Item 6A
Department of Planning & Development Services
S T A F F R E P O R T
May 26, 2015
CASE NO: ZA15-032
PROJECT: Zoning Change & Site Plan for Kimball Park (Cambria Hotel and Suites)
EXECUTIVE
nd
SUMMARY:
Fillmore Hospitality is requesting 2 reading approval of a Zoning Change and Site
Plan from S-P-2 Generalized Site Plan District to S-P-2 Generalized Site Plan District
for Cambria Hotel and Suites at Kimball Parkon property described as Tracts 3A1A
and 3A2A, Thomas Mahan Survey, Abstract No. 1049, City of Southlake, Tarrant
County, Texas and located at 400 and 470 N. Kimball Ave., Southlake, Texas. Current
Zoning: S-P-2 Generalized Site Plan District. Requested Zoning: S-P-2 Generalized
Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood # 4.
REQUEST
nd
DETAILS:
The applicant is requesting 2 reading approval of a Zoning Change and Site Plan
from S-P-2 Generalized Site Plan District to S-P-2 Generalized Site Plan District for the
Cambria Hotel and Suites at Kimball Park to revise the previously approved Zoning
and Site Plan primarily with regard to the exterior elevations, building footprint and the
layout of the ground floor and pool area. Some minor changes to the parking lot
landscape islands are also proposed.
A Site Plan for the Cambria Hotel and Suites was approved March 4, 2014 in
conjunction with a Zoning Change and Concept Plan for the Kimball Park development,
which includes the four-story, 175 room Cambria Hotel and Suites, a three-story,
96,000 square foot office building, restaurant, coffee shop and retail uses, and one
open space lot on approximately 15.5 acres. No changes are proposed to the
remainder of the Kimball Park development. The only changes proposed are to Lot 1 of
the development, which is the hotel site. All previous conditions of approval remain in
effect.
A summary of the proposed changes is below:
The floor area of the hotel is 111,897 square feet instead of 118,315 square
feet.
The windows are reconfigured with louvers added for VTAC units.
The entry tower feature is squared off with the east and south facades instead
of being angled.
An accent band of brick and metal above the first floor has been removed (see
st
the City Council 1 reading motion below).
The canopy at the hotel entrance is a clear polycarbonate clad canopy instead
st
of a metal clad canopy (see the City Council 1 reading motion below)..
Case No.
ZA15-032
The height of the hotel lobby is a single height instead of a double height.
The height of the primary parapet is 51’-0” instead of 47’-5” and the height to
the top of the tower structure is 59’-4” instead of 59’-3”.
The layout of the ground floor and pool area have been reconfigured (please
see the chart below with the area comparisons).
Required parking for the hotel is 211 spaces instead of 206 spaces due to the
increase in meeting space.
Some of the parking lot landscaping on the west side of the hotel has been
revised and the dumpster enclosure has been squared off with the property
line.
A summary of the changes to the ground floor and patio/pool areas by use is below:
Use Previously approved S-P-2 (s.f.) Proposed S-P-2 (s.f.)
Building Footprint 31,840 29,514
Conference Center 8,380 8,738
Dining/Lounge Space 1,900 2,700
Total Meeting Space 5,076 5,079
Ballroom 4,320 4,116
Board Room 288 507
Break-Out Meeting468456
Fitness Center 1,995 1,061
Kitchen 1,200 920
Patio/Pool Area 6,250 8,250
Pool Area 452 469
st
The City Council approved the item at 1 reading on May 19, 2015 with the
following stipulations:
st
City Council 1 Reading Motion Applicant’s Response
Reintegrate the architectural band element that Revised elevations that reintegrate the
was on the previously approved elevations into architectural band element will be presented
nd
the design for an alternative plan. at 2 reading on June 2, 2015.
Bring back additional design options showing Renderings of the revised porte cochere will
nd
less column or masonry features on the porte be presented at 2 reading on June 2,
cochere at the hotel entrance for better visibility 2015.
into the building or possibly incorporate more
columns with the parking island.
Bring forth more information on the proposed More information on the proposed
polycarbonate material and/or other options for polycarbonate material and/or other options
the roofing material. for the roofing material will be presented at
nd
2 reading on June 2, 2015.
ACTION NEEDED: 1) Conduct a public hearing
nd
2) Consider 2 reading approval of a Zoning Change and Site Plan
ATTACHMENTS:
(A) Background Information
(B) Vicinity Map
(C) SPIN Meeting Reports dated April 28, 2015 and January 6, 2014
(D) Plans and Support Information – Link to PowerPoint Presentation
(E) Site Plan Review Summary No. 1, dated April 16, 2015
(F) Surrounding Property Owners Map and Responses
(G) Ordinance No. 480-657a
for Commission and Council Members Only
(H) Full Size Plans ()
Case No.
ZA15-032
STAFF CONTACT:
Ken Baker (817) 748-8067
Richard Schell (817) 748-8602
Case No.
ZA15-032
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Fillmore Hospitality
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
400 and 470 N. Kimball Ave.
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION:
Tracts 3A1A and 3A2A, Thomas Mahan Survey, Abstract No. 1049
LAND USE CATEGORY:
Mixed Use
CURRENT ZONING: “
S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District
REQUESTED ZONING: “
S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District
HISTORY: -
A Zoning Change and Concept/Site Plan (ZA12-067) from “I-1” Light Industrial
District to “S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District for Victory Lane was approved
by City Council on September 4, 2012.
- A Zoning Change and Concept/Site Plan (ZA13-135) from ““S-P-2”
Generalized Site Plan District to “S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District for
Kimball Park was approved by City Council on March 4, 2014.
