Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2001-05-15 CC Packet
City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM May 11, 2001 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: Billy Campbell, City Manager SUBJECT: Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting May 15, 2001 Note that there will be an SPDC meeting at 5:00 p.m. prior to the City Council meeting. • Aizenda Item No. 5A, Approval of minutes of the Regular City Council meeting held May 1, 2001 and approval of minutes of the Special City Council meeting held ME 8, 2001. If you have any changes to the minutes, please discuss these at the work session or notify Sandy LeGrand prior to the meeting. Sandy will bring the amended minutes to the meeting for your consideration. • Agenda Item No. 5B, Authorize the mayor to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with St. Martin's -in -the -Field Episcopal Church for practice ballfields. This interlocal agreement is similar to one we already have in place for use of the soccer practice fields. If approved, this agreement will allow the City to use the area designated for a practice ballfield on the church property in exchange for the City's constructing some improvements such as backstops and irrigation. The fields are in accordance with the approved concept plan for the church, and funding is available in the SPDC Special Projects fund. The agreement would provide the City with much needed practice facilities, and is adjacent to Chesapeake Park, currently under construction. If you have any questions, contact Kevin Hugman • Agenda Item No. 5C, Authorize the Mayor to execute a Residential Developer's Agreement for Wingate Hill Addition. The final plat for Wingate Hill Addition was approved on May 3, 2001. Wingate Hill is located on the east side of White Chapel Boulevard north of Dove Street and approximately 700 feet north of Sweet Street. The addition includes 24 lots. OR Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting May 15, 2001 Page 2 of 14 This agreement is the City's standard developer's agreement and covers the construction of street paving, drainage, and water and sanitary sewer lines. The Park Board recommends a Park Fee of $36,000. Contact Charlie Thomas with questions on this item. • Agenda item No. 5D, Authorize the Mayor to execute a Commercial Developer's Agreement for Parker's Corner - Sonic Restaurant. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the final plat for the Sonic located in Parker's Corner on May 3, 2001. The development consists of construction of Sonic on the west side of Davis Boulevard, 500 feet south of FM 1709. The developer's agreement is the City's standard Commercial Developer's Agreement covering the construction of public infrastructure. The required land dedication for this development of Parker's Corner is .08 acres of park land. The equivalent in park dedication fees for this addition ($800 per gross acre times 3.932 acres) is $3,145.60. Contact Charlie Thomas with questions on this item. • Agenda Item No. 5E, ZA 01-019, Plat Revision, Mayfield Addition. Item withdrawn by the applicant. • Agenda Item No. 5F, Request for Approval of Change Order No. 2 to CMPA, Inc., for the Department of Public Safety - West Facility - City of Southlake Project No. 00-3320. During grading activities for the West DPS facility building pad and the parking lot, an area of wet, unsuitable subgrade material was encountered near the southwest corner of the future main parking area. Under advice of the geotechnical lab, since it did not appear that moisture would continue to be a problem once the material was dried and graded, staff requested a proposal from the general contractor, CMPA, to provide kiln dust. The addition of the kiln dust will stabilize the subgrade and help ensure the longevity of the parking area. The architect, PSA, and staff received a proposal from CMPA to make the change for an increase of $6,800. PSA and staff have reviewed this proposal and find it to be acceptable. It is recommended that this change be approved for an increase of $6,800. Our contract currently provides a "contingency" item in the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting May 15, 2001 Page 3 of 14 amount of $150,000. If approved, these changes can be included under this "contingency" item and no change in the contract amount or the contract time will occur. If you have questions, please contact Rick Black. • Agenda Item No. 5G, Resolution No. 01-028, Appointment of Mayor Pro Tem and Deputy Mayor Pro Tem. As stated in the Home Rule Charter, Section 2.07 Mayor Pro Tem and Deputy Mayor Pro Tem. "At the first meeting after each general election or general election run-off, if any, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Mayor shall, with the approval of the Council, appoint one of the Council members as Mayor Pro Tem and one as Deputy Mayor Pro Tem who shall hold their offices for one year. The Mayor Pro Tem shall perform the duties of Mayor in case of the absence or disability of the Mayor. In case of absence or disability of both the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem, the Duputy Mayor Pro Tem shall perform the duties of Mayor. " Mayor Stacy has asked that this item be placed on the agenda for this meeting in order for him to make his appointments and have them voted upon by the City Council • Agenda Item No. 511, Resolution No. 01-031, A resolution by the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, relating to the "Southlake Parks Development Corporation Sales Tax Subordinate Lien Revenue Bonds, Series 2001"; approving (i) the resolution of the Southlake Parks Development Corporation authorizing the issuance of such Bonds and (ii) the execution, on behalf of the City, of the Financing/Use Agreement relating to such financing by the Corporation; resolving other matters incident and related to the issuance of such Bonds; and providing an effective date. In order for sales tax revenue bonds to be issued, the City Council must consider a resolution that approves the SPDC's resolution to issue the bonds. This is required under Section 4B of the Development Corporation Act of 1979. The resolution will also include a Financing/Use Agreement with SPDC, through which the Board authorizes the City to construct projects and to invest and disburse funds. The SPDC board will hold a public hearing on the projects at a special meeting on Tuesday, May 15, 2001 prior to the regular City Council meeting. Also at that meeting, the SPDC Board will consider a resolution to approve the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting May 15, 2001 Page 4 of 14 issuance of the $4,690,000 sales tax subordinate lien revenue bonds, series 2001. Contact Sharen Elam with any questions regarding this agenda item. • Agenda Item No. 7A, Ordinance No. 480-362, 2nd Reading (ZA 00-124) Rezoning and Site Plan for Gateway Church. This site is located on the south side of East Southlake Boulevard, east of the intersection of Village Center Drive. This property also is known as the "Zembrod Ranch." The applicant proposes a zoning change to "CS" Community Service District Uses for development of a church. The site plan shows two phases of construction. Each phase will have a two-story, 32,000-square-foot, 929-seat sanctuary building with and approximately 310 parking spaces. Total build -out shows 64,000 square feet, 1,858 seats, and 622 parking spaces. Building elevations have been provided for Phase 1 only. A revised site plan will be required for the Phase 2 building. The following variances are requested: 1. Horizontal articulation on the North and East fagades. 2. Dead-end street with turn -around easement, rather than a publicly dedicated cul-de-sac right-of-way. 3. Driveway stacking depth (150' required) a) The stacking measured on the drive off FM 1709 is 140' . b) The stacking measured from South Village Center Drive is 42'. 4. Driveway spacing on FM 1709. Full access drives must be spaced 500' on FM 1709. The proposed drive will be approximately 250' from the next full access drive to the east. 5. Staff recommendation that the "FM 1709" driveway be aligned with the "Village Center driveway" located on the north side of FM 1709. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (6-0) allowing the variances as requested. The City Council approved this item 7-0 on consent at its May 1, 2001, meeting. If you have any questions regarding this item, please contact Bruce Payne. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting May 15, 2001 Page 5 of 14 • Agenda Item No. 7B, Ordinance No. 480-363, 2°d Reading (ZA 01-042), Rezoning and Concept Plan for Clariden School. The property is located on the west side of North White Chapel Boulevard approximately 1,400' south of Bob Jones Road. It is part of the plat of the Clariden Ranch Subdivision. The original request was for "CS" Community Service district uses. The applicant amended this request to "S-P-2" with "CS" uses limited to private schools. Case ZA01-017, Zoning and Concept Plan for Clariden School, was withdrawn prior to coming before you. The applicant felt that there were concerns brought up during the P & Z hearing that could not be adequately addressed at the time and that the Commission,s denial may have been due to those concerns. The applicant withdrew the item in order to return to P & Z to revisit those issues. Several of those issues are addressed in your staff report. One of the primary concerns has been related to traffic. A detailed traffic analysis is included in the staff report. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (6-0) on April19, 2001, subject to Concept Plan Review Summary No. 1, dated April 12, 2001, subject to the following: 1. "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District with "CS" Community Service District uses limited to a private school with a 700-student capacity; 2. lighting design and installation will adhere to relevant city ordinances; 3. school will install a continuous northbound left turn lane on White Chapel Boulevard; 4. school will install a crosswalk across White Chapel Boulevard; 5. a flashing school zone will be installed as recommended by staff. The City Council approved this item (7-0) on consent at its May 1, 2001, meeting. If you have any questions regarding this item, contact Bruce Payne. • Agenda Item No. 8A, Ordinance No. 480-365, 151 Reading, (ZA 01-018) Rezoning and Site Plan for Sonic Restaurant. Item withdrawn by the applicant. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting May 15, 2001 Page 6 of 14 • Agenda Item No. 813, Ordinance No. 480-364, 1" Reading (ZA 01-027) Rezoning and Development Plan for Haltom Creek Estates. The property is located on the east side of North Carroll Avenue and the west side of Sunshine Lane, approximately 500' south of East Dove Road. The purpose of this request is to place a "Residential Planned Unit Development" district uses and regulations on the property for development of 94 residential lots on 95 acres. The property is divided by Dove Creek. The applicant is proposing to place 79 lots on the west side (Product A) of Dove Creek and 15 (Product B) lots on the east side of Dove Creek. The average lot size for Product A is 25,284 square feet. The average lot size for Product B is 64,279 square feet. The applicant is providing 13.6 acres of open space along Dove Creek. The applicant also is proposing a 20-foot-wide public easement along the creek and an 8-foot-wide public trail that would become a portion of a future natural multi -use trail running from Lake Grapevine south to State Highway 114. In addition, the applicant is proposing to construct a center turn lane and an acceleration /deceleration lane along Carroll Avenue. This item was initially scheduled for the April 5, 2001, Planning and Zoning meeting; however, the applicant requested that the item be tabled until the April 17, meeting. During that meeting, the applicant requested that the item be tabled until May 3 in order to address concerns of the surrounding residents that spoke during the public hearing. The concerns of the surrounding residents included the following: 1) proposed lot sizes for the area west of Dove Creek (Product A); 2) how increased runoff from the site attribute to the flooding problems along Dove Creek; and 3) traffic generated from the site. At the May 3 Planning and Zoning meeting, the applicant revised the development plan to attempt to address the concerns raised by the surrounding property owners. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial (5-0). The applicant is proposing the following RPUD development regulations for Product A. These regulations are modeled after the "SF-20" designation and differ from the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting May 15, 2001 Page 7 of 14 a. Side yards - The RPUD provides for 12'/z-foot side yards. The "SF-20" designation provides for 15 feet. b. Rear yard - The RPUD provides for 25-foot rear yards. The "SF-20" designation provides for 40-foot rear yards. If the lot abuts a cul-de-sac, the RPUD provides for 20-foot rear yards compared to 35 feet for "SF-20" designation. C. Floor Area - The RPUD designates a minimum of 3,000 square feet of floor area. "SF-20" requires a minimum of 1,800 square feet of floor area. The applicant is proposing following RPUD development regulations for Product B. These regulations are modeled after the "SF-1A" designation and differ from the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance: d. Maximum Lot Coverage - The RPUD allows 22% maximum lot coverage. "SF-lA" regulations allow 20 % . e. Floor Area - The RPUD requires a minimum of 4,500 square feet of floor area compared to 2,000 square feet required in "SF-lA" regulations. The Parks and Recreation Board gave the applicant credit for the 20-foot public pedestrian easement along Dove Creek and waived the requirement for a trail along Carroll Avenue. If the City Council agrees with the Parks and Recreation Board's recommendation to waive the requirement for the construction of a trail on the east side of Carroll Avenue, the Council must grant a variance to the requirements of the Trail System Master Plan. Due to the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial and because more than 20% of the adjacent property owners oppose this item, a supermajority approval is required by City Council. If you have any questions regarding this item, please contact Bruce Payne Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting May 15, 2001 Page 8 of 14 • Agenda Item No. 9-A, Resolution No. 01-030, Appointments to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mayor Rick Stacy asked that this item be placed on the agenda in order for the Council to have the option of appointing members to the Planning and Zoning Commission during this meeting. Currently there are three places on the Planning and Zoning Commission that need to be filled. As of this time, Kenneth Horne has expressed an interest in being re- appointed while Michael Boutte and Dennis King have not indicated that they wish to be re- appointed. The applications, which have been turned in as of 3:00 p.m. today, are included in your packet. Councilmember Patsy DuPre has stated she is in favor of holding interviews with the applicants prior to appointment, as Council has done in the past for many years. If Council decides to hold interviews for all the board and commission applicants, the dates of May 22 and May 29 are open as far as other meetings. The Council Chambers and executive conference room also are available on those dates. The City Secretary has advertised that applications will be accepted until such time as the Council either makes appointments or sets the date for interviews. Sandy will need to know as soon as a decision has been made in order to notify the applicants. If you have questions or wish to discuss this issue, contact Mayor Stacy or Sandy LeGrand. • Agenda Item No. 10A. Request for a variance to Sign Ordinance No. 704-A for Clariden Ranch located at 3900 North With Chapel Boulevard. Bobby Harrell represents Terra Land Development for Clariden Ranch, a subdivision to be located on the west side of North White Chapel Boulevard across from Bob Jones Park. Terra Land Development is proposing a sign that is actually an arched entry feature with stone and iron columns connected by an arched iron cross member. A nameplate identifying the subdivision is suspended beneath the center of the arch. This would give the look of a typical entry element for a ranch, which is the central theme Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting May 15, 2001 Page 9 of 14 of the development. This feature would be placed in lieu of a typical monument sign. Contact Rick Black with questions on this item. • Agenda Item No. IOB, Request for a Conditional Sign Permit for Sabre Corporation headquarters located at 3150 Kirkwood Boulevard. Sabre Corporation seeks a Conditional Sign Permit allowing a special set of sign specifications to create a monument and directional sign package to be used throughout each phase of the development of the Sabre Corporate Campus. The package would feature an entry sign with the letters "SABRE" placed within the fountain area designed to look as if it were floating on water. The remaining signs would be stylized building identification monuments and stylized directional monuments designed to blend with each new structure throughout the campus. In addition to the monument sign package, there would be typical traffic signage designed within TXDOT standards. Contact Rick Black with questions on this item. • Agenda Item No. 10C, Request from Southlake Baseball Association for a variance to Facilities Utilization Agreement to extend hours of lighting for tournament. The Southlake Baseball Association is hosting a series of tournaments in late June and early July. The association has requested that the hours of lighting specified in the current Facilities Utilization Agreement be extended until midnight to accommodate tournament play if a game extends beyond the allowed time limit. The current restrictions are: Sunday through Thursday; cease play by 10:00 p.m., lights turned off by 10:30 p.m.; Friday, Saturday; cease play by 11:00 p.m., lights turned off by 11:30 p.m. The tournaments are scheduled for Mondays through Fridays. We have placed this item on your agenda since it involves a variance to an approved agreement. The Parks and Recreation Board will consider the item for a recommendation to you at its meeting on Monday night. A representative of SBA is expected to be at your meeting on Tuesday. Contact Kevin Hugman if you have any questions on this item. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting May 15, 2001 Page 10 of 14 • Agenda Item No. 10D, Resolution No. 01-027, Appointing four members to serve on the Board of Director of the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One of the Citv of Southlake. The bylaws of the Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Number One, the City of Southlake Texas specifies that the City shall appoint eight members to the board, allowing the Carroll Independent School District to name one of the appointments. On July 18, 2000, the City Council approved Resolution No. 00-80, appointing eight members to the board at staggered terms. The appointments held by Councilmembers Ronnie Kendall, Greg Standerfer, and Gary Fawks, and CISD Board President Rob Glover expired in May 2001. CISD has indicated that it would like the City to re -appoint Mr. Glover to the TIRZ Board. The remaining appointments can be filled by re -appointing Councilmember Standerfer, and appointing Councilmembers Ralph Evans and Tom Stephen. Contact John Eaglen with questions regarding this agenda item. • Agenda Item No. 10E, Approval of Change Order with Botanical Technologies to construct restroom building #2 at Bob Jones Park. During the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) discussions with SPDC last summer, the board requested that staff pursue moving up the construction of restroom #2 at Bob Jones Park (south area by practice ballfields) to the current project year. SPDC subsequently approved the FY 2001-2002 CIP with an additional $450,000 in the Bob Jones Park project for the addition of this restroom and features associated with the second pond (south of the practice ballfields). After completing construction drawings for the second restroom (the design is similar to the north restroom/concession building, except for the breezeway and concession area), staff pursued a change order with the contractor currently on the project - Botanical Technologies. The proposed change order amount is $292,306, which is within the estimated $300,000 allocated for the facility, and is well within the maximum 25% increase of an awarded contract (being 11.5 % of the awarded contract of $2,529,041). Staff is working with the contractor to reduce this amount for some costs we feel are unnecessary, and will be prepared to discuss the results of these efforts at your meeting on Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting May 15, 2001 Page 11 of 14 Tuesday. SPDC will consider this item at a special meeting prior to the City Council meeting. If you have any questions on this item, contact Kevin Hugman. OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST e DPS West Site. You will recall that the City purchased property in 1999 on FM 1709 at Randol Mill, utilizing crime control monies for the purposes of building the West DPS facility. This property was purchased with the understanding that a portion of it would be sold by the city and the revenue would offset crime control expenditures. A 35,813-square-foot lot has been identified and marketed to the broker community. Staff will publish the city's intent to sell the property on May 27, 2001 and again on June 3, 2001 in the Fort Worth Star Telegram. The publication will specify the description of the land, location and the procedure for submitting sealed bids scheduled to be opened on June 28, 2001. Staff will present the bids to the Crime Control and Prevention District Board on or around July 11, 2001,.and then will bring the recommendation of the board forward to City Council for final approval. Staff plans to negotiate the contract and close on the property on or before November 15, 2001. If you have any questions, contact Rick Black. • Update on Sam School Road reconstruction. The project contractor, Reynolds Asphalt, has completed work on the sub -base and drainage ditches on about 90% of the project. We are running into challenges on the Westlake side. Town of Westlake has started the construction of a utility dock bank on its east side of the project. Westlake has promised the contractor several deadlines, but the work has yet to be completed. Our Public Works Department staff has been a tremendous asset on this project by working on a major storm culvert crossing the road, repairing water lines, etc. The installation of the 6" compacted limestone base will start on Saturday and should be about 80% finished by 5:00 p.m. Pedram witnessed no through traffic during a one -hour visit at the site. People must have experienced difficulty going through and took the detour. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting May 15, 2001 Page 12 of 14 • Meeting with the YMCA. A meeting has been scheduled with the YMCA for Friday, May 18, at 2:00 p.m. in the executive conference room. Councilmember Patsy DuPre and Mayor Stacy are planning to attend. The meeting has been posted so that other interested Councilmembers can attend. If you have any questions, contact Kevin Hugman. • Alternative Recreation Facilities Program. The City of Keller has arranged for a program "Management Alternatives for Municipal Recreation Facilities" to be presented on Saturday, June 9, 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. at the City of Euless Municipal Complex. The program is designed for city council, Parks and Recreation Board members and staff. Highlights of the program include: revenue generators for new/existing facilities; necessary policy changes, feasibility studies and enterprise plans, market studies, and management options. The cost of the program is $35 per person prior to May 30. We will send some staff and also will register other slots for anyone interested in going. If you are interested, contact Kevin Hugman. • Mayor/Council orientation sponsored by City Attorney,s Office. As a result of the May 5, 2001, elections, several of the cities that our attorneys represent have new council members taking office. The firm is holding an orientation for new council members on Monday, May 21, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in its law offices at 6000 Western Place at the intersection of Bryant Irvin Road and I-30 in Fort Worth. The attorneys will brief new council members on general council procedures, open meetings and open records issues, land use issues, personal liability of council members, conflict of interest issues, financial administration, and other concerns for new council members. This meeting also is open to the Mayor and current council members. The cost of the orientation is $100 for as many elected officials who wish to attend from our city. Several cities requested that the orientation for new council members occur in close proximity to the election, and therefore, the general orientation for all the cities has been scheduled on a night Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting May 15, 2001 Page 13 of 14 where there are no city council meetings. This consolidated orientation will give new council members an overview of important issues, and provide an opportunity to meet most of the attorneys with whom the council members will be working. If you are interested in attending this orientation, please let Sandy LeGrand know by May 16, as this is the deadline for registration at the attorneys office. • Also included with my memo: > Memo regarding employee wellness program. /f BC U Staff Extension Numbers: Black, Rick, DPS Director, 481-2406 Campbell, Billy, City Manager, 481-1409 Cates, Harold, Human Resources Director, 481-1952 Eaglen, John, Assistant to the City Manager, 481-1433 Elam, Sharen, Finance Director, 481-1713 Farahnak, Pedram, Public Works Director, 481-2308 Hugman, Kevin, Director of Community Services, 481-1527 Jackson, Malcolm, Chief of Building Services, 481-5543 Kunke, James, Public Information Officer, 481-1456 Last, Greg, Director of Economic Development, 481-1671 LeGrand, Sandra, City Secretary, 481-1519 Payne, Bruce, Planning Director, 481-2036 Thomas, Charlie, City Engineer, 481-2175 Yelverton, Shana, Assistant City Manager, 481-1429 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM May 8, 2001 TO: The Honorable Members of the City Council FROM: Billy Campbell, City Manager SUBJECT: Employee Wellness Program: Health Club Memberships for Employees On behalf of the City of Southlake employees, I have approved a request for corporate health club memberships with 24-Hour Fitness Clubs for city employees. This is part of an effort I am calling the Employee Wellness Program. Specifically this initiative is considered Phase I. Phase II will entail a health/ wellness fair, during which employees can voluntarily have their weight, posture, strength, cholesterol, blood pressure and other vital signs checked. We would like to repeat such an event annually so that employees my track their "healthiness." A survey regarding employee participation on this subject was taken and to date, 17 employees are interested in getting a membership immediately while others are interested in such membership in the future. A corporate membership does allow access for ALL employees and their families to the 24- Hour Fitness clubs, while paying lower rates. Employees will pay $0 up -front cost, and $42 for monthly membership fees. This results in an up- front savings of $456, and an additional $22 on their regular monthly membership dues. The City of Southlake also got cost savings of $375 on the regular required annual fee. Our cost will only be $1,125. This is an upgrade to our employee benefits package at only a nominal cost. But also an affective recruiting tool considering other cities in the Metroplex, such as Carrollton, Dallas, Irving, and Lewisville also offer their employees this type of membership. The City of Flowermound also offers its employees reduced rate with the local YMCA, but neither their rates are not as low as ours, nor are their facilities open 24 hours per day. This is a well -received feature with our employees in DPS. Countless studies show that healthy employees are happier, more productive employees with better attitudes and work ethics. In the long run I am confident that our wellness program will also reduce not only our health care costs, but also improve employee morale and overall productivity. If you have questions, concerns or comments feel free to contact me at (817) 481-1409. You may also contact Harold Cates, Director of Human Resources at (817) 481-1952 16 City of Southlake, Texas i MEMORANDUM May 9, 2001 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services (xt. 1527) SUBJECT: Authorize the Mayor to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with St. Martin -in - the -Fields Episcopal Church for practice ballfields Action Requested: Authorize the Mayor to enter into an interlocal agreement with St. Martin -in - the -Fields Episcopal Church to utilize property owned by the Church for practice ballfields. Background Information: The City of Southlake and St. Martin -in -the -Fields Episcopal Church currently have an interlocal agreement allowing the City to utilize approximately two acres of land for practice soccer facilities. In return, the City has irrigated the property and provides regular maintenance. With the recent acquisition of Chesapeake Park, staff approached the Church about the possibility of leasing additional land from them for the development of ball fields. This additional two -acre site would also tie Chesapeake Park together with the leased areas, resulting in a fifteen -acre park site. In return, the City will be responsible for clearing the proposed lease site, constructing a backstop, irrigating the site, and providing regular maintenance. The proposed lease will help to provide much needed practice space for the growing youth sports associations (baseball, softball, and soccer) and is in accordance with St. Martin's approved concept plan. Financial Considerations: Acceptance of this Agreement would require the City to perform site improvements within two years from the effective date of the proposed Agreement. The site improvements (clearing, irrigation, backstop) are estimated to cost approximately $15,000 with funding being available in the SPDC Fund from Special Projects. Citizen Input/ Board Review: The Parks and Recreation Board will review the proposed interlocal agreement at their May 14, 2001 meeting. St. Martin -in -the -Fields representatives are reviewing the proposed agreement and have tentatively approved it. Legal Review: The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proposed Agreement and their comments have been incorporated. Alternatives: City Council discussion and consideration. 5 (t) _ 1 l Billy Campbell, City Manager May 9, 2001 Page 2 Supporting Documents: Supporting documents include the following items: ■ Proposed Interlocal Agreement ■ Site Map Staff Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor to enter into an interlocal agreement with St. Martin - in -the -Fields Episcopal Church for practice ballfields. NAParks & Recreation\BOARDS\CC\2001\Qtr 3\St. MartinCvrMemo.doc ER Billy Campbell, City Manager May 9, 2001 Page 3 AGREEMENT BETWEENTHE-FIELDS EPISAND ST. MARTIN -IN COPAL CHURCH 2001, by and between the This Agreement is entered into as of the day of y an Main Street, City of Southlake, Texas, ahome-rulmunicipal Mart°n in -the -Fields State EpiscopalTexas, Church, anon -profit Southlake, Texas, 76092, (the,City") organization of the State of Texas, 223 South Pearson Lane, Southlake, Texas 76248, (the "Church"). FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE AGREEMENTS SET OUT BELOW, the parties agree as follows: I. LICENSE Church agrees to give the City a license to utilize the property described i ExhibitCounty,"Aattached hereto, located gas Block 1, Lot 2 of the St Martin's Addition to the Cityof Southlake,ears from the effective date of this (the Premises) for a consideration opractice feld f f one dollar ($1 00) and other or a period of ten Ovaluable consideration. Agreement, for and inc II. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS City agrees to the following: A. City shall clear existing debris and perform necessary grading. B. City shall construct a backstop on the premises consistent with City practice ballfield standards. C. City shall maintain the premises through mowing and the removal of any waste or debris generated by the City's use. D. City shall irrigate the premises as an extension of the adjacent park. E. City agrees to complete said improvements within two (2) years from the effective date of this Agreement. F. City shall utilize the fields on Mondays through Fridays, after 4:00 p.m., Saturdays until 3:00 p.m. but it shall not schedule practices on Sundays. G. City shall name Church as an additional insured on its general liability insurance policy, which it agrees to maintain throughout the term of this Agreement. H. The Church may change the City's scheduled use with twenty four (24) hour notice for special emergency use such as a funeral, wedding, etc. i 5t6 -?D Billy Campbell, City Manager May 9, 2001 Page 4 'I%.- III. IV TERMINATION A. Either City or Church may terminate this Agreement by giving the other party notice not less than six months prior to the termination, at the addresses set forth in the preamble to this Agreement. B. Church agrees to reimburse City the prorated cost of improvements to the premises should the Church terminate this agreement before the expiration date of this agreement. The maximum cost for said improvements held liable shall not exceed $15,000. INDEMNIFICATION CHURCH AGREES TO INDEMNIFY CITY AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY FOR ANY INJURY CAUSED BY CHURCH'S NEGLIGENCE. CHURCH ALSO AGREES TO INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY FOR ANY INJURY CAUSED BY ANYTHING CHURCH DOES TO THE PREMISES THAT CAUSES INJURY. V. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. Church agrees to permit City to enter into Agreements with non-profit associations to utilize the Premises for use as a practice ballfield only. B. Church agrees to permit City to utilize the south half of existing concrete parking lot for ballfield parking. The north half of parking lot is reserved for church use only, and the Church shall designate reserved area by signage and/or striping. C. Church agrees to permit City access to the premises for necessary construction and maintenance. D. No portable toilets or concession stands, trucks or trailers are to be parked on site at any time. E. The parties agree that the fact that City has drafted this Agreement shall not mean that in the event of ambiguity, any provision shall be construed in favor of Church. EXECUTED this day of , 2001. CITY OF SOUTHLAKE: Rick Stacy, Mayor ST. MARTIN -IN -THE -FIELDS EPISCOPAL CHURCH: Reverend Frank Reeves .S 6 _ A Billy Campbell, City Manager May 9, 2001 Page 5 -% - ATTEST: City Secretary Henry Penner, Senior Warden Alan Jackson, Junior Warden Property Commission, Chair Person EXHIBIT "A Im IN Lot, 2, Block 1, St. Martin -in -the -Fields Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 1346, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas � '�'BI ,v.rvr rl h'-ffl' lalRi$�l �e ��l as rl �ii w•r Vf M r. ?.�'n 1r O•,lT .. __ _ 4M Ps i booME �,I - �� _ d a_ 4_7 _ _ — gF via _ r_ r _� ,� _ = RM Kmarnaw[n, rC � VOL 1I11, r4 U LOT I& I I La IS I �8 l01 ri I I TWO : PA aS0 111N1 G KE [O1 IS LILL : m a11m as0[NIII[ , I I I I I CRY CAE MAM r/1it➢O FfCD NOV 2 21999 N:TOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTnwP-FILES\7_BA\PENDING\480-37I.DOC Page 9 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM May 15, 2001 To: Billy Campbell, City Manger From: Charlie Thomas, P.E., City Engineer, 481-2175 Subject: Authorize the Mayor to execute a Residential Developer's Agreement for Wingate Hill Addition. Action Requested: Authorize the Mayor to execute a Residential Developer's Agreement for Wingate Hill Addition a 30.115 acre development. Background Information: The final plat for Wingate Hill Addition was approved on May 3, 2001. Wingate Hill is located on the east side of White Chapel Boulevard north of Dove Street and approximately 700 feet north of Sweet Street. The addition includes 24 lots. This is the City's standard developer's agreement and covers the construction of street paving and drainage and water and sanitary sewer lines. Financial Consideration: None. Citizen Input/ Board Review: On December 11, 2000 the Park Board recommended a Park fee of $36,000. Legal Review: This is the standard developer's agreement originally drafted by the City Attorney. Alternatives: Approve it, deny it, or modify it. Supporting Documents: Vicinity Map Plat Exhibit Agreement Park Dedication Requirements Staff Recommendation: Please place on the City Council Agenda for May 15, 2001 for Council consideration and approval. Staff Contact: Charlie Thomas, P.E., City Engineer, 481-2175 Angela Turner, Graduate Engineer, 481-2348 Pedram Farahnak, P.E., Director of Public Works, 481-2308 CT/ta 2 OR Vicinity Map Wingate Hill Subdivision 1000 0 1000 20Q0 3000 Feet \y 3 Case No. ZA01-034 4 Attachment C Page 1 Wingate Hill RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPER AGREEMENT An Agreement between the City of Southlake, Texas, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and the undersigned Developer, hereinafter referred to as the "Developer", of Wingate Hill, hereinafter referred to as the "Addition" to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, for the installation of certain community facilities located therein, and to provide city services thereto. It is understood by and between the parties that this Agreement is applicable to the 24 lots contained within the Addition and to the off -site improvements necessary to support the Addition. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A . It is agreed and understood by the parties hereto that the Developer shall employ a civil engineer licensed to practice in the State of Texas for the design and preparation of the plans and specifications for the construction of all facilities covered by this Agreement. B. Since the Developer is prepared to develop the Addition as rapidly as possible and is desirous of selling lots to builders and having residential building activity begin as quickly as possible and the City is desirous of having the Addition completed as rapidly as possible, the City agrees to release 10% of the lots, two, after installation of the water and sewer mains. Framing shall not commence until water quality is approved by the City and all appropriate Fire Code requirements are satisfied, and street signs with street names are in place. Temporary all-weather metal signs securely fastened in the ground are acceptable until permanent street signs are installed. The Developer recognizes that the remaining building permits or Certificates of Occupancy for residential dwellings will not be issued until the supporting public works infrastructure including permanent street signs with block numbers and regulatory signs within the Addition have been accepted by the City. This will serve as an incentive to the Developer to see that all remaining items are completed. C. The Developer will present to the City either a cash escrow, Letters of Credit, performance bond or payment bond acceptable to the City guaranteeing and agreeing to pay an amount equal to 100% of the value of the construction cost of all of the facilities to be constructed by the Developer, and providing for payment to the City of such amounts, up to the total remaining amounts required for the completion of the Addition if the Developer fails to complete the work within two (2) years of the signing of this Agreement between the City and Developer. All bonds 5 shall be issued by a Best -rated bonding company. All Letters of Credit 1,40- must meet the Requirements for Irrevocable Letter of Credit attached hereto and incorporated herein. The value of the performance bond, Letters of Credit or cash escrow will reduce at a rate consistent with the amount of work that has been completed by the Developer and accepted by the City. Each request for reduction or payment of escrow funds must be accompanied by lien release(s) executed by all subcontractors and/or suppliers prior to the release of escrow funds or reduction in value of the account. Performance and payment bond, Letters of Credit or cash escrow from the prime contractor(s) or other entity reasonably acceptable to the City, hereinafter referred to as Contractor, will be acceptable in lieu of Developer's obligations specified above. D. The Developer agrees to furnish to the City maintenance bonds, letters of credit or cash escrow amounting to 20% of the cost of construction of underground utilities and 50% of the construction cost for paving. These maintenance bonds, letters of credit or cash escrow will be for a period of two (2) years and will be issued prior to the final City acceptance of the Addition. The maintenance bonds, letters of credit or cash escrow will be supplied to the City by the contractors performing the work, and the City will be named as the beneficiary if the contractors fail to perform any required maintenance. If the Developer chooses to construct bar ditches in lieu of curb and gutter, and the City approved the design and grade of bar ditches, Developer understands and agrees to provide maintenance on the bar ditches for a period of two years from the date of acceptance of the Addition. Maintenance includes trash and debris cleanup, mowing, and erosion control. E. Until the performance and payment bonds, Letters of Credit or cash escrow required in Paragraph C have been furnished as required, no approval of work on or in the Addition shall be given by City and no work shall be initiated on or in said Addition by Developer, save and except as provided above. F. It is further agreed and understood by the parties hereto that upon acceptance by the City, title to all facilities and improvements mentioned hereinabove shall be vested in the City and Developer hereby relinquishes any right, title or interest in and to said facilities or any part thereof. It is further understood and agreed that until the City accepts such improvements, the City shall have no liability or responsibility in connection with any such facilities. Acceptance of the facilities shall occur '�— at such time that the City, through its City Manager or his duly authorized ro representative, provides Developer with a written acknowledgement that all facilities are complete, have been inspected and approved and are being accepted by the City. G. On all public facilities included in this Agreement for which Developer awards his own construction contract, Developer agrees to the following procedure: 1. Developer agrees to pay the following: a. Inspection fees equal to three percent (3%) of the cost of the water, street, drainage and sanitary sewer facilities, on all facilities included in this Agreement for which Developer awards his or her own construction contract, to be paid prior to construction of each phase and based on actual bid construction cost; b. Administrative Processing fee equal to two percent (2%) of the cost of water, street, drainage and sanitary sewer facilities, on all facilities included in this Agreement for which Developer awards his or her own construction contract, to be paid prior to construction of each phase and based on actual �... bid construction cost; C. Trench testing (95% Standard); d. The additional charge for inspections during Saturday, Sunday, holidays, and after normal working hours; e. Any charges for re -testing as a result of failed tests; f. All gradation tests required to insure proper cement and/or lime stabilization. 2. The City agrees to bear the expense of: a. All nuclear density tests on the roadway subgrade (95% Standard); b. Technicians time for preparing concrete cylinders; and C. Concrete cylinder tests and concrete coring samples. The City can delay connection of buildings to service lines or water mains constructed under this Agreement until said water mains and 0 service lines have been completed to the satisfaction of and acceptance by the City. H. The Developer and any third party, independent entity engaged in the construction of houses, hereinafter referred to as "Builder" will be responsible for mowing all grass and weeds and otherwise reasonably maintaining the aesthetics of all land and lots in said Addition which have not been sold to third parties. After fifteen (15) days written notice, should the Developer or Builder fail in this responsibility, the City may contract for this service and bill the Developer or Builder for reasonable costs. Should such cost remain unpaid for 120 days after notice, the City can file a lien on such property so maintained. Any guarantee of payment instrument (Performance Bond, Letter of Credit, etc.) submitted by the Developer or Contractor on a form other than the one which has been previously approved by the City as "acceptable" shall be submitted to the City Attorney and this Agreement shall not be considered in effect until such City Attorney has approved the instrument. Approval by the City shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. J. Any surety company through which a bond is written shall be a surety company duly authorized to do business in the State of Texas, provided that the City, through the City Manager, shall retain the right to reject any surety company as a surety for any work under this or any other Developer's Agreement within the City regardless of such company's authorization to do business in Texas. Approval by the City shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. II. FACILITIES A. ON SITE WATER The Developer hereby agrees to install water facilities to service lots as shown on the final plat of the Addition. Water facilities will be installed in accordance with plans and specifications to be prepared by the Developer's engineer and released by the City. Further, the Developer agrees to complete this installation in accordance with Ordinance No. 170 and shall be responsible for all construction costs, materials and engineering. In the event that certain water lines are to be oversized because of City requirements, the City will reimburse the Developer for the oversize cost greater than the cost of an 8" line. Additionally, the City agrees to provide temporary water service at Developer's request and expense, for construction, testing and irrigation purposes only, to 8 ` %- individual lots during the construction of homes, even though sanitary sewer service may not be available to the homes. ANEEKBUTTAVRITAW Developer hereby agrees to construct the necessary drainage facilities within the Addition. These facilities shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications to be prepared by Developer's engineers, released by the Director of Public Works, and made part of the final plat as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Developer hereby agrees to fully comply with all EPA requirements relating to the planning, permitting and management of storm water which may be in force at the time that development proposals are being presented for approval by the City. The Developer hereby agrees to comply with all provisions of the Texas Water Code. C. LAW COMPLIANCE Developer hereby agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws that are applicable to development of this Addition. D. STREETS 1. The street construction in the Addition shall conform to the requirements in accordance with plans and specifications to be prepared by the Developer's engineer and released by the Director of Public Works. Streets will be installed in accordance with the plans and specifications to be prepared by the Developer's engineer and released by the Director of Public Works. 