Katie Simpson Dr Xathiaen V. simpson President. Brian€wood Residentiai Assocfsrfon, ;w. 104 Bre'rtwDDd Circle Sotrtbiake, TX 76092-3716 Krogees planner flyer_JPG 150K h :f�rnz I.gmga,[ n,lndlls't3'7u�2di"- G37a ,view- dr n"&Ih=14.alOc'IS41k:14C,xsBsim1=1,;abc4i47C' Case No. ZA14-099 20 Attachment H Page145 12414 CI-saulleks.rK as1+15- -f':f prxwsiGs,nloWOW dtrxtcpncfA 19Crry 4r SOLTHLAKE Holly Blake <hblake ci,southlakeAx.u" FW: Opposition to Kroger Development 1 message Lori Payne <Ipaymeal-southlake.tx.usr 'rue, Dec 2. 2014 at 3:00 PM To: Ken Baker <K9akerQci.south1ake.tx-uss, Holly Blake <hblakat cl.sinuthlake.tx.uss From: John &. Renee Thomas Sent: Tuesday, December 02r 2014 2:42 PM To: mayorandci4pownclig idsoutlWke.tK.us Cc: I pay nf-fi--ri,5outhfdke.lx.u5x Subject: Opposition td Kroger Development 70 Mayor, C$y Ccundl Members, and Crty Ucretary, This email is i rn response to the meeting taking place ton Ight reSertling the proposed development of a m w BEroger complex at Hwy. 114 and White Chapel. We are unable to attend tonight's meeting but would like to volm our opposltlon to this development. We are residents of Estes Park and believe that this new development is u nnecessary and will negatively affect our community. We believe the current Kroger location Is more than adequate and there is no need for a "new" development. We feel that the Kroger corporation is reacting to other new supermarkets that are slated to open shortly. we do not believe that the current location will suffer any loss of business with new competitors opening and are concerned for the other 9WS In Vil Iage Center. The last thi ng Southlake needs i s an empty complex. The Kroger is currently the anchor of Village Center and I believe Kroger shoppers are kWal and will continue to shop at Kruger nu matter what other corn petltors tonne to 5outhlake. A. new devela Irm ent will only ange r the mrnmunkty and €a use patrons to shop elsewhere- Developing a larger Kroger wl11 not bring new buslam to the store in our opinion. If Kroger is Insisting on buildins a new store, they need to look for another location that is not this close 1n proximity to neighborhood homes- We are concerned with the excessly(� traffic that WIII be genetatecl and the potential for home values decreasing, 5outhlake does not need a new Kroger! Kroger is currently In a prime Iocatlorr for 5outhlake and should consider revarnplog the present complex. This proposed development is not good business and is harmfui to Southlakel What worked In Keller/Fort Worth wl II not work here! We chose to reside In Southta ke due to its high standards. please do riot let money driven developers dictate what 5outhiake needs but iet the residents have an input shout what vre feel is best for our commu nits and preserving our way of life. please vote agal nst this development and preserve what all of us have worke d so hard to build, a comm unity ded ic.ated to excellence - Sincerely, John and Renee Thomas 2113 Vail Road 5outirlaker TX 76092 917-329-1073 Ls:14raI.yr�jg.CUrnhn811fi�47u1�7&lk'rtT3F 6a5c4Gvow=p4&sea&=rkxm&Fr-1Aa0:ccU5229 @7JUim1=14aCcr&522r#2a7d im Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 146 111 D2Q 15 13 i Iry C'r SOUTHLAKE FW: Stop Kroger! 1 message Ci.scuhlaka.x.us PA61 - FW: Stop Krngwl Holly Blake <hblake@ci.southtake.tx.us> Lori Payne <IpayneQci.soutMa1kc.tx.us3 Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 8:25 AM To: Ken Baker <KBaker@ci.southlake.tx.us>, Holly Blake <hblake@ci.southlake.tx.uss For caso file - --Original Message --- From: Amy Engel-, „b Sent: Monday, Jc.-,a—y ,2, 2015 8:a7 AM To: mayorandcitycouncil@ci.southlake.tx.us Subject: Stop Kroged Hello, My name is Amy Gitler and my address is 2010 Vail Rd. (Estes Park). I am very much opposed to the construction of Super Kroger on the corner of Dave and 114. It will bring uncontrdilable traffic to an already congested area. In addition, the current proposal is for the store to be a "destination supermarket" that will attract shoppers from all over the area with the potential to increase crime and vandalism in our very peaceful and safe community. Although Kroger is indicatirg they will keep their current store open, it's only a matter or time before that is closed. That will create a large vacancy In the Village Center shopping Center that W 11 be bard (if not impossible) to fill. While I know this area is prime weal estate. there are many other commercial establishments that could be developed in this area. Please listen to the tax paying citizens of South lake who are apposed to this development and do not let Kroger build this supermarket. Thank you! Amy Gitter Sent from my iPad Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 147 1:Klo 15 C rrY 1LW SOUTHLAKE C1.9O r.