- A Preliminary Plat (ZA13-136) for Kimball Park was approved by City Council
on March 4, 2014.
- A Final Plat for Kimball Park was approved by the Planning and Zoning
Commission on May 8, 2014.
TRANSPORTATION
ASSESSMENT:
Traffic Impact
The trip generation calculations in the Traffic Impact Analysis that was
submitted for the Kimball Park development are not affected by the proposed
changes to the hotel, so an updated TIA is not required for this case.
TREE PRESERVATION:
No changes to the approved Tree Conservation Plan are proposed with this
request.
CITIZEN INPUT/
BOARD REVIEW:
A SPIN meeting for the proposed changes is was held April 28, 2015. The
SPIN report for that meeting is attached in Attachment C of this report.A SPIN
meeting for the entire Kimball Park project was held January 6, 2014. A
summary of that meeting is also included in Attachment C.
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION ACTION:
April 23, 2015; Approved (5-0) subject toSite Plan Review Summary No. 1,
dated April 16, 2015, subject to the staff report dated April 17, 2015, approving
each of the proposed changes as presented; noting for the record the
applicant’s willingness to get with Commissioner Springer to explore alternate
options to the louver window issue and cooling towers; also noting the
applicant’s willingness prior to coming to Council to prepare a rendering of the
entryway so they can see the difference between the approved two story height
versus the twelve foot height that is being proposed and also noting the
applicant’s willingness to try to match the proposed entry feature at the front of
the hotel with the entry at the conference center entrance.
Case No. Attachment A
ZA15-032 Page 1
st
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
May 5, 2015; Tabled on consent (5-0) at 1 reading to the May 19, 2015
Council meeting.
st
May 19, 2015; Approved at 1 reading (7-0) subject to the staff report dated
May 12, 2015 and also the Site Plan Review Summary No. 1, dated April 16,
2015, also noting that all other regulations associated with Zoning Case ZA13-
135 shall remain in place and only the revisions to Zoning Case ZA13-135 that
are presented this evening and approved will be considered, also noting that
prior to the next reading, the applicant will come forward with the following
additional information; regarding the architectural band element that was on
the prior site plan, to reintegrate that into the design for an alternative to see
again, regarding the cantilever porte cochere, additional design options
showing less column or masonry features for better visibility into the building or
possibly incorporating more columns with the parking island, also bringing forth
more information on the proposed polycarbonate material and/or other options
for the roofing material.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Attached is Site Plan Review Summary No. 1, dated April 16, 2015. The
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council motions from the original
approval of Kimball Park are included below for reference:
Previous Planning and Zoning Commission motion:
January 9, 2014; Tabled to the January 23, 2014 P&Z meeting.
January 23, 2014; Tabled to the February 6, 2014 P&Z meeting.
February 6, 2014; Approved (5-0) subject to Revised Concept/Site Plan Review
Summary No. 2 and Staff Report dated January 31, 2014, approving the two
variances requested: 1) The driveways do not meet the minimum required
stacking depth of 150’. Approximately 17.6’ of stacking depth is shown on the
N. Kimball Ave. driveway and 34.2’ of stacking depth is shown on the S.H. 114
driveway and 2) Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, Section 8.01(A), as amended,
requires that every lot front on a public or a private street. A variance is
requested to allow the lots to be configured as shown on the Concept Plan and
noting the applicants willingness to address the following: 1) the entrance to
the hotel on the southeast corner of the hotel, 2) the parking and landscaping
on the east side of the hotel 3) the design and layout of the retail/restaurant
component around the circle with the potential for patio space on the southern
side of the building as well as the northern side, 4) clarify renderings of the
hotel 5) refine the renderings to more closely resemble the materials
anticipated being used, 6) place the fountain in the renderings and 7) add
pedestrian access from the hotel to the green space on the southeast portion
of the lot.
Previous City Council motions:
st
February 18, 2014; Approved at 1 reading (6-1) subject to the following
stipulations: approval of requested variances—driveway stacking depth and
Subdivision Ordinance regarding the public and private street access that will
be configured as shown on the concept plan; concept plan review summary
No. 3, dated February 11, 2014; understanding that applicant must come
forward before the second reading with the following matters to be
appropriately detailed and discussed (1) detailed entry feature on front
Case No. Attachment A
ZA15-032 Page 2
southeast corner of the hotel, which may include fountains, landscape islands
and detailed renderings of such, (2) regarding Lot 6, a detailed landscape plan
showing how that can be incorporated with the federal requirements to not
disturb the floodway, (3) discussion of the property owners agreement and
how that may work regarding the project, (4) detailed floor plans, more
specifically the first floor and within that floor plan a detail of the outdoor public
spaces and how those will be incorporated into the hotel, (5) also regarding Lot
6, noting what can be manicured to the extent to provide for periodic
maintenance within the floodway in connection with Lot 6 landscape detail and
provide detailed plant material for entire project, and (6) detailed renderings for
convention center from the Kimball approach which would also include traffic
circle.
nd
March 4, 2014; Approved at 2 reading (6-1) pursuant to the following:revised
concept plan review summary No. 3, dated February 26, 2014; approving
requested variances—driveway and minimum required stacking and
Subdivision Ordinance 483, Section 8.01(A), as amended, which requires
every lot to be on a public or private street and as requested to allow the lots to
be configured as shown on the revised concept plan; also noting the
requirements under this motion are pursuant to: (1) the revised renderings that
were presented to Council this evening; (2) the Declaration of Covenants,
Restrictions, and easements (CCR) as presented to Council in the application
this evening; (3) the revised landscape plan presented to Council; (4) the
revised permitted uses, as presented from Adams Engineering in their letter
dated March 4, 2014, noting that the drive-through service will only be allowed
for Lot 4; (5) also noting the balance of the concept plan for the buildings that
are not included in this site plan approval that it is Council’s expectation there
will be 100% masonry construction; (6) the permitted uses represented from
Adams Engineering that the food service hours of operations as noted in the
application that “they will close no later than 11:00 p.m.” that it is Council’s
intention to have wording that mentions that it will be “no earlier than 11:00
p.m.; (7) the office building in the concept plan will be a four story construction
and that additional parking will be presented on the first level underneath the
building; (8) and pursuant to the revised concept/site plan as presented this
evening.