2. The Developer will be responsible for: a. Installation and two year operation cost of street lights, which is payable to the City prior to final acceptance of the Addition; or an agreement with utility provider stating that no charge will be made for street lights for the two-year duration. b. Installation of all street signs designating the names of the streets inside the Addition, said signs to be of a type, size, color and design standard generally employed by the Developer and approved by the City in accordance with City ordinances. 0 C. Installation of all regulatory signs recommended based upon the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices as prepared by the Developer's engineer by an engineering study or direction by the Director of Public Works. It is understood that Developer may put in signage having unique architectural features, however, should the signs be moved or destroyed by any means the City is only responsible for replacement of standard signage. 3. All street improvements will be subject to inspection and approval by the City. No work will begin on any street included herein prior to complying with the requirements contained elsewhere in this Agreement. All water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage utilities which are anticipated to be installed within the street or within the street right-of-way will be completed prior to the commencement of street construction on the specific section of street in which the utility improvements have been placed or for which they are programmed. It is understood by and between the Developer and the City that this requirement is aimed at substantial compliance with the majority of the pre -planned facilities. It is understood that in every construction project a decision later may be made to realign a line or service which may occur after construction has commenced. The Developer hereby agrees to advise the City Director of Public Works as quickly as possible when such a need has been identified and to work cooperatively with the City to make such utility change in a manner that will be least disruptive to street construction or stability. E. ON SITE SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES The Developer hereby agrees to install sanitary sewerage collection facilities to service lots as shown on the final plat of the Addition. Sanitary sewer facilities will be installed in accordance with the plans and specifications to be prepared by the Developer's engineer and released by the City. Further, the Developer agrees to complete this installation in compliance with all applicable city ordinances, regulations and codes and shall be responsible for all construction costs, materials and engineering. In the event that certain sewer lines are to be oversized because of City requirements, the City will reimburse the Developer for the oversize cost greater than the cost of an 8" line. 10 F. EROSION CONTROL During construction of the Addition and after the streets have been installed, the Developer agrees to keep the streets free from soil build-up. The Developer agrees to use soil control measures such as hay bales, silt screening, hydromulch, etc., to prevent soil erosion. It will be the Developer's responsibility to present to the Director of Public Works a soil control development plan that will be implemented for this Addition. When in the opinion of the Director of Public Works there is sufficient soil build- up on the streets or other drainage areas and notification has been given to the Developer, the Developer will have seventy-two (72) hours to clear the soil from the streets or affected areas. If the Developer does not remove the soil from the street within 72 hours, the City may cause the soil to be removed either by contract or City forces and place the soil within the Addition at the Developer's expense. All expenses must by paid to the City prior to acceptance of the Addition. G. AMENITIES It is understood by and between the City and Developer that the Addition may incorporate a number of unique amenities and aesthetic improvements such as ponds, aesthetic lakes, unique landscaping, walls and may incorporate specialty signage and accessory facilities. The Developer agrees to accept responsibility for the construction and maintenance of all such aesthetic or specialty item such as walls, vegetation, signage, landscaping, street furniture, pond and lake improvements until such responsibility is turned over to a homeowners association. H. USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY It is understood by and between the City and Developer that the Developer may provide unique amenities within public right-of-way, such as landscaping, irrigation, lighting, etc., for the enhancement of the Addition. The Developer agrees to maintain these amenities until such responsibility is turned over to a homeowners association. The Developer and his successors and assigns understand that the City shall not be responsible for the replacement of these amenities under any circumstances and further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City from any and all damages, loss or liability of any kind whatsoever by reason of injury to property or third person occasioned by its use of the public right-of-way with regard to these improvements and the Developer shall, at his own cost and expense, defend and protect the City against all such claims and demands. START OF CONSTRUCTION Before the construction of the streets, and the water, sewer, or drainage facilities can begin, the following must take place: 1. Approved payment and performance bonds must be submitted to the City in the name of the City prior to the commencement of any work. 2. At least six (6) sets of construction plans to be stamped "Released for Construction" by the Director of Public Works must be submitted. 3. All fees required to be paid to the City. 4. Developer Agreement must be executed. 5. The Developer, or Contractor, shall furnish to the City a policy of general liability insurance, naming the City as co-insured, prior to commencement of any work. 6. A pre -construction meeting between Developer and City is required. Developer or contractor shall furnish to the City a list of all subcontractors and suppliers, which will be providing greater than a $1,000 value to the Addition. III. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. INDEMNIFICATION DEVELOPER COVENANTS AND AGREES TO INDEMNIFY AND DOES HEREBY INDEMNIFY, HOLD HARMLESS AND DEFEND CITY, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, SERVANTS AND EMPLOYEES, FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL CLAIMS OR SUITS FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE OR LOSS AND/OR PERSONAL INJURY, INCLUDING DEATH, TO ANY AND ALL PERSONS OF WHATSOEVER KIND OR CHARACTER, WHETHER REAL OR ASSERTED, (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, REASONABLE FEES AND EXPENSES OF ATTORNEYS, EXPERT WITNESSES AND OTHER CONSULTANTS), ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, OCCUPANCY, USE, EXISTENCE OR LOCATION OF SAID IMPROVEMENT OR IMPROVEMENTS, AND SHALL FURTHER BE LIABLE FOR INJURY OR DAMAGE TO CITY PROPERTY, ARISING OUT OF OR IN I? CONNECTION WITH ANY AND ALL ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF DEVELOPER, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, SERVANTS, EMPLOYEES, CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS, LICENSEES, OR INVITEES, SAID INDEMNIFICATION TO REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY ACCEPTS THE ADDITION. DEVELOPER AGREES TO INDEMNIFY THE CITY, ITS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES FOR ANY DAMAGES, CLAIMS OR LIABILITIES ARISING FROM THE NEGLIGENT ACT OR OMISSION, OR OF THE CONCURRENT NEGLIGENT ACT OR OMISSION, OF THE CITY, ITS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES. B. Venue of any action brought hereunder shall be in Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas. C. Approval by the Director of Public Works or other City employee of any plans, designs or specifications submitted by the Developer pursuant to this Agreement shall not constitute or be deemed to be a release of the responsibility and liability of the Developer, his engineer, employees, officers or agents for the accuracy and competency of their design and specifications. Such approval shall not be deemed to be an assumption of such responsibility and liability by the City for any defect in the design and specifications prepared by the consulting engineer, his officers, agents, servants or employees, it being the intent of the parties that approval by the Director of Public Works signifies the City's approval on only the general design concept of the improvements to be constructed. In this connection, the Developer shall for a period of two (2) years after the acceptance by the City of the completed construction project, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, servants and employees, from any loss, damage, liability or expense on account of damage to property and injuries, including death, to any and all persons which may arise out of any defect, deficiency or negligence of the engineer's designs and specifications incorporated into any improvements constructed in accordance therewith, and the Developer shall defend at his own expense any suits or other proceedings brought against the City, its officers, agents, servants or employees, or any of them, on account thereof, to pay all expenses and satisfy all judgement which may be incurred by or rendered against them or any of them in connection herewith. D. This Agreement or any part herein, or any interest herein, shall not be assigned by the Developer without the express written consent of the City Manager, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. 13 E. On all facilities included in this Agreement for which the Developer awards his own construction contract, the Developer agrees to employ a construction contractor who is approved by the City, and whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, said contractor to meet City and statutory requirements for being insured, licensed and bonded to do work in public streets and to be qualified in all respects to bid on public streets and to be qualified in all respects to bid on public projects of a similar nature. F. Work performed under the Agreement shall be completed within two (2) years from the date thereof. In the event the work is not completed within the two (2) year period, the City may, at its election, draw on the performance bond, Letter of Credit, or other security provided by Developer and complete such work at Developer's expense, provided however, that if the construction under this Agreement shall have started within the two (2) year period, the City may agree to renew the Agreement with such renewed Agreement to be in compliance with the City policies in effect at that time. G. The City is an exempt organization under Section 151.309, Tax Code, and the facilities constructed under this Agreement will be dedicated to public use and accepted by the City upon acknowledgement by the City of completion under Paragraph 1.F. 1. The purchase of tangible personal property, other than machinery or equipment and its accessories, repair, and replacement parts, for use in the performance of this Agreement is, therefore, exempt from taxation under Chapter 151, Tax Code, if the tangible property is: a. necessary and essential for the performance of the Agreement; and b. completely consumed at the job site. 2. The purchase of a taxable service for use in the performance of this Agreement is exempt if the service is performed at the job site and if: a. this Agreement expressly requires the specific service to be provided or purchased by the person performing the Agreement; or b. the service is integral to the performance of the Agreement. 14 H. Prior to final acceptance of the Addition, the Developer shall provide to the City three (3) copies of Record Drawings of the Addition, showing the facilities as actually constructed. Such drawings will be stamped and signed by a registered professional civil engineer. In addition, the Developer shall provide electronic files showing the plan and profile of the sanitary sewer, storm drain, roadway and waterline; all lot lines, and tie in to the state Plane Coordinate System. IV. OTHER ISSUES A. DRAINAGE The U.S. Corps of Engineers requires the developer to construct a "stormceptor" in the storm sewer line prior to the storm water entering corps property. The developer agrees to maintain the stormceptor for the two year maintenance period and empty the stormceptor one last time at the end of the two year maintenance period. B. OFF -SITE WATER - N/A C. PARK FEES The Developer agrees to pay the Park Fee of $1,500 per lot, in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance No. 483-F, Section 7.0. There are approximately 24 lots in the Addition, which would bring the total cost of Park Fee to $36,000. On December 11, 2000 the Park Board recommended that the developer pay a Park fee in the amount of $36,000. D. TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE All construction activities shall meet the requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-A. is SIGNED AND EFFECTIVE on the date last set forth below. DEVELOPER: Winqate Hills Ltd. Title: Address: 726 Commerce, Suite 109 Southlake, Texas 76092 16 *%M- STATE OF COUNTY OF On , before me, , Notary Public, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires: CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS Rick Stacy, Mayor ATTEST: Sandra LeGrand, City Secretary Date: 17 (SEAL) `., REQUIREMENTS FOR IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT 1. The Letter of Credit must have a duration of at least one year. 2. The Letter of Credit may be substituted for utility security deposits exceeding $10,000.00. The City reserves the right to specify the face amount of the Letter of Credit. 3. The Letter of Credit must be issued by a FDIC insured bank in a form acceptable to the City of Southlake. The City reserves the right to approve/disapprove the bank issuing the Letter of Credit. 4. The Letter of Credit must be issued by a bank that has a minimum capital ratio of six percent (6%), and has been profitable for each of the last two consecutive years. 5. The customer must provide the City with supporting financial information on the bank to allow the City to ascertain requirements are met. Suitable financial information would be the previous two (2) years December 31 Call Reports submitted to the FDIC and audited financial statements. 6. Partial drawings against Letter of Credit must be permitted. 7. The City must be able to draft on sight with proof of amount owed. 8. The customer pays any and all fees associated with obtaining Letter of Credit. 9. Expiring Letter of Credit must be replaced by substitute Letters of Credit at least 30 days prior to the expiration date on the Letter of Credit held by the City. 18 CLC MEMORANDUM January 17, 2001 TO: Charlie Thomas, City Engineer FROM: Chris Carpenter, Senior Park Planner SUBJECT: Recommended Park Dedication Requirements - Wingate Hill At their December 11, 2000, meeting, the Parks and Recreation Board considered a recommendation to accept the payment of fees in lieu of parkland dedication as meeting the park dedication requirements for Wingate Hill, a twenty-four (24) dwelling unit residential development. The required land dedication for this development is .60 acres or $36,000 in fees in lieu of land dedication. Section 7.05(A)(1) of the City of Southlake Subdivision Ordinance states the following: "The City Council shall, upon recommendation by the Park Board, determine the applicability of a developer's payment of fees in lieu of the land dedication requirements of this section." ■ The Parks and Recreation Board approved a recommendation to the City Council that the park dedication requirements for this development be met through payment of fees in the amount of $36,000 in lieu of parkland dedication. The Parks and Recreation Board at their December 11, 2000 meeting, approved a recommendation (6-0) to accept the payment of fees in lieu of parkland dedication as meeting the park dedication requirements for this development. Please contact me if you have further questions. Please note also that Section 7.07 of the City of Southlake Subdivision Ordinance specifies that the recommended park dedication assessment by the Parks and Recreation Board is subject to the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission and/or the City Council, and is dependent upon the number of dwelling units (residential) or developed acreage (non-residential). Therefore the above recommendation is subject to change dependent upon further review of a particular development or changes to the proposed development that affect the fee criteria, if any. 19 cc: Malcolm Jackson, Chief of Building Services Bruce Payne, Planning Director Kevin Hugman, Community Services Director 20 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM May 15, 2001 To: Billy Campbell, City Manager From: Charlie Thomas, P.E., City Engineer, 481-2175 Subject: Authorize the Mayor to execute a Commercial Developer's Agreement for Parker's Corner - Sonic. Action Requested: Authorize the Mayor to execute a Commercial Developer's Agreement for Parker's Corner - Sonic. Sonic is 1.58 acres of the approved 3.932 acre non-residential development of Parker's Corner. Background Information: The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the final plat for Parker's Corner on February 2, 2001. The development consists of construction of Sonic located on the west side of Davis Boulevard, 500 feet south of FM 1709. The developer's agreement is the City's standard Commercial Developer's Agreement covering the construction of public infrastructure. Financial Consideration: None. Citizen Input/ Board Review: The required land dedication for this development of Parker's Corner is .08 acre of parkland. The equivalent in park dedication fees for this addition, $800 per gross acre (x) 3.932 acres is $3,145.60 Legal Review: This is the City's standard Commercial Developer's Agreement originally drafted by the City Attorney. Alternatives: Approve it, deny it, or modify it. Supporting Documents: Vicinity Map Plat Exhibit Agreement Park Dedication Requirements Staff Recommendation: Please place on the City Council Agenda for May 15, 2001 for Council consideration and approval. Staff Contact: Charlie Thomas, P.E., City Engineer, 481-2175 Angela Turner, Graduate Engineer, 481-2348 Pedram Farahnak, P.E., Director of Public Works, 481-2308 CT/ta 2 Sonic Vicinity Map Ift. 0 Tip. Arlul. 10; I trkselp" rpm ncuicr I L U2. p 1- L - IM: CD L7.- 19 1 49 c LCr, PRZ—;M V1 I n Ile- e. Sl -Y 12i 70191%0 COwwftiasc s9PfuWo Fr Vre OCLHCI. Z-. v .711: Parker's Corner - Sonic COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER AGREEMENT An agreement between the City of Southlake, Texas, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and the undersigned Developer, hereinafter referred to as the "Developer", of Parker's Corner - Sonic, hereinafter referred to as "Addition" to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, for the installation of certain community facilities located therein, and to provide city services thereto. It is understood by and between the parties that this Agreement is applicable to the Addition (a commercial development) and to the off - site improvements necessary to support the Addition. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A. It is agreed and understood by the parties hereto that the Developer shall employ a civil engineer licensed to practice in the State of Texas for the design and preparation of the plans and specifications for the construction of all facilities covered by this Agreement. B. The Developer will present to the City either a cash escrow, Letter of Credit, performance bond or payment bond acceptable to the City guaranteeing and agreeing to pay an amount equal to 100% of the value of the construction cost of all the public facilities to be constructed by the Developer, and providing for payment to the City of such amounts, up to the total remaining amounts required for the completion of the Addition if the Developer fails to complete the work within two (2) years of the signing of this Agreement between the City and Developer. All bonds shall be issued by a Best -rated bonding company. All letters of credit must meet the Requirements for Irrevocable Letter of Credit attached hereto and incorporated herein. The value of the performance bond, letter of credit or cash escrow will reduce at a rate consistent with the amount of work that has been completed by the Developer and accepted by the City. Performance and payment bond, letter of credit or cash escrow from the prime contractor(s) or other entity reasonably acceptable to the City, hereinafter referred to as Contractor, will be acceptable in lieu of Developer's obligations specified above. C. The Developer agrees to furnish to the City maintenance bonds, letter of credit or cash escrow amounting to 20% of the cost of construction of underground public utilities and 50% for the paving. These maintenance bonds, letter of credit or cash escrow will be for a period of two (2) years and will be issued prior to the final City acceptance of the Addition. The maintenance bonds, letter of credit or cash escrow will be supplied to the 5 City by the contractors performing the work, and the City will be named as the beneficiary if the contractors fail to perform any required maintenance. D. It is further agreed and understood by the parties hereto that upon acceptance by the City, title to all facilities and improvements mentioned herein above which are intended to be public facilities shall be vested in the City, and Developer hereby relinquishes any right, title, or interest in and to said facilities or any part thereof. It is further understood and agreed that until the City accepts such improvements, the City shall have no liability or responsibility in connection with any such facilities. Acceptance of the facilities for this provision and for the entire Agreement shall occur at such time that the City, through its City Manager or his duly appointed representative, provides Developer with a written acknowledgement that all facilities are complete, have been inspected and approved, and are being accepted by the City. E. On all public facilities included in this Agreement for which the Developer awards his own construction contract, Developer agrees to the following procedure: 1. Developer agrees to pay the following: a. Inspection fees equal to three percent (3%) of the cost of the water , street, drainage and sanitary sewer facilities, on all facilities included in this agreement for which Developer awards his or her own construction contract, to be paid prior to construction of each phase and based on actual bid construction cost; b. Administrative Processing Fee equal to two percent (2%) of the cost of water, street, drainage and sanitary sewer facilities, on all facilities included in this Agreement for which Developer awards his or her own construction contract, to be paid prior to construction of each phase and based on actual bid construction cost; C. Trench testing (95% Standard); d. The additional charge for inspections during Saturday, Sunday, holidays, and after normal working hours; e. Any charges for retesting as a result of failed tests; f. All gradation tests required to insure proper cement and/or lime stabilization. 6 2. The City agrees to bear the expense of: a. All nuclear density tests on the roadway subgrade (95% Standard); b. Technicians time for preparing concrete cylinders; and C. Concrete cylinder tests and concrete coring samples. The City can delay connection of buildings to service lines or water mains constructed under this Agreement until said water mains and service lines have been completed to the satisfaction of and acceptance by the City. F. The Developer will be responsible for mowing all grass and weeds and otherwise reasonably maintaining the aesthetics of all land and lots in said Addition which have not been sold to third parties. After fifteen (15) days written notice, should the Developer fail in this responsibility, the City may contract for this service and bill the Developer for reasonable costs. Such amount shall become a lien upon all real property of the Addition so maintained by the City, and not previously conveyed to other third parties, 120 days after Developer has notice of costs. G. Any guarantee of payment instrument (Performance Bond, Letter of Credit, etc.) submitted by the Developer or Contractor on a form other than the one which has been previously approved by the City as "acceptable" shall be submitted to the City Attorney and this Agreement shall not be considered in effect until such City Attorney has approved the instrument. Approval by the City shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. H. Any surety company through which a bond is written shall be a surety company duly authorized to do business in the State of Texas, provided that the City, through the City Manager, shall retain the right to reject any surety company as a surety for any work under this or any other Developer's Agreement within the City regardless of such company's authorization to do business in Texas. Approval by the City shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. The Developer agrees to fully comply with the terms and conditions of all other applicable development regulations and ordinances of the City. J. The Developer agrees that the completed project will be constructed in conformance with the Development Site Plan, Construction Plans and other permits or regulatory authorizations granted by the City during the development review process. II. FACILITIES A. ON -SITE WATER The Developer hereby agrees to install water facilities to service lots as shown on the final plat of the Addition. Water facilities will be installed in accordance with plans and specifications to be prepared by the Developer's engineer and released by the City. Further, the Developer agrees to complete this installation in accordance with Ordinance No. 170 and shall be responsible for all construction costs, materials and engineering. In the event that certain water lines are to be oversized because of City requirements, the City will reimburse the Developer for the oversize cost greater than the cost of an 8" line. Additionally, the City agrees to provide temporary water service at Developer's request and expense, for construction, testing and irrigation purposes only, to individual lots during the construction of buildings, even though sanitary sewer service may not be available to the buildings. B. DRAINAGE Developer hereby agrees to construct the necessary drainage facilities within the Addition. These facilities shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications to be prepared by Developer's engineers, released by the Director of Public Works, the City, and made part of the final plat as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Developer hereby agrees to fully comply with all EPA and TNRCC requirements relating to the planning, permitting and management of storm water which may be in force at the time that development proposals are being presented for approval by the City. 8 C. STREETS The street construction in the Addition will be installed in accordance with plans and specifications to be prepared by the Developer's engineer and released by the Director of Public Works. 1. The Developer will be responsible for: a) Installation and two year operation of street lights, which is payable to the City prior to final acceptance of the Addition; or an agreement with utility provider stating that no charge will be made for street lights for the two-year duration. b) Installation of all street signs designating the names of the streets inside the Addition, said signs to be of a type, size, color and design standard generally employed by the Developer and approved by the City in accordance with City ordinances; c) Installation of all regulatory signs recommended based upon the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices as prepared by the Developer's engineer by an engineering study or direction of the Director of Public Works. It is understood that Developer may put in signage having unique architectural features, however, should the signs be moved or destroyed by any means, the City is only responsible for replacement of standard signage. 2. All street improvements will be subject to inspection and approval by the City. No work will begin on any street included herein prior to complying with the requirements contained elsewhere in this Agreement. All water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage utilities which are anticipated to be installed within the street or within the street right-of-way will be completed prior to the commencement of street construction on the specific section of street in which the utility improvements have been placed or for which they are programmed. It is understood by and between the Developer and the City that this requirement is aimed at substantial compliance with the majority of the pre -planned facilities. 9 It is understood that in every construction project a decision later �-- may be made to realign a line or service which may occur after construction has commenced. The Developer has agreed to advise the City Director of Public Works as quickly as possible when such a need has been identified and to work cooperatively with the City to make such utility change in a manner that will be least disruptive to street construction or stability. Cn D. ON -SITE SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES The Developer hereby agrees to install sanitary sewage collection facilities to service lots as shown on the final plat of the Addition. Sanitary sewer facilities will be installed in accordance with the plans and specifications to be prepared by the Developer's engineer and released by the City. Further, the Developer agrees to complete this installation in compliance with all applicable city ordinances, regulations and codes and shall be responsible for all construction costs, materials, engineering, permits and Impact Fees. In the event that certain sewer lines are to be oversized because of City requirements, the City will reimburse the Developer for the oversize cost greater than the cost of an 8" line. E. EROSION CONTROL During construction of the Addition and after the streets have been installed, the Developer agrees to keep the streets free from soil build-up. The Developer agrees to use soil control measures such as hay bales, silt screening, hydromulch, etc., to prevent soil erosion. It will be the Developer's responsibility to present to the Director of Public Works a soil control development plan that will be implemented for this Addition. When in the opinion of the Director of Public Works there is sufficient soil build- up on the streets or other drainage areas and notification has been given to the Developer, the Developer will have seventy-two (72) hours to clear the soil from the affected areas. If the Developer does not remove the soil within 72 hours, the City may cause the soil to be removed either by contract or City forces and place the soil within the Addition at the contractor's expense. All fees owed to the City will be collected prior to acceptance of the Addition. m F. AMENITIES It is understood by and between the City and Developer that the Addition may incorporate a number of unique amenities and aesthetic improvements such as ponds, aesthetic lakes, unique landscaping, walls, and may incorporate specialty signage and accessory facilities. The Developer agrees to accept responsibility for the construction and maintenance of all such aesthetic or specialty items such as walls, vegetation, signage, landscaping, street furniture, pond and lake improvements until such responsibility is turned over to a homeowners association. G. USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY It is understood by and between the City and Developer that the Developer may provide unique amenities within public right-of-way, such as landscaping, irrigation, lighting, etc., for the enhancement of the Addition. The Developer agrees to maintain these amenities until such responsibility is turned over to a homeowners association. The Developer understands that the City shall not be responsible for the replacement of these amenities under any circumstances and further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City from any and all damages, loss or liability of any kind whatsoever by reason of injury to property or third person occasioned by its use of the public right-of-way with regard to these improvements and the Developer shall, at his own cost and expense, defend and protect the City against all such claims and demands. H. START OF CONSTRUCTION Before the construction of the water, sewer, streets or drainage facilities can begin, the following must take place: Approved payment and performance bonds must be submitted to the City in the name of the City prior to commencement of any work. 2. At least six (6) sets of construction plans to be stamped "Released for Construction" by the Director of Public Works must be submitted. 3. All fees required to be paid to the City. 4. Developer Agreement must be executed. 5. The Developer, or Contractor, shall furnish to the City a policy of general liability insurance, naming the City as co-insured, prior to commencement of any work. 6. A Pre -Construction Meeting to be held with all Contractors, major Sub -Contractors, Utilities and appropriate Government Agencies. III. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. INDEMNIFICATION DEVELOPER COVENANTS AND AGREES TO INDEMNIFY AND DOES HEREBY INDEMNIFY, HOLD HARMLESS AND DEFEND CITY, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, SERVANTS AND EMPLOYEES, FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL CLAIMS OR SUITS FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE OR LOSS AND/OR PERSONAL INJURY, INCLUDING DEATH, TO ANY AND ALL PERSONS, OF WHATSOEVER KIND OR CHARACTER, WHETHER REAL OR ASSERTED, (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, REASONABLE FEES AND EXPENSES OF ATTORNEYS, EXPERT WITNESSES AND OTHER CONSULTANTS), ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, OCCUPANCY, USE, EXISTENCE OR LOCATION OF SAID IMPROVEMENT OR IMPROVEMENTS, AND SHALL FURTHER BE LIABLE FOR INJURY OR DAMAGE TO CITY PROPERTY, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY AND ALL ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF DEVELOPER, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, SERVANTS, EMPLOYEES, CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS, LICENSEES, INVITEES OR TRESPASSERS. DEVELOPER AGREES TO INDEMNIFY THE CITY, ITS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES FOR ANY DAMAGES, CLAIMS OR LIABILITIES ARISING FROM THE NEGLIGENT ACT OR OMISSION, OR OF THE CONCURRENT NEGLIGENT ACT OR OMISSION, OF THE CITY, ITS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES. B. Venue of any action brought hereunder shall be in Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas. 12 C. Approval by the Director of Public Works or other City employee of any plans, designs or specifications submitted by the Developer pursuant to this Agreement shall not constitute or be deemed to be a release of the responsibility and liability of the Developer, his engineer, employees, officers or agents for the accuracy and competency of their design and specifications. Such approval shall not be deemed to be an assumption of such responsibility and liability by the City for any defect in the design and specifications prepared by the consulting engineer, his officers, agents, servants or employees, it being the intent of the parties that approval by the Director of Public Works signifies the City's approval on only the general design concept of the improvements to be constructed. In this connection, the Developer shall for a period of two (2) years after the acceptance by the City of the completed construction project, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, servants and employees, from any loss, damage, liability or expense on account of damage to property and injuries, including death, to any and all persons which may arise out of any defect, deficiency or negligence of the engineer's designs and specifications incorporated into any improvements constructed in accordance therewith, and the Developer shall defend at his own expense any suits or other proceedings brought against the City, its officers, agents, servants or employees, or any of them, on account thereof, to pay all expenses and satisfy all judgements which may be incurred by or rendered against them or any of them in connection with herewith. D. This Agreement or any part herein, or any interest herein, shall not be assigned by the Developer without the express written consent of the City Manager, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. E. On all facilities included in this Agreement for which the Developer awards his or her own construction contract, the Developer agrees to employ a construction contractor who is approved by the City, and whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, said contractor to meet City and statutory requirements for being insured, licensed and bonded to do work in public projects and to be qualified in all respects to bid on public projects and to be qualified in all respects to bid on public projects of a similar nature. In addition, the Developer, or Contractor shall furnish the payment and performance bonds in the name of the City prior to the commencement of any work hereunder and shall also furnish to the City a policy of general liability insurance. 13 F. Work performed under the Agreement shall be completed within two (2) years from the date thereof. In the event the work is not completed within the two (2) year period, the City may, at its election, draw down on the performance bond, letter of credit or other security provided by Developer and complete such work at Developer's expense; provided, however, that if the construction under this Agreement shall have started within the two (2) year period, the City may agree to renew the Agreement with such renewed Agreement to be in compliance with the City policies in effect at that time. IV. OTHER ISSUES A. OFF -SITE DRAINAGE B. OFF -SITE SEWER C. OFF -SITE WATER D. PARK FEES On March 19, 2001 the Parks and Recreation Board approved a recommendation to the City Council that the park dedication requirements for this development be met through payment of fees in the amount of $3,145.60 in lieu of parkland dedication. (The required land dedication for this development is .08 acres of park land. The equivalent in park dedication fees for this addition, at $800 per gross acre (x) 3.932 acres is $3,145.60) E. TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE All construction activities shall meet the requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-A. 14 SIGNED AND EFFECTIVE on the date last set forth below. DEVELOPER: Drews Realtv Grou By: John R. Drews Title: President Address: 580 Commerce Street, Suite 400 Southlake, Texas 76092 1� � STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TARRANT On , before me, , Notary Public, personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires: CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS go Rick Stacy, Mayor ATTEST: Sandra LeGrand, City Secretary Date: EEO (SEAL) REQUIREMENTS FOR IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT The Letter of Credit must have a duration of at least one year. 2. The Letter of Credit may be substituted for utility security deposits exceeding $10,000.00. The City reserves the right to specify the face amount of the letter of credit. 3. The Letter of Credit must be issued by a FDIC insured bank in a form acceptable to the City of Southlake. The City reserves the right to approve/disapprove the bank issuing the Letter of Credit. 4. The Letter of Credit must be issued by a bank that has a minimum capital ratio of six (6%) percent, and has been profitable for each of the last two consecutive years. 5. The customer must provide the City with supporting financial information on the bank to allow the City to ascertain requirements are met. Suitable financial information would be the previous two (2) years December 31 Call Reports submitted to the FDIC and audited financial statements. 6. Partial drawings against Letters of Credit must be permitted. 7. The City must be able to draft on sight with proof of amount owed. 8. The customer pays any and all fees associated with obtaining Letter of Credit. 9. Expiring Letter of Credit must be replaced by substitute Letters of Credit at least 30 days prior to the expiration date on the Letter of Credit held by the City. MEMORANDUM May 3, 2001 TO: Charlie Thomas, City Engineer FROM: Chris Carpenter, Senior Park Planner SUBJECT: Recommended Park Dedication Requirements - Sonic (a portion (1.58 acres) of Parker's Corner Plat revision) At their March 19, 2001, meeting, the Parks and Recreation Board considered a recommendation to accept the payment of fees in lieu of parkland dedication as meeting the park dedication requirements for Parker's Corner, a 3.932 acre non-residential development. The required land dedication for this development is .08 acres of park land. The equivalent in park dedication fees for this addition, at $800 per gross acre (x) 3.932 acres is $3,145.60. Section 7.05(A)(1) of the City of Southlake Subdivision Ordinance states the following: "The City Council shall, upon recommendation by the Park Board, determine the applicability of a developer's payment of fees in lieu of the land dedication requirements of this section. " • The Parks and Recreation Board approved a recommendation to the City Council that the park dedication requirements for this development be met through payment of fees in the amount of $3,145.60 in lieu of parkland dedication. The Parks and Recreation Board at their March 19, 2001, meeting, approved a recommendation (7-0) to accept the payment of fees in lieu of parkland dedication as meeting the park dedication requirements for this development. NOTE. The Sonic development, as only a part (1.58 gross acres) of the approved Parker's Corner Plat Revision, would onowe $1 264 in park fees if aid separately ronz the rest o f Parker's Corner. The remainder, i this option is chosen, will be assessed at the tznze o developer's agreement for the remaining retail site Please contact me !I you have further questions Please note also that Section 7.07 of the City of Southlake Subdivision Ordinance specifies that the recommended park dedication assessment by the Parks and Recreation Board is subject to the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission and/or the City Council, and is dependent upon the number of dwelling units (residential) or developed acreage (non-residential). Therefore the above M recommendation is subject to change dependent upon further review of a particular development or changes to the proposed development that affect the fee criteria, if any. CLC cc: Malcolm Jackson, Chief of Building Services Bruce Payne, Planning Director Kevin Hugman, Community Services Director 19 City of Southlake Department of Planning STAFF REPORT May 11, 2001 CASE NO: ZA01-019 PROJECT: Lot 1R2, Block 1, W.E. Mayfield Addition Attached is a letter from the applicant requesting to withdraw the above mentioned case. Case No. ZA01-019 ENCORE REALTY COMPANY LC 1706w tiwtl MNMWY. Sy" 2a0 O,�v r. 7X 7e0e1 ------ .-.-.---.-- T*Mplwwis e17-a2►730 ins e174a1-15" VIA FAX 917-481-2097 M2y 9, 2001 Mr. Ken Baker and Ms. Tara Brooks City of Southlake Planning and Zonutg Department 1721 F. Southhkc Blvd. Suite 100 Southlake, Texas 76092 Re: City Case NZA-01-019, 2550 Southlake Blvd., Southlakc, Texas Mr. Baker and Ms. Brooks: This letter will serve as our formal request to withdraw the aforetrtentioned case from consideration by the City Council of the City of Southlake. It is our desire to take the time required to more effectively address the concrnls raised by the Planning and Zoning Commission. It is our intention to represent this case after properly addressing the concerns that were raised. We appreciate your assistance and cooperation in guiding us through the preparation of this case and our Davis Boulevard project. Sincerely, Dennis H. Clark President n04 , 0240A Case No. ZA01-019 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM May 15, 2001 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Rick Black, Director of Public Safety (Ext. 2421) SUBJECT: Request for Approval of Change Order No. 2 to CMPA, Inc. for the Department of Public Safety — West Facility — City of Southlake Project No. 00-3320. Action Requested: Consider approval of Change Order No. 2 to CMPA, Inc. Background Information: The City of Southlake entered into an agreement with CMPA, Inc for the construction of the Department of Public Safety — West Facility on December 12, 2000. In February 2001, Council approved Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $11,868.00. This Change Order No. 2 is necessitated as a result of the following issue: Item #1—Additional Kiln Dust in the ParkinQArea During grading activities for the building pad and the parking area, an area of wet, unsuitable subgrade material was encountered in the vicinity of the southwest corner of the future main parking area. CMPA's excavation subcontractor approached PSA and staff with several options that would stabilize the material including removing the existing material and bringing in new material; installing underdrain in the area; and adding kiln dust to the material to dry it and stabilize it. Under advisement of the geotechnical lab, since it did not appear that moisture would continue to be a problem once the material was dried and graded, staff requested a proposal from CMPA to provide the kiln dust. The addition of the kiln dust and thus the stabilization of the subgrade will help ensure the longevity of the parking area. PSA and staff received a proposal from CMPA to make the change for an increase of $6,800.00. PSA and staff have reviewed this proposal and find it to be acceptable. It is recommended that this change be approved for an increase of $6,800.00. 1 of 5 Billy Campbell May 15, 2001 Page 2 Financial Considerations: The Contract currently provides a "Contingency" item in the amount of $150,000.00. If approved, these changes can be included under this "Contingency" item and no change in the Contract Amount or the Contract Time will occur as a result of these changes. The balance of the Contingency item is as follows: General Conditions — Contingency $150, 000.00 Change Order No. 1 <11, 868.00> Change Order No. 2 < 6.800.00> Balance in Contingency $131,332.00 Citizen Input/ Board Review: None. Legal Review: None. Alternatives: This Change Order No. 2 must be approved for the project to progress. Supporting Documents: Change Order No. 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff has reviewed this proposal and finds it to be acceptable. It is recommended that this change be approved for $6,800.00. Staff recommends the placement of Change Order No. 2 on the May 15, 2001 City Council Agenda for Council approval. 