-Jake.tx.uE Mai - FW: Pfcpoern c5yvalapmern at 114 & ❑cw FW. Proposed development at 114 & Dove 1 message Holly Blake <hblake@cl.south Iake.tx_us> Lort Payne -zlpaynet ci.southfake.tx_urs> Thu. Jan 8. 2015 at 2:47 PM To: Ken Baker <KBaker@ci.sadhlake,tx_usn, Hclly Blake <hWigke ci.southlake_tx_us} For your case file - From: KAYLE GREN [MlIto' Sank: Thursday, January OR, 2015 2:45 PM To: mayor@cj.southFaki-.tx.us Subject: Proposed development at 114 & Cove Mayer. ask that you please weigh heavily the mounting concems Sauthlake residents have regarding ble WeitzmaF-UXrogerdew elopment of 114 and Dove. I assume you agree that the Southlake community needs to rvernain focused on the needs and wants of Ito existing residents_ Another grocery stones? fibat necessary. A blg box footprinl and massive asphalt parking lnt7 Not appropriate. 'More traffic congestion an 114 at t7ove and the nearby access roads? Why would any of us want that's Have you tiled to axit 114 of dove while hE32ding west araund 5:3Opm? Why was such emphasis and high standards planed by olty officials on the development of Carillon? The answers to Lhat questlon need to apply to this development as wail. You know as wel I as I do that for every one resident that Cakes the lime to write on email or attend a diy council meeling to voice Concern, that there are likely tons or hundreds of others that feel the same way. I have not talked to a single resident Nvlrng anywhere in SoutMake chat supports this massive trig box proposal, Thank you. Kind Regards, Kayle Green 421 Copperfield 5t So'uthlake, TX raps"rm�I�Yn;I�.Op�r4n911��901'?1i=28ik=cc�'7aE25rdoi.w L1,9saar�=inhoos8lft=14ac�ml=lai4}edRa Case No. ZA14-099 1r7 Attachment H Page148 1l11)ml s Cl s"reke.hx.us Mall - Fwd: Kraper issue tarry n= OUTHLAKE molly Blake <hblake@ci.southIake.tx,us> Fwd: Kroger issue Lori Payne <1pay ne ci,southlake.tx.us> Sat. Jar? 10, 2015 art 41:04 AM To, Ken Baker <KBaker@ci.southlake,lx.us>r Holly Blake *;hblake@cl.southlake,tx.us� For the case file Luri - sent from my iPhone Begin famarded message: From, Syndee Date: January 10, 2015 at 10:03:10 AM CST To:'mayorrci.scuthlake.tx.us"rrlayarci,sau111lake,tx_us Subject: Kroger issue Mr Mayor, believe you have the power to stop th.e construction of to giant box, it's my understanding that this doesn't look Illke anything we have here In our beautiful community..,new construction. My husband and I were so impressed. that our sm811 corn munitV came together to stop frackIng and business like the "Tilted Kllt' out vi Southlake_ I find it difficult to believe we can't do better then what this represents and its irmpact on cur community. I like Iiving hem .... so many of us have the opportunity to live anywhere and we choose to slimy+ and Invest. lb sure youlI da the right thing far all the right reasona, public service is difficult and newer black and "trite. Wishing you ❑ur best, Michael and Syndee MuCann Southlake residents Sent from my iPad 'H s:,hnail14ac9l�16? Uv--UaAh$ 77&iml=1,kxNcb%02dW?7 1, Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 149 11t° 01� CI -Sum ake.x.k-s MaH - F%Vd: Krnper CFTY <X SCLTHLAKE Holly Blake Shhlake%lu ci-southlake.tx,uga Fwd: Kroger -- —T 1 message Lori Payne <Ipayne(&i.sauthlake.tx.us> --- Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 4:13 PM To: ► eerBaker<KBaker[nci.southlake,tx.us>, Nally Blake {hblake@ci.southlake.tx.us> Lori - sent from my Phone Begin forwarded message: From: "Tracey McDevitt' via Mayor and City Council"{mayorandcityeouncil@ci-southlake.tx.us> Date: January 14. 