Case No. Attachment A
ZA15-032 Page 3
Case No. Attachment B
ZA15-032 Page 1
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-032 Page 1
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-032 Page 2
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-032 Page 3
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-032 Page 4
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-032 Page 5
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-032 Page 6
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-032 Page 7
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-032 Page 8
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-032 Page 9
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-032 Page 10
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-032 Page 11
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-032 Page 12
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-032 Page 13
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-032 Page 14
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-032 Page 15
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-032 Page 16
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-032 Page 17
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-032 Page 18
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-032 Page 19
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-032 Page 20
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-032 Page 21
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-032 Page 22
Case No. Attachment C
ZA15-032 Page 23
S-P-2 REGULATIONS
Case No. Attachment D
ZA13-135 Page 1
Case No. Attachment D
ZA13-135 Page 2
Case No. Attachment D
ZA13-135 Page 3
Case No. Attachment D
ZA13-135 Page 4
Case No. Attachment D
ZA13-135 Page 5
APPLICANT’S COMMENTS
Case No. Attachment D
ZA13-135 Page 6
APPLICANT’S COMMENTS
Case No. Attachment D
ZA13-135 Page 7
APPROVEDSITE PLAN
PROPOSEDSITE PLAN
Case No. Attachment D
ZA13-135 Page 8
APPROVEDRENDERING
PROPOSEDRENDERING
Case No. Attachment D
ZA13-135 Page 9
Case No. Attachment D
ZA13-135 Page 10
SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY
ZA15-032One04/16/15
Case No.: Review No.: Date of Review:
Site Plan
Project Name: – Kimball Park
APPLICANT: Brad McKissick ENGINEER: Jimmy Fechter
Fillmore Hospitality Adams Engineering
910 S. Kimball Ave.
Southlake, TX 76092
Phone: (817) 328-3215
E-mail:
jimmy.fechter@adams-engineering.com
CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 4/10/15
AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE
CONDITIONS OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF
YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT DENNIS
KILLOUGH AT (817) 748-8072.
1. The proposed revisions are only to Lot 1 of the Kimball Park Development. All previously approved
plans and conditions of approval remain in effect unless specifically revised as part of this request.
Tree Conservation/Landscape Review
E-mail: kmartin@ci.southlake.tx.us
Keith Martin
Landscape Administrator
Phone: (817) 748-8229
TREE CONSERVATION COMMENTS:
1. The submitted Development Regulations propose that the western property line adjacent to the multi-
family residential lots will be screened with a vegetated screening of: existing plant material, required
plantings within the buffer and additional large shrubs and accent trees planted within the bufferyard.
There are a significant amount of existing trees and associated vegetation along the west and north
property lines. Identify these trees and designate if they will be preserved, removed, considered
marginal, and show how the proposed west bufferyard landscaping will be integrated with the existing
vegetation.
* Please be aware that all existing trees shown to be preserved on the City Council approved Tree
Conservation Plan must be preserved and protected during all phases and construction of the
development. Alteration or removal of any of the existing trees shown to be preserved on the approved
Tree Conservation Plan is a violation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance and the zoning as approved
by the Southlake City Council. Please ensure that the layout of all structures, easements, utilities,
structures grading, and any other structure proposed to be constructed do not conflict with existing
trees intended to be preserved.
INTERIOR LANDSCAPE & BUFFERYARDS COMMENTS:
1. The parking lot landscape islands are required to contain at least the minimum of the required canopy
tree as shown along with shrubs, ground cover, ornamental grasses, seasonal color or a combination
of these plant materials. Turf grass is not acceptable vegetation within the parking lot landscape
Case No. Attachment E
ZA15-032 Page 1
islands.
* Indicates informational comment.
# Indicates required items comment.
Public Works/Engineering Review
Steve Anderson, P.E., CFM
Civil Engineer
Phone: (817) 748-8101
E-mail: sanderson@ci.southlake.tx.us
PRELIMINARY UTILITY COMMENTS:
1. No 90º bends, use 2-45º bends.
2. All waterlines to be public and in easements.
3. 12” waterline not on the City’s Master Water Plan, therefore no city participation in upsizing.
4. Any sanitary sewer lines crossing lot lines will need to be public and contained in easements.
5. Extend SS-1 west to property line.
6. Extend SS-4 to west property line.
INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS:
* Submit 4 copies of the civil construction plans (22” X 34” full size sheets) and a completed
Construction Plan Checklist as part of the first submittal for review directly to the Public Works
Administration Department. The plans shall conform to the most recent construction plan
checklist, standard details and general notes which are located on the City’s website.
* A ROW permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Operations Department (817) 748-8082
to connect to the City’s sewer, water or storm sewer system.
* A Developer’s Agreement will be required for this development and may need to be approved
by the City Council prior to any construction of public infrastructure. Construction plans for
these improvements must be acceptable to Public Works prior to placing the Developer’s
Agreement on the City Council agenda for consideration.