2 of 5 CHANGE ORDER Dated: April30, 2001 OWNER'S Project No. 00-3320 Architect's Project No. 4156.10 Project Department ofPublic Sa LeV Building —West Facility OWNER City of Southlake Contract for Construction of the DPS West Facility Contract Date: 12112100 To: CMPA, Inc Contractor You are directed to make the changes noted below in the subject contract: M City of Southlake. Texas Owner Billy Campbell No. 2 Title: City Manager Date: 2001 Nature of the changes: Field modifications as follows: Item 1: Addition of Kiln Dust in Parking Area (RFP #4) 4 loads Kiln Dust @ 800.00 = 30 hrs Loader Time @ 120.00 = Total General Conditions — Contingency Change Order No. 1 Change Order No. 2 Balance in Contingency ese changes result in the following adjustment of contract price and contract time: 3 of 5 $3,200.00 3,600.00 $6,800.00 $150,000.00 <$11,868.00> <$6,800.00> $131,332.00 Contract Price Prior to this Change Order Net Increase Resulting from this Change Order Current Contract Price Including this Change Order Contract Time Prior to this Change_ 365 days (Days or Date) $ 3,375,500.00 $ 0.00 $ 3,375,500.00 Net Increase Resulting from this Change Order 0 days (Days) Current Contract Time Including this Change Order 365 days (Days or Date) The above changes are recommended: The above changes are recommended: NSPE-ASCE 1910-8-B (1978 Edition) Phillips. Swager Associates Architect/Engineer LM Date: 2001 City ofSouthlake City By: Title: Construction Manager Date: 2001 4 of 5 The above changes are accepted: CMPA. Inc. Contractor Lm Title: Date: 5of5 2001 1 MEMORANDUM May 11, 2001 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Sandra L. LeGrand, City Secretary SUBJECT: Resolution No. 01-028, Appointment of a Mayor Pro Tem and Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Action Requested: The Mayor with approval of the City Council appoints a Mayor Pro Tem and a Deputy Mayor Pro Tem to serve one (1) year terms. Background: The Home Rule Charter of the City of Southlake approved by the voters in a duly called Charter election held on April 4, 1987, set the structure for the City Council to operate. Article 2.07 of the Charter allows for the appointment of a Mayor Pro Tem who shall perform the duties of the Mayor in case of the absence or disability of the Mayor. The Charter was amended on January 21, 1995, in which Article 2.07 was amended to include the position of Deputy Mayor Pro Tem who shall perform the duties of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem in case of their absence or disability. The terms of the Mayor Pro Tem and Deputy Mayor Pro Tem are one (1) year. According to the Charter the Mayor selects his choices and the action is approved by the City Council. Financial Consideration: Not Applicable. Citizen Input/ Board Review: Not Applicable. Legal Review: Not Applicable. Alternatives: Not Applicable. Supporting Documents: 1) Resolution No. 01-028 Staff Recommendation: Appointment of a Mayor Pro Tem and Deputy Mayor Pro Tem to serve one (1) year terms expiring in May 2002. RESOLUTION NO.01-028 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, APPOINTING A MAYOR PRO TEM AND A DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 2.07 OF THE HOME RULE CHARTER; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Whereas, a Home Rule Charter was approved by the voters in a duly called Charter election on April 4, 1987; and, Whereas, Article 2.07 of the Charter allows for the appointment of a Mayor Pro Tem who shall perform the duties of the Mayor in case of the absence or disability of the Mayor; and, . Whereas, on January 21, 1995, a Charter Amendment Election was held in which Article 2.07 was amended to include the appointment of a Deputy Mayor Pro Tem who shall perform the duties of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem in case of the absence or disability of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem; and, Whereas, the term of office for the Mayor Pro Tem and the Deputy Mayor Pro Tem shall be one (1) year, according to Article 2.07; now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, THAT: Section 1. All the findings in the preamble are found to be true and correct and the City Council does hereby incorporate said findings into the body of this resolution as if copied in its entirety. Section 2. Effective immediately, the Mayor has appointed, with the approval of the City Council, Councilmember , to serve as Mayor Pro Tem, who shall hold office for one (1) year; and, and Councilmember , to serve as Deputy Mayor Pro Tem, who shall also hold office for one (1) year. Section 3. This resolution is hereby effective upon passage and approval by the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MAY 2001 Resolution No. 01-028 Page two CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS 1: 'V ATTEST: Sandra L. LeGrand City Secretary Mayor Rick Stacy 'des rJo. of -oil A RESOLUTION by the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, relating to the "Southlake Parks Development Corporation Sales Tax Subordinate (W Lien Revenue Bonds, Series 2001 "; approving (i) the resolution of the Southlake Parks Development Corporation authorizing the issuance of such Bonds and (ii) the execution, on behalf of the City, of the Financing/Use Agreement relating to such financing by the Corporation; resolving other matters incident and related to the issuance of such Bonds; and providing an effective date. WHEREAS, Southlake Parks Development Corporation (the "Issuer") was created by the City of Southlake, Texas (the "City"), pursuant to the provisions of Section 4B of the Development Corporation Act of 1979, Article 5190.6, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes, as amended (the "Act"); and WHEREAS, the Issuer is empowered to issue bonds for the purpose of defraying the cost of any "project" defined as such by the Act; and WHEREAS, the Act defines "project" to include land, buildings, equipment, facilities, and improvements found by the Board of Directors of the Issuer to be required or suitable for use for sports and entertainment and public park purposes or promote or develop new and expanded business enterprises; and WHEREAS, the Issuer has determined to finance on behalf of the City the costs of purchasing land and making improvements thereto for neighborhood parks and making additional improvements to existing park land, including related road and streets improvements that enhance such park facilities (the "Projects"); and WHEREAS, Section 25(f) of the Act requires the City Council of the City approve the resolution of the Issuer providing for the issuance of the Bonds no more than sixty (60) days prior to the delivery of the Bonds; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS: SECTION 1: The Resolution authorizing the issuance of $4,690,000 "Southlake Parks Development Corporation Sales Tax Subordinate Lien Revenue Bonds, Series 2001 ", adopted by the Issuer (the "Issuer Resolution") on May 15, 2001 and submitted to the City Council this day, is hereby approved in all respects. The Bonds are being issued to finance the acquisition and construction of the Project, which will be located within the City of Southlake and the City agrees that upon receipt of the proceeds of sale of the Bonds from the Issuer, the City will acquire and construct the Projects and thereafter be fully responsible for the upkeep, maintenance and use of the Projects. SECTION 2: The approvals herein given are in accordance with Section 25(f) of the Act and the Issuer's bylaws, and the Bonds shall never be construed an indebtedness or pledge of the City, or the State of Texas (the "State"), within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory provision, and the owner of the Bonds shall never be paid in whole or in part out of any funds raised or to be raised by taxation (other than sales tax proceeds as authorized pursuant to Section 413 of the Act) or any other revenues of the Issuer, the City, or the State, except those revenues assigned and pledged by the Issuer Resolution. 45034294.1 SECTION 3: The City hereby agrees to promptly collect and remit to the Issuer the Gross Sales Tax Revenues (as defined in the Issuer Resolution) in accordance with the terms (W of the Issuer Resolution and the Act to provide for the prompt payment of the Bonds, and to assist and cooperate with the Issuer in the enforcement and collection of sales and use taxes imposed on behalf of the Issuer. SECTION 4: The Financing/Use Agreement by and between the City and the Issuer in relation to the Projects, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference as a part of this resolution for all purposes, with respect to the obligations of the City and Issuer during the time the Bonds are outstanding, is hereby approved as to form and substance and the Mayor and the City Secretary are hereby authorized to execute and deliver such agreement for and on behalf of the City and as the act and deed of this City Council. Furthermore, the Mayor and the City Secretary and the other officers of the City are hereby authorized, individually or jointly, to execute and deliver such endorsements, instruments, certificates, documents, or papers necessary and advisable to carry out the intent and purposes of this Resolution. SECTION 5: The City hereby acknowledges and recognizes that the Bonds are being issued as tax exempt obligations under and pursuant to section 103(a) of the Code (as defined below) and a portion of the proceeds of sale of such Bonds are to be deposited with the City following their receipt by the Issuer and the City shall have full control and responsibility with respect to the acquisition and construction of the Projects and the investment and disbursement of the proceeds of sale of the Bonds issued to finance the Projects. Therefore, as a result of the foregoing, the City hereby makes the following representations and warranties to the Issuer: (a) Definitions. When used in this Section, the following terms have the following (W meanings: "Closing Date" means the date on which the Bonds are first authenticated and delivered to the initial purchasers against payment therefor. "Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by all legislation, if any, effective on or before the Closing Date. "Computation Date" has the meaning set forth in Section 1.148-1(b) of the Regulations. "Gross Proceeds" means any proceeds as defined in Section 1.148-1(b) of the Regulations, and any replacement proceeds as defined in Section 1.148-1(c) of the Regulations, of the Bonds. "Investment" has the meaning set forth in Section 1.148-1(b) of the Regulations. "Nonpurpose Investment" means any investment property, as defined in section 148(b) of the Code, in which Gross Proceeds of the Bonds are invested and which is not acquired to carry out the governmental purposes of the Bonds. "Rebate Amount" has the meaning set forth in Section 1.148-1(b) of the Regulations. 45034294.1 2 "Regulations" means any proposed, temporary, or final Income Tax (W Regulations issued pursuant to Sections 103 and 141 through 150 of the Code, and 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, which are applicable to the Bonds. Any reference to any specific Regulation shall also mean, as appropriate, any proposed, temporary or final Income Tax Regulation designed to supplement, amend or replace the specific Regulation referenced. "Yield" of (1) any Investment has the meaning set forth in Section 1.148- 5 of the Regulations and (2) the Bonds has the meaning set forth in Section 1.148-4 of the Regulations. (b) Not to Cause Interest to Become Taxable. The City shall not use, permit the use of, or omit to use Gross Proceeds or any other amounts (or any property the acquisition, construction or improvement of which is to be financed directly or indirectly with Gross Proceeds) in a manner which if made or omitted, respectively, would cause the interest on any Bond to become includable in the gross income, as defined in section 61 of the Code, of the owner thereof for federal income tax purposes. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, unless and until the City receives a written opinion of counsel nationally recognized in the field of municipal bond law to the effect that failure to comply with such covenant will not adversely affect the exemption from federal income tax of the interest on any Bond, the City shall comply with each of the specific covenants in this Section. (c) No Private Use or Private Payments. Except as permitted by section 141 of the Code and the Regulations and rulings thereunder, the City shall at all times prior to the last Stated Maturity of Bonds: (1) exclusively own, operate and possess all property the acquisition, construction or improvement of which is to be financed or refinanced directly or indirectly with Gross Proceeds of the Bonds, and not use or permit the use of such Gross Proceeds (including all contractual arrangements with terms different than those applicable to the general public) or any property acquired, constructed or improved with such Gross Proceeds in any activity carried on by any person or entity (including the United States or any agency, department and instrumentality thereof) other than a state or local government, unless such use is solely as a member of the general public; and (2) not directly or indirectly impose or accept any charge or other payment by any person or entity who is treated as using Gross Proceeds of the Bonds or any property the acquisition, construction or improvement of which is to be financed or refinanced directly or indirectly with such Gross Proceeds, other than taxes of general application within the City or interest earned on investments acquired with such Gross Proceeds pending application for their intended purposes. (d) No Private Loan. Except to the extent permitted by section 141 of the Code and the Regulations and rulings thereunder, the City shall not use Gross Proceeds of the Bonds to make or finance loans to any person or entity other than a state or local government. For purposes of the foregoing covenant, such Gross Proceeds are considered to be "loaned" to a person or entity if: (1) property acquired, constructed or improved with such Gross Proceeds is sold or leased to such person or entity in a transaction which creates a debt for federal income tax purposes; (2) capacity in or service from such property is committed to such person or entity 45034294.1 3 under a take -or -pay, output or similar contract or arrangement; or (3) indirect benefits, or (6r burdens and benefits of ownership, of such Gross Proceeds or any property acquired, constructed or improved with such Gross Proceeds are otherwise transferred in a transaction which is the economic equivalent of a loan. (e) Not to Invest at Higher Yield. Except to the extent permitted by section 148 of the Code and the Regulations and rulings thereunder, the City shall not at any time prior to the final Stated Maturity of the Bonds directly or indirectly invest Gross Proceeds in any Investment (or use Gross Proceeds to replace money so invested), if as a result of such investment the Yield from the Closing Date of all Investments acquired with Gross Proceeds (or with money replaced thereby), whether then held or previously disposed of, exceeds the Yield of the Bonds. (f) Not Federally Guaranteed. Except to the extent permitted by section 149(b) of the Code and the Regulations and rulings thereunder, the City shall not take or omit to take any action which would cause the Bonds to be federally guaranteed within the meaning of section 149(b) of the Code and the Regulations and rulings thereunder. (g) Payment of Rebatable Arbitrage. Except to the extent otherwise provided in section 148(f) of the Code and the Regulations and rulings thereunder: (1) The City shall account for all Gross Proceeds (including all receipts, expenditures and investments thereof) on its books of account separately and apart from all other funds (and receipts, expenditures and investments thereof) and shall retain all records of accounting for at least sii years after the day on which the last Outstanding Bond is discharged. However, to the extent permitted by law, the City may commingle Gross Proceeds of the Bonds with other money of the City, provided that the City separately accounts for each receipt and expenditure of Gross Proceeds and the obligations acquired therewith. (2) Not less frequently than each Computation Date, the City shall calculate the Rebate Amount in accordance with rules set forth in section 148(f) of the Code and the Regulations and rulings thereunder. The City shall maintain such calculations with its official transcript of proceedings relating to the issuance of the Bonds until six years after the final Computation Date. (3) As additional consideration for the purchase of the Bonds by the Purchasers and the loan of the money represented thereby and in order to induce such purchase by measures designed to insure the excludability of the interest thereon from the gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes, the City shall remit to the Issuer for payment to the United States the amount described in paragraph (3) above and the amount described in paragraph (4) below, at the times, in the manner and accompanied by such forms or other information as is or may be required by Section 148(f) of the Code and the Regulations and rulings thereunder. (4) The City shall exercise reasonable diligence to assure that no errors are made in the calculations and payments required by paragraph (2), and if an error is made, to discover and promptly correct such error within a reasonable amount of time thereafter (and in all events within one hundred eighty (180) days after discovery of the error), including the amount remitted to the Issuer for payment to the United States of any additional Rebate Amount owed to it, 45034294.1 4 interest thereon, and any penalty imposed under Section 1.148-3(h) of the LW Regulations. SECTION 6: It is officially found, determined, and declared that the meeting at which this Resolution is adopted was open to the public and public notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the public business to be considered at such meeting, including this Resolution, was given, all as required by V.T.C.A., Government Code, Chapter 551, as amended. SECTION 7: This Resolution shall be in force and effect from and after its passage on the date shown below. PASSED AND ADOPTED, this May 15, 2001. CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS Mayor ATTEST: City Secretary (City Seal) 45034294.1 5 FINANCING/USE AGREEMENT This Financing/Use Agreement (this "Agreement') is made to be effective as of the 15`h day of May, 2001, by and between the City of Southlake, Texas, a duly incorporated and existing municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Texas (the "City") and the Southlake Parks Development Corporation, a non-profit industrial development corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, including Vernon's Ann. Civ. St., Section 4B of Article 5190.6, (the "Corporation") RECITALS WHEREAS, the Corporation on behalf of the City is to finance the purchase of land and making improvements thereto for neighborhood parks and making additional improvements to existing park land, including related road and streets improvements that enhance such park facilities (collectively, the "Project"); and WHEREAS, such financing contemplates the issuance and sale of the Corporation's tax exempt bonds in the principal amount of $4,690,000, and the proceeds of sale are to be used by the City to design and construct the Project; and WHEREAS, the City will have full responsibility for the design and construction of the Project and the Corporation shall have no duties or responsibilities with respect to the Project other than to provide for the financing of its costs; AGREEMENT 1. Financing of Project: For and in consideration of the City's covenants and agreements herein contained and subject to the terms contained herein, the Corporation hereby agrees to issue a series of obligations to be known as "Southlake Parks Development Corporation Sales Tax Subordinate Lien Revenue Bonds, Series 2001 ", hereinafter called the "Bonds", and deposit proceeds of sale of the Bonds (less amounts to pay costs of issuance, municipal bond insurance premium, surety bond insurance premium, and accrued interest) to the credit of a construction fund or account designated by the City, and the City hereby agrees and covenants that the proceeds of sale deposited to the credit of such construction account shall be used solely to pay the costs of the Project. 2. Use of Project. Until all the Bonds have been fully paid, discharged and retired, the upkeep and maintenance of the Project will be the responsibility of the City and the Corporation shall have no responsibility with respect to the operation, upkeep and maintenance of the Project. 3. Recognition of Tax Exempt Financing. The City hereby acknowledges and recognizes that the Bonds are being issued as "state or local bonds" under and pursuant to section 103(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the City hereby covenants and agrees with respect to the use of proceeds of sale of the Bonds and the use of the Project as follows: (a) Definitions. When used in this Section, the following terms have the following meanings: 45034291.1 "Closing Date" means the date on which the Bonds are first authenticated and delivered to the initial purchasers against payment therefor. "Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by all legislation, if any, effective on or before the Closing Date. "Computation Date" has the meaning set forth in Section 1.148-1(b) of the Regulations. "Gross Proceeds" means any proceeds as defined in Section 1.148-1(b) of the Regulations, and any replacement proceeds as defined in Section 1.148-1(c) of the Regulations, of the Bonds. "Investment" has the meaning set forth in Section 1.148-1(b) of the Regulations. "Nonpurpose Investment" means any investment property, as defined in section 148(b) of the Code, in which Gross Proceeds of the Bonds are invested and which is not acquired to carry out the governmental purposes of the Bonds. 'Rebate Amount' has the meaning set forth in Section 1.148-1(b) of the 'Regulations. "Regulations" means any proposed, temporary, or final Income Tax Regulations issued pursuant to Sections 103 and 141 through 150 of the Code, and 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, which are applicable to the LW Bonds. Any reference to any specific Regulation shall also mean, as appropriate, any proposed, temporary or final Income Tax Regulation designed to supplement, amend or replace the -specific Regulation referenced. "Yield" of (1) any Investment has the meaning set forth in Section 1.148- 5 of the Regulations and (2) the Bonds has the meaning set forth in Section 1.148-4 of the Regulations. (b) Not to Cause Interest to Become Taxable. The City shall not use, permit the use of, or omit to use Gross Proceeds or any other amounts (or any property the acquisition, construction or improvement of which is to be financed directly or indirectly with Gross Proceeds) in a manner which if made or omitted, respectively, would cause the interest on any Bond to become includable in the gross income, as defined in section 61 of the Code, of the owner thereof for federal income tax purposes. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, unless and until the City receives a written opinion of counsel nationally recognized in the field of municipal bond law to the effect that failure to comply with such covenant will not adversely affect the exemption from federal income tax of the interest on any Bond, the City shall comply with each of the specific covenants in this Section. (c) No Private Use or Private Payments. Except as permitted by section 141 of the Code and the Regulations and rulings thereunder, the City shall at all times prior to the last Stated Maturity of Bonds: (1) exclusively own, operate and possess all property the acquisition, construction or improvement of which is to be financed or refinanced directly or 45034291.1 2 E)Mff A indirectly with Gross Proceeds of the Bonds, and not use or permit the use of such Gross Proceeds (including all contractual arrangements with terms different than those applicable to the general public) or any property acquired, constructed or improved with such Gross Proceeds in any activity carried on by any person or entity (including the United States or any agency, department and instrumentality thereof) other than a state or local government, unless such use is solely as a member of the general public; and (2) not directly or indirectly impose or accept any charge or other payment by any person or entity who is treated as using Gross Proceeds of the Bonds or any property the acquisition, construction or improvement of which is to be financed or refinanced directly or indirectly with such Gross Proceeds, other than taxes of general application within the City or interest earned on investments acquired with such Gross Proceeds pending application for their intended purposes. (d) No Private Loan. Except to the extent permitted by section 141 of the Code and the Regulations and rulings thereunder, the City shall not use Gross Proceeds of the Bonds to make or finance loans to any person or entity other than a state or local government. For purposes of the foregoing covenant, such Gross Proceeds are considered to be 'loaned" to a person or entity if: (1) property acquired, constructed or improved with such Gross Proceeds is sold or leased to such person or entity in a transaction which creates a debt for federal income tax purposes; (2) capacity in or service from such property is committed to such person or entity under a take -or -pay, output or similar contract or arrangement; or (3) indirect benefits, or burdens and benefits of ownership, of such Gross Proceeds or any property acquired, constructed or improved with such Gross Proceeds are otherwise transferred in a transaction which is the economic equivalent of a loan. (e) Not to Invest at Higher Yield.-- Except to the extent permitted by section 148 of the Code and the Regulations and rulings thereunder, the City shall not at any time prior to the final Stated Maturity of the Bonds directly or indirectly invest Gross Proceeds in any Investment (or use Gross Proceeds to replace money so invested), if as a result of such investment the Yield from the Closing Date of all Investments acquired with Gross Proceeds (or with money replaced thereby), whether then held or previously disposed of, exceeds the Yield of the Bonds. (f) Not Federally Guaranteed. Except to the extent permitted by section 149(b) of the Code and the Regulations and rulings thereunder, the City shall not take or omit to take any action which would cause the Bonds to be federally guaranteed within the meaning of section 149(b) of the Code and the Regulations and rulings thereunder. (g) Payment of Rebatable Arbitrage. Except to the extent otherwise provided in section 148(f) of the Code and the Regulations and rulings thereunder: (1) The City shall account for all Gross Proceeds (including all receipts, expenditures and investments thereof) on its books of account separately and apart from all other funds (and receipts, expenditures and investments thereof) and shall retain all records of accounting for at least six years after the day on which the last Outstanding Bond is discharged. However, to the extent permitted by law, the City may commingle Gross Proceeds of the Bonds with other money of the City, provided that the City separately accounts for each receipt and expenditure of Gross Proceeds and the obligations acquired therewith. 45034291.1 3 .4i111.rW, (2) Not less frequently than each Computation Date, the City shall calculate the Rebate Amount in accordance with rules set forth in section 148(f) (W of the Code and the Regulations and rulings thereunder. The City shall maintain such calculations with its official transcript of proceedings relating to the issuance of the Bonds until six years after the final Computation Date. (3) As additional consideration for the purchase of the Bonds by the Purchasers and the use of the money represented thereby and in order to induce such purchase by measures designed to insure the excludability of the interest thereon from the gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes, the City shall remit to the Corporation for payment to the United States the amount described in paragraph (g)(2) above and the amount described in paragraph (g)(4) below, at the times, in the manner and accompanied by such forms or other information as is or may be required by Section 148(f) of the Code and the Regulations and rulings thereunder. (4) The City shall exercise reasonable diligence to assure that no errors are made in the calculations and payments required by paragraph (g)(2), and if an error is made, to discover and promptly correct such error within a reasonable amount of time thereafter (and in all events within one hundred eighty (180) days ,after discovery of the error), including the amount remitted to the Corporation for payment to the United States of any additional Rebate Amount owed to it, interest thereon, and any penalty imposed under Section, 1.148-3(h) of the Regulations. 4. Receipt and Transfer of Proceeds of Sales Tax. The City agrees, in cooperation with the Corporation, to take such actions as are required to cause the "Gross Sales Tax Revenues" (as such term is defined in the resolution authorizing the issuance of the Bonds) received from the Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State, of Texas for and on behalf of the Corporation to be transferred and deposited immediately upon receipt by the City to the credit of the banking or monetary fund maintained at the depository designated by the Corporation and known on the books and records of the Corporation as the "Pledged Revenue Fund". 5. Modifications. This Agreement shall not be changed orally, and no executory agreement shall be effective to waive, change, modify or discharge this Agreement in whole or in part unless such executory agreement is in writing and is signed by the parties against whom enforcement of any waiver, change, modification or discharge is sought. 6. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including the Exhibits, contains the entire agreement between the parties pertaining to the subject matter hereof and fully supersedes all prior agreements and understandings between the parties pertaining to such subject matter. 7. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, and all such executed counterparts shall constitute the same agreement. It shall be necessary to account for only one such counterpart in proving this Agreement. 8. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect. 45034291.1 4 9. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall in all respects be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the substantive federal laws of the United States and the laws of the State of Texas. 10. Captions. The section headings appearing in this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and are not intended, to any extent and for any purpose, to limit or define the text of any section or any subsection hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement to be effective as of the date and year first above written. SOUTHLAKE PARKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION President, Board of Directors ATTEST: Secretary, Board of Directors (Corporation Seal) CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS Mayor ATTEST: City Secretary (City Seal) 45034291.1 5 City of Southlake Department of Planning STAFF REPORT May 11, 2001 CASE NO: ZA00-124 PROJECT: Gateway Church REQUEST: On behalf of Southlake Land, Ltd., HKS, Inc is requesting rezoning and site plan approval. ACTION NEEDED: 1. Conduct public hearing 2. Consider second reading of rezoning and site plan request. ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information (B) Vicinity Map (C) Plans and Support Information (D) Site Plan Review Summary (E) Articulation Review Summary (F) Developer Comments (G) Surrounding Property Owner Map (H) Surrounding Property Owner's Responses (I) Ordinance No. 480-362 (J) 11X17 Plans (for Commission and Council Members Only) STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough, 481-2073 Ben Bryner, 481-2086 Case No. ZA00-124 0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNER: Southlake Land, Ltd. APPLICANT: HKS, Ltd. PURPOSE: The purpose of this request is to place "Community Service" district uses and regulations on the property for development of a church. PROPERTY SITUATION: The property is located on the south side of East Southlake Boulevard, approximately 1,160' west of North Kimball Avenue. HISTORY: There is no zoning history on this property. The land is currently being used as a horse stable. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tract 213, situated in the John Freeman Survey Abstract No. 529, and being 13.675 acres. LAND USE CATEGORY: Office Commercial CURRENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT: Case No. ZA00-124 "AG" Agricultural "CS" Community Service District Master Thoroughfare Plan The Master Thoroughfare Plan recommends Southlake Boulevard to have 130' of right-of-way. Adequate right-of-way exists. Existing Area Road Network and Conditions E. Southlake Boulevard is a five -lane, undivided thoroughfare with a continuous, two-way, center left -turn lane. The roadway will ultimately be widened to a seven -lane roadway. May, 2000 traffic counts on F.M. 1709 (between Carroll Ave. and Kimball Ave.: Table #1 24hr West Bound WB 22,723 East Bound (EB) (19,743 WB Peak A.M. 1,306 11-12 a.m. Peak P.M. 2,238 5-6 p.m. EB Peak A.M. 1,848 7-8 a.m. Peak P.M. 1,129 3-4 p.m. Traffic Impact Attachment A Page 1 Use Sq. Ft. Vtpd* AM- IN AM- OUT PM- IN PM - OUT Church Phase 1 & 2 64,000 584 42 40 54 36 `Vehicle Trips Per Day *The AM/PM times represent the number of vehicle trips generated during the peak travel times on Southlake Boulevard. Southlake Boulevard carries approximately 42,500 vehicles a day with peak traffic times occurring between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. The site will generate 82 vehicle trips during the A.M. rush hour and 90 trips during the P.M. rush hour. It should be noted that most vehicle trips will be generated during off-peak times. This site on Sunday will generate 1,172 trips that day. Internal Circulation The proposed site will have one (1) full access directly on to Southlake Boulevard (F.M. 1709). This drive is located across from the main drive into Village Center. The two drives, however, do not line up. Staff recommends that the proposed drive for this site be shifted to the west to line up with the opposing drive to reduce turning movement conflicts. The proposed site will also have one access directly onto the future S. Village Center Drive with development of Phase 2. Access will also be available through a common access casement from the lot west of the property and a common access easement stub will be provided in to the east property line to provide future access for Dallas Foam property. Master Trail Plan An 8' paved, multi -use trail is required on the South side of FM 1709 on the according to the newly adopted proposed Master Pathway Plan. WATER & SEWER: There is an existing 12" water line and 8" sewer line located on FM 1709. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEES*: Water $7,806.29 Assumes 2"-simple meter, & 1 "-irrigation)_ Wastewater $3,706.37 Assumes 2"-simple meter Roadwa $1,190.40 Assumes Church use • Final Impact Fees are determined by the Building Services Department at the time of building permit issuance. The fees shown above only represent estimates prepared by the Planning Department. Case No. Attachment A ZA00-124 Page2 P&Z ACTION: April 19, 2001; Approved (6-0) subject to Concept Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated April 12, 2001, and to accept the requested variances for Item #1, articulation; Item #2a, private turn -around; Item #2b, stacking; and Item #2c, driveway spacing. P&Z SPEAKERS: In Favor Qualified In Favor Opposed Other 2 COUNCIL ACTION: May 1, 2001; Approved (7-0) subject to the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission on consent requiring a common access easement stubbing into the east property line and providing a trail along F.M. 1709 subject to the Master Pathway Plan. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Revised Site Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated May 11, 2001. The following variances need council action: • Horizontal articulation on the North and East fagades. • Dead-end street with turn -around easement, rather than a publicly dedicated cul-de-sac right-of-way. • Driveway stacking depth (150' required) (a) The stacking measured on the drive off FM 1709 is 140'. (b) The stacking measured from S. Village Center Drive is 42'. • Driveway spacing on F.M. 1709. Full access drives must be spaced 500' on FM 1709. The proposed drive will be approximately 250' from the next full access drive to the east. • Staff recommendation that the "F.M. 1709" driveway be aligned with the "Village Center driveway" located on the north side of F.M. 1709. NACommunity Development\WP-FILES\MEMO\2000cases\00-124ZCP.doc Case No. Attachment A ZA00-124 Page3 Vicinity Map Gateway Church 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 Feet MAI N S E Case No. Attachment B ZA00-124 Page 1 IFIF I Hill X HE At tof c•in .4 v� ---------- f7' --------- t ------------ 1A _Lj Hill lax .03 4_* 7-T )'AP, DWI -,a 3ny-i-iA 7, ------------------ ------ V� A 0-1 LW M n Tit a KXM NJ '70 9p1lf Xj 41 j :S I oil 121111 A jig 19 15 Case No. Attachment C ZA00-124 Page 1 ei, i I � N Case No. ZA00-124 Attachment C Page 2 SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA00-124 Revised Review No.: Four Date of Review: 05/11/01 Project Name: Site Plan --Gateway Church APPLICANT: Gateway Church George Grubbs P.O. Box 100 Southlake, TX 76092 Phone: (817) 329-4622 (817) 307-1080 Fax: (817) 251-4900 ENGINEER: Adams Engineering Rob Adams 2445 E. Southlake Blvd. Suite #100 Southlake, Texas 76092 Phone: (817) 329-6990 Fax: (817) 329-7671 CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 4/09/01 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT DENNIS KILLOUGH AT (817) 481-2073 OR BEN BRYNER AT (817) 481-2086. l . Provide horizontal and vertical articulation meeting the requirements of Ord. 480, Section 43.9.c.Lc on all facades visible from a Corridor R.O.W. The front (east) and right (north) sides do not comply with horizontal articulation requirements (See attached articulation chart). (A variance has been requested.) 2. The following changes are needed in regards to driveways: a. The Subdivision Ordinance does not permit dead end streets. The applicant proposes a private turn -around easement in lieu of a public R.O.W. fora cul-de-sac. b. The stacking depths required for this site is 150'. (1) The stacking measured from the correct R.O.W. line equals 140'. The applicant should note that the R.O.W for FM 1709 is 130', not 120' as shown. (A variance has been requested.) (2) The stacking measured from S. Village Center Drive to the centerline of the first drive equals approximately 42'. (A variance has been requested.) The Driveway Ordinance requires 500' between full access driveways on FM 1709. The next full access drive to the east is approximately 263' away. (A variance has been requested.) 3. Show and label a 15' setback from the south boundary line of Gumm Professional Offices property. Case No. Attachment D ZA 00-124 Page 1 4. Shift the full access drive to the West in order to line up with the drive across FM 1709. Staff recommends that the two opposing drives should line up to reduce turning movement conflicts. Please correct the following on the site data table: a. Correct the calculations regarding open space. Provide total area of open space and the percent of open space compared to the net acreage of the entire property. Interior landscaping and bufferyards should be included as part of open space. b. Correct the calculations regarding impervious coverage. This should include the building, parking, and any cement or paving. Interior landscape and bufferyards are not included. The maximum impervious coverage shall not exceed sixty-five (65%) percent of the total lot area in the "CS" zoning district. C. Remove the outdoor storage information completely from the table. 6. Provide a common access easement stub into the east property line. 7. Provide a trail along F.M. 1709 in compliance with Master Pathway Plan. Any variance requests have to be documented in writing and fully justified. * 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, and 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, Roadway Impact Fees, Water & Sewer Impact and Tap Fees, and related Permit Fees. The preliminary plat is in process. * A revised Site Plan is required prior to Phase 2 building construction. * This review is based on the "CS" Zoning District Regulations. * It appears that this property lies within the 65 LDN D/FW Regional Airport Overlay Zone and will require construction standards that meet requirements of the Airport Compatible Land Use Zoning Ordinance No. 479. * A Day Care or a Mother's Day Out facility will require approval of a Specific Use Permit. * Denotes Informational Comment Case No. Attachment D ZA 00-124 Page 2 Articulation Evaluation No.2 Case No. ZA 00-124 jDate of Evaluation: 04:/12/01 Elevations for Gateway Church Received: 04/09/01 Front - facing: East Wall ht . = 30 Horizontal articulation IVertical articulation Required Provided Delta Okay? Required Provided Delta Okay? Max. wall length 90 44 -51% Yes 90 45 -50% Yes Min. artic. offset 5 5 0% Yes 5 5 00-. Yes Min. artic. length 18 15 -17% No 5 6 33% Yes Rear - facing «Vest wall ht . = 15 Horizontal articulation Vertical articulation Required Provided Delta Okay? Required Provided Delta Okay? Max. wall length 45 44 -2% Yes 45 44 -2% Yes Min. artic. offset 2 2 0% Yes 2 6 200% Yes Min. artic. length 11 15 36% Yes 11 15 36% Yes Right - facing: North lWall ht . =1 30 Horizontal articulation IVertical articulation Required Provided Delta Okay? Required Provided Delta Okay? Max. wall length 90 64 -29% Yes 90 35 -61% Yes Min. artic. offset 5 5 0% Yes 5 5 0% Yes Min. artic. length 23 15 -35% No 5 6 33% Yes Left -facing: South I Wall ht . = N/A Horizontal articulation IVertical articulation Required Provided Delta Okay? Required Provided Delta Okay? Max. wall length 0 ##### Yes 0 ##### Yes Min. artic. offset 0 ##### Yes 0 ##### Yes Min. artic. 'length ##### Yes ##### Yes Case No. Attachment E ZA 00-124 Page 1 04/11/2001 04:12 2819707757 PREMIER APCHITECTS PAGE 02 ANk 1", ADAMS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC VARIANCE REQUEST CM a Environmental Engineers 2445 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 100 SoutMake, Texas 7W92 To Whom it May Concom The following is a written request for a variance presented to the City of Southleke Planning Department This variance request is for the proposed development known as Gateway Church Said development is req to provide the foliovnng. Horizontal Articulation: No budding facade *hall a send greater then 3 times the well's height without havil a mnimum off -set of 15% of the wail's height. and such offset shah continue for a minimum distance equal to at Ism 25% of the ma)omum length of either adjacent plane The proposed Horizontal Ariculatlon does not meet thin requirement on two facades, North and Esst. The North and East facades of the building facing Fm 7709 hens both been revised to meet the Horuo I Articulation Ordinance as much as possible I have outlined the primary reasons for not being able to mast the ordl-n at AS fullest aAent or definition. Respectfully, Nathan Olson 1 1 designed the center arch of the 3 arches on each side to have a MHOL of 4'-6" of a 3(r 11. The adjacent wail length is 71' and the required MHFL should be 1 T'-g' — However. the cant rch Is 14'-W wide because I can't adjust the arch width or location to accommodate the floor layout. The additional 3' of width for horizontal aRkulation would provide no added function to the plan end its' intended use. 2 1 intended that the 3 arches would be perceived ae a'group' of articulations that would be ad as one articulated plane which would meet and exceed the Horizontal Articulation Ordinance 3 IT modified to meal the strict guidelines of the Horizontal Articulation Ordinance the esthet' t the Church Building would be disproportional and create a less interesting facade. sgn 4 The current deallows for greeter articulation shadow lines that will not oveftp and wia Bata a sense of greater depth and visual play against the Primary hcada_ 5. The phase 2 development will also provide a Grand Entry piece that is very similar to the sea 1 main entry This phase 2 Grand antry will more than exceed the horizontal articulstlon requlr Please refer to site plan for Phase 2 Grand Entry footpnnt ® union of phase 1 and 2 �p c u 112001 SIGNED. Rob Adams Cl Pat Williford ❑ Jlmmy Lopez _ David Recht Nathan Olson 0 Chad Case No. Attachment F ZA 00-124 Pagel AX ADAMS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC Civil . Environmental Engineers 2445 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 100 Southlake, Texas 76092 VARIANCE REQUEST To Whom It May Concern: The following is a written request for a variance presented to the City of Southlake Planning Department. This variance request is for the proposed development known as Gateway Church. Said development is required to provide 150 foot minimum stacking in its driveways. The proposed development does not meet this requirement in two driveways. For the purposes of this request, the driveways will be named Drive (A) and Drive (B). Drive (A) is located in the front parking area and accesses F.M. 1709. Stacking for this drive measures 140 feet. Drive (B) is located at the end of S. Village Dr. terminating into a proposed cul-de-sac. Stacking for this drive measures 40 feet. Our justification for the placement of the proposed driveways without providing the required distance for stacking is as follows: 1) Driveway (A) is 24 feet wide. The amount of stacking will be doubled with this two-lane entry. Also, this entry will only be used during services offered at off-peak hours. 2) Driveway (B) is located at the end of a public road that only serves the three lots that adjoin it. During services, the businesses located on S. Village Dr. will be closed and any stacking can be held in this road. Respectfully, Nathan Olson SIGNED: _ Rob Adams RED Pat Williford Jimmy Lopez David R2cht Nathan Olson ^Chad Kimbell Corporate Office: Tyler, Texas Branch Offices: Garland, Texas • San Diego, Califomia ZAcc - , 2-1 Case No. Attachment F ZA 00-124 Page 2 AX ADAMS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC Civil • Environmental Engineers 2445 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 100 Southlake, Texas 76092 To'Nhcm It May Concern: VARIANCE REQUEST The following is a written request for a variance presented to the City of Southlake Planning Department. This variance request is for the proposed development known as Gateway Church. Said development requires a full access driveway intersecting Southlake Blvd. / F.M. 1709. The driveway ordinance states that 500 foot minimum spacing shall be provided between full access drives on 1709. The distance between the two existing full access drives on F.M. 1709 is less than 1000 feet. The proposed driveway has been located to provide 618 feet - 9 inches of centerline to centerline distance from the Village Center driveway. ( meets requirement in driveway ordinance ) The proposed driveway has been located to provide 253 feet - 8 inches of centerline to centerline distance from the driveway for the business named Dallas Foam. ( does not meet requirement in driveway ordinance ) Our justification for the placement of the proposed driveway without providing the required distance to the Dallas Foam driveway are as follows: 1) The proposed development will receive its traffic only at the time of church services. These services begin on Wednesday after office hours and on Sunday. Dallas Foam is closed for business at the time of these services. 2) Dallas Foam is a small business that ships packaging materials and does not receive appreciable traffic compared to a retail store. Respectfully, Nathan Olson REC'D 2, o 0 i SIGNED Rob Adams Pat Williford Jimmy Lopez David Recht Nathan Olson Chad Kimbell Corporate Office: Tyler, Texas Branch Offices Garland, Texas • San Diego, California Case No. Attachment F ZA 00-124 Page 3 Surrounding Property Owners y Gatewa Church - - - � 3 4 Vy Property Owner Zoning Land Use Description Acreage 1. Chevron 1. C-3 1. Retail Commercial 1. 