2015 at 4:17-23 PM CST To: "iTayo:anacitycouncil ei.southlake.tx..us"smayorandcitycOuncil@ci,southlake.tx,us} Subject. Kroger Reply -To: Tracey IViCDevltt 4 Please (please!) do not allow another grocery store to move into Southlake! We have too many as it is! There is absolutely no reason why I need to have Tom Thumb, Central MEirket, Fresh Market, Costco, Kroger, AND TraderJoes, within 2 miles of my house. Although I have a family of 6 and we shop a lot, we just don't need that many stores. Ever. We moved to Sauthlake 2 years ago, and I just can't believe how much building has taken Place in the past 2 years. At some point this has to stop, right? I don't like feeling like l'm living in a shopping center. It would be nice to have some green arm with just a few acres of grass & trees to look at instead of more buildings (not to mention the benefits to fresh aid). Thanks for seeking the public's input on this -- I definitely don't want another grocery store in Southlake - Kroger or any other. Sincerely, Tracey McDevitt Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 150 111V2415 Q.south12,ke.tx•6s %IaiI - Fwu; STOP K� craer in Sou'hlake ISCUTHLAKE Holly Blake rhblake@d.southlake.tx.us} Fwd: STOP Kroger in Southialke 1 rnessage Lori Payne alpayne@tl.soutftilake tx.us> Sat. Jan 10, 2015 at 8:05 PM To: Ken t3aker <KRaker@ci.southlake.tx.us>, Holly Blake <hb1ak8@ci_scuthlake.tx_us> For case file Lon - sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message; Frorn: Marisa Nataneti McFadir Date: January 10, 2015 at 1-00 e4u NM CST To: "ma o:ancc it r.our7Cil r souihl2kP.tx.us" <ma ❑randcitycouncil@ci.southlake.tx.us} Cc: Mark McFedln Marisa Nataneti McFadin Subject: STOP Kroger in Southlake Dear Mayor and City Council, We do not need ANOTHER grocery store in our city. ❑ove Rd is already a safety concern for bicyclist and pedestrians, adding this particular store with the anticipated traffic would be a MAJOR safety issue! That road can't handle the current traffic let alone the added influx this store would 'bring. And what would happen to the existing Kroger`? When it clase.s, what would occupy that large vacant space? We already have Sprouts, Walmart Neighborhood Market, Torn Thumb, Kroger and Central Market on 1709. With the opening of Fresh Market next week, Trader JGe's in a few weeks and Mod Market soon to follow --ENOUGH with the grocery stores, As a tax -paying Southlake resident 1 ask you to please respect the wishes of those of us that actually LIVE here and don't just came to shop. S incercly , Marisa McFedin Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 151 Ill ti2015 C; w0h a .N.,rs Mai - Fwd: Kro cr Develorment an Dove Read crry (, - SCUT LAKE Holly Blake <hhlake@ci.sauthlake.tx.ui$> Fwd: Kroger Development on Dove Road 1 message Lori Payne clpayne@ci.sout hlake.tx.us> - Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 4:47 PM To, Ken Baker<KBaker@ci.southlake.tx_us>, Holly Blake <hblake@ci.seuthlake,tx.us> For case file Lori - sent from my iPhone Begin fonvarded message: From: "'Julie Theilken'via Mayor and City Council"<mayorandcitycour<sil(@ci.southiake.tx.us> Date: January 10, 2015 at 4,07,20 PM CST To:"rnayarandcitycouncil@ci.southiake.tx.us"<mayorandaltyewncil@ci.southlake.tx_us> Subject; Kroger Development on DoYe Road Reply -To: J ulie Theilken r' - ' Dear City of Southlake leaders: would like to ask you all to vote against the development proposed on Dove Road by Kroger. I have lived in 5outhlake for just over three years and love the city. In the last year there has been so much development In the city. In a short time we will have three major grocery chains open on the caner of Southlake and Carroll. It seems to me that the traffic on this gamer is going to be excessive soon, and I don't think we need to have another mega big box development so close in proximity to tHs corner. Kroger already has a stone about three bk>cks from the comer mentioned above, and the store is not well cared for or stocked with quality foods at this time. It has became more seedy evcry week lately, and I am wonderv.ng how quickly Kroger will abandon this property if they are allowed to build another store so close. What is their plan for that obandoned box then? I would like to know this. I am not in favor of this development. Southlake has an abundance of rice grocery stores_ I think a better use for this beautiful piece of treed land would be a park! Thank you for your consideration of my opinion as a homeowner in the city during the discussions on January 20. Sent from my iPad Case No. Attachment H ZA14-099 Page 152