* A separate bond will be required for the Maintenance Bond and bound only unto the City
of Southlake for a period of two years for all development projects. The Maintenance
Bond cannot be tied to the Performance and Payment Bond in any way.
* Any hazardous waste being discharged must be pretreated Ordinance No. 836.
Fire Department Review
Kelly Clements
Assistant Fire Marshal
Phone: (817) 748-8671
E-mail: kclements@ci.southlake.tx.us
Case No. Attachment E
ZA15-032 Page 2
GENERAL COMMENTS:
An automatic fire sprinkler system will be required for all commercial structures in excess of 6,000
square feet, with coverage extended into the attic if comprised of combustible construction. (per
2009 I.F.C. Sec. 903.3.1.3 as amended). Also, the restaurants classified as an A-2 occupancy will
require an automatic sprinkler system with an occupant load in excess of 100.
All sprinkled buildings are required to be equipped with a fire alarm in compliance with NFPA 72,
the 2009 International Fire Code, and the City of Southlake amendments.
A complete set of plans for the underground fire protection line, fire sprinkler system, and fire
alarm system shall be submitted to Reed Fire Protection for review and approval at 14135 Midway
Road in Addison, Texas 75001. Business phone is 214-638-7599.
A Knox Box Rapid Key entry system shall be installed on the buildings near access to the riser
room. Keys must be provided to access the riser room. The Knox Box can be ordered on the
Internet at www.knoxbox.com.
A 5 inch Fire Department Connection shall be installed on each building, with a locking Knox cap
attached to the FDC to prevent debris from entering the connection.
An exterior audible/visual fire alarm device must be installed above the Fire Department
Connection on each sprinkled building to indicate when a fire alarm condition is present in the
building, or located as near as possible to the FDC, on the building, if the FDC is installed
remotely.
Approved suite numbers and/or building address shall be posted on all new buildings in such a
position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. All
numbers shall contrast with their background.
Electrical, Mechanical, Roof Access, Fire Alarm Panel, Sprinkler Riser and all other pertinent
rooms must be labeled with appropriate signage.
The required backflow protection (double check valve) for the sprinkler system can be located on the
riser if the riser is within 100 feet of the water main. If the riser is further than 100 feet from the main,
the double check valve shall be in a pit. Riser rooms shall be a minimum of 5’X5’ if the double check
is not located on the riser, or a minimum of 6’X6’ if it is on the riser.
FIRE LANE COMMENTS:
Fire lanes require minimum 30 ft. inside turn radius and minimum 54 ft. outside turn radius.
FIRE HYDRANT COMMENTS:
Hydrants required at a maximum spacing of 300 feet for commercial locations that contain un-
sprinkled buildings, and 600 feet for commercial locations that contain completely sprinkled
buildings.(If all buildings in the complex are completely sprinkled, then hydrant locations are
acceptable except for adding a hydrant at the South entrance into the complex off of the service
road of State Highway 114)(If all building are not completely sprinkled, then hydrants will need to
be added and relocated to meet requirements)
A fire hydrant shall be within 100 feet of each Fire Department Connection, and the Fire
Department Connection within 50 feet of fire lane access.(Fire Department Connection locations
not indicated on plans)
Case No. Attachment E
ZA15-032 Page 3
General Informational Comments
* A SPIN meeting is scheduled for April 28, 2015. A SPIN meeting for the Kimball Park development
was held January 6, 2014
* A final plat must be approved and filed prior to issuance of a building permit.
* No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan. A separate building permit is required
prior to construction of any signs.
* All mechanical equipment must be screened of view from right-of-ways and residential properties
in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended.
* All lighting must comply with the Lighting Ordinance No. 693, as amended with regard to type of
lighting, intensity, glare and spill-over.
* All development must comply with the Drainage Ordinance No. 605 and the Erosion and Sediment
Control Ordinance No. 946, as amended.
65
* It appears that this property lies within the LDN D/FW Regional Airport Overlay Zone and will
require construction standards that meet requirements of the Airport Compatible Land Use Zoning
Ordinance No. 479.
* Development must comply with all requirements in Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 43, Overlay
Zones.
* 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.
* The Council motions for the previously approved S-P-2 Zoning Change and Concept/Site Plan for
the Kimball Park development that was approved March 4, 2014 is included below for reference:
Previous Planning and Zoning Commission motion:
January 9, 2014; Tabled to the January 23, 2014 P&Z meeting.
January 23, 2014; Tabled to the February 6, 2014 P&Z meeting.
February 6, 2014; Approved (5-0) subject to Revised Concept/Site Plan Review
Summary No. 2 and Staff Report dated January 31, 2014, approving the two
variances requested: 1) The driveways do not meet the minimum required
stacking depth of 150’. Approximately 17.6’ of stacking depth is shown on the
N. Kimball Ave. driveway and 34.2’ of stacking depth is shown on the S.H. 114
driveway and 2) Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, Section 8.01(A), as amended,
requires that every lot front on a public or a private street. A variance is
requested to allow the lots to be configured as shown on the Concept Plan and
noting the applicants willingness to address the following: 1) the entrance to
the hotel on the southeast corner of the hotel, 2) the parking and landscaping
on the east side of the hotel 3) the design and layout of the retail/restaurant
component around the circle with the potential for patio space on the southern
side of the building as well as the northern side, 4) clarify renderings of the
hotel 5) refine the renderings to more closely resemble the materials
Case No. Attachment E
ZA15-032 Page 4
anticipated being used, 6) place the fountain in the renderings and 7) add
pedestrian access from the hotel to the green space on the southeast portion
of the lot.