0.93 2. OTR 2. C-3 2. Retail Commercial 2. 13.08 3. Wendy's 3. C-3 3. Retail Commercial 3. 0.81 4. Walmart 4. C-3 4. Retail Commercial 4. 16.51 5. Dallas Foam 5. B-1 5. Office Commercial 5. 0.91 6. S. Buchanan 6. B-1 6. Office Commercial 6. 1.00 7. Greenway-1709 7. B-1 7. Office Commercial 7. 11.22 8. Carroll ISD 8. CS 8. Public/Semi-Public 8. 12.14 9. C. Dorris 9. SF -IA 9. Low Density Residential 9. 3.63 10. T. Chapman 10. SF-1 A 10. Low Density Residential 10. 2.76 11. J. Taylor 11. SF -IA 11. Low Density Residential 11. 1.17 12. M. Heath 12. SF -IA 12. Low Density Residential 12. 1.07 13. L. Raney 13. SF -IA 13. Low Density Residential 13. 0.98 14. G. Barclay 14. SF- lA 14. Low Density Residential 14. 1.01 15. C. Willan 15.0-1 15. Office Commercial 15. 1.00 16. Southlake Land Ltd 16.0-1 16. Office Commercial 16. 1.41 17. Bedford Pioneer 17. AG 17. Office Commercial 17. 3.61 Case No. Attachment G ZA 00-124 Page 1 Surrounding Property Owner Responses .., Gateway Church NOTICES SENT: Seventeen (17) RESPONSES: Three (3) responses were received from within the 200' notification area: • Dennis Scifres, 301 Commerce Street #2876, Fort Worth, TX, in favor, "A great addition to the city." (Received April 9, 2001) • Tommy Pigg, representing Greenway-1709/F,leven Prts, LP, 2301 Cedar Springs Road #400, Dallas, TX, opposed (to the site plan, not the zoning.) See attached letter. (Received April 12, 2001) • John G. Taylor, 209 Eastwood Drive, Southlake, TX, opposed. See attached letter. (Received April 19, 2001) One (1) response was received from outside the 200' notification area: • Sandra J. Lancaster, Sr. Noise Compatibility Planner, DFW International Airport, opposed. See attached letter. (Received April 19, 2001) Case No. Attachment H ZA 00-124 Page 1 ureenwau :nvestTent rdx•Li14;: VJ O npr 1: uI it U�) r.U1 Greenway Investment Company Commercial Real Estate Investmenz 1i01 Cain Sys Road. Swot 400 Dallas. lhaas 75,01 i�.IcpF.ert: ?:4.330.9009 Fan: Z14 "0.0188 E-Mail: ymray@ornmp.oe4 April 12, NO 1 City of Southlske Planning and Zoning Commission 1400 ?`lain Street Suite 310 Southlake, TX 76092 Reference No: ZA00-124 Dear Chairman and Ladies &. Gentlemen of the Commission: fly name is Tommy Pigg, representing Greenway - 1709/Eleven Partners L.P., 'Owner' of the 1 I acre property wrapping the 'Dallas Foam' property and adjacent to the subject property for most of its western boundary. While not opposed to the church use itself, as an adjacent property owner, we are very concerned with the drive onto FM 1709 shown as full access. Should this drive limit the full service access for the remainder of the property between the subject property and Kimball Road, the development opportunities are materially and adversely diminished. Please consider moving the Church's full service access as far to the west as is possible. -rha k you for you consideration. sincereh. Tommy Pigg Vicc President of the General Partner of Owner Case No. ZA 00-124 Attachment H Page 2 John G. Taylor Martha T. Tavlor 209 Eastwood Dr. Southlake, TX 7609_ (817)416-6680 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Southlake, Texas Re: Rezoning and site plan of Gateway Church Dear Commissioners: We are delighted and are looking forward to having Gateway Church as our new community neighbor, but we are opposed to the request for one important reason. The site plan leaves a corridor of undeveloped land along their west and south property lines which will allow the city to extend S. Village Dr. as a through street to Kimball Ave. Gateway Church Officials have stated to us that they are likewise opposed to such a street extension across their property, and need to be informed that the Mayor and the City of Southlake still plan for S. Village Dr. to be extended to the new schools, Kimball Ave., and eventually Snaky Ln. Extension of S. Village Dr. will have a negative impact on surrounding properties, S. Village Dr. will become a "shortcut" to Kimball, the two new schools, playing fields, and the new stadium which will create another serious traffic bottleneck in the right turn lane off Southlake Blvd. As it is now, the Village Dr. traffic light causes plenty of misery for residents and office workers trying to exit Westwood Dr. This shortcut will create unlimited public access to the church and all surrounding properties, fostering additional security problems and an increase in safety risks for the school children, churchgoers, office personnel, and adjoining residential properties. We would like to work with Gateway Church in insuring that the City of Southlake abandons its plan to extend S. Village Dr. to Kimball Ave. Sincerely, v Fcr,n c Case No. Attachment H ZA 00-124 Page 3 Page 1 of 2 34-19-200t 0':F oa From-P 3.!C AFFAIP.S N0:5E OFF! E 9725749544 '-360 ° 004/005 F-644 �w 1DFNV,--4- Jeffrey P. Fegan p� r a a I-o rt W urch r,1ze n9[IUtlA� A i rpurt _sx —z D—,Aor April 19, 2001 Mr. Dennis King Chairman, Planning & Zoning Commission City of Southlake 1400 Main Street, Suite 310 Southlake, Texas 76092 RE: Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda of April 19, 2001, Item # 5 Reference No. 7-A00-124 Gateway Church Dear Chairman King: The Agenda for the City of Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission for April 19, 2001, Item #5, refers to a proposed rezoning and concept plan for the Gateway Church, a property described as being located approximately 1,160 feet west of North Kimball Avenue, on the south side of East Southlake Boulevard. For reasons stated below, the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Board ('DFW) is opposed to the proposed use. Referencing the Airport's Official Noise Contour, the proposed Gateway Church site is located within the 65 DNL noise level (refer to the attached contour excerpt). The proposed church site lies !ess than one half mile from the extended centerline of Runway 13R/31L and approximately three miles from the north end of this runway. The property is subject to routine and regular operations by aircraft operating to and from VFW International Airport. Historical aircraft flight information indicates jets operate as low as 700 feet above ground level near the subject property. According to Federal Aviation Administration guidelines and the City of Southlake's own Ordinance 479, 'Airport Compatible Land Use', churches (`Community Service' in the Ordinance) are considered incompatible unless measures to achieve Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of 35 [per the Ordinance] be incorporated into design and construction of the structures. Given these factors, approval of the requested zoning change would violate the 1988 Settlement Agreement between Southlake and the DFW Airport unless Southlake requires that mandatory building shell noise reduction of 35 dB NLR be incorporated into the building design, noted an the final building plans, and verified during the building inspection process in accordance with Ordinance 479. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please contact me at your convenience shou!d you like to discuss our comments further. SincerelW (T; ' �1\ `r )� 19 Z 0 0 1 i '---Sandra J. Lancaster SR. Noise Compatibility Planner cc. P. Tomme, K. Robertson, M. Karam H. Holden, Gateway Church C.:'uFrSmih1&e/Gamway Qauclhdoc 3100 Ea-.Unicic Dn, a A. Uuicc Drw<, ni43+-s . DrW A-- lz— x161-941d . T-1, Case No. Attachment H ZA 00-124 Page 4 Page 2 of 2 04-'9-2001 01:00P4 ;ra""U8:1.^ AFFAIRS NOISE OF;ICE 9725748544 T-360 P.003/O0 F-644 QUIP t t nw 3 " �s�. - K► ''i+'•�':.:� ¢��P. •'• .^jam' f{�� rYp is �I ._�. _ a- >.• �rI^:'F: �'� A. y�© got rater`. T." Y .,..,,,,. �, _ . fib.` ►`� i.: , � " �- C G tell! .Ju17 uru•. S��w^t,tln , lr SOUTH AKE r y �� .i.vy ♦.s c 7 ''", 1t eG•n.•JYI 4vp , � j ie • � .` t , c >j�„ .. �• �, � J It - ' J ... ca...t.,. ..g_�.. tpMJL� p i• 0 a • e .y—�Y. J' .... 5 _ ..�•E vim. ^ _.. �. _ ww..+k Case No. Attachment H ZA 00-124 Page 5 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS ORDINANCE NO.480-362 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 TRACT 2B SITUATED IN THE JOHN FREEMAN SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 529, AND BEING APPROXIMATELY 13.675 ACRES, AND MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" FROM "AG" AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO "CS" COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT AS DEPICTED ON THE APPROVED SITE PLAN 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 Case No. Attachment I ZA00-124 Page 1 WHEREAS, the hereinafter described property is currently zoned as "AG" Agricultural 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 Case No. Attachment I ZA00-124 Page 2 public necessity for the zoning changes, that the public demands them, that the public interest clearly requires the amendments, and that the zoning changes do not unreasonably invade the rights of those who bought or improved property with reference to the classification which existed at the time their original investment was made; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that the changes in zoning lessen the congestion in the streets, helps secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers, promotes the health and the general welfare, provides adequate light and air, prevents the over- crowding of land, avoids undue concentration of population, and facilitates the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, has determined that there is a necessity and need for the changes in zoning and has also found and determined that there has been a change in the conditions of the property surrounding and in close proximity to the tract or tracts of land requested for a change since the tract or tracts of land were originally classified and therefore feels that the respective changes in zoning classification for the tract or tracts of land are needed, are called for; and are in the best interest of the public at large, the citizens of the city of Southlake, Texas, and helps promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS: 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: Case No. Attachment I ZA00-124 Page 3 Being Tract 2B situated in the John Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 529, and being approximately 13.675 acres, and more fully and completely described in Exhibit "A" from "AG" Agricultural District to "CS" Community Service District as depicted on the approved Site Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit `B". SECTION 2. That the City Manager is hereby directed to correct the Official Zoning map of the City of Southlake, Texas, to reflect the herein changes in zoning. SECTION 3. That in all other respects the use of the tract or tracts of land herein above described shall be subject to all the applicable regulations contained in said Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable and pertinent ordinances for the City of Southlake, Texas. All existing sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, words, phrases and definitions of said 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. Case No. Attachment I ZA00-124 Page 4 SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall be cumulative of all other ordinances of the City of Southlake, Texas, affecting zoning and shall not repeal any of the provisions of said ordinances except in those instances where provisions of those ordinances are in direct conflict with the provisions of this ordinance. SECTION 6. That the terms and provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be severable and that if the validity of the zoning affecting any portion of the tract or tracts of land described herein shall be declared to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the zoning of the balance of said tract or tracts of land described herein. 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. Case No. Attachment I ZA00-124 Page 5 The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to publish the proposed ordinance or its caption and penalty together with a notice setting out the time and place for a public hearing thereon at least ten (10) days before the second reading of this ordinance, and if this ordinance provides for the imposition of any penalty, fine or forfeiture for any violation of any of its provisions, then the City Secretary shall additionally publish this ordinance in the official City newspaper one time within ten (10) days after passage of this ordinance, as required by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake. SECTION 10. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law, and it is so ordained. PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st reading the day of , 2001. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY Case No. Attachment I ZA00-124 Page 6 PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the day of , 2001. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CITY ATTORNEY DATE: ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: Case No. Attachment I ZA00-124 Page 7 EXHIBIT "A" Being Tract 2B situated in the John Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 529, and being approximately 13.675 acres. LEGAL DESCRIPTION. 8EING A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE JOIN FREEMAN SURVEY. ABSTRACT NO 529, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. AND ALSO BEING PART OF A 14.560 ACRE TRACT AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 122OZ, PAGE 212. DEED RECORDS. TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, AND BEING YORE PARTICULARLY OESCREBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS W-W"NG AT A 5/8 *101 IRON ROO FWNO FOR CORNM AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID 14.75 ACRE TRACT, SAID IRON ROD BEING IN THE WEST UNE OF A 12-09 ACRE TRACT AS RECORDED IN VOOLUME 71a% PAGE 351 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF TARRANT COUNTY. TEXAS. SAID iRO+I ROD ALSO BEING AT THE MOST EASTERLY NORTHEAST CORNER OF WOODLAND tE1(;FM AS RECOROM IN VOLUME 3M-155. PAGE 13 OF THE PLAT RECORDS OF TARRANT COUNTI, TEXAS THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 29 SECONDS NEST Fa10NIiNG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID WOODLAND HEIGHTS ADDITION A DISTANCE OF 796.34 FEET TO A 5/8 INCH IRON ROD FOUND FOR CORNER AT THE O CORNER OF SAID WOODLAND HEIGHTS AOO TM. THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 38 29 SECONDS WEST' FaUANANiG THE NORTHEAST LSE OF SILO WOODLAND HIEI NTS ADOMON1 A DISTANCE OF 453.03 FEET TO A 5/8 NC» WON RW FOUND FOR THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 37 MUM 45 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE CE 394-M FEET TD A 1 /Z SIGH IRON ROD SET FOR C=Ot THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 27 IASKMS 41 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 553358 FEET TO A 1 /2 NIGH IRON ROD SET FOR CORNER IN THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LIFE OF SOUTHLAIGE EEVD/F.M. NO.1709 AS CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF TEXAS AND RED N VOLUME E 98a2, PAGE 391 OF THE D® RECORDS OF TARRANT COUNTY. TEXAS; THIENC£ SOUTH 89 DEGREES 39 MUM 56 SECONDS EAST FOLLOYANG TK SOUTH IZO. VL LINE OF SAID SOUTHLAK1E BLVD/FIL NO.1709 A DISTANCE OF 425.03 FEET TO A STEEL FENCE POST FOUND FOR CORNER. THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 31 MINUTES 3a SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 1010.20 FIST TO THE POINT OF BEG"I NG AND CONTANNNG 595.670 SQUARE FEET OR 13.675 ACRES OF LAND Case No. Attachment I ZAOO-124 Page 8 ZVI' EXHIBIT "B" p am SOL'LVE 9L4. iN I'll,] a 2 02'� 1:E .10 71[ h:- 4p 2 LO A 1 N 4A, ROAM-- gra. tK W— via f9 — — -3o— "A �7 u U --------- ---------------------------------- 1� .r3O'W 796-14� —A AF T YAN AV)` PI -All - PHASE 2 SITE CASE NLWER-- ZAOO- 124 A- 1 Case No. Attachment I ZA00-124 Page 9 City of Southlake Department of Planning STAFF REPORT May 11, 2001 CASE NO: ZA01-042 PROJECT: The Clariden School REQUEST: The Clariden School is requesting approval of a Rezoning and Concept Plan. ACTION NEEDED: 1. Conduct Public Hearing 2. Consider 2nd reading of rezoning and concept plan request. ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information (B) Vicinity Map (C) Plans and Support Information (D) Concept Plan Review Summary (E) Traffic Analysis (F) Resident Concerns (G) Surrounding Property Owner Map (H) Surrounding Property Owner's Responses (I) Ordinance No. 480-363 (J) Letters Received (attached separately for Commission and Council Members only) (K) 11X17 Plans (for Commission and Council Members Only) STAFF CONTACT: Tara Brooks (481-2079) Ken Baker (481-2046) Case No. ZA01-042 BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNER/APPLICANT: The Clariden School PURPOSE: The purpose of this request is to rezone the property so that a private school can be established. PROPERTY SITUATION: The property is located on the west side of North White Chapel Boulevard approximately 1,400' south of Bob Jones Road. It is part of the plat of the Clariden Ranch Subdivision. The properties to the south, west, and north are zoned "SF -IA" Single Family Residential District. To the east, across North White Chapel Boulevard, is Bob Jones Park. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of Tracts 1 and IA, situated in the W. Mills Survey, Abstract No. 877; being 23.050 acres. LAND USE CATEGORY: Low Density Residential CURRENT ZONING: "AG" Agricultural REQUESTED ZONING: "CS" Community Service AMENDED REQUEST: "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District with "CS" Community Service District uses limited to a private school PROPOSED USE: Private School (K-12)-Ultimate maximum enrollment 630 students. HISTORY: -Preliminary Plat for Clariden Ranch was approved by City Council on 1/16/01. -A motion to rezone this property to S-P-2 with "CS" uses limited to a private school was denied on March 22, 2001 by P&Z. TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT: See Attachment E TRAIL SYSTEM MASTER PLAN: The Trail System Master Plan does not recommend a trail along the west side of North White Chapel Boulevard. A Pedestrian/ Bicycle off -road trail is recommended along the east side of North White Chapel Boulevard. It is likely that students will be crossing White Chapel Road either during or after school to utilize the facilities located at Bob Jones Park. DRAINAGE: The preliminary drainage plan indicates the runoff from the proposed site will drain south through the Clariden Ranch subdivision and into Kirkwood Creek (See Figure #2- Circle 2 on the next page). Kirkwood Creek crosses under North White Chapel Boulevard before heading northeast to Lake Grapevine. Case No. ZA01-042 Attachment A Page 1 If the proposed site was developed as a Private School, the drainage calculations for post development runoff would use a runoff coefficient of 0.7 versus a factor of 0.5 for a residential development. The Clariden School Concept Plan indicates that build -out will result in 32.5% of the site being impervious. A typical one (1) acre subdivision will result in approximately 20% impervious coverage. If Kirkwood Creek can not handle the runoff created by the school site, the school is required by ordinance to detain the increased runoff on -site. The Clariden School Concept plan indicates a drainage retention area on the concept plan. Also, the South Fork of Kirkwood Creek crosses N. White Chapel Road (See Figure #2-Circle 3). This crossing of the South Fork Branch of Kirkwood Creek has flooded White Chapel Boulevard four (4) times since 1957 due to backwater conditions from Lake Grapevine. According to the Army Core of Engineers (Lake Grapevine Office), White Chapel Boulevard has been flooded four (4) times since 1957 (1957, 1981, 1989 and 1991). Lake ;. Kirkwood - Creek W S. Fork Bran�tidit " Wa fl w Kirkwood Creek �f fro Q _. .H t Figure #2 WATER AND SEWER: There is an existing 12" water line on the east side of North White Chapel Boulevard and an existing 8" sanitary sewer line on the west side of North White Chapel Boulevard. Case No. ZA01-042 Attachment A Page 2 ESTIMATED IMPACT FEES*: Table #4 Water NA -Calculated with Site Plan Wastewater NA -Calculated with Site Plan Roadway $16,277(Roadway Service Area 3 * Final Impact Fees are determined by the Building Services Department at the time of building permit issuance. The fees shown above only represent estimates prepared by the Planning Department. P&Z ACTION: April 19, 2001; Approved (6-0) subject to Concept Plan Review Summary No. 1, dated April 12, 2001, subject to the following: • "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District with "CS" Community Service District uses limited to a private school with a 700-student capacity; • lighting design and installation will adhere to relevant city ordinances; • school will install a continuous northbound left turn lane on White Chapel Boulevard; • school will install a crosswalk across White Chapel Boulevard; • and a flashing school zone will be installed as recommended by staff. P&Z SPEAKERS: COUNCIL ACTION: STAFF COMMENTS: In Favor Qualified In Favor r Opposed I Other 9 I May 1, 2001; Approved (7-0) subject to the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, on consent. Attached is. Concept Plan Review Summary No. 1, dated April 12, 2001. MTommunity Deve1opment\WP-FILES\MEM0\200Icases\01-042ZCP.doc Case No. Attachment A ZA01-042 Page 3 Vicinity Map Clariden School 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet 1� S E Case No. Attachment B ZA01-042 Page 1 SndYq'vO MN 'Od Wd 1d3DNOD IOOHDS N3(]Nt D ]Hi 7 N E4: UE - it Case No. Attachment C ZA01-042 Page 1 SP-2 with CS Uses Zoning Change Zoning Case #ZA01-042 - The Clariden School 19 April 2001 1. Land use of property will be restricted to private school and uses appurtenant to private school operations. 2. School enrollment will be limited to 700 students. 3. A continuous north -bound left -turn lane will be provided on North White Chapel Blvd. from the north school entry southward 100' past Clariden Ranch Road and with a 100' taper. 4. Lighting design and installation will adhere to Ordinance No. 693-B (Lighting Ordinance). Illumination and luminance levels will not exceed values established in the Lighting Ordinance. Any future variance requests will follow the city's established approval procedure. 5. A striped cross -walk will be provided across North White Chapel Blvd. to connect the school with Bob Jones Park. 6. A school zone with signage and flashing lights will be provided. Cc: The Clariden School Case No. Attachment C ZA01-042 Page 2 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA01-042 Review No.: One Date of Review: 04/12/01 Project Name: Concept Plan — Clariden School APPLICANT: The Clariden School 1325 N. White Chapel Blvd. Southlake, TX 76092 Phone: (817) 481-7597 Fax: (817) 424-5561 Attn: Charlane Baccus ENGINEER: Carter & Burgess 777 Main Street Fort Worth, TX 76102 Phone: (817) 735-6281 Fax: (817) 735-6148 Attn: John Brookby CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 04/02/01 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT TARA BROOKS AT (817) 481-2079. Provide a continuous left turn lane on N. White Chapel Boulevard extending from the entry street of Clariden Ranch to the north driveway of this site. The turn lane must extend a minimum of 200' south of the entry street (200' = min.100' stacking depth + 100' of transition length). This continuous turn lane is to be constructed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 2. Provide a pedestrian striped and signed crosswalk across White Chapel Road. Connect to the future trail system located on the east side of White Chapel Road. Informational Comments: Any outside storage, outdoor sale or display also requires that the tenant process and have approved a specific use permit. 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, and a site plan must be approved by P & Z and City Council. All plans must be submitted to the building department which would include a fully corrected site plan, landscape plan, irrigation plan, and building plans. All required fees must be paid. This may include but not be limited to the following fees: Park Fee, Street, Water & Sewer Impact, Tap Fees, and related Permit Fees. This review is based on the "CS" Zoning District Regulations. Case No. Attachment D ZA 01-042 Page 1 * This site falls within the applicability of the residential adjacency standards as amended by Ordinance 480-CC, Section 43, Part III "Residential Adjacency Standards" Although no review of the following issues is provided with this concept plan, the applicant must evaluate the site for compliance prior to submittal of the site plan. A Site Plan must be submitted and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council prior to issuance of a building permit. Note that these issues are only the major areas of site plan review and that the applicant is responsible for compliance with all site plan requirements: • Masonry requirements per §43.13a, Ordinance 480, as amended and Masonry Ordinance No. 557, as amended. • Roof design standards per § 43.13b, Ordinance 480, as amended • Mechanical Equipment Screening per § 43.13c, Ordinance 480, as amended. • Vertical and horizontal building articulation (required on all building facades) per §43.13d, Ordinance 480, as amended. • Building setback standards as per § 43.13h and as shown in exhibit 43-E, Ordinance 480, as amended. • Spill -over lighting and noise per §43.13i and §43.13j, Ordinance 480, as amended. • Off-street parking requirements per §35, Ordinance 480, as amended. All areas intended for vehicular use must be of an all weather surface material in accordance with the Ordinance No. 480, as amended. • Screening as per §39.4, Ordinance 480, as amended. • Interior landscaping per Landscape Ordinance No. 544. • Fire lanes must be approved by the City Fire Department. NACOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-FILES\MEMO\2001CASES\01-042ZCP.DOC Case No. ZA 01-042 Attachment D Page 2 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The Thoroughfare Plan recommends that North White Chapel Boulevard be ultimately designed as a two (2) lane undivided collector (C2U-70' R.O.W.) with 16travel lanes and a 2' curb and gutter section. Adequate R.O.W. exists to accommodate the ultimate cross-section. A C2U roadway is designed to have a maximum service volume of 8,400 vehicle trips per day and still maintain a level of service D. White Chapel Boulevard is currently operating at a level of service of B. This section of White Chapel Road has not received funding in the City's Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for improvements. Roadway Network North White Chapel Boulevard is currently a two (2) lane collector roadway with 35 feet of pavement width and bar ditches. A planned roadway leading to the recently approved Clariden Ranch subdivision (Clariden Ranch Road) will be located just south of the site. This will be a local residential road with 24' of pavement. Surrounding Land Uses The subject parcel is located just west of Bob Jones Park along North White Chapel Boulevard. The approved Crown Ridge Subdivision (49 lots) is located just to the north of the site. The approved Clariden Ranch Subdivision (59 lots) is located to the south and west of this property. Current Traffic Counts Traffic counts on North White Chapel Boulevard from Dove Street to Bob Jones Road are as follows (See Table 1): Table #1 The current traffic counts,on White Chapel Boulevard: 24hr North Bound 1,192 South Bound (SB) (1,120 NB Peak A.M. 82 6a.m.-7a.m. Peak P.M. 136 5 .m.-6 .m SB Peak A.M. 85 7a.m-8a.m. Peak P.M. 116 6 .m.-7 .m. Source: City of Southlake 2000 Traffic Count Report Case No. Attachment E ZA O1-042 Page 1 Case No. ZA 01-042 Traffic counts on T.W. King from Kirkwood Drive to Bob Jones Road are as follows (See Table 2): s Table2 ' The cur 04—traffic counts on fi V Kii1 .: 24hr North Bound 2,630 South Bound (SB) (2,351 NB Peak A.M. 316 7a.m.-8a.m. Peak P.M. 231 5 .m.-6 .m SB Peak A.M. 135 9a.m-10a.m. Peak P.M. 254 6 .m.-7 .m. aource: uny of wurnme -Iuvv I rajjic Count Report Start and Dismissal Times of the School Morning Start: 8:00 a.m. Middle and High School 8:30 a.m. Preschool and Elementary School Afternoon Dismissal: 12:00 noon 1/2 of Preschool 3:00 p.m. 1/2 of Preschool 3:15 Elementary School 3:30 Middle and High School 5:45 Extended Daycare Enrollment Projections The initial number of students on campus is estimated to be 200 and will include preschool through Middle School. Ultimate enrollment is projected to be 630 students, including 160 high school students. Traffic Impact Staff has projected the following traffic impact on the surrounding roadway network during peak traffic times (See Table #3). - Attachment E Page 2 Case No. ZA 01-042 Table #3 Traffic Impact on Adjacent Street During Peak Traffic Hours (7:00-8:00 a.m. & 5:00-6:00 p.m.) of the Adjacent Street Traffic (Ultimate Build-Out-630 Students) Start Time Students x Avg. Rate Total Trips In Out 8:00 AM 1 240 x .92 221 139 82 8:30 AM 1 390 x .92 359 226 133 Dismissal Students x Avg. Rate Total Trips In Out Noon 85 x .64 18 18 24 3:00 P.M. 60 x .64 17 17 22 3:15 P.M. 144 x .64 62 62 82 3:30 P.M. 154 x .64 66 66 88 5:45 P.M. 126 x .64 11 11 15 Source: Total Daily Vehicle Trips 336 Trip Generation Handbook, 6`h Edition Staff has projected that this site will generate approximately 1,000 vehicle trips per day. Nearly 100% of trips generated from the site will be primary trips; therefore, it is projected that approximately 1,000 new trips will be added to the adjacent roadway system if the site is approved. 2025 Modeled Traffic Volumes The North Central Texas Council of Governments' Transportation Department projected that 24-hour traffic volumes in 2025 along N. White Chapel Boulevard will be 7,802 trips per day. However, the model likely assumed that the subject tract would be developed residentially. It is estimated that if this tract is developed residentially, the site will add approximately 200 trips per day unto the surrounding roadways. As mentioned above, staff has projected that the school site will generate approximately 1,000 vehicle trips. White Chapel Boulevard's ultimate designed can handle up to 8,400 vehicle trips per day and still function at a level of service D. Carter and Burgess has conducted a Traffic Impact Analysis for the Clariden School. The findings of the study concluded that the intersection analyses indicates no significant impact is anticipated to the level of service at the intersections with the addition of the school traffic, either in 2002 or 2010. (See pages 14 & 15 of this memo). Attachment E Page 3 Overview Internal Circulation The entrance to the school site will be from the northern drive along White Chapel Boulevard. This drive will connect to a loop drive on site. The exit from the school site will be from the southern drive that accesses onto Clariden Ranch Road. The drives entering and exiting the site are double lanes. The arrows on the concept plan below indicate the internal traffic flow on site (See Figure # 1). Figure #1 Stacking Analysis for Clariden Under Maximum Enrollment (630 Students) A stacking analysis for the Clariden School was prepared by Carter and Burgess per the Planning Department's request. Below is a summary of the report provided by Carter and Burgess. Case No. Attachment E ZA 01-042 Page 4 I. 8:00 A.M. Start Time (High School and Middle School) -Table #4 Table #4 Assumptions utilized for High School and Middle School analysis: • 139 Vehicles Inbound (See Table 3) • The 139 Vehicles will all arrive over a fifteen minute period. This results in 9.27 vehicle per minute. • Allow each vehicle three minutes (3) to unload=28 minutes in the que. • Each vehicle requires 20 feet of stacking length. Stacking Availability- 8:00 A.M. Start Time -High School & Middle School • Entry Road is 475 feet x 2 lanes = 950 feet • 100 feet to the high school drop off = 100 feet • 200 feet to middle school drop off = 200 feet Total staking availability on site is 1,250 feet Total stacking availability on and off -site =1,915 feet (36 mile). Availability stacking versus inbound vehicles Available stacking versus inbound vehicles: • 1,250 feet available / 20 feet per vehicle = 62 vehicles accommodated on property. • 28 Vehicles in queue/ Capacityfor 62 vehicles = 45% of on property capacity in use. Table #5 Assumptions utilized for the Preschool and Elementary School analysis: • 226 Vehicles Inbound (See Table 3) • The vehicles will arrive over a fifteen minute period = 15.07 vehicles per minute. • Allowing an average of three minutes per vehicle to unload = 45 vehicles in queue. • Each vehicle requires 20 feet of stacking length. Stacking Availability: • 475 feet entry roadway times two lanes = 950 feet • 300 feet to fast Elementary School Drop-off = 300 feet Total staking availability on site is 1,250 feet Total stacking availability on and off -site =1,915 feet (.36 mile). Case No. Attachment E ZA 01-042 Page 5 Available stacking versus inbound vehicles: (Table #5 -Continued) • 1,620 feet available /20 feet per vehicle = 81 vehicles accommodated on property • 45 Vehicles in queue / Capacityfor 81 vehicles = 56% of on property capacity in use. III. 3:15 PM Elementary School Release Time -Table #6 Table #6 Assumptions utilized for the Preschool and Elementary School analysis: • 62 Trips Inbound • 82 Trips Outbound • Assuming an initial stacking of 20 vehicles from the 20 extra trips going outbound th arrived prior to the 62 inbound trips, and assuming the 62 inbound trips arrive over a ten minute period, then; 62 / 10 = 6.2 vehicle per minute. Allowing an average of fi-v minutes per vehicle to load = 31 vehicles in queue. Adding the 20 vehicles in initial stack = 51 vehicles in queue. Stacking Availability: • 475 feet entry roadway times two lanes = 950 feet • 300 feet to first Elementary School Entrance = 300 feet • 370 feet to second Elementary School Entrance = 370 feet • Total stacking availability = 1,620 feet Available stacking versus inbound vehicles: • 1, 620 feet available / 20 feet per vehicle = 81 vehicles accommodated on property • 51 Vehicles in queue / Capacityfor 81 vehicles = 63 % of on property capacity in � IV. 3:30 PM Middle and High School Release Time Vehiclesr-Table #7 Table #7 Assumptions used for the Middle School and High School analysis: • 66 Trips Inbound • 88 Trips Outbound • Assuming an initial stacking of 22 vehicles from the 22 extra trips going outbound th arrived prior to the 66 inbound trips, and assuming the 66 inbound trips arrive over a ten minute period, then; 66 / 10 = 6.6 vehicle per minute. Allowing an average of fiN minutes per vehicle to load = 33 vehicles in queue. Adding the 22 vehicles in initial stack = 55 vehicles in queue. Case No. Attachment E ZA 01-042 Page 6 Stacking Availability: • 475 feet entry roadway times two lanes = 950 feet • 100 feet to High School Entrance = 100 feet • 200 feet to Middle School Entrance = 200 feet • Total stacking availability = 1,250 feet Available stacking versus inbound vehicles (Table #7 Continued): • 1,250 feet available / 20 feet per vehicle = 62 vehicles accommodated on property • 55 Vehicles in queue/ Capacityfor 62 vehicles = 89% of on property capacity in use. Findings of the Stacking Analysis This analysis assumed that all stacking would occur prior to the desired entrance location. The results of the analysis show that all of the queuing for the school morning drop-offs and afternoon pick-ups should be accommodated on the school property. The morning drop-offs should be accomplished using just over half of the available stacking space leading to the appropriate school entrances on the property. Picking up in the afternoon should also be accomplished within the available stacking space leading to the entrances. The elementary school pick-up is estimated to use 63% of the stacking capacity and the middle and high school pick-up is estimated to use 89% of the stacking capacity. However, the 89% use may be overstated due to some of the high school students driving their own cars and therefore not being in the queue. It is also unlikely that the older students would take as long to load into the vehicles. The Carter and Burgess analysis did not consider two (2) areas that may be utilized for stacking. First, the analysis did not factor in the 655' continuous turn lane along White Chapel Boulevard. This continuous turn lane can accommodate up to 32 vehicles for stacking purposes. Second, the analysis did not factor in the additional 500 feet south of the circle roadway that could be used for stacking an additional 25 vehicles with proper safety/traffic control supervision. In addition, ample parking will also be available on the property for parents who need to run into the school, so they won't interrupt the flow of traffic in the queue. Transportation Factors to Consider The AM peak traffic time for the school and AM peak traffic times for the surrounding roadways will occur during the same general time period. The school site is projected to generate approximately 800 more vehicle trips per day than if the site was developed residentially. Trip counts along the surrounding roadways during the AM Peak Time will Case No. Attachment E ZA 01-042 Page 7 increase with the development of the Crown Ridge and Clariden Ranch Subdivisions. • The PM peak traffic time for the school is earlier in the day than the peak P.M. traffic times for the surrounding roadways. • The peak traffic times for Bob Jones Park occur in the evenings and on Saturdays and Sundays. The overall level of service at the existing and future intersections in the area will remain the same or decrease slightly with a private school locating at the subject site. 0 Current drive design in conjunction with the continuous left turn lane along White Chapel Road is sufficient to handle the school's vehicle stacking demand. Transportation Recommendations Based on the review of the proposed concept plan and traffic information, staff is making the following recommendations in regards to transportation improvements: 1. In order to ensure the safest possible traffic circulation and turning movements near the school and to build in additional capacity into the intersections along White Chapel Road, staff recommends that the school provide a continuous left turn lane on N. White Chapel Boulevard extending from the entry street of Clariden Ranch to the north driveway of this site. The turn lane must extend a minimum of 200' south of the entry street (200' = min.100' stacking depth + 100' of transition length). This turn lane should be constructed prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 2. To increase safety for students, faculty and residents crossing White Chapel Boulevard, provide a pedestrian striped and signed crosswalk across White Chapel Road. Connect to the future trail system located on the east side of White Chapel Road. Case No. Attachment E ZA 01-042 Page 8 Table 4 Projected 2010 Background Traffic Intersection Level of Service AM Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour •ntersection �o� Direction Movamenl Traffic Volume Approach Intersection Traft Volunm Approach Intersection Average Delay (SemMsl Level of Service Average Delay (Seconds/ Level Service Average DeleY (Semnds/ Level of Service A"ere9e Delay (Seconds/ Level Service TAN King Gladden Ranch Road Wind Left 25 9.4 A 9.4 A 20 9.2 A 9.2 A Right 5 1 Northbound -Though 85 &1 Right 10 30 Southbound Left 1 7.4 A 2 7.4 A Through 85 30 White Chapel BI a Gen Ranch Road Eastbound 9.5 A 9.5 A 9.0 A 9.0 A Right 12 6 Northbound Left Through 4 71 7.7 A 18 7.4 A 165 Sa:thbound Through 200 70 Right 1 1 While Chapel Blvd N @ Dove Road Eastbound Left 48 110 B 12.0 B 32 9.7 A 9.7 A Right 199 155 Northbound Left 308 8.5 A 117 7.6 A Through 27 155 Southbound Through 28 16 184 60 Kirkvood Blvd Dove Road 40.87 E 29.64 D 8.6Thrdt A 8.36 A Eastbound h 14 133 Westbound Through 392 16.11 C 119 813 A Right 100 30 Southbound Left 43 lo.'r6 8 54 7.97 A Right 117 354 White Chapel48 Blvd. N @ SH 114 Eastbound Left 136 15.8 C 11.6 a 45 13.1 8 11.1 B Through 70 39 Right toe 111 Westbound Left 65 24.1 C 71 20.8 C Through 45 27 Right 49 Northbound Left '.57 14.9 B 55 14.4 B Through 150 179 Right 55 30 Southbound Left 67 18.4 C 35 12.8 1 B Through 60 55 1 90 81 VE( P"r% 2 0 Z401 Case No. Attachment E ZA 01-042 Page 9 A Case No. ZA 01-042 Table 5 Projected 2010 Intersection Level of Service with Clariden School AM Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour �ntersecucn Approach Direction 1Aovernenl Traffic Volume Intersection Traffic Volume A ch Intersedwn Avenge Delay (Seco " Level of Service Average Delay (Seconds; Level of Service Average Delay (Seconds/ Level of Service Average Delay (Seconds/ V.hi- Level of Service TW King g Clanoen. Rancn Road Westbound Left 25 9.4 A 9.4 A 20 9.2 A 9.2 A Right Right 5 1 Northbound T9h 64 Right 10 30 Souelbound Left 1 7.4 A 2 74 A Through 85 30 'AM'le �naptl 91 a O' 4 RanU Road Eastbound Left 6 11.1 a 11.1 B 6 9.6 A 96 A Right 222 192 ou Northbnd Loll 4 7.7 A t 8 7.4 A Through 429 307 Soud+bournd Through 200 70 1 1 Whits Chapel Blvd N a Clanden school Entrance Led 359 8.7 A 8.7 A 142 77 A 7.7 A NorVtbwnd Through72 165 Souerbarrd Through 201 71 ht 7 2 W hole Chapel &vd N® Dove Road Eastbound Lsft 24.4 C 2414 C 11.8 B i 1.8 a Right 196 155 NoMbouW Left 308 9.4 A 117 8.1 A Through -leg 286 Sotthbound Through 228 193 Right 19.4 69 Kirkwood Blvd Dove Road Easmou a Left 1339 44.48 E 3t.96 D 82 8.67 A 8A2 A TN-O 240 140 WastDourd Through 402 18.81 C 128 8.31 A Right 100 30 Soulhbound Left 43 10.51 B 54 8.01 A t 117 35 W hRe Chapel &vc. N it SH 114 Eastbound Left 184 182 C 12.2 a 11 6t 17.1 C 11.0 a Through 70 39 Right 108 ill Westbound Left 85 23.6 C 71 22.6 C Through 45 27 Right 746 82 ':restb-d Left 157 15.3 .. 55 +5.0 a Through 347 264 Right 55 30 Scuthbound Leff 109 176 C 79 11.2 a Through 187 167 102 t 121 RECT MAR 2 0 2001 Attachment E Page 10 During the P&Z public hearing held on March 22, 2001 for case number ZA01-017, a number of concerns and questions were raised by citizens during the public hearing. Below is a list with a staff response. SAFETY RELATED ISSUES: 1. What are the current fire/rescue and police response times to the proposed Clariden School site? STAFF RESPONSE: Fire & Rescue -7 minutes and 37 seconds; Police - 6 minutes and 46 seconds. 2. What are the estimated fire/rescue and police response times to the Clariden School site once the DPS north facility located at the intersection of Dove Street and N. White Chapel Boulevard is constructed? STAFF RESPONSE: The current goal for emergency response within the response area of the city is to respond and arrive within 7 minutes 30 seconds (medical/injured persons) and 8 minutes 30 seconds 66re/haz-mat related incidents) 80% of the time. When the North DPS facility is constructed, the goal will be reduced to five minute response times within it's response area, 90% of the time. 3. What is the City's best guess regarding the timing of the construction of the DPS North facility? STAFF RESPONSE: Assuming that the Crime Control and Prevention District tax is reauthorized and approved by the- City's voters, it is expected that the facility will be constructed sometime in 2005 or 2006. 4. Will emergency vehicles be able to access the proposed school site if White Chapel Boulevard is flooded by the South Fork of the Kirkwood Branch? STAFF RESPONSE: Yes, emergency vehicles may reach the site by traveling west of State Highway 114 and exiting at Kirkwood Boulevard. The vehicles would then travel west and then north along T. W. King to the proposed Clariden Ranch Road. DPS vehicles may return to the station by traveling south on T. W. King and then west on State Highway 114 to Precinct Line Road in Trophy Club. There is a turnaround at this location that will allow the vehicles to reverse course and head east on State Highway 114 and return to the station. Case No. Attachment F ZA O1-042 Page 1 5. Will the school site result in increased emergency response times due to narrow roads with no shoulder & school vehicle obstruction? STAFF RESPONSE: As mentioned in the stacking analysis, staff believes that the site in conjunction with the continuous center turn lane can adequately handle stacking of the school site and will not block the travel lanes. DRAINAGE RELATED ISSUES 6. What is the frequency of the South Fork of the Kirkwood Branch flooding White Chapel Boulevard? STAFF RESPONSE: According to the Core of Engineers, White Chapel Boulevard has been flooded four (4) times since 1957. (1957, 1981, 1989 and 1991). There are no records that indicate an incidence in the past fifty years that both White Chapel Boulevard and T. W. King have been flooded. See the drainage section of this memo. 7. Will the increased impervious surface coverage increase the rate of the Grapevine. Lake rise. STAFF RESPONSE: The Clariden School Concept Plan indicates that build -out will result in 32.5% of the site being impervious. A typical one (1) acre subdivision will result in approximately 20% impervious coverage. Therefore, a school site will contribute more runoff than a typical one (1) acre subdivision. As mentioned in the drainage section of this memo, if Kirkwood Creek can not handle the runoff created by the school site, the school is required by ordinance to detain the increased runoff on -site. The Clariden School Concept plan indicates a drainage retention area on the concept plan. FINANCIAL RELATED ISSUES 8. Will the Clariden School be exempt from City taxes? STAFF RESPONSE: To be exempt from paying property taxes, the school will need to submit an application for property tax exemption to the Denton County Appraisal District. The school may qualify for exempt status under Section 11.21 of the Texas Property Tax Code. Also, the school must be organized as a charitable organization. The current City tax rate is 0.42200/$100 assessed value. Case No. Attachment F ZA 01-042 Page 2 9. What is the % of families that have children attending Clariden School are Southlake residents? STAFF RESPONSE: Currently 38 out of the 80 families attending the Clariden School reside in Southlake. CARROLL SCHOOL DISTRICT ISSUES 10. Will the C.I.S.D. lose full time equivalent students if the Clariden School is approved? Does this result in a monetary loss to the C.I.S.D.? STAFF RESPONSE: It is difficult to project how many students may attend the Clariden School versus the Carroll Public Schools. For every child that attends a public school, the C.I.S.D. receives approximately $4, 500. 11. Is another C LS.D. elementary planned at White Chapel & Dove Street? STAFF RESPONSE: Yes, Elementary School #6 is scheduled to open in the fall of 2004. This project will be included in the 2002 Bond Election. 