Previous City Council motions:
st
February 18, 2014; Approved at 1 reading (6-1) subject to the following
stipulations: approval of requested variances—driveway stacking depth and
Subdivision Ordinance regarding the public and private street access that will
be configured as shown on the concept plan; concept plan review summary
No. 3, dated February 11, 2014; understanding that applicant must come
forward before the second reading with the following matters to be
appropriately detailed and discussed (1) detailed entry feature on front
southeast corner of the hotel, which may include fountains, landscape islands
and detailed renderings of such, (2) regarding Lot 6, a detailed landscape plan
showing how that can be incorporated with the federal requirements to not
disturb the floodway, (3) discussion of the property owners agreement and
how that may work regarding the project, (4) detailed floor plans, more
specifically the first floor and within that floor plan a detail of the outdoor public
spaces and how those will be incorporated into the hotel, (5) also regarding Lot
6, noting what can be manicured to the extent to provide for periodic
maintenance within the floodway in connection with Lot 6 landscape detail and
provide detailed plant material for entire project, and (6) detailed renderings for
convention center from the Kimball approach which would also include traffic
circle.
nd
March 4, 2014; Approved at 2 reading (6-1) pursuant to the following:revised
concept plan review summary No. 3, dated February 26, 2014; approving
requested variances—driveway and minimum required stacking and
Subdivision Ordinance 483, Section 8.01(A), as amended, which requires
every lot to be on a public or private street and as requested to allow the lots to
be configured as shown on the revised concept plan; also noting the
requirements under this motion are pursuant to: (1) the revised renderings that
were presented to Council this evening; (2) the Declaration of Covenants,
Restrictions, and easements (CCR) as presented to Council in the application
this evening; (3) the revised landscape plan presented to Council; (4) the
revised permitted uses, as presented from Adams Engineering in their letter
dated March 4, 2014, noting that the drive-through service will only be allowed
for Lot 4; (5) also noting the balance of the concept plan for the buildings that
are not included in this site plan approval that it is Council’s expectation there
will be 100% masonry construction; (6) the permitted uses represented from
Adams Engineering that the food service hours of operations as noted in the
application that “they will close no later than 11:00 p.m.” that it is Council’s
intention to have wording that mentions that it will be “no earlier than 11:00
p.m.; (7) the office building in the concept plan will be a four story construction
and that additional parking will be presented on the first level underneath the
building; (8) and pursuant to the revised concept/site plan as presented this
evening.
* Denotes Informational Comment
Case No. Attachment E
ZA15-032 Page 5
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS
Kimball Park
SPO # Owner Zoning Address Acreage Response
Hagar, Stephen T AG 000479 N Kimball Ave 4.08
1. NR
Chamathil, Varghese Etux Sara AG 000411 N Kimball Ave 1.67
2. NR
Victron Stores Lp C3 000401 N Kimball Ave 0.89
3. NR
Ekstrom, Delton E SF1-A 000650 Cherry Ct 0.99
4. NR
St Laurence Episcopal Church CS 000517 N Kimball Ave 5.59
5. NR
Ivester, Emory O Etux Marlene AG 000501 N Kimball Ave 3.62
6. NR
T2T Property Holdings Llc O1 000000 Cherry Ln 1.02
7. NR
T2T Property Holdings Llc O1 000000 Cherry Ln 0.99
8. NR
Aos Investments Group Inc O1 000000 Cherry Ln 1.01
9. NR
Fusselman, Bruce Etux Michelle C3 002100 E State Hwy 114 1.80
10. NR
Tate, John T SP2 002120 E State Hwy 114 0.92
11. NR
Mayse, Richard A SP2 002110 E State Hwy 114 0.75
12. NR
Sandco Holdings Lp SP2 000420 N Kimball Ave 0.54
13. NR
Texas Petro Corp III SP2 002150 E State Hwy 114 1.16
14. F
Juneja, Vikas Etux Ashita M RPUD 002201 Cotswold Valley Ct 0.30
15. NR
Corp Of Episcopal Diocese Fw AG 000549 N Kimball Ave 0.94
16. NR
Harris, Kimberly Susan SF1-A 000700 Cherry Ct 0.94
17. NR
First Financial Trust & Asset MF1 000675 Cherry Ln 0.98
17 NR
Van Til, John J MF1 000627 Cherry Ln 1.01
18. NR
Reynal, John Etux Beverly S MF1 000575 Cherry Ln 1.14
19. NR
Halim, Emil A MF1 000725 Cherry Ct 0.96
20. NR
Mdp Southlake Llc SP2 000400 N Kimball Ave 9.33
21. NR
Vision Southlake Dev Llc SP2 000572 N Kimball Ave 0.39
22. NR
Kimball Road Lp I1 000500 N Kimball Ave 1.61
23. NR
Case No. Attachment F
ZA15-032 Page 1
Oncor Electric Delivery Co Llc CS 000000 N Kimball Ave 2.55
24. NR
Tdc Manaagement Llc SP2 000560 N Kimball Ave 0.48
25. NR
Lee, K Wayne SP2 000566 N Kimball Ave 0.66
26. NR
Vision Southlake Dev Llc SP1 000600 N Kimball Ave 4.41
27. NR
Bo-Fam Investments Ltd I1 000400 N Kimball Ave 0.37
28. NR
Mdp Southlake Llc SP2 000400 N Kimball Ave 6.13
29. NR
Bo-Fam Investments Ltd I1 000400 N Kimball Ave 0.32
30. NR
Hagar, Stephen T AG 000479 N Kimball Ave 4.08
31. NR
Responses: F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response
Notices Sent Within 200’:
Thirty-one (31)
Responses Received:
One (1) - Attached
Case No. Attachment F
ZA15-032 Page 2
Case No. Attachment F
ZA15-032 Page 3
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS
ORDINANCE NO. 480-657a
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 480, AS AMENDED,
THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS; GRANTING A ZONING CHANGE ON A
CERTAIN TRACT OR TRACTS OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS BEING LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS TRACTS
3A1A AND 3A2A, THOMAS MAHAN SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO.
1049, CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING
APPROXIMATELY 15.518 ACRES, AND MORE FULLY AND
COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT “A” FROM “S-P-2”
GENERALIZED SITE PLAN DISTRICT TO “S-P-2” GENERALIZED
SITE PLAN DISTRICT, AS DEPICTED ON THE APPROVED
CONCEPT AND SITE PLANS ATTACHED HERETO AND
INCORPORATED HEREIN AS EXHIBIT “B”, SUBJECT TO THE
SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS ORDINANCE;
CORRECTING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PRESERVING ALL
OTHER PORTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE; DETERMINING
THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, MORALS AND GENERAL
WELFARE DEMAND THE ZONING CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS
HEREIN MADE; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE
CUMULATIVE OF ALL ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY FOR
VIOLATIONS HEREOF; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE;
PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS,
the City of Southlake, Texas is a home rule City acting under its Charter
adopted by the electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 9
of the Texas Local Government Code; and,
WHEREAS,
pursuant to Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code, the City has the
authority to adopt a comprehensive zoning ordinance and map regulating the location and use of
buildings, other structures and land for business, industrial, residential and other purposes, and to
amend said ordinance and map for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals and
general welfare, all in accordance with a comprehensive plan; and,
WHEREAS,
the hereinafter described property is currently zoned as “S-P-2” Generalized
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 1
Site Plan District under the City’s Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; and,
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 glare of the vehicular and stationary lights and effect of such lights
on established character of the neighborhood; location, lighting and types of signs and relation of
signs to traffic control and adjacent property; street size and adequacy of width for traffic
reasonably expected to be generated by the proposed use around the site and in the immediate
neighborhood; adequacy of parking as determined by requirements of this ordinance for off-street
parking facilities; location of ingress and egress points for parking and off-street loading spaces,
and protection of public health by surfacing on all parking areas to control dust; effect on the
promotion of health ad the general welfare; effect on light and air; effect on the over-crowding of
the land; effect on the concentration of population, and effect on transportation, water, sewerage,
schools, parks and other public facilities; and,
WHEREAS,
the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, further considered among
other things the character of the districts and their peculiar suitability for particular uses and the
view to conserve the value of the buildings, and encourage the most appropriate use of the land
throughout this City; and,
WHEREAS,
the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that there is a public
necessity for the zoning changes, that the public demands them, that the public interest clearly
requires the amendments, and that the zoning changes do not unreasonably invade the rights of
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 2
those who bought or improved property with reference to the classification which existed at the time
their original investment was made; and,
WHEREAS,
the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that the changes in
zoning lessen the congestion in the streets, helps secure safety from fire, panic, and other
dangers, promotes the health and the general welfare, provides adequate light and air, prevents
the over-crowding of land, avoids undue concentration of population, and facilitates the adequate
provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements; and,
WHEREAS,
the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, has determined that there is a
necessity and need for the changes in zoning and has also found and determined that there has
been a change in the conditions of the property surrounding and in close proximity to the tract or
tracts of land requested for a change since the tract or tracts of land were originally classified and
therefore feels that the respective changes in zoning classification for the tract or tracts of land are
needed, are called for, and are in the best interest of the public at large, the citizens of the city of
Southlake, Texas, and helps promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS:
SECTION 1.
That Ordinance No. 480, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Southlake,
Texas, passed on the 19th day of September, 1989, as originally adopted and amended, is hereby
amended so that the permitted uses in the hereinafter described areas be altered, changed and
amended as shown and described below:
Being described as Tracts 3A1A and 3A2A, Thomas Mahan Survey, Abstract No.
1049, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, being approximately 15.518 acres,
and more fully and completely described in Exhibit “A” from “S-P-2” Generalized Site
Plan District to “S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District as depicted on the approved
Concept and Site Plans attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “B”, and
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 3
subject to the following conditions:
S-P-2 Regulations for Ordinance No. 480-657
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 4
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 5
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 6
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 7
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 8
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 9
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 10
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 11
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 12
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 13
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 14
S-P-2 Regulations for Ordinance No. 480-657a
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 15
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 16
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 17
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 18
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 19
st
Council Motion at 1 Reading of Ordinance No. 480-657:
February 18, 2014; Approved (6-1) subject to the following stipulations: approving the
requested variances for driveway stacking depth and the Subdivision Ordinance
requirement that lots front on a public or private street to allow the lots to be
configured as shown; Concept Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated February 11,
2014; understanding that the applicant must come forward before the second reading
with the following matters to be appropriately detailed and discussed (1) detailed
entry feature on front southeast corner of the hotel, which may include fountains,
landscape islands and detailed renderings of such, (2) detailed landscape plan, to
include detailed plant material for Lot 6 to show how landscaping can be
incorporated within federal requirements to not disturb the floodway, (3) discussion of
the property owners agreement and how that may work regarding the project, (4)
detailed floor plans, more specifically the first floor plan and within that floor plan a
detail of outdoor public spaces and how those will be incorporated into the hotel, (5)
also regarding Lot 6, noting what can be manicured and what type of periodic
maintenance can be provided within the floodway in connection with landscape detail
for Lot 6 and also provide detailed plant material for the entire project, and (6)
detailed renderings for convention center from the Kimball approach which would
include the traffic circle.