12. Will there be an increase on the City budget for eventual road improvements on White Chapel Boulevard to accommodate the school? STAFF RESPONSE: Staff is recommending that the Clariden School construct the continuous center turn lane along White Chapel Boulevard prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The portion of White Chapel Boulevard from State Highway 114 to Dove Street (A5U--94) is scheduled to be funded in FY2001-02 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and will likely be improved during FY 2003 whether or not the school locates at the subject site. The portion of White Chapel Boulevard north of Dove Street is currently not funded in the CIP. It is not known if the location of the Clariden School will result in City Council moving the White Chapel Boulevard north of Dove Street project up as a CIP priority. Also, it is not known if the City Council will allow the school to take Roadway Impact Fee credits towards the construction of the continuous center turn lane. This will be determined during at the Developer's Agreement phase. Case No. Attachment F ZA 01-042 Page 3 TRANSPORTATION ISSUES 13. Will the school at this location result in excessive traffic along White Chapel Road? Staff Response: The school site at build -out is projected to generate approximately 800 more vehicle trips per day than a if this property was developed residentially. See traffic information in this memo. 14. Will excessive vehicle stacking occur at pick-up and drop-off times? STAFF RESPONSE: The site design and the continuous turn lane along PVhite Chapel Road can adequately handle stacking on site. See stacking information in this memo. 15. Are the hours of operation incompatible with the adjacent surrounding land uses? STAFF RESPONSE: The AM peak traffic time for the school and AM peak traffic timesfor the surrounding roadways will occur during the same general time period. The PMpeak traffic time for the school is earlier in the day than the peak P.M. traffic times for the surrounding roadways. LIGHTING ISSUE 16. How will possible future lighting of the athletic fields effect surrounding properties? STAFF RESPONSE: The Concept Plan as submitted does not indicate the lighting of the sport's fields. If the Clariden School intends to light the fields, the applicant will need to indicate the location of the lights on the site plan and likely need to request a variance to the City's Lighting Ordinance. Until a site plan is submitted indicating the type of lights, the location and the height, it is difficult for the staff to evaluate the impact on surrounding residential properties. Case No. Attachment F ZA 01-042 Page 4 LAND USE PLAN ISSUE 17. Is a private school use inconsistent with the Land Use Plan? STAFF RESPONSE: The City of Southlake Land Use Plan states "The Low Density Residential category is for detached single-family residential development at a net density of one or fewer dwelling units per acre. Other suitable activities are those permitted in Public Parks/Open Space and Public/Semi-Public categories described previously. The Low Density Residential category encourages openness and rural character of the City of Southlake". Private schools are listed as a suitable use in the Public/Semi Public land use category. Case No. Attachment F ZA 01-042 Page 5 Surrounding Property Owners Clariden School Propertv Owner Zoning Land Use Description Acreage 1. Southlake-Solana 1. SF-lA 1. Low Density Residential 1. 38.65 2. City of Southlake 2. AG 2. Public Parks/Open Space 2. 117.86 3. R. Galvin 3. AG 3. Low Density Residential 3. 31.12 4. B. Lamoreaux 4. AG 4. Low Density Residential 4. 31.87 Case No. Attachment G ZA 01-042 Page 1 Surrounding Property Owner Responses Clariden School NOTICES SENT: Three (3) RESPONSES: One (1) response was received from within the 200' notification area: • Barbara Lamoreau, 6967 Blackwod Drive, Dallas, TX, in favor, "We need more good schools. It is a perfect place across from a city park." (Received April 11, 2001) Twenty-two (22) responses were received from beyond the 200' notification area: • Susan K. Campbell, 1004 Dominion Drive, Southlake, TX, in favor, "I would like to inform Planning and Zoning that I am in favor of the relocation of the Clariden School." (Received March 19, 2001) • Vibha Tyagi, 939 Midland Creek Drive, Southlake, TX, in favor, " I support the effort of Clariden School to relocate to its new site." (Received March 20, 2001) • Manish Tyagi, 939 Midland Creek Drive, Southlake, TX, in favor. (Received March 20, 200 1) • Meeta and Amar Sawla, 600 Truelove Trail, Southlake, TX, in favor, "Respected members of the Southlake P & Z Committee, please support The Clariden School in relocating in Southlake itself. We need to offer an excellent private school such as The Clariden School as an option to our children. It is a fine educational institution with a team of very dedicated teachers." (Received March 20, 200 1) • Melanie Marshall, 2300 Timberline #262, Grapevine, TX, in favor, "I am a primary teacher at the Clariden School and have taught there for 9 years. I am very proud of this school and have never seen another school like his that teaches respect and academics. I give my total support to this school." (Received March 20, 2001) • Sheryl Zimmerman, 16.56 Creekside Drive, Southlake, TX, in favor, "I strongly support building a new facility for the Clariden School on North White Chapel." (Received March 20, 2001) • Kevin, Karen, and Rachael Holt, 1616 Pecos Drive, Southlake, TX, in favor. See attached letter. (Received March 21, 200 1) • Charlane Baccus, 3300 Mill Ridge, Bedford, TX, in favor. See attached letter. (Received March 21, 2001) • Michelle Miller, 420 Brooks Court, Southlake, TX, in favor. See attached letter. (Received March 21, 200 1) • Debra L. Graves and Scott D. Widell, 808 Elmbrook Court, Southlake, T.X in favor. See attached letter. (Received March 22, 2001) Case No. Attachment H ZA 01-042 Page 1 • Clarissa Fruci, 806 Gateshead Court, Southlake, TX, in favor, " I am a Southlake resident and strongly support the request of the Clariden School to build a new school off of White Chapel Road." (Received March 22, 2001) • Robert B. Rowland, 400 Bryn Meadows, Southlake, TX, in favor. See attached letter. (Received March 22, 2001) • Nikki R. Wilkins, 400 Bryn Meadows, Southlake, TX, in favor. See attached letter. (Received March 22, 2001) • Dave Boissevain, 910 Carriage Way, Southlake, TX, in favor. See attached letter. (Received March 22, 2001) • Kathleen Sinnott-Boissevain, Southlake, TX, in favor. See attached letter. (Received March 22, 2001) • Sheila and Robert Halliman, 104 Swallow Court, Southlake, TX, in favor. See attached letter. (Received March 22, 2001) • Mike and Sue Lewis, 4564 Homestead Drive, Southlake, TX, opposed. See attached letter. (Received March 22, 2001) • The Lewis Family, 4564 Homestead Drive, Southlake, TX, opposed. See attached letter. (Received March 27, 2001) • Jim Miller, 420 Brooks Court, Southlake, TX, in favor. See attached letter. (Received April 3, 2001) • Michael and Michelle Lawrence, 32 Meadowbrook Lane, Trophy Club, TX, in favor. See attached letter. (Received March 28, 2001) • Richard Anderson, 4553 N. White Chapel Blvd., Roanoke (Southlake), TX, opposed. See attached letter. (Received April 17, 2001) • Robert and Sheila Halliman, in favor. See attached letter. (Received April 19, 2001) A petition with 746 signatures in favor was received on March 22, 2001. See attached petition. A petition with 126 signatures opposed was received on March 22, 2001. See attached petition. Case No. Attachment H ZA 01-042 Page 2 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS ORDINANCE NO.480-363 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 A PORTION OF TRACTS 1 AND IA, SITUATED IN THE W. MILLS SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 877 AND BEING 23.050 ACRES, AND MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" FROM "AG" AGRICULTURAL TO "S-P-2" GENERALIZED SITE PLAN DISTRICT WITH "CS" COMMUNITY SERVICE USES LIMITED TO PRIVATE SCHOOL AND USES APPURTENANT TO PRIVATE SCHOOL OPERATIONS, AS DEPICTED ON THE APPROVED CONCEPT PLAN 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 Case No. Attachment I ZA 01-042 Page 1 WHEREAS, the hereinafter described property is currently zoned as "AG" Agriclutural 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 Case No. Attachment I ZA 01-042 Page 2 public necessity for the zoning changes, that the public demands them, that the public interest clearly requires the amendments, and that the zoning changes do not unreasonably invade the rights of those who bought or improved property with reference to the classification which existed at the time their original investment was made; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that the changes in zoning lessen the congestion in the streets, helps secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers, promotes the health and the general welfare, provides adequate light and air, prevents the over- crowding of land, avoids undue concentration of population, and facilitates the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, has determined that there is a necessity and need for the changes in zoning and has also found and determined that there has been a change in the conditions of the property surrounding and in close proximity to the tract or tracts of land requested for a change since the tract or tracts of land were originally classified and therefore feels that the respective changes in zoning classification for the tract or tracts of land are needed, are called for, and are in the best interest of the public at large, the citizens of the city of Southlake, Texas, and helps promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS: 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: Case No. Attachment I ZA 01-042 Page 3 Being a portion of Tracts 1 and IA, situated in the W. Mills Survey, Abstract No. 877, and being 23.050 acres, and more fully and completely described in Exhibit "A" from "AG" Agriculutural to "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District with CS" community service uses limited to a private school and uses appurtenant to private school operations as depicted on the approved Site Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit `B", and subject to the specific conditions established in the motion of the City Council and attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C." 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 Case No. Attachment I ZA 01-042 Page 4 and with a view of conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the community. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall be cumulative of all other ordinances of the City of Southlake, Texas, affecting zoning and shall not repeal any of the provisions of said ordinances except in those instances where provisions of those ordinances are in direct conflict with the provisions of this ordinance. SECTION 6. That the terms and provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be severable and that if the validity of the zoning affecting any portion of the tract or tracts of land described herein shall be declared to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the zoning of the balance of said tract or tracts of land described herein. 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 Case No. Attachment I ZA 01-042 Page 5 disposition by the courts. SECTION 9. The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to publish the proposed ordinance or its caption and penalty together with a notice setting out the time and place for a public hearing thereon at least ten (10) days before the second reading of this ordinance, and if this ordinance provides for the imposition of any penalty, fine or forfeiture for any violation of any of its provisions, then the City Secretary shall additionally publish this ordinance in the official City newspaper one time within ten (10) days after passage of this ordinance, as required by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake. SECTION 10. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law, and it is so ordained. PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st reading the day of , 2001. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY Case No. Attachment I ZA 01-042 Page 6 PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the day of , 2001. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CITY ATTORNEY DATE: ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: Case No. Attachment I ZA 01-042 Page 7 A EXHIBIT "A" THE CLARIDEN SCHOOL Preliminary Metes and Bounds Description of Property Note: Plat pending. Preliminary Plat has been approved as Clariden Ranch Addn., Block 1 Lot 7. City of Southlake. Denton County, TX. BEING a carcel of land out of a 31.876 acre tract of land situated in the W. Mills Survey Abstract Number 877, in the City of Southlake, Denton County, Texas, that same tract of land conveyed to Dore R. Galvir and descrbed as Exhibit C in a Partition Deed recorded in Volume 2238 at Page 541 of the Deed Records of Dentcr County, Texas (hereinafter referred to as D.R.D.C.T.) AND out of a 31.877 acre tract of land situated in the W. Mills Surrey Abstract 877 in the City of Southlake. Denton County, Texas, that same tract of land conveyed to Barbara G. Lamoreaux and described as Exhibit B in a Partition Deed recorded in Volume 2238 at Page 541 of the D.R.D.C.T., said parcel being more fully described as follows: Commencing at a %cinch steel rod set for corner at the southwest corner of a tract of land conveyed to Earl Sproles as shown in a deed recorded in Volume 446 at Page 14 D.R.D.C.T., said Yz-inch steel rod being on the west side of a public road known as T.W. King Road; THENCE a:ong the west side of said public road the following: North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 891.51 feet to a ii-inch steel rod set for corner: North 29 degrees 20 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 261.64 feet to a '/2-inch steel rod set for corner; North 21 degrees 45 minutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 100.35 feet to a ' i-inch steel rod set for corner; Ncrth 13 degrees 32 minutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 100.00 feet to a '/z-inch steel rod set for comer from which a found 5/8-inch steel rod bears North 66 degrees 43 minutes 09 seconds East, a distance of 2.94 feet; THENCE South 89 degrees 54 minutes 29 seconds East, departing from the west line of said public road, at a distance of 463.67 feet passing a !,i-inch steel rod found for corner at the southeast corner of a called 2.0 acre tract of land conveyed to Linnie Johnson as shown in a deed recorded in Volume 373 at Page 195 D.R.D.C.T. and continuing along the south line of a called 38.646 acre tract of land conveyed to SouthlakeiSolana Ltd. as shown in a deed recorded in Volume 4033 at Page 1933 D.R.D.C.T. for a totai distance of 909.72 feet to a irinch steel rod set for corner and being the northwest corner of a tract of land conveyed to Barbara G. Lamoreaux and described in a Partition Deed recorded in Volume 2238 at Page 541 of the said Denton County Deed Records; THENCE South 89 degrees 49 minutes 45 seconds East, continuing along the south line of said SouthlakeiSolana Tract and along the north line of said Lamoreaux Tract a distance of 1059.91 feet to a 'r inch steel rod for corner and being the north common comer between said Lamoreaux Tract and said Galvin Tract and being the POINT OF BEGINNING; Case No. ZA 01-042 RFPT - '? 12 2 " - Attachment I Page 8 THENCE South 89 degrees 49 minutes 45 seconds East, along the common line between said Southlake/Solana Tract and said Galvin Tract, a distance of 1059.91 feet to a P.K. nail and shiner set for corner in the approximate centerline of White Chapel Road (a public road); THENCE South 00 degrees 19 minutes 00 seconds West, along the approximate centerline of White Chapel Road. a distance of 904.44 feet to a point for corner: THENCE South 89 degrees 56 minutes 45 seconds West, a distance of 298.92 feet to a point: THENCE along a curve to the left having a radius of 580.00 feet, a tangent of 113.52 feet, a delta of 22 degrees 08 minutes and 56 seconds and an arc length of 224.21 feet to a point; THENCE South 67 degrees 47 minutes 49 seconds West, a distance of 62.92 feet to a point; THENCE along a curve to the right having a radius of 514.00 feet, a tangent of 106.64 feet, a delta of 23 degrees 26 minutes and 27 seconds and an arc length of 210.29 feet to a point; THENCE North 88 degrees 45 minutes 45 seconds West, a distance of 93.05 feet to a point; THENCE North 05 degrees 24 minutes 34 seconds West. a distance of 245.92 feet to a point, THENCE along a non -tangent curve to the right with a chord bearing North 46 degrees 23 minutes 55 seconds 'West: a distance of 177.42 feet and having a radius of 212.76 feet, a tangent of 97.60 feet, a delta of 49 degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds and an arc length of 183.01 feet to a point, THENCE North 16 degrees 38 minutes 19 seconds West, a distance of 177.10 feet to a point; THENCE along a non -tangent curve to the left with a chord bearing North 25 degrees 26 minutes 49 seconds West; a distance of 178.57 feet and having a radius of 553.88 feet, a tangent of 90.47 feet, a delta of 18 degrees 33 minutes 12 seconds and an arc length of 179.35 feet to a point; THENCE North 34 degrees 07 minutes 49 seconds West. a distance of 41.98 feet to a point; THENCE North 04 degrees 47 minutes 17 seconds East. a distance of 279.05 feet to a point; THENCE South 89 degrees 49 minutes 31 seconds East along the common line between said Southlake/Solana Tract and along the north line of said Lamoreaux Tract, a distance of 98 63 feet :c :he POINT OF BEGINNING, and CONTAINING 23.050 acres of land more or less. Case No. Attachment I ZA 01-042 Page 9 EXHIBIT "B" ssa6�n8.�ayrc� IOOHOS N]4121 D 3H- M Case No. Attachment I ZA01-042 Page 10 EXHIBIT "B" SP-2 with CS Uses Zoning Change Zoning Case #ZA01-042 - The Clariden School 19 April 2001 7. Land use of property will be restricted to private school and uses appurtenant to private school operations. 8. School enrollment will be limited to 700 students. 9. A continuous north -bound left -turn lane will be provided on North White Chapel Blvd. from the north school entry southward 100' past Clariden Ranch Road and with a 100' taper. 10. Lighting design and installation will adhere to Ordinance No. 693-B (Lighting Ordinance). Illumination and luminance levels will not exceed values established in the Lighting Ordinance. Any future variance requests will follow the city's established approval procedure. 11. A striped cross -walk will be provided across North White Chapel Blvd. to connect the school with Bob Jones Park. 12. A school zone with signage and flashing lights will be provided. Cc: The Clariden School Case No. ZA01-042 Attachment I Page 11 EXHIBIT "C" This page reserved for the approved City Council motion. Case No. Attachment I ZA01-042 Page 12 t. R Surrounding Property Owner Responses Clariden School NOTICES SENT: Three (3) RESPONSES: One (1) response was received from within the 200' notification area: Case No. ZA01-042 • Barbara Lamoreau, 6967 Blackwod Drive, Dallas, TX, in favor, "We need more good schools. It is a perfect place across from a city park." (Received April 11, 2001) Twenty-two (22) responses were received from beyond the 200' notification area: • Susan K. Campbell, 1004 Dominion Drive, Southlake, TX, in favor, "I would like to inform Planning and Zoning that I am in favor of the relocation of the Clariden School." (Received March 19, 2001) • Vibha Tyagi, 939 Midland Creek Drive, Southlake, TX, in favor, " I support the effort of Clariden School to relocate to its new site." (Received March 20, 2001) • Manish Tyagi, 939 Midland Creek Drive, Southlake, TX, in favor. (Received March 20, 2001) • Meeta and Amar Sawla, 600 Truelove Trail, Southlake, TX, in favor, "Respected members of the Southlake P & Z Committee, please support The Clariden School in relocating in Southlake itself. We need to offer an excellent private school such as The Clariden School as an option to our children. It is a fine educational institution with a team of very dedicated teachers." (Received March 20, 2001) • Melanie Marshall, 2300 Timberline #262, Grapevine, TX, in favor, "I am a primary teacher at the Clariden School and have taught there for 9 years. I am very proud of this school and have never seen another school like this that teaches respect and academics. I give my total support to this school." (Received March 20, 2001) s Sheryl Zimmerman, 1656 Creekside Drive, Southlake, TX, in favor, "I strongly support building a new facility for the Clariden School on North White Chapel." (Received March 20, 2001) Kevin, Karen, and Rachael Holt, 1616 Pecos Drive, Southlake, TX, in favor. See attached letter. (Received March 21, 2001) Case No. ZA01-042 Attachment J • Charlane Baccus, 3300 Mill Ridge, Bedford, TX, in favor. See attached letter. (Received March 21, 2001) • Michelle Miller, 420 Brooks Court, Southlake, TX, in favor. See attached letter. (Received March 21, 2001) • Debra L. Graves and Scott D. Widell, 808 Elmbrook Court, Southlake, TX, in favor. See attached letter. (Received March 22, 2001) • Clarissa Fruci, 806 Gateshead Court, Southlake, TX, in favor, "I am a Southlake resident and strongly support the request of the Clariden School to build a new school off of White Chapel Road." (Received March 22, 2001) • Robert B. Rowland, 400 Bryn Meadows, Southlake, TX, in favor. See attached letter. (Received March 22, 2001) • Nikki R. Wilkins, 400 Bryn Meadows, Southlake, TX, in favor. See attached letter. (Received March 22, 2001) • Dave Boissevain, 910 Carriage Way, Southlake, TX, in favor. See attached letter. (Received March 22, 2001) • Kathleen Sinnott-Boissevain, Southlake, TX, in favor. See attached letter. (Received March 22, 2001) • Sheila and Robert Halliman, 104 Swallow Court, Southlake, TX, in favor. See attached letter. (Received March 22, 2001) • Mike and Sue Lewis, 4564 Homestead Drive, Southlake, TX, opposed. See attached letter. (Received March 22, 2001) �w • The Lewis Family, 4564 Homestead Drive, Southlake, TX, opposed. See attached letter. (Received March 27, 2001) • Jim Miller, 420 Brooks Court, Southlake, TX, in favor. See attached letter. (Received April 3, 2001) • Michael and Michelle Lawrence, 32 Meadowbrook Lane, Trophy Club, TX, in favor. March 28, 2001) • Richard Anderson, 4553 N. (Southlake), TX, opposed. April 17, 2001) See attached letter. (Received: White Chapel Blvd., Roanoke See attached letter. (Received • Robert and Sheila Halliman, in favor. See attached letter. (Received April 19, 2001) A petition with 746 signatures in favor was received on March 22, 2001. See attached petition. A petition with 126 signatures opposed was received on March 22, 2001. See attached petition. Case No. ZA01-042 Jenny Crosby_______ From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello, kkhoit@concentric.net Wednesday, March 21, 2001 11:10 AM jcrosby@ci yofsouthlake.com Clariden School I am Karen Holt I live at 1616 Pecos Dr. in Southlake, TX. Kevin, Rachael and I have lived in Southlake for 3 years now and have seen this area grow in many way with the new Town Square. Lowe's and new strip malls. We decided this area for many reasons one being the school system you have and being able to choose a private school with in our community. We would like to see Southlake approve Clariden School's new location off of N. White Chapel. i feel this gives Southlake's parents a choice in educations for the children. Please support the new locaticns for CLARiDEN SCHOOL. Thank you far w our time. Kevin,Karer and Rachael Holt In 1 Jenny Crosby From: Charlane Baccus (cbaccus@c!aridenschool. orgj Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 1:46 PM To: jcrosby@cityofsouth!ake.com Subject: RE: The Clariden School Dear Mr. Crosby, ! am writing on behalf of The Clariden school. I have worked at the school for almost 8 years and have seen the city of Southlake grow from a small town to a beautiful city. The school has enjoyed being part of this community and would like to continue to be here. We are a non profit organization and feel that we are an asset to the City of Southlake. We were given a gift for a new campus this Winter and are excited about being able to remain in what has become a wonderful community. Although ! do not live here(too expensive on a school salary) I do shop & eat in Southlake. I have been a member of the Southlake Chamber of Commerce and have helped on some of their projects. The school ahs been involved in helping with Bicentennial park, GRACE, Food Bank, Christ Haven and the ASPCA-as you can see we have a community spirit. Tnis past year our school was given the Oak Tree award by Keep Southlake Beautifu: for transforming our existing campus into a nicer property. We are another option in education and enjoy teaching children. The staff, students, parents are all hopeful that the City Of Southlake will see our continued value and help us to "share our dream to touch the future". Charlane Baccus 3300 Mill Ridge Bedford, Tx 76021 817-540-0936 Jenny Crosby From: Pinnacledeco@gateway.net Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 4:34 PM To: jcrosby@cityofsouthiake.com Subject: Clariden School Relocation Planning & Zoning Commission: My husband and I are Southlake residents in Spin #1. We are in FULL SUPPORT of the relocation of The Clariden School. We feel that there is support in Spin #1 for the school however, it has been overlooked since the designated neighborhood leaders have such a vocal presence in city activities. I am not accurately represented by this group that continually opposes every development on White Chapel north of 114. The Clariden School is a outstanding attribute to the City of Southlake and specifically this neighborhood. A city such as Southlake with such an affluent resident base demands having a reputable private school as an alternative to public schools. Most residents in Southlake are very fortunate to have CISD however not all families or children fit in the public school system. With the exception of The Clariden School currently, Southlake does not have a private institution that educates children from rreK to 12th grL,de. Since the school is non profit, it requires a strong parent involvement not only financial but also actively participating 1n various activities with their children and supporting the teachers and administrators in the schools philosphy of raising a well rounded individuals both educationally and socially. I STRONGLY encourage P & Z Commission to SUPPORT the efforts of The Clariden School. Isn't the sole purpose of Planning and zoning to provide and plan for the future of Southlake residents and their children? Thank you, Michelle Miller 420 Brooks Crt 817-430-2509 =POM FAX NO. : 617329499- Jul.. 05 2000 05:27PM P1 SUNBELT F _ Scott D. Widell, ,Reg!ona; titanjger REcion March - 1. 2001 Mr. Dennis Kina, 'Securing Bright Futures" This letter is intended to show our support for the new Clariden school project on North Whites Chapel road. It is my understanding that you arc a chairperson for zoning and planing in the city of Southlake. I also understand that Clariden school has applied for permit's and has met all city requirements. With this in mind, I anticipate your support in this important corununity project. For the sake of brevity we will not include our reasons and arguments in favor of the school, however, should you be interested you may call us at 817-319-4993. In .Earnest, i.J Debra L. Graves 808 Elmbrook Ct. Southlake, TX 76092 _3r; w �P+/'/ i-`Jv`! j -c tK Box 2-..c os, X75220 714-357-9353 • Fcz - i7.9401 c 'rai' Sc .,cgah _om Scott D. Widell 808 Elmbrook Ct. Soutiake, TX 76092 Jenny Crosby From: RobRowiand@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 10:20 AM To: jcrosby@cityofsouthiake.com Subject: Clariden School Dear Sirs: I am writing to request your support for zoning approval for the Clariden School. I can think of no better investment for a community than in it's children. Southlake is known for it's exemplary school systems, and improving the educational opportunities in our community is sure way to make Southlake an even better place. I hope the committee will support this valuable project. Respectfully, Robert B. Rowland 400 Bryn Meadows Southlake, TX 76092 817-442-0821 Jenny Crosby From: H=BWilkins@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 10:34 AM To: jcrosby@cityofsouthlake.com Subject: Clariden School Dear Sirs: I am writing to request your support for zoning approval for the Clariden School. My son is currently in the preschool program at Clariden and they truly provide an asset to our community. I know that some folks in the area of the proposed new location have concerns about the effects of the school on their property values, but I think it is clear that the outstanding educational system here in Southlake has been one of the things that have increased property values throughout our community. Why not continue to improve the quality of education in our community? I hope I can count on your support of this worthwhile endeavor. Respectfully, Nikki R. Wilkins 400 Bryn Meadows Southlake, TX 76092 817-442-0821 Jenny Crosby From: Dave. Boissevain@fritolay.com Sent: Thursday. March 22, 2001 3:56 PM To: Jcrosby@cityofsouthlake.com Subject: REZONING LAND FOR CLARIDEN SCHOOL As a resident of Southlake I wanted to express my support of rezoning the 22 acres of 'land on Whites Chapel road for the constructing of The Clariden School. 1 currently have two children at Carroll elementary and I could not be happier with the education they are receiving. My wife is very active as a homeroom mother for both classes and would strongly agree. We also have a son that goes to The Clariden School. He struggled at Carroll high school and we choose to find another school environment that would better fit his needs. Clariden is that school. The problem is that there are other residents of Southlake that can not send their children to Clariden due to its limited size. Two of the school goals are to expand its high school and offer a sports programs that better meets the needs of school aged children. The cost to a school of this size to purchase the land necessary to expand plays a key role in the importance of rezoning the land on Whites Chapel. This land was donated to the school. Without this land Clariden would not be able to expand at this time. Southlake needs a school like Clariden now to heip support our towns growth. Not all children are able to excel in the public school system and Southlake needs to support the growth of school like Clariden in our cities boarders. We Place our children's education first and without Clariden we would have been forced to travel to Fort Worth and reconsider Southlake as the best location for our family. I truly believe schools like Clariden do the community a service and would bring value to the surrounding neighborhoods. We currently place public schools in close proximity to neighborhoods in Southlake and those neighborhoods are in demand because the school is nearby. There is no reason not to expect a school like Clariden to have nothing other than a positive impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. Please take my point of view into consideration as you weigh this important issue. i can be reached at (H)817-410-2447, (W) 972-334-5352. Thank You, Dave Boissevain 910 Carriage `Nay Southlake. TX Jenny Crosby From: Dave Boissevain fres04p9e@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday. March 22, 2001 3:58 PM To: jcrosby@cityofsouthlake.com Subject: White Chapel Community Service Rezone As a resident of Southlake and a mother of four children, I respectfully submit this letter in support of the Clariden Schoci and its efforts to rezone their lot on White Chapel Road to Community Service. Three out of four of my children are thriving in the Carroll ISD. I am thrilled that the Clariden School is available within the City of Southlake to serve the needs of my fourth child, who needs a smaller classroom environment it which to learn. The Clariden School has been very diligent in its search for the right location to relocate within the City of Southlake. to further serve its residents, and I commend their efforts. The traffic study that was commissioned by a very reputable firm should assuage any fears that residents in proximity to the sight may have with any potential congestion. The architectural design of the school itself is in keeping with the standards of this community, using a Mission Style motif that incorporates the beautiful Texas landscape. From a Chamber of Commerce perspective, a private K-12 campus would not detract from the reputation of the scnools of excellence that we are so fortunate to have here, but rather to enhance it. For we are a community. by reputation, that values the education of our children, in whatever form that may take for each individual child. The convenience of our community is brought to bear by several ammenities within it. Witness the Town Center and visionaries like Brian Stebbins who brought it to light. We now live in a community where we no longer have to spend our hard earned dollars on its outskirts. As a parent, we can all appreciate the need to simplify our lives. It makes me a little sad when my neighbors with some of the same needs, have to look outside of our community for services that we as a community should provide. There are clot of commuter moms out there that would love to take advantage of a school like Clariden, and give up the !ong drives to Dallas and Ft. Worth for their children. i believe that Clariden will ease this splintering within our community, and that these children will now have the time to participate in other extra curricular activities !ike GSSA Soccer, or Southiake Softball and Baseball and the like. A private K thru 12 in our community will add a valuable selling point for future residents as well. It will not detract from the ammenities, but add to them. Thank you for your valuable time and consideration. Sincerely, Kathleen Sinnott-Boissevain Jenny Crosby From: Younger-Halliman, Sheila K [Sheila.YoungerHalliman@bnsf.com] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 3:58 PM To: 'Jenny Crosby' Subject: RE: THE CLARIDEN SCHOOL I have no problem with you disseminating our (my husband's and my) views to the appropriate parties. Since 1 drafted the missive from work, the "Notice" automatically attaches, however, in this instance, it should be disregarded. Thanks Again ! Sheila Younger-Hailimar The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company Assistant General Attorney Phone: (817) 352-2319 % Fax (817) 352-2398 Email: sheila.youngerhalliman@bnsf.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message ;s intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please delete this message from all computers and notify us immediately by return e-mail and/or phone 817-352-2352. -----Original Message -- From: Jenny Crosby[mailto:JCrosby@ci.southlake.tx.us] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 1-53 PM To: 'You nger-Hallimar, Sheila K' Sabiect: RE: fiF;E CLARIDEN SCHOOL Hi i just realized you have a confidentiality notice at the bottom of your email. We typically make copies of letters and emails we receive and pass them out to the planning and zoning commissioners. I just want to make sure this is okay with you. If possible, please respond to this email before 4:15 th:s afterneen (or call 817-481-2041 before 5:00 today). Thanks. Jenny Crosby Planning Technician > -----Original Message— • From: Younger-Halliman, Sheila K (SMTP:Sheila.YoungerHalliman@bnsf.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 100 PM > To: 'JCROSBY@C!TYOFSOUTF'LAKE.COM' > S::oject: THE CLARIDEN SCHOOL > THIS E-MAIL-IS TO SUPPORT T-= BUILDING OF THE CLARIDEN SCHOOL'S NEW CAMPUS > IN SOUTHLAKE. AS YOU KNO''"i. SOUTHLAKE RESIDENTS HAVE LIMITED EDUCATIONAL > OPTIONS IN THIS DISTRICT AS ALBEIT WE HAVE EXCELLENT PUBLIC SCHOOLS, THEY > ARE BECOMING OVERCROWDED AND THUS THERE IS A NEED FOR MORE SCHOOLS THAT > CATER TO OUR CHILDREN'S VARIOUS EDUCATIONAL NEEDS. WITH THIS IN MIND, IT > MUST BE RECOGNIZED THAT SOUTHLAKE PARENTS NEED THE OPPORTUNITY TO SELECT > OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTiTUTIONS WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY THAT OFFER VARIED > CURRICULUMS AND TEACHING TECHNIQUES. THIS SCHOOL WILL .ALSO ALLOW SOME > SOUTHLAKE PARENTS '',NHO CHOOSE TO SEND ALL OF THEIR CHILDREN OF VARYING AGES > TO THE SAME SCHOOL DO TO SC. > UNDOUBTEDLY. THE CT`r" OF SOUTHLAKE IS A BURGEONING COMMUNITY, HOWEVER. THE > GOAL IS NOT TO FLOOD OUR CITY WITH SUPERSTORES AND OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS > T riA' > ',iVILL NOT TRULY ADD TO THE CHARACTER AND BETTERMENT OF OUR COMMUNITY. AS > THIS CITY IS HEAVILY POPULATED WITH YOUNGSTERS, OUR FIRST PRIORITY SHOULD > BE > TO CONVENIENTLY LOCATE STELLAR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES (I.E. SCHOOLS. > LIBRARIES, BOOKSTORES, ETC.) THROUGHOUT OUR CITY. PLEASE SUPPORT OUR > EFFORTS IN THWARTING ANY NEGATIVE EFFORTS PRECLUDING THE BUILDING OF THIS > SCHCOL. THE CONTINUED PRESENCE OF THE CLARIDEN SCHOOL IN SOUTHLAKE `NICE > HEL? ELIMINATE THE UNWARRANTED STEREOTYPES SURROUNDING THIS COMMUNITY AND > BENEFIT OUR CITY. > SHEILA AND ROBERT HALLIMAN > t 04 SWALLOW COURT > SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092 > (817)—188-1252 > Sheila '(ounger-Halliman > The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company > Assistant General Attorney > Phone: (817) 352-2319 / Fax (817) 352-2398 > Email: sheila.youngerhailiman@bnsf.com > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, > confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > cf this message is not the intended recipient, er the employee or agent > responsit :e for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this > communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message > in errcr, pease delete this message from all computers and notify us > i� � mediateiv by return e-mail and/or phone 817-352-2352. PW 2 �T 2 TO: CARA WHITE FROM: MIKE AND SUE LEWIS 4564 HOMESTEAD DRIVE INDIAN CREEK ESTATES SUBJECT: CLARIDEN SCHOOL Dear Cara, Thank you for informing us of the issues concerning the above mentioned school. Due to my business schedule and my wife's illness we have not been able to make the various meetings, but I am informing you in writing of our position relative to this subject and trust that you would be bringing these issues forward as my advocate. 1. The Lewis household is not supporting any changes in any zoning or other City of Southlake rules and regulations that would permit the school to obtain the rights to build on the proposed site. 2. The Lewis household informed the representatives of the Clariden School in a face to face front door meeting at 4564 Homestead Drive that the Lewis family would not support nor sign the document. 3. The reasons given and maintained for not supporting the request to build the school are as follows: I. TRAFFIC FLOW AND CONGESTION 2. NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT LAND USE PLAN 3. LIGHTING IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT LIGHTING FOR A RURAL AREA 4. WHITES CHAPEL IS NOT DESIGNED NOR MAINTAINED TO SUPPORT THE ADDED TRAFFIC FLOW, IN ADDITION THERE IS NO OTHER METHOD OF EGRESS. 5. THERE ARE NO TAX BENEFITS TO THE CITY THE Lewis household cannot support this issue and would urge the spin group to reject any proposal that would facilitate the Clariden schools efforts in building on this property. Further I would urge the spin chairperson to communicate our viewpoints to any and all city officials. Respectfully, PE DsNl. ` 222001. To: City of Southlake Council Members From: The Lewis Family 4564 Homestead Drive A City of Southlake Tax Paying Family and Proud of it Subject: Clariden School Development Date: 3-23-01 Dear Members, The purpose of this correspondence is to inform you of my thoughts, concerns and opinion concerning the Planning and Zoning meeting of 3-22-01. I must first give praise to that body of individuals who are a bright light and should be complemented for their excellence in representing our community. It is evident that our Leadership Southlake Process is recruiting and selecting quality individuals from our community who are not afraid to deal with emotionally and factually difficult subjects. Be that as it may, the meeting of 3-22-01 though long and arduous facilitated a great exchange of information that incorporated the use of "Experts" for traffic studies and zoning. However as our legal system illustrates the use of "Experts" does not provide solutions only debate. The decision is still made by individuals that must keep in mind the process that has been developed and refined through multiple generations of City Leadership. The issue before us is the continuation and refinement of our process such that the programmatic output is clearly defined. I would submit to you that this is alive and well based upon the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board of 3-22-01 and their denial of the Clariden School request for a change in zoning. The Cities processes as currently implemented benefits each new Planning and Zoning board in that they have the benefit of learning by viewing the growth of the City and listening to the residents discuss those aspects of development that are both positive and negative. Examples of this are the positive effects to the continued adherence to the land use plan, the positive effects of low density zoning requirements, the negative effects for traffic egress and ingress issues due to the closure of the road for Sabre and the affects of no planning activities or funding guidelines for the improvement of Whites chapel Blvd. Right or wrong the City and its rulings continues to demonstrate that what is vital to our process and our area is that it remains zoned for one acre single family dwellings, provides for open spaces for families to gather and is serviced and supported by one of the fastest growing and most progressive Cites in the metroplex. Further the process has facilitated excellent programs like Bob Jones Park and the purchase of the Tucker property. Why has this worked, it has worked because the City has listened to the residents who live in the affected areas. Unfortunately we are now faced with those individuals who would have us change that process because of semantics in the definition of low density. They would have us violate our process because they "can not find any other suitable (i.e. affordable) locations". Thev would suggest that the Citv modify or even change their process in the REC o U J name of "Progress'. They suggest our process is flawed and that their program (i.e. building a school) can help fix the process. I would strongly suggest that the process is not broken, but is working as designed. The Spin program (created by the City Council for just these issues) has been utilized and its citizens have been heard on several occasions. The report from the Spin program indicates that the majority of the citizens located in the North section of the City are not in favor of the proposed changes that would facilitate the construction of the Clariden School. Further, the City Planners process has not thought it necessary to budget for the costs to improve the only method of ingress and egress for the entire north end. Why is that? The answer is that the process as defined by previous Planning and Zoning boards with the support of City Council has deemed that there are programs of greater importance for our limited funds and the road is sufficient for the number of single family one acre dwellings that could be constructed on the available acreage (note: only 23 homes could be constructed on the acreage that the school is wanting to build on, but the school is equivalent to 500 homes based upon numbers of students, teachers and staff that will utilize the facility on a daily basis). In summary I would urge the members of City Council to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning board members in their meeting dated 3-22-01 and not allow the Clariden School to manipulate the system to obtain their free land to build a school That the members of this Spin One district do not want. The City council appointed the Planning and Zoning members and defined the board's responsibilities. The members after much discussion, problem solving and suggestions of alternatives voted NO. Please do not second guess them or allow your thinking to be swayed by pol tics. Do the right thing and vote not to allow the school to be built on that property and uphold the vote of those individuals you charge with making those decisions. If you do not you are violating your own process. Thank you for your time and consideration. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 214-213-9612. Respectfully, Mike Lewis Jenny Crosby From: Pinnacledeco@gateway.net Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 9:18 PM To: mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us Cc: placel@ci.southlake.tx.us; place2@ci.south lake.tx.us; place3@ci.southlake. tx.us; place4 @ci.southlake.tx.us; place5@ci.southlake.tx.us; place6@ci.south lake.tx.us; slegrand@cityofsouthlake.com; jcrosby@cityofsouthlake.com Subject: The Clariden School My name is Jim Miller. My family lives at 420 Brooks Crt that is located in Spin #1. 1 have been a Southlake resident since 1992 and I have lived at our current address since 1996. I am writing you not as an angry resident of Spin #1 but as an excited citizen and parent of Southlake. As the City of Southlake continues to grow, Planning and Zoning continues to deal with the challenges associated with this growth. As a parent of a child who attends The Clariden School, we too are faced with Planning and Zoning issues related to the growth of our children. We feel The Clariden School is a vital part of the planning of our children's future while placing them in a positive environment. One of the major issues associated with location of The Clariden School is the assumption that the school will generate a huge amount of additional traffic to North Whites Chapel Blvd. The traffic study that has been completed and verified by the City of Southlake shows that the school will be in compliance with guidelines set fourth by the City of Southlake. Furthermore, our independent traffic study has shown that the majority of the residents who live in Spin #1 leave prior to the schools drop off period and return in the evening after the schools pick up periods. The reality is that Whites Chapel Blvd., as we know it today is going to change. With 3 New Subdivisions consisting of over 100 new households, the proposed Corporate Campus's flanking White Chapel on 114, the addition of Sabre's Corporate Campus, the Continued Park Expansion, the new Hiking and Biking Trails, the Crown Ridge Equestrian Trails that will force horse traffic across White Chapel and West Bob Jones, the existing Horse Trailer Parking located at Whites Chapel and West Bob Jones, the proposed DPS facility, and the proposed Carroll ISD Elementary School. Our current rural setting is changing as we speak. With all of these changes, The Clariden School will represent only a small percentage of the NEW Whites Chapel Blvd. Currently, over half the families who have children enrolled at The Clariden School reside in the City of Southlake. Many more families have moved to Southlake or expressed an interest to move to Southlake based on The Clariden School's locationl. You cannot argue the fact that all the pre schools as well as private schools in the City of Southlake as well as the surrounding communities have an extensive waiting list not only for this current school year but also for the following year. Nor can you argue that even though CISD is an excellent school district, some parents still wish to send their children to only private schools. When you factor in the supply versus demand, all indications are that the City of Southlake does have a substantial need for The Clariden School. As a progressive, proactive community, we cannot afford not to build The Clariden School at its current proposed location. Parks, Recreational Facilities, Churches, Private and Public Schools, Medical Facilities, Nursing Homes, etc., are all essential components to the building of a strong, desirable community. With or without The Clariden School, the truth is, the two lane rural, winding road as we know as Whites Chapel is already changing forever. Southlake is not the same city is was 10, 5 or even 2 years ago. Our community's needs are changing and The Clariden School will meet one of the most important needs ... the needs of our children. The responsible and logical decision is to have The Clariden School built on the proposed site and welcome it, as I will, as our new neighbor. Thank you, Jim Miller 420 Brooks Crt 817-430-2509 MICHAEL G. & MICHELLE C. LAWRENCE 32 Meadowbrook Ln. Trophy Club, TX 76262 817-430-4136 e-mail: wingsmich(cDhome.com March 27, 2001 TO: Members of the Southlake City Council RE: Clariden School zoning change By now, you have probably been made aware of the controversy surrounding the zoning change for land acquired by The Clariden School on North Whites Chapel Blvd. Following are several points that are pertinent to the issue: 1. The Clariden School zoning change request complies with all requirements of the land use plan and all zoning restrictions for "CS" (Community Service) status. 