nd
Council Motion at 2 Reading of Ordinance No. 480-657:
nd
March 4, 2014; Approved at 2 reading (6-1) pursuant to the following:
1. Approving requested variances—driveway and minimum required stacking and
Subdivision Ordinance 483, Section 8.01(A), as amended, which requires every lot to
be on a public or private street and as requested to allow the lots to be configured as
shown on the revised concept plan;
2. Also noting the requirements under this motion are pursuant to:
a. the revised renderings that were presented to Council this evening;
b. the Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, and easements (CCR) as
presented to Council in the application this evening;
c. the revised landscape plan presented to Council (included in Attachment “B”
of this Ordinance);
d. the revised permitted uses, as presented from Adams Engineering in their
letter dated March 4, 2014, noting that the drive-through service will only be
allowed for Lot 4 (correction made in S-P-2 regulations);
e. also noting the balance of the concept plan for the buildings that are not
included in this site plan approval that it is Council’s expectation there will be
100% masonry construction;
f. the permitted uses represented from Adams Engineering that the food service
hours of operations as noted in the application that “they will close no later
than 11:00 p.m.” that it is Council’s intention to have wording that mentions
that it will be “no earlier than 11:00 p.m. (correction made in S-P-2
regulations);
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 20
g. the office building in the concept plan will be a four story construction and that
additional parking will be presented on the first level underneath the building;
h. pursuant to the revised concept/site plan as presented this evening and
(included in Attachment “B” of this Ordinance);
3. Concept Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated February 26, 2014:
Please make the following changes the Concept and/or Site Plans:
2.
a. Show, label and dimension the width of the R.O.W. adjacent to the
site.
b. One 10’ x 50’ loading space is required for the hotel and that space
is provided on the west side of the building. Staff recommends
adding a loading space on the east side of the building adjacent to
the bar and restaurant or show how deliveries to the kitchen and bar
area will be made.
c. Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, Section 8.01(A), as amended,
requires that every lot front on a public or a private street. Council
approval of a variance will be required to allow the lot configuration
as shown. A variance was granted by City Council.
3. Please move the S-P-2 regulation regarding building articulation to the
section for Lot 1. The way the regulation is written, all future buildings
would be allowed to not meet the articulation requirements before City
Council has a chance to see the proposed elevations (corrected in the S-P-
2 regulations).
4. Revise the parking provided for Lot 1 in the Site Data Summary Chart on
the Concept Plan to 212 spaces.
5. Revise the office square footage in the first paragraph of Section 2.2 of the
TIA (48,000 s.f. should be 96,000 s.f.). The square footage is correctly
shown in Table 1 –Trip Generation Summary just below the paragraph.
6. Please make the following changes with regard to easements:
a. Label the existing common access easement on Lots 6R and 7R, Block 1,
Mesco Addition as shown on the plat recorded as Instrument No.
D211037987, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas.
7. All driveways/points of ingess/egress must comply with the Driveway
Ordinance No. 634, as amended). The following changes are needed:
a. The proposed driveway onto E. SH 114 does not meet the minimum 250
feet of spacing (60 feet shown) from an approved driveway and common
access easement located on Lot 7R, Block 1, Mesco Addition (case ZA96-
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 21
109). The driveway/common access easement on Lot 7R1, Block 1 is
labeled to be abandoned. Prior to issuance of a permit for the proposed
driveway on SH 114, a copy of the executed and recorded instrument(s) for
the off-site and on-site common access easements and agreement to
abandon the common access easement and driveway on the approved Lot
7R, Block 1, Mesco Addition (case ZA96-109) must be provided.
8. Revise the renderings and/or the Concept and Site Plans so that the
landscaped and sidewalk areas adjacent to the hotel entrance match. The
renderings are showing a landscaped area where a paved area is shown
on the Concept and Site Plans.
Tree Conservation Comments:
1. The submitted Development Regulations propose that the western
property line adjacent to the multi-family residential lots will be
screened with a vegetated screening of: existing plant material,
required plantings within the buffer and additional large shrubs and
accent trees planted within the bufferyard. There are a significant
amount of existing trees and associated vegetation along the west and
north property lines. Identify these trees and designate if they will be
preserved, removed, considered marginal, and show how the proposed
west bufferyard landscaping will be integrated with the existing
vegetation.
2. The Preliminary Grading Plan shows that the McPherson Branch Creek
on Lot 6 is proposed to be graded and improved. There is one large
Post Oak tree on the back of Lot 7R, Block 1, Mesco Addition that
might be on the Kimball Park, Lot 6 property. The proposed grading
and south access drive look like they may alter the existing tree.
Please locate and identify this tree on the submitted plans.
Interior Landscape and Bufferyard Comments:
1. Some of the parking lot islands measure less than 12’ in width from
back-of-curb to back-of-curb. Parking lot islands shall have a minimum
width of 12’ back-to-back if curbed or 13’ edge-to-edge if no curb is
intended, and shall be equal to the length of the parking stall.
2. No bufferyard is proposed along the east property line of Lot 6 in the
Summary Chart, but a bufferyard is shown on the concept plan. The
east bufferyard along the east property line of Lot 6 is required to be a
5’ – A, adjacent to the commercial and office properties , and a 10’ – E
along North Kimball Avenue. Include an S-P-2 regulation if a bufferyard
will not be provided.