2. Extensive traffic studies were completed to assure that the school would not put undo pressure on the current traffic flow. Arguments that the area is "dangerous" do not stand up since Bob Jones Park has been developed and plans call for additional facilities there. 3. Additionally, The Clariden School has gladly met every requirement the City has requested, and asks for no variances to the zoning change request. In spite of the school's compliance in all aspects of the zoning change request, said request was denied by the P&Z Commission last week. Southlake has a unique opportunity to insure the survival and establishment of a quality private school, which will enhance the town's appeal to potential homebuyers as well as businesses moving to the area who expect and demand educational alternatives. We respectfully ask for your support of the zoning change for The Clariden School's property and thank you in advance for your consideration. Cordially, Mir,hael & Michelle Lawrence Lori Farwell From: Anderson, Richard [richard.anderson@vedzon.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 11:55 AM To: 'Lfarwell@cityofsouthlake.com' Subject: Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission Letter April 17, 2001 Mr. Dennis King Chairman City of Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission Southlake, Texas 76092 VIA: EMAIL Dear Mr. King Previous commitments prevent me from being at the P & Z meeting on April 19. However I would like to express my opinion regarding the Clariden School rezoning request. I understand that since the first meeting on this issue, the Clariden School parents and their friends have launched a very determined campaign to change the Commission's vote to favor their request. The first vote was correct, a large private school should not be located over two miles off a major thoroughfare. The issues have not changed. • safety. White Chapel is narrow, no shoulders with two blind curves. • Infrastructure. The infrastructure is not in place to support a high -density project such as a school. It will cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to upgrade the roads, sewer and water. • Access. White Chapel is sometimes flooded by Grapevine Lake and when flooded stays flooded for weeks. The only way to resolve this is to build a bridge possibly costing millions. With the closure of Kirkwood, should White Chapel close, emergency response times will greatly increase in response to a problem at the school. • Taxes. There will be a definite loss of tax revenue due to the tax-exempt status of the school. With all of the concern on Council regarding tax revenue, should a zoning request be approved that eliminates tax revenues, then potentially costs millions in infrastructure improvements? • Neighborhood. A private school simply does not belong in an area master planned for single- family homes on one -acre lots. This is NOT a public school that helps foster a sense of community in the neighborhood in which it is located. The schoo!'s current enrollment is approximately 100 students. Half of them reside in Southlake. Given that in a few instances more than one child from a home attends the school, there are only about 40 Southlake families who are asking you to vote against the wishes of hundreds of others. As witnessed at previous zoning request hearings, taxpayers do not want to pay for improvements that will benefit only a few. Finally, I resent the whole tone of the Clariden request. They have been disrespectful to those of us who desire to maintain the character of our neighborhood. They have been evasive when answering questions about their plans for the new school, and the rumors of some kind of sneaky deal involving Wal-Mart just won't go away. I urge you to uphold your previous vote and deny the Clariden School rezoning request. Respectfully, Richard Anderson 4553 N. White Chapel Blvd. Roanoke (Southlake), Texas 76262 817-430-4529 SUPPORT FOR THE CLARIDEN SCHOOL As parents of two school aged children and Southlake citizens, we would once again like to lodge our support for the building of the new Clariden school campus. As you know, this city has an abundance of children. Based upon this large population, Southlake and surrounding area parents need educational choices to ensure that their children's individual educational needs are not overlooked. Based on the differing needs of our children, we have taken advantage of both the Southlake private and public school systems. Our eldest, a product of the Montessori school system and another private school system prior to our relocation from the East Coast to Texas, is currently thriving at Carroll Elementary. In fact, he is a member of the Quest Program. Our youngest attends the Clariden school after spending some time in preschool. This change has done wonders for her as she, too, is progressing nicely. We chose Southlake because of its stellar educational system, both public and private. It is our hope to participate in its growth and help it respond to the needs of this century and beyond. Albeit, we have seen the city grow, we are disappointed that it is appears not to be concerned with its citizens' needs, but instead is grabbing at any retail opportunity thrown its way. We hope that Southlake's future is toward building a city that exemplifies putting the needs of the community first. This includes building a library and providing worthwhile educational and business opportunities for the community and surrounding areas, which chose to contribute to our community's growth. The new Clariden school campus helps to respond to these needs. It provides stellar educational options and utilizes the beneficial services this city provides. Specifically, it allows parents to expose their school aged children to a varied type of curriculum, student population and overall stimulating learning environment while simultaneously equipping these students with the tools necessary to attend competitive colleges. The Clariden also benefits the city as it purchases goods and services, such as school books and foods, from and through local entities and establishments. Please consider these factors and vote in favor a zoning permit for the new Clariden school in Southlake. Our goal is to contribute to the betterment of this city and continue to have Southlake characterized as a city that is concerned with substantial needs of the community and our society as a whole (a good school yields national recognition), and not to be viewed as an insubstantial community concerned only with selling retail opportunities to the highest bidder. A vote for the new Clariden campus is a vote for a respectable community. Robert and Sheila Halliman R1VIHall imcct'fiash.net 9 2 0 01 Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support The Clariden School orts to relocate to their 24 acre site on North White's Chapel acro,%� 4 tt}e entrance to Bob Jones Park. Address a MMEWfMMAM 3. 4.� 5. , 6. %J 7. 8. 9. - 10. 41 u 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 -,42 V 25. t' �I#.,- w 4\ A f_ 6 a-tj�LZ _ 9 CJ ci s L POLY- c c I P- J 033 Ly6-s i P,+AK t,12 D4C-�y)es- p (� C° ,Y-L. loSZ Z-V�-e / / X C-:z I055 Cc��K 0 leg Z U y�f5 -F�. ki/rrl'9 0 q&ci t16 , < 1►. L (-(% 0 1 'T c✓ Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support The Clariden Schools efforts to relocate to their 24 acre site on North White's Chapel across from the entrance to Bob Jones Park. Address ICU Ile ,-� 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1; 1; 14. 15 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. CD 0 ^.z Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and do not oppose the relocation kw Of the Clariden School to its new property on North White's Chapel Road adjacent to Bob Jones Park: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ,. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. s« _ 420 Address Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support The Clariden Schools efforts to relocate to their 24 acre site on North White's Chapel across from the entrance to Bob Jones Park. Address awe *o ,�3 -/`/ 1-ko tx,_ _ - -4 h 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. I � Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and do not oppose the relocation of the Clariden School to it's new property on North White's Chapel Road adjacent to Bob Jones Park: Address -- 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. r 19. 0 CD 20. c: c� -21 22. c� 23. c- I 24. 25. i Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support The Clariden Schools efforts to relocate to their 24 acre site on North White's Chapel across from the entrance to Bob Jones Park. &ddress �, A S s ct 4 .m 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. ^; 21. 22. 23. L' 24. 25. Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, -�fvLC� Texas and support The Clariden Schools efforts to relocate to their 24 acre site on North White's Chapel across from the entrance to Bob Jones Park. Address 460 tP�CO�/ \V�r 24. 25. 0 Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support The Clariden Schools efforts to relocate to their 24 acre site on North White's Chapel across fronwthe entrance to Bob Jones Park. Address 1. 2. 3. Q 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. .�i �L- SPA ►N I Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support The Clariden Schools efforts to relocate to their 24 acre site on North White's Chapel across from the entrance to Bob Jones Park. Addresses P r 1. 4100 C�� 2. 3. �J • 0� s 4. 5. A 7. 8. 9. 10. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support The Clariden Schools efforts to relocate to their 24 acre site on North White's Chapel across from the entrance to Bob Jones Park. Address 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1 O'r' 12. 13. 14 15 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.. 23. 24. 25. U ve, Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support The Clariden Schools efforts to relocate to their 24 acre site on North White's Chapel across from the entrance to Bob Jones Park. Address 2. 3. 4. 10. -7 12.1 1 �%I i 14. 15. IM 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22, 23. 24. 25. Z5)ezz TO 2 $94 2 0 0 1 Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support The Clariden Schools efforts to relocate to their 24 acre site on North White's Chapel across from the entrance to Bob Jones Park. Address 2. "Jr y..je�o�cw S 3. g, R(iaL-A .-o d 15. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. , 23. 24. 25. Fq In Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support The Clariden Schools efforts to relocate to their 24 acre site on North White's Chapel across from the entrance to Bob Jones Park. Address 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.1 12. 13., 14� 15. 1, 16. 17. 18. 19. 21.' 22. .V a 7 L� -cam 24. 25. Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support The Clariden ' Schools efforts to relocate to their 24 acre site on North White's Chapel across from the entrance to Bob Jones Park. Address 2. 3. 4. 5r� 6. t 8. C,t22r -&ef,nd- a45 t-Li.Lcu`a. -Dr . 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 222001 24. 25. Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support The Clariden Schools efforts to relocate to their 24 acre site on North White's Chapel across from the entrance to Bob Jones Park. Address G '- ).-) 7 c i 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.. 23.r�A' zoo1 24. 25. Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support The Clariden Schools efforts to relocate to their 24 acre site on North White's Chapel across from the entrance to Bob Jones Park. Address 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. _ 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 1� 16. _ 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22 . 23. 24. 25. V�Fw.. &M -164 9--a O-PO ��� • 1, -- Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support The Clariden I Schools efforts to relocate to their 24 acre site on North White's Chapel across from the entrance to Bob Jones Park. Address ba l 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas. I fully support The Clariden School's effort to expand to their new 24 acre campus site on N. White Chapel Blvd. A pre-k through 12th grade private school within Southlake city limits would enhance our community profile and services. Name 2. G �'1/�.r�rr3zr�A i 3. t,uc C 4. 16. 'L 17. 18. Address -710 �Y�rO.�PG/PSt- J7� aA l �,�1^� � Lc�,k.e ,tF IC C�_'Cc6;C �=f` Ai L) 'I O / C:) S�.l �? 7c �-- 0 Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support The Clariden Schools efforts to relocate to their 24 acre site on North White's Chapel across from the entrance to Bob Jones Park. Address 1. 2. 3. Ll m rrtv,- 4. 5. SjSt cc,� ICd3 1LCrroonrIid 1)(; CL Igo .Ird Q ;O-, Lr 6. 7. ! A" a` 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.A 23. 24. 25. Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support The Clariden Schools efforts to relocate to their 24 acre site on North White's Chapel across from the entrance to Bob Jones Park. Address MRoLi 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 2 20�1 23. 24. 25. Ye,s, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support an extension to the Clariden School's temporary classroom permit until a suitable relocation site is found for the school: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 71-9l PL ,g le �� s AY,, r 7C.a 17a� r5rd 4/y 7(o 9 7 /e, C� -I �/1 lx 7� C ve-a- /0/ 0 0 J (tip U ✓twv z� V 323 Mc, C jz-� i g,4+ � V �- Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support an extension to the Clariden School's temporary classroom permit until a suitable relocation site is found for the school: L r E 7 8 9 1 1 1 1� 1� 1� 1' 12 1� 2( 2- 2:1, 2' 2,4 Address / 7 SL / o e�L ck CT .41 `y/3 767Z I Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support an extension to the Clariden School's temporary classroom permit until a suitable relocation site is found for the school: w -700 2 25. Fr) Address Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support an extension to the Clariden School's temporary classroom permit until a suitable relocation site isfquno for the school: 13 5. 6. 7�tco 9. 10. 11.-IWI, X v% 12. 13. 14. 15 /--0 '.e (t- :�/j, Y ' C- 17. 18. 19.21. 20. - 72L- 0 21 23.�- !� 24. �. a il.�. \b �" 7L G � r^A 25. I ' ;� jt,���� v Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support an extension to the Clariden School's temporary classroom permit until a suitable relocation site is found for the school: 13. J7 Ov 14. / 15. Address 7 D �. . l 36 s �� � ��� sa,✓ _ o CD r �7 / - l I L[ c� lee C_ 3 C;41AA4A9A-1 67 a L.Lj % 0 3 No l;P�rl Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support an extension to the Clariden School's temporary classroom permit until a suitable relocation site is found for the school: 5. -V)CutZT, �� I E 20.k1( wn 21. 22 23 24 25 AddrIss k,-7 C) pin, 777, 7/& 2-lber.17- c7:- Q Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support an extension to the Clariden School's temporary classroom permit until a suitable relocation site is found for the school: Address 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1C 11 12 11 14 1� 16 17. R �' 18. -�-- ' 19. 20. 21 22., `J 23.1. 24. 25. F, c,, 7 G cLk el -r a - Cf. d support an extension to the nid�„ t'1 I i a suitable relocation L�11 C) Q ake, Texas and support an extension to the Aassroom permit until a suitable relocation r 0-4 3- 4 S c' /. CQ Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support an extension to the Clariden School's temporary classroom permit until a suitable relocation site is found for the school: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 1 1; 1; 1� 1' 1E 1i 1F 1C 2C 21 22 23 24 25. Aca ress ._ 05 i)0�,1 MS�,�.,� 4� yo y C�- /a o 0 1-4 U Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support an extension to the Clariden School's temporary classroom permit until a suitable relocation 2 3 4 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1C 11 12 13 14 16. 17. 18.E j' !f �t . , ,,-r 19. 20. _f 21.23. 24.25. Lbw,_'-` •_ .�. L,,, �. Address . U( 7, 5- B LO Fe arl r, iy-e--., b3 . ( r" r, mac! C*J d O N cZ CIQ U-j Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support an extension to the Clariden School's temporary classroom permit until a suitable relocation site is found for the school: 1. 2. 3. 5. -T�( o ni s --, n) 6 7 8 9 1+ 1 12. Ke " L--`� 23 24 25 Address Zile to 61 40.E �Jl rlkk7LAS C i j `i c Ct—=CT `'' Re C-T , ,J E Z, 4 a+,11 CIN�> r o -3 5o CLA/UZ �L <: G.� . w 3c� ,(32 0cvfi; 1 yg 'Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support an extension to the Clariden School's temporary:classroom permit until a suitable relocation site is found for the school: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ,1 ............. 9. 11. �17 12.- 13. 14: 15. 16( 17. 18:: 19. ti 21. 22. ' 23. 24. 25. Address _ �I xQN L% 0 CD cz C�a Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texa Clariden School's temporary classroom site isfqund for the school: 1. 2.3. rr � / r and support an extension to the permit until a suitable relocation Addre s /� 2 75S / 5&2) �a A-D-ay�T) r J v t7, r ,7564 (4-r-& 1417 Pcvr t- P ( 0 M /00 0 '- /- . CZJ % 1- I.L I '- Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support an extension to the Clariden School's temporary classroom permit until a suitable relocation site is found for the school: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 10 11 12 13. fY -� 1, ki, 2,-,V � I e- I E 17 Cv 2C 21 22 23 24 25 Address �2s e �11 6� rLA- e- 0 L.Lj Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support an extension to the Clariden School's temporary classroom permit until a suitable relocation site is found for the school: CL r'JvI i V P I-- L 3. �4. 5. rl J 6. �i.�rtrces� Yrtq^- 7. 9. PA 11 12 13 24_ 25 7�-Addres � 7;-- 7 F6q I 5q, _r v _ = � �� .;ire '.•/, !,.•, 6 r j ��. 4 , L�n2 ( -� .—. Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support an extension to the Clariden School's temporary classroom permit until a suitable relocation site is found for the school: P c 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Address -771 —77 Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Clariden Spool's temporaryclasz site is foundJor the,sc 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.` 22. 23. 24. 25. Texas and support an extension to the room permit until a suitable relocation Address _ 911 I,I - .1 II__24 14i ,;5 fit= n / r' (: OC Ek nn . I.&,z Jn-aAz Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support an extension to the Clariden School's temporary classroom permit until a suitable relocation site is found for the school: Address 2. /71SI I 5. 6. 7. IT 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17 IN 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Cv 1�3�I-'CF G-Q�� if! Ems.• _�'' .e, Texas and support an extension to the d ")P ort an extension to the issroom permit until a suitable relocation "ni til a suitable relocation Address �C� � address !� �• D N 2001 ." Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support an extension to the Clariden School's temporary classroom permit until a suitable relocation site is found for the school: Address 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.- 22. PVT 2 2 Z001 23. 24. 25. N Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support an extension to the Clariden School's temporary classroom permit until a suitatme relocation site is�found for the school: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. im 20. 21. 22: 23. 24. 25. Address - — C Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support an extension to the Clariden School's temporary classroom permit until a suitable relocation site is found for the school: it 2. 3. 4. ' 5. �r 6. 7. 8. 9. --- 7- 12. 13. 14��',;�c; 15. 16. 17. --A ff.*] 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Address Q w.s 7 [% ! 7 j �1li .j 0 Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support an extension to the Ciariden School's temporary classroom permit until a suitable relocation site is found for the school: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Address s � 97 FEC� oR Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support an extension to the Clariden School's temporary classroom permit until a suitable relocation site is found for the school: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Address —.Inpr C� o �e M f-PI ebau(e-"), CAC 0 Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support an extension to the- Clariden School's temporary classroom permit until a suitable relocation site is found for the school: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 7 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Address C1 RG e Pr9 9 2001 Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support an extension to the Clariden School's temporary classroom permit until a suitable relocation site is found for the school: 1. 2. 3. El 5. 6. 7. Is (i! 12. 13. `D ) 14. Jl\J- 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Address,I O� �3 Ir LIr . �N��,,-e Yes, I am a resident of Southlake, Texas and support an extension to the Clariden School's temporary classroom permit until a suitable relocation site is found for the school: 1. 2. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Address ZO 4 7-3 S^ I-ez56 Vjr �-�& 6zz MM • CXI fir!` 1 i� 1 Q ; w O N zr- E r�Qtr- 5-- �� - `I `mayCIO l SA"j, a r C7 � K!q m l- `v �IZS 1 ` o00 [� T CQ S'1 to W J v � On ¢ �v1 I a t` H � , � I w a ✓1 d ^ 41 r 1 :1 w rn 00 c5o U J a H �J 0 z w CC J V AV c o ► N , n { U W C, - w z d ON 30 w � Q, C -.� 4 e r ti v d . -S �� ^� o°CL0 Nil J ✓ 7Z ` `� -z-) G a` I A ^ -7 t*1 ry 131 m Ji fx IN I\r IN Fq r� , ,� U•Jcj IJIxJ -zz- �. f r- -� Q J � o� C) z � v 1 ^ — � M / s \ kA � r\j43 l ^JJ Wc Cf) Cl) G -7 Q a H - �tc c� , v a Uj 1 H o� Q J 4 � � P.-1 L r.-:, w CD- Q� � J 4 - 5 �y t SQ O �� • ^ frJ T �. J v' w a z _ s 5 �,j ^� I lz o • a F � � A � w F Q � z Q � z o� z z � a v 1 4 W.,eoB Jomfs 3 INGRESS/EGRESS POINTS E. BOB ✓ONES ,. , 4 G M mc-s f30.1�3 ,30NGS PAP K 9 M► L.G-S w Q U 50UTNLQKF- DPS f Z�)OvE i 4%P-NP E City of Southlake Department of Planning STAFF REPORT May 11, 2001 CASE NO: ZA01-018 PROJECT: Sonic Attached is a letter from the applicant requesting to withdraw the above mentioned case. Case No. ZA01-018 ENCORE REALTY COMPANY LC 1706 W. NaroW.0 W.W. Suits 200 c►.P.�., Tx nos, T,*phcm a1?,M9.73W Fes 517.481-1644 VIA FAX 817.491-2097 May 9. 2001 Mr. Ken Baker and Ms. Tara Brooks City of Southlake Plaeoiug and "Zoning Department 1721 F. Sood lake Blvd. Suitc 100 Southlake, Texas 76092 Re: City C:asc NZA-01-018, 2550 Southlake Blvd., Southlakc, Texas Mr. Bakcr and Ms. Brooks - This letter will serve as our formal request to withdraw the aforementioned case from consideration by the City Council of the City of Southlake. It is our desire to take the time rcquircd to more effectively address the concerns raised by the Planning and Zoning Commission. It is our intention to represent this Lasc after properly addressing the concerns that were raised. We appreciate your assistance and cooperation in guiding us through the preparation of this case and our Davis Boulevard project. Sincerely, Dennis 1:1. Clark President Case No. ZA01-018 RECD f `' 10 2001 Sue 1(,:!gin TX - - C )f Southlace. Planning Zoning Commission =•_ ? Main Street. Suite 310 _-_ lake. TX 76092 P. Rezoning and Development Plan. Haitorn Creek Estates. Ref. ZAO!-02' C nlmissioners. certitied :nail oncen:n_ e apuar.ed de.e!oement proposal..at ... e it appears that neither of us willnbe abie -o attend the April 5 meeting. We are strongl!. -- o�ed to the development. especiall-r with respect to the section entitled "Product Tyne A-. residents of Southlake. including a low of the Commissioners, spent many long hours at ^.!d Cu,, Hall a couple of ..ears ago when the Master Plan was reconsidered. I believe all of Mr. Haltom`s development was Planned "SF I -A" and some of it is currently zoned "SF I -A". 7-c proposed development includes about 30 lots most of which are smaller than one-half acre. I specifically recall'oeing at a Planning meeting when fir. Haltom verbalized his agreement with t e proposed "SF l-A" Planning. I am sure his remarks are in t..e minutes of that meeting. it is interest:ng that the lots ("Product Type B" 1 in the proposal adjacent to his personal ._ .,'once are all about one and one-half acres. .q::ested "R-PC D" variance should :' e de tied. A, .s lots less t an one acre are completely _. n,istent vvith the semi -rural. pastoral setrim, of the surrounding residences lots.. -\II of the ::aperim= Dell lots are closer w two acres or larger. The Carrot! Meadows subdivision. directly a rf�ss Carroll to the west and a beautirlliv executed development. features one acre lots. It ar pears that virtually all the surrounding properties ire in excess of one acre. _^her note that the developer ^as failed to post the appropriate signs so only the residents on .._ :.^.ailing list'.%it! have notice of the proposal and the meeting. I think it would ire appropriate : r : meeting to be postponed until the signs have been erected for 15 days. .._._ ....: � of dCte!,!rri1ent !S eX3C(I% wnai SojaUaS-esi(ICIUS i13'-s !OLul� 0JhJt:Cted _' 1,111 131L; in P��Z ..:.d COt:P.Ct. nlCc:t. - Picas.: ... Tnan. j- Cis e No . z R 0 1- b z -7 TRAFFIC ON CARROLL ROAD: This should be obvious, yet no studies have been done. The developer states that Carroll may be widened to 5 lanes to accommodate the increase in traffic. This will not happen any time in the near future, IF it happens. Meanwhile, I live within walking distance of Johnson Elem and I can currently walk there faster than I can drive due to the amount of traffic on Carroll Rd in the mornings. Think about all the schools along this road: Carroll Intermediate, Johnson Elementary, Highland Meadow Montessori, Carroll Middle School — add at least 100 more cars every day on this already dangerous road, yet it's an issue that the developer wants to address "later". Also consider the property at 114 and Carroll, designated for "mixed use" as well as Carroll Meadows. No humans occupy these spaces yet, but they will and Product A will be part of the huge problem. CROWDING OF THE SCHOOLS: Next year, Johnson Elementary will have 5 full kindergarten classes based on who has already registered. There are many, like my child, that have not yet registered. They do not yet know what they will do with these kids as there is not classroom space for them. There are no plans for expanding the elementary school, yet the developer says that he is sure :the_ school will accommodate these new children moving in to these neighborhoods. Of course they will, but with what, portable buildings? I have paid my taxes for 15 years here so that my children can attend the quality Carroll schools and now they are at risk for having to be schooled in a portable building all because the city made a choice to pay off a citizen's investment by putting as many homes as possible in an area that should clearly be, as planned, low density. AESTHETICS: With the current division of the lots and the developer's willingness to let each new homeowner choose their privacy fencing, I could potentially have 3 different kinds of privacy fencing around my property creating a collage of materials that anyone would find undesirable in purchasing my home. Thank you for your time and consideration of these issues in this important decision affecting many current and long-time homeowners in Southlake. Kim and Jeff Pannell U N C E LO L r. i n O) .-z O a"J O 'C: O co tU ti Lo ro -C-- Ql tly Ln v Q X T, l TO: CITY OF SOUTHLANT SECRETARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMNIISSION FROM: ROBERT S. BONCHAK DATE: APRIL 17, 2001 SUBJECT: ZA01-027 ATTACHED IS A BRIEF AS TO WHY I OPPOSE APPROVAL OF THE SUBJECT APPLICATION, AND WHY IT SHOULD BE DENIED. I REQUEST THAT YOU MAKE THE ATTACHED A PERMANENT PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT APPLICATION. CITY OF SOUTHLAKE REFERENCE NO: ZA01-027 BASIS FOR DENIAL I. CITY OF SOUTHLAKE LAND USE PLAN 1. APPROVAL OF THE INSTANT ZONING REQUEST IS CONTRARY TO THE INTENT, PURPOSE, AND LETTER OF THE LAND USE PLAN ADOPTED BY THE CITY ON 1/20/98 AND UPDATED IN JANUARY 2001. 2 "THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 211.004 IS THAT AN ADOPTED LAND USE PLAN (OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) FORMS A LEGAL BASIS FOR ZONING AND, THEREFORE, ZONING SHOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAND USE PLAN:' (UNDERSCORING SUPPLIED) (REFERENCE: CITY OF SOUTHLAKE LAND USE PLAN DOCUMENT). 3. THE LAND USE PLAN SPECIFIES USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS "LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL". (`...DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT A NET DENSITY OF ONE OR FEWER DWELLINGS PER ACRE") "THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY ENCOURAGES THE OPENESS AND RURAL CHARACTER OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE." 4. THE LAND USE PLAN DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ("PUD") FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 5. FAILURE TO DENY THIS APPLICATION WILL RENDER THE CITY'S LAND USE PLAN AND THE PLAN'S DEVELOPMENT PROCESS MEANINGLESS, AND A WASTE OF TAXPAYER FUNDS. IL "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT "THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISTRICT ... IS TO PER -NUT FLEXIBILITY AND ENCOURAGE A MORE CREATIVE, EFFICIENT AND AESTHETICALLY DESIRABLE DESIGN AND PLACEMENT OF BUILDINGS, OPEN SPACES, CIRCULATION PATTERNS AND TO BEST UTILIZE SPECIAL SITE FEATURES SUCH AS TOPOGRAPHY SIZE AND SHAPE." (REFERENCE: CITY OF SOUTHLAKE ORDINANCES, SECTION 30). 2. THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED NO COGENT BASIS FOR THE PUD CLAIM. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM PUD REQUIREMENTS, AND OFFERS NOTHING THAT COULD NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHIN THE CURRENT ZONING, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER DENSITY THAN IS PERMITTED. III. PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS (SEE ATTACHED) IV. INTEGRITY 1. "ON REZONING REQUESTS, THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUIRED TO POST A SIGN ON THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION AT LEAST FIFTEEN (15) DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING." (REFERENCE: "THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IN SOUTHLAKE"). THE APPLICANT DID NOT DO THIS. 2. ALTHOUGH THIS IS A MAJOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, WITH AT LEAST 48 "INTERESTED PROPERTY OWNERS", THE DEVELOPER EXPLICITLY CHOSE NOT TO INITIATE A SPIN SPONSORED NEIGHBORHOOD/DEVELOPER MEETING, IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO BE HELD PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. RSB 4/2/01 (Rev. 3/3/01) (Rev. 4/16/01) THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MET ON APRIL 9, 2001, TO CONSIDER THE PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR HALTOM CREEK ESTATES (AGENDA ITEM 5.A.). BOARD MEMBERS WERE PROVIDED WITH AN APRIL 6, 2001 STAFF MEMORANDUM REQUESTING "APPROVAL OF PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR HALTOM CREEK ESTATES", WHICH CONTAINED THE RECOMMENDATION: "ACCEPTANCE OF LINEAR PARK AND TRAIL TOWARD REQUIRED PARK FEES AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT, INCLUDING A WAIVER OF THE NORTH CARROLL OFF -ROAD TRAIL INSTALLATION." THE STAFF MEMORANDUM CONTAINED, AS ATTACHMENTS, AN APRIL 5, 2001 LETTER FROM A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT, A DOCUMENT ENTITLED "EXPENSE CREDIT WORKSHEET FOR PHYSICAL OR EQUIPMENT IMPROVEMENTS TO PARK LAND - ZONE 3" (UNDATED AND UN -ATTRIBUTED ON ITS FACE), AND A "PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PLAN", PREPARED BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT. THE BOARD INVITED A STAFF PRESENTATION, AND A DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT. ALTHOUGH I WAS PRESENT AT THE MEETING, AND PREPARED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE JOINT APPLIC.ANT/STAFF RECOMMENDATION, I WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO (THE CHAIRWOMAN OF THE BOARD HAS, ORALLY, ADNIITTED THIS PROCEDURAL ERROR, INNOCENT AS IT MAY HAVE BEEN). THE BOARD VOTED APPROVAL (UNANIMOUSLY) WITH CERTAIN REVISIONS, PRESUMABLY TO THE "PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PLAN". SINCE I WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT MY POSITION ON THIS MATTER TO THE BOARD AT IT'S PUBLIC MEETING, THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE BASIS FOR MY OPPOSITION. 1. THE APPLICANT IS BEING GIVEN CREDIT FOR "DEVELOPING" T,AND IN A FLOOD PLAIN AND THEN DECLARING IT "PUBLIC OPEN SPACE". THE APPLICANT IS THUS "DUMPING" PROPERTY THAT HAS NO ECONOMIC VALUE TO HIM ON THE TAXPAYERS, AND (AMAZINGLY) RECEIVING CREDIT FROM THE CITY FOR DOING SO. 2. THE "NEIGHBORHOOD TRAIL"(PUBLIC), REPRESENTED BY THE APPLICA'_VT, IS BASED UPON A TRAIL SYSTEM PLAN THAT HAS NOT BEEN ADOPTED BY THE CITY, AS OF THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION. THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN MAY NOT BE ADOPTED. IF ADOPTED, IT MAY NEVER BE EMPLEMENTED. THUS, THE DEVELOPER'S PROPOSED TRAIL SHOULD BE ACCORDED NO CURRENT VALUE AS A "PUBLIC" TRAIL. 3. EACH END OF THE "NEIGHBORHOOD TRAIL" TERN13NATES IN "PRIVATE SPACE", RENDERING THE DESIGNATION OF THE TRAIL AS "PUBLIC" ILLUSORY, AT BEST. THE SW TERMINUS OF THE TRAIL WAS CLAIMED AS "PUBLIC" BY THE APPLICANT. STAFF DISCOVERED THIS MISREPRESENTATION AND AMENDED THE CREDIT CALCULATION (AS I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY STAFF). THE APPLICANT KNEW, OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, THAT THE "PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING DOVE CREEK" WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE "PUBLIC". THE NORTH TERMINUS OF THE TRAIL IS CHARACTERIZED BY THE APPLICANT AS A "PAVILLION,GAZEBO" AND RECEIVED CREDIT BASED UPON THIS CHARACTERIZATION. IN TRUTH, AS STATED IN THE PUBLIC MEETING BY THE APPLICANT, THIS STRUCTURE IS INTENDED TO BE A SHELTER FOR CHILDREN USING SCHOOL BUSES. BOTH OF THESE MISREPRESENTATIONS IMPACT THE CREDIT CALCULATION, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY REFLECT UPON THE INTEGRITY (OR LACK THEREOF) OF THE APPLICANT. 4. THE APPLICANT RECEIVED A $5,000 (GROSS) CREDIT FOR ONE BENCH (SPECIFICATIONS UNDISCLOSED). 5. A CITY STANDARD THAT ATTRIBUTES THE SAME VALUE TO LAND LV A DESIGNATED FLOOD PLAIN TO THAT WHICH CAN BE DEVELOPED RESIDENTIALLY OR COMMERCIALLY IS FLAWED, AT BEST. Lti SUMMARY, THE APPLICANT HAS CONVINCED THE CITY, TO DATE, A.-MAZLNGLY, BUT NOT SURPRISINGLY, TO ABSORB HIS COST OF ECONOMICALLY NON -VIABLE PROPERTY, AND TO PASS THIS COST, IN PERPETUITY, TO THE TAXPAYERS AT LARGE W-HO WILL RECEIVE NO -DISCERNIBLE BENEFIT FROM THE TRANSACTION. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WOULD, IF LEFT IN ITS PRESENT STATE, PROVIDE A NATURAL BUFFER BETWEEN THE PROPOSED INTENSE NEW DEVELOPMENT AND THE LOW DENSITY, LONG TERM, EXISTING DEVELOPED SURROUNDINGS, SHOULD THEAPPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN BE APPROVED. THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL WILL ONLY DP41NISH THIS NATURALLY EXISTING BUFFER APPROVAL OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL WILL BENEFIT ONE GROUP OF POTENTIAL TAXPAYER/CITIZENS, TO THE DETRPAENT OF EXISTING TAXPAYER/CITIZENS. I AM OF THE OPINION THAT SUCH APPROVAL CONSTITUTES POOR PUBLIC POLICY. RSB 4/11/01 REV. 4/12/01 04/19/01 THU 13:52 FAX 2147566216 HOSEWOOD Wi 002 1820 HUNTERS CREEK DRIVE SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS 76092 APRIL 6, 2001 Dennis King, Chairman City of Southlake, Planning & Zoning Commission 205 Manor Place SoutWalce, Texas 76092 RE: ZAO i -027 Dear Mr. King: At the April 5, 2001 Regular Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting, I addressed the Commission and expressed the opinion that approval of the applicant/developer's request to have the rezoning and development plan application tabled to a future date would demonstrate that the developer "controlled" the decision process. You disagreed with my opinion, but did not request the rationale for it. The Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to approve the applicant/developer's request to have the matter tabled. The process is flawed in that, as I understand it, if the applicant requests that a matter be tabled the staff does not provide an "information package" to the commissioners (although one may have been finalized). Thus, the commissioners, with no information with respect to thc: rezoning application (as one member stated: "I only have one piece of paper"- the applicant's request to table), can (reasonably) justify their vote to approve the applicant/developer's request to table. 1n the instant case, the applicant/developer has a long history of development activity in the City. Despite your gratuitous comments on his behalf, he knows, or should know, the City's requirements associated with his referenced application. He chose not to abide by them, and then used the convenient "tabling mechanism" in an attempt (apparently successful to date) to obfuscate the issues, when he was "caught". His failure to appear at the meeting indicates to me how well he believes (with good reason) he controls the process. In the instant case, the import is that no mention will be made by the staff that required postnig of rezoning notices was not made on the subject property, within the tim me p 1 9 % O 01 e )cF2 04/19/01 THU 13:53 FAX 2147566216 ROSEWOOD Z 003 specified by the City. Additionally, certain members of the Commission and the City staff have represented to me that the request to table was made so that a "SPIN Neighborhoo&Developer Meeting" could be conducted "before the public hearing". The rezoning application was originally filed 2/26/01. The applicant/developer did not request a Nei ghborhood/Developer Meeting until 3/29/01, He had ample opportunity to initiate the SPIN meeting process, but did not do so, in time to accomplish such, before the scheduled public hearing (4/5/01). In a 3/29/01 letter to you, the applicant/developer requested that this matter be tabled until 4/19/01. He provided no basis for the request (based upon a reading of the letter to me by a Commissioner). I believe the above adequately supports my publicly expressed position with respect to the process relative to the instant case, the "control" by the applicant/developer, and the activities of the Planning & Zoning Commission in general. To me, at least, the problem I have encountered is easily resolved. Require, as a matter of policy, the staff of the Planning Department to provide the Commissioners with a "final information package" for any item on the Commission agenda, regardless of whether or not a request to table has been received from the applicant. In this manner, the Commissioners can make an informed, and defensible, decision on requests to table by applivant/developers. If you disagree with any of the above, I'd appreciate you comments. I request that you provide a copy of this letter to all other members of the Commission. Jenny Crosby From: Sam Teng [SamT@ESIEnvironmental.comj Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 5:47 PM To: Jenny Crosby Cc: cmtengl39@yahoo.com Subject: RE: ZA01-127, Rezoning and Concept Plan for Haltom Creek Estates Southlake City Planning Department: RE: ZA01-127, Rezoning and Concept Plan for Haltom Creek Estates We live at 2089 North Carroll Avenue. Our property is one of the properties bordering the Haltom Creek Estates property on the Carroll Avenue side. Their property adjoins our backyard. The development of that land affects us significantly. We would like you to consider our concerns, general and specific, in your decision process. General Concerns Allowing the development of '/2 acre lots is a significant departure from what is allowed in the area up until now. All the property surrounding Haltom Creek Estates is at least 1 acre and probably averages about 2 acres. Homeowners in the neighborhood have gone to great expense to preserve the open look and feel that is characteristic of Southlake property north of Highway 114. There are generally no fences, or fences of the type that don't obstruct an open view of the surrounding land. On property that is over 1 acre in size there is enough space between homes to do without privacy fences. This just isn't so with % acre lots. It is particularly aggravating that Haltom Creek Estates is in the middle of 1 acre plus homes, not bordered by a street or greenbelt. This will ruin the rural look and feel of the neighborhood. Having a'/2 acre fenced development in the middle of a rural look will appear out of character, and hodge podge. We feel that potential property values in the area will be adversely affected, particularly if a downward trend is allowed to start. The Haltom Creek Estates Plan routes traffic onto Carroll Avenue, which is already too busy in the mornings and afternoons. Carroll Avenue and the street accessing Carroll are both so narrow that congestion and traffic accidents are invited. Carroll Avenue is only a two lane road. Allowing'/2 acre development along Carroll Avenue without diverting traffic to other streets is aggravating the situation. Because of the amount of development north of 114, people already have a tendancy to drive in excess of the speed limit on Carroll despite frequent patrols by the Southlake Police. There are three schools within that one mile stretch on Carroll Avenue. Over development of the area without better traffic alternatives will make the area unsafe. Concerns Specific To Our Property Our lot, and others, have buildings on the property line bordering Haltom Creek Estates. We have a three car garage and a shed that are right on the property line. These buildings were constructed in the 1930's. This is not the kind of thing that would be allowed under current zoning of any kind, but they are already there. Fences along these property lines would be so close to existing buildings that neither fence or existing buildings would be maintainable. Also, a fence up against the back of our garage would invite animals, skunks, rodents, etc. to build nests. We would like to see a buffer zone of 10 feet provided between Haltom Creek Estates and our lot. Yiithout a proper buffer zone any kind of barrier would become an unsightly aroblem. Other lots bordering Carroll Avenue and Dove Road probably have the same problem. The Haltom Creek Estates design has not allowed for proper water drainage at the back of our propery. The property Haltom Creek Estates owns adjacent to the back of our land is currently lower than our land. When the two homes scheduled to be built at the back of our property are constructed, the foundations will be built up to avoid water problems. This is customary for slab construction in Texas. Water will be diverted onto our property causing problems on our property, and at the front of our property where storm sewers have not been constructed. We only have a gravel driveway, common in areas zoned agricultural, which would quickly be undermined and unuseable. These are some of the concerns that came to mind based upon the plans that were mailed to us. We are sure that other things will come up as we have a chance to talk to some of our neighbors and hear more of the details concerning the Haltom Creek Estates Plan. Thank you for hearing us. We would appreciate being kept informed. Sincerely, Sam and Chris Teng April 25, 2001 Southlake City Planning Department: RE: ZA01-127, Rezoning and Concept Plan for Haltom Creek Estates Property Owners: Sam and Chris Teng 2089 North Caroll Avenue Southlake, TX 76092 After looking at the Plans on Haltom Creek Estates, and hearing comments made by the developer at public meetings, we are concerned that the lack of adequate storm sewers along Carroll Avenue and Dove Road on the north and west border of the Haltom Creek Estates development will not handle the additional water runoff created by the development. The land appears to be highest in the middle of the Haltom Creek Estates property labeled Product Type A. With the density of homes and streets being added, it appears that surfaces that would run off water, streets, homes, patios, driveways, swimming pools, etc. would make up about 50 percent of the land area. The addition of homes will only increase the elevation of the land in the development. The Haltom Creek Estates plan hasn't provided for storm sewers to make water run toward the flood plain area. You would have to expect that the water would find it's way to Carroll Avenue and Dove road where there aren't storm sewers to handle the additional runoff. When asked, the developer said that they would make the water run toward the flood plain area, but their plans don't seem to support the statement. We have seen how the water stands in the backyards of the new development across the street from us on Carroll Road. The runoff wasn't well planned for, and now it has no place to go. If this happens on our side of the street too, with Haltom Creek Estates, it could undermine the street as well as our driveways. We hope that you will take a good look at this situation. Sincerely, Sam and Chris Teng CITY OF SOUTHI.AKE NOTICE TO INTERESTED PROPERTY OWNERS REFERENCE NO.: ZA01-027 Dear Property Owner. �C TABBED TO An application has been filed with the City of Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission for a Rezoning and Devblopment Plan for Haltom Creek Estates on property described as Tracts 3AIG3 3AIG 3A1G5 3A1G1 3A1G2, 3A1G4 3A1F1 5B3 5B 5B2A 5B2 4E arid 4 Frances Thr000 Survev Abstract No. 151 I ; beine 95.9 acres. The property is located on the east side of North Carroll Avenue and the west side of Sunshine Lane aooroximately 500' south of East Dove Road. The Current Zoning is "AG" Agricultural District and "SF -IA" Single Family Residential District. The Requested Zoning is "R-PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District. A public hearing will be held by the City of Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission on Thursdav, April 5, 2001, at 6:30 p.m in the Council Chambers at Town _Hall, 1400 Main Street, Southlake, Texas. At this time, you may submit your views on the matter in person, by writing, or by representative. You are encouraged to follow the requested action through final approval because changes are often made during the review process. If you know of any interested property owner who, for any reason, has not received a copy of this letter, it would be greatly appreciated if you would inform them of the time and place of this hearing. Very truly yours, Planning and Zoning Commission City of Southlake, Texas The following form may be filled out and mailed to the City of Southlake, Planning and Zoning Commission, 1;00 Main Street, Suite 310, Southlake, Texas, 76092. REFERENCE �O.: ZA01-027 Lam (in favor of; ,opposed t AWL- n� rr SIGNATURE:' - 1< V // t ADDRESS: undecided a ;z- - !.-;- - Luu. the request.for the following reasons: ' —THIS NOTICE K-4S BEENSENT P74 REGULAR M.411 AND CERTIFIED -74 �xz -T C� ^-'1xy�:/o�r�i �, Reference No. ZA01--027 I am opposed to the request for the following reasons: Dove creek overflows its banks onto my property when we have a heavy downpour. It won't be able to handle any additional runoff. The creek bed was widened and deepened when the sewer was installed. Since then, the banks have eroded into the creek channel. There is some type of dam behind my lot which may be related to the fence across the creek. After the last period of heavy rain, the cascading noises could be heard for days and there was moving water in the creek for about a week. The back of my lot is heavily treed, which is why I selected it. I enjoy the tranquillity of my backyard and watching the birds, squirrels, rabbits and occasional armadillo, turtle or beaver. I feel this will be threatened if lots under one acre are located on the other side of the creek. If the 100 year flood plain is to be made into a private or perhaps public park, the fence that existed at the property line behind my lot should be reestablished to insure that park users know the boundaries. Paulette Bonchak 1820 Hunters Creek (817) 481 - 7762 �O'u'Q�S�,�,� 4 - 14 • o I 04-19-2001 01:00ps From -PUBLIC AFFAIRS NOISE OFFICE 9725748544 T-360 P.002/005 F-644 Jeffrey P. Fegan Dallas i F u r t w Exccudvc Nrccror v r t h In 1crnz4li40)nal A i r u r r April 19, 2001 Mr. Dennis King, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission City of Southlake 1400 Main Street, Suite 310 Southlake, Texas 76092 RE: Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda of April 19, 2001, Item # 4 Reference No. ZA01-027, Haltom Creek Estates Dear Chairman King: The Agenda for the City of Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission for April 19, 2001, Item #4, refers to an application for a rezoning and development plan for Haltom Creek Estates, a property described as being located on the east side of North Carroll Avenue and the west side of Sunshine Lane, approximately 500, south of East Dove Road. The current Zoning is "AG" and "SF-1A". The requested zoning is "R-PUD". Plans for -the development include single family residences on lots of 20,000 square feet to one acre. For reasons stated below, the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Board ("DFW) is oploosed to the proposed rezoning and development plan. Referencing the Airport's Official Noise Contour, southem and southwestern portions of the proposed Haltom Creek Estates property are located within the 65 DNL noise level (refer to attached contour excerpt). The property is located within approximately one eight of a mile northeast of the extended runway centerline for Runway 13RI31 L and approximately five statute miles of the north end of this runway. The property is subject to routine and regular operations by aircraft operating to and from DFW Intemational Airport. Historical aircraft ffight information indicates jets operate as low as 1,200 feet above ground level near the subject property. According to Federal Aviation Administration guidelines and the City of Southlake's own Ordinance 479, "Airport Compatible Land Use', residential properties within the 65 DNL contour are considered incompatible. Given these factors, approval of the requested use of the property would violate the 1988 Settlement Agreement between Southlake and the DFW Airport unless Southlake requires project specific mandatory specifications for building shells that include a 25 dB Noise Level Reduction (NLR). This specification should be incorporated into the building design, noted on the final building plans, and verified during the building inspection process in accordance with Ordinance 479. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please contact me at your convenience should you like to discuss cur comments further. incer�ly F �' A P a' 19 2 0 01 and ancaster Sr. Noise Compatibility Planner cc: P. Tomme, M, Karam, K. Robertson Four Peaks Development, Inc. a. AJminnfr;uik OftiCCs »3200 Ey: AilS.:d Dri.ti r (3:a ;)IIiCC Dr,».i hl')3.5 t DFW A,.-rw,rt. 04-19-2001 01 Vw From -PUBLIC AFFAIRS NOISE OFFICE 9725748544 T-360 P-005/005 F-644 isup 12 = le R 0 r auk i us ,� tulz j .c 5a ti9 s A, { 85JY a 8 s ae� Qa 1 IR t 3 !At f Kr i �� to R U'a W ' T.MAHAN �. sa e s s� 'C� R•EA j� � �� i ii � !t g�► 4 na I 1 SURVEY A—�01a9 f-- u VE1'( A-481 3 ! u" Y I 11 Sal I !i T 'IT11 Sze Ty TA 3MAC tit u4 g= Y 1321 D, Mau I - •'R`i PETITION I Strongly Oppose the Rezoning and Development Plan for Haltom Creek Estates, Reference No.: ZA01-027. Signature Printed Name Address PGw�eHe &Tw. ak HUY4,RTM, CYeP— 97bed S: ROOM C ee k -77hG S, let r64 Z- Connr4---, vC l HLk Cr�tl� g DO n n fi-G��h/ % FQ C- C VI R 2cCL I E/ 1 77;J HU -cI, E C. QFEA l 7-Z, I l fir S6L�TEFLV�-l'.L }�UR-NN�NG ¢ ZOKING� �}�c� (�:30 Ci,-h� F-6u (SmAi�h AD��c�nrT ' � 1Fown��aZS By my signature below, I am indicating that I am oppostd to the development of Haltom Creek Estates/-r*}jL, teEEL ESTRTIE,S --- - PVUUI C„ 3iauature Date C, L\)tj 1 6 LuttL � - ) - � -0 1 14t4(i m o(, h CYl C I t s Kew p� ' 6 l of //(-)(9 F. Lot Area — The minimum area of a lot shall be twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. G. Lot Dimensions — Each lot shall have a minimum width of one -hundred (100) feet and a minimum depth of one hundred twenty-five (125) feet, both measured at the building line. H. Floor Area — The main residence shall contain a minimum of three thousand (3,000) square feet of floor area. i. Streets -- The streets within this portion of the development shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Southlake for a residential street. The North street stub shown on the Development Plan will be dedicated initially as a right of way reservation and will not be constructed until such time that the adjoining property to the North has an approved final plat and a developer's agreement to secure the extension of the roadway northward to Dove Road. 6. Development Plan .-\ Development Plan meeting the requirements of Section 41 of City Ordinance No. 480 is being submitted with this request for R.PUD Zoning. Special Exception Uses Special exception uses may be approved by the Board of Adjustment as specifically authorized in Section 44 of this ordinance subject to full and complete compliance with any and all conditions required in Section 44, together with any other conditions as the Board of Adjustment may impose. Any use accessory to an approved special exception use shall be permitted without specific approval if it complies with the conditions for an accessory use as defined in this ordinance. (As amended by Ordinance No. 480-D.) Case No. Attachment F ZA 01-027 Page 12 PRODUCT TYPE "B" The development standards for Product Type "B" of Haltom Creek Estates are similar to and modeled from Section 11 of the City of Southlake's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 480. which detail the requirements of the SF-1 A Zoning District. r Purpose and Intent The purpose and intent of the development of Product Type "B" is ,o provide for compatible land, building, and structure uses primarily oriented to lotiv density residential purposes, select agricultural uses, open space uses, and select communit.- facility uses. The SFAA district may serve as a transitional element between limited residential development and intense agricultural activities and higher density urbanized areas of this City. Low density detached single family residential dwellings and development, along with the aforedescribed uses, comprise the principal elements of the distric,. 2. Permitted uses A. ALA-icu/tural Uses — Agricultural uses whose products are grown primarily for home consumption, such as domestic gardening, berry or bush crops. tree crops, flower gardening, orchards, and aviaries. B. Residential Uses — Single family detached dwellings. C. Community Facility L scs Public, semi-public and priN ate parks: 2. Recreation and open space including playgrounds, parkways, greenbelts, ponds and lakes, botanical gardens, pedestrian paths, bicycle paths, equestrian bridle trails, equestrian riding arena, nature centers. bird and wildlife sanctuaries: _. Private boat docks, swimming pools and game courts; I. City hall, fire and police stations and other municipal uses; and Other uses of a similar nature and character. _ Accessory Uses in addition, to those accessory uses specifically authorized in Section 34 of this ordinance, any use may be established as an accessory use to a permitted use when it cornplirs with the conditions for an accessory use as defined in this ordinance. Case No. Attachment F ZA 01-027 Page 13 Y. Specific Use Permits Specific use permits ma} be approved by the Cite Council following a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, as specifically authorized in Section 45 of City Ordinance No. 480, subject to full and complete compliance with any and all conditions required in Section 45, together with any other conditions as the City Council may impose. Any use accessory to an approved specific use permit shall be perinitted without specific approval if it complies with the conditions for an accessory use ad defined in this ordinance. (As amended by Ordinance No. 4S0-C.) Development Reeulations A. Height - No building or structure shall exceed two and one-half (2-1 2) stories. nor shall it exceed thirty-five (35) feet. B. Front Yard - There shall be a front yard of not less than forty (40) feet. C. Side Yard - There shall be a side yard of not less than tv.'enty (20) feet. D. Rear Yard - There shall be a rear yard of not less than forty (40) feet. E. Maximum Lot Coverage - All buildings or structures shall have a maximum lot coverage not exceeding twenty percent (22°0) of the lot area, except the sum total of accessory buildings shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet. (As amended by Ordinance No. 480-C.) F Lot area - The minimum area of a lot shall be forty-three thousand five hundred sixty (4=.5601 square feet. G. Lot Dimensions - Each lots :all have a minimum width one hundred (100) feet and a minimum depth of one hundred twenty-five (12 5) feet, both measured at the building line. H. Floor area - The main residence shall contain a minimum of four thousand five hundred (4,500) square feet of floor area. Typical Street -- The streets within this protion of the project shall be constructed in accordance with the standards of the City of Southlake. As an option. the developer may construct a 24 foot wide asphalt street with a 2 foot wide concrete edge on each side for a total width of 28 feet of paving. This section will have a drainage swale on each side of the roadway and will be constructed within a 60 foot wide road right of way. Development Plan A Development Plan meeting the requirements of Section -'1 of City Ordinance No. 4 1_J is being submitted .with this request for RPT-D Zoning. Case No. Attachment F ZA 01-027 Page 14 Special Exception Uses Special exceptions uses may be approved b, the Board of Adjustment as specifically authorized in Section 44 of City Ordinance No. 480, subject to full and complete compliance with any and all conditions required in Section 44, together with any other conditions as the Board of Adjustment may impose. Any use accessory to an approved special exception use shall be permitted without specific approval if it complies with the conditions for an accessory use a defined in this ordinance. (As amended by Ordinance no. 4S0-D.) Case No. Attachment F Pa ZA 01-027 ge 15 0 Rv LL, YD ay4�=`@ O V 1 _1 jyi i}7} ^J7 17a W ice] +d g u Q Y�3�i ��yi^. U > I �',' ! L 1 7 O ! 7 iS i� i ?3fe W /R%r- s i 0 0 0 Case No. Attachment F ZA 01-027 Page 16 EXHIBIT "C" This page reserved for the City Council motion. Case No. ZA 01-027 Attachment F Page 17 Surrounding Property Owners Haltom Creek Estates Case No. Attachment G ZA 01-027 Page 1 • (W Surrounding Property Owners Haltom Creek Estates Property Owner Zoning Land Use Description Acreage 1. N. Bhogavalli 1. AG 1. Low Density Residential 1. 5.08 2. J. Johnson 2. AG 2. Low Density Residential 2. 1.15 3. F. Shelby 3. AG 3. Low Density Residential 3. 3.97 4. M. White 4. AG 4. Low Density Residential 4. 1.24 5. D. Stapleton 5. AG 5. Low Density Residential 5. 1.44 6. J. Davis 6. AG 6. Low Density Residential 6. 0.83 7. T. Johnson 7. AG 7. Low Density Residential 7. 1.10 8. B. Stiborek 8. AG 8. Low Density Residential 8. 0.97 9. J. Gentry 9. SF-lA 9. Low Density Residential 9. 1.10 10. E. Higgins 10. SF -IA 10. Low Density Residential 10. 2.01 11. J. White 11. AG 11. Low Density Residential 11. 2.60 12. J. White 12. AG 12. Low Density Residential 12. 2.78 13. R. Reynolds 13. SF-1 A 13. Low Density Residential 13. 1.13 14. S. Luce 14. SF-1 A 14. Low Density Residential 14. 1.27 15. R. Brown (TAD Owner) 15. SF-lA 15. Low Density Residential 15. 1.00 T. Stewart (Sent Letter) 16. R. Bonchak 16. SF-1 A 16. Low Density Residential 16. 1.01 17. T. Chambers 17. SF-lA 17. Low Density Residential 17. 1.16 18. R. Sarpalius 18. SF-lA 18. Low Density Residential 18. 1.04 19. S. Freeman 19. SF-1 A 19. Low Density Residential 19. 0.98 20. C. McDaniel 20. SF-lA 20. Low Density Residential 20. 1.18 21. K. Barz 21. SF-lA 21. Low Density Residential 21. 1.09 22. L. Garrett 22. SF- lA 22. Low Density Residential 22. 2.92 23. D. Wallace 23. SF-lA 23. Low Density Residential 23. 2.92 24. M. Hershaw 24. SF-1 A 24. Low Density Residential 24. 5.45 25. L. South 25. SF-lA 25. Low Density Residential 25. 3.01 26. S. Neuse 26. SF -IA 26. Low Density Residential 26. 2.00 27. R. Yatko 27. SF -IA 27. Low Density Residential 27. 1.53 28. W. Crane 28. SF- lA 28. Low Density Residential 28. 3.62 29. R. Derr 29. SF-lA 29. Low Density Residential 29. 6.12 30. R. Stone 30. SF-lA 30. Low Density Residential 30. 1.18 31. K. Zimmerman 31. SF-1 A 31. Low Density Residential 31. 1.41 32. J. Pannell 32.SF-IA 32. Low Density Residential 32. 1.72 33. C. McCleskey 33. SF -IA 33. Low Density Residential 33. 1.95 34. N. Moffat 34. SF-1 A 34. Low Density Residential 34. 1.43 35. F. Hutchins 35.SF-IA 35. Low Density Residential 35. 1.71 36, D. Scratchard 36.SF-IA 36. Low Density Residential 36. 1.89 37. T. Mullaney 37.SF-IA 37. Low Density Residential 37. 1.75 38. M. Williams 38. SF -IA 38. Low Density Residential 38. 1.78 39. L. Hight 39. AG 39. Low Density Residential 39. 1.20 40. R. Birchfield 40. AG 40. Low Density Residential 40. 0.80 Case No. Attachment G ZA 01-027 Page 2 41. Westerra Southlake 41. NR-PUD 41. Mixed Use 41. 99.84 42. W. Booker 42. AG 42. Low Density Residential 42. 0.20 43. A. Cercone 43. AG 43. Low Density Residential 43. 0.27 44. W. Booker 44. AG 44. Low Density Residential 44. 0.41 45. KM Properties 45. SF -IA 45. Low Density Residential 45. 0.99 46. KM Properties 46. SF-lA 46. Low Density Residential 46. 0.99 47. R. Bartholomew 47. SF-1 A 47. Low Density Residential 47. 1.11 48. S. Teng 48. AG 48. Low Density Residential 48. 1.07 49. C. Richardson 49. AG 49. Low Density Residential 49. 1.47 50. W. Eastwood 50. SF-20B 50. Low Density Residential 50. 0.46 Case No. Attachment G ZA 01-027 Page 3 (01 Surrounding Property Owner Responses Haltom Creek Estates NOTICES SENT: Forty-eight (48) RESPONSES: Fifteen (15) responses have been received from within the 200' notification area: • Carroll McDaniel, 1770 Hunters Creek Drive, Southlake, TX, in favor, "Concern: Drainage is already a problem on the Northeast section (Product Type B). Any increased drainage will certainly create a much larger problem." (Received March 30, 2001) • Terry and Sue Mullaney, 1515 N. Carroll Avenue, Southlake, TX, opposed. See attached letter. (Received March 30, 2001) • Rhonda Hight, 1709 N. Carroll, Southlake, TX, opposed, "I am not opposed to development around me, but I am definitely opposed to the PUD zoning." (Received March 30, 2001) • Darwin L. Scratchard, 1410 Whispering Dell Court, Southlake, TX, undecided, "Drainage issues." (Received April 3, 2001) • Ruth Stone, 1421 Whispering Dell Court, Southlake, TX, opposed, "It will cause us to lose the country atmosphere. There definitely will be drainage problems." (Received April 3, 2001) • Frank Shelby, 1211 E. Dove, Southlake, TX, opposed, "Lots less than 1 acre adjacent to existing properties will diminish future property values of existing lots." (Received April 4, 2001) • Tina Stewart, 1830 Hunters Creek, Southlake, TX, opposed, "We are strongly opposed to rezoning. We moved here because this is one of the last few areas where there are no subdivisions and there is plenty of room between houses for privacy. The additional people living in the area would cause too much traffic congestion on Dove and Carroll. We are also concerned about the possible increase in property taxes." (Received April 4, 2001) • Kim and Jeff Pannell, 1418 Whispering Dell Court, Southlake, TX, opposed, "1) Proximity of small lot housing; 2) Potential flooding; 3) Violates master plan; 4) Traffic on Carroll Road; 5) Crowding of Johnson Elem." (Received April 3, 2001) A second response from the Pannell's was received on April 19, 2001. See attached letter. Robert S. Bonchak, 1820 Hunters Creek Drive, Southlake, TX, opposed, "A detailed basis for opposition and support for denial will be presented to commissioners." (Received April 12, 2001) A second response from Mr. Bonchak was received on April 17, 2001. See attached letter. Case No. Attachment H ZA01-027 Page 1 A third response from Mr. Bonchack was received on April 19, 2001. See attached letter. • Sam Teng, 1312 Westmont Court, Southlake, TX, opposed. See attached letter. (Received April 16, 2001) A second response from Sam and Chris Teng was received on April 25, 2001. See attached letter. • Kelly Barz, 1750 Hunters Creek, Southlake, TX, opposed. See attached letter. (Received April 18, 2001) • Paulette Bonchak, 1820 Hunters Creek, Southlake, TX, opposed. See attached letter. (Received April 19, 2001) • Debi R. Cobb, 1045 Carroll Meadows, Southlake, TX, opposed, "extra traffic on Carroll, crowding of our schools." (Received May 3, 2001) • Edward O. Cobb III, 1045 Carroll Meadows, Southlake, TX, opposed. (Received May 3, 2001) • Christine Teng, 2089 N. Carroll Avenue, Southlake, TX, opposed, "That the `Spirit of the Area' be honored by the previous decision 2 yrs. Ago that 1 acre lots be occupied by single family homes." (Received May 4, 2001.) Fifteen (15) responses were received from outside the 200' notification area: • Lee C. Dodson, D.D.S., 1020 Carroll Meadows Court, Southlake, TX, opposed, "I moved to Southlake 1 month ago after living in Grapevine for 26 years. My sole reason was the property and its rural environment. I was informed that north of 114 would be 1 acre lots!" (Received April 5, 2001) A second response was received from Dr. Dodson on May 3, 2001, opposed. • Craig R. Novak, 1920 Fox Hollow Creek, Southlake, TX, opposed, "Southlake and our neighborhood has no reason to change the zoning. Traffic on Carroll would increase more than necessary. We moved her because of the SF-1 A designation. We are completely opposed to a variance." (Received April 16, 2001) • Jerry W. Lewis, 1030 Carroll Meadows Court, Southlake, TX, opposed. See attached letter. A second response was received from Mr. Lewis on May 3, 2001. • Lee Ann Munoz, 1000 Carroll Meadows Court, Southlake, TX, opposed, "The future development for the area for the next ten years has been set. We just moved here according to the SF -IA zoning and would affect our property value highly. We bought Case No. Attachment H ZA01-027 Page 2 (W in this brand new development which adhered to the SF -IA zoning and our home price shows it! We, as many have chosen to stay north because of the SF-1 A and our school's development plan has been made accordingly. We choose to live North of 114 because congestion is low. If we ok this for Haltom who will be next? We do not want this passed. And will do everything possible to keep SF- I A."(Received April 17, 2001) • Aloha Payne, 1213 Whispering Lane, Southlake, TX, opposed, "All of the surrounding homes are one acre or more. Drainage, the creek floods during heavy rainfall. Traffic — can't get out of our subdivision now." (Received April 18, 2001) • Gregg R. Timmons, 1960 Fox Hollow Circle, Southlake, TX, opposed, "Would prefer 1+ acre lots — need to keep rural atmosphere and keep population for roads down!" (Received April 18, 2001) • Larry Dodson, 1215 Whispering Lane, Southlake, TX, opposed, "1. Stick to current ordinance: 1 acre per lot for house, not averaging. 2. Traffic 3. '/2 acre lots only promote congestion." (Received April 18, 2001) • Michael Howe, 2612 Parker Court, Southlake, TX, opposed, "I'll keep it simple. We need to stick to 1 acre minimum lots. Period!" (Received April 19, 2001) • Sandra J. Lancaster, Sr. Noise Compatibility Planner, DFW International Airport, opposed. See attached letter. (Received April 19, 2001) • Laura M. Dodson, 1020 Carroll Meadows, Southlake, TX, opposed, "Opposed, Keep as is!" (Received May 3, 2001) • Shelly Lewis, 1030 Carroll Meadows Court, Southlake, TX, opposed. (Received May 3, 2001) • Mary Soulier, 1005 Carroll Meadows Court, Southlake, TX, opposed, "I am opposed to the zoning change. I am requesting to have it remain as is, "SF -IA". (Received May 3, 2001) • Paul Soulier, 1005 Carroll Meadows Court, Southlake, TX, opposed, "I want the zoning to remain as it is. Do not change from "SF -IA". (Received May 3, 2001) • Randell T. Blair, 850 Ownby, Southlake, TX, opposed. (Received May 3, 2001) • Tracy W. Blair, 850 Ownby Lane, Southlake, TX, opposed. (Received May 3, 2001) Two petitions with thirty-two (32) signatures were received on April 19, 2001. See attached petitions. Case No. Attachment H ZA01-027 Page 3 among other things of the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for the particular uses and with a view of conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the community. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall be cumulative of all other ordinances of the City of Southlake, Texas, affecting zoning and shall not repeal any of the provisions of said ordinances except in those instances where provisions of those ordinances are in direct conflict with the provisions of this ordinance. SECTION 6. That the terms and provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be severable and that if the validity of the zoning affecting any portion of the tract or tracts of land described herein shall be declared to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the zoning of the balance of said tract or tracts of land described herein. 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 Case No. Attachment F ZA 01-027 Page 5 such ordinances, same shall not be affected by this ordinance but may be prosecuted until final disposition by the courts. SECTION 9. The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to publish the proposed ordinance or its caption and penalty together with a notice setting out the time and place for a public hearing thereon at least ten (10) days before the second reading of this ordinance, and if this ordinance provides for the imposition of any penalty, fine or forfeiture for any violation of any of its provisions, then the City Secretary shall additionally publish this ordinance in the official City newspaper one time within ten (10) days after passage of this ordinance, as required by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake. SECTION 10. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law, and it is so ordained. PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st reading the day of 92001. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY Case No. Attachment F ZA 01-027 Page 6 PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the MAYOR ATTEST: day of 92001. CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CITY ATTORNEY DATE: ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: Case No. Attachment F ZA 01-027 Page 7 EXHIBIT "A" Tracts 3A1G3, 3A1G, 3A1G5, 3A1G1, 3A1G2, 3A1G4, 3AIF1, 5B3, 5B, 5132A, 5B2, 4E, and 4, being situated in the Frances Throop Survey Abstract No. 1511, and being approximately 95.9 acres. LEGAL DESCRIPTION . 7RA77 DF _AND Sf , _A= A 742 FRANCES THROOP SURVEY SOSTRACT NO.. 1 1. ',:-:_: 4`T -`T • EX.AS..AND BEING ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CALLED TRACTS.A 2322 ACRE A_ \ _ : _ \CRE TRACT':. A : - 445 .ACRE TRACT. A 2.303 ACRE TRACT, A 15.92- ACRE .TRACT. A _ 3 Z ACRE TR.-.:_`, A 3 _..-ACRE TRACT TRACT .A ..-\ 3,2I .ACRE TRACT ITR.ACT B ..A 3.2:.ACRE TRA'C7 C ,AND .A ZO.ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEEDS TO ZANIES C. HALTONI ET UX. OF RECORD A % OLUME 13-31. PAGE CCb5, VOLUME IN5a PAGE 13L VOLUME IMA PAGE W. ` OL_IE 133-0. PAGE 91 VOLUME 1571 PAGE 91 VOLUME IMS% PAGE'_22 AND VOLUME 133'0. PAGE )-. RESPECTIVELY, DEED RECORDS, T ARR.ANT COUNTY, TEXAS, BELNG MORE P.ART;Cr_•r .ARt Y DESCRIBED AS FOLLO%VS B&G NNING 37 A 6 'MOOD POST FOUND FOR CORNER IN THE EAST RIGHT-OF-%V.AY LINE OF N; R Tn CARROLL AVENUE AT THE MOST '�\ EST ERN SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID =0.5_3 .ACRE TRACT FROM `.\ HTCH .\ 19 IRON ROD FOUND FOR REFERENCE BEARS .SOL7H ' 5VT EAST. A THENCE NORTH N CT W WEST. ALGNG T HE OF SAID NORTH CARROLL A`. ENVE A DISTANCE OF IC01.5' -EET TO A 1i2" IRON ROD FOUND FOR CORNER .AT THE MOST NORTHERN SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID 29.395 ACRE TRACT FROM WHICH .A 102 IRON .OD FOUND FOR REFERENCE BEARS SOUTH 391103' EAST. A DISTANCE OF 2112 FEET: THENCE SO' TH N :3 ' 0 EAST. ALONG A 33UNDARY LINE OF SAID '9.395 ACRE TRACT A DfSSTANCE OF 2Y 1 -2 FEET. TO .A I,:" IRON ROD FOUND FOR COR`fER A T AN INTERIOR CORNER THEREOF FROM WHICH A IRON ROD FOUND FOR REFERENCE BEARS SOUTH 39'28' 03' EAST. A DISTANCE OF i';_C0 FEET. THENCE \ORTH 014T :YWEAT ALONG A ', TIMRLY BOUNDARY LIVE OF SAID '. ?%` ACRE TR _ A DISTANCE OF N7 0 RKET 1 _ A TS" IRON ROD FOUND FOR CORNER AT THE ,NIONT NOR7H?RN NOR T'HA EST CORNER THEREOF, _NC_ `:OR :... _ . .. EAST .=.LJNG .\ NORTH BOUNDAR`i LINT OF LAST ME.\ TONED TRACT I _ . - QKE OF - K T FEET T) A R \MROAD S,' KF FOUND FOR CORNER iN A 5 `.'r,r D POST AT .. AN LE PC..` : I .SA!D T iRN ;i LINE. F� ;C SC f_ T H 32_ E.AST ALONG A NORTH BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID 2T39= .ACRE TRACT A i l";7 \TE OF "- FUT TO Y IRON ROD FOUND FOR CORNER NEAR A FENCE POST AT THE YnA , .ZAST CORNER THEREOF, THENCE ;;)I "-' H 1- 3H 10 W EST ALONG AN EAT TRLY BOUNDAR'i LINE OF SAID 29.395 .ACRE \ Di TANi'.= OF n; 55 FEET \ { R .' R-,D FOUND FOR CORNER AT AN !NTERIOR EAST..AL,:�N ;7 .A BOUNDARY LINE ,')F S.AiD _ 395 .ACRE TRACT AND THE ,. T., LAE OF :J 2 303 ACRE TRACT, RESPECTIVELY..A DISTANCE OF 193.33 FE T TO A »" X L . F ENT FOUND FOR CORNER AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID 2.30S ACRE R_T C`.3M` I'_T:) THE NOR"; H` TST CORNER OF LOT 1�)-R OF HUNTERS RIDGE .ADDITION, AN -HE ;-ITY "F SOLTHLAKE. TARRANT COUNTY. TEXAS. ACCORDING TO THE PLAT TASHOF RECQRLED K VOLUME 333-16_,. PAGE 72. `.TAP RECORDS. T-\RR.ANTCOUNTY. TEXAS: _ _ . _ - H EAST ALONC• THE ',L E` Ti3Oi_NDARY LINE OF S.A1D .ADD. ! :C;N .A _ E V- EE. A 1 X A CONCRETE NNN1-.. ENT FOUND FOR CORNER AT ...E R 07RECF _ OM 5N TO THE %ORT..':ecSTCORNER OF SAZ 010 ACRE Case No. Attachment F ZA 01-027 Page 8 THENCE SOUTH 75=06' 09" EAST. ALONG THE NORTHEAST BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID 1-1.4-15 ACRE TRACT A DIS-7-\NCE OF 6-12.29 FEET TO .A POINT FOR CORNER AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER - HE ..-RHOF. r:ENCE SOUTH 3•�=52' 49" EAST, ALONG A NORTHEAST BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID 1-.-.15 ACRE TRACT :A DISTANCE OF 30.33 FEET TO A 1/2" IRON ROD FOUND FOR CORNER NEAR .A 6" WOOD POST A T THE MOST WESTERN CORNER OF SAID 2.922 ACRE TRACT: THENCE NORTH 62'02' 42" EAST. ALONG THE NORTHWEST BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID 2.922 ACRE TRACT A DISTANCE OF 199.-37 FEET TO .A 3i4" IRON ROD FOUND FOR CORNER AT THE MOST NORTHERN CORNER THEREOF: T'r.ENCF SOUTH - i)'1"' 23" EAST..-�LONG THE NORTHEAST BOUNDARY LIVE OF S.MD _.9'2 .ACRE T .A.-- •\ DISTANCE OF 635.7 , FEET TO THE MOST EASTERN CORNER THEREOF IN THE NOR-H':rEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SUNSHINE LANE (50'R.O.W.): TciENCE SOUTH 61'1-'07" WEST..ALONG THE NORTHWEST BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID SUNSHINE LANE A DISTANCE OF I36.52 FEET TO .A 3i3" IRON ROD FOUND FOR CORNER AT AN .ANGLE POINT. THENCE SOUTH 00'46'09" EAST. ALONG THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID SUNSHINE LANE :\ DIST.ANCE OF 553.92 FEET TO .A ti_" IRON ROD FOUND FOR CORNER AT THE SOUTHEAST C04; NER ,,-)F SAID 3 _ 1 ACRE (TRACT .A) CONINION TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE F. THROOP .ADDITION. AN .-\DDITION TO THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE. TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. v uRD1NG TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN CABINET .A, PAGE i )30, \I.-\P RECORDS. T-.RrcANT COUNTY. TEXAS, THEENCE NORTH 39'53' IW WEST..ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE OF LAST MENTIONED TR-\CT A DISTANCE OF 1099.71 FEET TO A 1/2" IRON ROD FOUND FOR CORN -ER IN THE EAST BOUNDARY LINE OF WHISPERING DELL ESTATES. AN ,ADDITION TO THE CITY OF SOUfHLAKE, TARR.ANT COUNTY, TEXAS, .ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 333-1413, PAGE 2-0'0. MAP RECORDS, TARRA:NT COUNTY, TEXAS. T iiENCE NORTH (30'415' 36' «EST..ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY LINE OF LAST \�IENTIONED DISTANCE OF -6.66 FEET TO .A 5' `\'OOD POST FOUND FOP CORNER .AT THE SGU :iE:AST CORNER OF SAID :" 5-3 .ACRE TRACT FROM WHICH .A lit" IRON ROD FOUND FOR RFC RE \ C-F. SEARS SDI'TH 3a 5- 5, \A EST .A DISTANCE OF 2.76 FEET. ONCE iUCT I SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID 20.5-13 .ACRE TRACT .A DISTANCE OF i ! 39 44 FEET TO .A 1, 2'' IRON ROD FOUND FOR CORNER AT AN EXTERIOR CORNER TI \'<,'EST. -\LCNC .A % VEST BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID 20.5.13 .ACRE TRACT .A DIST= "CE OF 2 i=Ec1' TO .A ,V001D POST FOUND FOR COP NER AT :AN INTERIOR CORNER 'tiA ES' . .__ J`+ .A SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID 20.543 .ACRE T R.ACT )FEET TO T HE PLACE OF BEGINNING .AND CONT.AINI'.G 95.9I_ ..CRES OF Case No. Attachment F ZA 01-027 Page 9 EXHIBIT "B" III. Development Standards General The intent of the foiio,,ving development regulations is to provide the specific standards for each of the proposed product types, both where the standards are the same as the reverenced straight zoning category and where modifications have been made. The proposed modifcations have been :made to alio%v more flexibility in the ioeation of homes on the individual lots, thus providing a more Varied and interesting streetscape. =. In the --vent that there is a descrepancy between these development standards and City of Southlake Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 480. the Cite Ordinance 'will supercede in all such cases. The overall gross density of the property shall apply to the RPtiD area as a whole. Individual development or construction phases may exceed the net density for that particular area. but in no case shall the across density exceed 11.0 residential lots per acre for overall proje_.. The project may be developed in phases, and as such, said deg elopment or construction of a particular area will not require the development or construction of any other area of the property. PRODUCT TYPE "A" The deg elor ,ent standards for Product Type "A" of the proposed RPliD are similar to and modeled from Section 14 of the City of Southlake's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 480. %%hick detail the re'qulrem'.l:ts ofthe SF-20A Zonine District. P ,rn- cse and Intent Tire purpose and intent of the development of Product Type "A" is to provide for com-oatible land. buiiding and structure uses primarily oriented to moderately low density residential purposes. open space uses and select community facility uses. Moderately lov, density detached single family residential dwellings and development, along with the aforedescribed uses. comprise the principal elements of the district. _. Pe,: ed lises A. Agr•lcultL'rai Wises - Agricultural uses whose products are gro'.\a primari''% for :tome consurnption. such as domestic gardening, berm or bush crops. tree cr�ps- :iower _,ardeni nQ, orchards, and aviaries. 13 Residential `ses - Single famii, detached d%vellings. H P-o iG: _'Y- - ti np'': D Case No. Attachment F ZA 01-027 Page 10 C. Communit Faciiity Uses Public, semi-public and private parks: i Recreation and open space including playgrounds, parkways, z eenbzits ponds and lakes, botanical gardens, pedestrian paths, bicycle paths, equestrian bridle trails, nature centers, bird and wildlife sanctuaries. _ . Cite hall, fire and police stations and other municipal uses: Other uses of a similar nature and character Accessor. Lases In addition to those accessory uses specifically authorized in Section 34 of the Ci:, of Southlake's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended, any use maw be established as an accessory use to a permitted use when it complies with the conditions for an accessory use as defined in this ordinance. Specific Use Permits Specific use permits may be approved by the City Council following a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission as specifically authorized in Section 45 of the City of Southlake's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended, subject to full and complete compliance with any and all conditions required in said Section 45, together with any other conditions as the City Council may impose. Development Regulations lr, .his dis:rict, the fOHMA in2 development regulations shall be applicable: ei,ht - No building* or structure shall exceed two and one-haif (2-1.2) stories, nor shall it exceed thirtv-five (35) feet. B Front Yard - There shall be a front yard of not less than thirty-five (35) feet. Side Yard -There shall be aside yard of not less than twelve and one-half ' ' -- 1 2) feet for interior lots. For corner lots• the side yard shall not be less tha- (25) feet. For corner lots adjacent to a iot •.with a front ward. the side yard sha" 'ne i^y five (= -) feet. D Rear Yard - there shall be a rear yard of not less than twenty-five t251 .get Provided that on lots fronting on a cul-de-sac, there shall be a rear yard of not i_-ss than twenty ("20) feet. E 'Maximum Lot Coverage - All buildings or structures shall haw: a maximun-::ot coverage not exceeding thirty percent (3 O° o) of the lot area, except the su:r of accessory buiidings shall not exceed 600 square feet. (As amender Ordinance No. 4SO-C). Case No. Attachment F ZA 01-027 Page 11 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM May 3, 2001 TO: Bruce Payne. Director of Planning FROM: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services SUBJECT: Clarification of the Parks and Recreation Board's recommended park dedication requirements for Haltom Creek Estates (April 9, 2001) The Community Services Department is aware that there was some confusion at the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting regarding what park dedication requirements were recommended for approval by the Park Board at their April 9, 2001, regular meeting for the Haltom Creek proposal. Attached to this memo are: (1) Unofficial minutes (not approved by the Park Board until May 14) from that meeting concernine Haltom Creek, and; (2) The -Expense Credit Worksheet" for the development as approved by the Park Board. In summary, the Park Board: (1) Granted full credit for the value of the 20' public easement along Dove Creek and the value for the installation of the 8' public trail within that easement, with the remaining 12' of area (6' on either side) around the trail maintained by the homeowners association (2) Required an access easement across from Lot 4 for public and maintenance access 13) Granted $71,250 (no more than 50% of the required 5142,500 fee) in credit toward privately owned and maintained open space and small amenity features (4) Waived installation of 6' trail on North Carroll right-of-way Please feel free to contact our office with any further clarification needs. KH'cic Case No. ZA 01-027 Attachment E Page 1 **UN -OFFICIAL MINUTES** NOT APPROVED BY THE PARKS & RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 requested within the time frame given, experience in regards to the design and operation 2 of recreation centers, activity centers, and/or related facilities, their ability to display 3 creative proficiency within the concept design while still addressing basic operating 4 concerns and budget constraints, and their experience working with public groups, city 5 officials and city staff. Brinkley Sargent Architects of Dallas was determined to be the 6 organization best suited for the Center. They are a twenty-five year old firm specializing in recreational, sports, and public architecture. Brinkley Sargent has completed design 3 work on over fifteen recreational centers in the past five years including the Plano 9 aquatic and Recreation Center, Coppell Aquatic and Recreation Center, and the Lee Park 10 Recreation Center in Irving. Staff contacted six local municipalities and all indicated that 1 I thev were very satisfied with the work provided by Brinkley Sargent. Funding in the 12 amount of 5550,000 for the Recreation Center design is identified in FY2001i01 of the 13 SPDC Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). The scope of services and contractual fees is 1.1 currently being negotiated and will be reviewed by the City Attorney. 15 16 Time is imperative to meet the Texas Parks and Wildlife Indoor Recreation grant 17 deadline of July 31, 2001 with a conceptual floor plan and facility components. 18 19 The Parks and Recreation Board approved this item on Consent and will forward their 20 recommendation to SPDC and Citv Council. 21 22 REGULAR AGENDA 2 ; 24 agenda Item No. 4, Public Forum 25 26 his. Berman opened the Public Forum and asked the audience to hold their comments 2; re(2arding the location of the girls' softball association fields until that item is considered. 2s 29 The Public Forum was closed. 31) 31 Azenda Item No. 5-A, Approval of park dedication requirements for Haltom Creek 32 Estates, a 95-lot proposed addition in the Francis Throop Survey, Abstract No. 1511. 33 34 Mr. Hugman presented this item and noted the information contained in the Board's 35 packet memo and materials, which are attached to the minutes for clarification. 36 37 Mr. Hugman told the Board that if this development was approved, the dedication 38 proposed could provide the City the opportunity to achieve a significant piece of the East 39 Dove Creek Greenway Trail that is proposed in the revised Southlake Pathways Master - 0 Plan. The challenge is to determine a methodology through park dedication requirements 4l that would preserve the linear park setting and provide a trail available to the public, ;2 «hi le also being mindful that to make the trail work properly, the continuation of the trail 43 east and west would be required. 44 4 Cenain risks are involved and were expiained. The properties to the east and west are .40' :)" ately held. If the trail continuations are never achieved, the City would have a public . • _ ;0' P ark, 3 R;cre_,r:or. Bcard Re u. ar V2e�:rg 3 of Case No. Attachment E ZA 01-027 Page 2 "UTI -OFFICIAL MINUTES** NOT .-APPROVED BY THE PARKS & RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS trail existing within a subdivision only. The City would need to work with private landowners to accomplish this type of trail. If the City accepted this as a public trail, and if the connections to North Carroll Avenue and Dove Street are accomplished, it would provide a unique experience for trail users along Dove Creek. Mr. Hugman explained that not acquiring the opportunity now to hold this trail as public, could prevent this trail segment from ever becoming a reality. 8 ',,Ir. Hugman said staff met with the developer and reviewed their proposal and the 9 unique opportunities of an off -road, multi -use trail along the Dove Creek natural corridor. l () .-\t that time, they discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the park acreage being I 1 dedicated entirely as public or private. Staff felt the best option would be for the land 12 itself to be maintained as private by the homeowners association, but dedicating a public 13 pedestrian easement through the property and building a public trail. This plan affords the 14 City the opportunity to connect the trail on the north end to Dove Street and connect the 15 south end to Carroll Avenue. 16 17 Mr. Hugman noted the "Expense Credit Worksheet for Physical or Equipment 1 g Improvements to Park Land" in the Board's packet. He said the Pedestrian Bridge 19 Crossing Dove Creek line item shown as "public" on the document would be corrected to be sho,.vn as "private." Deducting that 550,000 still leaves the developer over on his 2I credits, and also taking into account a six-foot off -road trail along North Carroll The 22 amount of the credit comes to $174,005, which exceeds the required fees plus the 23 required trail along North Carroll. The trail along North Carroll Avenue is currently 2 t required by the Trail System Master Plan, but instead of requiring the developer to do 25 that trail at this time and not connecting to the north or south along Carroll, the City 26 would transfer the requirement of that trail to the other public trail interior to the 27 development. That cost is added to the summary. Zg 29 The location of the bridge was identified on the map (attached to minutes) for members. 30 It 's-ould he located in a "private" area. 31 32 Mr. Glover asked Mr. Hugman how a public trail would work in a "private" area — would 33 there be "private property" signs? Mr. Hugman said that issue was discussed with the 34 developer and the developer had suggested putting up signs to the affect that the "Trail is 35 Public Property." Also, having a wider easement would help. 36 37 `Ir. Glover asked if the area designated on the map as "rest area with bench" was 38 included in the public area? Mr. Hugman responded yes. 39 40 GIs. Berman said the goal of the trail system is to connect trails and questioned why the 41 trail to the north was not extended all the way to the border of the property? She 42 suggested that the developer add a loop at the north border to serve notice to users that 43 the trail ends at that point until future development. 4 -ta 43 Tar. ,Llatthexs. developer, Four Peaks Development, 7 6 Commerce Street, Soutnlake: 46 yfr. Matthews explained the reason why the trail was not extended to the property border. 3 kfeecutg Case No. Attachment E ZA 01-027 Page 3 **U':v-OFFICIAL MINUTES** NOTAPPROVED BY THE PARKS & RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 He said it was due to the level of uncertainty of when and if the adjacent property would 2 be developed. The developer's rationale was to discourage activity beyond the trail since the trail currently dead -ends at that site. The easements are obtained and fully dedicated 4 for future improvements for the trail extension. 5 6 Ms. Berman asked the developer if a loop could be put on the north end of the trail? S Mr. Matthews explained the difference between the public and private uses. The 9 dedication is for the public, but until the park trail is completed north and south, it dead- 10 ends into private property. The plan does offer a loop system with the gazebo on the 1 t north (located near the street entrance area) and the loop on the south end of the trail. t 13 'vIr. Hugman said staff was concerned also about having dead-end segments of trail on 14 the north and south ends. He mentioned safety issues. Staff's recommendation was to 15 leave the trail as it was presented on the map. 16 17 Mr. Nelson asked what use was intended for the space designated on the map as "amenity IS structure" at the north end of the trail? Would it have gravel or be a greenspace? Mr. 19 Matthews said it would be a small gathering area, like a school bus stop. It would not be 20 grass covered, but have some pavement, perhaps concrete, material. That piece would be 1 private park land. 23 The property designated as -7- on the map was a residential lot. 25 GIs. Berman asked Mr. Matthews if he would be willing to say for the record that "when 26 this trail is continued, then we can come onto your property to finish the trail off so that _ 7 they connect?" if a loop could not be put at the north end as earlier suggested. Mr. 28 Matthews responded yes. It was the developer's intention that the trails connect and Mr 29 Matthews commented that he felt that aspect of the trail was the "hole of the donut" of 30 the trail system through the development - that it was an enhancement to the subdivision. 31 32 `1s. Stokdyk asked if the roads in the subdivision were private? Mr. Matthews said he 33 believed the roads were public. 3-t 3%1r. Glover stated concerns he had about public access to the trail. He said with the 36 current design, citizens would technically have to pass through private property to get to 37 the trail. Public access would ultimately be from the north and south ends of the trail at 38 Carroll Avenue and Dove Street. 39 4,:j Until such time as the public access points are complete on the north and south ends of 41 the trail, the City asked if the developer would ;rant an access easement to the trail at the 1_ point where the trail comes closest to the road across from Lot 4, Block E, as shown on 43 the map' The developer said he had no objections to granting that access easement. Mr. 14 Hugman said it would be dedicated as a public pedestrian easement and the trail 45 constructed as public trail. Mr. Matthews said once the trail was completed and the north 46 and south public access points we.e created, the public access across from Lot 4 would Case No. Attachment E ZA 01-027 Page 4 **UN -OFFICIAL MINrU'TES** NOT APPROVED BY THE PARKS & RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 go away, however, he was favorable to keeping the easement there permanently, as a maintenance access point for the trail. 3 4 Mr. Matthews clarified conditions, stating that the developer agreed to grant the City a 5 20-foot easement and agreed to build an 8-foot wide physical trail to be maintained by 6 the City. He said the remaining 12-foot easement area, contiguous to the trail, would be maintained by the homeowners association as well. 8 9 Ms. Berman asked the developer to remind home builders not to dump their construction 10 debris in the trail. 11 12 A motion was made to accept the dedication requirement with the amendment that 13 the Cit_v have the access easement for maintenance across from Lot 4. 14 1 Motion: Glover 16 Second: Georgia 17 18 Discussion: 19 20 A comment was made to have the developer seek additional trail access from an adjacent 21 property owner to the east of the trail, as discussed earlier in the meeting. 22 23 Mr. Miltenberger asked if the developer had agreed to construct the loop on the north 24 segment of the trail? Mr. Matthews responded that a small loop could be constructed 25 within the 20-foot easement. 26 27 The motion was amended to also include a loop at the north end of the trail, within 28 the 20-foot easement. 29 30 Ms. Stokdvk asked whether the amounts shown on the worksheet under the columns 31 labeled Trails, 1996 Count, Buildout and Needed were correct'? Mr. Hugman said those 32 amounts would be updated as the figures were not relevant or based on the current 33 proposed Trail System Master Plan. 34 35 The motion continued with a vote. 36 37 Ayes: Berman, Georgia, Glover, Miltenberger, Nelson, Stokdvk and White 38 Nays: Lone 39 Abstention: None 40 Vote: 7-0 41 42 Motion carried. 43 44 Azerda Item No. 5-B Approval of park dedication requirements for Parc Place, a 46-lot 45 proposed addition in the J. Allen Survev, Abstract No. 18. 46 ;O()/ Parks & Recrearcn Board .Reguiar.t;ee;i.r, Page o o% _. Case No. Attachment E ZA 01-027 Page 5 W, Case No. ZA 01-027 m I � I o o u o v 3 I i > a a o o` a' a` a` a a' a` a g 9 LL O N O Q O a7 Q N N ((pp to Y) p q � N N N N O H 0 0 1A Q to 0 Q C 0 0 Q 0 f7 0 f7 0 N 0 0 Q 0 Q 0 Q 0 Y7 O In d O O Z 2 2 2 m a ¢ ¢ a a m O O N N pp O pp O S N N O r N N pp 0 pp 0 pp 0 pp 0 pp 0 O m v v o 0 0 0 u ¢ ¢ a _ a m m m m o m $ < o i C N Z CO Q N N ON 0 H O E W N N N N n m O S a` a0 v7 C N C,N N C, N O t0 m n Q) v i pp p N N N N N N Y] 7 m v CD fL C p N N O O O N O O .