3. Some of the Bufferyards on the Concept Plan and the Bufferyard
Summary Charts do not match.
1. Lot 3, west bufferyard is required to be a 10’ – B, and is labeled 10’
– C on the Concept Plan, and 5’ – A in the Bufferyard Summary Chart.
4. The parking lot landscape islands are required to contain at least the
minimum of the required canopy tree as shown along with shrubs,
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 22
ground cover, ornamental grasses, seasonal color or a combination of
these plant materials. Turf grass is not acceptable vegetation within the
parking lot landscape islands.
Public Works/Engineering Review
General Comments:
1. Please provide an updated traffic impact analysis.
Preliminary Utility Comments:
7. No 90º bends, use 2-45º bends.
8. All waterlines to be public and in easements.
9. 12” waterline not on the City’s Master Water Plan, therefore no city
participation in upsizing.
10. Any sanitary sewer lines crossing lot lines will need to be public and
contained in easements.
11. Extend SS-1 west to property line.
12. Extend SS-4 to west property line.
Planning and Zoning Commission Motion for Ordinance No. 480-657a:
April 23, 2015; Approved (5-0) subject toSite Plan Review Summary No. 1, dated April
16, 2015, subject to the following:
1. Staff report dated April 17, 2015, approving each of the proposed changes as
presented;
2. Noting for the record the applicant’s willingness to get with Commissioner Springer to
explore alternate options to the louver window issue and cooling towers;
3. Noting the applicant’s willingness prior to coming to Council to prepare a rendering of
the entryway so they can see the difference between the approved two story height
versus the twelve foot height that is being proposed;
4. Noting the applicant’s willingness to try to match the proposed entry feature at the
front of the hotel with the entry at the conference center entrance.
st
City Council 1 Reading Motion for Ordinance No. 480-657a:
May 19, 2015; Approved (7-0) subject to the staff report dated May 12, 2015 and also
the Site Plan Review Summary No. 1, dated April 16, 2015, also noting that all other
regulations associated with Zoning Case ZA13-135 shall remain in place and only the
revisions to Zoning Case ZA13-135 that are presented this evening and approved will be
considered, also noting that prior to the next reading, the applicant will come forward
with the following additional information;
1. Regarding the architectural band element that was on the prior site plan, to
reintegrate that into the design for an alternative to see again:
2. Regarding the cantilever porte cochere, present additional design options showing
less column or masonry features for better visibility into the building or possibly
incorporating more columns with the parking island:
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 23
3. Bringing forth more information on the proposed polycarbonate material and/or other
options for the roofing material.
SECTION 2.
That the City Manager is hereby directed to correct the Official Zoning map of the City of
Southlake, Texas, to reflect the herein changes in zoning.
SECTION 3.
That in all other respects the use of the tract or tracts of land herein above described shall
be subject to all the applicable regulations contained in said Zoning Ordinance and all other
applicable and pertinent ordinances for the City of Southlake, Texas. All existing sections,
subsections, paragraphs, sentences, words, phrases and definitions of said Zoning Ordinance are
not amended hereby, but remain intact and are hereby ratified, verified, and affirmed.
SECTION 4.
That the zoning regulations and districts as herein established have been made in
accordance with the comprehensive plan for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals
and the general welfare of the community. They have been designed, with respect to both present
conditions and the conditions reasonably anticipated to exist in the foreseeable future; to lessen
congestion in the streets; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent over-crowding of land; to
avoid undue concentration of population; and to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation,
water, sewerage, drainage and surface water, parks and other commercial needs and development
of the community. They 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.
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 24
That this ordinance shall be cumulative of all other ordinances of the City of Southlake,
Texas, affecting zoning and shall not repeal any of the provisions of said ordinances except in
those instances where provisions of those ordinances are in direct conflict with the provisions of
this ordinance.
SECTION 6.
That the terms and provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be severable and that if
the validity of the zoning affecting any portion of the tract or tracts of land described herein shall be
declared to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the zoning of the balance of said
tract or tracts of land described herein.
SECTION 7.
Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply
with or who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be fined not
more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Each day that a violation is
permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense.
SECTION 8.
All rights and remedies of the City of Southlake are expressly saved as to any and all
violations of the provisions of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, or any other ordinances affecting
zoning which have accrued at the time of the effective date of this ordinance; and, as to such
accrued violations and all pending litigation, both civil and criminal, whether pending in court or
not, under such ordinances, same shall not be affected by this ordinance but may be prosecuted
until final disposition by the courts.
SECTION 9.
The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to post the proposed
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 25
ordinance in its entirety on the City website together with a notice setting out the time and place for
a public hearing thereon at least ten (10) days before the second reading of this ordinance, and if
this ordinance provides for the imposition of any penalty, fine or forfeiture for any violation of any of
its provisions, then the City Secretary shall additionally publish this ordinance in the official City
newspaper one time within ten (10) days after passage of this ordinance, as required by Section
3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake.
SECTION 10.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as
required by law, and it is so ordained.
stth
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1 reading the 19 day of May, 2015.
_________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________
CITY SECRETARY
nd
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2 reading the ________ day of ________, 2015.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 26
________________________________
CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
_________________________________
CITY ATTORNEY
DATE:___________________________
ADOPTED:_______________________
EFFECTIVE:______________________
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 27
EXHIBIT “A”
Being described as Tracts 3A1A and 3A2A, Thomas Mahan Survey, Abstract No. 1049, City of
Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, being approximately 15.518 acres, and more fully and
completely described below:
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 28
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 29
EXHIBIT “B”
Reserved for approved plans
Case No. Attachment G
ZA15-032 Page 30