- O O O N � 0 O v y CC Y/ �o m m m > .1 � M v > o m e a s 0 I v a O C M C C O # N M y 0 C O x - x L i :av a o v c m o Z u ZOU a w U CJ vQ c ' E O? T Ti �- m C m a y a O i C C a a LL m= o C o y O a o 4r&_u Attachment E Page 6 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS ORDINANCE NO.480-364 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 3A1G3, 3A1G, 3A1G5, 3A1G1, 3A1G2, 3A1G4, 3A1F1, 5B3, 5B, 5B2A, 5B2, 4E, AND 4, SITUATED IN THE FRANCES THROOP SURVEY ABSTRACT NO. 1511, AND BEING APPROXIMATELY 95.9 ACRES, AND MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" FROM "AG" AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT AND "SF-1A" SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO "R-PUD" RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AS DEPICTED ON THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, INCLUDING PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, 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 "AG" Agricultural Case No. Attachment F ZA 01-027 Page 1 4. District and "SF-lA" Single -Family Residential 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 Case No. Attachment F ZA 01-027 Page 2 public necessity for the zoning changes, that the public demands them, that the public interest clearly requires the amendments, and that the zoning changes do not unreasonably invade the rights of those who bought or improved property with reference to the classification which existed at the time their original investment was made; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that the changes in zoning lessen the congestion in the streets, helps secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers, promotes the health and the general welfare, provides adequate light and air, prevents the over- crowding of land, avoids undue concentration of population, and facilitates the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, has determined that there is a necessity and need for the changes in zoning and has also found and determined that there has been a change in the conditions of the property surrounding and in close proximity to the tract or tracts of land requested for a change since the tract or tracts of land were originally classified and therefore feels that the respective changes in zoning classification for the tract or tracts of land are needed, are called for, and are in the best interest of the public at large, the citizens of the city of Southlake, Texas, and helps promote the general 'health, safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS: 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: Case No. Attachment F ZA 01-027 Page 3 Being Tracts 3A1G3, 3A1G, 3A1G5, 3A1G1, 3A1G2, 3A1G4, 3A1F1, 5B3, 5B, 5B2A, 5B2, 4E, and 4, situated in the Frances Throop Survey Abstract No. 1511, and being approximately 95.9 acres, and more fully and completely described in Exhibit "A" from "AG" Agricultural District and "SF -IA" Single -Family Residential District to "R-PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District as depicted on the approved Development Plan, including PUD development standards, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit `B", and subject to the specific conditions established in the motion of the City Council and attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C." 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 Case No. Attachment F ZA 01-027 Page 4 s City of Southlake Department of PlanninLy STAFF REPORT May 11, 2001 CASE NO: ZA01-027 PROJECT: Haltom Creek Estates REQUEST: On behalf of James C.Haltom, Brenda J. Haltom, James C. Haltom 1999 GRAT, Four Peaks Development is requesting a rezoning and development plan approval. ACTION NEEDED: Consider first reading of rezoning and development plan request ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information (B) Vicinity Map (C) Plans and Support Information (D) Development Plan Review Summary (E) Park Board Minutes (F) Ordinance (G) Surrounding Property Owner Map (H) Surrounding Property Owner's Responses (I) Letters Received (copied separately for Commission and Council Members Only) (J) Full Size Plans and PUD Regulations (for Commission and Council Members Only) STAFF CONTACTS: Dennis Kiilough (481-2073) Ben Bryner (481-2086) Ken Baker (481-2046) Case No. ZA01-027 BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNER: James C.Haltom, Brenda J. Haltom, James C. Haltom 1999 GRAT APPLICANT: Four Peaks Development PURPOSE: The purpose of this request is to place "Residential Planned Unit Development" district uses and regulations on the property for development of a 94 residential lots. PROPERTY SITUATION: On the east side of North Carroll Avenue and the west side of Sunshine Lane, approximately 500' south of East Dove Road. HISTORY: There have been no development activities on this property. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tracts 3A1G3, 3A1G, 3A1G5, 3A1G1, 3A1G2, 3A1G4, 3A1F1, 5B3, 5B, 5B2A, 5132, 4E, and 4, Frances Throop Survey Abstract No. 1511; being 95.9 acres. LAND USE CATEGORY: Low Density Residential and 100-Year Flood Plain CURRENT ZONING: "AG" Agricultural and "SF -IA" Single Family Residential District �.r REQUESTED ZONING: "R-PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT: Master Thorouzhfare Plan The Master Thoroughfare Plan recommends that N. Carroll Avenue be a 3- lane, undivided arterial street with 94' of R.O.W. Adequate R.O.W. has been dedicated. The Master Thoroughfare Plan recommends that Dove Street be a 5-lane, undivided arterial street with 94' of R.O.W. Currently, both these projects are not listed as a CIP project. Existing Area Road Network and Conditions The proposed site will have one (1) access on N. Carroll Avenue and one access on Sunshine Lane. A street stub will be provided for future access from Dove Street. The proposed plan indicates a center turn lane along Carroll Avenue. N. Carroll Avenue currently is a 2-lane, undivided collector street. It will be expanded to a 3-lane, undivided arterial with enough pavement to be a 5-lane arterial if needed. Case No. Attachment A ZAOI-027 Page I Sunshine Lane is a 2-lane, undivided local street. There are no plans for major improvements to this street. Dove Street is a 2-lane, undivided collector street. It will be expanded to a 5-lane, undivided arterial street. May, 2000 traffic counts on Carroll Avenue (between Highland and Dove Street): Table #1 24hr North Bound 1,841 South Bound (SB) (1,749 NB Peak A.M. 157 8-9 a.m. Peak P.M. 153 4-5 p.m. SB Peak A.M. 282 7-8 a.m. Peak P.M. 141 5-6 p.m. May, 2000 traffic counts on Dove Street (between Carroll and Kimball Street): Table #2 24hr West Bound (WB) (2,314 East Bound (EB) (2,290 WB Peak A.M. 176 7-8 a.m. Peak P.M. 307 5-6 p.m. EB Peak A.M. 290 7-8 a.m. Peak P.M. 215 5-6 p.m. Traffic Impact Use I # Units Vtpd* AM- IN AM- OUT PM- ; PM_ IN OUT Residential 94 909 18 55 62 35 *Vehicle Trips Per Day *The AM/PM times represent the number of vehicle trips generated during the peak travel times on the surrounding roads. The proposed development will generate 73 vehicle trips during the A.M. rush hour and 97 vehicle trips during the P.M. rush hour. Master Trail Plan Current Trail MasterPlan: The currently adopted Parks Master Trail Plan indicated a six (6) foot off -road trail for bicycle and pedestrian use along the east side of Carroll Avenue. Proposed Trail MasterPlan: The proposed Parks Master Trail Plan indicates an eight (8) foot multi -use trail along the east side of Carroll Avenue and a natural multi -use trail along the Dove Creek flood plain. Case No. Attachment A ZA01-027 Page 2 Park Board Recommendations The Park Board approved the following dedication in lieu of the basic equirement, which would have been 2.38 acres of public park land or $142,500 in fees: 1. Accepting the 20' public pedestrian access dedication (linear park) as shown on the April 5, 2001, Pedestrian Access Plan revision (See Attachmemt C, page 2), including an 8' trail at the applicant's expense within that dedication, except that; (a) the applicant also agreed to place a 20' pedestrian access/maintenance easement from across the street from Lot 4, Block E. 2. Accepting a waiver for the required installation of the required 6' off - road trail on the east side of Carroll Ave. 3. NOT crediting the private pedestrian bridge on the south end toward park credit ($50,000). 4. All other amenities, including area outside the 20' wide pedestrian dedication, are private and to be maintained by HOA. Note: If the P&Z agrees with the Park Board's recommendation to waive the requirement for the construction of a trail on the east side of Carroll Avenue, the P&Z must grant a variance to the requirements of the Trail System Master Plan. DRAINAGE ANALYSIS: The preliminary drainage plans indicate that Dove Creek will be left in its natural state. The proposed area shown as common open space is 100-year flood plain and floodway. The proposed plan does indicate 2 storm sewer pipes being discharged into the creek area and a water line crossing the creek for looping purposes. There are 3 ponds on the property east of the creek. This proposed area in its existing state drains into Dove Creek, which drains north through this site and through the northwest portion of Hunter's Ridge Subdivision. From there, the creek runs through several tracts on Dove Street and into an existing box culvert across East Dove Street. There is a tributary that drains into Dove Creek from the south. This tributary starts at Highland and runs north through whispering Dell Estates Subdivision and joins Dove creek in the common open area. A drainage and flood study will be required on the creek downstream of this development to be submitted with the Preliminary Plat. The trail is to be constructed in the floodplain. However, no construction will occur within the floodway of the creek other than the utility and trail crossings. Erosion control measures will be required to prevent erosion of the creek. Staff recommends that erosion control measures be put in place with the installation of the trail. Case No. Attachment A ZA01-027 Page 3 A study of the downstream areas of the creek will determine what the affect on downstream properties will be and whether detention will be required. If downstream conditions won't handle the increased runoff from this proposed site, the developer will be required by ordinance to detain the increased runoff. WATER & SEWER: There is an existing 6" water line on the west side of N. Carroll Ave. and an existing 8" sanitary sewer line along Dove Creek. There is an existing 8" water line on the east side of Sunshine Lane. The developer will be required to build a 12" water line beginning at the existing 12" line located at the north property line of Johnson Elementary. It will need to extend to the north property line of this site along N. Carroll Ave. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEES*: Table #3 Water $176,570.80 assumes 94 — 1" simple meters Wastewater $110,032.80 assumes 94 — 1" simple meters Roadway $142,088.65 assumes 94 residential units * Final Impact Fees are determined by the Building Services Department at the time of building permit issuance. The tees shown above only represent estimates prepared by the Planning Department. P&Z ACTION: April 5, 2001; Approved (7-0) to table at the applicant's request and to continue the Public Hearing to the April 19, 2001, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. P&Z SPEAKERS: April 19, 2001; Approved (6-0) to table at the applicant's request and to continue the Public Hearing to the May 3, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. May 3, 2001; Motion to deny approved (5-0). F-In Favor Qualified In Favor Opposed I Other 1 13 STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Development Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated 5111/01. WCommunity Development>.WP-FILES\MEMO\2001cases\01-027ZDP.doc Case No. Attachment A ZA01-027 Page 4 Vicinity Map Haltom Creek Estates 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 Feet 10 W E. Case No. Attachment B ZA01-027 Page 1 I a z LLJ C=) 1! 1V z I CL < s 4 LU 2- W oz H% 18 CL LU jfij.-JgIljjl� 'd 0 v LU 7 > I uj "jilt-11 - I y - s � d�� Kf� Ali O Case No. Attachment C ZA01-027 Page 1 8 j� I Case No. ZA01-027 Attachment C Page 2 Case No.: ZA01-027 DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Review No.: Four Project Name: Development Plan — Haltom Creek Estates APPLICANT: Four Peaks Development, Inc. 726 Commerce St. Suite 109 Southlake, TX 76092 Phone: 817/329-6996 Fax: 817/481-4074 Date of Review: 05/11/01 ENGINEER: Huitt-Zollars, Inc. Ocie Vest 3131 McKinney Ave. Suite #600 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: 214/871-3311 Fax: 214/871-0757 CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 5/08/01 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 BEN BRYNER AT (817) 481-2086. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS The following items from the RPUD development regulations (Product `A') modeled after the "SF-20" designation differ from the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance: a. Side yards — The RPUD provides for 12 Moot side yards. The "SF-20" designation provides for 15 feet. b. Rear yard — The RPUD provides for 25 foot rear yards. The "SF-20" designation provides for 40 foot rear yards. If the lot abuts a cul-de-sac, the RPUD provides for 20 foot rear yards compared to 35 feet for "SF-20" designation. Floor Area — The RPUD designates a minimum of 3,000 square feet of floor area. "SF-20" requires a minimum of 1,800 square feet of floor area. The following items from the RPUD development regulations (product `B') modeled after the "SF -IA" designation differ from the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision. Ordinance: a. Maximum Lot Coverage — The RPUD allows 22% maximum lot coverage. "SF-1 A" regulations allow 20%. b. Floor Area — The RPUD requires a minimum of 4,500 square feet of floor area compared to 2,000 square feet required in "SF -IA" regulations. GENERAL REGULATION COMMENTS 3. Change the name of the development. A similar name already exists. 4. Submit new supporting documents and plans that match the most recent development plan. This Case No. Agenda Item Attachment D ZA 01-027 Page 1 includes the updated development regulations, an updated Pedestrian Access Plan, updated Water, Sewer and Drainage plans, and all other supporting documents and plans. 5. A trail is required along the east side of Carroll Avenue. 6. The current trail configuration shows the trail through Dove Creek connecting to the street system of this development. A trail meeting the Master Trail Plan requirements must be provided through the development to connect with the rest of the creek trail system. INFORMATIONAL CONIMENTS It appears that part of this property lies within the 65 LDN D/FW Regional Airport Overlay Zone and will require construction standards that meet requirements of the Airport Compatible Land Use Zoning Ordinance No. 479. The location for the street stub to the north will be finalized during review of both the Preliminary and Final Plats. 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, Roadway Impact Fees, Water & Sewer Impact and Tap Fees, and related Permit Fees. Case No. Agenda Item Attachment D ZA 01-027 Page 2 MEMORANDUM May 11, 2001 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Sandra L. LeGrand, City Secretary SUBJECT: Resolution No. 01-030, Appointment to the Planning and Zoning Commission Action Requested: City Council appoints three (3) members to the Planning and Zoning Commission to serve two (2) year terms. Background: Resolution 01-030 provides for the appointment of three (3) members on the Planning and Zoning Commission. Chapter XI, Section 11.03 of the Home Rule Charter, which relates to the Planning and Zoning Commission, allows for appointments to two- year terms to the commission. Currently, three (3) of the seven (7) member commission have terms that have expired. Those commissioners include: Michael Boutte, Kenneth Horne, and Dennis King. Financial Consideration: Not Applicable. Citizen Input/ Board Review: Not Applicable. Legal Review: Not Applicable. Alternatives: Not Applicable. Supporting Documents: 1) Resolution No. 01-030 2) Applications as submitted by Friday, May 11, 2001, at 3:00 p.m. Staff Recommendation: Make appointments to fill three (3) expired positions. RESOLUTION NO.01-030 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Whereas, a Home Rule Charter of the City of Southlake, Texas, was approved by the voters in a duly called Charter election on April 4, 1987; and, Whereas, in the Home Rule Charter, Chapter XI concerns Planning and Zoning, and Section 11.03 allows for appointment for two (2) year terms on the commission; and, Whereas, currently the terms of three (3) commissioners have expired; now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, THAT: Section 1. All of the findings in the preamble are found to be true and correct and the City Council hereby incorporates said findings into the body of this resolution as if copied in its entirety. Section 2. The terms of Michael Boutte, Kenneth Horne, and Dennis King have expired. Section 3. The City Council hereby appoints the following persons to the Planning and Zoning Commission to serve a term to expire in May 2003: 1. 2. (Two year term) (Two year term) 3. (Two year term) Section 4. This resolution shall become effective after its passage and approval by the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MAY 2001 Resolution No. 01-030 Page two CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS BY: ATTEST: Sandra L. LeGrand City Secretary Mayor Rick Stacy City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM May 11, 2001 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Rick Black, Director of Public Safety (Ext. 2421 SUBJECT: Request for a variance to Sign Ordinance No. 704-A for Clariden Ranch located at 3900 North White Chapel Boulevard. Action Requested: City Council consideration of a variance to Sign Ordinance 704-A. Background Information: Clariden Ranch is a residential subdivision to be located in the 3900 block of North White Chapel Boulevard. Mr. Bobby Harrell, representing Terra Land Development, is requesting a variance to erect a sign as shown on the attached plans. This would vary the following sections of Sign Ordinance No. 704-A: • Section 16.13 MONUMENT SIGN B.3 MAXIMUM HEIGHT: The sign structure is 20 ft. tall at the peak of the arch. Overall width is 45ft. 3in. It is an entry element to be located at the Clariden Ranch entry consisting of stone and iron columns and connected by an arched iron cross member with the subdivision name plate suspended from the center of the arch. This is representative of the entry to a ranch property. The columns located to either side of the entry contain horse head figures to further add to the ranch theme. B.6. MINIMUM SETBACK: The sign is to be the actual entry element of the subdivision. It would straddle the entry road and therefore would not be set back from the right of way. B.7. MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS: Masonry material surrounding the sign would be an impractical application for this structure since it arches over the roadway and the actual name plate is suspended from the arch. Staff notes: While the sign structure is larger than a typical monument sign, the actual effect is that of an entry fence with a small sign suspended below the cross member. This was the simplest approach to address the sign issues involved in the Sign Ordinance itself. Financial Considerations: Not Applicable 1 Billy Campbell May 11, 2001 Page 2 Citizen Input/ Board Review: No citizen input has been received. Not subject to any Board review. Legal Review: None Alternatives: The council may approve the request, deny the request, or approve it subject to whatever conditions they deem appropriate. Supporting Documents: Variance Application Form Sign Drawings Photo Samples of a similar application Ordinance No.704-A, Sections 14, 16.B. 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8. Staff Recommendation: Place the variance request on the May 15, 2001 City Council meeting for approval. RB/sv 2 Demonstration Please demonstrate that the following conditions are applicable to the requested sign variance: 1. That a literal enforcement of the sign regulation will crate an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty on the applicant. SPIN # 1 was promised a "rural " appearance to Crown Ridge. Terra is attempting to create an open, ranch feel to this subdivision of one acre lots. Literal enforcement of the sign regulations does not allow the arch and sign over the entrance at Whites Chapel. 2. That the situation causing the unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty is unique to the affected property and is not self imposed. The signage regulations do not allaw for creativity and some originality of entry features. Instead they aim most developments at the typical tall wall, which creates the `fortress" type subdivision. 3. That the variance will not injure and will be wholly compatible with the use and permitted development of adjacent properties. The signs and entry features as proposed will not injure and will be compatible to the surrounding properties. In fact, they will enhance the area with some definition of the rural ranch type neighborhood. 4. That the variance will be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of the sign ordinance. The sign regulations were designed to properly control signage that don't fit the adjacent neighborhood whether residential or commercial. The proposed sign is in harmony with the surrounding neighborhoods and is in harmony with the spirit of the sign regulations. The sign and entryfeatures will be an enhancement to the area. 3 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE SIGN VARIANCE APPLICATION APPLICANT OWNER (if different) NAME: %,� L�.►�h Z1/EGc�r ADDRESS:7� 77 74,039 PHONE: g/7-SWO M793 FAX: The following information pertains to the location for which the variance is being requested NAME OF BUSINESS OR OPERATION: 4,'e7eW4/,—'P1d!� /�ZAQ?,1 6;V PHYSICAL ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot Block Subdivision I hereby certify that this application is complete as per the requirements of Sign Ordinance No. 704 as summarized below. I further understarA that it is necessary to have a representative at the City Council meeting w auth rite discuss ' request. Applicant's signature: Date: ¢ Z3 O The following checklist is a summary of requirements for sign variance requests as required by the City of Southlake. The applicant should further refer to the Sign Ordinance No. 704 and amendments, and other ordinances maps, and codes available at the City Hall that may pertain to this sign variance request. Completed sign variance request application. v Completed demonstration of conditions applicable to the requested variance (see attached.)' Site plan showing the location of the sign variance request and any other signs that conform to or are exempt from the sign ordinance. The site plan shall also indicate the building, landscaped areas, parking & approaches and adjoining street R: O. W. Scaled and dimensioned elevations of the signs for which the variance is requested. For attached signs, the elevations shall show the building, the sign for which the variance is requested, and any other signs that conform to or are exempt from the sign ordinance. 4 �Me following sections have been excerpted from the Sign Ordinance No. 704-A SEC.14 VARIANCES The City Council may authorize variances to any restriction set forth in this ordinance, including but not limited to the number, type, area, height, or setback of signs, or any other aspect involved in the sign permitting process. In granting any variance, the City Council shall determine that a literal enforcement of the sign regulations will create an unnecessary hardship or a practical difficulty on the applicant, that the situation causing the unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty is unique to the affected property and is not self- imposed, that the variance will not injure and will be wholly compatible with the use and permitted development of adjacent properties, and that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of this sign ordinance. A person may request a variance from the Sign Ordinance by filing the request with the Building Official. Any request for variance shall be accompanied by a completed application and a non-refundable filing fee in the amount specified in the current fee schedule adopted by City Council. SEC. 16 PERMITTED SIGN STRUCTURES AND GENERAL REGULATIONS B. MONUMENT SIGN I • GENERAL: Unless otherwise specifically provided, the regulations set forth in this subsection shall be applicable to all monument signs which are allowed under this ordinance. 2. MINIMUM LETTER/LOGO HEIGHT: The minimum height allowed for letters or logos shall be six (6) inches. 3. MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Four (4) feet, excluding monument base and sign structure. The monument base may be an additional eighteen (18) inches in height measured from ground level at the center of the base to the top of the base. The sign structure shall not exceed five (5) feet. 4. MAXIMUM AREA: One hundred (100) square feet per sign with a maximum area per sign face of fifty (50) square feet. The maximum area for the sign structure shall not exceed seventy (70) square feet (see Appendix 'A' for measurement criteria). 5. NUMBER OF SIGNS: Only one monument sign, excluding menuboard signs, shall be allowed along each street frontage on any site, unless otherwise specifically provided in this ordinance. Monument signs may be no closer than five hundred (500) feet on any one site. 6. MINIMUM SETBACK: Fifteen (15) feet from any property line. 7. MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS: All monument sign bases shall be constructed of the same masonry material as the front building facade on the same site or shall be stone or brick. The sign structure must be constructed or covered with the same masonry material as the principal building, or stone, or brick. Sculpted aluminum sign panels will be allowed. All sign text and graphic elements shall be limited to a minimum of six (6) inches from the outer limits of the sign structure. 8• ILLUMINATION: Monument signs may only be illuminated utilizing internal lighting for sculpted aluminum panels or a ground lighting source where the light itself and supporting structure are not visible from public R.O.W. 5 c A� W u c a� U- L E •L cu a 0 0 ppC} — ." .� 3 a j(A F711., - I -� k.6. �. MEMORANDUM May 11, 2001 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Rick Black, Director of Public Safety (Ext. 2421 SUBJECT: Request for a Conditional Sign Permit for Sabre Corporation Headquarters located at 3150 Kirkwood Boulevard. Action Requested: City Council consideration of a Conditional Sign Permit for the Sabre Corporate Campus. Background Information: Sabre Corporate Campus is a development in progress located at 3150 Kirkwood Boulevard. Bernie Babendure, on behalf of Sabre Corp., seeks approval of a comprehensive monument and directional sign package to be utilized throughout each phase of development of the campus. Four types of stylized monument signs with individual specifications and placement details are represented in the attachments. In addition to the corporate signage, there will be typical traffic signage per TXDOT standards. Staff Notes: A Conditional Sign Permit differs from a Sign Variance in that it allows for a special set of general sign specifications for all signs at a particular location as opposed to a variance of sign ordinance specs for individual signs. A Conditional Permit does not call for a hardship justification, as does a variance. Financial Considerations: Not Applicable Citizen Input/ Board Review: No citizen input has been received. Not subject to any Board review. Legal Review: None Alternatives: The Council may approve the request, deny the request, or approve it subject to whatever conditions they deem appropriate. Supporting Documents: Letter Requesting a Conditional Sign Permit Sign Drawings Ordinance No.704-A, Section 6 Staff Recommendation: Place the request on the May 15, 2001 City Council meeting for approval. RB/sv 1 D I G Dallas 8600 NW Plaza Dr. April 26, 2001 Suite 2b Dallas, TX 75225 USA Mr. Charles Bloomberg City of Southlake 667 North Carroll Ave. 214-265-1960 Southlake, TX 76092 fax 214-265-1997 Via Fax 817-481-5713 Original will be sent via the mail Re: Exterior Signage Sabre Campus, Conditional Sign Permit Dear Chuck: The Signage submittal for the Exterior Signage for Sabre is intended to serve as a conditional sign permit for both the current and future phases of the Sabre campus Signage program. It is the intent of Sabre to implement these designs as submitted for the current and future construction of the campus. Should you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to call me. rely, Bernie Babendure Vice President/Managing Principal cc: Skip Sanders - City of Southlake Abigail Butler - Jacobs Facilities Kirk Teske - HKS Houston Washington, DC Nashville Dallas 2 Dec Dallas 8600 'vW Plaza Suite 213 (WW Dallas, TX 75225 USA 214.265.1960 fax 214.265.199 7 23 April 2001 Mr. Charles Bloomberg Building Department City of Southlake 667 North Carroll Avenue Southlake, Texas 76092 RE: SABRE Exterior Signage Submittal Dear Charles, Enclosed is our exterior signage submittal for the SABRE campus. The signage design is based on the architectural features of the structures, and uses colors and materials found in the buildings. Externally illuminated signs are limited to the ground mounted signs in front of each office building (2 signs) and the Visitor Center (1 sign). The campus entry sign shall be a freestanding SABRE logo mounted within the entry water feature and be illuminated to match the existing illumination of the entry walls. Site plans identify the location of each Sign Type (noted with a letter), and individual drawings for each Sign Type indicate the face size of each Sign Type. If upon reviewing this information you or your colleagues have any questions please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Bernie Babendure cc: A. Butler, Jacob K. Teske, HKS Houston Washington, DC Nashville Chicago 3 IN Front Elevation Scale: 114" - 1' - 0" *The sign shown is representative and may not reflect the actual message. 24'-2 5/8" Sign A: Main ID- Single Face (. 144sgft/QTY1 4 Page I of I M I A The sign shown is representative and may not reflect the actual message. Fromm! Elevaei.rcr EXT. 00 Main ID 144 sq ft / QTY 1 file:HC:\TEMP\EXT.00.jpg S 4/24/01 2'-T 4liw d� N i 21/4" Plan View Scale: 1 "=v 0" LD VISITOR PARKING DELIVERY VEHICLES 0 EMPLOYEE PARKING Front Elevation 0" SIGN B: Vehicular Directional 18sgFtea/QTY7 e *The sign shown is representative and may not reflect the actual message. �W *The sign shown is representative and may not reflect the actual message. n Plan Yew � Scale: 3/40" i 0 Front Elevatien Scale: 3/4"•1' - 0" Sign C: Building ID 40 s q ft ea / QTY 3 2'-2 3/4" OJ N 2'-4 1/4" 0)_Plan View Scale: 1 "=1' - 0" 0 DELIVERY BUILDING 4550 nFront Elevation � Scale: 1 "=1' - 0" *The sign shown is representative and may not reflect the actual message. 3 Side View Scale: 1 "=V - 0" Sign D :Vehicular Directional Small 8sgffea/QTY6 1.1 I 0 n. .. ...... ..................... ............. IN �gz . . . . . . . . . ..... 10 MR mz O m 00 W6 oz a �L "D = SeM / �tJT I i (IIW �+ ++ .+A. r 02 11 r•r•�•r :ilIIl ' •+•+ � O — ' rD ,'' I I I i §3II.fi!I'llH!INis'l�s;RF��� R� 6 F � iV e F R 9 C orporateC ampus�isitorC. enter ' &North Entrance Gate 12 a M N e :6 6 4R �z 13 P1 Ix F1 a - F I - au jr 76. Corporate Campus - The following section has been excerpted from the Sign Ordinance 704-A. SEC. 6 CONDITIONAL SIGN PERMIT A. GENERAL: Notwithstanding anything in this ordinance to the contrary, the erection of a sign or signs may be approved pursuant to this section under a conditional sign permit approved by the City Council. The purpose of this section is to allow for a specialized review of signs which may not be appropriate generally without certain restrictions, but which, if controlled as to the number, size, height, color, location, lighting, or relation to adjacent properties, would promote the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Conditional permitting of signs shall not be based upon the content of the sign, but is intended to allow for the evaluation of the physical impact of the proposed sign on adjacent properties and to ensure adequate mitigation of potentially unfavorable factors, such as the number, size, height, color, location, lighting, and other potentially unfavorable impacts. B. APPLICATION: An application for a conditional sign permit shall be submitted to the Building Official and shall include all documents as required by Section 4 of this ordinance. Additionally, the applicant shall submit construction plans drawn by a registered professional engineer or architect in the State of Texas and also provide renderings of the particular sign types, facades, materials, compositions, dimensions, lighting, and colors. C. FEES: Fees for conditional sign permits shall be determined in accordance with the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. D. ANNUAL RENEWAL FEES: An annual renewal fee for applicable temporary conditional signs shall be determined in accordance with the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. 14 r r TO FROM SUBJECT City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM May 9, 2001 Billy Campbell, City Manager Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services (xt. 1527) Request from Southlake Baseball Association for a variance to Facilities Utilization Agreement to extend hours of lighting for tournaments Action Requested: City Council consideration of request from Southlake Baseball Association for a variance to Facilities Utilization Agreement to extend hours of lighting for tournaments. Background Information: The Southlake Baseball Association (SBA) has submitted a request to the City to allow for ballfield lighting to remain on beyond the currently permitted hours during their upcoming tournament schedule. The existing 2001 Facilities Utilization Agreement provides that SBA will cease play by 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. Lights will be turned out respectively at 10:30 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday, and 11:30 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. The SBA is currently in the process of scheduling Pony tournaments at Bicentennial Park from June 181" — June 22nd (tentative), June 251" — June 30', and July 6" — July 12'". Because Pony tournament games have no time limits, they are requesting that the time limits for use of the lights be extended during the tournament periods only until 12:00 a.m. SBA has indicated that they do not anticipate going beyond the hours allowed for in the Facilities Utilization Agreement, however, they are seeking approval to do so should it be necessary. A Board member from SBA will be at your meeting should you have any questions. Financial Considerations: Not Applicable. Citizen Input/ Board Review: The Parks Board will consider this request at their May 14, 2001 meeting. The Board recommendation will be provided to the City Council prior to you meeting. Legal Review: Not Applicable. Alternatives: City Council consideration. Supporting Documents: Supporting documents include the following items: \C) C_- \ Billy Campbell, City Manager May 9, 2001 Page 2 E-mail request from Mr. Bill Stroope, President of the Southlake Baseball Association. Staff Recommendation: Place as an item on the May 15, 2001 City Council agenda for consideration the request from Southlake Baseball Association for a variance to the Facilities Utilization Agreement to extend hours of lighting for tournaments. \ C-11 C_ ?-1- Steve Polasek From: BILL.STROOPE@chase.com Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 4:23 PM To: spolasek@ci.southlake.tx.us Subject: SBA Tournament Schedule Steve, we haven't received the final tournament schedule from PONY, but I can guess within a reasonable date range that the following will apply: Invitational Tournament: June 25 through June 30 District Tournament July 6 through July 12 We may also elect to host an additional "warm-up"tournament from June 18th to June 22nd. Our current Facilities Utilization Agreement provides for the following: Sunday Through Thursday Friday and Saturday Games to stop 10:00 P.M. 11:00 P.M. Lights Out 10:30 p.m. 11:30 p.m. Due to the unpredictable length of PONY tournaments (there are no time limits) and weather, SBA respectfully requests that for the tournaments listed above that we extend the game expiration time as well as the lights out policy by 12:00 a.m. We expect that on most nights games will end as the Facilities Utilization Agreement currently provides, but we want to acknowledge that there is a possibility that we may need the extended time. The benefit of SBA hosting tournaments is that it gives most of our Southlake tournament teams an opportunity to play at least one tournament during the summer with the added benefit of a better draw in the tournament. (wThank you for your consideration of this amendment. City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM May 11, 2001 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: John Eaglen, Assistant to the City Manager (481-1433) SUBJECT: Resolution No. 01-027, appointing four members to serve on the Board of Directors of the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One of the City of Southlake Action Requested: City Council consideration of Resolution No. 01-027, appointing four members to serve on the Board of Directors for the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One of the City of Southlake. Background Information: Article II, Section 1 (Powers, Number, and Term of Office) of the Bylaws of Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Number One, The City of Southlake, Texas, provides that the property and affairs of the zone shall be managed and controlled by the City Council of the City of Southlake. The Bylaws specify that the City Council shall appoint eight (8) members to the TIRZ Board of Directors, with one of these positions named by the Carroll Independent School District. The other taxing units participating in the zone (CISD, Tarrant County, Tarrant County Hospital District, and Tarrant County College) also may each appoint one (1) representative to the Board of Directors. With respect to the length of terms and succession, the Bylaws state the following: "Each member shall serve for a term of two years, as stipulated in the Act, or until the member's successor is duly appointed and qualified. " On July 18, 2000, the City Council approved Resolution No. 00-80, appointing eight (8) members to the TIRZ Board of Directors for staggered terms. Four (4) of the appointments were for terms to expire in May 2001. Resolution No. 01-027 appoints four (4) members to the Board of Directors to fill the expired terms of former Councilmembers Ronnie Kendall and Gary Fawks, CISD Board President Rob Glover, and current Councilmember Greg Standerfer. CISD has indicated that Mr. Glover is their choice for re -appointment to this position. The remaining three (3) places may be filled by the re -appointment of Councilmember Greg Standerfer, and the appointment of Councilmembers Ralph Evans and Tom Stephen. Dilly Campbell, City Manager May 11, 2001 Page 2 Financial Considerations: Not Applicable. Citizen Input/ Board Review: Not Applicable. Legal Review: The City Attorneys have been involved in the TIRZ process and can respond to any legal questions or issues which may arise during the meeting. Alternatives: Input towards the discussion as desired. Supporting Documents: Supporting documents include the following items: ■ Copy of Resolution No. 01-027, appointing four (4) members to the Board of Directors of Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One, City of Southlake. Staff Recommendation: Place as an item on the May 15, 2001 City Council agenda to consider Resolution No. 01-027, appointing four (4) members to the Board of Directors of Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One, City of (WW Southlake. E RESOLUTION NO.01-027 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE NUMBER ONE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, after public hearing created Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One, City of Southlake, on September 23, 1997; and, WHEREAS, a Board of Directors was established by the City ofSouthlake Ordinance No. 682, adopted September 23, 1997 and was amended by Ordinance No. 7617 adopted December 7, 1999; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake appointed eight members to the Board of Directors of Tax Increment Financing District Number One on July 18, 2000; and, WHEREAS, four (4) positions of the Board of Directors have become vacant due to the expiration of terms in May 2001, and the City ofsouthlake is to appoint four (4) members to fill these vacancies. THEREFORE, IT BE RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, THAT: Section 1. All of the findings in the preamble are found to be true and correct and the City Council hereby incorporates said findings into the body of this resolution as if copied in their entirety. Section 2. That the City of Southlake hereby appoints the following members to fill positions on the Board of Directors of Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Number One, City of Southlake, Texas: 1. Ralph Evans Term expires 5/2003 2. Greg Standerfer Term expires 5/2003 3. Tom Stephen Term expires 5/2003 4. Rob Glover, CISD Representative Term expires 5/2003 Resolution No. 01-027 May 15, 2001 Page 2 of 2 Section 3. That this resolution is effective upon passage by the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS THE DAY OF , 2001. CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS BY: Mayor Rick Stacy ATTEST: Sandra L. LeGrand City Secretary City of Southlake, Texas r MEMORANDUM May 9, 2001 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services (xt. 1527) SUBJECT: Approval of change order with Botanical Technologies to construct restroom building #2 at Bob Jones Park Action Requested: City Council approval of change order with Botanical Technologies to construct restroom building #2 at Bob Jones Park. Background Information: At the July 10, 2000 SPDC meeting, SPDC approved the proposed materials palette and design of Bob Jones Park components. During the discussions, SPDC directed staff to pursue adding a second restroom facility at Bob Jones Park to service the planned six practice ballfields. At the September 25, 2000 meeting SPDC approved the fiscal year 2000-01 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) which included an additional $450,000 for improvements at Bob Jones Park. The added funding is intended to provide for design and construction of a second restroom facility to be located near the practice ball fields, a second well and well pump house for the proposed south ponds, water aeration features, and corresponding electrical. At the October 23, 2000 SPDC meeting and the November 7, 2000 City Council meeting, an agreement was approved with Cheatham and Associates to do the additional design and engineering at a cost of $30,000, approximately 7% based on a construction budget of $420,000. The bulk of the design fees, approximately $25,000, was for architectural services relating to the restroom building and the pump house building. While the complete restroom/concession structure was designed, it was done in such a manner as to allow only the restroom portion to be constructed presently. On January 2, 2001, SPDC and City Council awarded the bid for construction of Bob Jones Park Phase II construction to Botanical Technologies in the amount of $2,529,041.23. The major components of the project include six (6) practice ballfields, parking lots, small pond, amphitheater, multi -use trails (hard and soft), north concession/restroom building near the existing soccer fields, pavilion/boardwalk, day camp area, a portion of the loop road, and associated infrastructure. Botanical Technologies recently submitted a change order proposal in the amount of $292,306 to the City for construction of the second restroom to be located between the six practice fields at Bob Jones Park. The restroom 10 E-1 Billy Campbell, City Manager May 9, 2001 Page 2 building will utilize the same basic construction design and materials (stone facade and metal roof), but will not include a concessions stand, storage area, or covered breezeway, although it can be expanded at a later date to include these components if desired. Staff is presently working with Botanical Technologies to reduce the change order request amount through the elimination or reduction of the administrative costs (telephone, project manager, trailer, job superintendent, etc.) Financial Considerations: Funding in the amount of $450,000 is available in the FY 2000-01 SPDC Fund, of which $300,000 was encumbered for the second restroom building. Approval of the change order would account for an increase of approximately 11.5 % of the contract amount with Botanical Technologies ($2,529,041), well below the 25 % maximum allowed by State law. Citizen Input/ Board Review: SPDC approved funding for the second restroom at their September 25, 2000 meeting as part of the SPDC CIP approval process. An amendment with Cheatham and Associates for the design work was approved by SPDC at the October 23, 2000 meeting (5-0), and by City Council at the November 7, 2000 meeting (6-0). SPDC will consider this item at a special meeting prior to the May 15, 2001 City Council meeting. Legal Review: Not Applicable. Alternatives: City Council consideration of change order with Botanical Technologies for restroom building #2 at Bob Jones Park. Supporting Documents: Supporting documents include the following items: • Change order proposal submitted by Botanical Technologies ■ Bob Jones Concept Plan ■ Restroom building front elevation ■ Restroom building floor plan Staff Recommendation: City Council approval of construct restroom building exceed $292,306. change order with Botanical Technologies to #2 at Bob Jones Park for an amount not to �0 r---L I BOTANICAL TECHNOLOGIES ° Proposal PROJECT NUMBER: BJP00033 T hs lr!Iww is v* tar two Weeks frw d6te o1 WOW. RFP Description: RFP 002 - Add Concession Stand/Restroom No. 2 RFP To Company Name: City of Southlake Address: 400 N. White Chapel Blvd. City Southlake Region: Tx Postal Code: 76092 Customer ID: Contact RFP Date The Proiect is: SLAKE Bob Pasternak 20-Apr-01 Bob Jones Park - Phase i! CSI Description: Units Unit Price: Extended Pricy: 8-0C',0 SUBCONTRACTOR STRUCTU 228458 EA $1.150000 $262,726 7, :'('4 BONDING 4TH 2.5M-5M of bid 283110 EA $0.007500 S.)P /FULL TIME!'41 EEK!VVTRUCK 12 WK $1,312 0,00000 :31'3, "- =.;.0 ;:.8 TELEPHONE PER MO NTH 3 EA $229.000000 Z:0.37 00 TEMP POWER POLE PER MONTH 3 EA $115.000000 : 45 TEMP TOILET PER MONTH 3 EA S100.000000 C,FF TRAILER 8'x 2J' RENTALI 3 MONTH W400.C?00000 S i.2C,0._"C PROD. MAN. /FULL TiME/WEEK 6 WK $1.530.000000 page \CT_-'-J { BOTANICAL TECHNOLOGIES ° Proposal PROJECT NUMBER: SJP00033 TW uMoosai is vaN for two weeks fray rote of giotaft RFP Description: RFP 002 - Add Concession Stand/Restroom No. 2 Total including all applicable taxes S292 308 0tharEXClaSi0aS: No civil plans were provided for this change order. This price does not include utility connections .e;Icnd building Other Olarifleati0aS: Add t-9 weeks to contract. SiDaw Aithilzatim. Data: Paget \��_� im H:uox Cm0 W Qn a' 37h1) O w ,�N -_Ni m N 4 C �a Q )i' 9 Z Z S.�fD'T� N 15 m w `3 n I p n is N o -q N d1 � i J:u a T- N T T 00 n C• � N r 00 eb I - aN m � a - � � a�h�meH�wlo wlnNNnl�a�o R i IINmNP9Pl AIhPiN�l(II'y Ln p �. � � (� I �- R x 1 1 ��� •� ;��� --)ram �. \ N _03CL w m o I W cn C >}— GD .+ N r' r Det xDZ `° X K 7a /' ., m W 1 � 1411811MPlan\sheets\Boh Jones_.11x17.dwg, 03122/01 03:36 02 PM, RFiester, 1,1 r� \ 0.-�.� I a 2T-011 IN rn zc -A i rn N r� IO z rn rn o D � r -I r- 1�1-10 7/811 K nN C) K rn 0=rn n -{ c o D XN D D r n00 r rn z _� a Ci to 3 -0n JIT i z � -I c ------..------- --... - i rn I n — 0 _ I N ------fin+ z� c i �.�----I I ` \`-- - 0 z rn n z UP \•. ;u c z i - -a I III-------..� r I t.J �J Cn n D r m zt co z z I-" c c rn n O z (o GJ an cn m r O 0 D Z